October 5, 2025 • 10 mins
In this episode of Upwardly Mobile, we dive into the significant legal challenges facing major technology companies—Apple, Google (Alphabet), and Meta Platforms—as they are forced to defend themselves against class action lawsuits alleging that they promoted and profited from illegal social casino gambling apps. A recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California, denied the companies' requests to dismiss the lawsuits. The plaintiffs, numbering in the dozens, contend that the companies' platforms—Apple’s App Store, Google’s Play Store, and Meta’s Facebook—promoted an “authentic Vegas-style experience of slot machine gambling” through an allegedly illegal racketeering conspiracy. Key Takeaways from the Litigation:
- The Liability Claim: The core claim is that the defendants "willingly assist, promote and profit from" allegedly illegal gambling. This is achieved by:
- Offering users access to the apps through their stores.
- Taking a substantial percentage of consumer purchases (estimated at 30% commission, totaling over $2 billion) on in-app transactions for items like Game Coins and Sweeps Coins.
- Processing these allegedly illicit transactions using proprietary payment systems.
- Using targeted advertising to "shepherd the most vulnerable customers" to the casino apps.
- The Section 230 Defense Rejected: Apple, Google, and Meta argued that Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act protected them from liability because this law shields online platforms from lawsuits over third-party content. Judge Davila rejected this argument, finding that the companies did not act as "publishers" when processing payments. The judge emphasized that the "crux of plaintiffs’ theory is that defendants improperly processed payments for social casino apps".
- "Neutral Tools" Argument Undercut: The court called it irrelevant that the companies provided "neutral tools" (like payment processing) to support the apps.
- Damages Sought: The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory and triple damages, among other remedies.
- Appeals and Case History: Judge Davila allowed the defendants to immediately appeal his decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, acknowledging the importance of the Section 230 issues. The litigation against the Silicon Valley-based companies began in 2021.
- Additional Suits: Separately, a new lawsuit was filed against Apple and Google by lead Plaintiff Bargo (not naming the social casino operators), alleging the distribution of "patently illegal gambling software" in New Jersey and New York. This complaint includes legal claims under NJ and NY gambling loss recovery statutes, consumer protection laws, and RICO laws.
- Article Reference (Legal Analysis): Excerpts from "Apple and Google Hit with New Social Casino Gambling Lawsuit," National Law Review (October 02, 2025). (Article written by James G. Gatto of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP).
- Article Reference (News): "Apple, Google, Meta must face lawsuits over gambling apps," Honolulu Star-Advertiser (Oct. 1, 2025).
- Article Reference (Judicial Denial): "Judicial Denial for Tech Giants in Casino App Lawsuits" (Sept 30).
- Amicus Brief Reference: In re: Casino-Style Games Litigation (Nos. 22-16914, 22-16916, 22-16888, 22-16889, 22-16921, 22-16923) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- District Court Case Reference (Northern District of California): 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; and In re Facebook Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation, No. 21-02777.
- Sponsor Link: approov.io
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Deep Dives. We're here to help you
mobile developers, security pros, tech enthusiasts keep your creation safe.
Today we're looking at something big, a real shake up
affecting mobile platforms and honestly, how you make money from
your apps. We're digging into a legal battle that's well,
it's reshaping API and app security as we speak.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
I'm George and I'm Sky. It's a critical discussion. George.
This isn't just theory. We're talking about a major court ruling.
It challenges the liability shield, you know, the one Apple,
Google and Meta have relied on for ages.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Right, and if you're developing for iOS, Android, Harmony Os
maybe using flutter React native, this hits home financially, insecurity wise, definitely.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Our mission today is to unpack these recent court rulings.
They're about those simulated social casino apps. We need to
understand where a platform responsibility really kicks in.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Now. Yeah, the sources we've looked at suggest the line
has moved significantly.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
It seems to have shifted right past just hosting content
and landed smell bang on payment processing.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Okay, let's set the scene. This lawsuit it's been going
on for a while, right.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Yeah, years. It targets a very specific but very profitable
app category, social casinos, and the plaintiffs. They're suing the
big platforms, Apple, Google, Meta, not.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
The app makers themselves, or well, not just them exactly.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
The claim is the platforms help facilitate and definitely profit
it from what the plaintiffs call illegal gambling. They allege
serious harm resulted addiction, depression, even worse.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
But I always thought the platform defense was simple. We
just provide the store, the pipes. We're not responsible for
the third party apps.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
That's the classic Section two thirty defense. But this lawsuit
argues it's different. It focuses on the platform's active role.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
Active role, how what are they accused of doing? Specifically?
