For the past ten weeks, a significant legal battle has unfolded in a Santa Monica courtroom, pitting Hollywood producer Norton Herrick against toy giant Mattel. The case, which has largely flown under the radar, centers on allegations of idea theft related to a reality competition show.
In January 2018, Herrick, known for producing the film “Lone Survivor,” filed a lawsuit against Mattel. The dispute traces back to a contract negotiation regarding the production of Mattel’s show “The Toy Box,” which aired on ABC for two seasons. Herrick claims that he presented a project titled “Playmakers” to Mattel in June 2014, a concept that involved contestants pitching their toy ideas to child judges for a chance to win prize money.
According to the lawsuit, Mattel executives expressed enthusiasm for Herrick’s idea and indicated they were interested in moving forward. However, Herrick alleges that the company later pursued a similar concept without his involvement, ultimately producing “The Toy Box” in 2017, which mirrored his original pitch.
The case has received minimal media attention over the years, possibly due to its conditional seal, which was put in place to protect trade secrets. Despite this, the legal proceedings have progressed, with Mattel’s request for summary judgment being denied. This has allowed Herrick’s case to advance to trial, a rarity in Hollywood litigation.
As the trial nears its conclusion, a jury will soon decide whether Herrick lost out on substantial financial opportunities due to the alleged theft of his idea. Herrick’s legal team, led by attorneys Bryan Freedman and Miles Feldman, expressed their satisfaction that the case has reached this stage, emphasizing the importance of holding Mattel accountable.
Mattel, on the other hand, has maintained that the lawsuit is without merit. The company has expressed pride in “The Toy Box” and the positive reception it has received from audiences. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the entertainment industry, particularly regarding how studios handle pitches and the necessary precautions they must take when repurposing ideas.
During the trial, Herrick’s team presented evidence that he provided Mattel with a detailed written proposal, complete with a confidentiality notice, during their initial meeting. In subsequent discussions, Mattel’s representatives indicated a desire to finalize a contract and explore financing options for “Playmakers.” Herrick left these meetings believing he had secured a partnership with Mattel.
However, the situation took a turn when, just two months later, a Mattel executive informed Herrick that the company was pausing the deal due to financial concerns. Herrick’s complaint alleges that at no point did Mattel disclose its plans to pursue a similar show with another producer, leaving him in the dark about the company’s intentions.
The case has drawn parallels to a previous high-profile lawsuit involving Mattel and MGA Entertainment, which centered on the Bratz doll line. In that instance, a jury found that Mattel had misappropriated trade secrets, resulting in a nearly $90 million award to MGA.
As the jury prepares to deliberate, the contents of Mattel’s toy chest may be exposed to public scrutiny. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how studios approach idea submissions and the legal ramifications of idea theft in the entertainment industry.
The trial has highlighted the complexities of intellectual property rights and the challenges faced by creators in protecting their ideas. As the entertainment landscape continues to evolve, the implications of this case will likely resonate beyond the courtroom, influencing how producers and studios navigate the delicate balance between collaboration and competition.
As the jury deliberates, the stakes remain high for both Herrick and Mattel. The decision could not only impact Herrick’s financial future but also reshape industry practices regarding idea submissions and the treatment of creative concepts.
In a world where ideas are the lifeblood of the entertainment industry, the outcome of this lawsuit serves as a reminder of the importance of safeguarding intellectual property and the potential consequences of failing to do so. As the legal battle comes to a close, all eyes will be on the jury’s verdict and the implications it holds for the future of idea protection in Hollywood.
Source: Variety
