In a significant legal development, a U.S. federal judge has ruled that Apple, Google and Meta must face lawsuits accusing them of enabling and profiting from social casino apps that simulate gambling through their platforms.
The decision allows the cases to move forward and challenges long-standing interpretations of Section 230, the legal shield that typically protects tech platforms from liability for third-party content.
Section 230 protections may not apply
At the center of the lawsuits is the claim that these companies did more than just host content. The platforms allegedly promoted and processed payments for casino-style apps that let users spend real money on virtual chips but never allow cash-out, a business model critics argue mirrors addictive gambling behavior.
The defendants argued they were protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, but U.S. District Judge Edward Davila rejected that reasoning for parts of the case. He ruled that processing payments and directly profiting from the apps’ transactions goes beyond the scope of passive platform behavior.
“This case is not about publishing content. It’s about profiting from allegedly unlawful transactions,” the judge wrote in his opinion.
What are social casino apps?
Social casino games are mobile apps that simulate real gambling activities, like slot machines, poker or blackjack, using virtual currency. Players can buy more virtual chips with real money but cannot cash out winnings, making them functionally different from regulated gambling in most jurisdictions.
Apps like Slotomania, DoubleDown Casino and Big Fish Casino have generated billions in revenue, largely through in-app purchases. These apps are widely distributed through the Apple App Store, Google Play Store, and social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram.
Lawsuit alleges racketeering and consumer harm
The lawsuits claim that the tech giants acted as co-conspirators by taking a percentage of in-app purchases, typically around 30 percent, and enabling the spread of addictive gambling mechanics.
Claims include violations of state gambling laws, consumer protection statutes and racketeering laws. While the judge dismissed some California-specific claims, he allowed several others to proceed, including those from other states with stricter gambling laws.
Appeals and broader implications
Judge Davila also granted permission for the companies to pursue an interlocutory appeal, specifically on the Section 230 question. The outcome could set a major precedent for how platforms are treated when they profit from potentially unlawful activity hosted on their services.
Legal experts say this case could have wide-reaching implications for platform liability, app monetization policies and the future interpretation of Section 230 in the digital economy.
Also read: Viksit Workforce for a Viksit Bharat
Do Follow: The Mainstream formerly known as CIO News LinkedIn Account | The Mainstream formerly known as CIO News Facebook | The Mainstream formerly known as CIO News Youtube | The Mainstream formerly known as CIO News Twitter |The Mainstream formerly known as CIO News Whatsapp Channel | The Mainstream formerly known as CIO News Instagram
About us:
The Mainstream formerly known as CIO News is a premier platform dedicated to delivering latest news, updates, and insights from the tech industry. With its strong foundation of intellectual property and thought leadership, the platform is well-positioned to stay ahead of the curve and lead conversations about how technology shapes our world. From its early days as CIO News to its rebranding as The Mainstream on November 28, 2024, it has been expanding its global reach, targeting key markets in the Middle East & Africa, ASEAN, the USA, and the UK. The Mainstream is a vision to put technology at the center of every conversation, inspiring professionals and organizations to embrace the future of tech.
