A federal judge has refused Amazon’s attempt to limit discovery in a lawsuit that alleges the corporation profited from social casino games. This ruling permits the completion of pre-trial discovery. Amazon had maintained that the Communications Decency Act’s Section 230 protected them from accountability.
Amazon’s attempt to postpone or limit discovery while a move to dismiss the action is still underway was denied by US District Court for the Western District of Washington Judge Robert S. Lasnik. Amazon argued that lengthy discovery should wait until the court makes a decision on its request to dismiss, citing Section 230 as protection from liability.
Judge Lasnik disagreed, citing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which do not halt discovery when a motion to dismiss is filed. He emphasized that such delays could unnecessarily slow the case since Amazon already enjoyed a ten-month pause while the Ninth Circuit reviewed related Section 230 issues.
Amazon contended that early discovery would be burdensome, undermining Section 230’s intent to avoid costly litigation. The company also pointed to ongoing cases in California involving Google, Apple, and Meta, where similar lawsuits have been temporarily stayed.
However, Judge Lasnik dismissed this argument, noting that the California cases are more complex, involving multiple districts, numerous defendants, and laws from 23 jurisdictions. Amazon also argued that delaying discovery could narrow the case once the Section 230 issue is resolved, but the court found this unpersuasive.
Discovery to Continue
The lawsuit centers on claims that Amazon is not merely hosting social casino games but also facilitating illegal gambling by selling virtual casino chips and processing in-game payments for a share of the profits. The judge referenced similar arguments in related California cases as significant.
Amazon cited the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Roommates.com, which stated that platforms should be shielded from burdensome legal processes when claiming Section 230 immunity. Yet, Judge Lasnik highlighted that Roommates.com requires a detailed examination of platform interactions with content, not an automatic discovery shield.
Ultimately, the court ruled that Amazon failed to demonstrate the “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden” necessary for a protective order.
Given the plaintiff’s allegations of Amazon’s direct involvement in social casino operations, discovery will be crucial in resolving key factual disputes. This ruling allows the plaintiff to gather evidence from Amazon, marking a procedural victory. It indicates that Amazon cannot indefinitely delay discovery while mounting its defense. The case now advances toward a potential trial.
The post Federal Judge Denies Amazon’s Attempt to Limit Discovery in Lawsuit appeared first on iGaming.org.