Lawyers for Meta, the parent company of Instagram, argued Tuesday that a lawsuit filed by families of the Uvalde school shooting victims should be dismissed. The case claims the social media platform allowed gun manufacturers to promote firearms to minors.
The lawsuit stems from the May 2022 shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 children and two teachers lost their lives. Families filed the complaint in Los Angeles in May 2024, alleging that Meta failed to enforce its own policies that prohibit firearm advertisements targeting minors.
Content in Question
Among the posts highlighted in the lawsuit, Georgia-based gunmaker Daniel Defense shared an image of Santa Claus holding an assault rifle. Another post featured a rifle leaning against a refrigerator, accompanied by the caption: “Let’s normalize kitchen Daniels. What Daniels do you use to protect your kitchen and home?” The plaintiffs claim these ads were intended for minors, noting that the Uvalde gunman created a Daniel Defense online account before turning 18 and purchased the rifle as soon as he was legally allowed.
Meta attorney Kristin Linsley countered that the families offered no evidence that minors, including the shooter, actually viewed the posts on Instagram. She also noted that the posts did not violate Meta’s rules, as they were not direct advertisements and contained no purchase links.
Linsley explained that Instagram permits content promoting firearms from both physical and online retailers, provided these posts follow policies restricting their visibility to minors. These rules were in place from late 2021 through October 2022. “This is not a playbook for how to violate the rules. This is actually what the rules are,” Linsley said.
Legal Defenses and Broader Implications
The lawsuit also targets Daniel Defense and the video game company Activision, creator of “Call of Duty,” alleging that the game conditioned the Uvalde gunman to carry out the attack. Last month, Activision requested dismissal of the case, arguing that the allegations are barred by the First Amendment. The judge has yet to issue rulings in either case.
Linsley further argued that the Communications Decency Act shields social media platforms from being treated as publishers of content posted by others, allowing them to moderate without assuming liability. “The only response a company can have is to not have these kinds of rules at all,” she said.
The lawsuit asserts that firearm companies intentionally adjusted their online marketing to comply with Meta’s policies, avoiding words like “buy” or “sell” and omitting links to purchase weapons. It claims Instagram effectively enabled these practices, facilitating content that “promotes crime, exalts the lone gunman, exploits tropes of misogyny and revenge, and directs [minors] where to buy their Call of Duty-tested weapon of choice.”
“Not Instagram, not Meta, but marketing agencies provide advice on how to be in compliance with Meta’s policies,” Linsley said in defense of the platform.
Next Steps in the Case
The court has yet to decide on Meta’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and no immediate ruling is expected. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for social media companies regarding how they manage and regulate content tied to firearms, particularly when minors are involved.
