T.I. and Tiny are headed back to court for a fourth trial against dollmaker MGA Entertainment, this time hoping to claw back some of the $53.6 million in punitive damages that a judge stripped from their eye-popping $71 million jury win.
The new trial, set to begin June 23, will focus on punitive damages only. The rapper, born Clifford Harris Jr., and his wife, Tameka “Tiny” Harris, are expected to testify, their lawyer tells Rolling Stone. At a hearing on Monday, the judge overseeing the case said the proceeding should last about three days, with eight jurors selected.
A prior jury sat through a three-week trial and decided in September 2024 that MGA misappropriated the name, likeness, or identity of the teen pop trio OMG Girlz when it sold seven models in its wildly popular L.O.L. Surprise! O.M.G. dolls line. The jury awarded T.I. and Tiny, who formed and own the OMG Girlz project, $17.9 million in compensatory damages and $53.6 million in punitive damages. Jurors found that MGA knowingly copied the name, neon hair, and distinctive outfits of the girl group, which featured Tiny’s daughter, Zonnique “Star” Pullins, along with Bahja “Beauty” Rodriguez and Breaunna “Babydoll” Womack.
In a ruling last July, U.S. District Judge James V. Selna said the massive punitive award was not supported by the evidence. He gave the couple a choice: accept $1 in punitive damages on top of the $17.9 million compensatory award and end the case, or go to trial again. The Atlanta-based musicians chose the fourth trial.
At the final status hearing on Monday, Judge Selna heard arguments about evidence that MGA wants to keep from jurors. He declined to issue an immediate ruling but signaled he would not grant MGA’s request to exclude any debate over how “OMG” ended up in its doll line’s name. A lawyer for MGA argued the term is so commonplace that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office says it’s free for others to use.
“How can a generic term for which there can be no liability in a trademark context now be a basis for punitive damages?” MGA attorney Mark Finkelstein argued. “And there is no evidence that OMG was selected based on the OMG Girlz,” he added.
The judge wasn’t persuaded. “I understand your position, but I just don’t agree [that] ‘OMG’ is always sanitized and insulated regardless of what it’s tied to,” Judge Selna said from the bench. In a tentative ruling, he said the term “OMG” could form the basis for consumer confusion when considered alongside other “distinctive elements such as hairstyle, wardrobe, and music themes.” Promising to issue a final ruling in the coming days, Judge Selna said he was leaning toward allowing the jury to consider MGA’s use of “OMG” alongside other factors to determine “malice, oppression, or fraud” in the context of punitive damages.
The judge is also weighing a request from MGA to block T.I. and Tiny’s lawyers from bringing in evidence showing prior instances where MGA allegedly copied other artists. In one example, T.I. and Tiny want jurors to hear that recording artist Victoria Monet claimed on social media that MGA copied one of her music videos to create a promotional video for its line of Bratz dolls. MGA’s lawyers argued Monday that the evidence should come in because it showed “similar acts.”
“We’re not trying to prove propensity, because we’ve already got liability. We’re trying to show intent and the reprehensibility, the pattern of conduct,” John Keville, a lawyer for T.I. and Tiny, argued. “It’s evidence of similar acts of copying or infringing on the intellectual property of others.”
MGA’s lawyer, Chad Hummel, argued that the alleged copying of “unrelated celebrities” would require “a mini trial within the trial” to defend against the claims. In his tentative ruling, Judge Selna signaled he would side with MGA. “Bringing in this evidence risks confusing the jury by suggesting that it should determine punitive damages based on allegations related to MGA’s past actions,” he reasoned.
The first trial in the case started in January 2023 and ended in a mistrial when jurors heard barred testimony accusing the toy company of “cultural appropriation.” A second trial a few months later cleared MGA of wrongdoing, but that verdict was overturned on appeal due to a Supreme Court ruling giving more weight to evidence about consumer confusion. The third trial ended with the $71 million verdict that Judge Selna later overturned in part.
At the third trial, T.I. and Tiny alleged MGA marketed seven specific dolls in its wildly popular “L.O.L. Surprise! O.M.G.” line that clearly copied the way the OMG Girlz appeared at “very specific public events” or in publicized photos. MGA denied the allegations. The company’s billionaire founder, Isaac Larian, testified that T.I., Tiny, and the three members of the OMG Girlz played no role in the design of his dolls. He called them “extortionists.” After the verdict, T.I. and Tiny said they were vindicated.
“I think justice was served. I think it’s a testament to the relentlessness and resilience of my wife, daughter, and nieces,” T.I. told Rolling Stone by phone, minutes after the verdict was read. “We’re just happy we were able to come out on top and fight for creatives and our intellectual property that large corporations seem to think is just public domain and free for all to come and grab and use.”
Tiny said the award was more than she expected. “At the end of the day, the evidence showed [MGA] stole from us. They stole from our creation,” Tiny told Rolling Stone. “I’m glad we stuck with it. No one could tell me they did not steal from us.”
Pullins, Rodriguez, and Womack attended the trial and testified. They hugged in the hallway outside the courtroom after the verdict. “I’m so grateful and overwhelmed with joy,” Womack said at the time.
“When the judge asked if we had a memorable trade dress and everyone raised their hands, I got so emotional. We all silently cried,” Pullins added. Both Womack and Pullins are expected to testify again at the upcoming trial in Santa Ana, California.
Lambrini Girls by Jessie MorganJessie Morgan
