
Canada vs. USA: Two fans forced to watch each country's worst 2025 NHL playoff ads
Every year, there's one article more people ask me about than any other. Which is weird, because it has next to nothing to do with hockey.
That would be this one, of course — the annual 'bad ads' piece, in which two Seans from different countries create an international exchange program for annoying commercials. You know the ones; the kind you see once or twice and maybe aren't too bothered by, right up until you realize that they're going to keep popping up constantly as you try to enjoy the NHL playoffs. That's when the annoyance begins to build. Sometimes, it grows into rage. Or despair. Or whatever that was that 'Tara Tara look at her go' made us feel.
Advertisement
We first tried this back in 2020, and it's become an annual tradition. This time around, in a year where relations between our two countries have been strained, to put it mildly, it feels more important than ever. After all, we may have our differences. But at least we all know how to pronounce the word 'liberty' and buy a proper cantaloupe. Here we go…
McIndoe: I'm going to lead off with a decision that I suspect will be controversial. Canada, we have to figure out what to do with 'Lay It on the Line.' (Pauses while an entire nation shudders in terror at the mere words.)
For you Americans, 'Lay It on the Line' is, of course, the single ad that's done the most psychic damage to hockey fans up here over the last few months. It's the Rogers spot that's not really selling anything except Canadian hockey exceptionalism, and we all hate it. It's to the point where just the first few seconds trigger a rage response from Canadians.
BUT! I'm not including it as one of my three ads today, for a simple reason: I don't think it's a bad commercial. In fact, on first viewing, it's actually pretty good. The problem up here is that after that first viewing, and the second, and the third, we've been subjected to it roughly a million more times. I swear that there are times when it plays at every ad break. That's what makes it so awful. It's the cumulative effect. And that wouldn't come across in an exercise like this.
So here's my compromise: American viewers, feel free to watch the ad below. Then rewatch it. Then put it on a loop, and after about 48 consecutive hours, check back and let me know what you think.
You'll know it's working when the first drop of blood rolls out of your ear.
Beyond that, I actually got scientific this year, posting a survey on my site for Canadian readers to vote on which ads they wanted to see. And somewhat to my surprise, two ads ran away with the poll. We'll use both, with a personal (non) favorite sandwiched in between, and see where this goes.
Advertisement
Gentille: Greetings from Team America HQ, where we believe we're in a bit of a transitional season. In 2024, we held the 'What a pro wants' hammer. The year before that, it was some lady with a heart like a truck. We know all about Tara, looking at her go and things of that nature. What I'm saying is that over the years, I'd learned to lean on commercials with earwormy songs. This year, I have no such option.
Time for a different approach. I'm trying to build a contender without a true franchise player here. That worked out for Rob Blake, right? Right?
In terms of the order, we're going in escalating order of obnoxiousness. I've tried a Round 1 haymaker a time or two, but I don't think I have the option this time around. Enjoy a slower build.
Also, that was the first time I saw 'Lay It on the Line.' I get that repetition is a factor here, but if that was really the worst of the Canadian batch this spring, I might have a shot.
McIndoe: I'll lead off with the surprise winner of my reader poll. To be clear, it's not that I don't think this ad is awful, but given that it only ran for about a week, it sure seemed to leave an impression with Canadian viewers. Sean, were you aware that we recently had an election up here?
Gentille: No, but I'm a big fan of them — especially the effect that they have on watching television.
McIndoe: Well then I have good news. We had a federal election, and like every election held anywhere in the world these days, we were warned that it was the most important one ever. And so, with just about a week left in a hard-fought campaign, this was our conservative party's closing message. Nothing held back, no expenses spared, this is what they wanted us to have in mind when we went to the polls:
Feel the electricity!
Gentille: Played big, I assume, with the crucial voting bloc of 'golf dads in quarter-zips who bought their kid a house.' Gotta keep those guys in your pocket if you're the conservative party.
Also, I think this is the first instance of 'Simpsons did it' in the history of our little exercise here.
Advertisement
McIndoe: It might be! Also, for those of you who don't follow Canadian politics, I should point out that neither of those old golfer guys was running for prime minister. Or anything at all. They're actors. Like, they do this for a living. They auditioned for this, and the people who wanted to run our country said 'Those are our guys.'
