In a new filing, Google pushes back against a number of remedies proposed by Fortnite maker Epic Games after a court found that Google engaged in anti-competitive conduct on the Play Store. There is. Following the jury's verdict late last year, the two sides launched a lawsuit over how Google should change its behavior in light of the verdict. Meanwhile, Epic Games issued a lengthy list of demands. These included gaining access to his Play Store catalog of apps and game titles for six years, the ability to distribute your own app store for free on Google Play, and more. more. We also wanted to eliminate all contracts, incentives, deals, and penalties that give the Play Store and Google Play Billing an advantage over their competitors.
The tech giant's surprisingly quick defeat was a historic verdict, especially since Epic Games had largely lost a similar antitrust case with Apple without a jury trial. In the Epic v. Apple case, the court ruled that Apple is not a monopoly, but agreed that developers should be able to direct customers to alternative payment methods over the web. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case and allowed the lower court's decision to stand.
The jury in the Google case was convinced that the tech giant leveraged its market power in an illegal way, but could not decide on next steps. That's up to the judge. The new application and Epic's proposal will inform Judge James Donato at a hearing scheduled for May 23 about what actions should be taken next to curb Google's power. It would be helpful.
Epic Games detailed its demands in April in a proposed injunction posted here. Broadly speaking, Epic wants Google to allow users to download apps from the app store or the web depending on their preferences. We don't want Google to block OEMs or carriers or force them to favor Google Play. Epic Games also doesn't want Google to charge additional fees for routing through the Play Store, which Epic Games believes is also an anti-competitive practice.
The Fortnite maker also asked the court to force other changes, including giving Epic access to the Play Store catalog so it can perform app updates for users without warning screens or additional fees. . Additionally, Epic wants developers to be able to tell users how to pay for their apps and services elsewhere, and how much they can save by doing so. The company wants to eliminate the requirement to use Google's “User Choice Billing,” which offers only a small discount to developers who process payment transactions themselves.
Of course, Google doesn't agree with how the court should proceed.
Wilson White, Google's vice president of government affairs and public policy, said in a statement that Epic's demands are excessive and unnecessary.
“Epic's demands undermine privacy, security, and the overall experience for consumers, developers, and device manufacturers,” he said. “Their proposal not only goes far beyond the scope of recent U.S. court verdicts, which we dispute, but which we agreed to last year with the attorneys general of states and territories. The settlement reached also makes that proposal unnecessary. We can continue to keep people safe, partner with developers to innovate and grow their businesses, and maintain a thriving Android ecosystem for everyone. We will continue to vigorously defend our rights to possible business models.”
In an injunction filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in California, Google said Epic's request would take away its ability to enforce trust and safety measures regarding the use of third-party app stores, thereby reducing user security. and argued that it jeopardizes privacy. (Apple has used a similar strategy to fight regulations around opening its App Store to competition, arguing that it has a responsibility for user privacy and security.)
Additionally, Google says it will require all third-party app stores to know which apps you have installed without your consent. This exposes the use of personal apps, including sensitive areas such as religion, politics, and health, without rules on how data is used.
The company also said it is asking Epic to remove safeguards around sideloading apps.
And in case those arguments fail, another tactic Google has already settled with state attorneys general for not entering into broad exclusivity agreements with developers is Epic's proposed remedy. points out that it is not necessary. Epic's proposal would also prevent Google from working with developers to offer exclusive content through Play Store apps, which the company says is an important opportunity for developers.
Finally, while the state AG's settlement would allow any app store to compete for listing on Android devices, Google said Epic's proposal would remove it from that process and reduce competition. Without Google's involvement, rival app stores would bid lower, impacting OEM margins, the company said.
The judge's upcoming ruling on remedies in this case will be a notable decision, as it will set the stage for how app stores, considered monopolies, must make concessions to allow for more competition. It will be. Although Epic lost its battle with Apple, the Justice Department's lawsuit against the iPhone maker is still ongoing, as is the case with Google over its alleged search monopoly. Given the United States' apparent lack of laws to govern tech monopolies, the outcome of these lawsuits will determine the extent to which the tech giants' power is left unchecked.