Activision's Robust Defense Against Uvalde Lawsuit: Call of Duty's First Amendment Protection
Activision has filed a comprehensive 150-page defense against lawsuits filed by Uvalde school shooting victims' families. These lawsuits, filed in May 2024, allege a causal link between the shooter's exposure to Call of Duty and the tragedy at Robb Elementary School in May 2022, where 19 children and two teachers were killed. The lawsuits also implicated Meta, alleging that Instagram facilitated the shooter's access to firearm advertisements.
Activision vehemently denies all allegations, asserting that no direct connection exists between Call of Duty and the shooting. The company's defense rests on several key arguments:
-
First Amendment Protection: Activision contends that Call of Duty, as an expressive work, is protected under the First Amendment. The company argues that claims targeting the game's "hyper-realistic content" infringe upon this fundamental right.
-
Expert Testimony: Activision submitted expert declarations, including a 35-page statement from Notre Dame professor Matthew Thomas Payne. Professor Payne refutes the lawsuit's characterization of Call of Duty as a "training camp for mass shooters," arguing that the game's military realism aligns with established traditions in war films and television. A further 38-page declaration from Patrick Kelly, head of creative for Call of Duty, details the game's design process and budget (citing the $700 million budget for Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War as an example).
-
Anti-SLAPP Motion: Activision also filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit under California's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws, designed to protect free speech from frivolous litigation.
The Uvalde families have until late February to respond to Activision's detailed defense. The outcome remains uncertain, but the case highlights the ongoing debate surrounding the relationship between violent video games and mass shootings.
