Two Years of Competition between Google and Apple: A Case in Oakland, California, Appeals to a High-Security, Unlawful, and Uninformed Court

After just a few hours of deliberation, the jury unanimously answered yes to every question put before them — that Google has monopoly power in the Android app distribution markets and in-app billing services markets, that Google did anticompetitive things in those markets, and that Epic was injured by that behavior. They decided Google has an illegal tie between its Google Play app store and its Google Play Billing payment services, too, and that its distribution agreement, Project Hug deals with game developers and deals with OEMs were all anticompetitive.

Two years ago the case did not go well for the company. The judge in Oakland, California ordered Apple to make only one change to its App Store practices. The judge found that most of the other Apple practices that Epic viewed as anticompetitive were justified, because the iPhone maker needed to recoup its investment in developing the app marketplace. Apple still has not had to comply as it awaits the Supreme Court’s decision early next year about whether to review the case.

Judge Donato has already stated that he will not grant Epic’s additional request for an anti-circumvention provision “just to be sure Google can’t reintroduce the same problems through some alternative creative solution,” as Epic lead attorney Gary Bornstein put it on November 28th.

The case was ordered to be settled multiple times by the judge, and he tried to keep it from going to trial. According to a court filing, the CEOs of both firms met for an hour on December 7 but failed to reach a deal.

The case was filed in 2020 by the company, known for its popular game and tools for developers, and was heard by a jury since early November. The jury of nine—a 10th juror dropped out early in the trial—deliberated for three hours before reaching its verdict. They faced questions about the definition of product and geographic markets, as well as the legality of anti competitive conduct in those areas.

The only goal of the search engine was to give a safe and attractive experience to users as they faced competition from Apple, its iPhone, and the App Store.

More bad news for Google could come in mid-2024 when US district judge Amit Mehta in Washington, DC, is expected to issue his ruling on whether Google has unlawfully maintained its monopoly over web search. Testimony ended last month in that case which was brought by the US Department of Justice.

While a judge decided the fate of the case in the trial that concluded today, it has yet to explain why it chose to have a jury.

Google previously agreed to settle with as many as 48,000 app developers but without making major changes to its business practices. It also settled with a group of consumers and attorneys general for all 50 US states. Details of the latter settlement had not been published, pending the verdict in the Epic trial.