Call of Duty maker can't be held responsible for actions of Uvalde, Texas shooter, claims U.S. lawyer
The families sued Call of Duty maker Activision and Meta Platforms, which owns Instagram, saying that the companies bear responsibility for promoting products used by the teen gunman.
Three sets of parents who lost children in the shooting were in the audience at the Los Angeles hearing.
Activision lawyer Bethany Kristovich told Superior Court Judge William Highberger that the 'First Amendment bars their claims, period full stop.'
'The issues of gun violence are incredibly difficult,' Kristovich said. 'The evidence in this case is not.'
She argued that the case has little chance of prevailing if it continues, because courts have repeatedly held that 'creators of artistic works, whether they be books, music, movies, TV or video games, cannot be held legally liable for the acts of their audience.'
The lawsuit, one of many involving Uvalde families, was filed last year on the second anniversary of one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history. The gunman killed 19 students and two teachers. Officers finally confronted and shot him after waiting more than an hour to enter the fourth-grade classroom.
Kimberly Rubio, whose 10-year-old daughter Lexi was killed in the shooting, was among the parents who came from Texas to Southern California, where Activision is based, for the hearing.
'We traveled all this way, so we need answers,' Rubio said outside the courthouse. "It's our hope that the case will move forward so we can get those answers."
An attorney for the families argued during the hearing that Call of Duty exceeds its First Amendment protections by moving into marketing.
'The basis of our complaint is not the existence of Call of Duty," Katie Mesner-Hage told the judge. "It is using Call of Duty as a platform to market weapons to minors.'
The plaintiffs' lawyers showed contracts and correspondence between executives at Activison and gunmakers whose products, they said, are clearly and exactly depicted in the game despite brand names not appearing.
Mesner-Hage said the documents show that they actually prefer being unlabelled because 'it helps shield them from the implication that they are marketing guns to minors,' while knowing that players will still identify and seek out the weapons.
Kristovich said there is no evidence that the kind of product placement and marketing the plaintiffs are talking about happened in any of the editions of the game the shooter played.
The families have also filed a lawsuit against Daniel Defense, which manufactured the AR-style rifle used in the May 24, 2022, shooting. Koskoff argued that a replica of the rifle clearly appears on a splash page for Call of Duty.
Josh Koskoff, the families' Connecticut-based lead attorney, also represented families of nine Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims in a lawsuit against gunmaker Remington and got a $73 million lawsuit settlement.
He invoked Sandy Hook several times in his arguments, saying the shooters there and in Uvalde shared the same gaming obsession.
Koskoff said the Uvalde shooter experienced 'the absorption and the loss of self in Call of Duty.'
He said that immersion was so deep that the shooter searched online for how to obtain an armored suit that he didn't know only exists in the game.
Koskoff played a clip from Call of Duty Modern Warfare, the game the shooter played, with a first-person shooter gunning down opponents.
The shots echoed loudly in the courtroom, and several people in the audience slowly shook their heads.
'Call of Duty is in a class of its own," Koskoff said.
Kristovich argued for Activision that the game, despite its vast numbers of players, can be tied to only a few of the many U.S. mass shootings.
'The game is incredibly common. It appears in a scene on 'The Office,'" she said. She added that it is ridiculous to assert that 'this is such a horrible scourge that your honor has to essentially ban it through this lawsuit.'
Highberger told the lawyers he was not leaning in either direction before the hearing. He gave no time frame for when he will rule, but a quick decision is not expected.
The judge did tell the plaintiffs' lawyers that their description of Activision's actions seemed like deliberate malfeasance, where their lawsuit alleges negligence. He said that was the biggest hurdle they needed to clear.
'Their conduct created a risk of exactly what happened,' Mesner-Hage told him. 'And we represent the people who are exactly the foreseeable victims of that conduct.'
