Google has tentatively settled a class action suit alleging that its US Play Store had violated US federal antitrust rules by overcharging customers. The settlement was reached ahead of a planned trial that was set for November and involves more than 30 states representing 21 million consumers.
According to Bloomberg, the proposed settlement is subject to approval from Google’s parent company, Alphabet, as well as collective approval from the 36 states and Washington, D.C. involved in the lawsuit.
Details of the settlement were not revealed, but the class action lawsuit claimed that consumers would’ve spent less on apps and had more options if it weren’t for Google’s alleged monopoly.
Google is currently battling multiple antitrust showdowns from earlier this year. One of them includes Epic Games’ challenge of the company’s enforcement of its Play Store app policies, which has yet to be settled.
Read more: Google’s Latest Play Store Suit Gets Class Action Status
Epic Games founder and CEO Tim Sweeney said in a statement on X that they are not part of the proposed Google Play settlement, but that they’d be willing to “settle and be Google’s friend in their new era” if Google ends their payments monopoly “without imposing a Google Tax on third-party transactions.”
Match Group, another company that filed a similar claim against Google, gave no comment about the settlement. But last year, Google settled claims with a group of app developers, agreeing to pay $90 million and make it easier for companies to tell their customers about lower prices outside of their apps. It also still allows rival app stores on its phones.
It’s unknown for now what the outcomes of these legal tussles with Google will be, but according to a statement from a spokesperson for the Utah Attorney General’s office, the settlement is “in the best interests of consumers.”
Source: BNN Bloomberg
Featured News
Judge Allows FTC Antitrust Case Against Amazon to Move Forward
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
SAP Leader Urges Caution on EU AI Rules, Warns of Competitive Disadvantage
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Colorado’s Grocery Workers Unite to Oppose $24.6 Billion Supermarket Merge
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Canada’s Competition Bureau Warns Businesses of Tougher Enforcement
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Top Antitrust Lawyers Launch New Boutique Firm
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh