In a new filing, Google opposes the numerous efforts of Fortnite maker Epic Games. suggested remedies after a court determined that Google engaged in anticompetitive practices on its Play Store. Following the jury decision at the end of last year, both sides argued their case on how Google should need to change its behavior in light of the ruling. For its part, Epic Games published a list of outlandish claims, this included access to the Play Store catalog of apps and games for six years, the ability to distribute its own app store on Google Play at no cost, and much more. He also wanted to put an end to all agreements, incentives and transactions, as well as sanctions that would allow the Play Store or Google Play Billing to gain the upper hand over their competitors.
The tech giant is surprising and quick defeat was a historic decision, especially since Epic Games largely lost a similar antitrust case with Apple, which had not been tried by a jury. In the Epic-Apple lawsuit, the court ruled that Apple was not a monopoly, but agreed that developers should be able to direct their customers to other payment methods through the web. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, who refused to hear itallowing the lower court’s decision to stand.
Even though the jury in the Google case was convinced that the tech giant was illegally exploiting its market power, it couldn’t decide the next steps — that’s up to the judge to decide. The new filing, along with Epic’s proposal, will help inform Judge James Donato at a hearing scheduled for May 23 on what steps should be taken next to put Google’s power in check.
Epic Games in April had detailed its requests in a proposed injunction, found here. At a high level, Epic wants Google to allow users to download apps from any app store or on the web, depending on their preferences. He doesn’t want Google to be able to block or force OEMs or carriers to favor Google Play. And he doesn’t want Google to be able to impose additional fees for routing on the Play Store, which Epic Games says is also an anti-competitive practice.
The Fortnite maker also asked the court to implement other changes, including giving Epic access to the Play Store catalog so it can make updates to users’ apps, without warning screens or additional costs. Additionally, Epic wants developers to be able to tell its users how to pay for their apps and services elsewhere, and how much they could save by doing so. He wants to eliminate the obligation to use the “Billing at the user’s choice”, which only offers a small discount to developers who process payment transactions themselves, and much more.
Of course, Google disagrees on how the court should proceed.
In a statement, Wilson White, Google’s vice president of government affairs and public policy, called Epic’s demands excessive and unnecessary.
“Epic’s requirements would harm the privacy, security and overall experience of consumers, developers and device manufacturers,” he said. “Not only does their proposal go well beyond the scope of the recent US trial verdict – which we will challenge – but it is also unnecessary because of the agreement we reached last year with the attorneys general of each state and several territories. We will continue to vigorously defend our right to a sustainable business model that allows us to keep people safe, collaborate with developers to innovate and grow their businesses, and maintain a thriving Android ecosystem for everyone.
In the injunction filed Thursday in a U.S. district court in California, Google argues that Epic’s requests endanger users’ security and privacy because they would remove its ability to implement trust-building measures and security regarding the use of third-party application stores. (Apple has also used a similar strategy to fight regulations over opening its App Store to competition, saying it is responsible for user privacy and security.)
Additionally, Google says it would be required to tell all third-party app stores, without user consent, which apps a user has installed. This would expose the use of personal applications, including in sensitive areas like religion, politics or health, without rules on how this data could be used.
The company also said Epic is asking it to remove safeguards around app sideloading.
And in case these arguments fail, in another tactic, Google emphasizes that the remedies proposed by Epic are not necessary because it has already agreed with state attorneys general not to sign any more large-scale exclusivity agreements with developers. Epic’s proposal would further prevent Google from working with developers to provide exclusive content through Play Store apps, which it says is a significant opportunity for developers.
Finally, the state AG’s regulation 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’s involvement, competing app stores would underbid, impacting OEM margins, he added.
The judge’s upcoming ruling on the remedy in this case will be interesting to watch as it sets the stage for how app stores considered monopolistic will have to make concessions to allow for more competition. Although Epic lost its fight against Apple, the Justice Department’s lawsuit 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 remains unchecked, given the glaring absence of legislation in the United States to reign in tech monopolies.
