The case was closely followed by gun control advocates, gun rights supporters, and manufacturers because it had the potential to pave the way for victims of other shootings to sue firearm manufacturers.
In 2015, the families of the victims and a survivor of the shooting sued Remington, claiming that the company should never have sold such a dangerous weapon to the public. They stated that their primary goal was to prevent future mass shootings by requiring gun manufacturers to be more responsible with their products and how they are marketed.
Some of the parents involved in the lawsuit described a bittersweet victory at a press conference.
"Nothing will bring Dylan back," Nicole Hockley, the mother of a 6-year-old boy killed in the shooting, said. "My hope for this lawsuit," she said, "is that by confronting and finally being penalized for the impact of their work, gun companies, as well as the insurance and banking industries that enable them, will be forced to make their practices safer than they've ever been, saving lives and preventing more shootings."
"While this settlement does not erase the pain of that tragic day," President Joe Biden said, "it does begin the necessary work of holding gun manufacturers accountable for manufacturing weapons of war and irresponsibly marketing these firearms."
According to gun rights advocates, the settlement will have little impact on rifle sales and gun manufacturers, who are still shielded from liability in most cases under federal law. However, some experts believe it may prompt insurers to put pressure on gun manufacturers to make changes.
"We may see increased pressure from insurance companies on gun manufacturers to avoid the kinds of design choices or marketing practices that gave rise to this litigation," said Timothy D. Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University.
This is not the first settlement reached between victims and a gun manufacturer. Families of eight victims of the Washington, D.C.-area snipers received a $2.5 million settlement in 2004, with Bushmaster Firearms Inc. contributing $550,000 and the gun dealer contributing the rest. However, Lytton believes the Sandy Hook settlement will have a greater impact because it is so much higher.
The Connecticut civil court case focused on how the firearm used by the Newtown shooter — a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle — was marketed, with allegations that it targeted younger, at-risk males through advertising and product placement in violent video games. In one of Remington's advertisements, the rifle is shown against a plain background with the words "Consider Your Man Card Reissued."
Remington also agreed to allow the families to release numerous documents obtained during the lawsuit, including ones showing how the weapon was marketed, as part of the settlement, the families said. It's unclear when those documents will be made public.
Remington had argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove that its marketing had anything to do with the shooting.
The company also claimed that the lawsuit should have been dismissed because of a federal law that grants the gun industry broad immunity. Under an exception to federal law, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Remington could be sued under state law for how it marketed the rifle. The gun manufacturer filed an appeal with the United States Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.
Whether similar lawsuits against gun manufacturers can proceed remains uncertain because the United States Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the exception to the 2005 immunity law used by the Sandy Hook families, according to Lytton.
Biden called on Congress to repeal the immunity law in a statement released on Tuesday. Meanwhile, he pledged to "continue to urge state and local lawmakers, lawyers, and gun violence survivors to pursue efforts to replicate the success of the Sandy Hook families."
Remington, one of the country's oldest gun manufacturers, filed for bankruptcy for the second time in 2020, and its assets were later sold off to several companies. Following the school shooting, the manufacturer was burdened by lawsuits and retail sales restrictions.
Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old gunman in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, used a Remington rifle legally owned by his mother to kill the children and educators on December 14, 2012, after killing his mother at their Newtown home. As the cops arrived, he killed himself with a handgun.
According to Connecticut's child advocate, Lanza's severe and deteriorating mental health problems, preoccupation with violence, and access to his mother's weapons "proved a recipe for mass murder."
On Tuesday, messages were left for Remington and its lawyers seeking comment.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a Newtown-based organization that represents gun manufacturers, claims that the case should not have been allowed to proceed and that the plaintiffs would have lost at trial. It also stated that the settlement had no bearing on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 federal law that shielded gun manufacturers from liability.
"The plaintiffs never produced any evidence that Bushmaster advertising had any bearing or influence on Nancy Lanza's decision to legally purchase a Bushmaster rifle, or on murderer Adam Lanza's decision to steal that rifle, kill his mother in her sleep, and go on to commit the rest of his horrifying crimes," the group said in a statement.
Damages from the settlement will be paid only to the families who signed on to the lawsuit, not to the families of other victims. According to their spokesperson, Andrew Friedman, the families have not yet decided what they will do with the settlement money.
According to the plaintiffs, four insurers for the now-bankrupt company agreed to pay the full amount of coverage available, totaling $73 million.
"Today is about right and wrong," Francine Wheeler, whose 6-year-old son, Ben, was killed in the shooting, said. "Today, our legal system provided us with some justice." However, David and I will never receive true justice. True justice would be having our 15-year-old standing next to us right now, healthy. Benny, on the other hand, will never reach the age of 15. He will always be six years old because he is no longer with us."