Google says Epic’s demands arising from antitrust case win are “unnecessary” and “far beyond the scope” of the ruling

In a brand new filing, Google is taking a stand against multiple Fortnite developers, Epic Games proposed remedies after the court found that Google had engaged in anti-competitive practices in its Play Store. Following the jury’s decision late last yr, either side presented their arguments about how Google should change its behavior in light of the verdict. For its part, Epic Games issued a crazy list of demands, this included access to the Play Store’s catalog of apps and games for six years, the ability to distribute your personal app store on Google Play without spending a dime, and way more. It also desired to put an end to any deals, incentives and offers, in addition to penalties that will allow the Play Store or Google Play Billing to realize a bonus over its rivals.

The tech giant’s surprising and quick defeat was a historic ruling, especially since Epic Games largely lost an identical antitrust case against Apple that was not heard by a jury. In the Epic-Apple lawsuit, the court ruled that Apple isn’t a monopoly, but agreed that developers should have the option to direct their customers to alternative routes to pay online. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which refused to listen to it, leaving the lower court’s ruling in force.

Although the jury in the Google case was convinced that the tech giant had used its market power illegally, it didn’t choose next steps – that is as much as the judge. The recent filing, together with Epic’s proposal, will help inform Judge James Donato during a hearing scheduled for May 23 on what actions must be taken next to examine Google’s power.

Epic Games had it in April specific your demands in the proposed injunction, found here. Overall, Epic wants Google to permit users to download apps from any app store or the Internet, depending on their preferences. He doesn’t want Google to have the option to dam OEMs or carriers or force them to favor Google Play. He also doesn’t want Google to have the option to impose additional fees for routing through the Play Store, which Epic Games also argues is an anti-competitive practice.

The Fortnite creator moreover asked the court to implement other changes, including giving Epic access to the Play Store catalog so it will probably update users’ apps by surprise screens or additional fees. Additionally, Epic wants developers to have the option to inform users learn how to pay for his or her apps and services elsewhere and how much they’ll save by doing so. It desires to eliminate the requirement to make use of Google’s “User Choice Billing” service, which offers only small discounts to developers who process payment transactions themselves, and way more.

Google obviously disagrees on how the court should proceed.

In an announcement, Google’s vp of government affairs and public policy, Wilson White, called Epic’s demands excessive and unnecessary.

“Epic’s demands would harm the privacy, security and overall experience of consumers, developers and device manufacturers,” it said. “Not only does their proposal go far beyond the scope of the recent US trial verdict – which we will be challenging – it is also unnecessary given the agreement we reached last year with state attorneys general from all states and many territories. We will continue to vigorously defend our right to a sustainable business model that allows us to keep people safe, work with developers to innovate and grow their businesses, and maintain a thriving Android ecosystem for all.”

In an injunction filed Thursday in a U.S. District Court in California, Google argues that Epic’s demands threaten users’ security and privacy because they deprive it of the ability to implement trust and security measures regarding the use of third-party app stores. (Apple has used an identical technique to fight regulations opening its App Store to competition, arguing that it’s liable for user privacy and security.)

Additionally, Google says it will be required to inform all third-party app stores, without the user’s consent, what apps the user has installed. This would expose the use of personal apps, including in sensitive areas resembling religion, politics and health, without rules on how this data is used.

The company also said Epic is asking it to remove protections related to sideloading of apps.

And if those arguments fail, Google uses a distinct tactic to indicate that Epic’s proposed remedies are unnecessary since it has already agreed with state attorneys general that it is going to not sign broad exclusivity agreements with developers. Epic’s proposal would further prevent Google from working with developers to deliver exclusive content through Play Store apps, which it says represents a crucial opportunity for developers.

Finally, the AG’s state settlement would allow any app store to compete for space on Android devices, Google argues, but Epic’s proposal would exclude it from the process, limiting competition. It said that without Google’s involvement, competing app stores can be underpriced, impacting OEM margins.

The judge’s upcoming decision on the treatment on this case might be interesting because it is going to set the stage for a way app stores considered monopolies could have to make concessions to permit for more competition. Although Epic lost its battle with Apple, the Justice Department’s case against the iPhone maker remains to be pending, as is its lawsuit against Google over its alleged monopoly on search. The end result of these cases will determine the extent to which the power of the tech giants stays unchecked, given the glaring lack of laws in the US to rein in tech monopolies.