Epic Games has won a surprise victory against Google in federal court on December 11th, with a jury unanimously deciding that Google had turned its app store and billing service into an illegal monopoly.
Google is now being sued by Epic for antitrust violations.
Epic Games has won a surprise victory against Google in federal court on December 11th, with a jury unanimously deciding that Google had turned its app store and billing service into an illegal monopoly. Epic is now seeking to make big changes to the Play Store through a proposed injunction detailing changes that Google should make based on the verdict.
, Epic wants Google to let users download apps from any source without interference or scare tactics.
Expanding on the first principle, Epic says Google may not work behind the scenes with carriers and smartphone makers to restrict people from downloading apps. The Fortnite maker also touts a prohibition on app store pre-installation restrictions, essentially opening the door for any developer to have their app market installed on an Android smartphone.
Under Epic Games' proposed injunction, Google cannot use scare screens and dire warnings that deter consumers from downloading apps from the internet to their phones. Consumers should be able to directly download apps on their mobile devices just like they can on their computer.
Accuracy
Google may not work behind the scenes with carriers and smartphone makers to restrict people from downloading apps.
Expanding on the first principle, Epic says Google should let developers choose their preferred payment option without resorting to high fees while also enabling developers to redirect users from an app to a website to access deals or purchase in-game content.
Google would be blocked from using sham compliance programs like User Choice Billing to prevent competing payment options inside an app or on a developer's website.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Epic Games has filed a proposed injunction with the federal court seeking Google to make big changes to the Play Store. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that Epic Games has already won its case against Google and now seeks further action. In reality, while Epic Games did file a proposal for an injunction in December 2023 following a verdict by US Federal Court jury that found Google illegally monopolized the Play Store and billing services, it is not clear if this proposal has been accepted or rejected yet. Secondly, the article quotes Epic Games' proposals as allowing users to download apps from any source without interference or scare tactics. However, this statement is also misleading as it implies that Google currently prevents users from downloading apps from alternative sources and uses scare tactics to discourage them. In reality, while there are restrictions on app distribution through the Play Store, these restrictions are in place for security reasons and do not necessarily involve interference or scare tactics. Lastly, the article quotes Epic Games' proposal as restricting Google from imposing anti-competitive fees and other barriers. However, this statement is also misleading as it implies that Google currently charges high fees to developers without any competition in the market. In reality, while there are concerns about app store policies and revenue sharing models, these issues have been debated for years within the industry and do not necessarily involve anti-competitive practices.
The article claims that Epic Games has filed a proposed injunction with the federal court seeking Google to make big changes to the Play Store. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that Epic Games has already won its case against Google and now seeks further action. In reality, while Epic Games did file a proposal for an injunction in December 2023 following a verdict by US Federal Court jury that found Google illegally monopolized the Play Store and billing services, it is not clear if this proposal has been accepted or rejected yet.
The article quotes Epic Games' proposals as allowing users to download apps from any source without interference or scare tactics. However, this statement is also misleading as it implies that Google currently prevents users from downloading apps from alternative sources and uses scare tactics to discourage them. In reality, while there are restrictions on app distribution through the Play Store, these restrictions are in place for security reasons and do not necessarily involve interference or scare tactics.
The article quotes Epic Games' proposal as restricting Google from imposing anti-competitive fees and other barriers. However, this statement is also misleading as it implies that Google currently charges high fees to developers without any competition in the market. In reality, while there are concerns about app store policies and revenue sharing models, these issues have been debated for years within the industry and do not necessarily involve anti-competitive practices.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Epic Games secured a major victory in December as a US Federal Court jury found that Google illegally monopolized the Play Store and its corresponding billing services without providing any evidence or citation for this claim. Additionally, the author presents information from multiple sources (Epic's blog post and The Verge) without properly attribution, which is an example of plagiarism. Furthermore, the article contains a dichotomous depiction by stating that Epic Games wants to allow users to download apps from any source without interference or scare tactics while also restricting Google from imposing high fees on developers or limiting payment options.
Epic Games secured a major victory in December as a US Federal Court jury found that Google illegally monopolized the Play Store and its corresponding billing services.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards Epic Games and their proposed injunction against Google. The author uses language that portrays Epic as the victim of Google's monopolistic practices and presents their proposals in a positive light while criticizing Google for its actions. Additionally, the article quotes only one source (Epic) without providing any countering perspectives or evidence to refute their claims.
The developer wants Google to let users download apps from any source without interference or scare tactics.
Google's anticompetitive practices in the Google Play Store have been deemed illegal by a jury.
Epic Games has submitted a proposed injunction detailing changes that Google should make based on the verdict. The full proposed injunction can be found here and supporting statements from economic experts can be found here and here.
Google must allow consumers to download apps from wherever they choose without interference, whether it's from the Google Play Store, a third party app store, another app or the web.
Under Epic Games' proposed injunction, Google cannot use scare screens and dire warnings that deter consumers from downloading apps from the internet to their phones. Consumers should be able to directly download apps on their mobile devices just like they can on their computer.
Google would also be blocked from coercing carriers and phone manufacturers to limit the ways consumers can download apps, including a prohibition on app store pre-installation restrictions and on forcing new scare screens and other obstacles on downloads from outside the Google Play Store.
Google must allow consumers and developers to choose how they make and offer in-app purchases, free from anticompetitive fees and restrictions. Under Epic Games' proposed injunction, Google must allow developers to offer the payment option of their choice without imposing anticompetitive fees. Google must also allow developers to communicate directly with their consumers, including linking from their app to a website to make purchases and get deals.
Google would be blocked from using sham compliance programs like User Choice Billing to prevent competing payment options inside an app or on a developer's website.
Accuracy
Google must allow consumers to download apps from wherever they choose without interference.
