Mom sues Mattel after 'Wicked' doll exposes child to porn site, alleges 'emotional distress'

[Jim Burton]

https://www.christianpost.com/news/mom- ... -site.html

A South Carolina mother is suing the children's toy company Mattel, claiming "emotional distress" after her minor daughter stumbled upon a graphic pornography website due to a misprint on the packaging for dolls based on the "Wicked" movie.

[...]

"To her absolute shock, the website, 'Wicked.com,' had nothing to do with the Wicked Doll," the complaint stated. "Rather, Wicked.com pasted scenes of pornographic advertisements across her phone screen."

"These scenes were hardcore, full on nude pornographic images depicting actual intercourse," the document continued. "Plaintiff's minor daughter immediately showed her mother the photographs, and both were horrified by what they saw."

[Bookshelf]

Not only is she saying her daughter suffered emotional distress, but she's saying SHE suffered emotional distress as well? The fully grown, consent-age woman felt damaged by a glimpse of porn? Weird. If I am to believe in the logic behind age of consent laws, she should be completely fine as she has passed by the age requirement of her country!

[Jim Burton]

Moral injury, middle America's timeless riposte to the SJW triggering.

[ZVOTD]

While I don't think they should have linked to that website, to say it caused "emotional distress" is absolutely crazy. I think Mattel should be held accountable to a degree, but it isn't the end of the world either and not the worst thing to happen by any margin.