Apple, Google and Meta are all named in a lawsuit accusing the three tech giants of processing payments involving illegal online casino gambling. However, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal, stating the lower court did not fully adjudicate the matter.
Back to Square One
It has been approximately a year and a half since the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case accusing Apple, Google and Meta (owner of Facebook) of processing payments derived from illegal digital gaming sites.
During that time, the court was inundated with evidence and rebuttals from both sides but it was all to no avail as the three appellate judges, Richard Paez, Jennifer Sung, as well as U.S. District Judge Sidney Fitzwater, ruled the lower court had not definitively ruled on the matter but rendered what they referred to as only an abstract legal opinion.
The defense believes it is shielded from legal action due to Section 230 immunity. However, the trial judge, Edward Davila, did not rule on any of the 125 claims against the tech companies but only addressed his interpretation of Section 230 immunity under the Communications Decency Act. Therefore, it did nothing to move the legal needle and must now be sent back to the trial court for a specific ruling before the Appeals court will consider hearing it.
In another related case, a class action suit against software developer, Supercell, had been dismissed by Judge Davila, and his ruling was upheld by the same 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. This could be a foreshadowing of things to come, which would bode well for the three tech giants.
Davila Perplexed
In a refreshing case of judicial candor, trial court Judge Davila declared he was unsure of some aspects of the precedent-setting nature of the case before him. Despite dismissing two of the three claims related to the plaintiffs’ theories of liability brought against Apple, Google and Meta, the one that stood unsettled was the degree to which the plaintiffs would be protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This act is pivotal as it protects internet publishers from liability for content posted by third parties, and in this case, regarding processing payments for those parties that could be involved in illegal online casino gambling.
“This case involves controlling questions of law, namely whether the platforms are entitled to immunity for their hosting of the allegedly unlawful social casino apps,” Davila wrote. “While the court believes it has followed the 9th Circuit’s precedent on this complicated question, the court finds that reasonable minds could differ as to the outcome.”
Davila continued by writing, “Liability turns on the degree of control that a website exercises over the offensive content. Section 230 is not limitless. While its origin demonstrates a preference for immunity, it is not meant to immunize a website’s own bad acts.”
Although Davila wanted the appeals court to answer the question, it will be up to him, again, to rule, regardless of his uncertainty, at which time the matter will almost assuredly be handed back to the appeals court to make a final legal determination.
