Epic v. Google: everything we’re learning live in Fortnite court

Posted by
Check your BMI
Photo illustration of Sundar Pichai and Tim Sweeney with the Google logo, Google Play logo, and the Epic Games logo.
Photo illustration by Cath Virginia / The Verge | Photos by Philip Pacheco, Bloomberg, Getty Images
toonsbymoonlight

The jury has returned a verdict, and it’s in Epic’s favor — follow the updates live here.

The future of Google’s app store is at stake in a lawsuit by Fortnite publisher Epic Games. Epic sued Google in 2020 after a fight over in-app purchase fees, claiming the Android operating system’s Google Play store constituted an unlawful monopoly. It wanted Google to make using third-party app stores, sideloaded apps, and non-Google payment processors easier — while Google said its demands would damage Android’s ability to offer a secure user experience and compete with Apple’s iOS.

On December 11th, the jury ruled in Epic’s favor, finding that Google has turned its Google Play app store and Google Play Billing service into an illegal monopoly, answering yes to every question in front of them about Google’s monopoly power, anticompetitive behavior, and the illegal ties between the different parts of its business.

Three years after Fortnite-maker Epic Games sued Apple and Google for allegedly running illegal app store monopolies, Epic has a win. The jury in Epic v. Google has just delivered its verdict — and it found that Google turned its Google Play app store and Google Play Billing service into an illegal monopoly.

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.