Apple could not persuade a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit that alleges it promotes, hosts, and profits from illegal casino-style apps in the App Store. Here are the details.
### Case Judge Indicates Section 230 Is Not Applicable
In recent years, Apple, Alphabet, and Meta have faced a proposed class action lawsuit claiming they violated various state consumer protection laws by distributing gaming applications (“apps”) that function as social casinos and enable illegal gambling.
The plaintiffs assert that “simulated social casino apps” are equally addictive as actual in-person gambling, and that Apple, Alphabet, and Meta benefit from the “gamblers’ losses, which are gathered and controlled by the Platforms themselves.” Their allegation extends to accusing them of being involved “in a pattern of racketeering activity,” which the companies refute.
Indeed, the companies have turned to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms from liability for third-party content:
> “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
Section 230 was designed to foster the early expansion of the internet by shielding online platforms from lawsuits regarding user-generated content, and by permitting them to moderate objectionable material without the risk of liability. However, in recent times, it has emerged as one of the most debated laws in technology, critiqued as a protection that enables large tech firms to avoid accountability for damaging content.
In this instance, as reported by *Reuters*, U.S. District Judge Edward Davila denied the companies’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit based on Section 230:
> “In a 37-page ruling, Davila concluded that Apple, Google, and Meta did not function as ‘publishers’ when handling payments, undermining their claims for Section 230 immunity. He stated that it was irrelevant that the companies offered ‘neutral tools’ to support the apps, and dismissed the notion that the plaintiffs’ failure to term them ‘bookies’ absolved them of liability.”
Judge Davila mentioned that the companies could appeal his ruling, and he did dismiss some of the plaintiffs’ claims. Nevertheless, as it currently stands, the companies will still need to confront the central allegations.
