Hundreds of young girls are getting heartache for the holidays after a doll company backed by “Shark Tank” failed to deliver.
The founders of Naturally Perfect Dolls, who created 18-inch figurines with hair and skin tones resembling children of color, have failed to fill online orders as they go belly-up.
While the company ponders bankruptcy, its owners admit that the 800 dolls that celebrate diversity will be sitting in a warehouse in China rather than under Christmas trees.
“I want answers,” fumed Westchester’s Brittany Hodgins — who ordered her biracial 3 1/2-year-old daughter Ryleigh a $60 doll in January, leaving plenty of time for delivery snafus or fulfillment backups.
“When I told my daughter she wasn’t getting the doll, she was devastated. She kept asking me why, and unfortunately I had no answers to give her. She wants a doll that looks just like her.”
Hodgins, 27, said she made her purchase based on the moving pitch she saw on a January 2017 episode of “Shark Tank.”
Homestead, Fla. couple Angelica and Jason Sweeting said they started Naturally Perfect Dolls in 2015 following a heartbreaking episode when their weeping daughter told them, “I’ll never be beautiful. I need yellow hair and white skin, so that way I’ll be beautiful.”
The “devastated” parents “searched high and low for a doll that would be a positive affirmation for our daughter and we found nothing,” said the mom.
So the couple thought, “let’s create a doll on our own,” Angelica Sweeting said.
They spoke of their mission “to change the standard of beauty one doll at a time.”
Four of the five Sharks didn’t bite. But FUBU founder Daymond John agreed to invest $200,000 in exchange for 30 percent stake of the company.
What 10 million “Shark Tank” viewers didn’t see is that John pulled the plug on the deal a few months after the show aired following what he called “due diligence.”
But the public was never told that the TV investor had lost confidence in the company or why. And the company never informed the public that it had lost its $200,000 in seed money and would likely fold.
Furious customers wondering where their dolls were received excuses about a “shipping delay due to the manufacturer celebrating the Chinese New Year.”
When contacted by The Post last week, Angelica Sweeting said, “I send my deepest apologies. We know what the doll means to little girls and their parents. We understand people are upset. It’s a tough pill to swallow. We had the best intentions.”
Sweeting said that without the “Shark Tank” cash, the business is collapsing. While she promised update emails to customers, she didn’t offer refunds. “The customers’ funds made off pre-orders are with the manufacturer in China,” she said.
“Initially, being on ‘Shark Tank’ was good for us,” Angelica Sweeting said. “But not being able to secure the business funding was hurtful to our business.”
Sweeting said due to a non-disclosure agreement, she couldn’t discuss the Daymond deal that wasn’t.
Her apologies were no solace to Westchester mom Hodgins, who “held out hope” that the doll named “Kennedy” would be on Santa’s sleigh. She said she got no satisfaction from the Sweetings nor Daymond John, who she tried to contact via his website.
“I believe ‘Shark Tank’ should have released a statement saying that they are no longer backing this company,” Hodgins said. “So many customers promised their children these dolls and never received them.”
Contacted by The Post, a John spokesman said: “After review, we never closed our deal with the company, and because of that no money or equity was ever exchanged from either party. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate to learn that there are people who bought the product who did not receive their orders and I am glad to work with those customers on finding a solution.”
A “Shark Tank” spokeswoman would only say, “any on-camera deal is contingent upon appropriate due diligence and the signing of a binding written agreement between the entrepreneur and the shark(s).”