IANAL, but I have, on the other hand, been paying attention to the legal issues around “platforms” for the last 10 years or so because it’s an industry I work in.
I would suggest you look up Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 1996, which, in essence, states that platforms (like Facebook, Web hosts, or even this forum which is a platform for discussion) are not legally liable for the use of those platforms or any content published on them.
This has been backed up by numerous cases relating, specifically, to gambling and state-gambling laws including Coffee vs Google, and Apple Inc. App Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation , Case No. 5:21-md-02985-EJD; In Re: Google Play Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation , Case No. 5:21-md-03001-EJD; and Wilkinson, et al. v. Facebook Inc. , Case No. 5:21-cv-02777-EJD
In all of these arguments, the claim that the platform provider should be responsible for the legality of the content in a specific jurisdiction was rejected.
As I said, IANAL but I have been paying attention. It seems clear to me that Rafall are a platform provider and are, therefore, under the US Law protected by Section 230.
It should be noted that neither Raffall, nor Justin are “offering” tickets in those states: they are offering them globally to those communities where it is legal to take part. It is up to you to check the T&Cs and to judge whether it’s legal in your jurisdiction. It is not the job of Rafall or Justin to police all of the thousands of jurisdictions around the world to assess whether residents of that jurisdiction should see the fact of the competition taking place, or to make a judgement on whether individual users should take part.
It is also the antithesis of Internet governance models.
Consider a hypothetical situation:
A US State, lets call it Texoma, decides that llamas are bad, and that publishing pictures of llamas is a crime in that state (yes, it’s contrived, but it’s valid as an analogy).
Meanwhile, a Dutch company called Llamas4U creates a website, including an eCommerce shop where you can buy premium photos of star llamas, on the Internet hosting platform GoDaddy.
They are offering these Llama photos globally through the Internet. Because the Internet is, largely, a globally available system, residents of Texoma can get to the Llamas4U website and, theoretically, order photos. That does not constitute Llamas4U offering photos illegally in Texoma; it is a consequence of the Internet being global.
It also does not mean that Godaddy are liable for the legality of the Llamas4U website in Texoma or that they should police it based on local laws; GoDaddy are a platform provider under Section 230.
Now, Texoma could arrange for the Llamas4U site to be blocked for its residents and, that is entirely up to Texoma. Many regions have geoblocked content they deem to be illegal or offensive by local standards. But that sort of geo-blocking is notoriously hard to do, especially down to state level, and is easily circumvented.
At the end of the day, its ridiculous and impractical for Internet platforms, especially smaller platforms like Raffall, to police and regulate their members based on local laws.
Yes, there are some local UK laws that need to be considered by Justin’s team, but that is an entirely different matter.
Meanwhile, enjoy this photo of a llama†:
† Not suitable for residents of Texoma.
Cheers,
Keith
