T. I. and Tiny Lose Fight for Punitive Money in Toy Court Battle

A recent jury decision halted the celebrity duo from receiving any punitive damages in their long‑running case against MGA Entertainment. The judge had earlier dismissed a $53.6 million punitive award, and this latest verdict confirms that MGA did not act with malice. Thus, the couple’s total recovery is limited to the $17.9 million compensatory amount that another jury awarded about two years ago.

The lawyers for T.I. and Tiny expressed disappointment but said they still believe the evidence shows MGA’s policies were inadequate to prevent the alleged intellectual‑property theft. They plan to keep fighting for their clients’ rights and those of other creators.

MGA’s representatives did not comment immediately. The previous judge had called the punitive claim “unsupported by the evidence.” This outcome ends a saga that began in 2020 when T.I. and Tiny, who own the OMG Girlz brand, sued MGA for using their name, look, and style in a line of dolls.

Earlier trials had mixed results. The first trial ended in mistrial after jurors heard testimony about cultural appropriation. A second trial cleared MGA, but the verdict was overturned after a Supreme Court decision that gave more weight to consumer‑confusion evidence. In the third trial, jurors agreed MGA copied the OMG Girlz’s distinctive neon hair and outfits for seven dolls in its popular L.O.L. Surprise! OMG line.

The group that inspired the dolls includes Tiny’s daughter, Zonnique “Star” Pullins, and two others named Bahja “Beauty” Rodriguez and Breaunna “Babydoll” Womack. They testified in court, showing how the dolls mirrored their public appearances and photos.

MGA’s founder, Isaac Larian, denied any role from the group in designing the dolls and called them “extortionists.” After the $71.5 million verdict, T.I., Tiny, and their friends felt vindicated, saying the decision proved that large companies cannot treat creative work as free to use.

The trio remains committed to protecting artists’ intellectual property, believing that the legal system should support creators against big corporations.