Google loses to Epic Games in Play Store appeal
Google has failed to overturn a jury verdict that sees it having to allow third-party App Stores such as one by Epic Games.
Epic's 1984 parody
Epic Games vs Google sounds like a repeat or a parallel world version of Epic Games vs Apple, but in this case the games company won decisively, and Google has now failed to overturn that on appeal. According to Reuters, Google's appeal centered on alleged legal errors in the case, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has unanimously rejected the claims.
Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown ruled that the case Epic Games brought was "replete with evidence that Google's anticompetitive conduct entrenched its dominance."
Following the result, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney described it as "Total victory in the Epic v Google appeal!" on social media.
Thanks to the verdict, the Epic Games Store for Android will be coming to the Google Play Store! It's already available worldwide from our web site, https://t.co/f77ZSrBMGd.
Epic Games Store for PC already carries several other PC stores (https://t.co/92elnB3IGv, GOG Galaxy). https://t.co/4ndkMmhLUX-- Tim Sweeney (@TimSweeneyEpic)
At heart, this is the same issue as the trial between Epic Games and Apple -- the games company wants to force change on all app stores, in order to increase profits for its own.
However, significantly Google has previously allowed third-party app stores where Apple had to be forced into it, first by the European Union. The issue in this case, then, has been over how Google allegedly stifled competition by promoting its own Google Play Store above others, and making changing stores cumbersome.
Epic Games filed suit in 2021. Then in December 2023, a jury found in favor of the games company, the opposite of what happened with Apple.
Google, though, has now protested against the ruling, listing exactly the same concerns that Apple always raises. The appeals court's ruling "will significantly harm user safety, limit choice, and undermine the innovation that has always been central to the Android ecosystem," said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs.
Now Google will have to comply with the trial's original order that it revamp how it features rival stores on its Google Play Store. It will also have to make its whole Play Store catalog available for third-party stores to include.
How this affects Apple
Apple has a stronger case about user privacy and security than Google, since Google has already allowed third-party stores and so does not control its app ecosystem in the same way. Plus neither the appeal nor the original trial ruling have any direct impact on Apple.
However, it's a significant win, and now also a notable precedent, that is surely going to be used against Apple in future App Store cases.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
the whole thing is bonkers.
Swiney on Twitter shows his character.
they made almost 6 billion last year
so SOME people obviously care
With Android, Google allows third party apps stores to exist. This because Open Source Android do not come with any app stores. The mobile phone makers that chooses to use Android gets to install their own app stores and/or allow third party app stores. But most will choose to license the Google Play Store. But still, other than the Pixel, the Google Play Store would be on a third party device. So there exist an app store market on Android where app stores (including the Google Play Store) competes for Android users money. But the Google Play Store controls over 90% of app stores purchases, thus their "monopoly". And by making it difficult for other app stores to compete by always warnings users of the danger of downloading/sideloading apps from third party app stores, Google was abusing the monopoly they have with the Google Play Store. Google claim is that the warnings serves as a safety reminder for users to be extra careful when they download/sideload apps from third parties. But the warning actually discouraged Android users from using third party app stores. There are other instances mentioned in this case, of Google behavior that limited competition from third party app stores.
It would be more like if you own a movie theater and allowed third party concession stands to operate inside to compete with your concession stand, as a way to attract more movie goers by advertising more varieties of snacks. But once inside, you find ways to discouraged them from buying their snacks from the other concession stands.
In the US, one can not have a monopoly, that falls under anti-trust laws, in a market that consist of one brand. A "relevant market" used in anti-trust must nearly always have more than one brand competing. So under present US anti-trust laws, Apple can not be abusing a monopoly on iOS app distribution, when they are the only one allowed to distribute iOS apps. And in the US, Apple do not have to allow third party app distribution on iOS or on their own Apple devices. Having a "monopoly" is not illegal. iOS is not licensed out to third party devices and Apple retains full control of iOS.
Samsung could just as well sell their mobile android phones with only the Samsung App Store from which to install apps. But because it's still Android, they would have a difficult time preventing hacks that allow users to install Android apps from other sources. Much like jailbreaking an iPhone. Other than that, Samsung can market a mobile phone whose OS is closed.
Here with Android, Google and the Google Play Store, Android is Open Source and is on many different companies devices with dozens of competing third party app stores from which Google Play Store has a 90% monopoly, Google allow for third party app stores with Android and except for the Pixel, Google Play Store is on a third party device running Android.
You''re going to be disappoints as this case will not set any precedent concerning Apple because the monopoly Google have with the Google Play Store is not even close to being the same as the "monopoly" Apple have with the Apple App Store. Your only hope is that the US will pass some sort of new law that will force Apple to open up iOS to third party app stores. Like they did in the EU with the DMA and other countries are trying to do. Apple App Store "monopoly" is not illegal under current US anti-trust laws. And Apple can not be abusing that "monopoly"if there are no other competitors.
And here's the irony in all this. If Apple is forced to open iOS to third party app stores, then they will fall under US anti-trust scrutiny if the Apple App Store maintains a monopoly share, (even if mainly due to loyalty and trust) and Apple will surely be accused of abusing their monopoly. There are actually people on this forum that thinks that if competitors can't compete with Apple, then surely Apple must be doing something anti-competitive.