Families of victims of the 2022 Uvalde, Texas school shooting who allege Meta and Activision played a role in the deaths of their loved ones are appealing a judge’s dismissal of the part of the case against Meta.
The May 2022 shootings by Salvador Ramos at Robb Elementary School left 19 children and two teachers dead. On Sept. 5, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William F. Highberger eliminated Meta as a defendant, finding that allowing liability on its part would impose on a content creator or disseminator “limitless liability” for the violent acts of others anywhere in the world.
Highberger affirmed his ruling in December, prompting the notice of appeal filed by lawyers for the families on Monday.
The plaintiffs had alleged in their suit filed in May 2024 that Ramos was exposed to Daniel Defense’s “aggressive, combat-fetishizing” posts on Instagram, which is owned by Meta. Daniel Defense is a firearms manufacturer based in Black Creek, Georgia, that produces high-end AR-15 style rifles and accessories for military, law enforcement, and civilian use.
The plaintiffs contended that Ramos had a growing fixation with Daniel Defense weapons and accessories before conducting the mass shooting.
Co-defendant Activision also is asking to be dismissed as a defendant in a motion scheduled for hearing Jan. 28. As to Activision, the Uvalde families contend that in 2019, Ramos began playing Activision’s “Call of Duty” video games, which they allege exposed him to the Daniel Defense brand. The families maintain that the vividly realistic content of the “Call of Duty” video games groomed Ramos to commit the mass killings.
But the Activision attorneys contend in their court papers that the company has no liability in the families’ lawsuit.
“Just as plaintiffs failed to plead proximate cause or duty as to Meta, so too have they failed to plead proximate cause or duty as to Activision,” the Activision attorneys state in their court papers.
Just as the plaintiffs could not cure the defects as to Meta, the same is true for Activision, the Activision lawyers further contend in their pleadings.
“For the same reason the court concluded that Meta owed plaintiffs no duty, the court should also find that plaintiffs have not and cannot plead that Activision owed them a duty … to prevent harm from the violent act of a third party,” the Activision attorneys state in their court papers.