Gentille: I love starting conversations with my friends by reminding them of their kids' relationship to them. 'Ohhh, my son David. My mailman's name is David, too. Thanks for clarifying. Anyway, I had enough money to buy him a house. Things are going terribly for me.'
McIndoe: In a shocking development, the party that ran this ad did not win. Hey, if I wanted to watch some sad old guys play golf, I'd just wait for the second round of a Leafs playoff run, am I right?
Gentille: Yeah, or you could just hang around any Congressional country club outside of D.C. and wait for the clown car to roll up. Bunch of clowns.
McIndoe: 'I think it speaks directly to a demographic that the Conservatives need to win in order to win this election,' according to this CBC article. That demographic: You guessed it, clowns.
What's your first ad?
Gentille: After I made my picks, I re-read last year's post and was reminded that we'd speculated, based on a Progressive ad featuring a ghost who sounded like Will Ferrell, that we were approaching a point where the actual Will Ferrell would show up in our nasty little collection. Lo and behold …
Again: when I put that one in the leadoff spot, I'd completely forgotten about what we said last spring.
McIndoe: Oh, so this is what 'pay your own way' means. It sucks!
Gentille: It was the second one of these PayPal ads for Ferrell, too. Weird, because sequels have typically worked out for him.
McIndoe: You see, the little kid tells him he's not cool, so that means they know he's not cool, which when you think about it means he kind of is cool, right? That's how irony works, right? I'm pretty sure that's it.
Advertisement
Gentille: Irony, at least as I understand it, is when a bazillionaire celebrity stumps for a financial service that allows you to pay for relatively inexpensive stuff in installments. Unless he actually needs it.
McIndoe: Too bad about the humidity taking out his curls. If he needs any tips on keeping his hair dry, he could always reach out to Mitch Marner.
Gentille: It gets warm in Raleigh.
McIndoe: Next time we hang out, I'm definitely kicking off the good times with a 'Swans, flock up!' That catchphrase is definitely going to go viral, as the kids say.
Gentille: I am simply begging Will Ferrell to do something funny. It's been long enough. Let's move on before I get any sadder.
McIndoe: Good idea. Since you countered my friendly Canadian golfers with some genuine Hollywood star power, I know what I must do…
McIndoe: When it's time to appeal to Canadians and you've got the budget for a legitimate if vaguely non-threatening movie star, there's only way name you turn to: Ryan Reynolds. But when you find out he's already doing weird scrambled egg ads for Tim Hortons, your next best choice is Keanu Reeves.
Gentille: I have no problem with this one. He's a famously chill and likable dude, he's not doing anything particularly annoying in the commercial and he seems to have found yet another way to make the Dogstar guys some money.
McIndoe: Oh, are those the guys from his band? I kind of like that. But I have to disagree on him not being annoying here, because the implication is that he's left an entire work meeting on hold just so he can go play guitar with his friends. That's big-league jerk behaviour, no?
Gentille: Did you forget that I did that during the Zoom where they told us that they were putting the podcast on YouTube?
McIndoe: No. That's why I chose this ad. Maybe time for some self-reflection, Sean.
Advertisement
Gentille: The only issue I might have here is that 'Keanu Reeves loves the internet' seems like a faulty premise, based on basically everything we've ever heard about him.
McIndoe: I'm not sure I can fully articulate why, but the 'crash through the window' part really bothers me. It's a classic 'super-obvious idea that we've all already thought of and rejected, but now that the boss said it we have to pretend it's brilliant' moment. Kind of like when Terry Pegula suggests they sign Taylor Hall.
Gentille: 'What if I crash through the window?'
'Yeah. I mean this is … yeah.'
McIndoe: I will say this – I appreciate the attention to detail of him painting a wolf, then having that turn out to be his Fall Guys skin. I'm a 'horse's head and boxer shorts' bean myself, but to each his own.
Gentille: I can tell we're starting to cook, because Sean just brought up the finer points of a video game that I don't play. Folks, it happens more than you'd think.
McIndoe: (miscellaneous Balatro reference)
Gentille: Alright, here's one that definitely sucks for reasons both obvious and subtle.
McIndoe: OK, so… how can I put this… um, what the hell?
Gentille: It's annoying prima facie because 'bibberty' is an annoying word, the baby is annoying and the guy is annoying. That should be clear to even someone watching it for the first time.
