Epic Games v. Google: The Battle for Mobile Gaming Dominance

Epic Games, the company behind Fortnite, has been locked in a heated battle with Google over the dominance of mobile gaming.

Google's Play Store has a 70% commission rate, which Epic Games considers excessive. This rate is a major point of contention in the lawsuit.

Epic Games argues that Google's commission rate stifles innovation and hurts smaller game developers. This is because the high commission rate makes it difficult for them to generate revenue.

The lawsuit is a significant moment in the history of mobile gaming, with Epic Games seeking to break Google's control over the Play Store.

Epic Games is suing Google under antitrust law, both under state and federal antitrust law. This case is a result of Google's Play Store model, which takes a 15% fee of customer payments for app subscriptions and a 30% cut for in-app purchases.

Google's current model makes it extremely difficult for consumers to uninstall the Google Play Store and install third-party app stores on Android devices. This is because Google has a deal in place with Android to pre-install the Play Store on Android devices.

Readers also liked: RF Micro Devices

Epic Games tried to bypass this fee system by allowing players of its game Fortnite to pay them directly for in-app purchases. However, Google subsequently barred them from the Play Store, sparking this litigation.

Epic Games is claiming that Google's Play Store monopoly stifles innovation among app developers and distributors, and hurts consumers financially who must pay artificially higher prices created by Google's pricing model.

Here are the key points in the Epic Games v. Google case:

Epic Games accused Google of using anti-competitive tactics to maintain its market power in the Android app distribution market. Google technically enables sideloading and downloads on alternative app stores, but Epic argued that Google uses subtle tactics to prevent competition.

Google signed contracts with manufacturers that restricted competitive app distribution, and also signed "sweetheart" deals with developers to keep them in the Play Store. These deals included paying hundreds of millions of dollars to major app and game companies to stay with the Play Store.

Project Hug was a Google initiative that cut deals with over 20 major app and game companies to keep them in the Play Store. Google paid them to prevent them from launching their own app stores or using existing competitive stores.

Fortnite's original release on Android in 2018, where Epic released the app exclusively through sideloading, motivated Project Hug. Google estimated potential losses ranging from $350 million to $6 billion by 2022 if alternative app stores gained traction.

Google struck deals with developers including Activision Blizzard, agreeing to pay approximately $360 million over three years. They also agreed to pay Riot Games about $30 million for a one-year deal to prevent them from launching a competing Android app store.

Google had a longstanding policy of paying off the biggest developers to stick with Google's app store and payments services. A 2013 email revealed that a Google Play executive didn't want it getting out that they pay partners to use its billing system.

Google proposed Project Banyan, a deal with Samsung to weaken its Galaxy Store. However, Samsung didn't go through with it in the end.

For another approach, see: Avoid Prevent Burnout Work

The jury's verdict in the Google vs Epic Games trial was a decisive win for Epic, with Google found guilty on all 11 counts.

The jury only deliberated for a few hours, unanimously answering yes to each question the judge asked, essentially declaring that Google deliberately prevented other app stores from competing.

The verdict was a major factor in Epic's win, with the jury's less technical interpretation of law and focus on basic principles of fairness playing a key role.

In contrast, the Apple vs Epic Games trial was a judge trial, which saw Epic lose 10 out of 11 counts, highlighting the difference in approach between judges and juries in these types of cases.

The Google vs Epic Games verdict was a shock, but it led to a few significant developments.

Intriguing read: Crypto Currency Trial

Google's appeal and settlement in the Epic Games v. Google case have been a significant part of the story. The settlement they reached with Match, Spotify, and State AGs was sealed until the verdict in the jury trial, and its future is uncertain due to the judge's scrutiny.

Google faced a tough road ahead, and their attempts to appeal were met with resistance from the judge. In February 2024, Google requested that the judge throw out the ruling or grant a new trial, but Judge James Donato quickly dismissed this request, calling it a "frontal assault on the fair administration of justice."

Google didn't give up, and in April 2024, they announced plans to appeal the judge's upcoming ruling. However, it's likely that this appeal will also be dismissed, given the judge's strong stance against Google's actions.

Here's a brief timeline of Google's appeal and settlement:

Epic proposes new policies for Google, aiming to boost competition and level the playing field.

Epic's proposed policies require Google to make all Android apps in the Play Store available to competing stores.

This would give users more freedom to choose where they download apps from, rather than being locked into the Play Store.

Readers also liked: Active Labour Market Policies

Epic also wants Google to distribute rival app stores in the Play Store, allowing users to easily access alternative stores.

In addition, Epic proposes that Google should not automatically install the Play Store on Android phones.

This would give users more control over their devices and allow them to choose which apps to install.

Epic's proposals also aim to allow developers to offer alternative payment options without anti-competitive fees.

This would give developers more flexibility and allow them to offer users different payment choices.

Developers would also be able to communicate directly with players, including linking from their app to a web shop.

This would give developers more freedom to market their apps and connect with users.

Epic's proposals also aim to forbid Google from making anti-competitive agreements and deals with developers.

This would prevent Google from unfairly favoring certain developers over others.

Here are the key points of Epic's proposed policies:

The Epic Games v. Google case has been a long and winding road, with many twists and turns.

August 13, 2020, marked the beginning of the end for Fortnite on the Play Store, as Epic purposefully violated Play Store policies, prompting Google to pull the game and Epic to file an antitrust lawsuit.

The Google vs Epic jury trial began on November 6, 2020, setting the stage for a battle that would last for years.

Google countersued Epic over breach of contract on October 12, 2021, adding another layer to the complex case.

Here's a brief timeline of the key events:

Google asked the judge to reject the jury’s ruling on February 2, 2024, but it was too late, as the damage had already been done.

In the case of Epic Games, they waited for the legal proceedings to settle before using their own payment systems, as seen in Project Liberty. This delay could have been avoided by exploring alternative payment options that are Play Store compliant.

Epic Games could have learned from their own experience in Project Liberty, where they didn't need to wait for the legal proceedings to settle to implement alternative payments. You can too, by talking to Stash to learn more about setting up alternative payments that are engaging and profitable.

The key takeaway is that you don't need to wait for the legal proceedings to settle to use your own payment systems, as Epic Games could have done.

For another approach, see: Apple Has Agreed to Settle a Lawsuit over Siri Recordings.