The fourth OMG Dolls trial ended with $0 punitive damages for Tip “T.I.” Harris and Tameka “Tiny” Harris.

T.I. and Tiny sued MGA Entertainment in 2020 for violating their intellectual property rights. They argued that the toy giant’s L.O.L. Surprise! O.M.G. Doll line copied the name, likeness and distinctive outfits of their girl group OMG Girlz.

The OMG Girlz featured Tiny’s daughter, Zonnique “Star” Pullins (right), and sisters Bahja “Beauty” Rodriguez (left), and Lourdes “Lolo” Rodriguez (center). Lil Wayne’s daughter, Reginae Carter, was also a past member.

In 2024, a jury awarded the couple $53.6 million in punitive damages and $17.9 million in compensatory damages for a total of $71.5 million. But the victory was short-lived.

MGA Entertainment appealed the jury award in 2024. On July 8, 2025, the U.S. District Court of Appeals found that the punitive award for damages – $53.6 million – was “unsupported” by the facts of the trial.

T.I. and Tiny went back to court hoping to restore the $53.6 million in punitive damages. According to Rolling Stone, the jury in the latest trial on Wednesday, July 1, determined that MGA had not acted with malice. The jury awarded the couple $0 in punitive damages.

T.I. and Tiny’s compensatory damages remain capped at $17.9 million. T.I. and Tiny have already spent millions of dollars in attorney fees, discovery, expert testimony, and travel expenses for the four trials.

After the attorneys take their cut, the plaintiffs, including the members of the OMG Girlz, will divide just over $6 million.

In a statement through their attorneys, T.I. and Tiny expressed their disappointment in the jury’s verdict.

“We appreciate the jury’s time and consideration but are disappointed in the verdict,” T.I. and Tiny’s lawyers said in a statement on Wednesday. “We proved malice once and believe that had this jury had the benefit of the three weeks of evidence the last jury saw, they too would have found punitives appropriate. It’s clear from the evidence that MGA’s policies are inadequate to prevent this type of IP infringement, and their document retention and collection procedures are equally as suspect. We will continue to fight for our clients’ rights and the rights of all creatives.”