Attorney argues that Meta is not held liable for armed manufacturers Instagram posts in Uvalde's lawsuits

Los Angeles (AP) – A lawsuit filed by families of the Uvale school shooting victims who claimed that Instagram had allowed gun manufacturers to promote firearms for minors, advocated on Tuesday, advocates for Meta, Instagram’s parent company. Nineteen children and two teachers died in the shooting in May 2022 at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. The families sued Meta in Los Angeles in May 2024, saying that the social media platform did not enforce its own rules that prohibited the ads for firearms aimed at minors. In one ad posted on Instagram, Georgia-based gunmaker Daniel Defense, Santa who holds an assault rifle. In another post by the same business, a gun leans against a fridge, with the heading: “Let our kitchen normalize Daniels. Which Daniels do you use to protect your kitchen and home?” The lawsuit claims that these posts are marketed for minors. Before his 18th birthday, the Uvalve -armed man opened an online bill with Daniel defense and bought the gun as soon as possible, according to the lawsuit. Meta attorney Kristin Linsley argued that the families did not provide proof that minors, including the Uvalve -armed man, even read the Daniel Defense Posts on Instagram. She also said that the posts did not violate the policy of Meta because it was not direct ads and did not include links to buy any products. Linsley said that content advertisements were allowed firearms for sale on Instagram if placed by “brick and motor and online retailers”, but the visibility of the posts is limited for minors, under the advertising policy of Meta from the end of 2021 to October 2022. ” That’s actually what the rules are, ‘Linsley said. The families also sued the Daniel Defense and video game business Activision, which produces ‘Call of Duty’. She also argued that the Communications Communications Act enables social media platforms to moderate content without being treated as publishers of the content. “The only reaction a company can have is not to have these kinds of rules at all,” Linsley said. “It just gets you in a rabbit hole quickly.” The lawsuit claims that firearms have set up their online marketing to comply with Meta’s policy, including by avoiding the words ‘buy’ or ‘sell’ and not giving links to the purchase, and that social media business has not protected users from such strategies. “With Instagram’s blessing and help, sellers of assault weapons can rob teens with content that promotes crime, raised the lonely armed man, exploited tropics of misogy and revenge and direct them where they have to buy their Call of Duty-tested weapon of choice,” the lawsuit states. “Parents don’t stand a chance.” “Not Instagram, not Meta, but marketing agencies provide advice on how to comply with the Meta’s policy,” Linsley argued. Last month, advocates for Activision argued that legal action should be thrown against them, saying that the allegations of the families were banned by the first amendment. The families claimed that the video game Call of Duty trained and conditioned the Uvals-Armed Man with a war-themed to orchestrate his attack. The judge has not yet to decide on the motion of Activision and he is not expected to reign over the Meta case immediately.