On Thursday, the Connecticut Supreme Court put the gun industry on notice: If you advertise your weapons as alluring tools for mass slaughter, you will face consequences—at least in this state. By a 4–3 vote, the court revived a lawsuit by the families of Sandy Hook victims alleging that Remington recklessly marketed its Bushmaster AR-15–style weapon for “illegal, offensive purposes,” contributing to Adam Lanza’s murder of 26 people at their elementary school. The majority ruled that a federal law does not shield Remington from liability for wrongful advertising, permitting a jury to determine whether Remington can be held liable. Its decision is a stunning blow to the firearms industry, which has long claimed near-absolute immunity from such lawsuits. And it allows the plaintiffs to uncover private, potentially damning communications that will reveal how Remington peddles its lethal products to the public. Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement Thursday’s ruling in Soto v. Bushmaster revolves around two laws: the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). CUTPA is a straightforward state regulation that prohibits wrongful advertising—marketing a product in an unfair, unethical, or dangerous manner. The PLCAA, by contrast, is a highly unusual federal statute that limits Americans’ ability to sue gun manufacturers and sellers. Under this law, the gun industry is largely immune from suit in cases when its products are used illegally, even when its own negligence leads to firearm injuries and deaths. Passed in 2005, the PLCAA was designed to shield the gun industry from the kind of lawsuits filed against tobacco companies in the 1990s. These suits accused cigarette manufacturers of creating a public health crisis by violating consumer protection statutes. The National Rifle Association, which described PLCAA as its No. 1 legislative priority, did not want the firearm industry subject to similar liability. The organization hoped that courts would interpret the law as a sweeping grant of immunity from the liability that every other industry, even nonlethal ones, must guard against. For instance, car companies include disclaimers in commercials advising viewers not to try various dangerous stunts themselves. Pharmaceutical companies list possible side effects in each ad. But firearm advertisements rarely, if ever, warn viewers against unsafe use of weapons because they believe federal law absolves them of their obligations to consumers. Advertisement Advertisement Because of the PLCAA, families of the Sandy Hook massacre and other mass shootings cannot sue gun shops and manufacturers for negligently making or selling assault weapons. But the Sandy Hook families pursued a different legal theory: They argued that Remington’s advertisements for the AR-15–style weapon ran afoul of CUTPA by promoting unethical and illegal use of the weapon. Their lawsuit cited multiple ads that depicted the gun not as a tool of home defense, hunting, or sport, but as a weapon of war meant to kill a large number of people in a small amount of time. Remington advertised the gun as “the ultimate combat weapons system” used by the armed forces in theaters of war. It depicted a close-up of the gun with the slogan “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.” It touted the weapon as an “uncompromising choice” with “military proven performance.” As the Connecticut Supreme Court explained, the thrust of Remington’s ads was that the gun would “enable a shooter to inflict unparalleled carnage.” Advertisement The lawsuit cited multiple ads that depicted the gun not as a tool of home defense, hunting, or sport, but as a weapon of war. The plaintiffs relied on CUTPA in an effort to work around the PLCAA, because the federal statute includes an important exception. While it bars most negligence suits, the PLCAA permits claims alleging that a gun manufacturer or seller “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the [firearm], and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.” If CUTPA is “applicable” to the sale of firearms, then, the plaintiffs’ wrongful advertising suit is not prohibited by the PLCAA. Advertisement Federal judges have been divided on the question of whether a broad regulation of trade and public safety is “applicable” to the “sale or marketing” of guns. Some have held that a law must be designed to regulate firearms in order to qualify; others assert that any law that can be reasonably interpreted to regulate the gun trade counts as “applicable.” The Connecticut Supreme Court chose this latter interpretation, finding that the word’s “ordinary, dictionary meaning” is simply “capable of being applied.” Advertisement From there, the majority easily concluded that CUTPA is “applicable” to gun marketing by forbidding the advertisement of weapons for “illegal, offensive purposes.” This wrongful advertising, moreover, may have been “a causal factor in increasing the casualties of the Sandy Hook massacre.” As the majority explained, the plaintiffs allege that Remington sought to “expand the market for [its] assault weapons through advertising campaigns that encouraged consumers … to launch offensive assaults against their perceived enemies.” PLCAA does not stop these plaintiffs from asking a jury to hold Remington “accountable for the injuries wrought by such unscrupulous marketing practices.” As the Sandy Hook families’ attorney said at oral arguments, “Remington may never have known Adam Lanza, but they had been courting him for years.” Advertisement Advertisement What happens now? As the court repeatedly pointed out, the plaintiffs have not actually won their lawsuit; they’ve merely secured the ability to make their case to a Connecticut jury. In the process, they will seek extensive discovery from Remington, poring over its strategy for selling guns. The company has fought to keep its internal communications secret, and gun rights advocates have long hoped to expose the industry’s alleged disregard for life and safety when marketing weapons. Now, at long last, the Sandy Hook families may reveal its tactics in court. There remains, however, a possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court could first intervene. Would the court’s conservatives dare deny justice to the grieving families of a notorious massacre? It seems possible, though Chief Justice John Roberts must recognize the atrocious optics of the court’s intervention.