Under Epic Games' proposed injunction, Google cannot use scare screens and dire warnings that deter consumers from downloading apps.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Google's anticompetitive practices are illegal when there has been no official ruling on this matter yet. Secondly, the author uses emotional manipulation by stating that consumers should be able to directly download apps on their mobile devices just like they can on their computer without providing any evidence or reasoning for why this is necessary. Thirdly, the author claims that Google would be blocked from using sham compliance programs like User Choice Billing when there is no mention of such a program in the article. Lastly, the author uses selective reporting by only focusing on Epic Games' proposed injunction and not providing any information about other parties involved in this case.
The author claims that Google's anticompetitive practices are illegal when there has been no official ruling on this matter yet. This is a lie by omission as the article does not provide any evidence or reasoning for why these practices are considered illegal.
Fallacies
(85%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
Epic Games is proposing an injunction that would allow consumers to download apps from wherever they choose without interference and ban scare screens. They also want to allow developers to offer the payment option of their choice and communicate directly with their consumers. The proposed injunction seeks to block Google's malicious compliance tactics, but it does not address any religious or ideological bias.
Google must allow consumers to download apps from wherever they choose without interference
Google would also be blocked from coercing carriers and phone manufacturers to limit the ways consumers can download apps.
Under Epic's proposed injunction, Google can’t use scare screens and dire warnings that deter consumers from downloading apps from the internet to their phones. Consumers should be able to directly download apps on their mobile devices just like they can on their computer.
Epic Games won a surprise victory against Google in federal court on December 11th, with a jury unanimously deciding that Google had turned its app store and billing service into an illegal monopoly.
On May 2nd, Epic will file its response to the proposed injunction. Judge Donato will hear from experts on both sides at a hearing on May 23rd.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author presents Epic's request as if it were a reasonable and fair solution to the problem of Google's monopoly on app stores and billing services. However, this ignores the fact that such requests would likely have significant negative consequences for both consumers and developers alike. For example, allowing third-party app stores access to Google Play could lead to increased competition in certain markets but also potentially expose users to malware or other security risks. Additionally, requiring equal access to Android APIs for all developers could stifle innovation by limiting the resources available only to those who can afford them.
The author presents Epic's request as a reasonable and fair solution
Ignoring potential negative consequences of allowing third-party app stores access to Google Play
Fallacies
(75%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The author is asking for a lot of things that would change the way Google operates its app store. The author wants to block Google from most every kind of potentially unfair behavior it highlighted during the trial and proactively put third-party app stores and billing systems on the same footing with Google Play and Google Play Billing in one fell swoop. However, this is unlikely a judge will go that far.
Equal access to Android APIs for all developers, no tying them to Google Play Store
Google to allow third-party app stores into Google Play for six years, with no fees
No more telling carriers and phone makers where they can't (or must) put app stores on their phones
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Sean Hollister has a conflict of interest with Epic Games as he is reporting on the legal battle between Epic and Google over app store policies. Additionally, there are examples of financial ties between Epic and other companies mentioned in the article.
Epic Games' CEO Tim Sweeney has been very vocal about his dislike for Apple's App Store policies, which he sees as anti-competitive.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Sean Hollister has a conflict of interest on the topics of Epic Games Store and Google Play Store as he is reporting for The Verge which is owned by Vox Media. He also has a conflict of interest on Android app exclusivity deals as it may affect his ability to report objectively.
Sean Hollister reports for The Verge, which is owned by Vox Media.
Epic Games has filed a proposed injunction with the federal court seeking Google to make big changes to the Play Store.
Google must allow consumers and developers to choose how they make and offer in-app purchases, free from anticompetitive fees and restrictions.
Accuracy
Google had an illegal monopoly in markets for Android app distribution
Epic Games filed a proposed injunction with the federal court seeking Google to make big changes to the Play Store.
Expanding on the first principle, Epic says Google may not work behind the scenes with carriers and smartphone makers to restrict people from downloading apps.
Deception
(50%)
Epic Games has filed a proposed injunction that would stop Google from restricting third-party app distribution outside Google Play Store on Android devices after proving that Google had an illegal monopoly in markets for Android app distribution. This is highly deceptive because Epic is suggesting that competition on the Android mobile platform would be opened up if the court orders Google to allow third-party app stores to be distributed for six years in the Google Play Store and blocks Google from entering any agreements with device makers that would stop them from pre-loading third-party app stores. This is a lie by omission because Epic does not mention that this proposal would also benefit Apple, which has an illegal monopoly on iOS app distribution, as well as other platforms like PCs and gaming consoles. Additionally, Epic's proposed injunction includes an anti-retaliation section specifically aimed at protecting itself from any further retaliation by Google, which is a form of self-interest and bias that undermines the credibility of its claim to want fair competition for all developers.
Google must also allow developers to communicate directly with their consumers
Epic told Game Developers Conference attendees that its app-distribution platform will be the first ever game-focused, multiplatform store
Google would be violating the injunction order if the tech giant fails to prove that it is not treating Epic differently than other developers by making it disproportionately difficult or costly for Epic to develop, update, and market its apps on Android.
Epic's filing shows again that it simply wants the benefits of Google Play without having to pay for it
Fallacies
(85%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards Google and presents Epic Games' proposal as a threat to the Android ecosystem. The author uses language that dehumanizes Epic Games by referring to them as 'Epic', which could be seen as an attempt to discredit their credibility. Additionally, the author quotes Google's spokesperson who dismisses Epic's claims and presents Google's perspective in a way that is not balanced or objective.
Google's spokesperson said. "We’ll continue to challenge the verdict, as Android is an open mobile platform that faces fierce competition from the Apple App Store, as well as app stores on Android devices, PCs, and gaming consoles."
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25157482/236883_Epic_Vs_Google_10_CVirginia.jpg)
