The CT. Supreme Court's decision is that, "The plaintiffs’ wrongful death claims predicated on the theory that
the defendants violated CUTPA by advertising and marketing the rifle in an unethical, oppressive, immoral, and unscrupulous manner were
not time barred."
"The plaintiffs further contend that the defendants unethically promoted their assault weapons for offensive, military style missions by publishing advertisements and distributing product catalogs that (1)promote the AR-15 as ‘‘the uncompromising choice
when you demand a rifle as mission adaptable as you are,’’ (2) depict soldiers moving on patrol through jungles, armed with Bushmaster rifles, (3) feature the slogan ‘‘[w]hen you need to perform under pressure, Bushmaster delivers,’’ superimposed over the silhouette of a soldier holding his helmet against the backdrop of an American flag, (4) tout the ‘‘military proven performance’’ of firearms like the XM15-E2S, (5) promote civilian rifles as ‘‘the ultimate combat weapons system,’’ (6) invoke the unparalleled destructive power of their
AR-15 rifles, (7) claim that the most elite branches of the United States military, including the United States Navy SEALs, the United States Army Green Berets and Army Rangers, and other special forces, have used the AR-15, and (8) depict a close-up of an AR-15 with the
following slogan: ‘‘Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.’’
The CT. Supreme Court, explains the potential advertising liability of Remington under CT law as,
"The gravamen of a wrongful advertising claim, by contrast, is that an advertisement models or encourages illegal or unsafe behavior. In such instances, the immediate victims are just as likely to be third parties who are not customers, whether it be individuals who engage in inappropriate conduct inspired by the advertisements or the direct victims of that conduct. For example, when an especially racy sports car commercial disclaims, ‘‘professional driver, closed course, do not attempt this at home,’’ the perceived risk is not merely—or even
primarily—that viewers will purchase that particular vehicle and drive it unsafely as a result of the commercial. Of at least equal concern is the possibility that noncustomer viewers will emulate the commercial when driving their own vehicles, violating motor vehicle laws, and possibly causing injury to themselves or others, including passengers or pedestrians."
Reading a bit more into the case, Remington appears ill-served by its lawyers in failing to address whether or not the CT law regarding advertising is unconstitutional content discrimination in that it does not appear to be narrowly tailored and not really within the strictures of deceptive trade practices. Thus, arguably, which I cannot find that Remington did so as I do not have access to their briefs, the CUTPA law and the CT decision and CUTPA as applied might violate the 1st Amendment rights of Remington. While commercial speech has traditionally been given lower protection, it has been within the confines of deceptive practices, not hyperbole. If the latter is the case, Captain Morgan rum is in trouble. The current court may have been more sympathetic to claims on this ground than the PLCAA. From my reading, Remington seemed to rely on the PLCAA as a magic shield at the trial court which agreed with it and the CT court pierced with their ruling.
In reading the CT Supreme Court opinion, I noted that the CT. Court relies extensively on FTC regulation of advertising which more or less makes it difficult for CT to claim independent state grounds regarding CUTPA's interpretation. If Remington's lawyers had been on top of their game, this is a major weakness of the CT Court's opinion that should have been addressed.
Thus, my prediction is that the CT Court ruling is more or less designed to allow discovery but that depending on what trial court does, may act against the plaintiffs if no gross idiocies expressing bloodthirsty motives are found in Remington/ad agency correspondence.