After a judge found Google to have participated in anticompetitive Play Store tactics, Google is fighting Epic Games’ several remedies in a new petition. After the jury’s verdict late last year, the two parties argued that Google should modify its practice. Epic Games demanded six years of access to the Play Store collection of app and game titles, free distribution of their app store on Google Play, and more. It also sought to stop any agreements, incentives, arrangements, and penalties that gave the Play Store or Google Play Billing an edge over competitors.
The internet giant’s shocking and rapid loss was remarkable, particularly considering Epic Games lost a similar antitrust dispute with Apple without a jury. In the Epic-Apple litigation, the court ruled that Apple was not a monopolist but allowed developers to encourage users to use web-based payment methods. The Supreme Court refused to consider the appeal, upholding the lower court’s verdict.
Google’s jury found that the tech giant illegally used its market dominance, but the judge decided what to do next. The new submission and Epic’s suggestion will impact Judge James Donato’s May 23 hearing on how to limit Google’s authority.
In April, Epic Games requested an injunction with its requests. Epic wants Google to allow customers to download programs from any app store or web site. Google doesn’t want to ban or force OEMs or carriers to use Google Play. Epic Games also opposes Google charging more for routing around the Play Store, which it considers anticompetitive.
Fortnite’s developer also urged the court to grant Epic access to the Play Store catalog for software upgrades without warning screens or costs. Epic also wants developers to inform customers how to pay for applications and services elsewhere in order to save money. It wants to abolish Google’s “User Choice Billing,” which gives developers who handle payments themselves a slight discount, and more.
Naturally, Google disagrees with legal proceedings.
Google Vice President of Government Affairs and Public Policy Wilson White called Epic’s demands unreasonable.
“Epic’s demands would harm consumers, developers, and device manufacturers’ privacy, security, and experience,” he stated. Their plan exceeds the recent U.S. trial ruling, which we will challenge, and is unnecessary owing to the deal we achieved last year with state attorneys general from every state and many territories. We will fiercely defend our right to a viable economic model that lets us keep people safe, collaborate with developers to innovate and expand their companies, and preserve a healthy Android environment for everyone.”
Google claims in the injunction filed Thursday in a U.S. District Court in California that Epic’s requests would prevent it from implementing trust and safety standards for third-party app stores, putting users’ security and privacy at risk. Apple has adopted a similar technique to oppose restrictions about exposing its App Store to competition, claiming it protects customers’ privacy and security.
Google also says it must inform third-party app shops whose programs a user has installed without authorization. This would reveal personal app activity, including sensitive topics like religion, politics, and health, without restrictions.
The company also stated that Epic wants to eliminate sideloading app protections.
Google also claims that Epic’s remedies are unnecessary since it has negotiated with state attorneys general to stop signing broad exclusive agreements with developers. Epic’s plan would also restrict Google from cooperating with developers to provide unique content via Play Store applications, something it claims is vital for developers.
Google argued Epic’s plan would eliminate competition on Android devices, whereas the state AG deal would enable any app store to compete. It predicted competing app shops would underbid without Google, hurting OEM margins.
The judge’s remedial ruling will pave the way for app shops judged monopolists to make concessions to enable greater competition, making it an intriguing case. Though Epic lost its case with Apple, the Justice Department’s litigation against the iPhone manufacturer and its search monopoly action with Google continue. Given the lack of tech monopoly laws in the United States, these cases will determine how much tech companies’ influence remains unchecked.
