Activision Rebuts Uvalde Lawsuit Claims, Citing First Amendment Protections

Activision Blizzard has filed a robust defense against lawsuits filed by Uvalde shooting victims' families, vehemently denying any causal link between its Call of Duty franchise and the 2022 Robb Elementary tragedy. The May 2024 lawsuits allege the shooter's exposure to Call of Duty's violent content contributed to the massacre.

The May 24, 2022, shooting claimed the lives of 19 children and two teachers, injuring 17 more. The 18-year-old shooter, a former Robb Elementary student, was a known Call of Duty player, having downloaded Modern Warfare in November 2021 and using an AR-15 rifle—similar to those depicted in the game. The original complaint also implicated Meta, alleging Instagram facilitated the shooter's connection to firearm manufacturers and exposure to AR-15 advertisements. The families argued both companies fostered a harmful environment encouraging violence in vulnerable youth.

Activision's December filing, a comprehensive 150-page response, refutes all claims of direct causation. The company invoked California's anti-SLAPP laws, designed to protect free speech from frivolous litigation, seeking dismissal. Furthermore, Activision asserts Call of Duty is constitutionally protected expression under the First Amendment, arguing that the lawsuit's focus on "hyper-realistic content" infringes upon this fundamental right.

Expert Testimony and Game Design Details Bolster Activision's Defense

Supporting its defense, Activision submitted declarations from key figures. A 35-page statement from Notre Dame professor Matthew Thomas Payne counters the lawsuit's "training camp" assertion, contextualizing Call of Duty's military realism within the broader tradition of war-themed films and television. A separate 38-page declaration from Patrick Kelly, Call of Duty's head of creative, details the game's design process, even citing the $700 million budget for Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War.

The Uvalde families have until late February to respond to Activision's detailed defense. The outcome remains uncertain, yet this case highlights the persistent debate surrounding the alleged connection between violent video games and mass shootings.