Google lost an antitrust court fight to Fortnite maker
Google Play willfully wields monopoly power through the
Epic
US District Judge
Google, whose shares slipped 0.4% in extended trading, said it plans to challenge the verdict.
“Android and Google Play provide more choice and openness than any other major mobile platform,” said
In an interview, Sweeney said the company will seek “actual changes in practice” to Google’s app store, but declined to offer more specifics on the remedy Epic plans to ask for next year. “We can’t say there’s a victory when the court has ruled in our favor but nothing has changed,” he said.
Stanford University law professor
“The last two decades have seen a profound shift away from the open internet towards walled gardens,” he said. “That is one of the things that has kept the internet market so concentrated. This verdict just knocked a big hole in the garden wall.”
Lawyer Paul Swanson, a partner at
The verdict came at the same time as Google has been defending itself in an even higher-stakes antitrust case by the US Justice Department targeting the company’s search business.
Read More:
Epic sued Google three years ago, claiming the tech company monopolized the Android app distribution market for more than a decade by striking side deals with rivals and using its resources to thwart competition.
In its defense, Google contended that its partnerships help phones that run on the Android operating system better compete against smartphone market rival Apple’s iPhone.
“Epic wants you to give them a deal that they don’t have and they haven’t been able to get anywhere else,”
Epic was the only stakeholder to challenge Alphabet at trial after the Mountain View, California-based company recently reached settlements with consumers, state attorneys general and
Read More:
The trial featured testimony from both Sweeney and Alphabet CEO
Sweeney, whose
Nine jurors, three women and six men, were shown numerous documents as evidence, including confidential internal Google email communications and presentations, which revealed the inner workings of its efforts to build out Google Play and its Android mobile operating system business.
Jurors found that Google unreasonably restrained trade by sharing Google Play revenue with mobile device manufacturers so its own store was the default store on Android smartphone home screens. Google also made million-dollar deals with game makers including Activision Blizzard before it was acquired by Microsoft Corp. — which Epic argued dissuaded the game companies from launching their own stores.
The panel also concluded that Google limited trade through its developer agreements that Epic contended make it challenging for users to directly download apps from the web to mobile devices. The accords also stopped developers from telling Android phone users that their products and services may be available at a lower price on their websites.
Alphabet had countersued Epic, alleging the game maker breached its contract and acted in bad faith when it tried to set up its own app store in 2020 as an end-run around the Google Play billing system.
But after testimony by Epic executives at trial admitting that they tried to sidestep the Play store, Donato decided that jurors would skip ruling on Google’s counterclaims.
The case is In Re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, 21-md-02981, US District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).
--With assistance from
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Peter Blumberg, Angela Moon
© 2023 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.