Skip to Main Content
sample single Alt

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.

    Last updated .

    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

    THE COMPLAINT

    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.

    KEY FILINGS

    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.

    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.

    OSZAR »