Negligence (dismissed)

The defendants had a duty to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in designing,
manufacturing, marketing, advertising, promoting, distributing, supplying, and selling their guns in order to reduce the risk that their guns would be trafficked into Mexico.
The defendants knew or chose to be willfully blind to the fact that their design,
marketing, and distribution of guns posed a serious risk of harm to people in Mexico and to the Government, but they nevertheless continued to sell their guns without exercising reasonable care.

Public Nuisance (dismissed)

The defendants’ conduct arms criminals, constituting a dangerous threat to the public. They design, market, distribute, promote, and sell guns with reckless disregard for human life and for the peace, tranquility, and economic well-being of the Mexican public. They have knowingly refused to monitor and discipline their distribution systems, making their guns easily available to anyone intent on crime. The defendants knew or chose to be willfully blind to the fact that they facilitate and encourage easy access by persons intent on murder, mayhem, or other crimes, including illegal purchasers who foreseeably traffic the guns into Mexico. The defendants’ conduct has thereby created and contributed to a public nuisance by unreasonably interfering with public safety and health and undermining Mexico’s gun laws, resulting in the specific and particularized injuries suffered by the Government.

Defective condition - Unreasonably dangerous (dismissed)

The guns manufactured and supplied by Manufacturer Defendants were defective in design or formulation in that, at the time they left the Manufacturer Defendants’ control:
a. they were unreasonably dangerous to the purchasers and to others against whom they were likely to be used;
b. the foreseeable risks to the purchasers exceeded the benefits associated with their design or formulation;
c. they were more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect when used in their intended or reasonably foreseeable manner;
d. a reasonably prudent manufacturer or distributor, being fully aware of the risks posed, would not have placed the product on the market;

Negligence per se (dismissed)

The defendants violated statutory duties, the Government is within the class intended to be protected by the statutes, the statutory violations are a proximate cause of the Government’s injury, and the Government’s injuries are of the type against which the statutes are designed to protect.
The defendants breached the duties they owe to the Government by, among other things, failing to monitor and discipline their distribution systems so as to prevent or reduce the trafficking of their guns into Mexico. In so doing, all Defendants acted with actual malice.

Gross Negligence (dismissed)

Defendants’ active facilitation of the trafficking of guns into Mexico, and their other reckless and unlawful conduct described in detail above, led to the epidemic of gun violence in Mexico and has strengthened the cartels. Defendants’ reckless and unlawful conduct has caused tens of thousands of deaths and cost many billions of dollars in harm—circumstances that constituted an imminent or clear and present danger amounting to more than normal and usual peril.
The defendants in fact knew of the imminent danger that their conduct posed to the
Government. They were aware of the devastating and dangerous consequences of failing
to monitor and discipline their distribution systems, of facilitating the unlawful trafficking of
guns into Mexico, and of engaging in the other unlawful conduct described in detail above.
The defendants nevertheless continued, and continue today, to engage in all of that conduct, demonstrating their conscious disregard of the consequences of their actions. Their conduct was so reckless and wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard of and indifference to the life, safety, and rights of persons in Mexico and of the Government.

Unjust Enrichment and Restitution (dismissed)

The defendants have reaped enormous profits and gains from the sale of their guns that have foreseeably been trafficked into Mexico.
Those sales have resulted in enormous increases in the Government’s expenditures, including but not limited to the following areas: medical care, police investigations, emergency personnel, public health resources, human services, courts, prisons, and related expenses.
The Government has also been negatively affected by Defendants’ sales due to the decrease in property values throughout Mexico, loss of businesses, difficulty in developing the economy and society of Mexico, and loss of substantial productivity.

Violation of Mass. G. L. c. 93A (dismissed)

The defendant Smith & Wesson violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act,
Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93A (“Chapter 93A”), by marketing that emphasized the ability of civilians to use Smith & Wesson assault rifles in unlawful, military-style attacks.
Smith & Wesson knowingly violated Chapter 93A by marketing products like its semi-automatic assault rifles to the civilian market in ways that highlighted their efficacy for civilians wanting to carry out unlawful military-style combat missions and that encouraged and promoted that misuse. For example, as noted above Smith & Wesson uses the “M&P” or “Military and Police” designation, emphasizing that its products are capable of being deployed in combat-like scenarios. And its marketing highlights the ability of its products to rapidly dispatch large numbers of opponents in armed combat, appealing especially to criminals like the cartels.
Smith & Wesson knew that its marketing and advertising would attract persons and organizations that intended to use Smith & Wesson’s products to battle against the military
and police, including the military and police in Mexico. Smith & Wesson further knew that its products would be trafficked into Mexico for use by the drug cartels there. Smith & Wesson knew that its products, and its marketing of those products, created an unreasonable risk of physical injury to persons in Mexico.

Violation of Cutpa (dismissed)

Colt violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 42-110a et seq. (“CUTPA”), by marketing that emphasized the ability of civilians to use Colt assault rifles in unlawful, military-style attacks.
Colt knowingly violated CUTPA by marketing products like its semi-automatic assault rifles to the civilian market in ways that highlighted their efficacy for civilians wanting to carry out unlawful military-style combat missions and that encouraged and promoted that misuse. For example, as noted above Colt specifically labels its products with militaristic terms like “Trooper” and “Patrol” to increase the viewer’s association of Colt’s products with military style combat.
Colt knew that its marketing and advertising would attract persons and organizations that intended to use Colt’s products to battle against the military and police, including the military and police in Mexico.
Colt further knew that its products would be trafficked into Mexico for use by the drug cartels there. Colt knew that its products, and its marketing of those products, created an unreasonable risk of physical injury to persons in Mexico.
Colt’s conduct in producing and marketing its military-style assault weapons is a knowing violation of CUTPA, and those violations were a substantial factor in causing the injuries that the Government has sustained.