SPECIAL ISSUE: State of California v. Gatalog
After a multiyear pause, the states have resumed their crusade against 3D2A
NOTE: this is a breaking story. Additional details will be added as they become available.
The Facts
On February 6th, 2026, the state of California filed suit against the Gatalog, accusing them of violations of California’s Civil Code 3273.61 and 3273.625, with an additional alleged violation of California’s business and professions code.
These Civil Codes, recently amended in California’s AB-1263, prohibit both “distribut[ing]…any digital firearm manufacturing code to any other person in this state who is not a federally licensed firearms manufacturer” and “knowingly, willfully, or recklessly aid[ing], abet[ting], promot[ing] or facilitat[ing] the unlawful manufacture of firearms”.
The specific defendants of this suit are Matthew Larosiere, IvanTheTroll and CtrlPew, as well as their corporations Gatalog Foundation and CtrlPew LLC, which California identifies as the collective leadership / owners of The Gatalog. Particularly concerning is the additional naming of 100 “John Doe” defendants, meant to serve as placeholders for other members / agents of The Gatalog.1
The specific plaintiff is “The People of the State of California”, represented by the California Attorney General Rob Bonta, and San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu. It is highly likely that “The People” should be read as Giffords, who is the usual originator of these sorts of suits.
The relief sought by California seems focused primarily on enjoining The Gatalog from distributing 3D printed gun files to California persons via the Gatalog website and the CtrlPew website, along with penalties and fees adding up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Commentary
This suit represents the resumption of a state-run2 legal offensive against the unrestricted distribution of 3D printed gun files that was last meaningfully fought around Defcad in 2018 / 2019.
Since that time we have seen enforcement efforts against specific individuals accused of illegally printing guns (the source of the frequent “evidence table” Twitter threads) but virtually no meaningful large attempts to ban the actual distribution of files. With California’s suit against the Gatalog, this interregnum has come to an end.
Why is the Gatalog the main target here? The complaint makes it clear that the Gatalog has been under investigation by California since at least June 2024, and likely earlier. Any commentary about their selection as the target of this suit would be speculation on my part, but I suspect it is a combination of their popularly perceived preeminence in the 3D gun space, and their relatively advanced organization (viz. the Gatalog Foundation).
Perhaps more puzzling is the absence of Odysee, the actual file distribution platform, as a defendant. I interpret California’s decision not to name Odysee as an indicator of the true purpose of the suit. This is not really an attempt to stop the distribution of 3D gun files into California - it is instead an attempt to “cut the head off” of online 3D2A culture.
For me the most troubling aspect of the suit is the identification of the Gatalog and CtrlPew homepages as violating websites. These places do not offer guns for download - they instead offer links to Odysee. Yet this is sufficient for California to identify them as “facilitating” the production of firearms in California.
This presents a very concerning precedent, should California succeed on that argument.
What Next?
Defendants must now select counsel and respond to the complaint. Online commentary has unsurprisingly identified Larosiere as the likely counsel for the defense, although this is complicated by him being a named defendant.
California’s first act will almost certainly be to move for a TRO, which will likely take the form of blocking Gatalog files from download in the state of California. It is unclear how this can be accomplished without removing them from Odysee entirely, which again is likely the actual intent.
This state-led approach to controlling files allows for significant flexibility and experimentation - they may act as “laboratories of tyranny.” This means that, should California gain traction with this suit, we should expect to see other states replicate their laws and participate in similar actions. We may even see several other states join this action.
It is disconcerting, to say the least, to imagine a California victory here. But I invite you to remember that the desire to demoralize you underlies everything else in this action.
California wants you to fear this action, but consider also that California can also lose. Every challenge is an opportunity, and this action also represents the first bite at the legal apple 3D2A has had since 2019.
From the greatest challenges come the greatest victories.
Defeat is never guaranteed.
Never despair. Never surrender. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever give up.
The number 100 here is likely not intended to literally mean 100 defendants, but instead serve as a placeholder for the entire Gatalog membership, whatever California thinks that means.
The state-run offensives represented a transition from the federal actions against 3D printed gun distribution online, which ended with Defcad’s 2018 settlement with the US State Department, and have not meaningfully resumed as of this writing.
Please post a link to any official legal defense fund we can contribute to as they become available. This is the true front line battle of the 2nd amendment.
This is huge and California needs to be crushed on this.
All support for Matt this is not a drill.