Technology
Apple, Meta, Google Argue They’re Not ‘Bookies’ in Casino App Appeal
Major companies like Apple, Meta, and Google are fighting a 2022 United States District Court Jude Edward Davila of California ruling regarding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The Act gives immunity to online publishers for hosting third-party content and does not shield sites from claims that they are acting as ‘bookies’ by allowing players to purchase virtual chips for online casino games.
Such operators receive a commission on the purchases of virtual chips. Apple, Meta, and Google recently stated in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the entire online economy may be at risk if online platforms can be held liable for processing these payments.
The Original Ruling
In the original ruling, the trial judge said that current payment processing claims filed by casino app users in states with strict gambling laws fall outside the immunity of Section 230. The judge said that online platforms authorizing the payments are allegedly participating in illegal acts.
Judge Davila dismissed claims against Apple, Google, and Meta for offering access to casino apps via their platforms and providing data to app developers to target users. The judge also acknowledged that others might reach a different conclusion on immunity in Section 230.
Google and Apple are providers of gaming apps in several sectors, including the sweepstakes and real money casino industry. Casino apps in states like NJ are available for download, and players can use real money to play games or purchase coins for free gaming. The ruling affects such operations and keeps lawsuits by plaintiffs in states where gambling is not legalized as a formal way to press charges for purchases the consumers decide to make.
Both the plaintiffs and defendants in this case decided to appeal, which has led to a separate court battle for the major app providers. The briefing process will continue through December, so it will still be quite some time before the appeal is over.
Wrong Interpretation
Apple, Google, and Meta have each filed their own court appeals. Each filing has a similar argument that Judge Davila did not interpret the 9th Circuit precedent from HomeAway.com Inc. v. City of Santa Monica correctly. If the decision is not overturned, the consequences could be major.
The companies stated that at the lowest point, the outcome could lead to every website that offers in-app purchases facing a legal claim by users. Spotify is one example of an app that sells a subscription that could be at risk of a claim if a user says they have faced injury from an unlawful product.
Google, Meta, and Apple assert that as different countries, states, and regions have varying laws, the ruling by Davila would force them to conduct intensive monitoring of applications and users to avoid any legal claims for illegal conduct by processing payments. Platforms must use geo-location software to check locations as consumers interact with apps.
For now, we have appeals and counterappeals set to take place in this case. It will certainly be interesting to see how both sides argue their points and if the ruling will be upheld and a flurry of cases ensue or if a new ruling will be made to ensure major issues do not arise in the future.
