Google Labels Epic’s Demands from Antitrust Win as ‘Unnecessary’ and ‘Beyond the Scope’ of Verdict

Google is pushing back against Epic Games' proposed remedies in response to a court ruling that determined Google engaged in anticompetitive practices on its Play Store. After the jury's decision late last year, both parties presented their arguments on how Google should change its behavior.Epic Games put forth a comprehensive list of demands, including access to the Play Store catalog of app and game titles for six years, the ability to distribute its own app store on Google Play without fees, and the cessation of all agreements, incentives, and penalties favoring the Play Store or Google Play Billing over rivals.

Google's response indicates resistance to many of Epic Games' demands, signaling potential contention between the two companies as they navigate the aftermath of the court ruling and strive to address antitrust concerns within the mobile app ecosystem.Google's unexpected and swift defeat in the antitrust case marked a historic ruling, particularly since Epic Games had previously experienced a largely unsuccessful outcome in a similar lawsuit against Apple, which had not been tried by a jury. In the Epic-Apple case, the court ruled that Apple was not a monopolist but agreed that developers should have the ability to direct their customers to alternative payment methods via the web. Despite appeals that reached the Supreme Court, the lower court's ruling was upheld.

While the jury in Google's case concluded that the tech giant had unlawfully exploited its market dominance, it did not have the authority to determine the subsequent course of action — that responsibility lies with the judge. The recent filing from Google, along with Epic's proposal, will serve to guide Judge James Donato in a hearing scheduled for May 23, where decisions will be made regarding measures to curb Google's market power.Epic Games outlined its demands in a proposed injunction in April, aiming to enact significant changes to Google's practices. At the core of Epic's requests is the desire for users to have the freedom to download apps from any app store or the web, without restriction. Epic also seeks to prevent Google from influencing OEMs or carriers to favor Google Play and from imposing additional fees for bypassing the Play Store, which it views as anticompetitive.

Furthermore, Epic requested access to the Play Store catalog to facilitate app updates without warnings or extra charges. It also advocated for developers to inform users about alternative payment options and potential cost savings, aiming to eliminate the requirement to use Google's "User Choice Billing" system, which offers limited discounts to developers who process transactions independently, among other changes.In response, Google's Vice President of Government Affairs & Public Policy, Wilson White, characterized Epic's demands as excessive and unnecessary, indicating a divergence in perspectives on the appropriate course of action for the court to take.

Google contends that Epic's proposed injunction would jeopardize the privacy, security, and overall user experience for consumers, developers, and device manufacturers. It argues that Epic's demands extend beyond the scope of the recent U.S. trial verdict, which Google plans to challenge, and are rendered unnecessary by a settlement reached with state attorneys general last year. Google asserts its commitment to maintaining a sustainable business model that prioritizes user safety, fosters innovation among developers, and sustains a thriving Android ecosystem.In its injunction filing, Google asserts that Epic's demands pose risks to user security and privacy by limiting its ability to enforce trust and safety measures regarding third-party app stores. Similar to Apple's stance regarding App Store regulations, Google emphasizes its responsibility for user privacy and security and expresses concerns about disclosing users' installed apps to third-party stores without consent.

This, Google argues, could expose sensitive information about users' personal app usage, including areas such as religion, politics, or health, without clear regulations on data usage.Google asserts that Epic's demands include the removal of safeguards around sideloading apps, a move that could compromise user security. Furthermore, Google highlights that it has already settled with state attorneys general to cease signing broad exclusivity agreements with developers. Epic's proposed remedies, however, would hinder Google's ability to collaborate with developers on offering exclusive content through Play Store apps, which Google argues is an important opportunity for developers.

Additionally, Google contends that the state attorney general settlement allows any app store to compete for placement on Android devices. However, Epic's proposal would exclude Google from this process, potentially reducing competition. Without Google's involvement, rival app stores could undercut each other, impacting original equipment manufacturer (OEM) margins.The forthcoming decision by the judge regarding the remedy in this case will be closely watched, as it will shape how app stores deemed monopolists must adjust to accommodate more competition. While Epic's battle with Apple ended in defeat, ongoing cases by the Justice Department against Apple and Google over alleged monopolistic practices will determine the extent to which tech giants' power is regulated, especially given the current absence of legislation in the U.S. aimed at reigning in tech monopolies.