San Francisco jury finds Google app store created an antitrust market in a win for Epic Games
A California jury has found that Google Play is a monopolistic marketplace in a win for Epic Games.
The Epic Games vs. Google lawsuit has concluded in the state of California. The jury has determined that Google Play is an anticompetitive market and the court's work on remedies will begin in January.
Victory over Google! After 4 weeks of detailed court testimony, the California jury found against the Google Play monopoly on all counts. The Court’s work on remedies will start in January. Thanks for everyone’s support and faith! Free Fortnite! https://t.co/ITm4YBHCus
— Tim Sweeney (@TimSweeneyEpic) December 12, 2023
Tim Sweeney took to Twitter to celebrate the victory. It remains to be seen just what this will mean for the future of Fortnite on mobile platforms. There is also a possibility that Epic Games Store could launch on Android as a result of this case. This as a uninamous verdict that came after only three hours of deliberation. The four-week trial focused on Google Play's payment system that powers many app experiences on Android OS. In a company post, Epic Games heralded this moment as "a win for all developers." Over 95% of Android apps are distributed through Google Play Store, creating an uphill battle for the tech behemoth in trying to spin the facts in any positive way.
Where things go from here remain to be seen, as Google will attempt to appeal today's ruling according to VP of Government Affairs and Public Policy Wilson White. While Apple was able to skirt the hammer of justice when it comes to App Store, Epic lawyer Gary Bornstein has said that "Apple is not the 'get out of jail for free' card that Google wants it to be." Epic presented evidence of Google executives engaging in some anticompetitive practices like paying game maker Activision Blizzard to discourage the company from opening a rival app store on Android.
Google claims that it is an Apple competitor and they are merely defending its market position. The San Francisco jury was not buying the argument, but we will have to keep our eyes on future appeals before "Victory over Google" is a certainty for Epic Games.
-
Shacknews
replyAsif Khan posted a new article, San Francisco jury finds Google app store created an antitrust market in a win for Epic Games
-
-
-
-
link to verge article: https://www.theverge.com/23994174/epic-google-trial-jury-verdict-monopoly-google-play
-
Three years after Fortnite-maker Epic Games sued Apple and Google for allegedly running illegal app store monopolies, Epic has a win. The jury in Epic v. Google has just delivered its verdict — and it found that Google turned its Google Play app store and Google Play Billing service into an illegal monopoly.
The jury unanimously answered yes to every question put before them — that Google has monopoly power in the Android app distribution markets and in-app billing services markets, that Google did anticompetitive things in those markets, and that Epic was injured by that behavior. They decided Google has an illegal tie between its Google Play app store and its Google Play Billing payment services, too.
https://www.theverge.com/23994174/epic-google-trial-jury-verdict-monopoly-google-play
-
I don't understand how someone gets to dictate the terms that someone else distributes their games under. If you don't like the deal to get on the App Store, don't get on the platform at all. If I were Apple or Google, I'd ban Epic from the platform and remove Fortnite from everyones' accounts.
-
Is this sarcasm? Your last sentence proves the oligopoly that is smartphone operating systems can do whatever they please. As long as they collude, they could force concessions from other businesses. It is the job of government to stop oligopolies and monopolies to ensure free markets can operate efficiently.
-
Yeah but I also don't want to have to manage more than one store. Honestly, if it was up to me, I'd make it so that steam is the only store because I'm a lazy consumer of goods from different stores like Epic or EA's store or whatever.
I don't want to launch steam just to launch something else that is a competitor to steam. It's annoying to manage more than one store. That's my perspective as a consumer.
I realize that would give Valve a huge natural monopoly. Whatever.-
I just realized you were talking smart phone operating system but I think my point also applies there. Do we really want to encourage having multiple stores or app stores on a smart phone?
Use Pixel launcher on the Pixel phone to launch another launcher which may also launch another launcher. Hm. Where are we going with this bullshit?-
Imagine suggesting there should only be a single national grocery chain (Walmart), hardware store (Home Depot), tech store (Best Buy), fast food (McDonald’s), etc
-
Right but you don't have a home depot inside a Walmart do you? The Walmart doesn't insist on it's own billing system or debit card or credit card with the Walmart brand.
