Apple was unable to convince a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit accusing it of promoting, hosting, and profiting from illegal casino-style apps in the App Store. Here are the details.
Case judge says Section 230 doesn’t apply
For the past few years, Apple, Alphabet, and Meta have been defendants in a putative class action suit accusing them of violating “various state consumer protection laws by distributing game applications (‘apps’) that operate as social casinos and thus permit illegal gambling.”
The plaintiffs argue that “simulated social casino apps” are just as addictive as real in-person gambling, and that Apple, Alphabet, and Meta are profiting off of the “gamblers’ losses, which are collected and controlled by the Platforms themselves.”
Their claim goes as far as to accuse them of participating “in a pattern of racketeering activity,” which the companies deny.
In fact, the companies have resorted to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which shields 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.”
Top comment by Blurft
This legal challenge reveals the great contradiction that app distributors like Apple don't want to acknowledge - the fact that they want the power to regulate app distribution in the name of user safety, in ways that are conveniently very profitable for them, but they don't want the responsibility of ensuring user safety in ways that could limit their profits.
They want power without responsibility, and the obvious guiding principle behind their actions is simply "do what is most profitable."
This is how pretty much every for-profit business operates, so I'm not singling out Apple as acting worse than everyone else...but we do need to acknowledge that Apple is just like any other for-profit business. They are not your friend, they are not your protector. They are a business trying to maximize profits from you, and this case is a clear example of that.
Section 230 was created to encourage the early growth of the internet by protecting online platforms from being sued over user-generated content, and by allowing them to moderate offensive material without fear of liability. However, in recent years, it has become one of the most contentious laws in tech, criticized as a shield that allows big tech companies to evade responsibility for harmful content.
In this case, as reported by Reuters, U.S. District Judge Edward Davila rejected the companies’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit based on Section 230:
“In a 37-page decision, Davila found that Apple, Google, and Meta did not act as ‘publishers’ when processing payments, undercutting their Section 230 immunity claims.
He called it irrelevant that the companies provided ‘neutral tools’ to support the apps, and rejected a suggestion that the plaintiffs’ failure to label them ‘bookies’ excused them from liability.”
Judge Davila said that the companies may appeal his decision, and he did dismiss some of the plaintiffs’ claims. But as it stands, the companies will still have to face the main accusations.
Do you think Section 230 should apply here? Let us know in the comments.
Accessory deals on Amazon
- Logitech MX Master 4 – NEW
- AirPods Pro 3
- Wireless CarPlay adapter
- iPhone Air Ultraslim Magsafe Power Bank ($22.99)
- Apple AirTag 4 Pack
- Beats USB-C to USB-C Woven Short Cable
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Comments