Epic triumphs as the jury concludes that Google holds an unlawful monopoly in the app store dispute. After a swift deliberation, the unanimous decision affirmed Google's monopoly power in the Android app distribution and in-app billing services markets, citing anticompetitive actions that caused harm to Epic.
The verdict deemed the connection between Google's Google Play app store and Google Play Billing payment services illegal, along with anticompetitive elements in distribution agreements, Project Hug deals, and dealings with OEMs.
In response, Google's VP of Affairs and Public Policy, Wilson White, announced the company's intention to appeal, asserting robust competition with Apple and other app stores. Epic Games celebrated the outcome, emphasizing its significance for global app developers and consumers, condemning Google's alleged illegal practices that exploit its monopoly, impose excessive fees, stifle competition, and impede innovation.
This historic win contrasts with Epic's prior battle against Apple, where it faced defeat two years ago on grounds unrelated to apps. The case against Google centered on clandestine revenue-sharing agreements involving Google, smartphone manufacturers, and major game developers. The trial exposed Google's apprehension of Epic and was decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.
The specifics of Epic's victory are yet to be determined by Judge James Donato, who will decide on appropriate remedies in January. Epic's objective is not monetary damages but rather a declaration affirming every app developer's freedom to establish independent app stores and billing systems on Android.
The judge has rejected Epic's request for an anti-circumvention provision and declined to determine the percentage fee Google should charge for its products.
While Epic did not pursue damages in the lawsuit, CEO Tim Sweeney hinted at potential financial gains in the hundreds of millions or even billions if exempted from Google's fees. The detailed verdict form outlines the jury's findings in the Epic v. Google case.
Comentarios