The **Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)** has filed an amicus brief for the second time in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing that allowing cases against the **Apple**, **Google**, and **Facebook** app stores to proceed could lead to greater censorship of users’ online speech. ### Section 230 Immunity at Stake The brief argues that app stores should not lose **Section 230 immunity** for hosting “social casino” apps simply because they process payments for virtual chips within those apps. According to the EFF, this could force all platforms facilitating financial transactions for online content to censor user content in order to mitigate legal exposure. Social casino apps are online games where users purchase virtual chips with real money but cannot cash out any winnings. The lawsuits against **Apple**, **Google**, and **Facebook** were initiated by plaintiffs who spent significant amounts on these virtual chips and allegedly became addicted to the games, claiming violations of various state gambling laws. The core issue revolves around **Section 230**, which grants immunity to online platforms from liability for harmful content created by others. In this case, the content is the social casino apps and the virtual chips purchased within them. Section 230 has been a cornerstone of internet law since 1996, providing legal protection for internet intermediaries and enabling users to publish third-party content. This allows for widespread online speech, access to information, and commerce without requiring extensive financial resources or technical expertise. ### Lower Court Ruling Challenged The lower court ruled that the companies do not have Section 230 immunity because they allow social casino apps to use their payment processing services for in-app purchases of virtual chips. The EFF's brief urges the Ninth Circuit to reverse this decision, asserting that Section 230 *does* apply to app stores, even when they process payments for virtual chips. The organization argues that Congress made no distinction between hosting third-party content and processing payments for that content, and the court should not create one. Both activities are considered editorial choices protected by Section 230. ### Broader Implications The EFF warns that exposing internet intermediaries to potential liability for facilitating financial transactions related to unlawful user content would have far-reaching implications. Platforms that facilitate financial transactions for third-party content would be compelled to censor any user speech that could potentially expose them to legal risk. This would significantly harm the open internet, limiting the ability of individuals to communicate and access information freely. The plaintiffs suggest that app stores could maintain Section 230 immunity by simply refusing to process in-app purchases of virtual chips. However, the EFF points out that many other platforms do not have this option. For example, **Etsy** facilitates purchases of virtual art, and **Patreon** enables support for artists through memberships. These platforms could lose Section 230 immunity and face potential liability simply for processing payments for user content deemed illegal. The EFF emphasizes that app stores should be protected by Section 230, a law designed to safeguard Americans’ freedom of expression online by protecting the intermediaries they rely on, regardless of their role as payment processors.