Apple, Google, and Meta will remain in the legal spotlight after a federal judge in California refused to dismiss lawsuits accusing the companies of profiting from casino-style mobile games.
On September 30, U.S. District Judge Edward Davila, sitting in San Jose, denied the firms’ attempts to throw out the cases by claiming protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That provision generally shields online platforms from liability linked to third-party content.
Davila’s 37-page ruling stated that the companies’ role in handling in-app purchases meant they were not acting as “publishers” and therefore could not rely on Section 230 as a defense. He emphasized that the issue went beyond the neutral tools offered to developers, making the legal shield irrelevant in this situation.
“The crux of plaintiffs’ theory is that defendants improperly processed payments for social casino apps,” Davila wrote. “It is beside the point whether that activity turns defendants into bookies or brokers.”
Allegations of Exploitation and Profits
The litigation, first filed in 2021, alleges that Apple’s App Store, Google’s Play Store, and Meta’s Facebook actively promoted games designed to mimic “an authentic Vegas-style experience of slot machine gambling.” Plaintiffs claim that the platforms’ involvement amounted to an “illegal racketeering conspiracy.”
According to the suits, the companies functioned as financial intermediaries, facilitating transactions for virtual chips and collecting commissions as high as 30%. These fees, plaintiffs argue, generated more than $2 billion for the defendants.
Beyond financial damages, the plaintiffs contend that the casino-style games caused severe social and psychological harm, including addiction, depression, and suicidal ideation. They are seeking unspecified compensatory and treble damages, as well as additional remedies.
Partial Dismissal but Key Claims Move Forward
While Judge Davila dismissed certain claims tied to individual state statutes, he allowed the majority of consumer protection allegations to proceed—except those specific to California.
The ruling means the companies will have to continue defending against most of the charges. The judge also highlighted the broader significance of the case by granting Apple, Google, and Meta immediate access to appeal his decision at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Earlier, in May 2024, the appellate court dismissed related appeals for lack of jurisdiction, but the new ruling could now reopen that path.
Wider Legal Implications
The decision carries implications beyond the immediate parties. Technology firms have long relied on Section 230 to shield themselves from lawsuits tied to user-generated content. By ruling that payment processing activities fall outside that protection, the court may be signaling a shift in how platform liability is interpreted.
For Apple, Google, and Meta, the outcome of the appeals process will be pivotal. If the 9th Circuit upholds Davila’s interpretation, it could set a precedent affecting how courts evaluate tech companies’ financial involvement in third-party applications.
Silence from Companies and Plaintiffs
In the immediate aftermath of the ruling, Google, part of Alphabet, declined to comment. Apple and Meta did not issue responses, and attorneys representing the plaintiffs also remained silent.
The cases now continue in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under their respective titles:
In re Apple Inc App Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation, No. 21-md-02985
In re Google Play Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation, No. 21-md-03001
In re Facebook Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation, No. 21-02777
Source:
Apple, Google, Meta must face lawsuits over casino-style gambling apps, reuters.com, October 1, 2025
