Skip to content

Meta's legal team defends their exemption from liability concerning a firearm manufacturer's Instagram posts in the litigation filed by the Uvalde victims' families.

Instagram parent company Meta's legal team contested a lawsuit on Tuesday, asserting that it should be dismissed. The lawsuit, brought forward by families of the Uvalde school shooting victims, claims that Instagram enabled firearm promotion to minors.

Meta's legal representative asserts no responsibility for a firearm manufacturer's posts on...
Meta's legal representative asserts no responsibility for a firearm manufacturer's posts on Instagram in the context of the Uvalde families' litigation.

Meta Faces Legal Challenges Over Firearm Advertisements on Instagram

In the wake of the Uvalde school shooting tragedy, families of the victims have filed a lawsuit against Meta, the parent company of Instagram, alleging that the platform allowed gun manufacturers to promote firearms to minors.

The lawsuit, filed in May 2024, specifically cites posts by gunmaker Daniel Defense on Instagram. These posts, according to the plaintiffs, promoted the normalization of assault rifles and were marketed towards minors, including the Uvalde gunman. One post showed Santa Claus holding an assault rifle, while another promoted the normalization of Daniel Defense rifles in kitchens and homes.

Meta's attorney, Kristin Linsley, has argued that the posts do not constitute a violation of Meta's policies. She stated that the posts were not direct advertisements and did not include links to purchase any products. Furthermore, Linsley argued that the posts were allowed on the platform as they were posted by "brick-and-mortar and online retailers," with visibility of those posts restricted for minors, under Meta's advertising policies from the end of 2021 to October 2022.

Meta's defense also asserts that it cannot be held liable for the content of gun manufacturers' posts. The company claims it is not responsible for third-party content and that it follows its own advertising rules. Meta has sought dismissal of these lawsuits, arguing that it did not promote or directly facilitate the illegal targeting of minors and thus should not be held liable for resulting tragedies.

The lawsuit against Activision, the video game company that produces "Call of Duty," alleges that the war-themed video game trained and conditioned the Uvalde gunman to orchestrate his attack. The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for the regulation of firearms advertising on social media platforms.

It is important to note that social media platforms like Instagram regulate firearm advertisements primarily through internal policies that prohibit the promotion or sale of firearms and related products via paid ads, especially targeting minors. However, organic posts (non-paid) by users or companies may occur within community guidelines unless explicitly promoting illegal or harmful content.

The judge has yet to rule on Activision's motion, and the lawsuit against Daniel Defense is currently ongoing. The families have also sued Daniel Defense, alleging that these posts were marketed towards minors, and that the Uvalde gunman had an online account with Daniel Defense before his 18th birthday and purchased a rifle from the company.

The lawsuit alleges that with Instagram's blessing and assistance, sellers of assault weapons can inundate teens with content that promotes crime, exalts the lone gunman, exploits tropes of misogyny and revenge, and directs them where to buy their Call of Duty-tested weapon of choice. Linsley, however, has argued that the lawsuit provides no proof that minors, including the Uvalde gunman, read the Daniel Defense posts on Instagram.

Linsley also argued that the Communications Decency Act allows social media platforms to moderate content without being treated as publishers of that content. This act, enacted in 1996, aims to ensure that no Internet service provider or interactive computer service is treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

In summary, while private platforms like Instagram restrict paid firearm advertising and claim to protect minors, legal challenges question the adequacy and enforcement of these rules and explore the liability of companies like Meta in gun-related tragedies tied to their platforms. The ongoing lawsuits against Meta and other companies in the firearms industry will likely shape the future of firearms advertising on social media.

Read also:

Latest