The Kardashian sisters' coffer is safe.
A judge ruled last week that the trio, who immediately stopped lending their name and faces to prepaid debit cards after they came under fire for being very user-unfriendly, had no obligation to promote a product that might be considered unlawful.
The company that had licensed the ladies' images, Fresno-based Revenue Resource Group, had claimed that the Kardashians left them in the lurch and cost it millions by abruptly pulling out of their two-year contract.
After the Kardashian Prepaid MasterCard immediately came under fire upon its debut in November for not being upfront about numerous fees that consumers could incur for everyday use, an attorney for Kim, Khloé and Kourtney moved to distance them from the deal ASAP.
The sisters did not breach their contract by terminating the deal or by voicing concerns about the card, Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeff Hamilton also ruled today.
RRG "has not met its burden to show that it is likely to prevail, because it has not addressed the claim the contract involved an unlawful/fraudulent product or how damages could be proven even had the defendants remained silent, given the record before the Court of apparently universal condemnation of the product's profit making features," Hamilton wrote.
The judge also ordered the company to pay for the Kardashians' $6,825 legal bill.
Which Kim Kardashian, if she's so inclined, can then put toward suing Bret Lockett.
While the indignant star has promised legal action against In Touch Weekly and the football player for a story claiming that Kim exchanged naughty texts and phone calls with Lockett for five months while she was seeing Kris Humphries, she will not be filing her lawsuit today, as TMZ reported earlier.
There is no timetable in place to pursue that course of attack, a source confirms to E! News.
Lockett went on CNN's Showbiz Tonight Friday and admitted to never actually meeting Kim in person, but he says that his story is true and he has no plans to retract or apologize.
Kim, meanwhile, maintains that she didn't even know who Lockett was before this story came about.
—Additional reporting by Ken Baker