Mattel is being sued for mistakenly printing the URL for a pornographic website on the packaging for special-edition “Depraved” dolls.

In response to court docket paperwork, a South Carolina resident is launching a category motion lawsuit after buying the toy for her younger daughter, who visited the X-rated web site that had “nothing to do with the ‘Depraved’ doll.” The toy firm mistakenly listed a similarly-titled web site for the adult-entertainment website Depraved Photos, slightly than the official web page for the Common Photos movie, starring Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande. The plaintiff alleges that Mattel didn’t supply a refund and believes she and her little one suffered “emotional misery” from the misprint.

“These scenes had been hardcore, full on nude pornographic pictures depicting precise intercourse,” the lawsuit reads. “Plaintiff’s minor daughter instantly confirmed her mom the pictures and each had been horrified by what they noticed. If plaintiff had been conscious of such an inappropriate defect within the product, she wouldn’t have bought it.”

Mattel, the producer of Barbie, pulled the toy from cabinets at retailers together with Goal, Amazon and Kohl’s. It additionally issued a press release that it was “conscious of a misprint on the packaging of the Mattel ‘Depraved’ assortment dolls, primarily bought in the USA, which supposed to direct shoppers to the official WickedMovie.com touchdown web page.” The corporate suggested shoppers who have already got the dolls to “discard the product packaging or obscure the hyperlink.”

Neither Common nor Mattel responded to request for remark.

After “Depraved” opened in theaters, Common’s chief advertising officer Michael Moses informed Selection he didn’t suppose the snafu was dangerous to ticket gross sales for the movie. The film musical collected a blinding $112 million in its debut and has since grossed $263 million domestically and $360 million globally.

“I don’t suppose that every one press is sweet press. I at all times categorize incidents between what may truly harm the will to see the film and what may not,” he mentioned. “I believe that was an instance of 1 that’s an anecdote greater than a risk.”