Fortnite creator sued both tech giants, one won, the other found guilty on 11 counts.
Monday evening, a San Francisco jury swiftly sided with Epic Games, declaring Google guilty on all 11 antitrust claims related to an alleged Android app market monopoly. The surprising decision is expected to resonate in the tech world for years.
The surprising verdict puzzled many as Epic Games had previously lost a similar case against Apple two years earlier. In that instance, the gaming company accused Apple of an illegal App Store monopoly, but a judge ruled against Epic in September 2021. Both lawsuits underscored app developers’ discontent with the hefty in-app purchasing fees imposed by Google and Apple, reaching up to 30%. In 2020, Epic attempted to introduce a payment system in Fortnite to circumvent Google and Apple, leading to a temporary ban of Fortnite from their app stores and subsequent legal action by Epic.
Google, in contrast to Apple, projects openness by licensing Android and allowing alternative app installations. Despite this, a jury found Google guilty of a monopoly, raising questions about why Apple, with its renowned “walled garden,” was not similarly accused.
Antitrust experts highlighted differences between the trials. Apple’s closed app ecosystem, they argued, made it less susceptible to antitrust action. Distinct trial circumstances also steered Epic v Google differently. Crucially, a jury, not a judge, decided the Google case, potentially swayed by the gaming company’s underdog narrative. Google’s repeated misbehavior, including damning internal documents and missing evidence, painted the company as a secretive monopolist, experts noted.
John Bergmayer of Public Knowledge emphasized that Apple’s entirely sealed ecosystem exempts it from a “duty to deal” with others—a contrast to Google.
In the Apple situation, the straightforward fact is that Apple maintains a single App Store and prohibits the existence of any alternatives, as stated by Katherine Van Dyck.
According to Bergmayer, antitrust laws often focus on unfair business dealings and contracts. He suggests that if a company, like Google, engages with various phone manufacturers, even though it may seem more open, it could still be subject to antitrust laws.
Google’s Vice President of Government Affairs & Public Policy, Wilson White, asserted that the trial emphasized Google’s fierce competition with Apple and its App Store, as well as other app stores on Android devices. Despite the ruling, Google plans to appeal.
In contrast, Epic quickly celebrated its victory, stating in a blog post, “Today’s verdict is a win for all developers and consumers around the world.” The post accuses Google of illegal app store practices, alleging the abuse of its monopoly power to impose excessive fees, stifle competition, and hinder innovation. Apple did not provide a comment in response to requests.
Donato guided the jury, suggesting they “may” infer that the absence of Google-related evidence could reflect negatively on the company. Van Dyke termed this direction “uncommon and significant,” with other experts agreeing it might have influenced the jury in Epic’s favor.
Szabo criticized Donato’s instructions for leaving too much to imagination. He argued that the jury was essentially given leeway to imagine damning evidence that might not actually exist.
Epic’s CEO, Tim Sweeney, expressed a more candid opinion during a recent interview with reporters.