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Okay, there are four core activities the lawsuit points to.
One offering access to the apps via their stores, obvious.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Enough, fandard app store function.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Two taking a big slice of the pie. We're talking
about the commissions on user purchases game coins, sweeps coins, whatever,
virtual currency.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
Infamous thirty percent cut. Usually that's a lot of money
changing hands.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Huge amounts. The lawsuits estimate it's over two billion dollars
in commissions just from these types of apps.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
Wow, okay, two billion dollars. That's significant, it really is.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
And that commission that thirty percent. It makes them look
less like a passive host and more like a partner
profiting from the sales.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
You know, right, It changes the perception. What are the
other two activities?
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Three? Actually processing the payments for these allegedly illicit virtual
goods using their own mandatory payment systems, your IAP systems.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Okay, so using Apple pay, Google pay checkout. Yeah, the
systems developers have.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
To use precisely. And four using targeted ads, leveraging all
that user data they have to, as the lawsuit puts it,
shepherd the most vulnerable customers back to these.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
Apps, targeting users likely to spend potentially addicts. Okay. When
you put all four together, access, commission, payment, processing, targeted ads,
it sounds more involved than just hosting.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
That's the argument, and it leads to some serious legal claims.
We're talking violations of state gambling loss recovery laws like
in New Jersey and New York, consumer protection laws too,
unjustin Richmond, basically saying they profited unfairly, and the really
big one ico.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
Ico like racketeering. That sounds intense for tech platforms. Why
ICO it is intense? I COO.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
The Racketeer Influenced in Corrupt Organizations Act implies more than
just a single illegal act. It suggests an ongoing, structured
criminal enterprise profiting from a pattern of illegal activity. Here,
that alleged pattern is facilitating illegal gambling and fraud.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
So using ICO really ups the ante legally huge potential penalties,
intense scrutiny. It's not your average consumer complaint, not at all.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
It signals the plaintiffs believe this is a core part
of the platform's business model, not an oversight.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
Which brings us back to their main defense. Section two thirty,
the Communications Decency Act shield. How does that usually work? So?
Speaker 2 (04:00):
Section two thirty has been the bedrock. Really, It says
interactive computer services like app stores social media can't be
treated as the publisher or speaker of stuff third parties
put on their sites.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Meaning if a user posts something disalminatory or a developer
uploads a problematic app, the platform itself generally isn't liable
for that content exactly.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
It was designed way back to encourage Internet growth, allow
platforms to moderate content without fearing lawsuits for every single
piece of user content.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Though it's become super controversial now, hasn't it. Critics say
it lets big tech off the hook for harmful stuff
they profit from.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Highly contentious, which is why this ruling is such a
potential landmark. US District Judge Edward Davila out in Santase, California,
actually rejected the platform's attempt to get the lawsuits dismissed
based on Section two thirty. This was around October first,
twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
WHOA, okay, so the shield didn't work this time. That
is big news. Why Why did Judge de vilasa two
thirty didn't apply here? This is the crucial part for
our listeners.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
It really is. The core finding was about the role
the platform's played. Judge Devilan basically said, look, when you're
processing payments for these virtual chips, you're not acting like
a traditional publisher of content.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
Ah. So the court is drawing a line. Publishing content
is one thing protected by two thirty.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
But actively processing the financial transaction for potentially illegal goods
that's different. Section two thirty protects speech and content hosting
not necessarily immunity for being the marketplace and cashier for
an illegal product.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
So the lawsuit reframed it. It's not about hosting code.
It's about selling virtual chips via their own payment systems
and taking a cut like a business selling a product.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Precisely, the judge's own words were something like, the crux
of plaintiff's theory is that defendants improperly processed payments for
social casino apps. He focused squarely on the transaction.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
What about the argument that their payment systems are just
neutral tools. You know, they offer IAP to everyone, it's
just structure.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Yeah, they definitely made that argument, But Judge Davil have
found it irrelevant here. He said, the focus isn't on
whether the tool could be neutral, but on the specific
activity of processing payments for these specific goods and profiting
from it. The nature of the transaction trump the neutrality
of the tool.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Okay, publisher protection under two thirty doesn't extend to being
the financial processor in this specific context. That's a major shift.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Massive, and the implications for developers, whether you're on iOS, Android, HarmonyOS,
using Flutter or whatever, they're immediate.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
So what's the direct technical takeaway for someone building or
securing apps right now?
