The Civil Justice Research Initiative recently published two new reports: “Do Class Actions Deter Wrongdoing?,” authored by Brian Fitzpatrick, and "Civil Litigation as a Tool in Public Health Approach to Gun Violence" authored by Robert S. Peck, Jonathan Corn and Sanjana Manjeshwar. Although the reports delve into distinct subjects, their conclusions carry significant implications for broadening access to justice.

In his research on class actions, Fitzpatrick reveals that, while empirical evidence supporting class action theory may not be abundant, the existing evidence, though limited, remains unchallenged and aligns with extensive empirical data favoring deterrence in individual lawsuits. The report asserts that there is strong justification to believe that class actions effectively deter misconduct.

Fitzpatrick shares that the principal rationale behind class action lawsuits in the United States is their ability to deter corporate misconduct. Nevertheless, in recent times, certain critics have cast doubts on this justification. Some challenge the theory of general deterrence, while others argue its lack of empirical support. However, as he has outlined, the deterrence theory remains robust. Furthermore, empirical evidence exists to bolster this claim, spanning not only class actions but also other forms of litigation. Consequently, he maintains that scholars and policymakers can confidently uphold deterrence as a valid justification for retaining class actions.

Peck, Corn and Manjeshwar examine the impact of civil litigation on addressing gun violence by examining the challenges faced in holding gun manufacturers and dealers legally accountable for their products. Their research outlines various barriers, including the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), the Dickey Amendment limiting research funding, and the Tiahrt Amendments restricting gun trace data. Despite past litigation yielding mixed results, the enactment of PLCAA significantly hindered lawsuits against the industry. The report also discusses the public health benefits of civil litigation, such as encouraging product safety and influencing industry behavior, while offering strategies for future action.

The paper goes on to unveil that gun manufacturers currently benefit from significant legal protection, shielding them from accountability for the harm caused by their products despite the alarming number of deaths and injuries attributed to firearms annually. This immunity, coupled with a lack of product safety regulations, presents significant barriers to addressing gun violence as a public health crisis. Removing these protections could incentivize the gun industry to engage more actively in initiatives aimed at curbing gun violence. Moreover, allowing victims to pursue civil litigation against gun manufacturers could help rectify the power imbalance between victims and the industry, potentially serving as a crucial component of a comprehensive strategy to combat the epidemic of gun violence.