Activision Pushes to Dismiss Uvalde Families' Lawsuit, Citing First Amendment Protections

Image Credit: Call of Duty/Activision

Activision, the company behind the Call of Duty franchise, has asked a California judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by families of victims of the 2022 Uvalde school shooting, arguing that the video game is protected under the First Amendment.

The lawsuit, filed last year on the second anniversary of the Robb Elementary School tragedy, accuses both Activision and Meta Platforms (the parent company of Instagram) of contributing to the gunman’s radicalization.

The plaintiffs—families who lost children in the shooting—allege that Call of Duty and Instagram played a role in promoting the use of firearms to minors, including the specific weapon used in the attack. (Thanks APNews)

At a hearing in Los Angeles on Friday, Activision’s attorney Bethany Kristovich pushed back against the claims, asserting, “The First Amendment bars their claims, period full stop.” She maintained that U.S. courts have consistently ruled that creators of artistic or expressive content—whether books, movies, or video games—cannot be held responsible for the actions of their consumers.

“The issues of gun violence are incredibly difficult,” Kristovich said. “The evidence in this case is not.”

The hearing saw an emotional courtroom with several grieving parents in attendance. Kimberly Rubio, whose daughter Lexi was among the 21 killed, traveled from Texas for the session. “We came all this way for answers,” she said outside the courthouse. “It’s our hope that the case will move forward so we can get those answers.”

Representing the families, attorney Josh Koskoff, who previously secured a $73 million settlement in a case against gunmaker Remington on behalf of Sandy Hook families, argued that the lawsuit goes beyond free speech. According to Koskoff, Call of Duty was not just a game—it became a platform for promoting real-world firearms to minors.

Koskoff and fellow attorney Katie Mesner-Hage presented internal documents allegedly showing collaborations between Activision and gun manufacturers. They claimed that real-world weapons, like the AR-style rifle used in the shooting, are depicted in the game—even if brand names are omitted.

“These documents suggest a deliberate choice to avoid labeling,” Mesner-Hage told the judge, “so they can market to minors while avoiding direct accountability.”

Koskoff also highlighted the psychological impact of the game on the shooter, stating that he became so immersed that he searched online for an armored suit featured in the game—unaware it wasn’t real.

To drive the point home, Koskoff played a scene from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare in court. The sound of gunfire filled the room, prompting some audience members to shake their heads in disbelief. “Call of Duty is in a class of its own,” he argued, suggesting the game's influence was both unique and powerful.

Kristovich countered that the popularity of the game across millions of users undercuts the notion that it can be blamed for isolated acts of violence. “It’s so ubiquitous, it even appeared in an episode of The Office,” she said, adding that to imply a link between the game and mass shootings is “an extreme leap.”

Judge William Highberger indicated he was not predisposed to either side and that a ruling would not be immediate. However, he did point out that the plaintiffs were alleging negligence, while their arguments sometimes veered into claims of intentional wrongdoing—a potential obstacle for the case moving forward.

“The conduct described sounds like deliberate action,” the judge remarked. “But your complaint is based on negligence. That’s your hurdle.”

Meta, which owns Instagram, is also named in the broader lawsuit but did not participate in this particular hearing. Arguments regarding Meta’s role are scheduled for next month.

For now, the courtroom battle over whether video games can be held liable for real-world violence continues—raising difficult questions about freedom of expression, corporate responsibility, and the cultural impact of digital entertainment.