Remington
On December 15, 2014, nine families of the 26 victims of the shooting filed a class-action lawsuit in Connecticut against Bushmaster, Remington Arms, Camfour, a distributor of firearms, and the now-closed East Windsor store, Riverview Sales, where the gunman's rifle was purchased, seeking "unspecified" damages,[188] claiming an exemption from the 2005 Federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) that would normally disallow such a suit as lacking standing.[189][190] The plaintiffs allege that the XM15-E2S is suitable only for military and policing applications and that Bushmaster inappropriately marketed it to civilians.[190] In January 2015, Bushmaster's attorneys petitioned to have the suit moved to federal court because, although the shooting took place in Connecticut, it is located in North Carolina.[185] In February 2015, the victims' families' attorneys made a motion to move the suit back to state court.[191] On April 14, 2016, a Connecticut court denied the defendants' motion to summarily dismiss the case.[192] Lawyers for the defense filed a second motion for dismissal a month later.[193] On October 14, 2016, the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit was granted. The judge ruled the complaint was not valid per federal and Connecticut laws.[194][195][196][197]
The families appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court. In March 2019, the court decided in a 4–3 vote to reverse parts of the trial court's rulings and remand the case back to Bridgeport Superior Court for additional hearings. It ruled[198] that the families' appeal to the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, demonstrating that the gun manufacturers had used advertising that presented the weapons in an "unfair, unethical, or dangerous manner", with Remington seeking to "expand the market for [its] assault weapons through advertising campaigns that encouraged consumers ... to launch offensive assaults against their perceived enemies", was not prohibited by PLCAA, and thus that the plaintiffs had sufficient standing to argue their case at trial court. It also ruled that the plaintiffs can subpoena internal documents on how gun companies have marketed the AR-15.[199] Remington asked the Supreme Court of the United States to review the state court ruling, but in November 2019 the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, allowing the families' suit to proceed.[200]
On July 26, 2021, a judge refused to dismiss the lawsuit. In court documents the next day, Remington offered $33 million to be shared by the nine families.[201] On February 15, 2022, Remington agreed to settle for $73 million,[202] according to the families' attorney, Josh Koskoff.[203]
