Il distretto nord della California, S. Josè division, 2 settembre 2022, Case No. 5:21-md-02985-EJD , Case No. 5:21-md-03001-EJD e Case No. 5:21-cv-02777-EJD, decide una lite promossa per putative class action verso le major tecnologiche Apple, Google e Facebook per violazione di diverse norme di consumer protection.
In particolare le accusa -in concorso con i gestori di cyber casinò- di aver fatto perdere soldi agli utenti promuovendo attivamente applicazioni di giochi a denaro (casino), meglio detti <social casinos applications>
Le major ovviamente eccepiscono il safe harbour in oggetto.
La corte entra nel dettaglio sia del business dei casinò virtuali sia della storia del § 230 CDA.
Quello che qui però interessa è la qualificazione della domanda proposta.
Infatti solo se l’attore tratta le convenute come speaker/publisher, queste fruire del safe harbour. E delle tre possibili teorie di responsabilità propettate dall’attore, una (la seconda) viene ritenuta di responsabilità per fatto proprio anzichè editoriale: per questa dunque il safe harbour non opera.
In particolare: << Unlike Plaintiffs’ first theory of liability, which attempts to hold the Platforms liable in
their “editorial” function, Plaintiffs’ second theory of liability seeks to hold the Platforms liable
for their own conduct. Importantly, the conduct identified by Plaintiffs in their complaints is
alleged to be unlawful. As alleged, players must buy virtual chips from the Platforms app stores
and may only use these chips in the casino apps. It is this sale of virtual chips that is alleged to be
illegal. Plaintiffs neither take issue with the Platforms’ universal 30% cut, nor the Platforms’
virtual currency sale. Plaintiffs only assert that the Platforms role as a “bookie” is illegal.
Plaintiffs therefore do not attempt to treat the Platforms as “the publisher or speaker” of thirdparty content, but rather seek to hold the Platforms responsible for their own illegal conduct—the
sale of gambling chips. Compare Taylor v. Apple, Inc., No. 46 Civ. Case 3:20-cv-03906-RS (N.D.
Cal. Mar. 19, 2021) (“Plaintiffs’ theory is that Apple is distributing games that are effectively slot
machines—illegal under the California Penal Code. . . . Plaintiffs are seeking to hold Apple liable
for selling allegedly illegal gaming devices, not for publishing or speaking information.”), with
Coffee v. Google, LLC, 2022 WL 94986, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2022) (“In the present case,
Google’s conduct in processing sales of virtual currency is not alleged to be illegal. To the
contrary, the [Complaint] states that ‘[v]irtual currency is a type of unregulated digital currency
that is only available in electronic form.’ If indeed the sale of Loot Boxes is illegal, the facts
alleged in the FAC indicate that such illegality is committed by the developer who sells the Loot
Box for virtual currency, not by Google.” (second alteration in original) (emphasis added)) ….
The Court holds that Plaintiffs’ first and third theories of liability must be dismissed under
section 230. However, Plaintiffs’ second theory of liability is not barred by section 230. The
Court thus GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ respective motions to dismiss. >>
E’ una questione assai interssante di teoria civilistica quella di capire quando ricorra responsabilità vicaria o per concorso paritario nel fatto altrui o responsabilità solo editoriale. Interessante anche perchè è alla base della discplin armonizzata UE della responsabilità del provider.
(notizia e link alla sentenza da blog del prof Eric Goldman)