FOLLOW US

Epic Games agreed to compensate Google nearly four hundred thousand dollars for independently managing payments in Fortnite, a decision that prompted the game's ousting from the Play Store in 2020. As the court continues deliberating necessary changes to Google's Android policies in light of an jury determining the regulations break antitrust law, this settlement was made.

Payment Settlement Amid Ongoing Legal Fight

Epic submitted a declaration on Monday to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, consenting to pay Google three hundred and ninety-eight thousand, nine hundred and thirty-one dollars and twenty-three cents. This payment addresses Google's counterclaim accusing Epic of violating their developer contract by employing an outside payment method in Fortnite.

Epic had at first argued they owed Google nothing because a jury found the developer agreement illegal. However, the company opted to make the payment to avoid delaying the court's final judgment on Google’s antitrust violations.

"Epic recognizes that resolving the illegality defense would postpone the entry of a final judgment," the statement said. The company added they would willingly pay Google within ten days of the court's final ruling to expedite implementing remedies.

Google’s Play Store Removal and Antitrust Case

Google pulled Fortnite from its Play Store in 2020 after Epic enabled users to bypass Google’s in-app payment system, which takes a commission of up to thirty percent. This sparked a lawsuit that culminated in a December 2023 jury finding Google’s app distribution policies violated antitrust law. Epic argues that Google’s practices harmed developers and customers by suppressing competition and inflating app prices.

While both parties agreed before trial that Epic broke its developer contract, Epic maintained the contract itself was illegal owing to Google's anti-competitive practices. Epic seeks comprehensive changes to Google's app policies, like allowing third-party app stores to distribute apps via the Play Store.

Google’s Defense and Remedies for Antitrust

Google argued the proposed changes to its Play Store policies could cost up to $137 million and lead to security issues. In a recent hearing, Google's lawyers termed the requested injunctive relief "unprecedented," claiming it lacked trial evidence backing. However, U.S. District Judge James Donato expressed skepticism, criticizing Google's "monopolistic conduct" and vowing "to dismantle barriers."

The Federal Trade Commission also entered the case, urging the court to reject Google’s concerns and impose robust remedies restoring app distribution market competition.

Epic's battle against Google is part of a larger effort challenging major tech companies' app store practices. In August 2020, Epic similarly sued Apple after offering Fortnite players direct payment, bypassing Apple fees. In that case, a California court ruled Apple didn't violate federal antitrust law but its external payment option restrictions broke California's Unfair Competition Law.

Epic’s legal challenges have drawn worldwide attention to app store policies. Apple and Google have both started complying with new European regulations requiring alternative app stores and payment options. The European Commission also pressured Apple to implement further changes regarding restrictive app store practices.

Epic Games maintains counsel consisting of the esteemed law firms Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP and Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. Google defends itself with representation from the top-tier legal groups Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, and international force Hogan Lovells.

The multidimensional suit is referred to as Epic Games Inc. v. Google LLC et al., indexed under case number 3:20-cv-05671 within the esteemed U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Consolidated under this legal action exists a related class of litigation entitled In re: Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation which bears the case number 3:21-md-02981 in the same judicial venue.