Lawyer claims Call of Duty creator not liable for Uvalde elementary school shooting.

Activision Argues for Dismissal of Lawsuit Linked to Uvalde School Shooting

On Friday, attorneys representing Activision, the company behind the video game Call of Duty, requested that a judge dismiss a lawsuit brought by families of the victims of the tragic Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas. They argued that the game’s content is safeguarded under the First Amendment.

The lawsuit targets both Activision and Meta Platforms, claiming they played a role in promoting the products utilized by the young assailant. Among the audience at a Los Angeles court hearing were three sets of grieving parents who lost their children in the attack.

Bethany Kristovich, Activision’s lawyer, addressed Superior Court Judge William Highberger, asserting, “The First Amendment protects against such allegations, and the case lacks merit.” She acknowledged that gun violence is a challenging issue but suggested that placing responsibility on game creators is misplaced.

She reiterated prior court decisions which state that creators of any form of art—including video games—should not be held accountable for how audiences respond to their work. Kristovich implied that allowing the lawsuit to proceed could set a troublesome precedent.

This lawsuit is part of a broader set of legal actions taken by Uvalde families, initiated last year on the first anniversary of one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history. The gunman took the lives of 19 students and two teachers, and he was confronted by law enforcement after over an hour of inaction within a classroom.

Kimberly Rubio, who lost her 10-year-old daughter Lexi in the incident, was present at the hearing, traveling from Texas. She expressed her hope for progress, saying, “We came here seeking answers, and I really hope the case moves forward.”

Another attorney for the families contended that the case goes beyond the realm of First Amendment rights and into marketing territory. Katim Messner-Hage told the judge, “We’re not arguing against the existence of Call of Duty; instead, we’re saying it is a tool for marketing weapons to minors.” He underscored that the game serves as a platform that could influence young players.

The plaintiffs referenced documents that they claim show communications between Activision executives and the shooter, indicating a marketing connection—even if the brand itself wasn’t overtly mentioned. Messner-Hage argued this was evidence of the company’s awareness of its potential influence on youth.

Kristovich, however, countered that there was no proof of the types of marketing alleged in relation to the games the shooter played.

The families also filed a separate lawsuit against Daniel Defense, the manufacturer of the AR-style rifle used in the massacre.

Connecticut attorney Koskoff, who previously secured a $73 million settlement for Sandy Hook victims, drew parallels between the Uvalde shooter and past violent incidents, stating that the immersion into video games like Call of Duty contributed to the shooters’ behavior.

Koskoff presented a clip from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare during the hearing, which resonated loudly in the courtroom and prompted strong reactions from attendees. He emphasized, “Call of Duty exists in its own realm, distinctly apart from other media.” Kristovich similarly argued that despite the game’s popularity, its effects on real-world violence are negligible.

As the judge appeared undecided on the path forward, he indicated that a prompt ruling was unlikely. He expressed that the plaintiff’s claims of negligence might need to be more clearly articulated to move ahead.