Sept 30 (Reuters) – On Tuesday, a federal judge rejected Apple (AAPL.O), Google, and Meta Platforms’ (META.O) motions seeking dismissal of lawsuits over casino-style gambling applications involving commissions and user addiction. U.S. District Judge Edward Davila, located in San Jose, California, refused the companies’ central argument that Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act protected them against proposed class action liability.

Davila removed some allegations related to U.S. state laws but rejected dismissal motions for consumer protection law claims, except those specifically tied to California jurisdiction. Google, which operates as a unit of Alphabet (GOOGL.O), did not offer an immediate statement, while Apple and Meta also gave no prompt responses to comment requests. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs remained silent as well, providing no immediate responses to the same requests for clarification regarding their position.

Several plaintiffs argued that Apple’s App Store, Google’s Play Store, and Meta’s Facebook collectively promoted “Vegas-style slot machine gambling” through an unlawful racketeering operation. According to the plaintiffs, defendants caused depression, suicidal ideation, and other outcomes while charging and collecting 30% commissions, estimated at $2 billion, from processed transactions.

Judge Says Issues’ Importance Justifies Immediate Appeals

Within a 37-page ruling, Davila concluded Apple, Google, and Meta did not function as “publishers” when handling payments, undermining Section 230 immunity assertions. He determined that the fact that the companies supplied “neutral tools” for app support was irrelevant, rejecting arguments that the plaintiffs’ failure to call them “bookies” excused liability. “The foundation of plaintiffs’ claim is that defendants wrongly processed payments for social casino applications,” Davila wrote. “It matters little whether that classifies them as brokers or bookies.”

Davila further allowed Apple, Google, and Meta to immediately appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals due to the significant Section 230 concerns involved. That appellate court had already dismissed prior appeals in May 2024, citing an absence of jurisdiction during that period. In 2021 the litigation which began has continued in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California against the Silicon Valley defendants.