Verdict Looms in Under-the-Radar Case That Pits a Hollywood Producer Vs. Mattel Over Theft Claim

As a movie lover who has closely followed the Hollywood scene for over two decades, I’ve seen my fair share of legal battles between producers and studios. However, the ongoing case between Norton Herrick and Mattel is one that particularly piques my interest due to its unique circumstances and potential industry-wide implications.


Over the last ten weeks, a movie producer based in Hollywood has been engaged in a legal dispute with a studio in Santa Monica, which hasn’t generated much media attention.

In early 2018, “Lone Survivor” producer Norton Herrick filed a lawsuit against Mattel due to a contract disagreement over the manufacturing of Mattel’s reality TV show “The Toy Box,” which aired on ABC for two consecutive seasons.

In his original complaint from June 2014, Herrick asserted that he presented an idea called “Playmakers” to Mattel. This concept involved contestants pitching their toys to young judges and earning rewards. Based on the lawsuit, Mattel executives were reportedly fond of the proposal and signaled their intention to proceed. However, without Herrick’s participation, they eventually released a similar product in 2017 under the title “The Toy Box.”

As a seasoned entertainment industry lawyer with over two decades of experience under my belt, I’ve seen my fair share of cases that have been shrouded in secrecy and avoided the limelight for various reasons. The Herrick Productions vs. Mattel case is one such example that has particularly piqued my interest due to its unique circumstances.

On Friday, the jury will be tasked with determining if Herrick truly suffered losses amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars due to the alleged theft of his concept.

I’ve been following the fascinating world of entertainment industry law for quite some time now, and one case that truly piqued my interest was the infamous Bratz doll dispute between Mattel and MGA Entertainment. As someone who has had the privilege of working in both the film and theater industries, I can only imagine the level of creativity and innovation that goes into developing new characters and intellectual properties.

In June 2014, during his initial face-to-face encounter with Mattel, Herrick presented them with a document packaged with a confidentiality agreement at the top. This package outlined the project’s format in detail. During their meeting in September 2014, Mattel’s team expressed their intention to have lawyers draft a formal contract. Both parties continued discussing financing options, including the possibility of Herrick funding “Playmakers” himself if required. Following this discussion, Herrick departed with the belief that he had secured a partnership for “Playmakers.”

Approximately two months after the initial discussion, a Mattel representative reportedly informed Herrick that due to financial struggles, Mattel would momentarily put the deal on hold. However, they emphasized that their enthusiasm for the project had not decreased. The lawsuit further stated that at no point during this time did Mattel disclose that they were simultaneously working with another producer or that they had any intention of abandoning the collaboration with Herrick.

When Mattel’s request for an early judgment in the case was rejected, Herrick’s lawyers Bryan Freedman and Miles Feldman expressed their joy, stating, “We’re thrilled that Mattel will now have to face trial.” On the other hand, Mattel expressed confidence in their toy box show, commenting, “We’re incredibly proud of ‘The Toy Box,’ and we continue to be encouraged by the favorable feedback from viewers of all ages. Regarding this lawsuit, we firmly believe it lacks any substantial basis.”

In the upcoming trial, it will be up to a jury to make the final decision, which could potentially result in the revealing of Mattel’s collection of toys to the general public.

Read More

2024-07-26 01:48