Not good besides costing Remington a ton of money frivolously.
https://apnews.com/f8e09273b78343afa7a2b0ae105ec5ed
https://apnews.com/f8e09273b78343afa7a2b0ae105ec5ed
I'm sorry, perhaps I'm obtuse, but I don't understand how the marketing strategy of a company affects someone who steals the product the company is selling. I thought marketing affected and was aimed at people who were going to buy their product. What company has a marketing campaign aimed at thieves?
Also, and I may be wrong, but didn't he use an Armalite and not a Remington.
I wondered the same thing. The shooter didn't buy his AR, he stole it after he killed his mother. She bought it legally.
So how does their marketing have anything to do with this case?
I read somewhere that the mother bought the Bushmaster just around Adam Lanza's 18th birthday. This lawsuit is essentially trying to prove that Adam saw an advertisement he thought was cool, and pressured mom to buy the AR. That he later stole and committed mass murder with. Yeah, it is that long of a reach. It is along the same lines as my son sees an ad for McDonald's, eats a bunch of hamburgers, gets fat and heart disease and wants to sue because the burgers look tasty.
You left out the part about stealing the mother's Happy Meals after killing her.
These folks are following the tobacco litigation strategy--look for them to focus on alleged marketing of all firearms to children. They went after tobacco on such things a Joe Camel that allegedly made smoking "cool". This is aimed at suppressing any ads for firearms that allegedly might appeal to children.
That is why the suit will eventually die because advertising agencies and their corporate clients really do not want to go down this rabbit hole. I suspect the case is all about optics, politics, media, and discovery motions rather than actual money involved.Hopefully someone will figure out how to drag Hollywood and the video game industry into the suit. They've done more to make firearms appeal to children than any gun manufacturer ever has.
This is one of the Bushmaster "man card" advertisements the plaintiffs are unhappy about:
https://www.ammoland.com/2010/05/bushmaster-man-card/#axzz655B9AVoX
Silly ad .... but not sue-worthy.... IMHO.
All firearms companies ought to take this as a lesson, Imo. There are other ways of promoting firearms, even AR-15s, that are better, that can promote a healthy firearm culture ....sports, hunting, etc., that might be perceived as far less .... tendentious as this.
I know because I've seen them in the past.
The antigunners will object to anything that promotes guns , but there are steps that can be taken to reduce the effectiveness of lawsuits like this and will help the pro-2A cause .... or certainly not actually undercut it.
Couldn't Remington counter suit for expenses after they win the case?
Sounds like you have something there.These folks are following the tobacco litigation strategy--look for them to focus on alleged marketing of all firearms to children. They went after tobacco on such things a Joe Camel that allegedly made smoking "cool". This is aimed at suppressing any ads for firearms that allegedly might appeal to children.