Epic’s Demands After Antitrust Win Deemed ‘Unnecessary’ and ‘Surpassing Verdict Boundaries’, Says Google

antitrust win, Epic's demands, far beyond the scope, Google, unnecessary, verdict

Title: The Battle Between Google and Epic Games: The Implications for App Stores and Tech Monopolies


In a recent court ruling, Google was found to have engaged in anticompetitive practices on its Play Store, following a case brought against it by Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite. While the jury determined that Google had leveraged its market power in illegal ways, it is now up to the judge to decide on the next steps. Epic Games has proposed numerous remedies, including gaining access to Google’s Play Store catalog of app and game titles for six years and the ability to distribute its own app store on Google Play without fees. Google, however, disagrees with these demands. This article will examine the implications of this battle between Google and Epic Games for app stores and tech monopolies and discuss the need for regulation in the U.S. to address the power of these tech giants.


Epic Games’ lawsuit against Google is part of a broader movement against the dominance of major tech companies. Epic Games had previously brought a similar antitrust case against Apple, which it ultimately lost. In that case, the court ruled that Apple was not a monopolist but agreed that developers should have the ability to direct customers to alternative payment methods outside of Apple’s ecosystem. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear it, allowing the lower court’s ruling to stand.

Google’s Defeat and Epic Games’ Demands

The court’s ruling against Google was surprising and swift, with the jury deciding that the tech giant engaged in anticompetitive practices. Epic Games responded to the ruling by issuing a list of demands as proposed remedies. These demands include access to the Play Store catalog for six years, the ability to distribute its own app store on Google Play without fees, and the elimination of agreements, incentives, and penalties that give Google Play Store and Google Play Billing an advantage over rivals.

Google’s Response and Arguments

In response to Epic Games’ demands, Google issued a statement referring to them as overreaching and unnecessary. The tech giant argued that Epic’s proposals would harm the privacy, security, and overall user experience. Google believes that its business model, which ensures the safety of its users, allows for innovation and growth for developers, and maintains a thriving Android ecosystem, should be protected.

In its court filing, Google argued that Epic’s demands would compromise user security and privacy by removing its ability to implement trust and safety measures concerning third-party app stores. Google also claimed that it would be required to disclose which apps a user has installed without their consent, potentially exposing personal information and sensitive areas such as religion, politics, or health.

Additionally, Google asserted that Epic’s demands would result in the removal of safeguards around sideloading apps, which could lead to security vulnerabilities. Furthermore, Google emphasized that the remedies proposed by Epic are unnecessary as the company has already settled with state attorneys general to avoid signing exclusivity agreements with developers.

Implications for App Stores and Tech Monopolies

The judge’s decision in this case will have significant implications for app stores and the power of tech monopolies. It will shape how app stores deemed monopolists are required to make concessions to allow more competition. With the lack of legislation in the U.S. to regulate tech monopolies, these court cases against Google and Apple are crucial in determining the extent of their power.

If Epic Games’ demands were to be implemented, it could pave the way for other developers and app store operators to challenge the dominance of the major tech companies. The ability to distribute their own app stores without restrictions and access the catalog of popular apps and games would level the playing field and foster more competition.

On the other hand, Google’s arguments highlight potential risks associated with granting such demands. Issues related to privacy, security, and user experience become even more critical when third-party app stores are involved. Google contends that its oversight and control over the Play Store are necessary to ensure the overall safety and quality of apps available to users.

Regulation of Tech Monopolies

The outcome of these court cases will shed light on the need for legislation to regulate tech monopolies, ensuring fair competition and consumer protection. Currently, there is a lack of comprehensive regulation in the U.S., allowing these companies to wield significant power without clear guidelines.

If the court upholds Epic Games’ demands, it may trigger discussions and actions around the regulation of app stores and the behavior of major tech companies. The implications will go beyond Google and Apple and could potentially affect other dominant players in the tech industry.


The battle between Google and Epic Games brings to the forefront the need for regulation and fair competition in the app store market. While Epic Games’ demands seek to challenge the dominance of major tech companies, Google argues that its current business model ensures user safety and promotes innovation for developers. The judge’s decision in this case will set a precedent for how app stores are regulated and may pave the way for future legislative actions to address the power of tech monopolies. As the battle continues, it is clear that the outcome will have far-reaching implications for the tech industry and its stakeholders.

Source link

Leave a Comment