Social Casino Lawsuit: Apple, Google, Meta Lose Section 230 Shield

Virtual Currency Litigation Unleashed: Why the Apple, Google, and Meta Social Casino Lawsuit Signals the End of ‘Free-to-Play’ and Redefines App Store Gambling Regulation

The landmark social casino lawsuit against Apple, Google, and Meta rejected the Section 230 defense, exposing platforms to billions in liability. Read our analysis of the virtual currency litigation, the end of the ‘free-to-play’ loophole, and the future of app store gambling regulation.

I. The Seismic Shift in Mobile Gaming Legal Risk

The recent decision by U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California, denying motions by Apple, Google, and Meta Platforms to dismiss consolidated class actions marks a watershed moment for the global technology industry and poses an existential threat to the multi-billion dollar social casino market.¹ This ruling compels three of the world’s most powerful corporations to face allegations that they actively promoted and profited from what are classified as illegal, casino-style gambling applications on their platforms.⁴

1.1. The Davila Decision Explained: Immunity Shield Penetrated

The cornerstone of the technology giants’ defense rested on Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, a law typically interpreted to shield online platforms from liability regarding third-party content.¹ Judge Davila explicitly rejected this primary defense, ruling that Section 230 immunity does not apply when the companies are operating as financial intermediaries processing transactions, rather than merely acting as passive content hosts or “publishers”.³

The core legal theory put forth by the plaintiffs focuses on the platforms’ “own bad acts” related to financial processing, specifically the “processing of unlawful transactions for unlawful gambling”.⁹ The court noted that the liability centers on the transactional relationship: the platforms facilitated the sale of virtual chips used in the games and collected commissions of up to 30% on these in-app purchases.⁵ The judge deemed it irrelevant whether the companies provided “neutral tools” or if the plaintiffs chose to label them “bookies” or “brokers,” emphasizing that “The crux of plaintiffs’ theory is that defendants improperly processed payments for social casino apps”.¹ This interpretation effectively bypasses the traditional shield, establishing liability based on financial participation in an alleged illegal scheme.

The scope of the alleged financial involvement is vast. The lawsuits contend that the platforms brokered and collected commissions estimated at over $2 billion from these transactions, contributing to user addiction, depression, and other significant harms.³

Also read: 20 Best Sports Betting Apps in the U.S.

1.2. Strategic Outlook: An Existential Threat to the $8 Billion Social Casino Market

The global social casino market is valued at approximately $7.99 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow substantially.¹¹ Key industry players, including Zynga, Playtika, and Aristocrat Leisure, rely heavily on mobile platforms (iOS and Android) for revenue generation.¹²

The Davila ruling, particularly when viewed in conjunction with established precedent that defines virtual chips as a “thing of value” (detailed in Section II), attacks the two fundamental pillars of the social casino business model. First, it confirms the illegality of the underlying games under specific state laws. Second, and more critically for the platforms, it removes the legal defense that allowed Apple, Google, and Meta to profit from those games without liability.

The successful piercing of the Section 230 shield is predicated entirely on the monetization mechanism—the 30% commission—not the content of the applications themselves.⁸ This distinction is profoundly important because it implies that liability stems from facilitating the financial flow of a proven illegal activity. If this ruling is upheld on appeal (Davila allowed for immediate appeal to the 9th Circuit due to the significance of the Section 230 issues ⁵), it establishes a dangerous

mobile gaming legal risk for all App Store revenue streams. Any in-app purchase system that facilitates transactions deemed illegal under relevant state statutes—including, hypothetically, controversial loot boxes or certain non-compliant virtual currency sales—could now expose the platforms to massive class action liability, as their defense that they are merely “neutral tools” would be substantially undermined.¹

II. Legal Breakdown: The Core Argument Against Social Casinos (Virtual Currency Litigation)

The viability of the lawsuits against the platforms is contingent upon the established illegality of the underlying social casino games. The legal battle hinges on whether the purchasable virtual currencies and ‘free-to-play’ mechanics satisfy the definition of “gambling” under state statutes, most notably those in Washington.