I mean, in a way you do. You could have a McDonald's or Starbuck's inside a Walmart.
I just hate launching a launcher only to find I have to launch another launcher it's own set of account management and password management etc.
STOP IT WITH THE EXTRA LAUNCHERS!
Maybe I should stick to games made by Valve.-
In retail space it's more akin to say you go to Walmart or Home Depot to buy a Dewalt Power Drill but Walmart has the Walmart edition which has more accessories included for the same price because Walmart paid (directly or indirectly) Dewalt to make that SKU exclusive for their store. Home Depot wants to do the same with Dewalt but Walmart also paid them not to make a deal. In game space it's kind of like with how Steam tells game makers they can't sell their games for different prices on other stores including ones they own or have different sale/promo.
-
it's more akin to Walmart owning all the land zoned commercial and then deciding if Home Depot should be allowed to do business, what items they are allowed to sell, and what payment processors they can use
-
-
Ask yourself why those things don’t exist in the physical world and whether it’d be a good outcome if they did
-
-
-
But prices isn't the only factor here. I don't want Valve to be a monopoly but I'd like to only have one launcher and one billing system.
Is there a way to do that in a competitive market? Probably not.
I'll shut up. But a free market means it is inconvenient for me. It wouldn't be so bad if I didn't have to manage a separate account for each of those store and platform types.-
higher prices sure seem a lot more inconvenient than 2 extra clicks to start a different launcher
-
I sound like I'm bitching and crying and I absolutely am but it's the whole business of maintaining a separate account, anti-cheat and billing system for each of those stores.
It's more than just two clicks.
But a free market demands it's own set of bullshit.-
I mean I guess in a free market my only option is just use steam and don't install anything that has it's own launcher. Uninstall the Epic launcher and Battlefield 2042 and stop using EA since they killed Bad Company 2. Motherfucker.
I guess I would be absolutely be in the minority. But that's my choice.
I'll shut up.-
yes, that's the whole point of a free market. If Steam offers you the best price/features/convenience then absolutely only use that. That should incentivize competitors to develop those features to meet your needs. Maybe you will intentionally pay more on Steam for that convenience. But at the point where Steam leverages their market power to prevent competitors from developing those things then we have a problem. For instance if Steam blocks a competitor from offering a game cheaper on an alternative store (to offset that store's relative lack of features from years/decades less development time) then that's bad for consumers and developers.
-
-
-
Anyway, you're right. I'm just bitching and moaning because of inconvenience.
Maybe if these different stores didn't suck so much compared to Valve's I'd feel different.
Competition is good but my god I was there were minimum standards on managing a platform. Mostly in regards to Epic launcher compared to Valve's steam platform.
I'm not an Epic fan or a Google fan so I'm kind of indifferent. But if I was a fan of Google's approach I'd be inconvenienced as a consumer to some extent for the sake of competition.
I'm not sure what the judge will do to resolve Google's monopoly over Google play when the court's work on remendies will start in Janaury.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
basically we have the government to support the people. if theres a situation that can benefit us consumers, the govt will look at. we the people have decided that anticompetitive practices are no good for the people
-
The US government has always supported corporations not people. Start your own country if you want socialism.
-
this doesn't accurately describe our government or what socialism is
-
Disregard my second sentence. There's plenty of socialism in northern Europe.
But as to my first statement "The US government has supported corporations not people."
Is that not an accurate statement?-
the US government supports people constantly. Social security, medicare/medicaid, the child tax credit and unemployment insurance during the pandemic, etc, etc. We used to tax corporations at extremely high rates relative to today to help fund things that help citizens.
-
-
I read somewhere that social security may struggle to exist in it's current form by the 2036 because of the ratio of retired people to working people.
The Republicans don't want to raise taxes to fix this or make budget cuts or anything else. They refuse to offer a solution.
So we either have deficit spending or we're going to have to have spending cuts to keep social security. SS benefits may go down anyway.
