Google says antitrust suit by 37 AGs is meritless as it ignores competition from Apple's App Store, Android's openness for competing app stores, app sideloading
The KeywordWilson White
Context & Ripple Effects
The states’ case centers on Google Play’s required billing system and commission, while Google’s response emphasizes Android’s alternative stores and sideloading. The dispute is therefore about whether nominal distribution choice constrains Play’s control over transactions.
The lawsuit also alleges Google sought to suppress Samsung’s Galaxy app store through payments and OEM restrictions, sharpening the issue from Android’s formal openness to the practical ability of rival stores to compete. Google’s broader antitrust exposure already included a multistate challenge to its search practices.
First-order effects
Google will defend its Play policies by contrasting Android distribution with Apple’s App Store and pointing to sideloading and competing stores; the state plaintiffs must establish that those alternatives do not discipline Play’s billing rules.
Samsung and other Android OEMs become central to the factual record following allegations that Google acted to restrain alternative app-store distribution. The complaint’s Samsung allegations put commercial arrangements, not just platform design, at issue.
Second-order effects
App developers’ challenge to mandatory Play billing becomes more consequential because the states’ complaint targets the commission and required billing system; their ability to use alternative stores or payment paths is central to the competitive analysis.
Apple benefits from Google’s effort to frame the App Store as a competing distribution channel, but the comparison also focuses attention on the different distribution constraints across the two mobile ecosystems.
Third-order effects
The case tests a contestable-gatekeeping standard in which platform openness is judged by whether alternative stores and sideloading are commercially viable, rather than merely technically permitted.
If enforcement gives weight to alleged restrictions on OEM app stores, mobile-platform scrutiny will extend beyond a store’s rules to agreements that shape how competing distribution channels reach users.
The trend: Mobile-platform antitrust cases are shifting from app-store fees alone toward whether alternative distribution routes can operate as real competitive constraints.
BREAKING: Today, I sued Google for violating our antitrust laws again. It's using its monopoly power in Android to dominate app sales w/ Google Play Store. Then it forces buyers to pay using its processing service at up to a 30% fee! Most payment processors charge around 3%. 1/
@lockheimer Level of openness: Google will move away from open APK format to a proprietary Android app format locked to @GooglePlay to save you an average size of 15% versus a universal APK https://twitter.com/...
@ShiraOvide Not surprising that Google is why Facebook, Amazon & Samsung couldn't make their own app stores. Sort of explains why the Amazon and Facebook phone projects failed. I'm sure their were other reasons as well. I'm surprised the Facebook phone wasn't mentioned in the art…
The discourse around the App Store continues to deteriorate. Large portions of the press want to see the government go after the giants. There is less and less legitimate debate and discussion regarding the pros and cons of that oversight and impact on consumers.
Apple & Google own the rails of our digital era. We need strong protections to hold these tycoons accountable for squashing competition & manipulating user data for their own ends. I'll be working in Congress to create clear & enforceable rules for the app store marketplace.
In the latest monopoly lawsuit against Google, U.S. enforcers are relying on an odd victim to make their case: Amazon, one of the few companies on the planet bigger than Google. https://blawgo.com/Uubz4E8
Here's Google's initial response to the lawsuit in blogpost form. It's a classic in the “we are confused this is so strange why is anybody mad?” genre https://blog.google/...
Speaking of iPads, I don't think it's whataboutism to ask when the states plan to file a similar complaint against Apple, which pioneered the in-app-payment racket and outright bans consumer sideloading or using competing app stores. Apple is also asking for legal trouble. /end
Beyond the optics of shafting developers in mid-pandemic, Google electing to copy Apple's extortionate habits after years of devs and regulators decrying them shows some stunning arrogance. Few things shout “OLIGOPOLY FTW!” quite like adopting a competitor's abusive practices.
The strongest part zeroes in on Google announcing last September that it would require all in-app digital transactions, even for content you could consume elsewhere, to use its in-app payment system (in which Google takes a 30% cut) and not link to others. https://android-develop…
“It's strange we're being sued about our app store” says Google, similar to how Apple was “surprised” to hear developers are frustrated with the App Store. These people are so oblivious to the problems they've created that change can no longer come from within. https://twitter.co…
Exactly what we have been saying since some time ! 📱 Thirty-six states and the District of Columbia filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google related to practices on its Google Play App Store. https://www.wsj.com/...
This state AG case against Google is a welcome move. Alongside Apple, Google writes the rules of our app economy—& together, they abuse their gatekeeper power by wrongly enriching themselves from the pocketbooks of innovators & consumers. https://twitter.com/...
We built an OS, available to all for free, and it even supports multiple app stores. It's strange that this suit attacks Android when it provides an unprecedented level of openness and choice. We think they got it wrong, and we'll defend ourselves. https://blog.google/...
I'm co-leading a bipartisan coalition of 37 AGs in a lawsuit against @Google for its unlawful and anticompetitive conduct around its mobile app store. This is our second lawsuit against Google in the last six months as we seek to protect consumers and competition.