The families of the victims of the Uvalde, Texas school shooting have filed a lawsuit against Meta and Activision, the developer of Call of Duty, alleging that they promoted the use of firearms to underage boys. The lawsuit claims that both companies exposed the shooter to weapons, conditioned him to see them as a solution to his problems, and trained him to use them. The families accuse Activision and Meta of “grooming” young men and leading them towards violent acts.
The lawsuit highlights the shooter’s obsessive playing of Call of Duty, his development of marksmanship skills, and the rewards he obtained in the game. It also mentions the presence of the AR-15, the weapon used in the shooting, in the game. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that the shooter was targeted through aggressive marketing on Instagram, glorifying combat and violence.
The Involvement of Gun Companies
In addition to Activision and Meta, the families are also suing Daniel Defense, the gun company that manufactured the AR-15 used in the shooting. The lawsuit claims that Daniel Defense promotes its weapons to minors through social media, glorifying combat. However, the gunman purchased the AR-15 directly from Daniel Defense’s website, not through Instagram.
Section 230 provides immunity to platforms like Meta and Activision from civil lawsuits arising from user-generated content. However, in cases where targeted advertising is involved, the situation becomes more complex. Despite this, Meta did not immediately respond to the requests for comments on the matter.
Video game companies have consistently denied the notion that their products can incite real-world violence. Research has shown that there is no direct causal link between video games and violent behavior. Previous lawsuits holding video game companies responsible for school shootings have ultimately failed, citing the lack of evidence connecting gaming to violent acts.
While the families of the Uvalde shooting victims are seeking accountability from Meta, Activision, and Daniel Defense, the contentious debate over the influence of video games on real-world violence continues. As the legal proceedings unfold, it remains crucial to objectively assess the evidence and avoid scapegoating video game companies for broader societal issues related to gun violence.