After triggering toy store hysteria in aisles across America, Hatchimals, sadly, aren’t living up to their self-hatching hype. Parents who bought 2016’s hottest holiday toy have filed a class action lawsuit against Canadian toy company Spin Master, claiming millions of families were duped by the manufacturer’s “bait-and-switch marketing scheme.”

Jodie Hejduk filed the lawsuit after she purchased a Hatchimal for $50 as a birthday gift for her daughter. The California mom says that says she followed the toy’s instructions provided in the box, but it refused to hatch.The toy remains unhatched in its egg.

Hailed 2016’s Tickle Me Elmo, Hatchimals start off as football-sized plastic eggs. After some lengthy rubbing, shaking, and tilting, the eggs hatch to reveal chubby bird-like robots. As the Verge so eloquently puts it, the creatures “combine the eerie artificial behavior of a Furby with the biological horror of birth.”

The lawsuit expressed the buyers’ disappointment with the toy, that it doesn’t “live up to its name,” stating: “when we purchase an iPhone, we expect it to make a phone call. When we purchase a yo-yo, we expect it to come back up.”

“Unfortunately, this Christmas season, millions of children and families across the globe were sourly disappointed with coal in their stockings, in the form of a bait-and-switch marketing scheme perpetrated by Spin Master.”

After receiving complaints that its products weren’t hatching, Spin Master posted a statement to its Facebook page on Dec. 25, 2016 that said “We are sorry to hear that some of you are having challenges with your Hatchimals.”

Following the New Year, Spin Master addressed concerns again in another statement that pops up when you go to Hatchimals.com that reads:

We have had more than a million successful hatches since we first launched Hatchimals on October 7th and we are still hard at work making sure that everyone has a magical hatching experience. We are 100% committed to bringing the magic of Hatchimals to all of our consumers.

The company advises anyone having issues to call its Customer Care phone lines. It has not specified if replacements or refunds are being offered.

Meanwhile, Jimmy Kimmel offered a clever solution for the problem, rebranding the toys “Disapointimals” in a segment for his late-night talk show.

The class action lawsuit is requesting a recall of the toys and “compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages in amounts to be determined by the Court and/or jury.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Parents Filed Class Action Lawsuit After Their Hatchimals Didn’t Hatch appeared first on Law Street.

It may sound like a spy movie, but several consumer groups are claiming that some dolls from Genesis Toys are secretly listening in on your kids. Specifically, it is the “My Friend Cayla” dolls and the “i-Que” robots that are equipped with recording technology.

The toys record what children say to them and upload the sound files to Nuance Communications, a voice tech company often employed by the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies. In a lawsuit filed on Tuesday, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) together with three consumer groups claim that Genesis unfairly collects and uses audio files of children without getting parental consent.

“Cayla can understand and respond to you in real-time about almost anything… She is not just a doll… she’s a real friend!” Genesis Toys says in its marketing material. But the dolls may be a little more real than most parents are comfortable with. These intelligent toys are connected to the internet via an app and Bluetooth technology. When children ask them a question, their speech is recorded, converted to text, uploaded online, and can be searched on Google or Wikipedia. At the same time, the audio is uploaded to Nuance.

Now, the question is, why would playing children be interesting for an agency employed by the military and similar agencies? Well, the consumer groups believe that the recordings are used to improve products that Nuance sells. One of their services is called Nuance Identifier, which can recognize criminals by their voices, among millions of recordings.

Great Today Show piece on why Internet connected dolls aren’t safe for children featuring @EPICprivacy #ToyFail https://t.co/6ZbLu8H4Vc

— CCFC (@commercialfree) December 9, 2016

The lawsuit also brings what the groups allege is hidden product placement embedded in the toys. The Cayla doll allegedly says a lot of phrases connected to Disney–that her favorite movie is “The Little Mermaid” and her favorite song is “Let it Go” from “Frozen.” For children, it’s not clear that this embedded information is advertising. The Cayla doll also has a function that asks for the kids’ personal information, like their name, their parents’ names, where they live, and where they go to school–information that a lot of parents would not want in the wrong hands.

