XML 39 R27.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.3

Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2025
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 litigation. 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, 2025, 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 were filed between April 2019 and October 2019 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 alleged 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 proposed 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 were 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 July 2024, the parties filed a settlement agreement with the court to resolve this litigation. In August 2024, the court preliminarily approved, and Mattel paid, the settlement amount, which was not material. In February 2025, the court granted final approval of the settlement. Twelve products liability 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 twelve children. More than fifty lawsuits have been settled and/or dismissed. As of September 30, 2025, Mattel assessed its probable loss related to these matters and has accrued estimated liabilities where appropriate, which are not material. 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 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 included 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 reached a settlement in principle of this litigation, which was approved by the court in April 2025. During the second quarter of 2025, Mattel received its portion of the settlement, which was not material. The lawsuits seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, costs, interest, declaratory relief, and/or injunctive relief. As noted above, Mattel has reached settlements in some of these lawsuits, and in the ongoing cases, Mattel believes that it has substantial defenses to the allegations made and intends to vigorously defend against them. Insurance Litigation On January 6, 2023, Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc. filed a lawsuit against their products liability insurers in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the obligations of the insurers to defend and indemnify Mattel for the Sleeper products liability lawsuits. On March 28, 2025 and June 2, 2025, the court issued summary judgment rulings which determined, among other things, that the Sleeper products liability claims constitute a single occurrence under Mattel’s insurance policies, and that each claim is allocated to the policy year in which the incident occurred. As of September 30, 2025, 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 Snuga Swings A number of putative class action lawsuits were filed against Fisher-Price, Inc. and Mattel, Inc. between October 2024 and February 2025 asserting 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 the Swings. The lawsuits have been consolidated before a single judge in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. In May 2025, the parties reached a contingent settlement of the litigation, which is subject to court approval. 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, to the extent the settlement is not finalized or approved, intends to vigorously defend against them. As of September 30, 2025, Mattel assessed its probable loss related to this matter and has accrued an estimated liability, which is not material.

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