Carl Watts filed a $78 million lawsuit alleging Blumhouse’s M3GAN copied elements from Paranormal Adoption.
On January 6, 2026, filmmaker Carl Watts filed a $78 million copyright infringement lawsuit against Blumhouse, claiming its hit horror film M3GAN copied his earlier work, Paranormal Adoption. The lawsuit directly challenges the creative origins of one of Blumhouse’s most successful modern horror franchises and raises questions about whether the story behind the M3GAN doll existed years before the M3GAN movie was ever announced.
M3GAN became a breakout horror hit when it was released in 2023, earning over $180 million worldwide and introducing audiences to an AI-powered companion doll designed to protect a grieving child. The film’s success quickly transformed it into a franchise, with the sequel M3GAN 2.0 already in development. But according to the lawsuit filed by Watts, the core story behind M3GAN may have existed long before Blumhouse began developing the film.
The lawsuit compares M3GAN directly to Paranormal Adoption, a film that was publicly available years before M3GAN entered production, including being released on YouTube. According to the complaint, M3GAN copied more than 50 elements from Paranormal Adoption, including its plot, characters, sequence of events, and specific scenes.
Both Stories Begin With a Traumatized Child and a Doll
One of the lawsuit’s central claims is that both films begin with a young girl placed under new guardianship after losing her parents in a sudden, tragic accident.
In M3GAN, Cady loses her parents in a car crash and moves in with her aunt Gemma, who introduces her to the M3GAN doll as a form of emotional support. In Paranormal Adoption, the story similarly follows a young girl who is brought into a new home after a family tragedy, where a doll is introduced as a source of comfort.
According to the complaint, both stories present the doll initially as harmless before gradually revealing its darker role.
The Child Forms an Emotional Bond With the Doll
In each film, the child forms an intense emotional attachment to the doll, treating it not as an object but as a real companion.
In Paranormal Adoption, the girl explicitly states that the doll is real. In M3GAN, Cady anthropomorphizes the doll, projecting emotional awareness onto it as if it were alive.
In both stories, the doll evolves from a comfort object into a protector figure, reinforcing the emotional dependency between the child and the doll.
Both Films Include a School Bully and Escalating Violence
The lawsuit also points to the presence of a school bully in both films. In M3GAN, the bully is Brendon. In Paranormal Adoption, the bully is Billy.
The complaint alleges that both stories escalate toward violent encounters involving the bully and a car accident. In M3GAN, the doll directly causes the bully’s death. In Paranormal Adoption, the bully is involved in a car accident but survives, and the doll is not clearly responsible.
While the outcomes differ, the lawsuit argues that the structural similarities in how the conflict unfolds remain significant.
Both Stories Include Mechanical Attempts to Destroy the Doll
The complaint further highlights similarities in the films’ climactic sequences. In both stories, the doll is physically attacked using mechanical cutting tools while lying down.
In M3GAN, a hedge trimmer is used. In Paranormal Adoption, a table saw is used.
The lawsuit also notes smaller environmental overlaps, such as the presence of hedge trimmers in the guardians’ homes. While these details alone would not establish infringement, the complaint argues that they contribute to a broader pattern of narrative similarity.
Both films also end without fully resolving the threat posed by the doll. In each story, the doll survives in some form, leaving open the possibility that the danger continues beyond the events of the film.
Similarity Alone Is Not Enough. The Lawsuit Must Also Prove Access
Copyright infringement cases require more than similarity. The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the defendants had access to the original work.
According to the complaint, Watts uploaded the Paranormal Adoption screenplay to InkTip in late 2010, a platform used by producers and studios to discover new material. The lawsuit claims the script was downloaded and circulated within the industry.
In 2011, Watts submitted the screenplay directly to Summit Entertainment, where it was received by Joshua Cozine, then Manager of Business Affairs. Summit reportedly responded positively and did not formally reject the project.
In early 2012, Summit Entertainment was acquired by Lionsgate, and its internal submissions and development materials were absorbed into Lionsgate’s corporate structure. Submitted scripts do not disappear during acquisitions. They remain part of the studio’s internal records and development pipeline.
The Lawsuit Points to Overlapping Industry Relationships
The lawsuit also identifies a professional overlap involving Akela Cooper, one of the credited writers on M3GAN. According to the complaint, Joshua Cozine attended USC during the same period as Cooper, and both later operated within overlapping studio environments involving Summit Entertainment and Lionsgate.
The complaint does not claim direct proof that Cooper received Watts’s screenplay. Instead, it argues that the overlap establishes a plausible line of access that warrants legal discovery.
Why This Matters As the M3GAN Franchise Expands
This lawsuit arrives as Blumhouse continues expanding the M3GAN franchise, with M3GAN 2.0 already announced and audience interest in the sequel growing.
The original film helped establish the M3GAN doll as one of the defining horror icons of the modern era. But if the plaintiff can establish both substantial similarity and access, the case could reshape how the origins of the franchise are understood.
At this stage, the lawsuit represents allegations, not proven facts. The legal process will determine whether the similarities between M3GAN and Paranormal Adoption represent coincidence, genre convention, or unlawful copying.
Because in copyright law, similarity alone is not enough.
Access is what determines everything.
About the Author