Meta's attorneys will make arguments on a similar motion next month.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
37 minutes ago
- Time of India
Not my child: In Hyderabad, a clinic of lies
NEW DELHI: In a chilling twist to a suspected surrogacy scam, Hyderabad police have arrested eight people — including doctors and agents — for allegedly duping a Rajasthan-based couple by handing them a baby bought from a poor family and passing it off as their own biological child born through IVF. The racket centres around the Universal Srushti Fertility Centre in Secunderabad, run by Dr Athaluri Namratha (64), who is the prime accused. Among those arrested is Dr Nargula Sadanandam (41), an anesthetist at the state-run Gandhi Hospital, along with technicians and agents who allegedly facilitated the baby trade. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad HOW THE SCAM UNFOLDED August 2024 : The couple from Rajasthan approached the Secunderabad clinic for IVF consultation. Advised surrogacy : Dr Namratha allegedly convinced them to go for surrogacy, claiming their embryo would be implanted in a surrogate. Vizag referral : The couple was then asked to visit the Visakhapatnam branch for further procedures. Rs 35 lakh paid : Over the following months, the couple made payments totalling Rs 35 lakh. June 2025 : They were informed that the surrogate had delivered a baby boy via C-section. Rs 2 lakh extra : The clinic allegedly demanded Rs 2 lakh as delivery charges and handed over the baby — along with forged documentation. DNA shocker : Suspicious, the couple had a DNA test conducted in Delhi — which confirmed the baby was not genetically related to them. According to police sources, the clinic had actually bought the baby from a poor family for just Rs 90,000 and presented it as the result of the surrogacy. "The couple were misled into believing the child was theirs. The clinic fabricated the entire surrogacy procedure, and forged papers to hand over a baby purchased from another family," said a senior Hyderabad police officer, adding that more victims may come forward as the investigation progresses. Police have also flagged that Dr Namratha had been previously linked to a 2020 child trafficking case. Further investigation is underway to determine the scale of the operation, the involvement of hospital staff, and how many such 'IVF' babies were in fact trafficked.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
‘Golf Force One' vs. ‘The Beast', how this armoured golf cart tailing Trump compares to his $1.5 million Presidential limo
A heavily armored black golf cart, nicknamed 'Golf Force One', was spotted over the weekend following Donald Trump during a game at the Trump Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire, Scotland. The reinforced cart followed Trump at close range, as Trump chose to cruise the course in a regular white golf cart. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category PGDM Management MBA Design Thinking MCA Finance Operations Management Data Science others Data Analytics Degree Digital Marketing Artificial Intelligence Healthcare Product Management Data Science Leadership Others Project Management Public Policy Technology healthcare CXO Skills you'll gain: Financial Analysis & Decision Making Quantitative & Analytical Skills Organizational Management & Leadership Innovation & Entrepreneurship Duration: 24 Months IMI Delhi Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Online) Starts on Sep 1, 2024 Get Details Photos and videos of the jet-black vehicle, moving amid army trucks and security personnel, quickly drew attention online. The buggy's bulk, darkened windows, and militarised design sparked comparisons to Trump's presidential limousine, 'The Beast.' Also Read: WWII vet who married at 100 in Normandy, plans Bar Mitzvah at 103 at the Pentagon; still chasing dreams 81 years after D-Day The heightened security presence is not without cause. In September 2024, a man armed with an SKS-style rifle was spotted attempting to approach Trump during a golf match in Florida. Two months prior, a 20-year-old gunman opened fire from a rooftop during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, grazing Trump's ear and killing a supporter. Live Events Since then, the US Secret Service has visibly increased its protective measures around Trump. Snipers were seen stationed on rooftops at Turnberry during this recent Scotland trip, and the presence of Golf Force One adds a new layer of mobile defense. What is 'Golf Force One'? According to experts cited by The Telegraph, the buggy appears to be a modified Polaris Ranger XP, a vehicle typically used by UK rural police and sometimes by US law enforcement. Though it resembles a regular golf cart in size, the vehicle is reportedly equipped with armor plating and reinforced windows. Security specialist Gary Relf told the Telegraph that key indicators of armoring include a tinted, banded windscreen, thick side panels, and an enclosed rear section. 