California § 3273.52 - An act or omission by a firearm industry member in violation of the firearm indus

§ 3273.52. An act or omission by a firearm industry member in violation of the firearm indus

(a) An act or omission by a firearm industry member in violation of the firearm industry standard of conduct set forth in Section 3273.51 shall be actionable under this section. (b) A person who has suffered harm in California because of a firearm industry member’s conduct described by subdivision (a) may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction. (c) (1) The Attorney General may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction in the name of the people of the State of California to enforce this title and remedy harm caused by a violation of this title. (2) A city attorney may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction in the name of the people of that city to enforce this title and remedy harm caused by a violation of this title. (3) A county counsel may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction in the name of the people of that county to enforce this title and remedy harm caused by a violation of this title. (d) If a court determines that a firearm industry member engaged in conduct described by subdivision (a), the court may award any or all of the following: (1) Injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the firearm industry member and any other defendant from further violating the law. (2) Damages. (3) Attorney’s fees and costs. (4) Any other appropriate relief necessary to enforce this title and remedy the harm caused by the conduct. (e) (1) In an action alleging that a firearm industry member failed to establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls in violation of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 3273.51, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the firearm industry member failed to implement reasonable controls if both of the following conditions are satisfied: (A) The firearm industry member’s action or failure to act created a reasonably foreseeable risk that the harm alleged by the claimant would occur. (B) The firearm industry member could have established, implemented, and enforced reasonable controls to prevent or substantially mitigate the risk that the harm would occur. (2) If the rebuttable presumption described by paragraph (1) is established, the firearm industry member has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the firearm industry member established, implemented, and enforced reasonable controls. (f) An intervening act by a third party, including, but not limited to, criminal misuse of a firearm-related product, shall not preclude a firearm industry member from liability under this section.