Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 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 June 30, 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 June 30, 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 June 30, 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 June 30, 2026, Mattel assessed its probable loss related to this matter and has accrued an estimated liability, which is not material. U.S. Tariff Recovery In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA") on goods imported into the United States were unauthorized. On March 4, 2026, 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. CBP subsequently implemented a phased refund process through its Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries system, launching Phase 1 on April 20, 2026 and Phase 2 on June 29, 2026. The CIT's refund order has been appealed, and the IEEPA tariffs and related refund framework remain subject to ongoing litigation, as well as refund process developments. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on IEEPA tariffs, the U.S. presidential administration imposed temporary global tariffs on imports under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 ("Section 122"), which expired on July 24, 2026. These Section 122 tariffs are currently subject to legal challenge and in May 2026, the CIT issued a ruling that the Section 122 tariffs are unauthorized by the statute, although this ruling is currently stayed pending appeal. Accordingly, the ultimate availability, timing, and amount of potential tariff refunds remain uncertain. During the three months ended June 30, 2026, Mattel received certain refunds under the IEEPA tariff refund process, which were not material. As of June 30, 2026, Mattel had not recognized a receivable related to additional tariff refunds because they were not realized or realizable. However, it is reasonably possible that the impact of tariff refunds could be material. Litigation Related to IEEPA Tariffs In July 2026, two putative class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Mattel, Inc., American Girl, LLC, and American Girl Brands, LLC asserting claims for unjust enrichment, money had and received, unfair competition under section 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code, and declaratory judgment in connection with IEEPA tariff refunds. In general, the lawsuits allege that Mattel and American Girl should not be able to retain IEEPA refunds they receive if costs associated with those tariffs were previously passed on to consumers. The lawsuits propose a nationwide class of consumers who purchased products with raised prices due to government tariffs. The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, costs, interest, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Mattel believes that it has substantial defenses to the allegations in the lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend against them. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

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.

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 June 30, 2026, Mattel assessed its probable loss related to this matter and has accrued an estimated liability, which is not material.

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 June 30, 2026, Mattel assessed its probable loss related to the matter and has accrued an estimated liability, which is not material.

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 June 30, 2026, Mattel assessed its probable loss related to this matter and has accrued an estimated liability, which is not material.

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 June 30, 2026, Mattel assessed its probable loss related to this matter and has accrued an estimated liability, which is not material.

In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA") on goods imported into the United States were unauthorized. On March 4, 2026, 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. CBP subsequently implemented a phased refund process through its Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries system, launching Phase 1 on April 20, 2026 and Phase 2 on June 29, 2026. The CIT's refund order has been appealed, and the IEEPA tariffs and related refund framework remain subject to ongoing litigation, as well as refund process developments. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on IEEPA tariffs, the U.S. presidential administration imposed temporary global tariffs on imports under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 ("Section 122"), which expired on July 24, 2026. These Section 122 tariffs are currently subject to legal challenge and in May 2026, the CIT issued a ruling that the Section 122 tariffs are unauthorized by the statute, although this ruling is currently stayed pending appeal. Accordingly, the ultimate availability, timing, and amount of potential tariff refunds remain uncertain. During the three months ended June 30, 2026, Mattel received certain refunds under the IEEPA tariff refund process, which were not material. As of June 30, 2026, Mattel had not recognized a receivable related to additional tariff refunds because they were not realized or realizable. However, it is reasonably possible that the impact of tariff refunds could be material.

In July 2026, two putative class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Mattel, Inc., American Girl, LLC, and American Girl Brands, LLC asserting claims for unjust enrichment, money had and received, unfair competition under section 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code, and declaratory judgment in connection with IEEPA tariff refunds. In general, the lawsuits allege that Mattel and American Girl should not be able to retain IEEPA refunds they receive if costs associated with those tariffs were previously passed on to consumers. The lawsuits propose a nationwide class of consumers who purchased products with raised prices due to government tariffs.

The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, costs, interest, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Mattel believes that it has substantial defenses to the allegations in the lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend against them. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.