Apple, Google, Meta face lawsuits over casino-style apps

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2025/07/22: Indian authorities issue new summons to Google and Meta over illegal igaming 2025/09/17: Philippine lawmakers demand explanation after Meta failed to attend Senate gambling hearing 2025/05/26: The Supreme Court of India hears plea to ban all online sports betting apps 2025/03/13: Alberta gears up for Ontario-style igaming market soon

The Backstory

Mounting legal pressure on platforms carrying casino-style games

Regulatory and legal scrutiny of online betting is converging on the world’s largest tech companies. In the United States, a federal judge in California narrowed the liability shield long enjoyed by platforms, allowing consumer protection claims to proceed against Apple, Google and Meta over social casino apps. In a consolidated proceeding, U.S. District Judge Edward Davila ruled that Section 230 does not protect the companies when they process payments, a core element of the plaintiffs’ case, and approved an immediate appeal to the 9th Circuit on the pivotal legal questions. The lawsuits, which accuse the firms of promoting “authentic Vegas-style experiences” and collecting billions in commissions, allege a business model that led to addiction and mental health harms. While some state law claims were dismissed, most consumer claims survive outside California. The decision, part of litigation that began in 2021, raises the prospect that platforms could face discovery into their app distribution and payments practices and potentially significant damages. It also narrows a legal defense that has served as a bulwark for internet intermediaries in content-related disputes. The ruling’s contours are detailed in our report on lawsuits targeting Apple, Google and Meta over casino-style apps.

India’s crackdown expands from content to payments and promotion

India is simultaneously tightening enforcement against illegal betting and testing how far it can push global platforms on compliance. After executives from Google and Meta failed to appear, the Enforcement Directorate issued fresh summons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act as part of a probe into a network of banned betting platforms that frequently rebrand and reemerge. The inquiry stretches beyond hosting or ad placement, pulling in celebrity endorsements and influencer promotion, as well as suspected tax and foreign exchange violations. The latest steps, described in our coverage of new ED summons to Google and Meta, suggest authorities are mapping the entire marketing and payments chain, not just content moderation.

At the same time, India’s highest court is weighing sweeping remedies. A plea before the Supreme Court seeks a nationwide ban on online sports betting apps, citing addiction, suicides and the absence of health warnings. While the bench signaled sympathy with the social harms at issue, it questioned whether a blanket prohibition could be effective by statute alone. The court notified the central government and referred the petition to top legal officers, a step that could catalyze policy coordination across ministries. For details, see our report on the Supreme Court plea to ban sports betting apps. The dual-track pressure—from enforcement agencies targeting promotional pipelines to judicial scrutiny of systemic harms—sets up a broader regulatory reset with implications for platforms, payments firms and advertisers.

Regulatory flashpoints from Manila to provincial Canada

The Philippines offers a parallel case of lawmakers testing platform accountability. After Meta failed to attend a Senate hearing on the rise of online gambling, the Committee on Games and Amusement moved to issue a show cause order. The panel’s chair criticized the company’s request for a separate meeting and vowed to press Meta on why gambling ads continue to proliferate despite efforts by e-wallets to block associated sites. The move follows criticism of the national regulator PAGCOR for a surge of gambling promotions on social media and major ad networks. The sequence, chronicled in our coverage of the Philippine Senate’s challenge to Meta, underscores a shift from back-channel engagement to public accountability in a market grappling with cross-border operators and fragmented enforcement.

In Canada, Alberta is advancing toward an open, Ontario-style igaming framework that would allow private operators to compete with the provincial monopoly platform. Although timelines have slipped, officials and industry sources say enabling legislation is nearing introduction, with tax rates a live question as Ontario’s 20 percent model looms large. A broader opening would test whether a regulated, competitive market can channel players away from offshore sites while maintaining responsible-gaming guardrails. The stakes are outlined in our report on Alberta’s push toward a competitive igaming market. For platforms and sportsbooks, Alberta’s direction contrasts with the clampdowns seen in parts of Asia, highlighting how policy choices are diverging across jurisdictions even as the same global companies face rising scrutiny.

A U.S. policy gray zone for “sports markets” and derivatives-like products

Regulatory friction is also building at the intersection of sports, finance and fantasy contests. Sleeper Markets sued the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Acting Chair Caroline Pham, alleging the agency improperly blocked its futures commission merchant application after the National Futures Association deemed it complete. Sleeper argues the stall gives competitors an advantage, pointing to the NFA’s approval of a similar application from a rival operator, and asks a federal court to declare its application eligible under the Commodity Exchange Act. The case, detailed in our story on Sleeper Markets’ lawsuit against the CFTC, highlights the uneasy boundary between permitted fantasy formats and products that resemble regulated derivatives. The lawsuit could force clarity on how federal commodities rules apply to novel sports-linked financial products, a space where state-level fantasy laws and federal market oversight increasingly overlap. Any court-ordered transparency on licensing standards would reverberate across operators experimenting with prediction markets and payout structures that push beyond traditional fantasy sports.

Why the stakes are rising for Big Tech, bettors and regulators

Taken together, these developments point to a common inflection point. Courts and regulators are moving beyond content moderation to the mechanics that make online gambling work: payment rails, user acquisition, targeted ads and revenue sharing. The U.S. decision limiting Section 230’s reach in payment processing hits the same pressure point that India’s Enforcement Directorate and Philippine lawmakers are probing—how platforms profit from and propagate gambling content, and who bears responsibility for downstream harms.

The policy responses diverge by market—India weighing bans and criminal enforcement, the Philippines escalating legislative pressure, Canada aiming to channel demand into a regulated competitive market, and the U.S. testing litigation to define platform duties and clarify the status of emerging sports-finance hybrids. Yet the trajectory is clear. As advertising, influencer marketing and in-app payments converge, regulators are less willing to accept claims that platforms are passive conduits. For the companies, the legal risks are no longer confined to takedown policies; they extend to commercial arrangements that can be framed as facilitation or promotion.

For consumers and operators, the outcomes will shape where products can be offered, how they are marketed, and what protections attach to high-velocity wagering formats. If appellate courts affirm that payment processing falls outside Section 230’s shield, platforms could recalibrate app store policies and revenue models. If India expands enforcement to endorsers and ad networks, the cost of customer acquisition could rise. If Alberta executes on competitive licensing, regulated options may gain ground over gray-market sites. And if U.S. courts force clarity on sports-linked financial products, innovation may accelerate—but within stricter, more uniform guardrails. The backstory now is less about whether regulation will tighten than how quickly and where the lines will be drawn.