• by Wendy Davis , October 14, 2025

Google, Meta Platforms and Apple are petitioning a federal appellate court to immediately review a lower court decision that allowed gamblers who say they lost money on casino apps to proceed with a lawsuit.

The dispute "carries widespread importance beyond the parties in this case," Google and Meta argue in a joint brief filed late last week with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

They add that the lower court decision, issued late last month by U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila in the Northern District of California, could lead to lawsuits against other online services that process subscriptions.

The tech companies' petition comes in a dispute dating to 2020, when people who said they lost money on virtual slot machines alleged in class-action complaints that Google, Meta and Apple wrongly distributed gaming apps, processed in-app payments for virtual currency, and took a commission on the sale of that currency.

The platforms urged Davila to dismiss the case, arguing that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred all of claims in the complaint. That law broadly immunizes interactive companies that publish material posted by third parties.

Among other arguments, the tech companies said their payment processing systems didn't distinguish between apps based on content.

“Google’s conduct is the same whether an app sells 'chips' for purported gambling or some other form of in-app content related to, for example, cookie-baking, and is unconnected to any subsequent decision a user makes about how to use the third-party content she purchased," the company wrote.

Counsel for the plaintiffs countered that the tech platforms "directly participate" in illegal gambling because they allegedly broker the virtual chip sales and retain a 30% commission.

Late last month, Davila essentially ruled that Section 230 immunizes companies for "publishing" activity, such as hosting or distributing the gaming apps, but doesn't protect platforms for processing payments for in-app gambling currency.

"Payment processing is not an act of publishing," Davila wrote. "Instead, it is better viewed as a generic business activity common to virtually all companies, publishers or not, just like hiring workers or paying taxes."

Davila narrowed the case by dismissing some of the claims, but the ruling allows the litigation to continue.

The platforms are now asking the 9th Circuit to intervene.

Google and Meta argue in their petition that Davila's decision would force platforms to stop offering their own payment processing systems, which generate "substantial revenue," or else "face a flood of class-action lawsuits and sweeping potential liability."

"Many online services in addition to Google, Meta, and Apple facilitate access to third-party content for a fee. Consider, for instance, companies that process subscriptions for podcasts or newsletters produced by third parties," they write, adding: "If allowed to stand, the district court's order may invite lawsuits against such platforms claiming that they processed sales of allegedly 'unlawful' content."

Apple writes in a separate petition that there is "substantial ground for disagreement with the district court's conclusion that processing payments for in-app published content is not publishing activity."

"Just as selling published content is the heart of the publishing business, it is the heart of the business model of the App Store and many other platforms for publishing third-party content," Apple writes.