Lawyer Asserts Call of Duty Lawsuit Should Be Dismissed Due to First Amendment Protections
A legal representative for the video game franchise Call of Duty urged a judge on Friday to dismiss a lawsuit initiated by families of Robb Elementary School shooting victims in Uvalde, Texas. The lawyer claimed that the game’s content is safeguarded under the First Amendment.
The families involved have targeted Activision, the game’s producer, and Meta Platforms, owner of Instagram, arguing that these companies should be held accountable for promoting products utilized by the teenage shooter.
Among the audience at the Los Angeles hearing were three sets of parents mourning the loss of their children in the tragic event.
Bethany Kristovich, representing Activision, told Superior Court Judge William Highberger, “First Amendment protections preclude their claims, unequivocally.” She added, “Gun violence poses complex issues, yet the evidence in this case is straightforward.”
Kristovich maintained that the lawsuit lacks merit, as courts have consistently ruled that creators of artistic works—including books, music, films, television, and video games—cannot be held legally responsible for the actions of their audiences.
This lawsuit, part of numerous legal actions by Uvalde families, was filed last year on the second anniversary of one of the most devastating school shootings in American history, which resulted in the deaths of 19 children and two teachers. Law enforcement faced criticism for waiting over an hour before confronting and neutralizing the shooter.
Kimberly Rubio, whose 10-year-old daughter Lexi was among the victims, traveled from Texas to Southern California for the court proceedings. “We made this journey to seek answers,” Rubio stated outside the courthouse. “Our hope is to see this case progress so we can obtain those answers.”
Another attorney for the victim’s families argued that Call of Duty goes beyond First Amendment coverage by venturing into commercial marketing. Katie Mesner-Hage told the judge, “Our complaint doesn’t challenge the existence of Call of Duty. It focuses on how it uses this platform to market weapons to minors.”
The plaintiffs’ legal team presented documents illustrating contracts and correspondences between Activision and firearm manufacturers, asserting that products are represented in the game, even without branding. Mesner-Hage contended that the lack of labels is a strategy to avoid the implication of marketing firearms to minors while maintaining that players can recognize and seek those weapons.
In response, Kristovich stated that there is no proof supporting the claim that any product placement or marketing was evident in the versions of the game played by the shooter.
The families have also pursued legal action against Daniel Defense, which produced the AR-15 style rifle used during the heartbreak of May 24, 2022.
Attorney Koskoff argued that a replica of the rifle appears on the game’s splash screen. He, a Connecticut lawyer known for securing a $73 million settlement from Remington on behalf of Sandy Hook shooting victims’ families, recalled the similarities between the behaviors of shooters at Sandy Hook and Uvalde.
Koskoff described how deeply immersed the Uvalde shooter was in the game, citing an instance where he sought an armored suit depicted in Call of Duty, unaware that it only appeared in the virtual world.
Video Game Advocated as Unique, Lawyer Claims
Highlighting the distinction of Call of Duty, Koskoff played a clip from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, showcasing a first-person shooter in action. The sounds of gunfire resonated in the courtroom, prompting visible reactions from many attendees.
Koskoff remarked, “Call of Duty is in a class of its own.” However, Kristovich countered that despite its popularity, the game is only connected to a limited number of mass shootings in the U.S. “It’s a widely played game,” she noted, referencing its appearance in mainstream media. “Suggesting it should be banned through this lawsuit is absurd.”
Judge Highberger indicated that he was neutral prior to the hearing and provided no timeline for his ruling, although a swift decision is unlikely.
The judge pointed out that the plaintiffs’ characterization of Activision’s actions raised concerns of intentional wrongdoing, while their claim alleges negligence. He noted that this was a significant obstacle for the plaintiffs.
“You created a risk of the very situation that occurred,” Mesner-Hage told him. “We represent individuals who are the foreseeable victims of that behavior.”
Arguments from Meta’s attorneys are anticipated next month regarding a similar motion.
Passionate journalist and digital news editor with a keen eye for global affairs and emerging trends. As the founder and lead writer of RSS News US, he is dedicated to delivering accurate, insightful, and engaging content to readers seeking trustworthy news in a fast-paced world.
