Google loses Epic - Play Store Antitrust case. Google = illegal monopolist.

[Choze]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/11/technology/epic-games-google-antitrust-ruling.html

Quote

The jury in San Francisco found that Epic, the maker of the hit game Fortnite, proved that Google had maintained a monopoly in the smartphone app store market and engaged in anticompetitive conduct that harmed the videogame maker.

Quote

“Such a clear verdict is going to make it much harder for Google to beat it back in post-trial briefing and on appeal,” Paul Swanson, an antitrust lawyer at the firm Holland & Hard, said in an interview. He added that the district court process could wrap up in a few months, and Google’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit could take 12 to 18 months.

The jury also faulted Google’s agreements with Android phone makers like Samsung, which force them to pre-install Google applications on their devices and establish other rules by which they must abide.

During the trial, Epic’s lawyers said Google had deleted some internal chat messages that may have been relevant to the case, which undercut the search company’s credibility, Mr. Swanson said.

 

https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/epic-v-google-trial-verdict-a-win-for-all-developers

Quote

Over the course of the trial we saw evidence that Google was willing to pay billions of dollars to stifle alternative app stores by paying developers to abandon their own store efforts and direct distribution plans, and offering highly lucrative agreements with device manufacturers in exchange for excluding competing app stores. 

Quote

This is, of course, what we know. From the CEO down, Google employees willfully re-directed sensitive conversations to chat, knowing that their contents would be deleted forever.
 

Massive win and fantastic news!

Worth pointing out the Google Adtech case is also going to jury.

Plenty to discuss.

[Glen-i]

Wow, was not expecting that!

Remind me, how did the Epic V Apple case go down?

[Dcubed]

Quote

They decided Google has an illegal tie between its Google Play app store and its Google Play Billing payment services, too, and that its distribution agreement, Project Hug deals with game developers and deals with OEMs were anticompetitive too...

...Judge Donato has already stated that he will not grant Epic's additional request for an anti-circumvention provision "just to be sure Google can't reintroduce the same problems through some alternative creative solution," as Epic lead attorney Gary Bornstein put it on November 28th.

These are the particularily salient points being made here.  Epic will not be getting the ability to sideload their own store onto Google Play like they wanted...

... I suspect that if anything comes out of this, it'll be that Google won't be allowed to force the use of Google Pay and won't be allowed to bundle Google Play/Google Pay into Android anymore; much like how Microsoft was forced to seperate Internet Explorer from Windows.  You won't be seeing Epic being allowed to open up their own store on Google Play.

Edited December 12, 2023 by Dcubed

[Ashley]

30 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

Wow, was not expecting that!

Remind me, how did the Epic V Apple case go down?

Apple won that one.

From what I've seen most interpretations of the difference basically boils down to 'Google's OS is open source and Apple's isn't. Apple not allowing you to create your own app store is consistent with their platform outlook [and thus what people sign up to], Google is being selective about which parts it allows to be open".

[Jonnas]

Wow! Fantastic to see anti-monopoly laws actually get, you know, enforced. Any victory is a valid victory.

Looking forward to see this case get explored further. Curious to see what are the significant differences between this and the Apple case.

Between this case and Mickey Mouse possibly soon becoming public domain, 2023 looks to end on a strong note against megacorps.

Edited December 12, 2023 by Jonnas

[Ashley]

7 hours ago, Jonnas said:

Looking forward to see this case get explored further. Curious to see what are the significant differences between this and the Apple case.

As I mentioned above part of it seems to be the differences in the OSes and a juror has confirmed that the fact Google deleted messages that could have been used in the trail worked against them. Google's own conduct, both as a business and a defendant, doesn't seem to have helped them. 

[Choze]

The main difference here is that it was a jury decision. Key democratic function serving its purpose.

Several Judges have been OK with deletion of information or evidence in comparison. Not to mention issues with social/professional links, family, friends, jobs etc.

This is a big win no doubt and will influence future cases.

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Choze

[Choze]

https://www.ft.com/content/a2ad4277-13a9-411e-ad59-230d5bea626c

Quote

Tim Sweeney told the Financial Times he was worried Google would offer “fake” remedies to the Californian court that on Monday found the search company was abusing an alleged monopoly over the Android app ecosystem.

Quote

“My concern with the state settlement, which I am not privy to, is that it will restore a fake form of competition which doesn’t actually give consumers the benefits of real competition,” Sweeney said.

Good on Sweeney for fighting this and calling out fake remedies.

[Dcubed]

https://trekmovie.com/2023/12/20/paramount-global-holding-merger-talks-with-warner-bros-discovery/

Rather timely.  Will be very interesting to see how this one pans out...

Even if WB and Paramount merge, they'd still only be worth around $30-40 billion; a tiny fraction of their rivals... but then again, the courts may not take kindly to WB merging again so soon after already merging with Discovery...

... and what would happen to WBIE?

[Dcubed]

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-snubs-epic-games-legal-battle-with-apple-2024-01-16/
 

Quote

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a challenge by Apple to a lower court's decision requiring changes to certain rules in its lucrative App Store, as the justices shunned the lengthy legal battle between the iPhone maker and Epic Games, maker of the popular video game "Fortnite."

The justices also turned away Epic's appeal of the lower court's ruling that Apple's App Store policies limiting how software is distributed and paid for do not violate federal antitrust laws. The justices gave no reasons for their decision to deny the appeals.

Apple's stock fell more than 2% in early trading on Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in 2021 rejected Epic's antitrust claims against Apple. But the judge found that Apple violated California's unfair competition law by barring developers from "steering" users to make digital purchases that bypass Apple's in-app system, which Epic contends could save them money with lower commissions.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld much of Rogers' decision in 2023, finding that Epic had "failed to prove the existence of substantially less restrictive alternatives" to Apple's system.

The judge's injunction requires Apple to let app developers provide links and buttons that direct consumers to other ways to pay for digital content that they use in their apps.
Sweeney wrote on his social media post: "As of today, developers can begin exercising their court-established right to tell US customers about better prices on the web."

Neither side really got what they wanted, but Apple is the smallest loser here.  There will be no 3rd party app stores on iOS, and Epic's EGS trojan horse strategy has failed.

That being said though, developers being now able to steer customers towards alternative payment methods is a nice win for app developers; expect to see your favourite apps start to move payments away from direct in-app purchases enmasse over the coming months.

Edited January 16 by Dcubed