TEXAS TRIBUNE – Several Uvalde families are suing Daniel Defense, the manufacturer of the AR-15-style rifle used by the 18-year-old shooter who killed 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary School two years ago and wounded several more, according to lawyers.
The victim's family also filed separate lawsuits Friday against California-based Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, and Activision, whose Daniel Defense gun appears in the best-selling video game “Call of Duty.”
The lawsuit will accuse the three companies of negligence and wrongful death for selling semi-automatic rifles to the Uvalde shooter before he turned 18. The shooter purchased guns shortly after turning 18 and used one of them to carry out the deadliest school shooting in Texas history.
In Texas, anyone 18 years old can legally purchase a rifle or other long gun.
Josh Koskoff, an attorney representing the Uvalde family, said there was a direct connection between the actions of those companies and the Uvalde shooting.
“Twenty-three minutes after midnight on his 18th birthday, the Uvalde shooter purchased an AR-15 manufactured by a company with less than 1% market share,” Koskoff said in a statement. “Why? Because Instagram, Activision and Daniel Defense targeted and groomed him online long before he was old enough to buy one. This three-headed monster knowingly showed him the weapon, made him believe it was a tool to solve his problems, and trained him to use it.”
The lawsuit comes on the second anniversary of the shooting.
The lawyers allege that Daniel Defense knowingly markets its weapons to young people and uses platforms like Instagram and first-person shooter games like Call of Duty to promote the criminal use of its weapons.
The lawyers added that, due to weak and easily circumvented rules aimed at banning gun advertising to children, Instagram offers an unmonitored channel to speak directly to boys.
The lawsuit against Daniel Defense will be filed in the 38th District Court in Uvalde County, Texas, on behalf of 31 family members of the victims. The lawsuit alleges that Daniel Defense lured the shooter with marketing that sought to get young people attached to its brand of AR-15s, particularly its flagship product, the DDM4v7.
The lawsuit against Activision and Meta was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of about 45 family members of the dead and injured victims. The lawsuit accuses the gaming company of desensitizing young people to gang violence and encouraging them to seek out weapons like those featured in Call of Duty. An Activision spokesman did not respond to questions about the lawsuit's allegations but issued a statement offering condolences to the families of the victims.
“The Uvalde shooting was a horrific and heartbreaking incident in every sense of the word, and our deepest sympathies go out to the family and community that continue to be affected by this senseless act of violence,” the spokesperson said. “Millions of people around the world enjoy playing video games without resorting to horrific acts.”
But the Entertainment Software Association, which represents the industry's largest publishers, denounced the move to blame video games for real-life violence.
“We are saddened and outraged by these senseless acts of violence,” a spokesperson for the association said. “At the same time, we ask that an end be made to unfounded accusations linking these tragedies to playing video games, which focuses on the root of the problem and undermines efforts to prevent future tragedies. Many other countries have similar rates of video game play to the U.S., but do not have the same rates of gun violence.”
Representatives for Daniel Defense and Meta did not respond to emailed requests for comment.
Instagram prohibits the marketing of firearms on its platform, but the lawsuit alleges that while it strictly enforces other types of content guidelines, it has neglected to enforce its firearms guidelines.
The Uvalde family's legal approach appears similar to an approach taken locally by Koskoff, a Connecticut attorney who helped victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and won a $73 million settlement against the manufacturer of the AR-15 rifle used in the school massacre.
The settlement is widely seen as a major setback for the firearms industry, which has broad legal immunity from civil lawsuits. A law enacted by Congress in 2005 exempts gun manufacturers from liability for crimes committed with their own firearms. Koskoff's team successfully circumvented the law by arguing that they could sue gun manufacturers under state consumer protection laws, an exception to federal law.
During the course of the Connecticut lawsuit, documents emerged through discovery showing that firearms manufacturer Remington has a licensing agreement with Activision. It is not clear whether such an agreement exists between Daniel Defense and Activision.
A 2019 Instagram post from Daniel Defense read, “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Launches Today,” and included a photo of the type of rifle used in the Uvalde shooting.
Other Daniel Defense Instagram posts feature videos of young men actively firing the company's rifles. One 2020 Instagram post includes an image of someone retrieving a gun from the trunk of a car, along with the words “we refuse to be a victim.”
“Firearms companies like Daniel Defense are not acting alone,” Koskoff said. “AR-15s were available when many of us were kids, but there weren't any mass shootings committed by kids. What has changed is that companies like Instagram and Activision are not only helping gun companies reach consumers, but also encouraging and mainstreaming violence against aggrieved youth.”
This is not the first lawsuit filed by families against Daniel Defense. Family members of Uvalde's victims previously filed two lawsuits against the Georgia-based gun manufacturer, alleging that the company knowingly sold AR-15 rifles to young men and “encouraged illegal and dangerous misuse” of the weapons.
The Daniel Defense is seeking dismissal of those lawsuits, which were filed in federal court and are still pending.
Two years after the Robb Elementary School shooting, state and local law enforcement officials have come under heavy criticism for their response to the mass murder, which saw hundreds of law enforcement officers storm into the school and wait for more than an hour to confront the gunman who opened fire in two fourth-grade classrooms.
The failed response has been the subject of a U.S. Department of Justice report and an intense investigation by a Texas House committee. A grand jury convened by Uvalde District Attorney Christina Mitchell could decide whether federal, state and local officers face criminal charges.
On Wednesday, Uvalde families represented by Koskoff filed a lawsuit against 92 Texas Department of Public Safety employees. They also announced a $2 million settlement with the city of Uvalde. At a press conference the same day the announcement was made, Koskoff previewed additional lawsuits he will file on behalf of the Uvalde families, including lawsuits focused on the period before the shooting.
“There's an awful lot of attention, understandably, on law enforcement,” Koskoff told reporters earlier this week, “and I think it's appropriate to remind them that they're at the end of the road.”
Koskoff noted that the 610-page Justice Department report “does not contain a single page about why the shooting occurred in the first place.”
The number of semi-automatic rifles, including AR-15s, manufactured or imported into the United States has increased significantly since the 1990s. According to a database maintained by Mother Jones, AR-15-style rifles were not used in mass shootings until 2007. In 2022, shooters used AR-15 rifles in 67% of the 12 mass shootings that occurred that year.
The AR-15 was designed as a military rifle in the late 1950s.
A Texas Tribune investigation found that officers who responded to the Robb Elementary School shooting were so afraid of the guns that they decided not to immediately confront the shooter. Instead, they waited for the arrival of a Border Patrol SWAT team stationed 60 miles away.
The Uvalde family pressured state lawmakers to pass a bill that would have raised the minimum age for purchasing certain semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21. The bill failed to pass the Republican-controlled Legislature, which has long loosened gun laws and made guns more accessible to Texans who strongly support the Second Amendment.
Copyright 2024 KBTX. All rights reserved.
