Here’s a summary (from CNN) of the legal argument that just cost Remington $73 million:
Lawyers for the plaintiffs contended that the company marketed rifles by extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of a combat weapon — in violation of a Connecticut law that prevents deceptive marketing practices.
Let’s think about that for a minute. The AR-15 is a militaristic weapon. That’s exactly why so many police officers and soldiers and other government agents carry them.
It’s also why American citizens should own them. They may someday have to fight their own government, and the AR-15 is just the kind of weapon that would be useful in that kind of military situation.
They are also fun to shoot, are easy to customize, can use a wide variety of ammunition, and have a lot of other attributes that make them attractive to people who want to own a rifle.
But as many gun writers point out, one of the best ways to figure out what guns you should own is to look at what your local police carry. And in many — perhaps most — cases, that’s the AR-15. And while the AR-15 is, as ATF likes to say, ‘suitable for sporting purposes,’ that isn’t what it was designed for, or why the police carry them.
People who pretend otherwise — e.g., by using euphemisms like ‘modern sporting rifle’ — are playing a public relations game that they’re destined to lose, as this lawsuit shows.
That is, if Remington had downplayed the ‘militaristic qualities’ of its rifles — focusing instead on their ‘sporting qualities’ — they would still have been sued, just as successfully, for ‘deceptive practices.’
So here’s the kind of judicial Wonderland we now live in: If you say what something is, that’s deceptive. If you say that it’s something else, that’s also deceptive. It’s a classic example of Catch-22. Or in this case, Catch-73 Million.
It’s like Ferrari extolling the racing qualities of their cars, and then being forced into a $73 million settlement in a suit filed by the family of a Ferrari owner who died while driving the car very fast.
It’s like Ryder extolling the cargo-carrying ability of its trucks and then being forced into a $73 million settlement in a suit filed by the families of people killed in the Oklahoma City bombing.
Presumably, the only avenue left for gun companies is to avoid advertising at all. This is probably one of the goals of the lawsuit and the most salient reason why the settlement should be overturned on appeal.
