Stopping Harmful and Outrageous Torts Act

Proponents argue this bill clarifies existing protections against frivolous lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry through litigation costs, not verdicts—a concern raised after the 1990s wave of city lawsuits against gun makers. They contend the PLCAA protects lawful commerce and prevents an abuse of litigation. Critics and gun violence prevention advocates argue the bill creates de facto immunity for manufacturers who market to high-risk buyers, fail to implement safety features, or use marketing practices that encourage illegal sales. They cite cities' partial litigation successes (e.g., settlements with Smith & Wesson in 2000) as evidence that liability incentivizes safer industry practices. Non-partisan evidence from legal scholars shows PLCAA has substantially reduced successful litigation against manufacturers, though disputes persist over whether this increases or decreases overall public safety.