Activision Rebuts Uvalde Lawsuit Claims, Invoking First Amendment Protections
Activision Blizzard has filed a robust defense against lawsuits filed by Uvalde school shooting victims' families, vehemently denying any causal link between its Call of Duty franchise and the tragedy. The May 2024 lawsuits allege the shooter's exposure to Call of Duty's violent content contributed to the massacre at Robb Elementary School on May 24, 2022, where 19 children and two teachers perished. The shooter, a former Robb Elementary student, had played Call of Duty, including Modern Warfare, and used an AR-15 rifle, similar to in-game weaponry.
Activision's December filing, totaling 150 pages, refutes all accusations. The company asserts the absence of a direct causal relationship between the game and the shooting and seeks dismissal under California's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws, designed to shield free speech from frivolous litigation. The defense emphasizes Call of Duty's status as constitutionally protected expression under the First Amendment, arguing that claims targeting its "hyper-realistic content" infringe upon this fundamental right.
Expert Testimony Bolsters Activision's Defense
Supporting its position, Activision submitted declarations from key figures. A 35-page statement from Notre Dame Professor Matthew Thomas Payne contextualizes Call of Duty within the established tradition of military realism in film and television, directly countering the lawsuit's characterization of the game as a "training camp for mass shooters." Furthermore, a 38-page declaration from Patrick Kelly, Call of Duty's head of creative, details the game's development process, including the substantial $700 million budget allocated to Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War.
The Uvalde families have until late February to respond to Activision's comprehensive defense. The legal battle highlights the ongoing debate surrounding the potential influence of violent video games on real-world violence, with the outcome of this case holding significant implications.