What takes this thing into overdrive, though, is that there is LORE involved. Dude starred in a Liberty Mutual commercial a few years back as a 'struggling actor' who was flubbing all his lines. That's the big reveal. He dramatically pulls down the newspaper and everything — he, a guy who was in one of 10,000 simultaneously running insurance company ads from a half-decade ago.
McIndoe: What was the reaction in the Gentille living room when that newspaper came down? I'm guessing it was a 'Stone Cold in 1999' level pop.
Advertisement
Gentille: Crashed through the window like Keanu, brother. 'THERE HE IS! IT'S HIM!' Insurance commercial lore is something I've whined about here before, too. We see it with the Progressive ads starring 'Flo.' Those have been running so long, and Progressive has such a warped idea of the space they occupy in American life, that she has a family and friends and co-workers now. We are expected to enjoy them, too.
Also, I rewatched the original in prep for this. 'Liberty' is the only word Mr. 'Struggling Actor' doesn't flub. Continuity issues on top of quality issues. What a disgrace.
McIndoe: Infuriating. OK, let's take it home…
McIndoe: I'll be honest, I didn't really see this one coming as far as bad ad difference-makers. When it first debuted, it felt like a run-of-the-mill annoying commercial. But within a few days, it had emerged as the national consensus pick, and it never surrendered that lead.
Sean, I give you: An old man who has strong feelings about a cantaloupe.
Gentille: …I think this one is fine.
McIndoe: Sean.
Gentille: Yeah, man. I think the line deliveries are pretty good. I think soundtracking it with a string version of 'I Want It That Way' kind of works. There are probably funnier things she could be buying than a cantaloupe, but … I dunno. At minimum, I don't see how it would get that much worse even with repetition.
McIndoe: I'm stunned. First of all, you're overlooking the deeply weird (presumably family) dynamic here, where she's clearly so beaten down from his constant nit-picking that she just pretends to go along with every weird thing he says.
Gentille: No, I get it, and … I think that's kind of funny.
McIndoe: Also, can we normalize not expecting the minimum-wage workers we hire to do our grocery shopping to engage in bizarre rituals with our produce? If I got a lecture about cantaloupe strategy from a customer, I can't tell you what I'd be doing to that melon, but it wouldn't be knocking on it.
Advertisement
Gentille: That's the only issue I have with it. Able-bodied people should minimize how much they use apps like Instacart and DoorDash and whatever else, and in the instances that they can't-slash-won't, they should tip well and avoid bizarre requests.
McIndoe: You know what else sounds like nobody's home when you knock on it? The door to this old man's house, because he's a jerk.
Gentille: Maybe this one was, in fact, bad. Alright, I'm finishing up with one that's a lock to bother you.
McIndoe: Oh wow. Yeah, I'm mad now.
Gentille: Congrats to Jennifer Coolidge who, I'm pretty sure, is our first repeat honoree. Last year, she was harassing customer service employees. This year, she's harassing Wayne Gretzky. We should hang a jersey that she never wore from the rafters of Bad Commercial Arena.
McIndoe: I'm sure I'm not the first one to point this out, but the phrasing of 'accepted into the Hall of Fame' makes my eye twitch.
Gentille: You're not. A truly pathetic, unnatural turn of phrase that they crowbarred in solely to set up an 'accepted everywhere' reference. We love it!
I will say, though, I'd never realized that 'Gretzky' rhymes with 'jet ski.' Two of my favorite things, too.
McIndoe: Also, she drops the Hall of Fame line while gesturing at the retired numbers, which… that's not the same thing!
Gentille: Is it possible for anyone to know what a hat trick is while also never hearing of Wayne Gretzky? I don't think it's possible.
McIndoe: That's a great point that had not occurred to me, and now both eyes are twitching. I mean, what's the sales pitch here? 'You know who would probably enjoy a commercial about how unpopular hockey is? Hockey fans!'
Gentille: Also, Gretzky is sitting next to someone who isn't Kash Patel. So unrealistic.
McIndoe: Yeah, her eyes both point in the same direction. He'd never put up with that.
Gentille: 'It's the NHL on TNT, with Liam, Biz, Ace, Hank and Jetz!'
McIndoe: I'll just say it – you win this year. Dwayne Jetski just beat the competition like it was an overripe cantaloupe rind.
