Tameka “Tiny” Harris testified in 2024 in a federal courthouse in Santa Ana, California, while her husband Clifford “T.I.” Harris observed from the gallery. After two mistrials, a jury decision in favor of MGA, and now this third trial, the case they had been fighting since 2020 boiled down to a deceptively straightforward visual question: did the L.O.L. Surprise! O.M.G. fashion dolls, with their neon hair and brightly styled outfits, resemble the OMG Girlz enough to constitute misappropriation? On the stand, Tiny gave a straightforward response. “It’s not about a money grab,” she declared. “My spouse and I lead a very comfortable life.
The girls are more important. She claimed that the three ladies who comprised the OMG Girlz—her daughter Zonnique Pullins, as well as group members Bahja Rodriguez and Breaunna Womack—had created something and that a big company had appropriated it without giving them credit or payment. In that third trial, the jury found in favor. They granted $53.6 million in punitive penalties and $17.9 million in compensatory damages. About $71.5 million in total.

The punitive amount was then lowered to $1 by the judge. In July 2025, U.S. District Judge James V. Selna, who was appointed by George W. Bush in 2003, decided that although the compensatory damages were appropriate, the $53.6 million in punitive damages were not justified.
He reasoned that even if MGA’s infringement was real, it did not amount to the level of purposeful and malicious copying that punitive damages are intended to address and discourage because the evidence did not show the kind of “willful” conduct necessary to support a punitive award of that magnitude. He gave the Harrises two options: either go back to court for a fourth trial that would only address the punitive issue, or accept $1 in punitive damages and conclude the case with $17.9 million. Tiny and T.I. selected the fourth trial. The start date is set for June 23, 2026.
The choice to return rather than accept the $17.9 million has drawn criticism from critics. The $17.9 million compensatory award, which represents MGA’s earnings from the seven infringing doll models, is a considerable amount. The couple would have had the money instead of having to split it with the transaction expenses and the uncertainty of a second jury trial.
Reactions from the public and legal world were divided: some said the couple should accept their victory and move on, while others—including their lawyer John Keville—argued that accepting a $1 punitive award sends the incorrect message to big businesses about the expense of stealing creators’ work. Beyond the precise sum of money at stake, there is a valid principle that the Harrises have made clear. In a statement, they described the case as proof of how difficult it is for creatives, particularly Black artists, to defend their intellectual property from billion-dollar corporations.
The emphasis of the four-day trial, which will include eight jurors, will be solely on whether or not MGA’s actions justify punitive penalties and, if so, how much. During court hearings, MGA’s attorneys have said that the doll line name’s use of “OMG” was generic and that neither the term nor the look were chosen with the OMG Girlz in mind.
Over the course of six years of litigation, the Harrises have continuously argued that the neon hair, names, and unique styling—the whole package—were not accidental. As this case gets closer to its fourth trial, there’s a sense that the verdict of this specific punitive damages retrial has implications beyond this particular disagreement. The judge’s interpretation of the evidence may not accurately reflect willfulness if a second jury renders a punitive verdict that is comparable.
Since around 2015, the OMG Girlz have not performed together. MGA has made hundreds of millions of dollars off the dolls, which have been on the shelf for years. Since 2020, the Harrises have been in and out of court due of those dolls. In eight days, the fourth trial will begin.
Disclaimer
Nothing published on Creative Learning Guild — including news articles, legal news, lawsuit summaries, settlement guides, legal analysis, financial commentary, expert opinion, educational content, or any other material — constitutes legal advice, financial advice, investment advice, or professional counsel of any kind. All content on this website is provided strictly for informational, educational, and news reporting purposes only. Consult your legal or financial advisor before taking any step.
