Patterson, et al. v. Meta, et al.
Holding social media and gun companies accountable for their role in the racist
mass shooting at Tops Friendly Market in Buffalo.
Ten innocent Black people were murdered in a Buffalo grocery store by a shooter radicalized by social media. We’re suing the companies who let this happen.
GIFFORDS Law Center, the Law Office of John V. Elmore, the Social Media Victims Law Center, and Belluck & Fox LLP represent the estates of Haywood Patterson, Katherine Massey, and Andre Mackniel, three Black residents of Buffalo, NY, who were murdered by a white supremacist on May 14, 2022, as they shopped for groceries at Tops Friendly Market. We also represent Latisha Rogers, an employee of the store who survived the shooting.
The lawsuit was filed on May 12, 2023, against three members of the gun industry: Vintage Firearms, a store in upstate New York that sold the shooter an assault weapon with an easily removable magazine lock; MEAN, LLC, a company that sold what it purported to be a permanent magazine lock but that the shooter easily removed; and RMA Armament, which sold the shooter military-grade body armor.
The lawsuit also names as defendants multiple social media companies whose products radicalized the shooter into a violent white supremacist beginning when he was in high school, including Meta, Snap, Alphabet, YouTube, Discord, Reddit, Amazon, and 4Chan.
MEDIA REQUESTS
Our experts can speak to the full spectrum of gun violence prevention issues. Have a question? Email us at [email protected].
Contact
Our complaint alleges that Vintage Firearms and RMA Armament negligently sold their products to the Tops shooter and that MEAN engaged in false advertising and deceptive conduct by selling a “lock” it claimed was permanent while simultaneously providing simple instructions on how to remove it.
We also allege that the social media companies have designed defective products that harm minors via their algorithms and have failed to warn users about the addictive nature of social media products. We further allege that several of the social media companies were unjustly enriched by running advertisements next to a video of the Buffalo mass shooting.
Our clients are seeking compensation for the physical and mental pain they and their loved ones have suffered, as well as injunctive relief, including but not limited to requiring the social media companies to remedy the unreasonably dangerous recommendation technologies in their products and to warn minor users and their parents about the addictive nature of their products.
Patterson, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al.
Case No. 805896/2023 (N.Y. Supreme Court, Erie County)
| Date Filed | Key Filing |
|---|---|
| 5/12/2023 | |
| 9/1/2023 | MEAN LLC’s Motion to Dismiss MEAN Arms LLC filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that PLCAA bars Plaintiff’s from bringing this suit. |
| 9/1/2023 | Social Media Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss Several of the social media defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the case, as well as a separate Motion to Dismiss brief for each defendants. All briefs included in the attached document |
| 9/1/2023 | 4Chan’s Motion to Dismiss One of the social media defendants in the case, 4chan, filed its own motion to dismiss the case separate from the other social media defendants. |
| 10/13/2023 | Plaintiffs’ Opposition to MEAN LLC’s Motion to Dismiss We filed a brief opposing MEAN Arms’ motion to dismiss the case. |
| 10/25/2023 | Plaintiffs’ Opposition to All Social Media Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss We filed a brief opposing all the Social Media defendants’ joint and individual motions to dismiss the case. |
| 10/31/2023 | MEAN LLC’s Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss MEAN Arms replied to our opposition, further supporting its motion to dismiss the case. |
| 10/31/2023 | GOOD SMILE Inc.’s Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss GOOD SMILE Inc. replied to our opposition, further supporting its motion to dismiss the case. |
| 10/31/2023 | 4Chan’s Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss 4Chan replied to our opposition, further supporting its motion to dismiss the case. |
| 11/3/2023 | Reddit’s Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss Reddit replied to our opposition, further supporting its motion to dismiss the case. |
| 11/3/2023 | Social Media Defendants’ Joint Reply in Support of Their Motions to Dismiss Several of the social media defendants filed a joint reply brief in support of their motions to dismiss the case, as well as a separate reply brief for each of the defendants. All briefs included in the attached document |
| 11/3/2023 | Vintage Firearms’ Motion to Dismiss Vintage Arms LLC filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that PLCAA bars Plaintiff’s from bringing this suit. |
| 12/18/2023 | Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Vintage Firearms’ Motion to Dismiss We filed a brief opposing Vintage Firearms’ motion to dismiss the case. |
| 1/15/2024 | Vintage Firearms’ Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss Vintage Firearms replied to our opposition, further supporting their motion to dismiss the case. |
| 2/9/2024 | Decision & Order Denying MEAN Arms’ motion to dismiss the case. |
| 3/7/2024 | Decision & Order Denying Vintage Firearms motion to dismiss the case. |
| 3/18/2024 | Decision & Order Denying Social Media Defendants’ motions to dismiss the case. |
Patterson, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al.
Case No. CA 24-00514, CA 24-00513 (N.Y. 4th Dep’t, Appellate Division)
| Date Filed | Key Filing |
|---|---|
| 10/21/2024 | Social Media Defendants’ Opening Brief in Support of Appeal The social media defendants in the case filed a brief in support of their appeal of the lower court’s decision denying their motion to dismiss the case. |
| 12/16/2024 | MEAN LLC’s Opening Brief in Support of Appeal MEAN Arms filed a brief in support of their appeal of the lower court’s decision denying their motion to dismiss the case. |
| 1/21/2025 | Plaintiffs-Respondents’ Reply Brief in Opposition of Social Media Defendants’ Appeal We filed a brief opposing the Social Media Defendants’ appeal of the lower court’s decision denying their motion to dismiss the case. |
| 2/28/2025 | Plaintiffs-Respondent’s Reply Brief in Opposition of MEAN LLC’s Appeal We filed a brief opposing MEAN LLC’s appeal of the lower court’s decision denying their motion to dismiss the case. |
| 3/11/2025 | Social Media Defendants’ Reply Brief in Support of Their Appeal The social media defendants filed a brief in response to our opposition, further supporting their appeal of the lower court’s denial of their motion to dismiss. |
| 3/31/2025 | MEAN LLC’s Reply Brief in Support of Its Appeal MEAN Arms filed a brief in response to our opposition, further supporting their appeal of the lower court’s denial of their motion to dismiss. |
LAWSUITS
MAKE A GIFT
Every day, the experts at Giffords Law Center work tirelessly to craft, enact, and defend the gun safety policies and programs that save lives. A safer America is within reach, but we need your courage and commitment to get there.