Gentille: He's been accepted into the Hall of Fame.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
28 minutes ago
- New York Times
Day 11 recap: Andreeva, pre-match warm up routines and more
Follow live French Open semifinal updates as Coco Gauff looks to join Aryna Sabalenka in the final at Roland Garros Getty Images Coco Gauff needed just 36 minutes to take the first set against Loïs Boisson in the second women's semifinal at the 2025 French Open. The U.S. No. 1 was near faultless in that opening set, winning it 6-1 behind three service holds. The home wild card, perhaps overawed by the occasion, will have to put Gauff under significant pressure if she wants any chance of avoiding a swift elimination. The winner of this match will face Aryna Sabalenka in Saturday's final after the world No. 1 beat Iga Świątek in three sets earlier on, including a bagel in the decider. Earlier on Thursday, Italian duo Sara Errani and Andrea Vavassori cruised to a 6-4, 6-2 victory over Americans Taylor Townsend and Evan King to claim the mixed doubles crown. TV: TNT, truTV, Tennis Channel (U.S.); TNT, Discovery+ (UK) TNT, truTV, Tennis Channel (U.S.); TNT, Discovery+ (UK) Streaming: Max for main coverage, Fubo (try for free) for secondary Max for main coverage, Fubo (try for free) for secondary Join the discussion: live@ GO FURTHER Aryna Sabalenka beats Iga Swiatek, the reigning champion, to reach French Open final Connections: Sports Edition Spot the pattern. Connect the terms Find the hidden link between sports terms Getty Images/The Athletic Missed out on all the key talking points from yesterday's action at the French Open? Have no fear, our tennis team at The Athletic has you covered. From Mirra Andreeva showing how far she has come in an unlikely way to another reminder of the impact of bettors on athletes' lives — we digest all the big issues from day 11 in our French Open briefing. GO FURTHER French Open recap: Crowd seizes its moment during Mirra Andreeva vs. Loïs Boisson Getty Images Below is the path that Aryna Sabalenka took to reach the French Open semifinals: R1: def. Kamilla Rakhimova (6-1, 6-0) R2: def. Jil Teichmann (6-3, 6-1) R3: def. Olga Danilovic (6-2, 6-3) R4: def. Amanda Anisimova (7-5, 6-3) QF: def. Qinwen Zheng (7-6 (3), 6-3) Per AccuWeather, the forecast in Paris is calling for cloudy with a 66 percent chance of rain in the morning (2.9 mm). Wouldn't be surprised to see the roof closed on Court Philippe-Chatrier at some point today. ...at least, that is the case for Aryna Sabalenka who is looking to seal her place in the final today. Iga Swiatek stands in her way, though. She has been working hard on a routine — both on match days and on days off — without letting that fall into superstition or obsession, as she progresses through the rounds of the French Open. That plus a willingness to obliterate any opponent in her path on the way to what she hopes will be her first Roland Garros title, could well set her up for success. Here's what she told TNT Sports about her preparations: 💬 'I'll have the same breakfast on the day when I'm playing. Avocado on toast with two fried eggs. I don't care (who I play next). Whoever makes it to the semis means they are playing good tennis. I want to compete and I want to win.' Coco Gauff's path to the French Open quarterfinals has been nothing short of dominant, with the American yet to drop a set. A tiebreak against Marie Bouzkova in the third round is the closest anyone has come to taking her to three sets so far. 1st Round: def. Olivia Gadecki (6-2, 6-2) def. Olivia Gadecki (6-2, 6-2) 2nd Round: def. Tereza Valentova (6-2, 6-4) def. Tereza Valentova (6-2, 6-4) 3rd Round: def. Marie Bouzkova (6-1, 7-6) def. Marie Bouzkova (6-1, 7-6) 4th Round: def. Ekaterina Alexandrova (6-0, 7-5) def. Ekaterina Alexandrova (6-0, 7-5) Quarterfinal: def. Madison Keys (6-7, 6-4, 6-1) We need to keep making the most of calling Loïs Boisson the world No. 361 — because it is not going to last much longer. Boisson is now guaranteed a fresh, career-high ranking of world No. 68 after winning her quarterfinal against Mirra Andreeva yesterday. And in truth, she looks like a much better player than No. 68 now too. I had to triple check this to make sure I'm not going squirly. But it is in fact true. Jannik Sinner has only been broken TWICE (yes twice) this Roland Garros. Those two times came in the first round against Frenchman Arthur Rinderknech. Since then, Sinner hasn't been broken. Four straight one breaking the Italian's serve. Dominance. With Jannik Sinner's straight sets win yesterday in the men's singles, the dream final is still on the table — the Italian taking on Carlos Alcaraz for the first time in a Grand Slam final. They just met at the Italian Open final before the French Open, where the Spaniard got the better of the world No. 1. They've had dramatic matches in the past at slams, most notably the 2022 U.S. Open quarterfinal that ended in the wee hours of the morning. All they need to do is win their semifinal bouts and the dream will become a reality. Roland Garros, Paris, France The stadium complex is in the 16th arrondissement (district) of the French capital city. Court Philippe-Chatrier, Suzanne-Lenglen, and Simonne-Mathieu are the show courts here. It's the only major played on clay and is a staple of the tennis calendar every year. It's a busy time in the sports world — and there is no let up in the scheduling as spring becomes summer. The Premier League season might be over but we have the Club World Cup and Women's Euros to look forward to in the