Epic v. Google: in the final hearing after Epic's antitrust win, the judge says he'll “tear the barriers down” on the Play Store, but won't “micromanage” Google
Epic’s Play Store challenge reached a remedies-stage hearing after the jury verdict that Google had sought to overturn through a post-verdict bid to reverse Epic’s win. The judge’s language frames the next question as how to remove the conduct found unlawful without prescribing Google’s day-to-day operations.
The dispute began as a challenge to Google Play’s app-payment restrictions, a focus established when Epic’s case went to trial over those restrictions. Later coverage shows that the practical timing of any remedy remained contested through appeal.
First-order effects
Google faces a court-designed remedy process aimed at lowering the Play Store barriers identified in Epic’s successful case, while retaining operational discretion rather than receiving detailed judicial instructions.
Epic gains leverage in defining the remedy and in seeking the payment consequences the judge indicated would follow from its win.
Second-order effects
Developers, app distributors, and payment providers would need to assess any final remedy for new routes to reach Android users or process transactions; the scope of the order will determine whether those routes are commercially meaningful.
Google’s response is likely to center on remedy design and appellate review, as later reflected in a temporary stay while its appeal proceeded, rather than an immediate redesign of Play Store practices.
Third-order effects
If courts can require a dominant mobile store to make access more contestable without supervising every product decision, remedies may become a more practical check on platform gatekeeping than conduct rules alone.
The case tests whether competition policy can constrain a platform’s control over distribution and payments while preserving room for platform governance; the answer depends on the final order and its survival on appeal.
The trend: This is part of a broader shift toward making mobile-platform gatekeeping and app-payment rules more contestable through antitrust remedies.
The US government is tired of Google's monopolies and are filling them full of holes, and they are not being shy about their distaste for them. What a time to be covering the tech industry! [embedded post]
Ross Sandler on the Google case: “Noted above, the buyside's idea that “just choice screens, TAC goes down and Google keeps the queries” will be sufficient here makes little sense to us.” [image]
Did you miss Google's closing arguments in remedy hearing today after Google lost major jury trial in @EpicGames app store case? It went... a little something... like this. Pomerantz: Judges shouldn't be central planners/ micromanage markets. Judge Donato: I totally agree! 🧵
Donato: Am decidedly not. Google: Are decidedly too! Plus you'd be a micromanager of markets. Donato: I'm not telling anyone which APIs to use. There'll be a technical monitor. Google: Then the technical monitor is an evil micromanager! Donato: Is not. Google: Is too! ...
Donato: Yes. Google had superior innovation. Success is not illegal. What's illegal is then building a moat through anticompetitive practices. Google: You want to impose these mean remedies because you hate Google. Donato: Not at all. And this isn't about me; I'm charged with...
!!!! Judge mandating “technical committee” (ala Microsoft antitrust settlement) as part of remedy for Android App Store in Epic v Google case. This TC, comprised of 3 people, is to problem-solve and monitor compliance.....
Judge to Google: “if you don't like the Technical Committee cuz it is too micromanagey, then you give me an idea - cuz just throwing up hands and saying it's too complicated - that ain't gonna cut it. You are entrenched monopolist who has taken advantages of network effects.”
“drew a map of the empire equal in format to the empire itself, coinciding with it point by point.” The map was same size as empire! We think remedies need to be like that. Every part of remedy needs exact twin causal anticompetitive conduct. Donato: That's not legal standard..
On the 3 main buckets: - Catalog access: is technically feasible that won't break anyones backbone - Library porting/app ownership: some agreement that tech challenges can be overcome -3rd party App Store access: is not an impossible task
Google: Maybe. I'll have it checked out. Donato: Nondiscrimination principles & ban on anticompetitive contract terms are time-tested, Supreme Court-blessed, non-Communist remedies. Google: You know how some people are super bummed they were born after all the great bands? ...
Epic judge says he'll ‘tear the barriers down’ on Google's app store monopoly | Judge James Donato will issue his final order on what Google gives — and Epic gets — in mere weeks.