But a representative from Nuance said that the company does not sell or use the data it collects for marketing or advertising. In a statement, Richard Mack wrote:

Upon learning of the consumer advocacy groups’ concerns through media, we validated that we have adhered to our policy with respect to the voice data collected through the toys referred to in the complaint; and Nuance does not share voice data collected from or on behalf of any of our customers with any of our other customers.

The toymaker Genesis has not responded to request for comment from several media organizations. Even if the company doesn’t mean any harm to children, parents have a right to worry in a technological age when all digital information is at risk for computer hackers. Just be mindful of what you say in front of any dolls.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Consumer Group Says Talking Dolls are Spying on Your Kids appeared first on Law Street.

On November 20, China Labor Watch released a report on labor conditions at five toy manufacturing companies in China. The nonprofit sent undercover representatives to a variety of factories. The toy companies investigated in the report are suppliers to both Hasbro and Mattel, two of the largest and most successful toy distributors in the world. While Mattel’s alleged labor violations should take center stage, the story has been crowded out by Mattel’s advertising campaign in preparation for the holiday sales season. Read on for a look at the recent competing stories on Mattel and the concerns over labor conditions at the company.

History of Mattel’s Alleged Violations

Mattel, based in California but with a variety of third-party contractors in China, is the world’s biggest toy company. Mattel is responsible for the design, production and marketing of toys sold to both consumers and larger vendors (such as Toys ‘R’ Us or Target). Besides its incredibly famous Barbie, Mattel is the parent company of Fisher-Price, Hot Wheels, Matchbox, and American Girl. China Labor Watch, a nonprofit which strives to increase transparency and advocate for workers’ rights, has accused Mattel of underpaying and overworking Chinese workers. China Labor Watch’s first formal report on Mattel was published in 2012, yet the nonprofit claims to have seen little change in labor conditions in the intervening years. After embedding numerous representatives in the factories and conducting hundreds of interviews, the nonprofit stated that:

Workers making Mattel toys are forced to stand for 10 to 13 hours, exceeding the nine-hour working-day limit stated in Chinese law. In some factories, fire escapes are blocked and emergency exits are locked, posing fire-safety concerns.

According to an interviewee protected by a pseudonym, workers in Mattel partner factories work up to 13 hours a day in unsafe conditions with no fire escapes. After hours, these workers share overcrowded dorms with no access to proper sanitation. Managers were accused of being abusive and forcing workers to build toys even when they were sick or struggling to reach their quotas. Those who protested risked losing their jobs. After China Labor Watch’s investigation, the French nonprofit Peuples Solidaires established an anti-Mattel petition protesting the labor conditions in the Chinese factories, but it had only minimal success.

Mattel claimed to be taking steps to improve working conditions and address the issues raised by the nonprofit, but the accusations continued to crop up during 2014 and 2015. Despite this constant stream of violations, Mattel has reportedly continued to operate with the same vendors in the same labor conditions.

China Labor Watch’s report could have encouraged a wave of protest against Mattel but instead, two other stories are dominating the media this month: Barbie’s first ad featuring a young boy and the company’s falling share prices as the holiday season approaches. While China Labor Watch’s report appears to have only been covered in depth by Fortune, dozens of web sites and TV shows covered the new Mattel ad and the company’s holiday earnings.

Commercial Attention

Earlier this month, Barbie ran its first ad for the new limited edition Moschino doll, featuring a boy playing with the doll. Mattel received praise for the ad campaign, which was hailed as a move for gender equality. Companies such as Disney have already made similar moves to encourage gender parity with their toys, removing “girls” and “boys” labels from their merchandise. However, major toy commercials have long aimed to incorporate both boys and girls, so Mattel’s doll advertisements are somewhat late to the movement.

Though Mattel was hailed as the architect of the campaign, in reality, it was Jeremy Scott, creative director of Moschino who masterminded the campaign–Scott modeled the young boy in the commercial after his own childhood self. The ad has been described by both Scott and Mattel as a “fauxmercial”–a creative statement not actually designed to be official marketing for the doll. The advertisement, real or not, has drummed up significant sales for the doll–it has already sold out of stores and can now be found Ebay and other resale sites for a massive mark-up. The advertisement went viral online but has not been moved to television.

Mattel’s Black Friday Conundrum

Barbie may be one of the most famous toys in America, but Mattel has been struggling with sales over the past several years. According to Forbes,

Sales of the fashion doll have slumped for the past four years, down 16 per cent in 2014 and showing no signs of improvement. Even American Girl, Mattel’s once-hot line of pricey historical collectibles, has disappointed in recent years. Sales were down 2 per cent in the third quarter of 2015. Starting next year, Barbie will be faced with new competition from rival Hasbro, which won Mattel’s long-held license to sell the hugely popular Disney Princesses line of movie tie-ins, including Frozen heroine Elsa.

As the holiday shopping season opens up, toy companies are counting on the months of November and December to make or break their sales portfolios. Mattel needs an incredibly successful holiday sales season to make up for the lack of growth in past quarters, but at the moment, short interest on Mattel is sitting at an all-time high. In order to impress investors, Mattel must make a major profit during Black Friday super sales but competition from Hasbro may make that difficult. Not only has Hasbro licensed Disney Princess toys, it has also cornered the market on Star Wars merchandise on the eve of the release of the new Star Wars film. The after-effects of Black Friday and holiday season may ultimately decide the fate of both toy companies, but at this moment, Hasbro’s success is virtually locked in.

However, Hasbro was also named in the China Labor Watch report for labor violations in the manufacturing of several of its toys (including the Star Wars line). According to a statement from Hasbro spokeswoman Julie Duffy,

We are aware of the China Labor Watch report and take their allegations very seriously. We require all Hasbro products to be manufactured in accordance with rigorous ethical standards, and that all third party facilities ensure employees have a healthy and safe working environment. Hasbro combines industry best practices, strategic partnerships, and strict auditing standards to respect the safety, well-being, and dignity of workers, and works continuously to ensure compliance with all third party facilities

Mattel also released a statement in the wake of the China Labor Watch report,

We are aware of the China Labor Watch report and take their allegations very seriously. We require all Hasbro products to be manufactured in accordance with rigorous ethical standards, and that all third party facilities ensure employees have a healthy and safe working environment

But all eyes are on both Mattel and Hasbro regarding their sales, so the alleged labor violations appear to have taken a back seat.

Lack of Attention on the Labor Violations

According to the report, Mattel’s third party companies have been consistently violating labor laws for several years. Over the past few weeks, Mattel has been associated with the Moschino ad and the battle over Black Friday sales but the labor violations discussed in China Labor Watch’s report have gone virtually unnoticed. Mattel’s frequent violations of Chinese labor laws could be inspiring outrage, but they are not well publicized enough to be making waves in the public discourse. Hasbro is guilty of the same infractions but it has kept its name largely out of the headlines this month.

Unfortunately, Mattel’s financial suffering only makes it increasingly likely that it will utilize Chinese labor in the future. With production costs soaring and little profit, the company will likely remain reliant on the cheap labor provided in China. Though there has been more scrutiny placed on Chinese labor oversight in recent years, the labor conditions are still, on the whole, deplorable. There may even be an increase in labor law violations as the company adopts a “nothing to lose” attitude to selling its toys at any cost.

There is some hope, however. In July of 2015, workers at the Jingyu Toy Products company in Shenzhen, China went on strike to protest minimal wages and long hours spent building Hasbro and Mattel toys. When the factory was relocated, 100 workers went on strike, asking for severance pay and retirement insurance. The strike was isolated, and did not inspire similar action across China, but it is important to consider how protest and public scrutiny can impact these companies.

Conclusion

Children across the world will spend their holiday unwrapping dolls, toy cars and building blocks that were manufactured in the harshest conditions. Companies that work with third party vendors must be held accountable for the actions of their third party vendors abroad. Mattel received positive coverage during the release of the fauxmercial for the Moschino Barbie that let the company circumnavigate a public discussion of labor violations. But in the coming weeks, it will be interesting to see if we open the dialogue on labor laws rather than just focus on sales during the holiday season.

Resources

Primary

China Labor Watch: The Other Side of Fairy Tales: An Investigation of labor conditions at five Chinese toy factories

Additional

Forbes: With Boy In Barbie Ad, Mattel And Moschino Aim To Bust Gender Stereotypes

Bloomberg: Bearish Bets on Mattel Surge Ahead of Black Friday

The Observers: The Barbie  Blues: Workers Describe Awful Conditions at Mattel Suppliers

IB Times: Labor Law Violations At Chinese Supplier To Hasbro, Mattel, Takara Tomy: Report

Dana C. Nicholas: China’s Labor Enforcement Crisis: International Intervention and Corporate Social Responsiblity

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post A Tale of Two Barbies: Did Mattel’s Labor Law Violations Fly Under the Radar? appeared first on Law Street.

Harris Faulkner, an anchor for the show “Fox Report Weekend” and a cohost for “Fox Outnumbered” is suing toy producer Hasbro. She is claiming that a small toy hamster that Hasbro has also named “Harris Faulkner” is based on her, and wants five million dollars for the trouble.

Faulkner claims that the toy, which is part of Hasbro’s “Littlest Pet Shop” line, used her name, appropriated her on-air appearance and persona, and represented her as a rodent, which was “demeaning.” The lawsuit filed by her team states to this effect:

In addition to its prominent and unauthorized use of Faulkner’s name, elements of the Harris Faulkner Hamster Doll also bear a physical resemblance to Faulkner’s traditional professional appearance, in particular tone of its complexion, the shape of its eyes, and the design of its eye makeup.

Here are a couple pictures of Harris Faulkner the human and Harris Faulkner the toy hamster side-by-side for your own comparison purposes:

Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner sues Hasbro over toy hamster with same name http://t.co/0JPQsjZTV4 pic.twitter.com/1MSPSIKcIy

— ABC 7 Chicago (@ABC7Chicago) September 2, 2015

Also, Harris Faulkner doesn’t like it that Hasbro labels Harris Faulkner as a “CHOKING HAZARD” http://t.co/4pU7jR1cru pic.twitter.com/cn7C21rQXg — M. Alex Johnson (@MAlexJohnson) September 2, 2015

The Littlest Pet Shop line includes a number of small animal figures, many of them with anthropomorphized features. They also connect to online accounts where a child can interact with other characters. Naturally, as they are part of a Hasbro line, they are trademarked. But Faulkner the human also takes issue with that, as she believes it falsely indicates a trademark made in her name. The lawsuit filed by Faulkner’s team states:

By its unlawful actions, Hasbro has implied—falsely—Faulkner’s association with, approval, and endorsement of Hasbro and/or the Harris Faulkner Hamster Doll and has violated Faulkner’s right to control the use of her name and likeness.

According to the lawsuit, Faulkner also objects to the fact that she’s being associated with a small plastic toy that could be considered a choking hazard:

Faulkner is extremely distressed that her name has been wrongly associated with a plastic toy that is a known choking hazard that risks harming small children.

According to Faulkner the “substantial commercial and emotional damage” that has been inflicted upon her by Hasbro’s actions should leave her with a payout of five million dollars.

The entire case is a bit odd–while it seems strange that Hasbro would name a hamster “Harris Faulkner” all of them have kind of weird names. For example, the figure that Harris Faulkner appears to be usually sold with is a Yorkie Terrier character named “Benson Detwyler.” There’s also “Alistair Royal,” a corgi, “Gerry Goldman” a gerbil, and “Roxy Reddington,” a fox, among others. While Hasbro executives probably should have Googled the name “Harris Faulkner” before they emblazoned it on a toy hamster, it also seems farfetched that the company would have chosen a Fox News anchor as a namesake. Either way, Hasbro may now have to pay for the use of the name, whether intentional or not. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fox News Anchor vs. Hasbro: Harris Faulkner Sues Over Toy “Namesake” appeared first on Law Street.

It’s Women’s History Month, and I think it’s pretty widely recognized that four great role models are the three sitting and one former female Supreme Court justices. As the only women ever on the highest court, Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotamayor are pretty recognizably badass, regardless of their various ideologies. Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor anchor the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, and consistently write some of the most on point and compelling decisions. O’Connor, despite having retired in 2006, continues to work as an activist. In fact, her startup non-profit iCivics was recently awarded a MacArthur Grant to continue its amazing work in American civics education.

Now these four ladies are obviously recognized and lauded on a near-daily basis. There are a lot of awards, speaking engagements, and the like. But I think they just got one of their coolest honors recently–a fan made a set of Legos called the “Legal Justice League” that depict the four justices.

Image courtesy of Maia Weinstock via Flickr

How adorable is that? RBG even has her signature white collar, and Kagan’s hairstyle is spot on. Here’s another picture–look at them working!

Image courtesy of Maia Weinstock via Flickr

Anyway, these are a great, sweet representation of some of the top female minds in American jurisprudence. The creator, Maia Weinstock, stated about her figures:

This set of custom-designed LEGO minifigures, U.S. Supreme Court replica, and SCOTUS library/study aims to celebrate the accomplishments of women in the legal realm, and to encourage girls and women to work toward high positions in the U.S. judicial system.

While I personally think this would be a great set for LEGO to manufacture, the company turned down the idea after Weinstock submitted it. It has a “no politics or political symbols” rule. However, the Supreme Court isn’t, in and of itself, political. It’s actually supposed to be the opposite–a politically agnostic institution tasked with interpreting the law regardless of party lines. While that doesn’t always necessarily happen in practice, I don’t know that making figurines of the female Supreme Court justices–three liberal and one conservative–really makes any sort of political statement.

Although toys have been moving toward being more gender neutral and inclusive in recent years, many little girls’ toys–particularly dolls–still fall more into the Barbie or Bratz category. While there’s nothing wrong with those toys per se, it would be great for young girls to have more options and more exposure to real female role models.

Regardless of LEGO’s decision not to run with them,  Weinstock’s Legal Justice League figures are a great homage to the indubitably awesome female justices, and a great celebration of Women’s History Month!

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Everything is Not Awesome: LEGO Rejects Female SCOTUS Justices Set appeared first on Law Street.

The cloud can be scary, especially when its responsible for things like celebrity nude leaks. Or think of the movie “Sex Tape,” where Justin Segal and Cameron Diaz’s sex tape gets “lost in the cloud.”  So when toy manufacturer Mattel announced it would be releasing a new high-tech talking Barbie that uploads recordings of kids to the cloud, people freaked, with one consumer advocacy group deciding they want to box up this Barbie before she even has a chance to hit shelves.

#HelloBarbie goodbye privacy. Take action! http://t.co/w41UBXccAN pic.twitter.com/xFStefORhB

— CCFC (@commercialfree) March 11, 2015

Mattel’s “Hello Barbie” is a doll connected to Wi-Fi that uses a microphone embedded in Barbie’s belt buckle to record children’s voices and transmit them to cloud servers where they will be stored for up to two years. They can be analyzed and used to help form Hello Barbie’s responses. Priced at $74.99, the doll is pre-programmed by Mattel’s partner ToyTalk with responses to key words or phrases, so kids feel like the doll is actually responding to them.

What’s concerning is what may happen to all of these private conversations recorded between children and their dolls stored on the cloud servers. Do children have a right to keep their conversations with these dolls private? Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood, an organization devoted solely to stopping the commercial exploitation of children, says yes. It posted a petition on its site calling the dolls “creepy” and requesting consumers “say goodbye” to Hello Barbie.

Susan Linn executive director of the group, in a phone interview told USA Today:

This is really about Mattel eavesdropping on a child’s heart and soul — and the most intimate things about their lives.

The real problem, says Linn, is that Mattel will now have the ability to ‘listen in’ on kids at play. ‘It’s corporate surveillance in the home and exploitation where kids are most vulnerable — around creative play.

Mattel officials say the company is simply doing what kids have asked it to do for years–making it possible to talk with Barbie. In order to do so, parents must first give permission for their child’s voice to be captured. By requiring the parental consent, Mattel hopes to fend of any liability issues its recordings may create. In an emailed statement to USA Today Stephanie Cota, Mattel’s senior vice president of global communications, said safeguards are already in place to protect the stored data from unauthorized users. Cota said:

Mattel is committed to safety and security, and Hello Barbie conforms to applicable government standards, including the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.

Even so have these toy developers gone too far? Children are becoming tech savvy from a young age; some are playing on smartphones and tablets before they can even talk or walk. This high-tech talking “Hello Barbie” may be exactly what children asked for, but it’s cloud sharing capabilities are frankly kind of scary.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Talking Barbie: Will it Threaten Kids’ Privacy? appeared first on Law Street.

As always, things were weird this week, both in the U.S. and abroad. Here are your weird arrests of the week–consider it a Holiday present, from me to you!

[SlideDeck2 id=30417 ress=1]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.