soccer. Plus the Formula One and MLB seasons are continuing and Wimbledon isn't far away either. The Athletic is your one-stop shop to follow all those sports and more, with our industry leading coverage. So what are you waiting for? Sign up on an exclusive offer here. Looking to watch the action live? Here are your options: U.S.: TNT, truTV, Tennis Channel TNT, truTV, Tennis Channel Streaming: Max for main coverage, Fubo (try for free) Max for main coverage, Fubo (try for free) UK: TNT Sports, Discovery+ TNT Sports, Discovery+ Canada: TSN TSN Australia: Stan Sports Stan Sports France: Sport, Amazon Prime Today's French Open action starts at 12 p.m. local time in Paris (CET). That is the mixed doubles final between USA's Taylor Townsend and Evan King and Italy's Sara Errani and Andrea Vavassori. As for the women's singles semifinals, that will take place on Court Philippe-Chatrier once that final concludes — no earlier than 3.15pm in Paris (CET). That is 2.15p.m. for those of you in the UK, while for anyone tuning in Stateside it is 9.15 a.m. ET and 6.15 a.m. PT. Hello! And welcome along to The Athletic where we are still in Paris for the 2025 French Open. The heat was turned up a notch yesterday as the quarterfinals ended with a bang — and we continue our progress through the tournament as the semifinals get going today at Roland Garros. So without further ado, let us take you through all the build-up to day 12 from the French capital...


The Hill
30 minutes ago
- The Hill
Anthropic CEO: GOP AI regulation proposal ‘too blunt'
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei criticized the latest Republican proposal to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) as 'far too blunt an instrument' to mitigate the risks of the rapidly evolving technology. In an op-ed published by The New York Times on Thursday, Amodei said the provision barring states from regulating AI for 10 years — which the Senate is now considering under President Trump's massive policy and spending package — would 'tie the hands of state legislators' without laying out a cohesive strategy on the national level. 'The motivations behind the moratorium are understandable,' the top executive of the artificial intelligence startup wrote. 'It aims to prevent a patchwork of inconsistent state laws, which many fear could be burdensome or could compromise America's ability to compete with China.' 'But a 10-year moratorium is far too blunt an instrument,' he continued. 'A.I. is advancing too head-spinningly fast. I believe that these systems could change the world, fundamentally, within two years; in 10 years, all bets are off.' Amodei added, 'Without a clear plan for a federal response, a moratorium would give us the worst of both worlds — no ability for states to act, and no national policy as a backstop.' The tech executive outlined some of the risks that his company, as well as others, have discovered during experimental stress tests of AI systems. He described a scenario in which a person tells a bot that it will soon be replaced with a newer model. The bot, which previously was granted access to the person's emails, threatens to expose details of his marital affair by forwarding his emails to his wife — if the user does not reverse plans to shut it down. 'This scenario isn't fiction,' Amodei wrote. 'Anthropic's latest A.I. model demonstrated just a few weeks ago that it was capable of this kind of behavior.' The AI mogul added that transparency is the best way to mitigate risks without overregulating and stifling progress. He said his company publishes results of studies voluntarily but called on the federal government to make these steps mandatory. 'At the federal level, instead of a moratorium, the White House and Congress should work together on a transparency standard for A.I. companies, so that emerging risks are made clear to the American people,' Amodei wrote. He also noted the standard should require AI developers to adopt policies for testing models and publicly disclose them, as well as require that they outline steps they plan to take to mitigate risk. The companies, the executive continued, would 'have to be upfront' about steps taken after test results to make sure models were safe. 'Having this national transparency standard would help not only the public but also Congress understand how the technology is developing, so that lawmakers can decide whether further government action is needed,' he added. Amodei also suggested state laws should follow a similar model that is 'narrowly focused on transparency and not overly prescriptive or burdensome.' Those laws could then be superseded if a national transparency standard is adopted, Amodei said. He noted the issue is not a partisan one, praising steps Trump has taken to support domestic development of AI systems. 'This is not about partisan politics. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have long raised concerns about A.I. and about the risks of abdicating our responsibility to steward it well,' the executive wrote. 'I support what the Trump administration has done to clamp down on the export of A.I. chips to China and to make it easier to build A.I. infrastructure here in the United States.' 'This is about responding in a wise and balanced way to extraordinary times,' he continued. 'Faced with a revolutionary technology of uncertain benefits and risks, our government should be able to ensure we make rapid progress, beat China and build A.I. that is safe and trustworthy. Transparency will serve these shared aspirations, not hinder them.'
