In a Los Angeles courtroom on August 19, 2025, the legal battle over who bears responsibility for the tragic 2022 Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas, entered a new phase. Lawyers for Meta Platforms, the parent company of Instagram, argued that a lawsuit filed by families of the Uvalde victims should be dismissed, igniting a heated debate over the role of social media in the marketing of firearms to minors.
The lawsuit, filed in May 2024, centers on the claim that Instagram allowed gun manufacturers to promote firearms to underage users, in violation of its own policies. The families of the nineteen children and two teachers killed in the May 2022 massacre allege that Meta failed to enforce rules forbidding firearm advertisements aimed at minors, and that this failure contributed to the shooter’s ability to access and purchase the weapon used in the attack. According to the Associated Press, the legal action specifically highlights posts by Georgia-based gunmaker Daniel Defense, including one depicting Santa Claus holding an assault rifle and another showing a rifle propped against a refrigerator with the caption: “Let’s normalize kitchen Daniels. What Daniels do you use to protect your kitchen and home?”
The families’ lawsuit contends that these posts were not only visible to minors but were designed to appeal to them. The Uvalde shooter, as detailed in the complaint, opened an online account with Daniel Defense before his 18th birthday and purchased the rifle as soon as he was legally able. Plaintiffs’ lawyers, after analyzing the shooter’s phone, found he had what they described as an “obsessive relationship” with Instagram, opening the app more than 100 times a day. The implication is clear: the shooter was deeply immersed in the platform’s content ecosystem, including posts from gun manufacturers.
Meta’s defense, however, is rooted in both technical policy arguments and legal protections. Kristin Linsley, Meta’s attorney, told the court that the families had provided no evidence that minors—and specifically the Uvalde gunman—actually saw the Daniel Defense posts on Instagram. She further argued that the posts in question did not violate Meta’s policies because they were not direct advertisements and did not include links to purchase firearms. “This is not a playbook for how to violate the rules. This is actually what the rules are,” Linsley said, as reported by the Boston Herald. She explained that, under Meta’s advertising policies from late 2021 to October 2022, content advertising firearms for sale was allowed if posted by brick-and-mortar or online retailers, but visibility of those posts was restricted for underage users.
Yet, the plaintiffs’ legal team challenged these assertions with a real-time demonstration. Katie Mesner-Hage, representing the victims’ families, described an experiment conducted earlier this month. Using a fake Instagram profile for a 17-year-old boy, the team was able to access Daniel Defense’s posts, view images of firearms, and even follow a link to the gun manufacturer’s website—all within the Instagram app. Once on the site, they were able to select a firearm and add it to the shopping cart. This test, Mesner-Hage argued, directly contradicted Meta’s claim that such content was not visible to users under 21. “If the content had landed on the shooter’s feed, as the plaintiffs allege, then Meta not only knew about it, they designed the system so it would be delivered to him,” she said in court, according to the Associated Press. “They knew more about him than anyone else on the planet.”
Linsley countered that the plaintiffs’ experiment took place in 2025, not during the policy period relevant to the case, and that changes to Instagram’s systems may have occurred since then. She also maintained that the posts were not paid advertisements and did not contain direct purchase links, which was a key distinction in Meta’s enforcement of its policies.
The lawsuit also alleges that firearm companies, including Daniel Defense, adapted their online marketing strategies to skirt Meta’s rules—avoiding words like “buy” or “sell” and omitting direct links to purchase firearms—while Meta failed to protect users from these tactics. “Daniel Defense is not on Instagram to make friends. … They’re on there to promote their product,” Mesner-Hage asserted. “It’s not a paid advertisement, but I would struggle to describe this as anything other than an advertisement.” The complaint goes further, stating, “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. Parents don’t stand a chance.”
Meta’s legal team leaned on the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which shields social media platforms from liability for user-generated content. Linsley argued that the CDA allows platforms to moderate content without being treated as publishers. “The only response a company can have is to not have these kinds of rules at all,” she said. “It just gets you down a rabbit hole very quickly.” She also noted that it is marketing agencies, not Meta or Instagram, that provide advice to firearm companies on how to comply with platform policies.
The Uvalde families’ legal campaign doesn’t stop with Meta. They have also filed lawsuits against Daniel Defense itself and Activision, the video game company behind the popular “Call of Duty” series. The families allege that “Call of Duty” trained and conditioned the Uvalde shooter to orchestrate the attack. Last month, lawyers for Activision argued that the case against them should be dismissed, citing First Amendment protections. The judge has yet to rule on either Meta’s or Activision’s motions to dismiss, and no immediate decision is expected.
As the legal wrangling continues, the case is being closely watched by advocates on all sides of the gun control and tech regulation debates. For some, it’s a test of whether social media companies can be held accountable for the indirect consequences of their platforms’ content and algorithms. For others, it’s a question of free speech and the limits of liability in the digital age. The families’ attorney, Mesner-Hage, summed up the stakes: “They knew more about him than anyone else on the planet.”
While the judge weighs the arguments, the families of Uvalde continue to seek answers—and accountability—in a case that could reshape the boundaries of responsibility for social media platforms, gun manufacturers, and the broader digital landscape.
