LOS ANGELES – A lawsuit filed by families of the Uvalde school shooting victims alleging Instagram allowed gun manufacturers to promote firearms to minors should be thrown out, lawyers for Meta, Instagram’s parent company, argued Tuesday.

Nineteen children and two teachers were killed in the May 2022 shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.

The families sued Meta in Los Angeles in May 2024, saying the social media platform failed to enforce its own rules forbidding firearms advertisements aimed at minors.

In one ad posted on Instagram, the Georgia-based gunmaker Daniel Defense shows Santa Claus holding an assault rifle. In another post by the same company, a rifle leans against a refrigerator, with the caption: “Let’s normalize kitchen Daniels. What Daniels do you use to protect your kitchen and home?”

The lawsuit alleges those posts are marketed toward minors. The Uvalde gunman opened an online account with Daniel Defense before his 18th birthday and purchased the rifle as soon as he could, according to the lawsuit.

Meta attorney Kristin Linsley argued that the families provided no proof that minors, including the Uvalde gunman, even read the Daniel Defense posts on Instagram. She also said the posts didn’t violate Meta’s policies because they weren’t direct advertisements and did not include links to purchase any products.

Linsley said content advertising firearms for sale on Instagram is allowed if posted by “brick-and-motor and online retailers,” but visibility of those posts is restricted for minors, under Meta’s advertising policies from the end of 2021 to October 2022.

“This is not a playbook for how to violate the rules. This is actually what the rules are,” Linsley said.

The families have also sued Daniel Defense and video game company Activision, which produces “Call of Duty.”

She also argued that the Communications Decency Act allows social media platforms to moderate content without being treated as publishers of that content.

“The only response a company can have is to not have these kinds of rules at all,” Linsley said. “It just gets you down a rabbit hole very quickly.”

The lawsuit alleges that firearm companies tweaked their online marketing to comply with Meta’s policies, including by avoiding the words “buy” or “sell” and not providing links to purchase, and that the social media company did not protect users against such strategies.

“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,” the lawsuit says. “Parents don’t stand a chance.”

“Not Instagram, not Meta, but marketing agencies provide advice on how to be in compliance with Meta’s policies,” Linsley argued.

Last month, lawyers for Activision argued that legal proceedings against them should be thrown out, saying the families allegations are barred by the First Amendment. The families alleged that the war-themed video game Call of Duty trained and conditioned the Uvalde gunman to orchestrate his attack.

The judge has yet to rule on Activision’s motion and is not expected to rule immediately on the Meta case.