Epic Games triumphs over Google in landmark antitrust case

midian182

Posts: 9,745   +121
Staff member
What just happened? Epic Games' legal battle against Apple might not have been as successful as it hoped, but the lawsuit against Google has ended in a win for Tim Sweeney's company. A jury has just sided with Epic, ruling that Google violated antitrust laws to extract fees and limit competition from developers.

It's been over three years since Epic sued Apple and Google after the pair removed Fortnite from their respective app stores – a consequence of the Battle Royale mobile title introducing the Epic Direct Payment option, which allowed players to pay Epic directly for in-game purchases.

The fight against Google concluded following a three-hour deliberation by the nine-person jury that saw it unanimously answer yes to all 11 questions. As reported by The Verge, the jury found that Google held an illegal monopoly on app distribution and in-app billing services for Android devices. It also found that there is an illegal tie between the Google Play app store and the Google Play Billing payment service, and that the company's distribution agreement with game developers and deals with OEMs were anticompetitive. Furthermore, it was agreed that Epic Games has been injured by Google's behavior.

Epic had cited an initiative called "Project Hug" in its complaint alleging that Google paid developers to continue using the store. It had also been accused of paying Activision $360 million to stop it building a rival app store and even considered buying some or all of Epic to fight the lawsuit. Google also reportedly made deals with Nintendo, Ubisoft, and Riot Games. Epic defined these as "bribes."

Google said it would appeal the verdict. "The trial made clear that we compete fiercely with Apple and its App Store, as well as app stores on Android devices and gaming consoles," said Wilson White, Google VP for Government Affairs and Public Policy. "We will continue to defend the Android business model and remain deeply committed to our users, partners, and the broader Android ecosystem."

What happens now rests with Judge James Donato, who will meet with both parties in the second week of January to discuss potential remedies. Epic wants Google to give developers the freedom to introduce their own app stores and billing systems for Android. The judge said he would neither decide the percentage fee Google should charge for its products nor grant Epic's request to prevent Google from implementing an anti-circumvention provision.

Epic mostly lost its case against Apple. In April, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a previous decision that Apple had not violated competition laws. However, Cupertino was ordered to allow developers to use alternative payment methods.

Permalink to story.

 
How did they win against Google, but lose against Apple? Aren't they both monopolies for their perspective phone OSes?
Imagine thinking the justice system is about justice, or fairness. LMAO. It's about the opinions of the judge, and the apple case was a different judge. Apple's got more influence and that shows. The Federal courts will routinely rule from the bench when it comes to stripping your civil liberties, but they will go out of their way to protect the multi billion dollar corporations that donate to political party lobbying.
 
This is so funny. Really exposes how inconsistent the justice system is. Aren't the two basically the same lawsuit with different deffendant?

Not really, unlike Android Apple's iOS/macOS is a completely closed ecosystem. They own the OS and the hardware and they don't allow sideloading of apps. Forcing them to open up would be like forcing the Xbox to run Playstation games and vice versa.
 
Not really, unlike Android Apple's iOS/macOS is a completely closed ecosystem. They own the OS and the hardware and they don't allow sideloading of apps. Forcing them to open up would be like forcing the Xbox to run Playstation games and vice versa.
No, it would be like forcing another general purpose OS like Windows to open up..... oh wait.
 
No, it would be like forcing another general purpose OS like Windows to open up..... oh wait.
Again, you're comparing an open platform to a closed one. Windows and Android runs on hardware from any manufacturer; iOS only runs on Apple's hardware; they own the entire ecosystem, Google does not.
 
Again, you're comparing an open platform to a closed one. Windows and Android runs on hardware from any manufacturer; iOS only runs on Apple's hardware; they own the entire ecosystem, Google does not.
And why does that matter? Their ecosystem is much too big and not niche enough to hide behind. Congrats on them for creating it, but it's gone beyond such a narrow-minded view. It's a large enough marketplace that they control and compete in (which is where it quickly becomes anti-competitive).
Hence why Windows was targeted for antitrust (back when agencies had the balls to do anything), why Amazon is (finally) being targeted, and why the EU is (finally) doing something to combat the anti-competitiveness. But iOS on a closed platform just makes things worse for competition.

Anyways, I do have 1 targeted question for you: based on your simplistic logic, why doesn't Apple lock down macOS?
MacOS only runs on Apple's hardware; they own the entire ecosystem, MS does not.

-------------------------
FYI Xbox, Playstation, and Switch are not general purpose OS's, and they run a specific type of marketplace. They have a clearly understood primary purpose (gaming), in which they don't make much money on hardware. Hence why that rehashed argument from your first comment doesn't work (it's a tired point fanboys love to bring up).
 
Again, you're comparing an open platform to a closed one. Windows and Android runs on hardware from any manufacturer; iOS only runs on Apple's hardware; they own the entire ecosystem, Google does not.
MacOS only runs on apple hardware and can run third party apps. Being a "closed ecosystem" has nothing to do with software accessibility.
 
I believe lobby contractors post on public forums trying to influence public opinion and not just lobby law makers. If you read something on a public forum, you have to question the motives of the poster. When one company can't deliver a product because a bigger more powerful company is blocking them, there is obviously an issue. No amount of propaganda is going to change that in my mind.
 
Back