Remington Firearms Class Action Settlement

Who is a Class Member

The Remington Firearms class action settlement includes:

  • “Current owners of Remington Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722, and 725 firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism that utilizes a trigger connector;
  • Current owners of Remington Model 700 and Model Seven rifles containing an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism manufactured from May 1, 2006 to April 9, 2014 who did not participate in the voluntary X-Mark Pro product recall prior to April 14, 2015; and
  • Current and former owners of Remington Model 700 and Model Seven rifles who replaced their rifle’s original Walker trigger mechanism with an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism.”

If you don’t qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other class action settlements you may be eligible for.


Estimated Award

  • VARIES

There are three options available to Settlement Class Members:

  1. Have the trigger mechanism retrofitted with a new X-Mark Pro or other connectorless trigger mechanism at no cost
  2. Receive a voucher code for Remington products redeemable at Remington’s online store; and/or
  3. Be refunded the money you spent to replace your Model 700 or Seven’s original Walker trigger mechanism with an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism.

Proof of Purchase

  • N/A

Claim Form

  • class action lawsuits

Remington Firearms Settlement Notes

  • Ian Pollard v. Remington Arms Company LLC
  • Case No. 4:13-cv-00086-ODS
  • Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division

Plaintiff Ian Pollard filed this class action lawsuit alleging that the trigger mechanisms in certain Remington firearms are defective. Specifically, Pollard claims that the trigger can accidentally discharge without being pulled and as such use of the firearms is “diminished”.

Additionally, the Remington Firearms class action lawsuit contends that from May 1, 2006 to April 9, 2014, the assembly process for theX-Mark Pro trigger mechanism was faulty and led to an excess amount of bonding agent, which caused Model 700 or Seven rifles to discharge without a trigger pull.

Remington has voluntarily recalled the affected rifles which has been ongoing for two years to address the issue but denies the allegations in this case and maintains that the value and utility of its firearms has not been diminished. Complete details about the case and settlement are provided on the Remington Firearms settlement website.


Important Dates

The Remington Firearms Class Action Settlement was granted final approval on March 14, 2017. However, an appeal has been filed against the settlement, meaning claims will not be paid until all appeals are exhausted. Claim forms must be submitted within 18 months of the Settlement effective date and Class members should check www.RemingtonFirearmsClassActionSettlement.com regularly to confirm deadlines and the effective date of the settlement.


Contact Information

  • Mail: Angeion Group, Attn: Remington Claims, Suite 660, 1801 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103
  • Phone: 1-800-876-5940

Class Counsel


Settlement Website

Apple Class Action Says Every Apple Watch Model Is Defective

A nationwide consumer class action lawsuit filed against Apple claims that every single Apple Watch model is defective and is seeking to hold the tech giant accountable to its customers to the tune of $5 million.

Plaintiff Kenneth Sciaccia of Colorado filed the lawsuit in federal court last week seeking justice for him and other Apple Watch purchasers. Sciacca alleges that the Apple watches all contain the same defect which causes the screens on the watches to crack, shatter, or detach from the body of the watch, through no fault of the wearer, and oftentimes only days or weeks after purchase.

Apple starting selling its watches in April 2015, when it introduced its Series 0 Watches to consumers. Since then, the company has released two additional generations of the Apple Watch: the Series 1 and Series 2 watches; and the Series 3 Watch.

According to the Apple Watch class action lawsuit, shortly after the release of the Series 0, consumers began to complain that their screens on their Apple Watches were spontaneously detaching from the body of their Watches. Apple denied any widespread issue with Series 0 Watches, but in April 2017, Apple acknowledged a swelling battery defect in certain Series 0 Watches and extended its Limited Warranty for qualifying Series 0 Watches from one year to three years.

Apple began to sell its Series 1 and Series 2 Watches in September 2016. Shortly thereafter, consumers who purchased the Series 1 and Series 2 Watches complained that the screens on their Series 1 and Series 2 Watches had cracked, shattered, or completely detached from the body of their Watches. Like the Series 0 purchasers, these consumers took their defective watches to Apple Stores, contacted Apple Support, and posted their complaints on the “Communities” forum on apple.com. Still, Apple denied any widespread issue but similarly acknowledged a swelling battery defect in certain Series 2 Watches and extended its Limited Warranty for qualifying Apple Watches. Similar situations also occurred with Series 3 Apple Watches.

In Sciaccia’s case, he purchased a Series 2 Stainless Steel 38mm Apple Watch in December 2016. Around March 2018, the screen on Sciacca’s Apple Watch unexpectedly detached from the body shortly after he removed the watch from its charger. Sciacca says he contacted a certified Apple Store where store employees examined Sciacca’s Watch and verified the issue, but determined that the Watch’s screen detached because of “non-warrantable damage,” rather than a swollen battery. Because the employees determined Sciacca’s Watch was not covered under Apple’s Limited Warranty, they quoted him $249 to repair his Watch. Sciacca declined this offer.

Sadly, Sciacca’s experience is reportedly identical to the experiences of thousands of Apple Watch owners. Apple forums are full of complaints about the defective watches and Apple’s refusal to cover its product under its Limited Warranty. Indeed, Apple’s response in each case is the same: it implicitly or expressly blames the consumer for the Defect and refuses to cover repairs under the Limited Warranty.

By bringing this class action lawsuit, Sciacca hopes to hold Apple accountable for the alleged defective watches. He is seeking to represent a Class consisting of all current and former consumer owners of all models and sizes of First Generation, Series 1, Series 2, and Series 3 Apple Watches purchased in the United States, as well as a Colorado subclass.

Sciacca and the proposed classes are represented by Kolin C. Tan of Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLP.

The Apple Watch Class Action Lawsuit is Sciacca v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-3312, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.