Bad bad bad precedent: Remington settles lawsuit with families

[Old_Me]

I suspect that the immediate effects of this settlement will be felt by gun magazines. The obvious way to avoid future lawsuits over advertising claims is not to advertise. Manufacturers can simply provide sample firearms to their favorite internet "Influencers", and a few magazine reviewers, rather than writing huge checks to advertising agencies and print media companies. As long as the manufacturers are not paying or influencing reviewers, Independent firearm reviews are not advertising and manufacturers could most likely not be held liable for the content of the reviews.

yes, but regarding "magazines", i may have thought the actual magazine that has the ammo loaded into them, not the magazines we read.

so just going on that premise of "loaded magazines", then the gun makers and web influencers (never thought of them as that, just reviewers), they can easily say, "this hand gun comes standard with ONE (or two) 10 round magazine(s)"

then of course, the actual gun maker's website store, one can order whatever else they want, including of course, higher capacity magazines, and not actually be "advertising" them out in the open to the public.

 

[Bassbob]

It's ludicrous to think that merely advertising your ( legal) product should be something you can be sued for. Even cigarette companies advertise. I would argue that minors shouldn't be perusing gun magazines since they cannot legally own guns.

 

[benstt]

It's ludicrous to think that merely advertising your ( legal) product should be something you can be sued for. Even cigarette companies advertise. I would argue that minors shouldn't be perusing gun magazines since they cannot legally own guns.

Cigarette companies have also paid hundreds of billions of dollars in lawsuits and settlements. The Remington settlement is small potatoes in comparison.

 

[Bassbob]

Cigarette companies have also paid hundreds of billions of dollars in lawsuits and settlements. The Remington settlement is small potatoes in comparison.

The tobacco industry also doesn’t have a federal law designed to shield them from liability for misuse by criminals.

 

[Old_Me]

Cigarette companies have also paid hundreds of billions of dollars in lawsuits and settlements. The Remington settlement is small potatoes in comparison.

back in the mid to late 1990's, a company i worked for, cigarettes was thier #1 customer, and the liquor industry from KY, was #2..

i was told to go back to the warehouse up here in MA, and reload a trailer of cigarettes, that were previously unloaded, maybe about a couple of weeks earlier.

apparently, there was a recall, yes a recall on the cigs. apparently the filters were found to be a possible cause of cancer..!!

like WTF.......i thought

so anyways, they got hauled back to the south, and from what i was told, i cannot confirm, they got the filters chopped off, and the tobacco was "reprocessed" into those new (back then) no name generic cigs that had the nearly same color and design as the name brand cigs, then got resold.

another "story" i as told, was that they were not "reprocessed", and shipped over seas to some other country.....

i dunno.

all i do know is, i took that trailer load (and there were literally a couple dozen trailer loads, back south to the manufacturer.

can't recall if it was RJ Reynolds, or Phillip Morris

 

[BassCliff]

Hi @wmg1299,

Thank you for your thoughts and insights. It will be interesting to see how this case changes the landscape.

Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff

 

[jumpinjoe]

While the settlement is definitely not a good thing, I do not believe that it will be a doomsday event for the firearms industry. The harmful legal precedent was set when SCOTUS refused to hear the case, not when the parties later settled the case. The Court's refusal to hear the case will be interpreted to mean that causes of action based on deceptive or negligent advertising/marketing claims filed against gun manufacturers/sellers in state courts are not prohibited by the PLCAA. SCOTUS did not issue a ruling stating that manufacturers and sellers can be sued over marketing and advertising, they just refused to intervene in this particular case. This leaves the door open for a future, hopefully more favorable, SCOTUS ruling on the issue. The PLCAA presumably still protects the firearm industry against claims based solely on the criminal misuse of their products.

I suspect that the immediate effects of this settlement will be felt by gun magazines. The obvious way to avoid future lawsuits over advertising claims is not to advertise. Manufacturers can simply provide sample firearms to their favorite internet "Influencers", and a few magazine reviewers, rather than writing huge checks to advertising agencies and print media companies. As long as the manufacturers are not paying or influencing reviewers, Independent firearm reviews are not advertising and manufacturers could most likely not be held liable for the content of the reviews.

The worst part for gun magazines and websites is that they will still have to review new firearms, or risk having no content to feature in their articles. The only upside for consumers is that firearm reviews may become more honest once the reviewers no longer risk losing advertising dollars if they give a poor score to a new gun. Unfortunately, cover prices for magazines would have to increase to offset the lost advertising revenue. All forms of print media have been suffering for years, and many publications could go under if readers are not be willing to pay more for the magazines.

These are just my personal predictions, and I've been wrong before.

Some good points here and well thought through.

 

[BreakingWind]

The tobacco industry also doesn’t have a federal law designed to shield them from liability for misuse by criminals.

You must mean the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which the Biden Administration as well as the Antigun Advocates want to overturn. If it ever does it will spell the end of the US Gun Industry:

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S.-based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

Biden wants to end gun-maker liability protections. That could sink the industry, advocates say.

“He wants to drive us out of business,” said Mark Oliva, a director at a firearm industry trade group.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Bassbob]

You must mean the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which the Biden Administration as well as the Antigun Advocates want to overturn. If it ever does it will spell the end of the US Gun Industry:

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S.-based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

Biden wants to end gun-maker liability protections. That could sink the industry, advocates say.

“He wants to drive us out of business,” said Mark Oliva, a director at a firearm industry trade group.

www.nbcnews.com

Indeed I do.