• by Wendy Davis , Yesterday

Google, Meta and Apple are urging a federal appellate court to throw out long-running claims that they facilitated online gambling by processing in-app payments for virtual currency that can only be used within the games.

In papers filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the companies argue that they are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which broadly immunizes interactive companies from liability for content created by outside businesses.

"This is nothing more than a complaint about making content available for a fee," Meta writes in an appellate brief quietly filed late last week. "Plaintiffs seek to impose liability on Meta for accepting players' payments for online access to third-party content."

Google and Apple make similar arguments.

The platforms' papers come in a battle dating to 2020, when people who said they lost money on virtual slot machines claimed in class-action complaints that Google, Meta and Apple distributed allegedly illegal gaming apps, processed in-app payments for virtual currency, and took a commission on the sale of that currency.

U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila in the Northern District of California ruled last year that Section 230 immunizes the companies for "publishing" activity -- such as hosting or distributing the gaming apps -- but not for processing payments for in-app gambling currency.

"Payment processing is not an act of publishing," Davila said in a written ruling. "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."

The tech platforms are now urging the 9th Circuit to reverse that ruling.

"Google’s processing of virtual-content sales is the modern equivalent of booksellers’ and newsstands’ processing of printed-content sales," Google argues in its appeal. "Google hosts content, collects payments from app users who want that content, distributes the content to users’ phones or tablets, and remits a portion of the payments to app developers. That is the same basic publishing conduct that booksellers and newsstands have engaged in for centuries."

The company adds that Davila's ruling, if left in place, "could invite a wave of new lawsuits against such platforms claiming that they processed sales of allegedly unlawful content."

Apple likewise argues it can't be sued for facilitating payments to outside businesses.

"The developers, not Apple, created these apps and games and decided to use the App Store to distribute them," the company writes.

"The developers, not Apple, likewise decided to use Apple's platform to distribute and sell chips to users. And the developers, not Apple, decided to allow people to use those chips to play 'spins' in an effort to win yet more chips that can never be used outside the app," the company continues, adding: "That is all third-party content."

Counsel for the plaintiffs is expected to respond to the arguments next month.