T.I. and Tiny Harris are facing a legal challenge to their $71 million lawsuit against MGA Entertainment.

MGA wants to overturn, lessen, or retry the $71 million ruling in favor of T.I. and Tiny Harris.

June 4th 2025.

T.I. and Tiny Harris are facing a legal challenge to their $71 million lawsuit against MGA Entertainment.
In the month of January, news broke that T.I. had won a whopping $71 million judgment against MGA Entertainment. However, this triumph was short-lived as $53 million of punitive damages were later removed from the ruling. In light of this, MGA has made a bold move by requesting yet another trial in hopes of overturning the verdict in favor of the Atlanta rapper and his wife, Tiny Harris.
According to sources, MGA Entertainment is pushing for a fourth trial in the ongoing legal battle with the couple. The company stands accused of using the likeness of T.I. and Tiny's former girl group, OMG Girlz, without permission. MGA's argument is that the court should either reverse the $71 million judgment or reduce the damages, as they believe the initial ruling was legally flawed.
In the event that their request is denied, MGA is also requesting a brand new trial to present their case. The company firmly stands by their claim that the doll's appearance had no association with T.I. and Tiny's group. Even if there was some resemblance, MGA argues that the group had already moved away from that image years before. Furthermore, they state that there is no concrete evidence to suggest that consumers were confused between the dolls and the OMG Girlz. MGA also cites the First Amendment, which protects their right to express their creativity in designing the dolls.
To provide some context, T.I. and Tiny had filed a lawsuit against MGA Entertainment for allegedly copying the likeness of their daughter, Zonnique Pullins, and two other girls who were part of the OMG Girlz. MGA had produced seven dolls that bore a striking resemblance to the girl group.
Although the jury had initially sided with T.I. and Tiny, U.S. District Judge James Selna later declared that there was insufficient evidence to warrant the punitive damages awarded in the infringement case. As a result, the $53.6 million was temporarily revoked, and a hearing was scheduled for both parties to present their arguments.
During the hearing, the main point of contention was whether the jury's verdict was merely advisory or if the judge had the final say on the awarded amount. After careful consideration, Judge Selna upheld the original ruling, stating that both sides had agreed to abide by the jury's decision.

[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
[Generative AI is experimental.]

 0
 0