Plaintiffs in a lawsuit targeting storied gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson are now dragging media into the fray.
In the case Roberts v. Smith & Wesson Brands, which is being considered by the Circuit Court for Illinois’s 19th Judicial Circuit in Lake County, plaintiffs are blaming S&W’s advertising for the deadly July 4, 2002, deadly Highland Park Parade mass murder in suburban Chicago. The killer was using a S&W M&P15 when he perpetrated the heinous act.
Now, YouTube firearms reviewer James Reeves, who is also an attorney, has revealed that he has been subpoenaed in the case because plaintiffs’ definition of advertising even includes “unpaid organic social-media content.”
“I was just subpoenaed in an anti-gun lawsuit…for being a guntuber,” Reeves said in a social media post. “The case is Roberts v. Smith & Wesson, and it’s the same playbook, almost copy+paste, of the Soto v. Bushmaster ‘Sandy Hook’ lawsuit against Remington, which put them out of business.”
As Reeves explained in the post, plaintiffs in the case are attempting to blame S&W for the incident using the theory of “negligent marketing.
“They say S&W appealed to young men interested in militaristic imagery and that this influenced the shooter to select the M&P15, and that this more or less was a cause of the incident,” he wrote. “Insanity. Now they are reaching beyond S&W and into the firearms media. I was served with a subpoena demanding years of info and analytics from me about S&W and reviews I’ve done.”
Reeves said the fact that the plaintiffs’ subpoena defines an “advertisement” to include even unpaid organic social-media content should be a big concern to all gun reviewers.
“In other words, by the plaintiffs’ definition, even an independent review of a lawful product is ‘advertising,’ and they think they are entitled to any info that touched on essentially any YouTube video about the M&P15 during the relevant period,” Reeves explained. “That is EXACTLY the end-run around the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that led me to draft what became the PLCAA Clarification Act.”
Versions of the PLCSAA Clarification act written by Reeves have been enacted in West Virginia, Montana and Kentucky, and are being considered in other states. Illinois, however, is not one of them.
“Illinois obviously is not going to pass it,” he continued. “But Congress can. And whatever your politics on guns, there is a larger issue here: If a manufacturer sends a journalist or creator a product to independently test, that does not magically transform the resulting review into advertising. Treating independent editorial coverage as corporate marketing merely because someone reviewed a lawful products is a dangerous theory that reaches far beyond the gun industry.”
Ultimately, Reeves warned other reviewers what to do if they ever receive such a subpoena.
“One final note for the people in the gun space: If you receive one of these subpoenas, do not ignore it and do not start deleting anything,” he concluded. “Feel free to contact me and we can discuss whether I can assist with your response or coordinate with appropriate local counsel.”
