by Cedric ‘BIG CED’ Thornton
June 4, 2025
MGA is requesting that the court overturn the $71 million verdict or reduce the damages, as they believe that the verdict was legally flawed.
In January, T.I.’s $71 million judgment against MGA Entertainment was restored after $53 million in punitive damages were stripped away. However, MGA has requested another trial in an attempt to reverse the judgment awarded to the Atlanta rapper and his wife, Tiny Harris.
According to AllHipHop, the entertainment company is trying to get a fourth trial regarding the couple suing the company for stealing the likeness of their former girl group, OMG Girlz. MGA requests that the court overturn the $71 million verdict or reduce the damages, as they believe it was legally flawed.
They are asking if the court doesn’t agree with their request, they receive a new trial.
The company argues that the doll’s look was not associated with T.I. and Tiny’s group, and even if so, the group had already abandoned it years earlier. They claim that there’s no evidence of consumers being confused between the dolls and the OMG Girlz. Adding to their argument, MGA states that the couple has not proven that there was actual harm or a misappropriation of their trade secrets. They cite the First Amendment, saying it protects their creative expression in designing the dolls.
In the original lawsuit, T.I. and Tiny sued MGA Entertainment for copying the likeness of the OMG Girlz group, which featured their daughter, Zonnique Pullins, and two other girls. MGA made seven dolls that allegedly copied the girl group.
The jury ruled in favor of T.I. and Tiny, but U.S. District Judge James Selna later stated that there was not enough evidence to show that MGA acted in a manner that would legally warrant the punitive damages in the infringement case. After the court temporarily negated the $53.6 million, it set a hearing for both sides to plead their case.
The hearing centered on whether the jury’s verdicts were advisory or if the award amount would be left up to Selna. The judge upheld the ruling after stating that both sides had agreed to a jury verdict.
