Published on: October 1, 2025, at 07:49h.
Updated on: October 1, 2025, at 07:50h.
- Litigation against Apple, Google, and Facebook will proceed
- The lawsuit alleges these tech companies are accountable for illegal social casino applications on their platforms
A federal lawsuit targeting Apple, Google, and Facebook over claims that these major tech firms are accountable for endorsing and profiting from unlawful gambling applications will now move forward.
In an extensive 37-page decision released on Tuesday by US District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, Apple, the parent company of Google, and Meta, the parent of Facebook, are tasked with justifying their role in hosting casino-style applications while allegedly profiting through commissions from these activities.
The tech giants, which host app stores featuring numerous social casino applications, attempted to have the case dismissed, citing Section 230 immunity claims. This federal regulation under the Communications Decency Act shields online platforms from being held liable for content created by their users, categorizing them as distributors instead of publishers.
Judge Davila acknowledged that Section 230 does indeed provide some protection to Apple, Google, and Facebook regarding the content of the applications they host, but questioned the companies’ financial gain from those contents.
Continuity of the Case
The federal litigation against these companies originated in 2021 when twelve plaintiffs accused them of losing substantial amounts of money on illegal gambling applications marketed as social gaming. These individuals are demanding restitution for their gambling losses and seeking to prevent the companies from offering such social casino applications in the future.
The class-action lawsuit asserts that the companies participated in racketeering activities alongside illegal gambling operations, inflicting financial and emotional harm on the plaintiffs.
Judge Davila chose to dismiss the RICO conspiracy allegations, asserting that the plaintiffs “failed to specify a material violation.” He noted that they did not adequately describe how the social casino applications were manipulated.
“Plaintiffs did not experience an injury when purchasing virtual chips since they received what they paid for — the chips offer a chance to win in a virtual slot game. They did not encounter harm simply by losing, as losing merely reflects unmet expectations,” Davila stated.
Despite some claims of immunity from liability, Judge Davila remained unconvinced by the defense’s assertion of Section 230 immunity concerning the consumer protection allegations raised by other plaintiffs.
“Upon evaluating the plaintiffs’ claims for recovering losses, the court concluded that purchasing virtual chips constituted a gambling transaction. Given the court’s assumption that the underlying activities in social casino applications are illegal, such purchases are also deemed illegal transactions. Since the defendants do not contest that the benefit of the bargain defense is invalid in the context of illegal transactions, this defense does not warrant dismissal,” Davila affirmed.
Anticipated Appeal
Apple, Google, and Facebook are poised to challenge Judge Davila’s decision in the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals located in San Francisco. Given its jurisdiction over Silicon Valley, this appellate court has addressed numerous pivotal cases involving technology.
Previously, the Ninth Circuit has shown favor to technology firms in several significant cases, such as the Federal Trade Commission’s ruling against Qualcomm, Oracle’s challenges regarding intellectual property issues, and Microsoft’s litigation concerning website tracking.