Tess Mata’s parents were once enthusiastic about social media. The 10 -year -old man from Uvalde, Texas, wanted to be a famous Tiktok. She used to dance, sing and imitate popular trends on her videos, with Maman Veronica and Papa Jerry keeping a vigilant eye on her online habits.
But then, Tess was shot in Robb primary school in 2022, one of the 19 children and two teachers killed by a former student.
Since then, when the details of the person’s personal life have become public, the Matas and a handful of other Uvalde families have ended up believing that its exposure to the content of online guns and in video games has led to tragedy.
Jerry and Veronica Mata stand before the Spring Street courthouse on July 17 in Los Angeles. After their daughter Tess was killed in the shooting of the school in Uvalde, Texas, the couple pursues Meta, Activision and Daniel Defense in order to challenge social media and video game marketing which, according to them, urged the shooter to commit violence.
(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)
They are now pursuing three companies which, according to them, have benefited from the violent fantasies that led to the death of their children. The defendants include the manufacturer of “Call of Duty”, a military shooting game in the first person where they say that Salvador Ramos, 18, met a virtual version of an AR-15 of Daniel’s defense which he used in the attack. They also pursue Meta, alleging that Ramos has encountered advertisements for the weapon which favored violence on Instagram.
The Mata and three other Uvalde families have traveled more than 1,200 miles to face the companies of the Superior Court of the County of the, where they filed for negligence, helping and encouraging unjustified death.
“They glorify these weapons. They made it attractive for young children to want to buy these weapons, and the children that young people are so receptive to this type of thing,” Veronica Mata told Times.
Activision, the video game developer based in Santa Monica, has deposited his dismissal, arguing that the 1st amendment protects “Call of Duty” as a work of art. Meta also fought to ensure that the case is launched, pointing to well-established jurisprudence which protects the social media platforms from the responsibility of the third-party content published by users and advertisers.
Arguments on the question of whether the case should be heard on Friday in downtown the
Jerry Mata holds dog dog necklaces from his daughter Tess, one of the 19 students killed in Robb primary school in Uvalde, Texas, in 2022.
(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)
Families allege that “Call of Duty”, one of the most profitable video game franchises in the world, encouraged violence by catching Ramos in a repeated gaming loop with real weapons. And they say that Instagram has equipped it with the knowledge of how, when and where to buy the weapon he used.
“To end a thinner point: the defendants chew alienated teenagers and spit mass shooters,” said the complaint, noting that the three shoots of the most deadly K -12 school in American history – Uvalde, Parkland and Sandy Hook – were all committed by young men who played “Call of Duty” and used an AR -15.
“Call of Duty is a simulation, not a game. He teaches players how to target, recharge and pulled with precision, while living in the teenage nervous system to inflict repeated graphic violence. And although the murder is virtual, weapons are authentic,” said the complaint.
The choice of Daniel Ar-15’s defense Ramos was intentional, said the trial. The small weapon manufacturer has a market share of less than 1%, but a specific rail displayed on a popular “call of duty” pistol easily identifiable to online players despite a lack of brand inside the game.
“It was the accused who gave Daniel La Défense a direct line in children’s houses and heads, who wrote a game book to peddle firearms while bypassing parents and law, and who created a simulation with real and applauded children for their competence to kill,” said the complaint.
Meta did not immediately respond to the request for comments from the Times, and Daniel Defense, who is prosecuted in a separate case in Texas.
A photo of a weapon next to the truck that the shooter of the Robb primary school crushed before the shooting on May 24, 2022.
(Pete Luna / Uvlade Leader-News)
The courts have long rejected the idea that violent video games like “Call of Duty” are responsible for the actions of those who play them despite moral panic surrounding the problem, and have also reversed efforts to restrict minors’ access.
Most modern “call of duty” games are assessed for the mature public over the age of 17 by the entertainment board ratings, but are available for minors via online markets that do not significantly check someone’s age before purchasing.
“Any teenager who wishes to download Call of Duty can do so,” said Josh Koskoff, lawyer for Uvalde families, in Times.
A 2011 Supreme Court caseBrown vs. Entertainment Merchants Assn., Canceled a California law in 2005 which prohibited the sale of violent video games to minors. There was “no tradition in this country to specifically restrict children’s access to representations of violence. … Grimm fairy tales, for example, are indeed dark, “wrote the late Antonin Scalia in the opinion of the majority 7-2.
Activision has long defended its games as a protected artistic expression despite the criticism of its extreme violence, which sometimes implies that players kill other combatants – almost never allowing civilian victims – in combat simulations, sometimes in public arenas like urban airports and sprawl.
“Call of Duty tells complex stories that explore the actual world combat scenarios with which soldiers are confronted in modern war. There is no doubt that Call of Duty is expressive and entirely protected by the first amendment,” said society in a judicial file.
Koskoff argued on Friday that launching the case before the discovery would prevent them from finding documents that could prove that Activision knew that it was marketing the Daniel Defense AR-15 by “Call of Duty” to minors.
Activision links with firearms companies have already been examined.
A confidential contract of 2009 between the Game Maker and Remington Arms gave the publisher the rights to put his arms – without marking to avoid the perspective – in his game at no cost for one or the other of the parties. The agreement was reported for the first time in the Washington Post In 2023 and became a public due to a trial brought by the parents of the Victims of Sandy Hook 2012 primary school, which Remington settled for $ 73 million.
Activision denied having placed Daniel’s real defense on Friday during his games in court. Lawyer Bethany Kristovich said the developer had a veterinarian all weapons to avoid the brand and contracts with “no firearms manufacturer, in any way”.
Daniel Defense identified the weapon in a “Call of Duty” loading screen in an Instagram post, said Kristovich, denying that Activision intentionally put a specific AR-15 model in the game or was even aware of the company’s position.
Families who still cry their children say that challenging the institutions that did not protect them were a continuous fight. The new case is another chapter that wants to take giants, said Veronica Mata.
A woman walks near the advertising “Call of Duty” on December 7, 2022 in New York.
(Display the press / corbis via Getty Images)
The City of Uvalde approved in May a regulation of $ 2 million for a response from the imperfect police at the shooting, and a Court of Appeal in Texas ordered the release of documents from the School and the Comté on Wednesday about the shooting, local News reported.
“We can move forward, and we can make this change and make them understand that what they have done and what they continue to do is not to enjoy them or for anyone else,” said Mata.