2.1. The Fading Fiction of “Free-to-Play”: Defining Gambling Consideration

State gambling statutes consistently require three elements for an activity to be classified as illegal gambling: (1) staking or risking a ‘thing of value,’ (2) upon the outcome of a contest of chance, (3) upon an agreement to receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.¹³

Social casino operators have long shielded themselves from this definition using the “freemium” model. They argued that their games lacked “consideration” because players could download the app free of charge, receive free virtual chips upon entry, and obtain additional free chips through periodic awards or winning.¹³ Crucially, the virtual currency typically had no direct cash-out mechanism, leading operators to contend that the chips did not constitute a “prize” or a “thing of value” with real monetary worth.¹³ The monetization, however, relies on users purchasing additional virtual chips or other items to extend or enhance gameplay once their free chips are depleted.¹³

Also read: online casino no deposit bonus keep what you win

2.2. The ‘Thing of Value’ Doctrine: Precedent-Setting Virtual Currency Litigation

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a critical blow to the social casino defense in 2018 with its decision in Kater v. Churchill Downs (involving the Big Fish Casino app).¹⁶ The court reversed a lower court dismissal, ruling that the virtual chips used in the game did, in fact, constitute a “thing of value” under Washington law.¹⁸

The legal determination was based on the specific, broadly-worded definition of “thing of value” within the state’s statute, which includes “extension of a service, entertainment or a privilege of playing at a game or scheme without charge”.¹⁷ The appellate court’s logic centered on the necessity of the purchase: if a user runs out of virtual chips and wishes to continue playing, they must buy more chips to access the “privilege of playing the game”.²⁰ This finding established that even if the chips cannot be converted back to real cash, their utility in extending the entertainment experience satisfies the consideration element of illegal gambling.

The theoretical liability established by Kater has since materialized into enormous financial consequences for developers. In late 2024 and early 2025, a Washington jury delivered the first-ever verdict against an online social casino, ordering High 5 Games to pay $24.9 million in damages to a class of Washington consumers.²² This followed a ruling that the company’s social casino platforms constituted illegal gambling under Washington law.²⁵ The damages included nearly $18 million in actual consumer losses and an additional $7 million in enhanced statutory damages under Washington’s Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act (RMLGA).²²

This outcome confirms that the core legal argument against the virtual currency model is sound, particularly in jurisdictions covered by the Ninth Circuit. It further reveals the predatory nature of certain operators; evidence presented at trial indicated that High 5 Games deliberately targeted “whales,” a term for high-spending users, even luring back users who had requested their accounts be closed due to addiction.²² The financial precedent set by this verdict is compounded by earlier, massive settlements, including $415 million by DoubleDown Interactive ³³ and $155 million paid by Churchill Downs and Aristocrat Leisure to settle similar claims related to Big Fish Games.¹⁵

The successful, multi-million dollar results against developers validate the core legal argument against all monetized virtual chips. This judicial success significantly increases the probability of victory in the parallel suits against the platforms. The platform liability claim is now resting not on arguing the core illegality—which is already established via the Kater precedent and multiple settlements—but on proving the platforms’ complicity in a pre-validated illegal scheme.⁵

Also read: 10 Best Social Casino Like Chumba

2.3. The Looming Threat to the Sweepstakes Law Gambling Model

In an effort to circumvent the “thing of value” rulings, many social casino operators, including High 5 and others, pivoted toward a dual-currency or sweepstakes law gambling model.²⁶ This approach typically involves selling non-redeemable virtual currency bundled with a “free” second currency (e.g., ‘Sweeps Coins’) that

is redeemable for cash or prizes.²⁷ Operators argue that since the redeemable currency is given away for free as part of a sweepstakes promotion, the element of “consideration” required for illegal gambling is absent.