'From those photos, that is 100% armored,' adding that its transparent armor likely makes the windows appear heavily tinted. Despite its added protection, the vehicle is believed to be light enough to avoid damaging the golf course turf, a consideration that makes it suitable for moving discreetly across fairways without drawing mechanical or visual attention. The vehicle likely serves a defensive function, possibly as a mobile shield or rapid escape vehicle in case of sudden threats. Using such a cart can also allow Trump's security to remain nearby during a relatively exposed activity like golfing, where conventional armored vehicles can't follow. How 'Golf Force One' compares to 'The Beast' While Golf Force One is built for mobility and close-range protection in outdoor environments, The Beast, the presidential limousine officially known as Cadillac One, is a fully fortified mobile command center. The Beast weighs 8–10 tonnes and features: Eight-inch-thick armor plating Bulletproof, sealed doors with no keyholes An independent oxygen supply Blood bags matching the president's blood type Run-flat tires and an armored fuel tank Encrypted communication systems for secure command during emergencies Tear gas dispensers and electrified door handles for defense By contrast, Golf Force One is a smaller, faster, and more flexible machine, designed for open, less secure terrain like golf courses. Its primary function appears to be defensive mobility rather than heavy protection and communication infrastructure. It allows agents to stay within close range of Trump during casual outdoor activities without compromising safety.
Scroll.in
2 hours ago
- Scroll.in
Why a court ban on encrypted email service Proton Mail has sparked digital privacy fears
A two-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court is now hearing a challenge filed by Proton AG, the Swiss company that runs the encrypted email service, Proton Mail. On April 29, a single judge of the high court had directed the Union government to block the service in India, setting off a wave of criticism from digital rights advocates. Many of them told Scroll that the court's ban set a dangerous precedent that threatens the privacy of whistle-blowers, activists, journalists, and others who rely on encryption for more secure communications. They said the court had erred in blaming encryption for Proton's alleged non-cooperation with the Karnataka police in its investigation into online harassment by anonymous culprits through its email service. What did the High Court order say? The case began when a Bengaluru-based organisation approached the High Court after some of its female employees were subjected to prolonged online harassment. The company received a torrent of emails from two Proton Mail accounts containing obscene and abusive content, including morphed images of the employees. The company filed a police complaint and reached out to Proton Mail's abuse team. While Proton disabled the offending accounts, it could not provide the company personally identifiable details of the sender of the mail. This is because, it informed the company, under Swiss law, it could only disclose user data upon receiving a formal legal request from Swiss authorities through established international cooperation channels. The police investigation hit a similar wall. The police told the court that they could not identify the culprit through the mutual legal assistance arrangements between India and Switzerland. However, the judgment didn't clarify what specific steps were taken or where those efforts stalled. Nevertheless, Justice M Nagaprasanna took a stern view of the matter in his judgment. Describing the situation as a 'menace', he noted that Proton Mail had also been used to send bomb threats to schools and even to the Chief Minister of Karnataka. 'The State machinery [is] hamstrung by the absence of enforceable cooperation from Proton AG,' Nagaprasanna observed. 'This Court fails to understand the complacency of the Union of India in not taking action towards blocking the Proton Mail…' Concluding that the court could not remain a 'mute spectator', the judge directed the Union government to initiate proceedings to block Proton Mail in India under the Information Technology Act. 'Troubling precedent' As of July 25, Proton Mail was still accessible in India. While the court's intent to protect the victims of harassment is clear, technology lawyers and digital rights advocates raised concerns about the order's sweeping nature and its wider implications. They argue that blocking an entire service used by many for the criminal acts of a few is a disproportionate response that could undermine digital security for everyone. The order 'sets a troubling precedent,' said Raman Jit Singh Chima, Asia Pacific Policy Director at Access Now, a digital civil rights organisation. 