Judge Rejects Amazon’s Bid to Curb Discovery in Social Casino Case

A federal judge has turned down Amazon’s effort to limit discovery in an ongoing lawsuit. The lawsuit claims the company profited from social casino games. This decision means the case will move forward with complete pre-trial discovery. Amazon had argued it should be protected from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Judge Rules Against Section 230 Defense

Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington rejected Amazon’s request to hold off or restrict discovery while the court looks at a pending motion to dismiss the case. Amazon claimed that Section 230 shields it from liability and that wide-ranging discovery should not go ahead until the court decides on its motion to dismiss.

However, Judge Lasnik ruled that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not stop discovery when someone files a motion to dismiss. He stressed that these delays could slow down the case without good reason since Amazon had already gotten a ten-month break while the Ninth Circuit looked at related Section 230 issues.

Amazon argued that early discovery would put too much strain on them, taking away the protections Section 230 aims to provide the chance to skip expensive court battles. The company also brought up ongoing cases in California with Google, Apple, and Meta, where similar lawsuits have been put on hold for now.

However, the court did not buy it. The judge said the California cases were way more complicated, with multiple districts involved several defendants and laws from 23 different jurisdictions. 

Amazon also claimed that putting off discovery could help narrow down the case once the Section 230 matter is sorted out. The company stressed that the plaintiff would not face any setbacks from this delay. 

Amazon Must Turn Over Evidence as Social Casino Lawsuit Moves Forward

The lawsuit focuses on claims that Amazon is not just hosting social casino games but also helping illegal gambling by selling virtual casino chips and handling in-game payments for a cut of the money. The judge pointed out that similar arguments had been seen as important in related cases in California.

Amazon also mentioned a Ninth Circuit decision in Roommates.com, which ruled that platforms should get protection from costly legal processes when claiming Section 230 immunity. However, Judge Lasnik noted that the Roommates.com ruling called for a thorough examination of how platforms interact with content instead of giving an automatic shield from discovery.

In the end, the court decided that Amazon did not show the “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden” needed to justify a protective order.

Because the plaintiff’s claims question Amazon’s direct involvement in social casino operations, discovery will play a key role in settling important factual disputes. This ruling gives the plaintiff the green light to collect evidence from Amazon as the lawsuit moves forward. The decision marks a big win for the plaintiffs in terms of procedure, showing that Amazon cannot keep delaying the discovery process while working on its defense. The case will now head towards a possible trial.