Activision Blizzard has submitted a lengthy defence in response to lawsuits filed last year in which the families of those killed in the 2022 Uvalde school shooting accused the publisher of “grooming” the 18-year-old perpetrator through Call of Dury.
19 children and two teachers were killed in the attack on Robb Elementary School in May 2022, while 17 others were injured. Families of those killed during the tragedy later filed lawsuits in Texas and California against Activision (after it emerged the shooter had played Call of Duty), alongside Instagram owner Meta and gun manufacturer Daniel Defense.
“This three-headed monster,” the lawsuit alleged, “knowingly exposed [the perpetrator] to the weapon, conditioned him to see it as a tool to solve his problems and trained him to use it.” At the time of last May’s filing, Activision called the shooting “horrendous and heartbreaking”, but noted “millions of people around the world enjoy video games without turning to horrific acts”.
Now though, as reported by journalist Stephen Totilo in his Game File newsletter
“Call of Duty tells complex stories that explore the real-world combat scenarios that soldiers face in modern warfare,” Activision wrote in a separate 35-page filing. “There can be no doubt Call of Duty is expressive and fully protected by the First Amendment… By bringing a laundry list of causes of action against Activision premised on allegedly dangerous ‘hyper-realistic content’ in the Call of Duty video games played by the perpetrator who committed heinous acts of violence, the Complaint runs headfirst into this overriding constitutional principle.”
Activision’s submissions also include a 35-page declaration from Notre Dame media studies professor Matthew Thomas Payne, arguing the Call of Duty series “flows from the same military realism tradition that has been explored for decades in critically acclaimed war movies and television shows” – and is thus far from the “training camp for mass shooters” in which “teenage boys learn to kill with frightening skill and ease” described in the Uvalde families’ lawsuit.
The publisher’s defence is also supported by a 38-page submission from Call of Duty head of creative Patrick Kelly, which goes into significant detail regarding the design and creation of the series. This is the same document that revealed Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War’s eye-popping $700m budget, and includes a wealth of information Activision’s lawyers could potentially use to counter the various claims made in the Uvalde families’ legal filing.
For instance, while the claimant’s suit alleges the Uvalde shooter learned about the gun he used from the loading screen of 2019’s Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, Kelly highlights two key points. Firstly, he says the generic assault rifle depicted in the image had been deliberately anonymised to ensure it did not feature identifiers that could link it to any particular firearm manufacturer. Secondly, he notes that by the time the perpetrator played the game in November 2021, the loading screen had been changed and would likely not have been seen.
There’s plenty more detail in Activision’s submitted documentation, and Totilo has a considerably expanded breakdown of the publisher’s arguments in his paywalled newsletter. The Uvalde families have until late February to respond to Activision’s filings, and the publisher can then reply in April. As Totilo notes, if the case goes to trial, it likely won’t be for a long time.