Many were surprised by gunmaker's Sandy Hook deal. But what does it mean for other cases?

After the announcement of a $73 million settlement Tuesday, families of nine Sandy Hook shooting victims said they were finally able to hold a gunmaker to account for a deadly mass shooting.

But experts say it's unclear how far-reaching of an effect the outcome will have on similar cases seeking to hold gun manufacturers accountable.

After years of back-and-forth, the settlement was reached with Remington Arms, the maker of the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle used to kill 20 first graders and six teachers in 2012 at the Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school.

"This is a historic event because it's the first time since the passage of the federal immunity shield for the gun industry in 2005 that a firearms manufacturer has settled with victims like this," said Timothy Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University College of Law.

"... The fact that Remington was willing to come to the table at all is surprising."

David Pucino, senior staff attorney at Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said that, to his knowledge, this is the first case that used the legal strategy of centering on a gun manufacturer's marketing practices.

"What made this case different was the legal theory in looking at how this product was advertised," he said.

But, Lytton said, "The ultimate question of whether or not the Sandy Hook lawsuit will be a viable strategy for other plaintiffs remains unanswered."

The civil court case in Connecticut centered on Remington's marketing of the gun. The victims' families claimed Remington violated Connecticut’s unfair trade practices law when it “knowingly marketed and promoted the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle for use in assaults against human beings,” according to the lawsuit. The suit also accused the gunmaker of targeting young, at-risk men in marketing efforts, including product placement in violent video games.

"The marketing essentially glorifies violence and the military use of the weapon to young men," Joshua Koskoff, lead attorney representing the families, previously told Paste BN.

THE SETTLEMENT: Sandy Hook families agree to $73 million settlement with gunmaker Remington

Remington’s lawyers argued there was no evidence to show the company's marketing had anything to do with the shooting. Remington did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

The lawsuit tested the scope of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which grants gun manufacturers immunity from lawsuits related to crimes committed with their products.

The lawsuit argued that the case fell under an exception to PLCAA for manufacturers who knowingly violate a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of its product. In this case, the families argued Remington's marketing practices violated Connecticut's unfair trade practices law.

Lytton said questions remain over what "applicable" means in whether the statue must be specifically related to firearms. That's a question that would have been answered by the U.S. Supreme Court, he said, but it  declined to hear the case.

"We don't know whether or not this is a viable strategy for other plaintiffs because the ultimate question of whether or not this lawsuit qualifies for an exemption remains unanswered," Lytton said.

While the lawsuit "offers some encouragement" to those trying to sue gun manufacturers, Lytton said he's unsure whether it will open the floodgates for future litigation. Lytton added Remington may have been more likely to want to settle the case due to its financial situation after two recent bankruptcies. This situation may not be the case in future lawsuits, he added.

BREAKING DOWN THE LAWSUIT: The latest step in yearslong legal battle

Pucino is more confident in the case's ability to spur future lawsuits. He said there were a "wide variety of laws for the sale and marketing of firearms" that could become the basis of future lawsuits.

"This lawsuit shows concretely that this theory is viable as a way that the gun industry can be held to account," he said.

For Pucino, perhaps the most important effect of the Sandy Hook lawsuit is its shattering of long-held perceptions of gunmakers' abilities to resist lawsuits as a result of PLCAA protections.

"This case shows that the gun industry is not immune to liability," Pucino said. "And that means gun manufacturers will start to feel more pressure to change their practices and take into account the financial risk of not considering public safety."

"This is going to make executives sit down and review their ads to make sure their marketing practices are responsible," he added.

Remington also agreed in the settlement to allow the families to release documents they obtained during legal proceedings, Koskoff said Tuesday.

This trove of documents may offer a rare glimpse into the marketing practices of a gunmaker, Pucino said.

"We will now have a window into how a gun manufacturer markets its products through these documents," Pucino said. "We can see what was happening behind closed doors and how these messages were being developed by the industry."

Lytton said the lawsuit's outcome may help shift national conversations about gun violence.

"This case reframes the issue of gun violence by focusing on the gun industry's distribution and marketing practices instead of things like mental illness or security or background checks," he said. "Regardless of the outcome, cases like this can have a general effect on the way in which people think about gun violence."

Contact Breaking News Reporter Christine Fernando at cfernando@usatoday.com or follow her on Twitter at @christinetfern.