Activision Submits Extensive Defense in Call of Duty Uvalde School Shooting Lawsuit

Activision's Defense in Uvalde Shooting Lawsuit: Call of Duty's First Amendment Protection

Activision Blizzard vigorously denies any connection between its Call of Duty franchise and the tragic Uvalde school shooting, asserting its content is protected under the First Amendment. This comprehensive defense, filed in response to lawsuits initiated by victim families in May 2024, refutes claims that the game served as a "training camp for mass shooters."

The lawsuits, filed in California, allege the shooter, a former Robb Elementary student, was influenced by Call of Duty's violent content. The May 24, 2022, shooting resulted in the deaths of 21 individuals (19 children and 2 teachers) and injuries to 17 others. The shooter, an 18-year-old, played Call of Duty, downloading Modern Warfare in November 2021, and used an AR-15 rifle, similar to one depicted in the game. The plaintiffs also implicated Meta (through Instagram) for facilitating connections between the shooter and firearm manufacturers.

Activision's December filing, a 150-page document, counters these claims. The company seeks dismissal under California's anti-SLAPP laws, safeguarding free speech. Activision emphasizes Call of Duty's status as an expressive work protected by the First Amendment, arguing that allegations based on "hyper-realistic content" infringe upon this right.

Expert Testimony and Game Design Details

Supporting its defense, Activision submitted declarations from experts. Professor Matthew Thomas Payne of Notre Dame University provided a 35-page statement comparing Call of Duty's military realism to that of established war films and television, contradicting the "training camp" assertion. Patrick Kelly, Call of Duty's head of creative, contributed a 38-page document detailing the game's development, including the $700 million budget for Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War.

The Uvalde families have until late February to respond to Activision's extensive documentation. The outcome remains uncertain, but the case highlights the ongoing debate surrounding the link between violent video games and mass shootings.