XML 37 R27.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.3

Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies | Contingencies Litigation Related to Yellowstone do Brasil Ltda. In April 1999, Yellowstone do Brasil Ltda. (formerly known as Trebbor Informática Ltda.) filed a lawsuit against Mattel do Brasil before the 15th Civil Court of Curitiba, State of Parana, requesting the annulment of its security bonds and promissory notes given to Mattel do Brasil as well as damages due to an alleged breach of an oral exclusive distribution agreement between the parties relating to the supply and sale of toys in Brazil. Yellowstone's complaints sought alleged loss of profits plus an unspecified amount of damages. Mattel do Brasil filed its defenses to these claims and simultaneously presented a counterclaim for unpaid accounts receivable for goods supplied to Yellowstone. In April 2018, Mattel do Brasil entered into a settlement agreement to resolve this matter, but the settlement remains the subject of ongoing appeals. In October 2018, the Superior Court of Justice issued a final ruling in favor of Yellowstone on the merits of Yellowstone's claims. Previously, the courts had ruled in Mattel's favor on its counterclaim. In October 2019, Mattel reached an agreement with Yellowstone's former counsel regarding payment of the attorney's fees portion of the judgment. In November 2019, Yellowstone initiated an action to enforce its judgment against Mattel, but did not account for an offset for Mattel's counterclaim. In January 2020, Mattel obtained an injunction, staying Yellowstone's enforcement action pending resolution of Mattel's appeal to enforce the parties' April 2018 settlement. As of September 30, 2024, Mattel assessed its probable loss related to this matter and has accrued an estimated liability, which is not material. Litigation Related to the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper A number of putative class action lawsuits filed between April 2019 and October 2019 are pending against Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or Mattel, Inc. asserting claims for false advertising, negligent product design, breach of warranty, fraud, and other claims in connection with the marketing and sale of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper (the "Sleeper"). In general, the lawsuits allege that the Sleeper should not have been marketed and sold as safe and fit for prolonged and overnight sleep for infants. The putative class action lawsuits propose nationwide and over 10 statewide consumer classes comprised of those who purchased the Sleeper as marketed as safe for prolonged and overnight sleep. The class actions have been consolidated before a single judge in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York for pre-trial purposes pursuant to the U.S. federal courts' Multi-District Litigation program. In June 2022, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify damages and injunctive relief classes under New York law, but granted plaintiffs' request to certify a New York issue class to resolve two issues on a class-wide basis. In October 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition to appeal the denial of certification of the damages and injunctive relief classes. On July 24, 2024, the parties filed a settlement agreement with the court to resolve this litigation. On August 9, 2024, the settlement was preliminarily approved by the court. A final approval hearing is scheduled for January 28, 2025. As of September 30, 2024, Mattel assessed its probable loss related to this matter and has accrued an estimated liability, which is not material. Twenty-eight additional lawsuits filed between April 2019 and September 2024 are pending against Fisher-Price, Inc. and Mattel, Inc. alleging that a product defect in the Sleeper caused the fatalities of or injuries to twenty-eight children. More than thirty lawsuits have been settled and/or dismissed. Additionally, Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or Mattel, Inc. have also received letters from lawyers purporting to represent additional plaintiffs who have threatened to assert similar claims. In addition, a stockholder has filed a derivative action in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (Kumar v. Bradley, et al., filed July 7, 2020) alleging breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment related to the development, marketing, and sale of the Sleeper. The defendants in the derivative action are certain of Mattel's current and former officers and directors. In August 2021, a second similar derivative action was filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (Armon v. Bradley, et al., filed August 30, 2021). The parties have reached a settlement in principle of this litigation, which is subject to approval by the court. As of September 30, 2024, Mattel has determined that a recovery of prior losses in this matter is probable and has accrued for the estimated amount, which is not material. The lawsuits seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, costs, interest, declaratory relief, and/or injunctive relief. Mattel believes that it has substantial defenses to the allegations in the lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend against them. Except as specifically noted above, a reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. Litigation Related to the Fisher-Price Snuga Swings Purported class action lawsuits against Fisher-Price, Inc. and Mattel, Inc. have been filed in United States District Courts for the Western District of New York (Bigelow v. Mattel, Inc., et al., filed October 17, 2024, and Wall v. Mattel, Inc. et al., filed October 25, 2024), and the Central District of California (Shahbaz v. Fisher-Price, Inc., et al., filed October 24, 2024). The lawsuits assert claims for false advertising, breach of contract, breach of warranty, fraud, negligence, and other claims in connection with the marketing and sale of Fisher-Price Snuga Swings (the "Swings"). In general, the lawsuits allege that the Swings were falsely marketed and sold as safe for infant use, particularly infant sleep, and failed to disclose a risk of suffocation. The lawsuits propose nationwide and several state consumer classes comprised of those who purchased Swings. The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages, punitive and treble damages, statutory damages, restitution, rescission, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, and injunctive relief. Mattel believes that it has substantial defenses to the allegations in the lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend against them. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration