Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2026

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.) ("Yellowstone") 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 appeals.

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 March 31, 2026, 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

One products liability lawsuit filed in April 2023 remains pending against Fisher-Price, Inc. and Mattel, Inc. alleging that a product defect in the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper (the "Sleeper") caused the fatality of a child. More than sixty other lawsuits have been settled and/or dismissed.

The remaining lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. Mattel believes that it has substantial defenses to the allegations made and intends to vigorously defend against them. As of March 31, 2026, Mattel assessed its probable loss related to the matter and has accrued an estimated liability, which is not material.

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. In February 2026, the parties entered into a stipulation, which the court subsequently entered, permitting an immediate appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court of the issues decided to date. As of March 31, 2026, 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 March 31, 2026, Mattel assessed its probable loss related to this matter and has accrued an estimated liability, which is not material.

U.S. Tariff Matter

In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA") on goods imported into the United States were unauthorized. Following that ruling, the U.S. Court of International Trade ("CIT") issued an order directing the U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") to process refunds of the IEEPA tariffs, although the CIT immediately suspended the order while CBP develops and implements the refund process. The IEEPA tariffs and related refund framework remain subject to ongoing litigation, including potential appeals, as well as regulatory and administrative developments. Accordingly, the ultimate availability, timing, and amount of any potential refunds of such tariffs remain highly uncertain. Any potential recovery of IEEPA tariffs represents a loss recovery. As of March 31, 2026, Mattel has not recognized any receivable or loss recovery related to potential refunds of IEEPA tariffs because the realization of any recovery is dependent on future events, and Mattel cannot conclude that recovery is probable or reasonably estimable as of the date of this quarterly report; however, it is reasonably possible that the potential refunds of IEEPA tariffs could be material.