Speaker 2 (06:37):
The big one is that platform liability seems to be
moving up the stack. It's shifting from just content hosting
towards the monetization mechanics, the payment processing layer.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Meaning if your app uses the platform's own in app
purchase system, especially for anything in a regulated or gray area,
you need to be.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Aware absolutely relying on the platform's IAP doesn't automatically shield
the platform anymore if the transaction itself is deemed illegal
and by extension, that might increase scrutiny on the developer too.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
How does this specifically hit IAP usage? We rely on
it for secure.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
Standard billing, while that reliance now has a potential legal
to coincide if the platform is seen as a payment
processor in these cases, they fall under much stricter financial scrutiny.
Think about the data IAP generates transaction IDs, receipt validation logs,
financial reports via APIs yeah, the stuff.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
We use to verify purchases prevent fraud.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Exactly, that technical data could now become key legal evidence.
It's the trail showing the platform wasn't just hosting but
actively verifying and finalizing potentially illegal sales. It connects the
dots financially.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
That's a critical point. Receipt validation isn't just technical anymore.
It's potentially legal evidence of the platform acting as a processor.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
Right, And it might even open the door to applying
other financial regulations to platforms, like anti money laundering rule
or state financial laws if they're classified this way. That's
a whole other level of complexity and compliance.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Okay, But it wasn't a total win for the plaintiffs, right, Yeah,
I read Judge Davila dismissed some claims.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Correct, it's nuanced. He did dismiss some state level claims,
like certain California consumer protection ones. But crucially he allowed
the core claims, the ones about Ryko unjustin Richmond, the
gambling loss recovery to proceed, the claims that really challenged
the business model and the Section two thirty immunity.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
So he trimmed the edges but kept the heart of
the challenge intact exactly.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
It wasn't a minor procedural loss for the platforms. It
was a loss on the fundamental principle of their immunity
in this context.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
And it's not over yet. There's an appeal.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
Oh yeah, this fight is far from done. Judge Devila
actually certified his decision for immediate appeal to the Ninth
US Circuit Court of Appeals. He recognized how important the
Section two thirty questions are, so.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
For everyone listening, keep an eye on the ninth Circuit.
Their ruling will be pivotal. It could solidify this new
liability standard or push things back towards the old Section
two thirty interpretation.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Given that this litigation started back in twenty twenty one,
we're now really getting into the stages where binding precedents
could be set.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
What should developers do right now?
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Realistically, it's probably a good time for a legal and
technical review, especially if your apps monetization involves anything near
a regulatory line. Simulated gambling, sure, but maybe also cryptos,
certain financial services, loot boxes, anything sensitive. Understand your transaction flow.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
So wrapping this up, what's the single most important lesson here?
Speaker 2 (09:34):
I think it's understanding that critical legal distinction the court made.
Are you acting as a publisher protected by Section two
thirty or are you potentially being viewed as a financial
processor or marketplace? Because if it's the latter, you could
be liable for the nature of the transaction itself, and
relying on the platform's IAP might not be the safe
(09:55):
harbor it once.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Seemed, which leads to a really interesting question to chew on.
If platform liability is now getting tied more closely to
payment processing and especially that percentage cut they take. Yeah,
could we see the app stores change their models, like
maybe they lower the thirty percent commission to distance themselves,
or maybe they start scrutinizing apps with financial elements way
(10:17):
more heavily to reduce their own risk.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
That's the multi billion dollar question, isn't it. Either change
would massively impact developers. It could reshape the entire app economy.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
Definitely something to watch the next few years. Could really
define mobile commerce apps. Okay, fascinating stuff. Thanks for breaking
down this complex shift and just a note, the content
discussed today was put together using human sources with some
assistance from AI.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Stay informed everyone, and stay compliant and.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
As always, stay secure. We'll catch you next time on
the Deep Dive.
Welcome to the Deep Dives. We're here to help you
mobile developers, security pros, tech enthusiasts keep your creation safe.
Today we're looking at something big, a real shake up
affecting mobile platforms and honestly, how you make money from
your apps. We're digging into a legal battle that's well,
it's reshaping API and app security as we speak.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
I'm George and I'm Sky. It's a critical discussion. George.
This isn't just theory. We're talking about a major court ruling.
It challenges the liability shield, you know, the one Apple,
Google and Meta have relied on for ages.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Right, and if you're developing for iOS, Android, Harmony Os
maybe using flutter React native, this hits home financially, insecurity wise, definitely.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Our mission today is to unpack these recent court rulings.