<doc-sep>A gun found at the home of Newtown mass murderer Adam Lanza. Photo: Connecticut State Police via Getty Images Long-frustrated efforts by the families of kids killed by gun violence to hold manufacturers responsible for their deadly wares struck at least temporary pay dirt in a Connecticut Supreme Court decision today. The court allowed a suit against the manufacturer of the weapon used by Adam Lanza in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown go forward despite federal statutes shielding gunmakers from liability. It vindicated a novel legal strategy involving separate state laws, as the New York Times explained: The court agreed with the lower court judge’s decision to dismiss claims that directly challenged the federal law shielding the gun companies from litigation, but found the case can move forward based on a state law regarding unfair trade practices. Justices wrote in the majority opinion that “it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet.” A 2005 federal law that was a high priority for the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby generally greatly restricts suits holding manufacturers and dealers liable for the death and injury caused by guns. But there are exceptions for violations of state laws, and that’s what the Connecticut court will now allow a state court trial to examine. Lawyers pointed out advertising — with messages of combat dominance and hyper-masculinity — that resonated with disturbed young men who could be induced to use the weapon to commit violence. “Remington may never have known Adam Lanza, but they had been courting him for years,” Joshua D. Koskoff, one of the lawyers representing the families, told the panel of judges during oral arguments in the case in 2017. The weapon used by Mr. Lanza had been legally purchased by his mother, Nancy Lanza, whom he also killed. Because this decision involves interpretation of a federal statute, the gunmaker will almost certainly appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Remington could also prevail at a trial, so this is just a first step toward manufacturer liability. But unless SCOTUS steps in to stop a trial, it could represent a blow to the gun industry even if it eventually wins the case, as the Hartford Courant noted: It also paves the way for the families to subpoena internal documents on how the gun companies have marketed the AR-15, which has become the weapon of choice for mass shooters. The gun manufacturers have closely guarded information on how they market the assault weapons … “The families’ goal has always been to shed light on Remington’s calculated and profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users, all at the expense of Americans’ safety. Today’s decision is a critical step toward achieving that goal,” [attorney Josh] Koskoff added [in a statement]. In the long-running war between the gun lobby and gun safety advocates, the Connecticut battle could possibly represent a turning point.<doc-sep>"There is a reason why this particular consumer product is the one that is used by people who want to inflict the most damage and we have seen it time and time again since my son and his classmates were killed,'' said David Wheeler, whose son Ben was killed in the Sandy Hook attack. "That reason very likely potentially resides in the documents that we have been unable to look at until now."<doc-sep>A customer tries out a Remington 1911 equipped with a silencer at Blue Ridge Arsenal in Chantilly, Va. A divided Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled gun-maker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the Bushmaster rifle used to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. Justices issued a 4-3 ruling that reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit and overturned a lower-court ruling that the lawsuit was prohibited by a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes.<doc-sep>
Image : Getty Images The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled by a 4-3 decision to revive a lawsuit brought by the families of Sandy Hook alleging that firearm manufacturer Remington recklessly marketed its Bushmaster AR-15-style weapon for “illegal, offensive purposes.” Remington’s gun was used by Adam Lanza to murder 26 faculty and children at Sandy Hook Elementary School. A majority ruled in Soto v. Bushmaster that federal law failed to prohibit Remington from liability for wrongful advertising, thereby permitting a jury to determine whether or not the manufacturer can be held liable. The decision is doubtlessly stunning to the firearm industry, which has long claimed immunity from such suits. Thursday’s ruling centered on the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act along with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms. CUTPA, the more straightforward of the two, prohibits wrongful advertising, defined in part as marketing a product in an unethical, dangerous or otherwise unfair manner. The PLCAA, passed in 2005, limits the ability of Americans to sue manufacturers and sellers, guarding the industry against cases when its products are used illegally, even when their own negligence leads to injury or death. Due to the PLCAA, Sandy Hook families and loved ones of other mass shooting victims cannot sue gun sellers or manufacturers for negligent marketing or selling firearms. Soto, however, revolved around a different legal theory, in which Sandy Hook families argued that Remington’s advertisements for their weapon ran afoul of CUTPA by promoting illegal use of their product. The families cited multiple ads that depicted the gun as a weapon of war meant to kill multiple targets in a small window of time. According to Slate, Remington advertised its Bushmaster as “the ultimate combat weapons system” used by armed forces, depicting its weapon alongside the slogan “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.” Connecticut’s Supreme Court agreed with the Sandy Hook families, stating in its decision that Remington’s ads pitched a weapon that would “enable a shooter to inflict unparalleled carnage.” While the PLCAA bars most negligence suits, it permits claims which allege that manufactures or sellers knowingly violated state or federal statutes applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms in which the violation was the proximate cause of harm. In short, if CUTPA applies, PLCAA would not prohibit suit. While federal judges remain split on which laws apply to firearm manufacturers, Connecticut judges have drawn a line in the sand. While U.S. Supreme Court intervention on behalf of Remington is a distinct possibility, Connecticut’s decision could inspire lawmakers and lawyers to take a hard look at PLCAA. The quicker it can be repealed, the better.