Back in 1935 the Republican absolutely did not want the social security system. I'm not sure if they gave a specific way they didn't want it but they didn't want it.
The worker to retired people ratio worked out well enough that it's been around this long.
But I'll give you medicare/medicaid, the child tax credit and unemployment insurance during the pandemic.-
-
Oh okay I guess I was misinformed.
Are the benefits going to down or exactly what is going to happen sometime in the mid 2030's? -
I answered my own question, sort of. I had the wrong year.
Will Social Security still be around when I retire?
Yes. The Social Security taxes you now pay go into the Social Security Trust Funds and are used to pay benefits to current beneficiaries. The Social Security Board of Trustees now estimates that based on current law, in 2041,the Trust Funds will be depleted.
Because people are living longer and the birth rate is low, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries is falling. Therefore, the taxes that are paid by workers will not be enough to pay the full benefit amounts scheduled. However, this does not mean that Social Security benefit payments would disappear. Even if modifications to the program are not made, there would still be enough funds in 2041 from taxes paid by workers to pay about $780 for every $1,000 in benefits scheduled.
https://www.ssa.gov/newsletter/Statement%20Insert%2025+.pdf
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Good! Hopefully this leads to a new trial against Apple and forces these platforms to be more open. But even more than that it is a key signal that antitrust enforcement is being revived. Monopolies have been allowed to grow and thrive for the past 50 years. Tech companies especially have benefited.
-
-
Apple Records for the music industry back when Apple computer was brand new?
Yeah I can see that.
-
-
But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.
-
-
Maybe, although I don’t recall much evidence about Apple making concessions to other companies and intentionally targeting Epic. Apple was more consistent about disallowing all forms of competing app stores.
The scope of the market was also much narrower:
Rogers identified that the market of concern was neither games (Apple's stance) nor Apple's App Store (Epic's stance) but digital mobile gaming transactions.]\
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple
-
-
Basically Google seems to have been willing to make deals on their fees with some businesses like Spotify. But they didn't on games. Epic wanted a deal, Google didn't want to because they felt it would infect all the big game deals, and they'd lose billions.
As I understand it, Apple didn't do this deal stuff or hid it well enough that the trial was very different.-
Apple's case is unique to Google because I think more people want an iPhone compared to Android so Apple is in a better negotiating position for smart phones.
Apple can afford to refuse to make deals compared to Google.
I mean, that's my gut instinct. I could be wrong about Google's position in the smart phone market.
I wonder if Google will just eventually give up on the smart phone market or trying to deal with it in some way to salvage some form of income from the platform.-
the market position is different, but I don't think that's what made these cases different.
If Apple had (provably) been negotiating "special deals" with some companies and then simultaneously working to make sure game companies were treated different and NOT given "special deals," Apple would be the in the same boat as Google here.
My only remaining questions are a) whether Apple is doing the same thing or not, and b) if they simply got out of this because for whatever reason, they didn't disclose they are playing a similar game. I suspect they are playing a similar game, but might have not have had the same attitude towards, or simply the first suit didn't find the right emails/chats about this. So many cases come down to competent discovery and/or how well you hide communications of stuff like this, this might just be one of those.-
I think it's fairly unlikely, honestly - just speaking as to the inside of various industries, Apple's been pretty unafraid to go "I don't care what you want - do it our way or get fucked, our customers will follow us regardless" for at least a decade now haha. It's hard to imagine them granting anybody concessions on the app store...
Maybe the ebook pricing stuff waaaay back?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
http://www.shacknews.com/chatty?id=41610767
$360MM.
Google told me to get bent. :/
-
Matt Stoller was pretty hyped by this victory. Nice write up he did. https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/boom-google-loses-antitrust-case
-
-
I think it's pretty likely they presented a much better case here against Google that would have worked against Apple. Whether that's because of better representation or learnings, who knows.
-
The apple suit didn't make it to trial with a jury either. The judge killed it.
-
Both Apple and Epic asked for a trial before the judge rather than a jury, and it was decided by trial.
-
-
-
