Epic Games’ triumph over Google in the antitrust battle marks a significant disruption to the prevailing business model of the mobile app ecosystem. In this model, platforms host app stores and extract a portion of developers’ revenues. Despite the San Francisco jury’s rapid verdict favoring Epic, the true implications for app developers remain uncertain until the judge determines Google’s specific penalty.
The jury concluded that Google “willfully acquired or maintained monopoly power by engaging in anticompetitive conduct.” However, the judge’s decision on the remedy is pending, requiring both parties to present their cases in January. Until then, it is unlikely that Google will implement major changes to the Google Play Store voluntarily, as doing so could complicate matters based on the judge’s subsequent rulings.
During the remedial phase of the case, which may span weeks or months, the Play Store’s rules will persist, with developers continuing to pay commissions and passing increased costs to consumers. Google’s agreements with Spotify and the settlement with Match will also remain in effect. The court faces the delicate task of striking a balance to restore competition without rendering Google non-competitive, focusing on expanding choices in Android app downloading and purchases.
The immediate change resulting from the ruling lies in the legality surrounding the app store business model itself, potentially affecting other companies with similar models. This could prompt a reconsideration of their business operations, leading to a shift away from the established walled garden model enjoyed by companies like Google and Apple. The ruling’s legal risk might encourage businesses to proactively adapt, even without facing legal action.
While no other lawsuits from app makers have emerged, the decision creates a precedent that could pave the way for class action lawsuits, allowing other plaintiffs to challenge the business model. The Coalition for App Fairness (CAF) remains skeptical about how Google will implement the judge’s decision and emphasizes the need for clearer rules to prevent circumvention.
The ruling’s impact extends beyond Google, potentially influencing other marketplaces where companies dictate rules, such as the 30% commission model employed by app stores. The decision challenges the fundamental business model of companies like Apple, whose integrated hardware and iOS argument differs from the jury’s conclusion in the Google case.
Ultimately, the ruling represents a significant development in the ongoing debate over app store business practices. While Epic celebrates it as a win for developers and consumers worldwide, the broader dismantling of the app store business model relies on additional legal and legislative actions, including upcoming legislation in Europe and other markets. The Coalition for App Fairness hopes the decision prompts Apple to reassess its business model, emphasizing that legality and ethical considerations should guide industry practices.
