Explanation of Epic Games’ loss in antitrust case against Apple, but victory against Google

Epic Games emerged as the winner in the significant legal battle against Google, accusing the tech giant of monopolizing the Android app marketplace and employing unfair tactics to maintain control. The San Francisco jury unanimously ruled on Monday, December 11 that Google’s connection between the Google Play app store and its Google Play Billing payment services was unlawful. Additionally, the jury deemed Project Hug deals, which involved game developers and OEMs, as noncompetitive. Epic CEO Tim Sweeney recently provided an interview, shedding light on the lawsuit and explaining why the company was unsuccessful against Apple but victorious against Google.

CEO Tim Sweeney talks about Google’s competition law

Sweeney gave an interview to The Verge and talked about the trial in depth. Explaining his own feelings at the end of the trial, he said he was glad to see that despite the jury’s quick verdict, it went the appellant’s way, which is not normal. He also praised the jury for carefully analyzing such a complex technical antitrust case.

He also explained how he was shocked to learn the details of Google’s Project Hug and the deal with tech giant Spotify.

What is Project Hug?

Project Hug was the code name for a program through which Google quietly paid developers hundreds of millions of dollars to encourage them to keep their games and apps on the Play Store instead of a competing platform. According to Epic’s statements during the trial, the company said that when it announced its feature to circumvent Google’s payments (by offering a discount if the payment was made on the website), the company was concerned that others might follow suit and thus started Project Hug to stop major games on Android – ecosystem.

Google’s deal with Spotify

If you want to cancel the Spotify contract, you can understand it in a simple way. Google charges applications that perform transactions on its platform by taking 30 percent of all transactions that take place through Google’s payment service. The same amount is also charged by Apple, Sony, Microsoft and other marketplaces, the only notable exception being the Samsung Galaxy Store, which only charges 12 percent. The payment is slightly lower or similar (depending on the specific application offer) when the transaction takes place entirely in the application and through its own payment channels.

Now, as per Google’s policy, it does not allow apps to offer any lucrative offers to encourage users to use in-app payment methods instead of payment options provided by Google. Violation of this rule led Epic Games to remove Fortnite when it started offering more V-bucks at a lower price when purchased directly from the game.

So why did Google offer Spotify this crazy and policy breaking deal? Because Google needed Spotify more than Android Marketplace.

Don Harrison, Google’s head of global partnerships, testified: “Listening to music is one of the core purposes [of a phone] … if we don’t have Spotify working properly for play services and core services, people won’t buy Android phones.” .

Why did Epic lose to Apple but win against Google?

Sweeney was also asked why he thought he had lost a similar lawsuit against Apple, but managed to win it against Google.

Calling out Apple on Ice and Google Fire, he told The Verge: “The problem with Apple is that their anti-competitive antics are internal. They’re using their store, their payments, they’re forcing developers to use all the same terms, they’re forcing OEMs and carriers to use the same conditions.”

“Whereas Google, in order to get things done on Android, went around and paid game developers, dozens of game developers, not to compete. And they’re paying dozens of airlines and OEMs not to compete — and when all these different companies make deals together, a lot of people put things in writing and it’s there for everyone to read and see, he added.

Verdict against Apple

Judge Rodgers ruled in Apple’s favor on nine of the ten charges brought against them in the case, including Epic’s charges related to a 30 percent cut of Apple’s revenue and Apple’s ban on third-party marketplaces on iOS. Rogers dismissed Apple’s last charge related to anti-diversion provisions and issued a permanent injunction barring Apple, within 90 days of the ruling, from preventing developers from connecting app users to other fronts within apps to make purchases or collect revenue. information contained in the application, such as email, to notify users of these storefronts.

Jury verdict against Google

The jury’s verdict in Google’s antitrust lawsuit against Epic Games was in favor of Epic Games. The jury found that Google’s app store violated antitrust laws, and the unanimous verdict concluded that Google has a monopoly on the distribution of apps on Android phones and that the company engaged in anticompetitive behavior. In January, the court will start working on what remedies must be implemented.