Conservative 
Search
Trending
Current News
We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.
A South Carolina mother filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and “all others similarly situated” against Barbie toy company Mattel after her daughter visited the pornographic website advertised on the packaging of toys from the “Wicked” movie.
Instead of directing the young product users to WickedMovie.com, the film’s official webpage, the package read Wicked.com, a hardcore porn site. This exposed some children to “hardcore, full on nude pornographic images depicting actual intercourse,” the lawsuit states.
This left the plaintiff and her minor daughter “horrified” when the daughter showed her the photographs.
The toys are recommended and advertised for children ages four and older.
The cinematic interpretation of Wicked, the Broadway prequel to The Wizard of Oz, premiered in theaters on November 22, 2024.
As The Gateway Pundit reported on November 10, weeks before the incident occurred, parents were sounding the alarm and warning other parents not to buy the toys for their children after discovering that the doll’s packaging contained the pornographic link.
Mattel also has a history of perverting children with products like a kid’s book that pushes gender transitioning on kids aged 3-12, a transgender Barbie doll, an entire line of “gender-nonconforming” dolls, and a “Totally Stylin’ Tattoos Barbie” for little girls.
The company reportedly released the following statement on November 10, advising parents to “discard the product packaging or obscure the link and may contact Mattel customer service for further information.”
“Mattel was made aware of a misprint on the packaging of the Mattel Wicked collection dolls, primarily sold in the US, which intended to direct consumers to the official WickedMovie.com landing page.”
“We deeply regret this unfortunate error and are taking immediate action to remedy this. Parents are advised that the misprinted, incorrect website is not appropriate for children. Consumers who already have the product are advised to discard the product packaging or obscure the link and may contact Mattel customer service for further information.”
However, for some parents, it was too late, or they did not receive the notice.
According to the lawsuit, Plaintiff Holly Ricketson purchased the doll on November 11, and Mattel “did not offer any refund for consumers who had already purchased the dolls.”
Ricketson filed the lawsuit Tuesday in a Los Angeles Federal District Court, accusing Mattel of unjust enrichment, negligence, and violations of California’s consumer protection laws.
“After opening the box that contained the Wicked Doll, Plaintiff’s minor daughter used an iPhone to visit the website shown on Defendant’s packaging,” the complaint states. “To her absolute shock the website, ‘Wicked.com’, had nothing to do with the Wicked Doll. Rather, Wicked.com pasted scenes of pornographic advertisements across her phone screen.”
The lawsuit seeks more than $5 million plus interest in damages and attorney fees for the class members.
Read the full complaint below:
