Mattel Is Being Sued Over a Mistake Linking ‘Wicked’ Toys to an Adult Film Website

On November 22, 2024, Universal Pictures’ Wicked (or Wicked: Part I) was officially released in theaters. Although the live-action version of Stephen Schwartz’s musical of the same name was expected to be a successful release for the studio, it exceeded all expectations and is now among the season’s biggest hits.

While some have questioned the film’s duration, others have praised its production value, actors, graphics, Chu’s directing, and adherence to the original.

This is only the first part of a double-feature, with Wicked: Part II scheduled for a November 21, 2025 release, but it seems that we will be talking about the movie a lot in the meantime, as there are a lot of interesting stories to report on.

Remember the controversy that arose when Wicked-related toys actually had a porn site link printed on the package instead of a link to the movie’s official site? Yeah, it seems that the story in question is getting a continuation in the form of a lawsuit, so keep reading to find out more details!

Of course, when a major children’s movie comes out – live-action or animated, irrelevant – the toy companies also want to make some money off of the project, so we generally see new toys and merchandise on the market, with children from around the world being able to purchase their favorite toys.

While this has been a tradition for decades, which implies that there is a smoothly run system in place, mistakes can sometimes happen, and the recent Wicked controversy is a prime example of that.

Namely, when the new line of Wicked toys came out, they were supposed to have a link to the site’s official website printed; some special edition toys were also supposed to bring the fans some surprises. Why “were supposed to”? Well, while we cannot deny that a link was present, it was not the link that was supposed to be there.

Namely, the link that was supposed to have been printed was not WickedMovie.com, which is the movie’s official website, but rather just… well, the same page but without the “Movie” part. And that, as some of you might know, is the link to a porn site of the same name, so you can imagine when children and/or their parents started typing in the link in their browsers.

It was, of course, a mistake, and Mattel, the company in charge of making the toys, issued an apology, saying that they were “aware of a misprint on the packaging of the Mattel ‘Wicked’ collection dolls, primarily sold in the United States, which intended to direct consumers to the official WickedMovie.com landing page,” urging those who have bought the toys to “discard the product packaging or obscure the link.”

But, while this is generally enough, a woman from South Carolina filed the lawsuit over a special edition doll, which can be found here. The woman is suing Mattel over the issue, claiming that her daughter suffered emotional distress and that Mattel failed to recompensate for the error:

On or about November 11, 2024, Plaintiff purchased a Wicked Doll for her minor daughter. 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. 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. These scenes were hardcore, full on nude pornographic images depicting actual intercourse, and can be available for an in-camera review by the court as necessary. Plaintiff’s minor daughter immediately showed her mother the photographs and both were horrified by what they say.

If Plaintiff had been aware of such an inappropriate defect in the Product, she would not have purchased it. As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has incurred damages. Defendant issued a recall of the Products on November 11, 2024, but failed to include a full or partial refund to consumers. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages because the Products are adulterated, worthless, and unfit for its intended and advertised age-appropriate audience.

This is, more or less, the gist of the lawsuit, which explains the factual details and the reasons behind the suit. Of course, the woman demands money, as most of these suits do, but seeing how the case – while proceeding at this point – is not on the firmest of feet, we will see how it all turns out, but definitely do keep following us for all the updates!

Have something to add? Let us know in the comments below!