Following the antitrust ruling against Google late last year, the tech giant is now pushing back against Epic Games’ extensive list of proposed remedies. In a new filing, Google dubbed Epic’s demands as “unnecessary” and “far beyond the scope” of the verdict, reported by Tech Crunch.
The court’s decision, which found Google guilty of anticompetitive practices on its Play Store, marked a significant legal blow for the tech giant. However, the aftermath has seen a clash of perspectives on how Google should alter its behavior in response to the ruling.
Epic Games, the creator of Fortnite, presented a sweeping set of demands in a proposed injunction, seeking substantial changes to Google’s operations. Among its requests, Epic aimed to secure access to the Play Store catalog for six years, the liberty to distribute its own app store on Google Play without fees, and the termination of various agreements and incentives favoring Google’s platforms.
Google’s Vice President of Government Affairs & Public Policy, Wilson White, expressed disagreement with Epic’s proposals, labeling them as “overreaching” and “unnecessary.” White’s statement underlined Google’s stance on the matter, indicating a firm resistance to the extensive alterations suggested by Epic.
Read more: Epic Games Pushes for Competition in Google Play Store After Antitrust Verdict
The legal battle between Google and Epic Games has drawn parallels to a similar case involving Apple, where Epic faced a defeat in its antitrust lawsuit. Despite the differing outcomes, both cases underscore the growing scrutiny faced by tech giants over their market dominance and business practices.
While the jury in Google’s case determined the company’s misuse of market power, the decision on subsequent actions rests with Judge James Donato. A hearing scheduled for May 23 will consider both Google’s response and Epic’s demands to chart the course forward in reining in Google’s influence.
Epic’s proposals, including allowing users to download apps from alternative sources and eliminating additional fees for bypassing the Play Store, reflect a broader debate surrounding App Store policies and competition within digital ecosystems.
Source: Tech Crunch
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