• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, July 5, 2024

A federal judge has rejected Google's bid to reverse a jury's decision that the company violated antitrust laws.

Google “did not present good grounds for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial,” U.S. District Court Judge James Donato in the Northern District of California wrote in a 28-page ruling issued Wednesday.

“The true crux of Google’s argument isn’t that the verdict was not based on substantial evidence, but rather that the jury didn’t see the evidence in the way Google wanted,” Donato wrote. “This is not a situation where the verdict was based on speculation or where the evidence would allow only one conclusion that is contrary to what the jury decided.”

The ruling comes in a battle between Google and Fortnite developer Epic Games, which sued Google and Apple in 2020 for allegedly violating laws against monopolies.

A jury found against Google in December, concluding that company created or maintained an illegal monopoly in two markets -- Android app distribution, and Android in-app billing.

The jury also found that Google wrongly tied company's ability to distribute through the Play store to Google's payment system. Google, like Apple, charges a commission on purchases made in apps that have been downloaded from its own app store. But unlike Apple, Google always allowed users to “sideload” apps -- meaning to download them from sources other than Play Store; Google also doesn't charge commissions on in-app purchases from sideloaded apps.

Epic claimed in its suit that Google only “nominally” allows sideloading, but hinders users by displaying warnings about potential security risks. (Google -- which was also sued by a coalition of state attorneys general -- said in September it would “streamline” the sideloading process as part of a settlement with the states.)

The jury's verdict against Google came more than two years after U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers largely ruled against Epic in its similar case against Apple.

In February, Google argued that the verdict against it should be set aside on the theory that it was inconsistent with Rogers' ruling on key points -- including that Google and Apple compete to distribute apps.

Donato rejected Google's argument, essentially holding there was evidence to support the jury's finding that the relevant markets were limited to Androids -- as opposed to all smartphones.

“Google took every opportunity to tell the jury that Google and Apple compete, and so should be considered to be in the same relevant market,” Donato wrote, adding that Epic “presented substantial evidence showing that the Android-only product markets made factual and economic sense for this case.”

He added: “In the end, the jury did precisely what it was called upon to do by resolving the hotly disputed evidence to define the product markets ... The possibility that the jury might have come out differently is no basis for judgment as a matter of law in Google’s favor.”

Google also argued to Donato that a reasonable jury could not have found that the sideloading warnings were anticompetitive.

He rejected that argument as well.

“There was ... evidence at trial that Google worked to suppress competition by actively impeding users from 'sideloading' competing app stores through increased 'friction' and 'scare screens,'” Donato wrote.

Epic recently asked Donato to issue an injunction that would require Google to make significant changes to the way it operates the Play store. Among other requests, Epic Google to allow Android users to “sideload” some apps with a single tap and no additional warnings. Epic also wants Google to refrain from prohibiting, or even discouraging, smartphone manufacturers from blocking other companies' pre-installed apps or app stores.

Donato hasn't yet ruled on those requests.