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court strikes down Mexico's lawsuit against US gun manufacturers
The United States Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit from the government of Mexico that argued American gun manufacturers like Smith & Wesson failed to prevent illegal firearm sales to cartels and criminal organisations. In one of a slew of decisions handed down on Thursday, the top court decided that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shielded the gun manufacturers from Mexico's suit. The court's decision was unanimous. Writing for the nine-member bench, Justice Elena Kagan explained that even 'indifference' to the trafficking of firearms does not amount to willfully assisting a criminal enterprise. 'Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers,' Kagan wrote (PDF). 'We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place — and that the manufacturers know they do. But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers 'participate in' those sales.' The Mexican government's complaint, she added, 'does not pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted'. The case stems from a complaint filed in August 2021 in a federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. In that initial complaint, the Mexican government — then led by President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador — argued that the sheer volume of firearms illegally smuggled into its country amounted to negligence on the part of gun manufacturers. Those firearms, it said, had exacted a devastating toll on Mexican society. The country has some of the highest homicide rates in the world, with the United Nations estimating in 2023 that nearly 25 intentional killings happen for every 100,000 people. Much of that crime has been credited to the presence of cartels and other criminal enterprises operating in Mexico. The Igarape Institute, a Brazil-based think tank, estimated that Mexico's crime cost the country nearly 1.92 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) from 2010 to 2014. The US is the largest arms manufacturer in the world — and also the largest source of illegally sourced firearms. The stream of firearms that pour into Mexico and the broader Latin America region, for instance, has been dubbed the 'iron river'. Nearly 70 percent of the illegal guns seized in Mexico from 2014 to 2018, for instance, were traced to origins in the US, according to the Department of Justice. That has led countries like Mexico to demand action from the US to limit the number of firearms trafficked abroad. In its lawsuit, Mexico targeted some of the biggest names in gun manufacturing in the US: not just Smith & Wesson, but also companies like Beretta USA, Glock Inc and Colt's Manufacturing LLC. But the firearm companies pushed back against the lawsuit, arguing they could not be held responsible for the actions of criminals in another country. The Supreme Court itself cast doubt on some of Mexico's arguments, including the idea that the gun manufacturers designed and marketed their products specifically for cartel buyers. 'Mexico focuses on production of 'military style' assault weapons, but these products are widely legal and purchased by ordinary consumers. Manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting criminal acts simply because Mexican cartel members also prefer these guns,' Justice Kagan wrote. 'The same applies to firearms with Spanish language names or graphics alluding to Mexican history,' she added. 'While they may be 'coveted by the cartels,' they also may appeal to 'millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.'' On Thursday, an industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), celebrated the Supreme Court's decision as a 'tremendous victory' against an unfair charge. It had filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants in the case. 'For too long, gun control activists have attempted to twist basic tort law to malign the highly-regulated U.S. firearm industry with the criminal actions of violent organized crime, both here in the United States and abroad,' the group's senior vice president, Lawrence G Keane, said in a statement. Keane added that he and others in the firearm industry felt 'sympathetic to plight of those in Mexico who are victims of rampant and uncontrolled violence at the hands of narco-terrorist drug cartels'. But he said the issue was about 'responsible firearm ownership', not the actions of gun manufacturers.