Activision files lengthy defense in Call of Duty lawsuit accusing it of ‘grooming’ Uvalde school shooter

Activision Blizzard has filed a lengthy defense in response to lawsuits filed last year in which 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 Primary School in May 2022, while 17 others were injured. Families of those killed during the tragedy filed lawsuits in Texas and California against Activision (after it emerged that the shooter had played Call of Duty), along with Instagram owner Meta and gun maker Daniel Defense.

“This three-headed monster,” the lawsuit alleges, “knowingly exposed [the perpetrator] to the gun, conditioned him to see it as a tool to solve his problems and trained him to use it.” At the time of the lawsuit’s filing last May, Activision called the shooting “horrendous and heartbreaking” but noted that “millions of people around the world enjoy video games without resorting to horrible acts.

Now, however, as journalist Stephen Totilo reported in his game File newsletter, Activision has formally presented its initial defense, which spans nearly 150 pages of legal documentation filed last December. In a six-page direct response to California’s lawsuit, the publisher has denied “any and all allegations contained in the complaint,” alleging, among other things, a lack of causation between Call of Duty and the shooting. Totilo notes that the publisher has also asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit based on California’s anti-SLAPP laws, which are designed to prevent abuse of the legal system against the defendant’s free speech.

“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 document. “There can be no doubt that Call of Duty is expressive and fully protected by the First Amendment…By filing a long list of causes of action against Activision based on allegedly dangerous ‘hyper-realistic content’ in Call of Duty video games played . by the author who committed atrocious acts of violence, the complaint clashes head-on with this primary constitutional principle.”

Activision’s filings also include a 35-page statement from Notre Dame media studies professor Matthew Thomas Payne arguing that the Call of Duty series “flows from the same tradition of military realism that has been explored for decades in war and critically acclaimed television shows,” and is therefore far from the “mass shooter training camp” in which “teenagers learn to kill with terrifying skill and ease” described in the families’ lawsuit Uvalde.

The publisher’s defense is also supported by a 38-page presentation from Call of Duty chief creative officer Patrick Kelly, which goes into significant detail about the design and creation of the series. This is the same document that revealed Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War’s eye-watering $700 million budget and includes a wealth of information that Activision’s lawyers could use to counter the various claims made in the companies’ legal filing. Uvalde families.

For example, while the plaintiff’s lawsuit alleges that the Uvalde shooter learned of the gun he used in the loading screen of 2019’s Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, Kelly highlights two key points. First, it says the generic assault rifle depicted in the image had been deliberately anonymized to ensure it did not include identifiers that could link it to any particular firearms manufacturer. Secondly, he points out that when the perpetrator played the game in November 2021, the loading screen had changed and would likely not have been seen.

There’s much more detail in the documentation submitted by Activision, and Totilo has a considerably expanded breakdown of the publisher’s arguments in its paid newsletter. Uvalde families have until the end of February to respond to Activision’s submissions, and the publisher will be able to respond in April. As Totilo points out, if the case goes to trial, it probably won’t be for a long time.