A video game developer is so fucking far from this situation it is laughable; these suits are destined to fail. It’s sad the lawyers are sucking money from the victims’ families.
Odds are a lawyer volunteered for the case in the hopes that Activision will settle just to keep their name away from Uvalde in the news. Families get pennies, lawyer gets a pay day, Activision barely notices.
It’s sad the lawyers are sucking money from the victims’ families.
I’d give reasonable odds that they aren’t.
So, some lawyers do cases on contingency. Basically, if they lose, they don’t get paid. But if they win, the plaintiff agrees to give them a (potentially quite substantial) chunk of the payout.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_fee
A contingent fee (also known as a contingency fee in the United States or a conditional fee in England and Wales) is any fee for services provided where the fee is payable only if there is a favourable result. Although such a fee may be used in many fields, it is particularly well associated with legal practice.
https://www.lawfirm.com/terms/contingency-fee/
A contingency fee is a payment agreement between an attorney and a client. Instead of paying an upfront or hourly rate, the client agrees to pay the attorney a percentage of any compensation recovered.
This percentage is usually between 20% and 50%, according to Cornell Law School.
So, say you’re one of the lawyers here. You figure, okay, all of these parties you’re suing have real money. You sue them. Maybe it costs you $N to do the case. But if your expected return is $100N, and maybe you’ve got a 1-in-30 chance of getting lucky with a sympathetic jury and winning a big payout, then the expected return says that it’s worthwhile to just throw mud at a wall and see what sticks.
Your odds probably aren’t great of winning any of these lawsuits, but every now and then, you can get really big payouts, which makes up for the case being a long shot. Do enough of them – and here, they’re suing a bunch of parties – and it becomes increasingly likely that you’ll win one.
The families this week also announced lawsuits against 92 Texas Department of Public Safety officers. The lawsuit names the Uvalde School District and several of its employees as defendants, including the then-principal and then-school district police chief.
The families also plan to sue the federal government, their attorney said, noting that over 150 federal officers were at the school.
Even deeper pockets than the companies involved.
The money here ultimately comes from the company’s customers if they win (since it results in higher prices) or if they win against the government, higher taxes. The families probably won’t pay anything in the event of a loss. In a win, they’ll split the money with the lawyers.
I would only argue with this piece:
The money here ultimately comes from the company’s customers if they win (since it results in higher prices)
Prices have been divorced from costs and are more based on “what the market will bear”. This only would be true if markets were actually competitive, and the fines encompassed a large amount of the supply side, neither of which is true. Fines like this are borne by the company books.
Call of Duty? REALLY? The other two are maybe something (still seems like grasping at straws) but a video game?
My heart goes out to the families for what they went through but this doesn’t seem like it solves anything…
I agree.
I was taken aback by this level of CoD: MW2 as many others were:
It was such a morality issue that came up. I simply didn’t expect it to be in the series. It made me not fire like I normally would. I felt so uncomfortable and guilty being there. It just shows that it’s the person not the game.
And maybe that was the point of that mission. To cause you to think about the violence that you normally included upon your virtual enemies without a second thought. If you play a FPS game, you won’t question why you’re shooting the other team, you just do it. The same way it doesn’t technically matter why the crowd of people in said COD level are your enemies. What matters is the developer telling you to shoot them.
Oh, that definitely was their intention… to make you stop and think about your actions. They gave you a choice.
I believe they even give you an achievement for NOT shooting anyone in that scene. Unfortunately, I shot a couple innocents before realizing what was happening.
The first time I played it, I just figured it was just a messed up level. But then I thought about it and wondered why they included it. Totally changed my opinion.
If some conservative parent who doesn’t normally play videogames were handed that without context, they’d be all for banning the thing. And yet they wouldn’t realize it was teaching you a lesson.
If you don’t shoot anyone your cover is blown and they kill you. So you either skip or don’t play the gameEdit: wait no I made that up
It’s about Activision’s role in marketing the weapon to make money, not about the game or video game violence. It’s not as cut and dry as I first thought, either.
Read the article.
Before anyone rushes to judgement about “suing ‘Call of Duty’”:
Families of the Uvalde victims have filed a lawsuit against Daniel Defense, the makers of the AR-15 assault rifle, and Activision, the publisher of the first-person shooter video game series “Call of Duty,” and Meta, the parent company of Instagram, over what they claim was their role in promoting the gun used in the shooting.
The suit alleges the companies partnered to market the weapon to underage boys in the games and on social media.
They’re alleging the AR-15 maker, activision and meta played a role in aggressively promoting the gun to underage boys. This isn’t ‘video games caused columbine’. Stealth marketing guns to kids is maybe not great. Meta’s whole thing is shady intrusively targeted marketing. Everyone knows that Activision is capable of some truly scummy behaviour. I’m not 100% sold but that it seems worth hearing out to me.
Do you know where a lot of these military video games get a lot of their funding? If you guessed the Department of Defense you win! If anyone is to blame it’s the United States government.
If I heard correctly, it’s not even funding, but use of trademarks usually hinges on a favourable view on the MIC and the US military.
Look, I actually agree with going after weapons manufacturers, and I can understand suing social media companies for the way their algorithms steer people to radicalism but keep your god damned hands off my video games.
Read the article.