However, this adaptation is facing immediate and intense legal counter-attack. The American Gaming Association (AGA) has actively called upon gaming regulators and state Attorneys General to investigate these sweepstakes models for compliance violations.²⁶ New York’s Attorney General has already acted, shutting down 26 illegal online sweepstakes casinos and clarifying that wagering cash-redeemable virtual coins on games of chance constitutes gambling under New York law, regardless of the operator’s characterization.²⁷

Furthermore, attempts by sweepstakes operators to shield themselves from class action exposure via contractual mechanisms are failing. The California Superior Court recently denied High 5 Entertainment’s motions to compel arbitration in a lawsuit challenging its sweepstakes model, finding the arbitration agreements to be “unconscionable” under California law.³⁵ The court rejected the notion that private arbitration should preempt California’s significant public policy interests in enforcing its gambling regulations.²⁸

The aggressive litigation simultaneously targeting both the original “free-to-play” model and the “sweepstakes” adaptation suggests that attempts by the industry to legally circumvent gambling laws through creative monetization schemes are being definitively closed off by state courts. This legal pressure leaves developers with a critical decision: either become fully licensed real-money operators, or abandon all monetized chance mechanics entirely.

Also read: Report on the Global Online Casino Market: Leading Countries and Key Operators

Summarizes the critical legal precedents defining the boundaries of Virtual Currency Litigation.

Key Legal Precedents Defining ‘Thing of Value’ in Social Casinos

Case / Jurisdiction	Year	Core Legal Finding	Impact on Virtual Currency Litigation
Kater v. Churchill Downs (9th Cir.)	2018	Virtual chips that extend playtime constitute a “thing of value” under Washington’s broad statute.	Established the legal basis for classifying the standard social casino model as illegal gambling in the 9th Circuit.
High 5 Games Verdict (Washington)	2025	Found liable for illegal gambling; ordered to pay $24.9 million in damages.	Confirmed the significant financial risk and jury exposure, moving liability from theoretical to quantifiable reality.
Big Fish/DoubleDown Settlements	2021-2023	Settled similar claims for over $500M collectively (prior to trial).	Benchmark for industry financial risk, showing developer willingness to avoid catastrophic jury exposure.
Maryland Court Case (Example)	2015	Dismissed claims, focusing on the lack of a defined “machine” and inability to cash out.	Illustrates the legal split on interpretation outside the 9th Circuit, highlighting jurisdictional risk variation.

Also read: Esports Betting Tips and Strategies

III. Platform Liability Analysis: Aiding and Abetting and the RICO Conspiracy (App Store Gambling Regulation)

The denial of the dismissal motions against Apple, Google, and Meta pushes the boundary of platform liability, moving the focus from their role as content hosts to their function as financial engines for alleged illegal schemes.

3.1. The Crux of the Ruling: Judge Davila Dismantles the Section 230 Shield

The fundamental shift in this case is Judge Davila’s classification of the platforms’ activity. By focusing on the processing of financial transactions and the collection of commissions, Davila determined that the companies were acting as financial intermediaries and brokers, rather than merely passive “publishers”.⁸ The court explicitly rejected the defenses that the platforms provided “neutral tools” or that the plaintiffs failed to label them “bookies,” asserting that the processing of illegal payments constituted the “crux” of the claim.¹

This interpretation fundamentally attacks the platforms’ asserted identity. If a platform profits from processing a transaction that facilitates illegal activity, the Section 230 immunity, designed to protect free speech and content hosting, is rendered irrelevant.⁹ The court’s willingness to allow the immediate appeal to the 9th Circuit underscores the significance of this ruling, as it represents a novel and major challenge to the scope of Section 230 protections in the context of commercial transactions and mobile gaming legal risk.⁸

3.2. Exposure to Federal RICO Claims and Treble Damages

The lawsuits filed by dozens of plaintiffs are consolidated and include allegations that Apple, Google (Alphabet), and Meta (Facebook) engaged in an illegal racketeering conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).⁴ A civil RICO claim alleges that the defendants committed underlying criminal conduct that resulted in harm.²⁹

Plaintiffs argue that the platforms were active participants, not passive hosts. They claim the platforms worked closely with social casino developers, providing marketing tools, featuring the apps to drive downloads, and using proprietary user data to specifically target and attract “whales”—high-spending, vulnerable users prone to addiction.¹⁰ This alleged targeted exploitation directly contributed to user losses, including severe consequences such as depression and suicidal thoughts.²⁹

The financial implications of surviving the motion to dismiss are severe. A finding of liability under RICO carries mandatory penalties, including the potential for treble damages (three times the actual financial losses).³ With estimated illicit commissions exceeding $2 billion ³, the theoretical liability exposure, before factoring in punitive damages and legal costs, could approach $6 billion. The decision to allow these claims to proceed opens the door to extensive discovery into the platforms’ internal marketing practices and algorithmic targeting methodologies.

