The verdict has been reached by a federal court jury in the case against Google’s Android app store, finding that the company has implemented unfair obstacles that have negatively affected both smartphone users and software developers. This decision is a significant setback for one of the main pillars of Google’s technology empire.

On Monday, the jury reached a unanimous decision after only three hours of deliberation. The trial, which lasted four weeks, focused on a profitable payment system within Google’s Play Store. The Play Store is the primary platform where millions of individuals worldwide access and install applications designed for smartphones using Google’s Android operating system.

In 2018, Epic Games, the creator of the widely-played game Fortnite, sued Google, claiming that the tech giant has been misusing its influence to monopolize the Play Store and safeguard a lucrative revenue stream that earns billions of dollars each year. Similar to Apple’s policies for their app store, Google charges a fee of 15% to 30% for in-app purchases.

Apple prevailed in a similar case that Epic brought against the iPhone app store. But that 2021 trial was decided by a federal judge in a ruling that is under appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nine-member jury in the Play Store lawsuit viewed the situation differently, despite Google’s permission for Android apps to be obtained from various sources, which Apple does not allow for the iPhone.

Shortly before the start of the Play Store trial, Google attempted to prevent a jury from deciding the result. However, their request was denied by U.S. District Judge James Donato. Now, it will be up to Donato to decide the necessary actions for Google to rectify their unlawful actions in the Play Store. The judge has announced that he will hold hearings on this matter during the second week of January.

After the ruling was announced, Tim Sweeney, CEO of Epic, smiled widely and congratulated his attorneys while also shaking hands with a Google lawyer. He expressed appreciation for the Google attorney’s professional demeanor throughout the trial.

“Triumph against Google!” Sweeney announced on X, the social media platform previously referred to as Twitter. In a statement from the company, Epic celebrated the decision as “a victory for app developers and customers worldwide.”

According to a statement from Wilson White, the vice president of government affairs and public policy at Google, the company intends to challenge the decision.

According to White, Android and Google Play offer a greater range of options and accessibility compared to any other primary mobile platform.

The outcome of the trial could result in Google facing a significant loss in profits from the commissions earned through its Play Store. However, its primary source of income, digital advertising linked to its search engine, Gmail, and other services, will not be impacted by the verdict.

After hearing two hours of closing statements from the attorneys representing each side of the case, the jury came to a verdict.

The attorney for Epic, Gary Bornstein, described Google as a harsh aggressor that utilizes a “pay off and obstruct” approach to discourage competition for its Play Store on Android devices. In response, Google’s lawyer, Jonathan Kravis, accused Epic of being a self-serving game developer that is using the legal system to save money and harm an ecosystem that has produced billions of Android smartphones to rival Apple and its iPhone.

The attorneys’ opposing arguments largely focused on the testimonies of numerous witnesses who appeared in court throughout the trial.

The main individuals who gave testimony were Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai, who at times appeared as a professor clarifying intricate concepts while positioned behind a podium due to a health problem, and Sweeney, who portrayed himself as a passionate gamer on a quest to bring down a profit-driven technology giant.

Bornstein strongly criticized Google in his final statement for Epic, accusing them of utilizing their control over Android software to increase prices for developers and consumers while also limiting innovation and quality.

Google has vigorously justified the commissions as a means of recovering the over $40 billion it has invested in developing the Android software, which it has been providing to manufacturers for free since 2007 in order to rival the iPhone.

Kravis concluded that without a strong app store, Android phones will not be able to rival the iPhone. He also stated that the rivalry between app stores is directly linked to the rivalry between phones.

But Bornstein dismissed the idea of Google and Android as rivals to Apple and its incompatible iPhone operating system. According to Bornstein, Apple cannot simply be viewed as a solution to Google’s problems. He shared this opinion with the jury.

Google also pointed to rival Android app stores such as the one that Samsung installs on its popular smartphones as evidence of a free market. Combined with the rival app stores pre-installed on devices made by other companies, more than 60% of Android phones offer alternative outlets for Android apps.

However, Epic argues that Google’s claims of promoting competition are insincere, citing the large sums of money it has paid to companies, including Activision Blizzard, to prevent them from creating competing app stores. In addition, Bornstein urged the jury to take into account the “scare screens” that Google uses to warn consumers of security risks when attempting to download apps from alternative sources outside of the Play Store.

Bornstein stated that these tactics are common among leading companies in order to defend their monopolies.

A federal judge will determine the outcome of a significant antitrust trial in Washington, which could weaken Google’s dominance even more. The trial has shed light on Google’s close ties with Apple in the realm of online search, the innovation that propelled Google to fame shortly after its founding by two Stanford University alumni in a Silicon Valley garage in 1998.

Source: wral.com