Google and Apple find themselves in legal hot water over sweepstakes casinos, being implicated in a class action lawsuit filed in New Jersey. The lawsuit, initiated by Julian Bargo, a resident of New Jersey, addresses the over $1,000 he claims to have lost across various sweepstakes casinos.
Bargo has invoked the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, accusing these platforms of facilitating unlawful gambling activities. Among the defendants named are High 5 Casino, McLuck, Wow Vegas, and CrownCoins Casino, alleged to be running illegal gambling operations.
The RICO charges also scrutinize payment processes involving Apple, Apple Pay, Google, and Google Pay. Bargo argues that these sweepstakes casinos lack regulatory oversight and have misled authorities about their true operations over an extended period.
Bargo asserts that both Google and Apple gain profits from apps hosted in their stores, including these contentious social casinos. The core of the lawsuit also highlights the promotional strategies employed by these sites, which allegedly mislead users into thinking the games are free, as claimed in the allegations.
This lawsuit coincides with recent regulatory actions by states such as Michigan and Ohio, which have taken a firm stance against social casinos and other such unregulated gambling activities, issuing cease-and-desist orders to operators like those implicated in this case.
Bargo acknowledges that binding arbitration has previously stalled similar class action suits against sweepstake operators. The American Gaming Association (AGA) has recently advocated for stricter regulations on sweepstakes casinos, emphasizing the potential risks these rising entities pose to the industry.
The AGA pointed out how sweepstakes casinos resemble traditional casinos but often function under less stringent regulations. According to the AGA, these operators bypass typical licensing through a dual-currency system yet mimic the experience of online casinos. The association warns that the lack of transparency could permit illegal activities by bad actors.
The AGA remarked on the “significant risks” presented to consumers and the legal gaming market’s integrity by these unregulated operators, noting their typically weak responsible gaming measures and limited self-exclusion options.