3.3. Liability Cascade: Risk for Payment Processors and Affiliates

The plaintiffs’ legal theory extends beyond the App Store operators, encompassing claims of “aiding and abetting” the illegal gambling enterprise.¹⁰ The argument is that any entity that “knowingly and intentionally” assists an illegal operation is culpable.

This liability cascade presents a significant risk for the wider mobile gaming ecosystem. Related lawsuits against social casino operators have started naming third-party service providers, including game developers (such as Evolution, Hacksaw, and Pragmatic Play) and identity verification services (like Veriff), arguing that they directly profit from providing services used in unregulated markets.³⁰ The legal premise is that the profitability of the illegal enterprise is dependent on the full chain of facilitation, from the app’s code to the user’s authenticated access.

Furthermore, a judgment against the Big Tech firms based on their role as financial intermediaries could logically open the door to lawsuits against major global payment rails—Visa, MasterCard, and others—who similarly generate revenue from processing these in-game transactions.¹⁰ This would transform the

social casino lawsuit into a comprehensive challenge to the entire infrastructure supporting unregulated virtual currency commerce.

The documented evidence of operators targeting “whales” and addicted users creates a severe ethical liability that fundamentally undermines any public relations defense.²² The platforms, by facilitating this targeted, high-stakes marketing via their data streams ¹⁰, are directly implicated in the predatory behavior. This connection to user harm is not isolated; the emphasis on using data to target vulnerable individuals in the gambling lawsuit directly links this case to the burgeoning

video game addiction and social media addiction lawsuits.³⁷ A successful RICO/Aiding & Abetting judgment in the social casino case, based on enabling financial exploitation through algorithmic targeting, would provide significant judicial validation for plaintiffs in parallel addiction litigation, establishing a robust legal template for holding Big Tech accountable for harm caused by addictive digital design across all app categories.

Highlights the specific liability theories applied against the tech giants.

Big Tech Liability Theories and the Section 230 Rejection

Legal Theory	Tech Giant Role (Plaintiffs’ Claim)	Judge Davila’s Ruling	Implication for Platforms
Section 230 Immunity	Passive host/publisher of third-party content.	Denied; platforms acted as financial intermediaries processing unlawful transactions.	Primary defense mechanism dismantled, escalating liability risk substantially.
Illegal Racketeering (RICO)	Active participant in an illegal enterprise, using user data for targeted promotion (whales).	Allowed claims to proceed, acknowledging the existence of a triable conspiracy theory.	Opens the door to discovery of internal marketing practices and exposure to treble damages.
Aiding and Abetting	Facilitating the illegal enterprise via payment processing and commission collection.	Upheld via denial of dismissal motions, focusing on the transactional “crux” of the claim.	Solidifies the platform’s financial role as the basis for culpability, extending risk to other ecosystem partners.

Also read: Google Turns 27: Celebrates with Original 1998 Logo Doodle

IV. Market Impact and Financial Fallout (Social Casino Lawsuit)

The continuation of the litigation against Apple, Google, and Meta poses a multi-billion dollar financial threat and mandates a fundamental reassessment of current monetization strategies throughout the mobile gaming industry.

4.1. Quantifying the Big Tech Financial Risk

The most immediate and quantifiable financial risk for the platforms is the clawback potential. The lawsuits seek restitution of the platforms’ commissions, estimated to exceed $2 billion.⁸ Since these revenues are allegedly derived from illegal transactions, they are vulnerable to disgorgement under state consumer protection laws and unjust enrichment claims.⁷

More severe is the risk associated with the RICO claims. If the platforms are found liable for participation in an illegal racketeering conspiracy, the resulting penalty could include treble damages.³ A $2 billion commission liability tripled by statute results in a theoretical exposure approaching $6 billion, independent of punitive damages, compensatory payments for addiction and emotional distress ²⁹, and years of mounting legal defense costs.⁷