'It signals that entire encrypted services can be taken down based on allegations linked to a handful of users.' A ban could lead to a domino effect, warned Apar Gupta, lawyer and founder director of the Internet Freedom Foundation. 'Other encrypted platforms could face pressure to weaken their security or risk being blocked,' he explained. 'This approach may inadvertently chill free expression, as journalists, activists and at-risk communities who rely on encrypted communications for safety might feel less secure.' This view was echoed by technology lawyer and online civil liberties activist Mishi Choudhary. 'In today's day of heightened cyber security issues and surveillance, privacy-protecting technologies are more crucial than ever,' she said. Blocking Proton Mail would not eliminate online abuse either, said technologist and interdisciplinary researcher Rohini Lakshané. 'Malicious actors can simply migrate to other encrypted email providers or deploy additional anonymisation techniques,' she said. The fear is that the High Court's order could give cover to authorities to take a heavy-handed approach towards any platform that offers privacy. 'This move will embolden the bureaucracy and the political powers to act first and think later,' cautioned Tanveer Hasan, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, an internet and digital technologies research organisation. As Choudhary noted, 'India cannot be a destination that issues blocking orders at the drop of a hat if investigative authorities aren't able to access some data.' Gupta warned that the order would create legal uncertainty for overseas service providers. 'Those in jurisdictions with strict privacy laws could be caught between home-country obligations and Indian court demands, deterring them from offering services in India,' he said. Encryption versus user identification A key point of contention is the court's conflation of the protection of a message's content with the ability to identify a user. The court identified encryption as a factor for the police's failed investigation – without explaining how. Encrypted services like Proton Mail are prevented from seeing the content of messages sent on their platforms, but may still access user metadata, such as internet protocol address – a unique alphanumerical identifier assigned to each computer connected to the internet – from which an account was created or accessed. Nikhil Narendran, a partner at the law firm Trilegal, argued that the ban was based on a misunderstanding of the technology 'Encryption only protects the content of a message but does not prevent a receiver or sender from disclosing it wilfully,' he explained. 'It also doesn't prevent a company from disclosing user information once the content is disclosed.' This metadata can be a crucial tool for law enforcement to trace the origin of a criminal act. In 2021, Proton Mail handed over the internet protocol address of French Proton Mail users to the French police upon an order by the Swiss government. 'So, the idea that Proton Mail is immune to legal process is simply not true,' Chima said. Sharveya Parasnis, a journalist at the technology policy portal Medianama, questioned the court's invocation of encryption. 'I don't know if the case is about encryption as much as it is about the obligation of foreign companies to comply with Indian law enforcement requests for user data,' he said. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 mandate that online platforms 'enable the identification' of anyone communicating through the platform upon a government or court order. The right way forward? Experts pointed out that a blanket ban failed the three-part test for restricting fundamental rights laid down by the Supreme Court in its landmark privacy judgment in 2018. Any restriction must be lawful, necessary and, crucially, proportionate. 'Here, less intrusive options clearly existed,' Chima said. He and other experts Scroll spoke with argued that instead of resorting to bans, Indian authorities should strengthen and use existing legal channels. India and Switzerland are both signatories to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, a formal mechanism for requesting and obtaining evidence for criminal investigations. The treaty should be reformed 'so investigators can lawfully obtain data in a timely manner,' suggested Gupta. 'Regulators can also establish clear, transparent protocols for engaging with encrypted services based abroad, and even update outdated agreements to address modern cybercrime.' Rahul Narayan, a partner at the law firm Chandhiok & Mahajan who has expertise in privacy and data protection, batted for more legislative clarity in such situations. 'Precise parameters for when a service may be blocked should be laid down in a legislation, rather than decided on an ad-hoc basis by courts,' he said.
