Activision Seeks Dismissal of Uvalde Parents’ Lawsuit

Activision Blizzard has filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the families of victims of the 2022 Uvalde school shooting. The company is invoking California’s anti-SLAPP laws, arguing that the lawsuit infringes on its “right to creative expression.”

The lawsuit, filed in May 2024, accuses Activision of promoting gun violence to minors, alleging the shooter, Salvador Ramos, was influenced by the obsessive gameplay of Call of Duty franchise titles.

In its December 2024 legal filing, Activision responded to allegations that it bears partial responsibility for the 2022 Uvalde school shooting. The company’s lawyers argue that video games, including Call of Duty, are protected as creative works under the First Amendment. They cite previous court rulings in similar cases involving violent crimes to support their defense.

“The cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries — both legally and morally — is the perpetrator’s violent attack,” Activision stated, asserting that legislative, not judicial, action is the appropriate channel for grievances about content regulation.

Anti-SLAPP statutes (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) protect entities from lawsuits targeting free speech or lawful creative endeavors. Activision’s response underscores a longstanding legal precedent that video games, along with books and films, are creative works and not merely consumer products. The filing also emphasizes Call of Duty’s artistic merit, notifying its exploration of real-world issues such as geopolitics, technology in warfare, and moral complexities of combat.

“Cutting-edge technologies have only increased video games’ artistry and creativity,” the motion reads, pointing to Call of Duty’s immersive storytelling and high production values, such as the $700 million development cost of Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War. Patrick Kelly, the game’s creative lead, and Notre Dame media professor Thomas Payne provided supporting declarations, further emphasizing the franchise’s cultural significance and artistic integrity.

The families’ lawsuit portrays Activision as part of a “three-headed monster,” along with Meta (Instagram) and gun manufacturer Daniel Defense, accusing the entities of conditioning Ramos to view firearms as solutions to his problems. Attorney Katherine Mesner-Hage alleges that Call of Duty played a role in Ramos’ mindset and actions, drawing comparisons to broader societal concerns linking violent video games to real-world aggression.

While similar arguments have surfaced following tragedies like Columbine, courts have consistently ruled that video games cannot be held liable for violent acts. Activision’s legal filing cites these precedents, describing the lawsuit as “the latest episode in a long series of failed attempts to censor violent entertainment.”

The lawsuit revives an ongoing cultural debate about the role of media, including video games, in influencing behavior. High-profile tragedies often spark scrutiny of violent entertainment, though empirical evidence linking video games to violent actions remains inconclusive. Activision’s defense points out that Call of Duty’s realistic depictions of weaponry and warfare have “artistic relevance” and contribute to its narrative depth rather than inciting harmful behavior.

This case also highlights broader questions about corporate responsibility and the boundaries of creative freedom. While gaming advocates champion First Amendment protections, critics argue for stricter oversight of violent media marketed to younger audiences.

A pivotal hearing is scheduled for April 15, 2025, where the court will decide whether the lawsuit will be dismissed under anti-SLAPP protections.