They're about those simulated social casino apps. We need to
understand where a platform responsibility really kicks in.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Now. Yeah, the sources we've looked at suggest the line
has moved significantly.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
It seems to have shifted right past just hosting content
and landed smell bang on payment processing.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Okay, let's set the scene. This lawsuit it's been going
on for a while, right.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Yeah, years. It targets a very specific but very profitable
app category, social casinos, and the plaintiffs. They're suing the
big platforms, Apple, Google, Meta, not.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
The app makers themselves, or well, not just them exactly.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
The claim is the platforms help facilitate and definitely profit
it from what the plaintiffs call illegal gambling. They allege
serious harm resulted addiction, depression, even worse.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
But I always thought the platform defense was simple. We
just provide the store, the pipes. We're not responsible for
the third party apps.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
That's the classic Section two thirty defense. But this lawsuit
argues it's different. It focuses on the platform's active role.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
Active role, how what are they accused of doing? Specifically?
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Okay, there are four core activities the lawsuit points to.
One offering access to the apps via their stores, obvious.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Enough, fandard app store function.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Two taking a big slice of the pie. We're talking
about the commissions on user purchases game coins, sweeps coins, whatever,
virtual currency.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
Infamous thirty percent cut. Usually that's a lot of money
changing hands.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Huge amounts. The lawsuits estimate it's over two billion dollars
in commissions just from these types of apps.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
Wow, okay, two billion dollars. That's significant, it really is.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
And that commission that thirty percent. It makes them look
less like a passive host and more like a partner
profiting from the sales.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
You know, right, It changes the perception. What are the
other two activities?
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Three? Actually processing the payments for these allegedly illicit virtual
goods using their own mandatory payment systems, your IAP systems.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Okay, so using Apple pay, Google pay checkout. Yeah, the
systems developers have.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
To use precisely. And four using targeted ads, leveraging all
that user data they have to, as the lawsuit puts it,
shepherd the most vulnerable customers back to these.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
Apps, targeting users likely to spend potentially addicts. Okay. When
you put all four together, access, commission, payment, processing, targeted ads,
it sounds more involved than just hosting.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
That's the argument, and it leads to some serious legal claims.
We're talking violations of state gambling loss recovery laws like
in New Jersey and New York, consumer protection laws too,
unjustin Richmond, basically saying they profited unfairly, and the really
big one ico.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
Ico like racketeering. That sounds intense for tech platforms. Why
ICO it is intense? I COO.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
The Racketeer Influenced in Corrupt Organizations Act implies more than
just a single illegal act. It suggests an ongoing, structured
criminal enterprise profiting from a pattern of illegal activity. Here,
that alleged pattern is facilitating illegal gambling and fraud.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
So using ICO really ups the ante legally huge potential penalties,
intense scrutiny. It's not your average consumer complaint, not at all.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
It signals the plaintiffs believe this is a core part
of the platform's business model, not an oversight.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
Which brings us back to their main defense. Section two thirty,
the Communications Decency Act shield. How does that usually work? So?
Speaker 2 (04:00):
Section two thirty has been the bedrock. Really, It says
interactive computer services like app stores social media can't be
treated as the publisher or speaker of stuff third parties
put on their sites.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Meaning if a user posts something disalminatory or a developer
uploads a problematic app, the platform itself generally isn't liable
for that content exactly.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
It was designed way back to encourage Internet growth, allow
platforms to moderate content without fearing lawsuits for every single
piece of user content.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Though it's become super controversial now, hasn't it. Critics say
it lets big tech off the hook for harmful stuff
they profit from.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Highly contentious, which is why this ruling is such a
potential landmark. US District Judge Edward Davila out in Santase, California,
actually rejected the platform's attempt to get the lawsuits dismissed
based on Section two thirty. This was around October first,
twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
WHOA, okay, so the shield didn't work this time. That
is big news. Why Why did Judge de vilasa two
thirty didn't apply here? This is the crucial part for
our listeners.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
It really is. The core finding was about the role
the platform's played. Judge Devilan basically said, look, when you're
processing payments for these virtual chips, you're not acting like
a traditional publisher of content.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
Ah. So the court is drawing a line. Publishing content
is one thing protected by two thirty.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
But actively processing the financial transaction for potentially illegal goods
that's different. Section two thirty protects speech and content hosting
not necessarily immunity for being the marketplace and cashier for
an illegal product.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
So the lawsuit reframed it. It's not about hosting code.