Defense: millions of other people who played the same game who didn’t choose to shoot anyone in real life.
Culturally, gun manufacturer should bear more responsibility for gun violence, although legally, it’s a difficult argument. But moving the needle is a good thing.
Facebook actually has the least defensible position here, given their record of institutionally repeating and spreading untrue and radicalizing statements.
By adding Activision into the suit, however, the families have pretty much scuttled their own ship before it set sail.
It seems like your game defense also works for guns and Facebook?
Things are rarely 100% causative. In all these cases, I think we have to ask if the trigger allows/pushes some percentage to an action. Then, is that percentage and action significant enough to act on. It’s the same way we deal with medicines and carcinogens.
Not really.
Gun manufacturers specifically market guns and lobby for laws that make it easier for children to access guns.
Activision does not.
Meta does not.
Meta publishes harmful, influential information without differentiating between fact and fiction.
Activision does not.
Both gun manufacturers and Facebook are historically, actively institutionally and directly culpable in ways that Activision is not.
Medicines and carcinogens are a great example, since they are both heavily lobbied and the theoretical regulatory ideal you’re positing doesn’t exist. Pharmaceutical companies and food factories are responsible for many illnesses because they, like gun manufacturers, are directly marketing products that hurt people.
I don’t understand how your post refutes my argument. OP said millions play games, so if only one person screws up among those millions, it can’t be the games fault. The argument can just as well be applied to Facebook and guns. Only a small fraction of those users become mass shooters.
I’m not saying there isn’t a problem with guns. I think America is mentally ill in it’s relationship with guns.
In response to your comment, if Activision was found to be taking money from the gun or military industry to market weapons through their games, do you think they should be partially liable? If I understand the lawsuit correctly, that is what this case is about.
Yes, If Activision is taking money from the gun or military industry to market weapons through their games, they are partially liable. Maybe I missed that in the article?
I just reread it, but I don’t see that argument. I see it saying that because the guns are in the game, it’s Activision’s fault that this kid shot people.
It’s a matter of responsibility. Gun manufacturers market the guns and lobby for less restrictive gun regulations, the amount of guns in a country and their regulatory status is obviously correlated with gun violence.
The manufacturers, marketers and lobbyists are the most responsible.
Meta radicalizes extremists
Less responsible, but a fairly easy line to draw with precedent(isis, Jan. 6th, Facebook manifestos from other shooters).
Activision makes a game with guns that look real in them.
Least responsible, easy to refute in multiple ways. What about a keychain company that makes realistic assault rifle keychains? Airsoft companies? New Line Cinema? Why aren’t they included in this suit if the depiction of a realistic gun is enough to drive certain people to violence ?
The Activision claim as stated in the article is clearly the weakest link in the case and since it can be so easily disproved, tanks the case before the case is taken up.
Gun manufacturers specifically market guns and lobby for laws that make it easier for children to access guns.
Activision does not.
Meta does not.Activision and Meta are vital parts of how gun makers market guns to children, this suit alleges.
If they are (which is definitely within the capabilities and inclinations of both those companies), then they should be held liable for their role in contributing to the epidemic of children killing people with guns.
Ah, yeah, definitely missed that part of the article. Not exactly the three-headed Hydra they’re talking about, since defining the role and responsibility of a representative weapon when there are so many other representative weapons not linked to violence, but I can see how they’d want to throw everything at the wall to see what stuck.
Video game still does more harm than good in a suit where you have clearly responsible parties and then one vaguely responsible party with a very simple and strong defense.
It’s like using 4x4s as posts for a cabin and then using a pool noodle instead of a 4x4 at the end.
It fills in the volume a post should go into, but it doesn’t support anything.
America will do anything and everything before fixing the issue
Actually quite curious to see how far they would go for how little
Holding companies responsible for how their products are used is the closest thing we have to fixing the issue.
Being able to sue both the makers and marketers of guns designed for massacres creates pressure for a solution to be found because now someone who matters is losing money.
I would argue the issue isn’t the existence or marketing of a product, rather how easy it is to procure, which I believe OP is saying. You can argue about how attractive the product is to people, or lack of mental health services until the end of time, but the real and very obvious problem (at least to those outside the US) is just how easy it is for most people to get a weapon capable of killing many with little to no valid reason, checks or training. From the outside this is seriously bonkers.
how easy it is to procure
For sure. I grew up in australia. If I could snap my fingers and ban all guns I would in a heartbeat. But I live here and I know that’s not possible.
The most feasible way to reduce the ease of getting guns is to hit the pocketbook of those who profit from how easy guns are to get. Our country is too corrupt for legislation to work. We have to sue companies and hope we like the changes they suggest.
Too much time shooting in videogames so at some point some of them start wanting to shot real people… Seems plausible.
Except study after study shows it isn’t the cause.
Online radicalization is by far the central issue here. It’s one’s peers that are the issue. Violent games are at worst an indicator of tendencies, not a cause.
Yeah I believe it’s more something like the people who play those games are more likely to kill someone than the game by itself gonna do someone kill.
It would be good to start making a database of people who buy those types of games and at least offer them some type of therapy and information.
that is also not a conclusion we have seen from studies
Except it really doesn’t.
To be honest, watching news gives one more impetus for wanting to shoot people than playing Call of Duty.
