Apple slapped with class action suit over gambling apps
A class action lawsuit filed on Tuesday targets Apple for hosting and profiting from casino-style apps through the App Store, specifically titles developed by Zynga.
Lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Columbia, the suit takes issue with free-to-play games that offer micro-transactions, or in-app purchases, for digital currency or other forms of digital goods.
Plaintiffs name "Zynga Casino Apps" as violating a number of state statutes related to gambling, saying Apple is culpable in the scheme by providing iOS development tools, hosting the titles on the App Store and profiting from their sale. As the sole administrator of the App Store, Apple allegedly "permits and facilitates illegal gambling by operating as an unlicensed casino," allowing users to buy "coins" or "chips" for use in Las Vegas-style games like blackjack, roulette, poker, keno, bingo, and other card and gambling games.
Most games mentioned in the suit present a limited number of chips to start, but users must purchase additional virtual funds once that pot is exhausted. The consumer will ultimately run out of coins or chips and "will be prompted to use real money to purchase additional coins or chips for the chance to continue playing the game," the suit alleges.
Importantly, according to plaintiffs, users are unable to collect actual cash in the casino games, but they do have the ability to win and therefore acquire more playing time. This system -- paying money for a chance to win more playing time -- allegedly violates anti-gambling laws in the 25 states at issue in the case.
Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia are named in the suit.
Causes of action include violation of the Civil Remedy Statutes for Recovery of Gambling Losses and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek an injunction, damages, restitution, and legal fees.
The suit is nearly identical to a case filed in October that claims gambling apps violate state laws by prompting users to pay real money to acquire more playing time. A more recent complaint, filed in January, takes issue with the addictive nature of casino-style games.
Lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Columbia, the suit takes issue with free-to-play games that offer micro-transactions, or in-app purchases, for digital currency or other forms of digital goods.
Plaintiffs name "Zynga Casino Apps" as violating a number of state statutes related to gambling, saying Apple is culpable in the scheme by providing iOS development tools, hosting the titles on the App Store and profiting from their sale. As the sole administrator of the App Store, Apple allegedly "permits and facilitates illegal gambling by operating as an unlicensed casino," allowing users to buy "coins" or "chips" for use in Las Vegas-style games like blackjack, roulette, poker, keno, bingo, and other card and gambling games.
Most games mentioned in the suit present a limited number of chips to start, but users must purchase additional virtual funds once that pot is exhausted. The consumer will ultimately run out of coins or chips and "will be prompted to use real money to purchase additional coins or chips for the chance to continue playing the game," the suit alleges.
Importantly, according to plaintiffs, users are unable to collect actual cash in the casino games, but they do have the ability to win and therefore acquire more playing time. This system -- paying money for a chance to win more playing time -- allegedly violates anti-gambling laws in the 25 states at issue in the case.
Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia are named in the suit.
Causes of action include violation of the Civil Remedy Statutes for Recovery of Gambling Losses and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek an injunction, damages, restitution, and legal fees.
The suit is nearly identical to a case filed in October that claims gambling apps violate state laws by prompting users to pay real money to acquire more playing time. A more recent complaint, filed in January, takes issue with the addictive nature of casino-style games.
Lowe v. Apple by Mikey Campbell on Scribd
Comments
Yet another bogus lawsuit, they basically pointed out the difference between a Casino and the games, which will be their downfall.
A casino you exchange cash for chips, but you can also exchange those chips back for cash. These games utilize the pay to play structure. A good majority of games use this structure and because of that, this suit holds no merit. The people who play, are literally paying to kill time.
If someone could exchange their “winnings” for a monetary value then I could see this going someplace.
Is this product available on any PWA like Stadia? Would the plaintiffs then also sue the PWA providers?
Despite the previous poster saying this lawsuit bogus, and I see his point, I can also see the plaintiff's point that Apple is taking a percentage of the income. Gambling is entertainment, and this app is entertainment, and as it works now, the app rewards you with more entertainment for your money. Hence Apple is taking a share in the winnings of a gambling/entertainment enterprise. I see that side too.
I think the obvious solution is that Apple will simply remove these apps from their store.
Here's what the App Store Guidelines say about gambling:
I think the solution here will involve Apple modifying section 5.3.3 to say the following. Otherwise there will be a lot of bad press for Apple, especially if the plaintiff loses the case above.
https://www.macobserver.com/analysis/google-play-store-allows-licensed-gambling-apps/
So they are suing Apple for things that require tortured logic to construe as "gambling". Meanwhile Google put flat out casinos that make no bones about it being gambling and they get a pass.
This isn’t about Puritanism. This is about human decency and protecting society from abuse/exploitation.
It’s about an industry that exploits and abuses human psychology, on purpose, for profit. The gaming industry works to make their products more addictive and they even have names for their most profitable targets: “whales”.
It’s fundamentally sociopathic.
But hey, keep abusing the notion of freedom by defending greed...
Do you want to take away the rights of US states to prohibit gambling? Do you want to take away the rights of states to pass commerce laws? Do you realize that this would require a change to the US constitution? Do you have a proposed constitutional amendment that you would like to share with us?
Did you notice that I didn't make any argument, rather I just asked you questions to clarify the ambiguities in your arguments?
If gambling was completely legal to the full extent of your dreams, do you think that would make Americans stop gambling on offshore sites? Is that the reason you want it legalized, so it can be regulated? How is that even logical since offshore sites can never be regulated and you are not calling for such sites to be illegal in the US?
Those people are still addicts, and they got some of their money back. Do you think they’re going to seek treatment? I don’t.
I take your point. I'll look into the history and how prevalent systemic abuse may be.
I'm not sure that the "whales" you refer to are same as the abused "degens" as they're sometimes called who are playing for the rent. The big casino operators would lead us to believe that whales are those in an income class with enough money that they can throw it away without consequence. Maybe.
Since you didn't mention which US state you are in, I presume you want new laws in nearly all 50 states, not for yourself, but so that everyone else has the same rights that you do. I thought you were arguing for yourself at first, but now I realize you are trying to impose your values on everyone else.
I considered including "US" and should have for clarity. I would not seek to amend the US constitution in order to usurp states rights or inhibit their ability to make their own decisions about legalizing or prohibiting gambling. I'll also amend my remarks to pluralize "system" to read: "Let the systems, as established, work." —meaning each state and their respective constitution. My state, like several others, is considering making certain types of gambling legal. The pressure of neighboring states having already done so (similar to the spread of casinos across the US map), is one factor.
As for your multiple presumptions, including that "you are trying to impose your values on everyone else" —how tiresome you are with your extrapolations made to over-characterize one's position. If any of several mechanisms available to change or establish laws as outlined in my state's constitution (I'm not sure if amending the state constitution is required, though I'll look into that for my own edification) ultimately do not legalize any, some, many, or all types of gambling, so be it. I'll abide. As I said, I'm happy to let the system(s), as established, work.