Key Moments:
- On September 30, a California judge denied motions from Apple, Google, and Meta to dismiss lawsuits related to casino-style gaming apps.
- The court found that Section 230 did not shield the companies from claims regarding distribution, promotion, and payment processing of gambling apps.
- The majority of consumer protection claims against the companies have been allowed to proceed, except for those under California law.
Judge’s Ruling Sets Legal Battle in Motion
A US District Judge in San Jose, California, refused to dismiss lawsuits against Apple, Google, and Meta Platforms. The cases focus on allegations that the companies promoted and facilitated gambling through mobile casino-style apps. The judge found that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not offer blanket immunity for the companies’ alleged conduct in these cases.
Details of the Allegations
The plaintiffs claim that Apple’s App Store, Google’s Play Store, and Meta’s Facebook platform have collectively encouraged an “authentic Vegas-style experience” via social casino games. According to the lawsuits, the companies are alleged to have engaged in illegal racketeering by actively promoting apps that foster addiction and encourage harmful gambling behaviors.
According to the plaintiffs, the tech companies took a 30 percent commission on all in-app transactions. As a result, they allegedly earned more than $2 billion from these casino-style games. The plaintiffs also argue that these companies acted as more than neutral hosts. They claim Apple, Google, and Meta actively fueled the spread of illegal gambling through payment processing systems and promotional tools.
Court Findings on Company Conduct
Court documents state that Apple, Google, and Meta partnered with casino app developers. They allegedly provided marketing resources, promoted select games to boost downloads, and used targeted ads to attract high-spending players known as “whales.” The companies also are said to have processed payments for virtual chips, retaining their share of proceeds and distributing the remainder to developers, which plaintiffs argue is comparable to the activities of bookmakers.
Rejection of Section 230 Defense
In the 37-page decision, the judge determined that Apple, Google, and Meta did not act as traditional “publishers” concerning the payment processing for the social casino apps. As stated: “The crux of plaintiffs’ theory is that defendants improperly processed payments for social casino apps,” wrote Judge Davila. “It is beside the point whether that activity turns defendants into bookies or brokers.”
The court further commented that Section 230 does not apply when platforms materially assist or jointly develop unlawful practices, highlighting that these lawsuits center on the companies’ own conduct related to distribution, promotion, and payment processing.
While some claims under specific US state laws were dismissed, the bulk of consumer protection arguments are moving forward, except for those pertaining to California law.
Appeal and Related Proceedings
The judge granted the companies immediate permission to appeal the decision to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. This step reflects the significance of the Section 230 issues raised in the case. The lawsuits, launched in 2021, are being heard in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
Case Name | Case Number |
---|---|
In re Apple Inc App Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation | 21-md-02985 |
In re Google Play Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation | 21-md-03001 |
In re Facebook Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation | 21-02777 |
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and treble damages, among other remedies.
Additional Legal Developments and Industry Response
In March, Apple and Google became the subjects of a refiled class-action suit in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey. The suit alleges the companies facilitated illegal gambling through sweepstakes casinos in violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
In July, Meta introduced new restrictions on gambling and gaming ads. The company now requires licensing, mandatory approvals, and stricter advertiser obligations. Industry observers highlight this move as part of a broader regulatory shift. It pushes for greater transparency and more consistent accountability in online gambling advertising. Meta’s measures also include demands for full transparency from affiliates and prohibitions on underage targeting, aligning its practices with evolving international standards.
Wider Implications
The ongoing litigation and recent judicial rulings emphasize the increasing regulatory focus on how major tech platforms host and monetize gaming apps featuring elements mirroring unregulated online gambling.
- Author
Daniel Williams