The willingness of major social casino operators to settle for massive sums provides a clear benchmark for financial exposure. Settlements totaling over $650 million against Big Fish and DoubleDown demonstrate that the cost of avoiding trial and its catastrophic potential jury awards is extraordinarily high.³³ The $24.9 million verdict against High 5 Games further confirms that juries are prepared to award substantial damages based on established consumer losses.²²

The defendants face immense settlement pressure. The cost of defending a multi-district litigation (MDL) involving complex RICO and consumer protection claims across multiple states, especially when the core illegality of the partner developers has already been judicially confirmed, is immense. It is highly probable that the platforms will eventually face pressure to settle at a fraction of their maximum exposure, but that fraction will still likely represent one of the largest financial payouts in the history of internet transaction litigation.

4.2. Developer Exposure and Operating Model Shifts

For the social casino game developers themselves—including prominent firms like Zynga, Playtika, and Aristocrat—the mobile gaming legal risk is existential. The revenue model based on selling non-cashable chips that extend playtime is legally defunct in the 9th Circuit and highly vulnerable in many others, given the Kater precedent.²⁵

In response to this established legal liability, operators are already initiating a mandatory retreat. Companies like Playtika are facing similar class actions in Alabama, Tennessee, and Kentucky, in addition to international challenges.³⁸ The most immediate and necessary action for operators is to geo-fence high-risk jurisdictions, such as Washington state, to prevent any further accrual of illegal gambling losses under the RMLGA.²⁵ This fragmentation of the user base creates severe operational inefficiency and marketing complexity.

The legal outcomes are likely to drive App Store policies toward a “de facto licensing” requirement for social casino operators, even if the apps are designated “free-to-play.” Since the platforms must avoid processing illegal transactions to escape RICO/Aiding & Abetting liability, they will seek the safest course of action, which is likely restricting access to, or demanding full compliance documentation from, any game utilizing monetized chance mechanics. The enforcement benchmark will become whether the game is compliant with legal gambling standards in that jurisdiction. This necessary regulatory pressure effectively forces developers to seek compliance (or de-monetization) similar to licensed real-money gambling (RMG) operators, creating a massive barrier to entry and dramatically increasing operating costs.

Provides key financial metrics defining the scale of the social casino industry and the corresponding financial risk.

Social Casino Market Valuation and Financial Risk Metrics (2025)

Metric	Value/Projection	Significance to Litigation
Global Social Casino Market Size (2024)	~$7.99 Billion	High incentive for aggressive monetization and significant target for plaintiffs’ bar.
Estimated Platform Commissions (Since 2021)	Over $2 Billion	Plaintiffs’ basis for restitution and exposure to potential treble damages.
Social Casino Operator Settlement Baseline	>$650 Million	Confirms the scale of liability and consumer losses established by prior litigation outcomes.
High 5 Games Jury Award (Washington)	$24.9 Million	Establishes the confirmed, quantifiable cost of jury exposure for operators.

V. FAQ: Mobile Gaming Legal Risk & Virtual Currency Litigation

VI. Future Policy and Compliance Mandates (App Store Gambling Regulation)

The judicial confirmation of platform liability marks a watershed moment requiring extensive policy overhauls across Apple’s App Store, Google’s Play Store, and Meta’s advertising policies. The era of treating lucrative ‘gamblification’ models as harmless digital entertainment is concluding.

6.1. Mandatory Policy Overhaul for App Stores

The rejection of the Section 230 defense based on the platforms’ transactional role necessitates that Apple and Google implement far stricter, internally validated controls over virtual currency transactions within games of chance. Without robust controls, the platforms risk continuous exposure to “aiding and abetting” and RICO claims.²⁶

The U.S. litigation is pushing App Store gambling regulation toward mirroring licensed real-money gambling (RMG) standards. Platforms must move beyond simply checking content guidelines and implement financial regulatory controls, including mandatory geo-fencing capabilities to block access in high-risk states like Washington.²⁵ Additionally, the app review process must now scrutinize sophisticated “gamblification” techniques used by developers to confuse users about legality.³²

The requirement for platforms to exert more control over monetization to mitigate liability runs contradictory to prevailing global trends. In Europe, regulatory acts like the Digital Markets Act (DMA) pressure tech giants toward decreasing control over ecosystems, requiring them to allow alternative payment systems and side-loading..⁴⁰ Similarly, in the U.S., there are movements to open the crypto/Web3 space to external payments.⁴¹ This legal tension creates a zero-sum conflict: platforms must increase centralized control and liability management in high-risk areas like gambling, while simultaneously decreasing control in others as mandated by antitrust and competition laws. This regulatory schizophrenia increases operational complexity and legal costs regardless of the compliance direction chosen.

