Death Wish: Unhinged Taylor Lorenz Says She Wants Health Insurance Execs to Die
Mollie Hemingway Tells the Media to Stop Using the Term 'Gender-Affirming Care'
Biden Wasn’t That Bad! Presidential Pardon Whataboutism Gets Historically Hysterical
Seeing Double: Has Scott Presler Finally Found His Perfect Match?
Mittens Out! MAGA Says ‘Good Riddance’ as Mitt Romney Bids Farewell to Senate
The Democrats Post the Truth About Pam Bondi
White House Press Corps ‘Recoils’ Over Proposed Seating Chart Shakeup
Justice Clarence Thomas Argues That 'Gender-Affirming Care' Is Sex Discrimination
Sotomayor's False Equivalency
James Carville Thinks Journalists Should Look Into Pam Bondi's Ties to Scientology
Dilly Dally Tally: Blue States are Still Counting Votes a Month after Election...
Biden Just Gave a Billion to AFRICA but Now Worried Trump Will Divert...
DAMNING Admission: ACLU Lawyer Tells SCOTUS 'Gender Affirming Surgery' Doesn't Decrease Su...
Hang It in the Louvre! Esquire Issues the Correction of the YEAR on...
Supreme Shock: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Likens Child Sex Change Ban to Interracial...

Unpopular: Mattel Faces Lawsuit Over Wicked Toy Typo

Eric Liebowitz/NBC via AP

Recently, we told you how Mattel made a rather unfortunate mistake on the packaging for its 'Wicked' dolls. Namely, the website listed on the box was not directing curious users to the movie's page but to an adult site.

Advertisement

Yikes.

Now one mom is suing the toy giant for the 'distress' this mistake caused her and her daughter:

More from Variety:

Mattel is being sued for mistakenly printing the URL for a pornographic site on the packaging for special-edition “Wicked” dolls.

According to court documents, a South Carolina resident is launching a class action lawsuit after purchasing the toy for her young daughter, who visited the X-rated website that had “nothing to do with the ‘Wicked’ doll.” The toy company mistakenly listed a similarly-titled website for the adult-entertainment site Wicked Pictures, rather than the official page for the Universal Pictures film, starring Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande. The plaintiff alleges that Mattel didn’t offer a refund and believes she and her child suffered “emotional distress” from the misprint.

Look, is it less than ideal? Yes.

Is this worth a lawsuit?

No.

Advertisement

This writer's cynical side would not be surprised.

Yeah, this doesn't pass the smell test.

Oh, look.

This'll be the defense's Exhibit A.

And if the kid clicked without parental supervision, why weren't the parents supervising this?

Advertisement

Exactly as we said above.

Heh.

We're sure Mattel's lawyers will be all over this.

We are not at all surprised. 

People sue for everything and anything.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement