Yazılar

Apple, Google, and Meta Must Face Lawsuits Over Casino-Style Gambling Apps

/in /tarafından

A U.S. federal judge has ruled that Apple, Google, and Meta Platforms must face lawsuits accusing them of promoting and profiting from illegal casino-style gambling apps, rejecting their efforts to dismiss the claims under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

In a decision issued Tuesday, Judge Edward Davila of the U.S. District Court in San Jose, California, denied the companies’ main argument that the federal law shields them from liability for third-party content, saying the lawsuits focus on their active role in processing payments and collecting commissions, not merely hosting apps.

The lawsuits, filed as proposed class actions, allege that Apple’s App Store, Google Play Store, and Meta’s Facebook enabled and profited from apps simulating “Vegas-style” slot machine gambling that have led to user addiction, depression, and even suicidal behavior. The plaintiffs claim the companies brokered and collected 30% commissions — estimated to exceed $2 billion — from in-app purchases.

While some state-level claims were dismissed, Davila allowed most consumer protection claims to proceed, except those filed in California. He stated that the platforms’ activities went beyond publishing and that providing “neutral tools” did not absolve them from responsibility.

“The crux of plaintiffs’ theory is that defendants improperly processed payments for social casino apps,” Davila wrote. “It is beside the point whether that activity turns defendants into bookies or brokers.”

The companies now have the option to appeal immediately to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, with Davila acknowledging the national importance of Section 230 immunity questions.

The ongoing litigation, which began in 2021, consolidates several related cases:

  • In re Apple Inc. App Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation (No. 21-md-02985)

  • In re Google Play Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation (No. 21-md-03001)

  • In re Facebook Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation (No. 21-02777)

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and triple damages, along with other remedies.

Amazon faces FTC in trial over claims it tricked millions into Prime subscriptions

/in /tarafından

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) opened its case against Amazon on Tuesday, accusing the company of deliberately making it difficult for customers to avoid or cancel Prime subscriptions, prioritizing revenue growth over consumer choice.

FTC’s case:

FTC attorney Jonathan Cohen told jurors that Amazon knowingly enrolled millions of people in Prime without clear consent, using deceptive sign-up practices and “dark patterns” in its cancellation system. “More members, more money,” Cohen said, arguing Amazon refused to simplify processes because it feared sign-ups would fall.

The agency says Amazon’s practices violated the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), pointing to the so-called “Iliad flow” — a cancellation process requiring up to seven clicks to end a membership, despite misleading prompts suggesting the process was already complete. An FTC expert estimated 40 million customers were signed up without consent.

Prime subscriptions cost $14.99 per month, covering free expedited shipping and access to streaming and other perks. For some households, Cohen noted, that monthly charge meant “grocery money, gas, or the last bit to make rent.”

Amazon’s defense:

Amazon attorney Moez Kaba rejected the FTC’s claims, insisting the company clearly disclosed terms and made canceling straightforward. He accused regulators of cherry-picking evidence and misinterpreting internal documents. Kaba argued ROSCA’s requirements remain vague and compliance “shouldn’t feel like Goldilocks” guessing the right level of disclosure.

Broader crackdown:

The trial is part of a bipartisan push against “subscription traps” and hidden fees. The FTC also sued Uber and LA Fitness this year over similar cancellation hurdles. The case began during Trump’s presidency and advanced under Biden, showing rare regulatory continuity across administrations.

Stakes:

  • Damages: Potentially hundreds of millions of dollars plus fines of up to $53,000 per violation.

  • Reputation: A conviction could tarnish Amazon’s customer-first image.

  • Executives: Three senior executives, including Jamil Ghani, face personal liability after a judge ruled they could be held accountable for violations.

The trial is expected to last about a month, with testimony from customers and current and former Amazon staff. The outcome could set a precedent for how aggressively regulators can police dark patterns and subscription practices across the digital economy.

CFPB ends Apple and U.S. Bank settlements early under Trump administration shift

/in /tarafından

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has ended oversight agreements with Apple and U.S. Bank years ahead of schedule, according to recent court filings. The move is part of President Donald Trump’s broader effort to reduce CFPB enforcement and roll back settlements imposed during the Biden administration.

Apple’s settlement stemmed from a 2024 CFPB action that found the company and Goldman Sachs violated consumer protection laws by mishandling disputes on the Apple Credit Card and misleading customers about interest-free transactions. The original agreement required five years of enhanced compliance, but has now been cut short. Apple paid a $25 million civil penalty, fulfilling its financial obligation.

U.S. Bank, meanwhile, faced a 2023 settlement over allegations it illegally blocked unemployed consumers from accessing pandemic-era benefits. The deal also required five years of compliance monitoring. The bank has since paid a $15 million penalty, made restitution payments, and pledged corrective measures, leading regulators to end oversight.

The filings also reveal the CFPB under Trump has dropped oversight for other firms, including Toyota and Bank of America, while halting nearly all enforcement actions still pending when Trump took office.

Critics say the changes mark a significant retreat from the agency’s consumer protection role, while supporters argue that excessive monitoring placed unnecessary burdens on businesses.