Tessa Matta’s parents were once obsessed with social media. The 10-year-old from Uvalde, Texas, wanted to be famous on TikTok. She would dance, sing and imitate popular trends in her videos, while mom Veronica and dad Jerry closely monitored her online habits.
But then Tess was shot dead at Rob Elementary School in 2022, one of 19 children and two teachers killed by a former student.
Since then, as more details about the shooter’s personal life have become public, the Matas and a handful of other Uvalde families have come to believe that his exposure to gun content online and in video games led to the tragedy.
Jerry and Veronica Matta stand outside the Spring Street Courthouse in Los Angeles on July 17. After their daughter Tessa was killed in a school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, the couple is suing Matta, Activision and Daniel Defense, seeking to challenge social media and video game marketing that they say encouraged the shooter to commit the violence.
(Juliana Yamada/Los Angeles Times)
They are now suing three companies they say benefited from the violent fantasies that led to their children’s deaths. The defendants include the maker of “Call of Duty,” a first-person military shooter game, where they say 18-year-old Salvador Ramos was exposed to a virtual version of the AR-15 from Daniel Defense’s company that he used in the attack. They are also suing Meta, alleging that Ramos was exposed to gun ads that promoted violence on Instagram.
Matas and three other families traveled more than 1,200 miles from Uvalde to face the companies in La. County Superior Court, where they have filed claims for negligence, aiding and abetting, and wrongful death.
“They glorify these guns. They made it tempting for young kids to want to buy these guns, and kids who are young are so receptive to this kind of thing,” Veronica Mata told The Times.
Activision, the Santa Monica-based video game developer, has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the First Amendment protects “Call of Duty” as a work of art. Meta has also fought to have the case thrown out, citing well-established case law that shields social media platforms from liability for third-party content posted by users and advertisers.
Arguments over whether the case should be a revenue case were heard Friday in downtown L.A.
Jerry Mata holds dog tag necklaces from his daughter Tessa, one of the 19 students killed at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, in 2022.
(Juliana Yamada/Los Angeles Times)
The families allege that “Call of Duty,” one of the world’s highest-grossing video game franchises, encouraged violence by trapping Ramos in a repetitive gameplay loop with real-world weapons. And they allege that Instagram equipped him with the knowledge of how, when and where to buy the gun he used.
“To make a finer point on this: Defendants are preying on alienated teenage boys and extorting mass shooters,” the complaint alleges, alleging that the three deadliest K-12 school shootings in American history—Uvalde, Parkland, and Sandy Hook—were all committed by young men playing “Call of Duty” and wielding AR-15s.
“Call of Duty is a simulation, not a game. It teaches players how to accurately aim, reload, and fire, while conditioning the adolescent nervous system to repetitive, graphic violence. And while the killing is virtual, the weapons are authentic,” the complaint alleges.
Ramosa izvēle par Daniela aizsardzību AR-15 bija tīša, teikts tiesas prāvā. Mazo ieroču ražotājam tirgus daļa ir mazāka par 1%, taču konkrēta dzelzceļš, kas parādīts populārā “Call of Duty” pistolē, padarīja to viegli identificējamu spēlētājiem tiešsaistē, neskatoties uz zīmola trūkumu spēles iekšienē.
“Tieši apsūdzētie deva Danielam aizsardzībai tiešu līniju bērnu mājās un vadītājiem, kuri uzrakstīja playbook, kā appludināt šaujamieročus, vienlaikus apiet vecākus un likumu, un kuri izveidoja simulāciju ar reālās dzīves ieročiem un aplaudēja bērniem par viņu prasmi nogalināt,” teikts sūdzībā.
META nekavējoties neatbildēja uz Times komentāru pieprasījumu, kā arī Daniels Aizsardzība, kas Teksasā tiek iesūdzēta tiesā atsevišķā lietā.
Ieroča foto blakus kravas automašīnai, kuru Roba pamatskolas šāvējs avarēja pirms šaušanas 2022. gada 24. maijā.
(Pete Luna / Uvlade Leader-News)
Tiesas jau sen ir noraidījušas ideju, ka vardarbīgas videospēles, piemēram, “Call of Duty”, ir atbildīgas par to cilvēku rīcību, kas tās spēlē, neskatoties uz morālo paniku, kas saistīta ar šo jautājumu, un ir arī atcēlušas centienus ierobežot nepilngadīgo piekļuvi tām.
Izklaides programmatūras reitingu padome nobriedušām auditorijām vairāk nekā 17 gadu vecuma spēļu novērtē nobriedušai auditorijai, taču tās ir pieejamas nepilngadīgajiem, izmantojot tiešsaistes tirdzniecības vietas, kurās pirms pirkuma nav jēgpilni pārbaudīt kāda vecumu.
“To var izdarīt jebkurš pusaudzis, kurš vēlas lejupielādēt Call of Duty,” laikrakstam The Times sacīja Uvalde ģimeņu advokāts Džošs Koskofs.
2011. gada Augstākās tiesas lieta Brown pret izklaides tirgotājiem Assn., Attēla 2005. gada Kalifornijas likumu, kas aizliedza pārdot vardarbīgas videospēles nepilngadīgajiem. Šajā valstī nebija tradīcijas, kas īpaši ierobežo bērnu piekļuvi vardarbības attēlojumiem. Piemēram, Grimma pasakas patiešām ir drūmas, ”vēlīnā tiesneša Antonina Scalia rakstīja 7-2 vairākuma viedoklī.
Activision jau sen ir aizstāvējis savas spēles kā aizsargājama mākslinieciskā izpausme, neskatoties uz kritiku par tās ārkārtējo vardarbību, kas dažreiz ietver spēlētājus, kuri nogalina citus kaujiniekus – gandrīz nekad neļauj civiliedzīvotājiem – kaujas simulācijās, dažreiz publiskās arēnās kā lidostas un pilsētu izplešanās.
“Call of Duty stāsta sarežģītus stāstus, kuros tiek izpētīti reālās pasaules kaujas scenāriji, ar kuriem karavīri saskaras mūsdienu karā. Nav šaubu, ka Call of Duty ir izteiksmīgs un pilnībā aizsargāts ar pirmo grozījumu,” uzņēmums sacīja tiesas pieteikumā.
Koskoffs piektdien apgalvoja, ka lietas mētāšana pirms atklāšanas liegs viņiem atrast dokumentus, kas varētu pierādīt, ka Activision zināja, ka tas ir Daniela aizsardzības AR-15 mārketings, izmantojot “Call of Duty” nepilngadīgajiem.
Activision saites ar ieroču uzņēmumiem jau iepriekš ir pārbaudītas.
A confidential 2009 agreement between the game maker and Remington Arms gave the publisher the right to put guns — unbranded to avoid pressure — in its game at no cost to either party. The agreement was first reported by the Washington Post in 2023 and became public due to a lawsuit brought by the parents of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which Remington settled for $73 million.
Activision denied placing the real-life Daniel Defense gun in its games in court on Friday. Attorney Bethany Kristovich said the developer vetted the gun in order to avoid branding and contracts with “a non-firearms manufacturer in any way.”
Daniel’s defense identified the weapon on the “Call of Duty” loading screen in an Instagram post of its own, Kristovich said, denying that Activision intentionally put a specific real-life AR-15 model in the game or even knew about the company’s position.
Families still grieving for their children say it has been an ongoing battle to challenge authorities who failed to protect them. The new case is another chapter in what feels like a giant takedown, Veronica Mata said.
A woman walks near a “Call of Duty” advertisement on December 7, 2022, in New York City.
(See press/corbis via Getty Images)
The city of Uvalde approved a $2 million settlement in May for faulty police response to the shooting, and a Texas appeals court on Wednesday ordered the release of school board and district documents about the shooting, local news reported.
“We can step forward, and we can make these changes and make them understand that what they have done, and what they continue to do, is not up to them or anyone else,” Mata said.