6.2. Strategic Adaptation for Social Casino Operators

The legal landscape dictates that operators must radically restructure their in-game economics to survive. The riskiest revenue stream—purchasing chips solely to extend playtime—is now indefensible in the 9th Circuit and must be minimized or eliminated, favoring truly non-gambling monetization such as cosmetic sales or integrated ad revenue.

For those pursuing the highly vulnerable sweepstakes law gambling model, compliance documentation and implementation must be impeccable. The recent failures of High 5 Entertainment to enforce its arbitration agreements in California ³⁵ are a stark warning that relying on private arbitration to skirt consumer protection claims is becoming judicially untenable. Operators must ensure their “free entry” mechanisms are transparent, functional, and that their terms of service are robust enough to withstand rigorous judicial scrutiny against claims of unconscionability.

Furthermore, the operational environment is hardening. Meta, which is also a named defendant, has already imposed new gambling ad restrictions against sweepstakes and social casino operators, extending the need for formal advertising authorization to affiliates and influencers.⁴² This regulatory tightening targets the widespread marketing practices that relied on ambiguity to attract high-spending users, forcing operators to clean up their promotional channels to avoid further regulatory penalties and legal exposure.

VII. Conclusion: The New Era of Regulated Mobile Gaming

The denial of the dismissal motions against Apple, Google, and Meta represents a watershed moment that irrevocably changes the legal and financial dynamics of the mobile gaming industry. It provides comprehensive judicial validation for plaintiffs in virtual currency litigation, confirming that the purchase of virtual chips for game extension constitutes a “thing of value” and thus illegal gambling under statutes like Washington’s RMLGA.

By rejecting the Section 230 defense, Judge Davila established that technology platforms cannot claim immunity when their proprietary revenue model involves processing and profiting from transactions linked to illegal activities. This decision forces the platforms to defend against severe claims of racketeering conspiracy and aiding and abetting, carrying multi-billion dollar exposure through potential treble damages and the clawback of over $2 billion in collected commissions.

The era of creative “gamblification” loopholes is closing definitively. Mobile gaming operators face a binary choice: either assume the heavy financial and regulatory burden of becoming fully licensed real-money operators, or initiate a radical, revenue-cutting shift away from chance-based monetization. The documentation revealing how operators targeted “whales” only intensifies the ethical and financial liability, increasing the likelihood of punitive damages and providing a powerful template for lawsuits concerning algorithmic exploitation across all digital addiction sectors.

For Apple, Google, and Meta, the financial imperative is clear: the cost of defending these complex RICO and consumer protection suits, combined with the catastrophic potential liability, vastly outweighs the 30% commission collected from these high-risk social casino apps. This financial reality will inevitably lead to sweeping, mandatory app store gambling regulation and policy revisions, permanently altering the definition of mobile gaming legal risk for all developers who utilize chance-based monetization. The future of mobile gaming requires compliance that transcends mere content review, demanding full accountability for the financial streams that flow through these powerful digital gatekeepers.

Works cited

Apple, Google, Meta must face lawsuits over casino-style gambling apps: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/apple-google-meta-must-face-lawsuits-over-casino-style-gambling-apps-2025-09-30/

