How the Epic-Google antitrust case could change the rules of the game? How did Apple win, but Google lost in a similar trial?

Epic Games won a significant legal ruling in an antitrust lawsuit against Google. The verdict raises crucial concerns about the future of the mobile app market. On December 11th, 2023, the jury declared that Google’s policies for the Play Store, including its 30% commission fee and mandatory in-app payment system, violate antitrust laws.

The Epic vs. Google verdict could have some important implications for the future of the app economy and tech antitrust in general. Here are a few potential outcomes:

• Google could be required to change its app store policies and practices to make them more competitive and fair to developers.
• It could encourage developers to challenge big tech companies over similar issues, potentially leading to more lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny.
• The verdict could be a precedent-setting case, influencing future antitrust cases and potentially changing how tech companies operate.

Here are a few potential changes to Google’s App Store policies that could result from the Epic verdict:

• Lower commissions for app developers, as Epic argued that Google’s current commission rate of 30% is excessive and anti-competitive.
• More flexibility for developers to use alternative payment systems, as Epic argued that Google’s requirement to use its payment system was anti-competitive.
• More transparency around Google’s app store policies and practices, as Epic argued that Google’s policies were opaque and arbitrary.
• There was more competition between app stores, as Epic argued that Google’s dominance in the market was stifling competition.

The Epic vs. Apple trial and the Epic vs. Google trial centered around antitrust issues. In the Epic vs. Apple trial, Epic argued that Apple’s App Store policies were anti-competitive and hindered innovation in the app market. However, unlike the Epic vs. Google verdict, the Epic vs. Apple trial judge ruled in favor of Apple, stating that their policies did not infringe antitrust laws. Although both trials shared similar issues and were closely followed in the tech industry, they had different outcomes. While this may seem confusing, here is why it happened:

• Apple’s “walled garden” approach to the App Store, where it controls which apps can be listed and the terms under which they are sold, was seen as justified to protect users from malware and fraudulent apps.
• Apple also argued that its policies were necessary to create a seamless user experience and maintain a high-quality app ecosystem.
• Conversely, Google was accused of using its dominance in the search and app markets to create anti-competitive barriers to entry and unfairly disadvantage rival app developers and services.

However, the full impact of the verdict will likely take some time to become apparent. What’s clear is that the trial has brought attention to the role of tech giants in shaping the app market and the need for increased competition and fairness.