&w=3840&q=100)
Lawyer argues Call of Duty maker can't be held responsible for actions of Uvalde, Texas, shooter
A lawyer for the maker of the video game Call of Duty argued Friday that a judge should dismiss a lawsuit brought by families of the victims of the Robb Elementary School attack in Uvalde, Texas, saying the contents of the war game are protected by the First Amendment.
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.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
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 travelled 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.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
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 unlabeled 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.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
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.
Video game is 'in a class of its own,' lawyer says
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.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
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.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
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
2 days ago
- Time of India
How Hulk Hogan destroyed Gawker — after tag teaming with Peter Thiel
'So Hulk Hogan died. As a former Gawker writer (as are all Gawker writers thanks to Hulk Hogan), I won't be the first or the last to say 'f** that guy.' Dance on any grave you want to, but this one's mine. ' — Yvette d'Entremont, former Gawker contributor It was the kind of tweet that needed no context — but got one anyway. Readers quickly pointed out what the internet already knew but chose to forget: Gawker published a clip of Hogan's private sex tape in 2012. Hogan sued. He won $140 million. Gawker Media went bankrupt. Case closed. Except it wasn't just about Hogan. And it wasn't just about sex tapes. It was about power, privacy, and a billionaire's quiet vendetta. TL;DR Hulk Hogan, who died this week, successfully sued Gawker in 2016 for publishing a clip of his sex tape. The lawsuit, Bollea v. Gawker, ended in a $140 million judgment that bankrupted the site. It later emerged that tech billionaire Peter Thiel — whom Gawker had outed in 2007 — had secretly funded the legal assault. The case became a landmark moment in American media law, sparking debates on free speech, privacy, and the weaponisation of the courts. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Many Are Watching Tariffs - Few Are Watching What Nvidia Just Launched Seeking Alpha Read Now Undo The Kill Shot In 2012, Gawker posted a grainy, black-and-white video of wrestling star Hulk Hogan having sex with his friend's wife — without his consent. Hogan's legal team argued it was a gross invasion of privacy. Gawker, led by editor Nick Denton, claimed it was newsworthy. The case dragged on for years. Then, in 2016, the Florida jury delivered a verdict that shocked the media world: $115 million in compensatory damages. $25 million more in punitive damages. And just like that, Gawker was dead. But the real twist came months later, when Forbes revealed that the entire lawsuit had been bankrolled by Peter Thiel, the PayPal co-founder and Facebook investor. In 2007, Gawker had outed Thiel as gay — and Thiel never forgot. 'It's less about revenge and more about specific deterrence,' he would later say, sounding like a Bond villain with a Stanford law degree. The Free Speech Paradox The Hogan case was never just about celebrity scandal. It became the most consequential media trial of the digital age. The verdict was cheered by those who felt Gawker's brand of tabloid blogging had gone too far. But it also terrified journalists and First Amendment advocates, who saw in Thiel's secret involvement a dangerous precedent: rich people funding lawsuits to destroy media outlets they dislike. Thiel framed it as justice. Gawker framed it as censorship. Denton called it a "chilling assault on the free press." The courts didn't care. The law was on Hogan's side — because the video was private, and Gawker did publish it without permission. When the Heel Becomes the Hammer In wrestling, a 'heel turn' is when the good guy becomes the villain. But in this case, it was the villain — the loud-mouthed, bandana-clad caricature of 1980s testosterone — who turned out to be the man holding the hammer of justice. Or at least, the man standing in front of the hammer. The hand that swung it was wearing a Silicon Valley watch and holding a grudge. Gawker's brand of gonzo tabloidism was never meant to be polite. It punched up, punched down, and punched sideways. It published things mainstream outlets wouldn't. And for that reason, it always had enemies. But Hogan's death is a reminder that the final punch didn't come from words. It came from a courtroom. FAQ Was Gawker's reporting illegal? Not necessarily. But in Bollea v. Gawker, the jury found that the publication of the sex tape violated Hogan's privacy rights , regardless of his public persona. What happened to Gawker after the lawsuit? Gawker Media filed for bankruptcy. Its assets were sold to Univision. The brand was briefly revived in 2021, then shut down again in 2023. Who funded the lawsuit? Peter Thiel, the billionaire tech investor and early Trump backer, secretly funded Hogan's legal expenses. His motivation was personal: Gawker had outed him in 2007. Did this change US media law? Indirectly. The case sparked a wave of concern about "third-party funded litigation" and how it could be used to silence media outlets — especially smaller, independent ones. Was Hogan the hero or the weapon? Depends who you ask. To some, he was a privacy crusader. To others, just a celebrity tool in a much larger grudge match.
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Indian Express
How Hulk Hogan's sex tape lawsuit bankrupted media company Gawker
Hulk Hogan's victory against Andre the Giant at Wrestlemania III in 1987 has long been considered the greatest of his wrestling career. But as influential as body slamming the 500-pound Giant was, in real life terms, it pales in comparison to the impact of Hogan's civil suit against Gawker for publishing a video of him having sex with his best friend's wife. Here's what happened, including the role of Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel. Hogan, 71, died on Thursday (July 25). An unsavoury video Gawker was a news and gossip website founded by Nick Denton in 2002 with the goal of 'being a snarky insidery blog with a focus on New York City and a long satirical streak,' according to an article by The New York Times. Over the years, Gawker developed a reputation for publishing provocative content, which frequently violated copyrights and privacy, or was illegally obtained. It was one such video that would lead to its eventual downfall. In 2007, Gawker obtained a copy of a secretly recorded sex tape, which featured Hulk Hogan having sex with Heather Clem, the wife of his then-best friend, radio personality Bubba the Love Sponge Clem. Bubba had himself filmed the video in secret but it is yet unclear how the video was leaked to Gawker. In 2012, after Gawker published nine seconds of sexually-explicit footage, Hogan, born Terry Gene Bollea, filed a $100 million civil lawsuit against the outlet. Hogan claimed that the sex tape was filmed without his consent even though the encounter itself was consensual. He even told radio host Howard Stern that the coupling received 'Bubba Clem's blessing'. Hogan would testify in court: 'I was depressed. I gave up and gave in. I felt that those people loved me.' Hogan's case was simple: his lawyers argued that Gawker grossly violated his privacy and that publishing the video did not serve any news purpose. 'To him the privacy part of it was integral. It was important,' Hogan's lead trial attorney, Ken Turkel, told the Associated Press. 'Eight-year-old kids were googling 'Hulk Hogan' and 'Wrestlemania,' and they were getting a sex tape. That was hurtful to him in a real personal way.' Gawker's counsel, on the other hand, argued that the footage is newsworthy and protected by the First Amendment, and that Hogan should not have had an expectation of privacy. The First Amendment to the US Constitution essentially protects the freedom of speech. Legally speaking, the case pitted the First Amendment against the privacy rights of celebrities — an issue on which courts had hitherto leaned towards the former. A landmark verdict This is why Bollea v. Gawker is a landmark verdict. With the jury rejecting Gawker's First Amendment arguments and awarding Hogan a whopping $141 million, a precedent was set for celebrities to be able to persuade a jury that their right to privacy outweighs the freedom of the press — even when the published material was true. 'Now more people, including judges, understand that it's possible to sue someone for revealing something truthful, as long as that something is deeply personal and its publication is highly offensive,' Amy Gajda, a Brooklyn Law School professor, told the AP. The verdict effectively made such cases about establishing the 'news value' of publishing any content. 'As long as there is news value in what is published and the media can argue that effectively, they can get a privacy case dismissed very early on,' Gajda said. Many experts have said that the verdict in Bollea v. Gawker has sparked a trend of libel and privacy lawsuits being weaponised against media organisations, including recent cases against Wall Street Journal, ABC and CBS by US President Donald Trump. Behind the scenes of the case was Peter Thiel, the billionaire Silicon Valley investor, seemingly hell-bent on destroying Gawker out of a deep personal grudge. In May 2016, two months after the verdict, Forbes reported that Hogan's entire lawsuit which bankrupted Gawker was funded fully by Thiel. His motivation: a 2007 blogpost on Gawker titled 'Peter Thield is totally gay, people'. The article was irreverently, some would say tastelessly, commendatory of Thiel, with lines like: '…Like the immigrant Jews who created Hollywood a century ago, a gay investor has no way to fit into the old establishment…' 'I think it's important to say this: Peter Thiel, the smartest VC in the world, is gay. More power to him.' For Thiel, being outed like that was humiliating. He privately plotted revenge, setting up a legal fund that was essentially meant to sue Gawker into oblivion. When the Hogan sex tape dropped in 2012, Thiel's team reached out to the wrestler and indicated that the billionaire was willing to bankroll a massive civil suit. Hogan then filed a $100 million suit. Notably, he refused to settle, as is usual, insisting on taking the matter to court. One legal analyst notably wrote in a blog in early 2016, 'Might a Gawker Hater be Covering Hulk Hogan's Legal Bills?' But Gawker did not recognise Thiel's involvement till it was too late. Ultimately, Thiel's resources were central to why Hogan won the case. Thiel would later tell The NYT that taking down Gawker was 'one of [the] greater philanthropic things that [he had] done'.
NDTV
2 days ago
- NDTV
Family Drama, Power Play After Businessman Sunjay Kapur's Death
New Delhi: Dramatic allegations - 'forced to sign documents behind locked doors' and 'left to the mercy of a select few for survival' - were made Friday by Rani Kapur, the mother of late businessman Sunjay Kapur, hours before an annual general meeting of the family-owned Sona Comstar company. In an emotional letter to the Sona Comstar board, Ms Kapur identified herself as the majority shareholder of the Sona Group, which includes Sona Comstar, and she had been "compelled to sign various documents without explanation" while grieving the loss of her son, who died in England in June. She questioned the board's decision to appoint "certain people (sources said the reference was to Priya Sachdev Kapur, her daughter-in-law) representing themselves as the largest shareholders", and said their claim to speak for the family was based on "documents executed by me under coercion". Ms Kapur demanded the AGM scheduled for 1 pm be postponed by two weeks. "Despite being under immense mental and emotional distress, I was coerced into signing such documents behind locked doors and, though I've requested repeatedly, the contents of such documents have never been revealed to me," Ms Kapur wrote in her letter. #WATCH | Delhi | Lawyer representing Rani Kapur, mother of late businessman Sunjay Kapur, Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar says," Rani Kapur is the head of the Kapur family and head of the Sona group. While she is recovering from the death of her only son, a few events have unfolded that… — ANI (@ANI) July 25, 2025 "Please also take note I have been totally denied access to my accounts and been left to the mercy of a select few for survival. All this, in less than a month of my only son passing away." Accusing her 'enemies' of trying to usurp her family's legacy while she mourns her son, Ms Kapur said she had been informed of an item on the AGM agenda, i.e., "the passing of a resolution to appoint certain Director(s) as being the representative of the Kapur family". Ms Kapur made it very clear that she had not been consulted in this decision. "For the record, I state I have not given any consent or officially nominated any person to come on the board of the company, or any other Sona Group company, after my son's demise, or given any consent to any person to represent me in any capacity before any Sona Group company." In the letter, which builds up to a Bollywood-style family drama, Ms Kapur also claims information from "well-wishers" had highlighted "gross illegalities" and left her "disturbed". "At this stage I do not wish to dilate any further on various gross illegalities... except to state, in no uncertain terms, that it is imperative that no decisions are taken without my consent." The Sona Comstar board has not yet responded. Sunjay Kapur, a prominent busines leader in the automotive space, was earlier married to Bollywood actor Karishma Kapoor. The two separated in 2016 and he married model Priya Sachdev in 2017.