1. Apple, Google, Meta must face lawsuits over casino-style gambling apps, accessed October 2, 2025, https://m.economictimes.com/tech/technology/apple-google-meta-must-face-lawsuits-over-casino-style-gambling-apps/articleshow/124246024.cms
2. Apple, Google, Meta must face lawsuits over casino-style gambling apps | Business Information & News | Westlaw, accessed October 2, 2025, https://content.next.westlaw.com/Document/I4aeb72609e4d11f0b916ed41b6ae353d/View/FullText.html?transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)
3. Apple, Google, Meta must face lawsuits over casino-style gambling apps – CNA, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/business/apple-google-meta-must-face-lawsuits-over-casino-style-gambling-apps-5378631
4. Apple, Google And Meta Can’t Escape Gambling Lawsuits, Judge Rejects Section 230 Shield In Landmark Ruling On Casino-Style Apps – Benzinga, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.benzinga.com/markets/tech/25/09/47959832/apple-google-and-meta-cant-escape-gambling-lawsuits-judge-rejects-section-230-shield-in-landmark-ruling-on-casino-style-apps
5. Court Orders Apple, Google, Meta to Face Gambling Lawsuits, accessed October 2, 2025, https://news.worldcasinodirectory.com/court-orders-apple-google-meta-to-face-gambling-lawsuits-119989
6. Apple, Google, Meta must face lawsuits over casino-style gambling apps, accessed October 2, 2025, https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/apple-google-meta-must-face-lawsuits-over-casino-style-gambling-apps-10281555/
7. Apple, Google, Meta say they didn’t get a cut from casino apps, ask judge to toss gambling class action | Courthouse News Service, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.courthousenews.com/apple-google-meta-say-they-didnt-get-a-cut-from-casino-apps-ask-judge-to-toss-gambling-class-action/
8. Federal judge denies Apple, Google, and Meta’s bid to dismiss gambling lawsuits – Yogonet, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.yogonet.com/international/news/2025/10/01/115603-federal-judge-denies-apple-google-and-metas-bid-to-dismiss-gambling-lawsuits
9. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit – Epic.org, accessed October 2, 2025, https://epic.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/ca9-2022-16916-009034108483.pdf
10. Apple, Google and Meta in Huge Legal Battle Over Social Casino Apps – Esports Insider, accessed October 2, 2025, https://esportsinsider.com/2025/03/apple-google-and-meta-in-huge-legal-battle-over-social-casino-apps
11. Online Social Casino Market: Global Report 2025 – CrustLab, accessed October 2, 2025, https://crustlab.com/blog/online-social-casino-market/
12. Social Casino Games Industry Forecasts: Insights and Growth, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.datainsightsmarket.com/reports/social-casino-games-1501913
13. Washington Federal Court Finds Social Casino Games Not Gambling, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/us/insights/alerts/washington-federal-court-finds-social-casino-games-not-gambling
14. The Proliferation Of Social Gaming Casinos: Legal Compliance Considerations | Richt Law Firm, accessed October 2, 2025, https://richtfirm.com/the-proliferation-of-social-gaming-casinos-legal-compliance-considerations/
15. $155 Million Offered to Settle Two Big Fish Games Class Action Lawsuits, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/us/insights/blogs/155-million-offered-settle-two-big-fish-games-class-action-lawsuits
16. Big Fish and Virtual Tokens – How Washington State and the Ninth Circuit Can Alter Online Gambling Laws, accessed October 2, 2025, https://aublr.org/2020/03/big-fish-and-virtual-tokens-how-washington-state-and-the-ninth-circuit-can-alter-online-gambling-laws/
17. In-Game Currency Triggers State Gambling Laws, Rendering… – Fenwick, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.fenwick.com/insights/publications/in-game-currency-triggers-state-gambling-laws-rendering-mobile-game-illegal-gambling
18. Kater v. Churchill Downs – UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, accessed October 2, 2025, https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/03/28/16-35010.pdf
19. Gaming Law in Washington State: Court Rules that Virtual Chips are “Things of Value”, accessed October 2, 2025, https://kleinmoynihan.com/gaming-law-washington-state-virtual-chips-things-of-value/
20. Regarding Virtual Casinos – Washington State Gambling Commission – | WA.gov, accessed October 2, 2025, https://wsgc.wa.gov/regarding-virtual-casinos
