Mattel Case Summary

808 Words4 Pages
On March 30, 2006 Mattel, Inc. recalled 180,000 toy items because they contained a high level of lead (Gilbert, 2010). And November 21st of the same year the world’s largest toy manufacturer of toy products recalled 2,400,000 toys with small loose magnets. There were five more recalls the following year. In 2006 and 2007 there were a total of nearly 14 million Mattel toys recalled. Continuing, the recalled toys contain lead paint at levels that was considered unsafe or the toys contain small magnets that was not attached properly or secure enough to stay in place. The Mattel Company used contractors in China to manufacture its products where labor is less expensive (Gilbert, 2010). The research explain that is often that U.S. companies are contracting with companies in less developed countries for manufacturing. Many of the toys in the first recall was sub-contracted and then sub-sub contracted…show more content…
(Thorne, 2011). After 2-yrs of investigation Mattel sued Bryant and a year later MGM sued Mattel claiming that the company was creating a doll that look similar to the Bratz. Mattel then expand its own suit to include MGA and its CEO, Isaac Larian. Four years later Bryant settled with Mattel, and in 2008 a jury deemed MGA and its CEO liable. Then in August 2008 Mattel received damages in the range of 100 million. In 2010 the ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a ruling that Mattel had appeared to have won for selling more Bratz dolls. In April 2011, a federal jury in California rejected Mattel’s claim that Mattel owned Bryants idea under his employment contract and the jury also ruled that secrets were stolen from MGA. Mattel was ordered to pay 85 million in liabilities plus another 225 million in damages and legal fees. And for the record MGA’s CEO Isaac Larian says he will file suit against Mattel. However Mattel claims that Bryant violated his employment

More about Mattel Case Summary

Open Document