It's about selling virtual chips via their own payment systems
and taking a cut like a business selling a product.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Precisely, the judge's own words were something like, the crux
of plaintiff's theory is that defendants improperly processed payments for
social casino apps. He focused squarely on the transaction.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
What about the argument that their payment systems are just
neutral tools. You know, they offer IAP to everyone, it's
just structure.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Yeah, they definitely made that argument, But Judge Davil have
found it irrelevant here. He said, the focus isn't on
whether the tool could be neutral, but on the specific
activity of processing payments for these specific goods and profiting
from it. The nature of the transaction trump the neutrality
of the tool.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Okay, publisher protection under two thirty doesn't extend to being
the financial processor in this specific context. That's a major shift.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Massive, and the implications for developers, whether you're on iOS, Android, HarmonyOS,
using Flutter or whatever, they're immediate.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
So what's the direct technical takeaway for someone building or
securing apps right now?
Speaker 2 (06:37):
The big one is that platform liability seems to be
moving up the stack. It's shifting from just content hosting
towards the monetization mechanics, the payment processing layer.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Meaning if your app uses the platform's own in app
purchase system, especially for anything in a regulated or gray area,
you need to be.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Aware absolutely relying on the platform's IAP doesn't automatically shield
the platform anymore if the transaction itself is deemed illegal
and by extension, that might increase scrutiny on the developer too.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
How does this specifically hit IAP usage? We rely on
it for secure.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
Standard billing, while that reliance now has a potential legal
to coincide if the platform is seen as a payment
processor in these cases, they fall under much stricter financial scrutiny.
Think about the data IAP generates transaction IDs, receipt validation logs,
financial reports via APIs yeah, the stuff.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
We use to verify purchases prevent fraud.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Exactly, that technical data could now become key legal evidence.
It's the trail showing the platform wasn't just hosting but
actively verifying and finalizing potentially illegal sales. It connects the
dots financially.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
That's a critical point. Receipt validation isn't just technical anymore.
It's potentially legal evidence of the platform acting as a processor.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
Right, And it might even open the door to applying
other financial regulations to platforms, like anti money laundering rule
or state financial laws if they're classified this way. That's
a whole other level of complexity and compliance.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Okay, But it wasn't a total win for the plaintiffs, right, Yeah,
I read Judge Davila dismissed some claims.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Correct, it's nuanced. He did dismiss some state level claims,
like certain California consumer protection ones. But crucially he allowed
the core claims, the ones about Ryko unjustin Richmond, the
gambling loss recovery to proceed, the claims that really challenged
the business model and the Section two thirty immunity.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
So he trimmed the edges but kept the heart of
the challenge intact exactly.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
It wasn't a minor procedural loss for the platforms. It
was a loss on the fundamental principle of their immunity
in this context.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
And it's not over yet. There's an appeal.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
Oh yeah, this fight is far from done. Judge Devila
actually certified his decision for immediate appeal to the Ninth
US Circuit Court of Appeals. He recognized how important the
Section two thirty questions are, so.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
For everyone listening, keep an eye on the ninth Circuit.
Their ruling will be pivotal. It could solidify this new
liability standard or push things back towards the old Section
two thirty interpretation.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Given that this litigation started back in twenty twenty one,
we're now really getting into the stages where binding precedents
could be set.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
What should developers do right now?
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Realistically, it's probably a good time for a legal and
technical review, especially if your apps monetization involves anything near
a regulatory line. Simulated gambling, sure, but maybe also cryptos,
certain financial services, loot boxes, anything sensitive. Understand your transaction flow.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
So wrapping this up, what's the single most important lesson here?
Speaker 2 (09:34):
I think it's understanding that critical legal distinction the court made.
Are you acting as a publisher protected by Section two
thirty or are you potentially being viewed as a financial
processor or marketplace? Because if it's the latter, you could
be liable for the nature of the transaction itself, and
relying on the platform's IAP might not be the safe
(09:55):
harbor it once.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Seemed, which leads to a really interesting question to chew on.
If platform liability is now getting tied more closely to
payment processing and especially that percentage cut they take. Yeah,
could we see the app stores change their models, like
maybe they lower the thirty percent commission to distance themselves,
or maybe they start scrutinizing apps with financial elements way
(10:17):
more heavily to reduce their own risk.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
That's the multi billion dollar question, isn't it. Either change
would massively impact developers. It could reshape the entire app economy.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
Definitely something to watch the next few years. Could really
define mobile commerce apps. Okay, fascinating stuff. Thanks for breaking
down this complex shift and just a note, the content
discussed today was put together using human sources with some
assistance from AI.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Stay informed everyone, and stay compliant and.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
As always, stay secure. We'll catch you next time on
the Deep Dive.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com