...I also would think that even if the plaintiffs somehow win and are awarded damages, ROC would have easy grounds to appeal that decision.
Well not for the reasons you appear to be claiming. Again, there's a whole lot you don't understand about law. As I've pointed out multiple times, law is non-intuitive. One can't just reasons things out, at least without a substantial foundation of core knowledge. To understand law one must study it, do the research, and do the reading, especially court opinions.
So whenever one starts out with anything like, "I also would think that..." he is pretty much guaranteed to be wrong.
So let's go through the substantive issues you raise.
How does that end up working out in a case that is interstate, involving a state law that is applicable where the plaintiffs filed, but not necessarily recognized in the state where the defendant is based, or even any other state?...
Actually that sort of thing happens all the time. People travel. Business do business in multiple States. Actions someone takes in one State can have an effect in other States. And so there is a great deal of law on the subject.
So perhaps the first question is whether a Connecticut court can have personal jurisdiction of Remington, i. e., can a Connecticut court here require Remington to appear in Connecticut and answer allegations that Remington has wrongfully caused an injury for which it must pay compensation? And the answer is almost certainly "yes."
The basic rule was set out in
International Shoe v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), at 316:
....Historically, the jurisdiction of courts to render judgment in personam is grounded on their de facto power over the defendant's person. Hence, his presence within the territorial jurisdiction of a court was prerequisite to its rendition of a judgment personally binding him. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 95 U. S. 733. But now that the capias ad respondendum has given way to personal service of summons or other form of notice, due process requires only that, in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U. S. 457, 311 U. S. 463. See Holmes, J., in McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U. S. 90, 243 U. S. 91. Compare Hoopeston Canning Co. v. Cullen, 318 U. S. 313, 318 U. S. 316, 318 U. S. 319. See Blackmer v. United States, 284 U. S. 421; Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U. S. 352; Young v. Masci, 289 U. S. 253....
So let's look at the bases for subjecting Remington to the jurisdiction of a Connecticut court:
- Remington does business in Connecticut. It sells merchandise to wholesalers and retailers in Connecticut, ships products to wholesalers and retailers in Connecticut, and Remington is paid therefor.
- Remington advertises in Connecticut.
- The incident that is the basis for the claim against Remington took place in Connecticut.
- Taking all that together it is a virtual certainty that a court would find that Remington is sufficiently present in Connecticut and has sufficient contacts with Connecticut that requiring the Remington answer allegations of wrongful conduct causing injury in Connecticut wouldn't offend due process.
And since Remington does business in Connecticut it is subject to Connecticut law insofar as its conduct allegedly causes injury in Connecticut.
...I also agree that it's going to be very tough (even assuming that the cited advertisements aren't ex post facto)...
Ex post facto has nothing to do with this. That is a concept that applies in criminal law. No one has alleged that the Remington advertisements are criminal.
Also, whether it will be difficult for the plaintiffs to prove the facts necessary to support their theory of liability is irrelevant. See post 7. In ruling on a motion to strike the court hears no evidence, nor does it need to decide if any of the facts alleged are true. At this points the court looks only at the facts alleged in the complaint and assumes that those facts are true.
... I know other states have tried, unsuccessfully, to sue CO on the Marijuana issue. It would seem state's rights come into play here, and that the Connecticut courts are attempting to enforce a state law beyond the borders of that state, which doesn't seem to have worked out well for plaintiffs in many other instances....
Except details matter, and those cases involve very different legal principles.