In a new filing, Google is pushing back against numerous attacks from Fortnite maker Epic Games. proposed remedies after a court determined that Google engaged in anti-competitive practices in its Play Store. Following the jury decision at the end of last year, both sides laid out their arguments about how Google should change its behavior in light of the ruling. For its part, Epic Games issued a long list of demands, That included getting access to the Play Store’s catalog of app and game titles for six years, the ability to distribute your own app store on Google Play without fees, and much more. It also wanted to put an end to all agreements, incentives and deals, as well as sanctions that would allow the Play Store or Google Play Billing to gain an advantage over its rivals.
The surprising and quick defeat It was a historic ruling, especially since Epic Games largely lost a similar antitrust case with Apple, which had not been tried by jury. In the lawsuit between Epic and Apple, the court decided that Apple was not a monopolist, but agreed that developers should be able to direct their customers to alternative means of paying over the web. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, who refused to listen to himallowing the lower court’s ruling to stand.
While the jury in the Google case was convinced that the tech giant illegally leveraged its market power, it could not decide next steps; That depends on the judge. The new filing, along with Epic’s proposal, will help inform Judge James Donato at a hearing scheduled for May 23 on what actions to take next to rein in Google’s power.
Epic Games in April had detailed their demands in a proposed court order, found here. At a high level, Epic wants Google to allow users to download apps from any app store or the web, depending on their preferences. It does not want Google to be able to block or force OEMs or operators to favor Google Play. And it doesn’t want Google to be able to impose additional fees for routes in the Play Store, which Epic Games believes is also an anti-competitive practice.
The Fortnite maker also asked the court to enforce other changes, including giving Epic access to the Play Store catalog so it can make updates to users’ apps, without warning screens or additional fees. Additionally, Epic wants developers to be able to tell their users how to pay for their apps and services elsewhere, and how much they could save by doing so. You want to eliminate the requirement to use the “Billing at user’s choice”, which offers only a small discount to developers who process payment transactions themselves and much more.
Google, of course, disagrees on how the court should proceed.
In a statement, Google Vice President of Government Affairs and Public Policy Wilson White called Epic’s demands excessive and unnecessary.
“Epic’s lawsuits would harm the privacy, security and overall experience of consumers, developers and device manufacturers,” he said. “Not only does their proposal go far beyond the scope of the recent US trial verdict, which we will challenge, but it is also unnecessary given the agreement we reached last year with state attorneys general from all states and multiple territories. “We will continue to vigorously defend our right to a sustainable business model that allows us to keep people safe, partner with developers to innovate and grow their businesses, and maintain a thriving Android ecosystem for all.”
In the court order filed Thursday in a U.S. District Court in California, Google argues that Epic’s lawsuits put users’ security and privacy at risk because they would eliminate its ability to implement trust and security measures. regarding the use of third-party app stores. (Apple has also used a similar strategy to fight regulations surrounding opening its App Store to competition, saying it is responsible for user privacy and security.)
Additionally, Google says it would be necessary to inform all third-party app stores, without user consent, which apps a user has installed. This would expose the use of personal apps, even in sensitive areas such as religion, politics or health, without rules on how that data could be used.
The company also said that Epic is asking it to remove protections related to downloading apps.
And in case those arguments fail, in another tactic, Google points out that Epic’s proposed remedies are not necessary because it has already reached an agreement with state attorneys general not to sign any more wide-ranging exclusivity agreements with developers. Epic’s proposal would also prevent Google from working with developers to provide exclusive content through Play Store apps, which it says is an important opportunity for developers.
Finally, the state AG agreement would allow any app store to compete for placement on Android devices, Google said, but Epic’s proposal would exclude it from that process, reducing competition. Without Google involved, rival app stores would underbid, hurting OEMs’ margins, he said.
It will be interesting to watch the judge’s upcoming ruling on the remedy in this case, as it will lay the groundwork for how app stores deemed monopolistic will have to make concessions to allow for greater competition. Although Epic lost its fight with Apple, the Department of Justice’s case against the iPhone maker is still ongoing, as is its lawsuit with Google over its alleged search monopoly. The outcome of these cases will determine the extent to which the power of the tech giants will remain unchecked, given the glaring lack of legislation in the United States to rein in tech monopolies.