21. High 5 Games ordered to pay $25m to settle social casino class action – NEXT.io, accessed October 2, 2025, https://next.io/news/casino/high-5-games-ordered-pay-25m-class-action/
22. Jury Returns First-Ever Class Action Verdict Against Illegal Online Casino Operator, accessed October 2, 2025, https://edelson.com/jury-returns-first-ever-class-action-verdict-against-illegal-online-casino-operator/
23. High 5 Games To Pay $25M Damages For Social Casino Ops – SBC Americas, accessed October 2, 2025, https://sbcamericas.com/2025/02/10/high-5-games-damages-casino-verdict/
24. High 5 Games ordered to pay nearly $25m in social casino class action verdict, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.gamblinginsider.com/news/28289/high-5-games-ordered-to-pay-nearly-25m-in-social-casino-class-action-verdict
25. Operating Social Casino-Style Applications Continues to be Costly in Washington State, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.mygamecounsel.com/2025/02/articles/casino/operating-social-casino-style-applications-continues-to-be-costly-in-washington-state/
26. Social Casino Sweepstakes Model is Under Fire – What Game Companies, Payment Processors and App Stores Need to Know, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.mygamecounsel.com/2025/03/articles/casino/social-casino-sweepstakes-model-is-under-fire-what-game-companies-payment-processors-and-app-stores-need-to-know/
27. Attorney General James Stops Illegal Online Sweepstakes Casinos, accessed October 2, 2025, https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2025/attorney-general-james-stops-illegal-online-sweepstakes-casinos
28. California Court Blocks High 5 Entertainment’s Arbitration Efforts in Sweepstakes Case, accessed October 2, 2025, https://news.worldcasinodirectory.com/california-court-blocks-high-5-entertainments-arbitration-efforts-in-sweepstakes-case-119658
29. Apple Faces Civil RICO Class Action Over Gambling Apps – Expert Institute, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/apple-faces-civil-rico-class-action-over-gambling-apps/
30. Breaking Down Latest California Lawsuit Against Stake.us And Its Affiliates, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.legalsportsreport.com/240723/breaking-down-latest-california-lawsuit-against-stake-us-and-its-affiliates/
31. Apple and Google Hit with New Social Casino Gambling Lawsuit – The National Law Review, accessed October 2, 2025, https://natlawreview.com/article/plaintiffs-try-another-bite-apple-and-google-too
32. Gamblification: – Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.pillsburylaw.com/a/web/102351/9dhzfr/fs-internet-gamblification.pdf
33. DoubleDown Interactive casino games $415M class action settlement, accessed October 2, 2025, https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/doubledown-interactive-casino-games-415m-class-action-settlement/
34. Legal Risks of Social Casino Sweepstakes Model – The National Law Review, accessed October 2, 2025, https://natlawreview.com/article/social-casino-sweepstakes-model-under-fire-what-game-companies-payment-processors
35. Superior Court of California denies High 5 Entertainment’s motions – Gaming America, accessed October 2, 2025, https://gamingamerica.com/news/14108/superior-court-of-california-denies-high-5-entertainments-motions
36. Apple, Google, Meta must face casino app lawsuits – SiGMA World, accessed October 2, 2025, https://sigma.world/news/apple-google-meta-casino-gambling-lawsuits/
37. Federal Consolidation Sought for Video Game Addiction Lawsuits – AboutLawsuits.com, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.aboutlawsuits.com/federal-consolidation-video-game-addiction-lawsuits/
38. Playtika – SEC.gov, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1828016/000119312525096882/d936554dars.pdf
39. From Policy to Play: How Legal Updates Are Reshaping Social Casino Access, accessed October 2, 2025, https://js13kgames.com/p/policy-to-play.html
40. The Digital Markets Act’s impacts on EU users – Apple, accessed October 2, 2025, https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/09/the-digital-markets-acts-impacts-on-eu-users/
41. Apple’s Revised US App Store Guidelines Ease Crypto App Payment and NFT Barriers, accessed October 2, 2025, https://news.bitcoin.com/apples-revised-us-app-store-guidelines-ease-crypto-app-payment-and-nft-barriers/
42. How Meta’s New Gambling Ad Restrictions Impact Sweepstakes And Social Casino Operators – SCCG Management, accessed October 2, 2025, https://sccgmanagement.com/sccg-articles/2025/7/10/how-metas-new-gambling-ad-restrictions-impact-sweepstakes/