In December, a jury found that Google violated U.S. antitrust laws through contracts and billing rules that unfairly boosted its Google Play app store. On Thursday, the judge began explaining how Google could be forced to change its operations as part of its punishment. The solutions under consideration may lead to the most significant shake-ups in the history of Google’s dominance over the Android world.
Fortnite video game developer Epic Games, which defeated Google in a trial in which a jury found the Play Store an illegal monopoly, is demanding that federal judge James Donato bar Google from entering into antitrust agreements. Epic also wants Google to be forced to support competing stores list more apps, which will make them more competitive. The changes could enable Epic to pursue a long-term plan to raise revenue by processing in-game purchases Fortnite and other titles without using the Google payment system, and marketing games through your own application store.
Google says Epic’s demands would jeopardize the security of its users and harm the businesses of its partners, including Android device makers and app developers. The exploration company is appealing the jury’s verdict, which could delay any penalties for many years or invalidate them altogether. However, Google has already had to make costly changes in Europe and Asia over the past few years due to legal losses and fresh Play Store regulations, and a lawsuit with Epic is currently ongoing in Australia.
“I want to be clear: Google, as an illegal monopoly, will have to pay certain penalties,” Donato told Epic and Google during a hearing Thursday in San Francisco. He explained that Google’s loss would require him to wrest control of the Android ecosystem from the company in a way that would end Google’s illegal monopoly and also rid it of its ill-gotten gains from years of unfair domination.
This would mean major changes to an industry that has built itself around Google’s Android operating system, and potentially more choice for consumers. Donato said this may require Google to pour cash into fresh projects to get things right.
Donato expressed frustration with Google’s claims that any changes would be bad for consumers and other businesses. “Jumping up and down and saying that the new world will be a world in which no one will want to live is baseless,” he said. But he also spent hours on the hearing, questioning two economists, one on behalf of each company, about how to set penalties for Google without being unreasonable.
Among Epic’s demands is a ban on Google entering into agreements that prevent or discourage companies from working with alternatives to the app store. In the past, the company has required hardware manufacturers who want to offer Google Play on their devices to agree not to partner with or promote alternative app stores. This has prevented most consumers from seeing other app stores because most device manufacturers want to offer the Google app store because it is the largest.
Competing app stores like Amazon and Samsung also have a tough time convincing developers to put their apps outside of Google Play because keeping apps on multiple stores requires extra work. To level the playing field, Epic proposes that Google be obliged to provide competing stores with the ability to list applications hosted on Google Play for six years. This would allow users to browse alternative stores without feeling like they are missing out on popular apps, giving the store a better chance of success in the long run.