Google says Epic’s proposed injunction hurts users, developers, and manufacturers alike

Summary

• Epic won a jury ruling against Google in December, seeking an injunction for changes Google should make.
• Google argues Epic’s demands could harm user security, privacy, and allow malicious apps.
• Among other things, Epic’s proposal aims to restrict Google from offering financial incentives to developers. The legal battle continues.

Back in 2020, Fortnight developer Epic decided that it didn’t want to give a percentage of its in-app purchases to Google (or Apple for that matter), so it crossed the Rubicon and created its own in-app payment system that wouldn’t be subject to the Google tax. Google, having long abandoned its “Don’t be Evil” persona, promptly kicked Fortnight off the Play Store, thus triggering a years-long legal battle between Google and Epic that is still ongoing.

That isnt to say that there hasn’t been a winner. That was decided back in December when a jury unanimously ruled in Epic’s favor. Following this win, Epic was invited to submit a proposed injunction to the court that outlined what changes Epic felt Google should make. Essentially, Epic wants to prevent Google from using the Play Store as a cudgel to force developers to place their games on it, and to prevent Google from using its money to buy a favorable market position. Google responded to the proposed injunction earlier this month, but it published a blog yesterday that gets into the finer points of why it disagrees with Epic.

What is Google’s position

In the blog post, Google’s VP of Government Affairs and Public Policy — Wilson White — lays out six bullet points explaining Google’s point of view. First, Google says Epic’s “demands” would hurt user security because Google wouldn’t be able to control what users put on their phones. Epic does want to strip Google of control over what can be installed on Android phones, including Google’s ability to coerce carriers to limit what can be installed on their phones, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Google’s second and third points follow close on the heels of the first one. It claims that Epic’s proposed changes would hurt user privacy and leave them open to malicious apps. It’s unclear how user privacy would be directly affected under Epic’s proposals. Google says that Epic’s proposals would oblige Google to reveal all of its users’ app history to “any and all” third-party app stores. Epic does suggest that users should have the option to update their apps through any app store, but in this case, Google seems to be making a mountain out of a mole hill. And regarding malicious apps, that’s simply the cost of allowing sideloaded apps on your platform.

On the fourth point, Google complains that if Epic’s changes are implemented, it would open up Google’s Play Store catalog to all third-party app stores for six years. This is true and I’m on Google’s side here. If Epic is fighting for the right of developers to place their apps where they want them, it doesn’t make sense for any company to be able to list them on its store without developer approval.

Epic wants to entirely restrict Google’s ability to offer
any
financial incentives to developers

The final two points boil down to the fact that Epic’s proposal would prevent Google from using its money to influence people. Google says it would cut off business opportunities for developers, but what that means is that under the proposed changes, Google wouldn’t be able to offer financial incentives to developers to favor the Google Play Store. Likewise, Google says that device manufacturers would be hurt by these changes because Google wouldn’t be able to spend its money with OEMs to give the Play Store a place of prominence on new phones.

The end is not near

To be fair, Epic is asking for a lot from the judge, but most of what it wants makes sense from a consumer perspective. Even though Epic has “won” its case against Google, there’s still a lot that has to be decided. And after the issue of the injunction has been settled, Google has said it intends to appeal the verdict, meaning the years-long legal battle will continue to be fought in the years to come.