Epic Games has filed another response to Google’s appeal of its guilty verdict in its antitrust trial over how it managed the Google Play Store.

Epic Games, sued by Google since the latter (and Apple) removed Epic’s Fortnite battle royale game from the Google Play Store after suing Epic Games for antitrust violations in 2020.

“This case is a reckoning that is long overdue. The trial record is filled with proof of Google’s years-long strategy to stifle competition in app stores and payment solutions in the Android ecosystem,” said the Epic Games in its legal filing over the weekend.” Google’s internal documents clearly detail the “combination of tactics” Google is using because it believes “price competition…

Epic, which has accused Google of destroying evidence in the case, added, “Despite Google’s deliberate destruction of evidence and attempt to conceal it through what Google’s lawyers call “false privilege”, the test the many ways in which Google systematically blocks every avenue for competitors to compete.”

Google denies the antitrust violations and appealed its legal loss in court. A year later, a jury was found Infringed by Google antitrust laws when it cut Epic Games during litigation.

That outcome is different from the antitrust case against Apple, which Epic largely lost. In that case against Apple, Epic won on just one point – that app and game devs should be allowed to advertise their alternative stores with lower prices within their apps in the Apple app store.

But in this case, the jury found that Google illegally tied its app store and its billing service. Much of the case hinged on evidence related to “Project Hug” deals, in which Google paid game developers not to compete in its app store, which the jury viewed as anticompetitive.

Among other things, Google requires all Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs, the companies that manufacture smartphones) that make Android smartphones to like its app store (called Google Play) and pay most of OEMs for full exclusivity, Epic said.

The epic alleged Google requires all OEMs to impose technical and other barriers (commonly called “friction”) to prevent users from getting apps outside of Google Play. Google pays app developers to withhold exclusive content from rivals on Google Play, and pays potential competitors not to launch competing app stores. And because competing app stores are losing out, Google requires developers who use Google Play to also use Google’s own payment solution (called Google Play Billing) for which Google imposes a higher fee. fee, said Epic. As a result, only 3% of Android devices in the United States successfully install a competing app store. Potential competitors — from small innovators to powerful companies like Amazon — are fenced off, Epic said.

Based on substantial evidence of Google’s wrongdoing, after a 15-day trial, a jury unanimously found Google liable for unlawful restraint of trade, monopolization and tying, Epic said.

After the verdict, the district court held a month-long remedy proceeding, with many written submissions from the parties, including fact and expert witnesses. The court also held two evidentiary hearings, where it heard from Google fact witnesses and six expert witnesses. The court then entered an injunction that reflected input from both sides, accepting and rejecting some of each party’s proposals. The injunction was created to stop Google’s unlawful behavior and address ongoing adverse effects, while allowing Google to compete on the merits—and it will expire in just three years, Epic said.

On appeal, Google said little about the conduct it committed. But it regrets the fact that in a different case with a different record of different behavior by a different company (Apple), the result would be different, Epic said.

Epic said Google’s attacks on the district court’s order were also wrong. When a defendant violates antitrust laws, courts have broad discretion to create remedies that end the unlawful conduct and deny the offender the continuing consequences of its misconduct, Epic said. . The district court here used that discretion thoughtfully, taking into account the severity and widespread impact of Google’s violations, heightened by sensitivity to the risks of intervention, Epic said.

Google’s contention that the district court “failed to account” for potential security concerns (Br.82) is also incorrect. The court expressly stated that “there are potential security and technical risks associated” with some of the remedies and allowed Google “to carry out its normal security and safety processes”.

Epic said that the evidence at trial showed, however, that Google abused security reasons as a pretext for imposing anticompetitive restrictions, and that the jury should have found that Google’s security reasons were given. burdened by anticompetitive effects.

Thus, Epic argues that the district court reasonably placed limits on Google’s future invocations of “security” as a basis for countervailing remedies (requiring Google to show that the limits on stores in third-party app “is absolutely necessary to achieve safety and security for users and developers. “). Furthermore, the district court has a record that establishes that Google’s concerns about Security is overstated, it says Epic.

Epic Games told the appeals court that the district court’s ruling should be affirmed. In addition, since Google has no hope of succeeding on the merits, its pending motion to stay should be dismissed immediately, allowing the order to begin exploiting consumers and developers while the court prepares a full opinion. of this, Epic said.

Let’s see how the Google comments respond.