Google has a “steep hill to climb” with its Play Store lawsuit and must prove that “its rules are not draconian”

Source: Chris Wedel / Android Central

Google is the subject of another lawsuit, this time targeting its Play Store for its anti-competitive and monopolistic nature. Some pundits say Google will have a “steep hill to climb” to lead this fight, and instead of trying to “point the finger at others” it needs to start proving its worth.

Last week, the New York attorney general and a coalition of 37 state attorneys general slapped Google with a lawsuit alleging the Play Store has an unfair grip on the distribution of apps on Android and that Google is discouraging the use of third-party app stores. He also claims that Google puts its own apps ahead of the competition by giving them pride of place on the best Android phones as preloaded apps.

“Through its illegal behavior, the company has ensured that hundreds of millions of Android users turn to Google, and only Google, for the millions of apps they can choose to download on their phones and tablets, “Letitia James, New York attorney general, said in a statement. “Worse yet, Google is wringing the lifeblood away from millions of small businesses that are only looking to compete.

While many experts say the lawsuit is very similar to Epic Games’ lawsuit against Apple, which raises similar allegations, Sally Hubbard, director of enforcement strategy at the Open Markets Institute, a think tank anti-monopoly, said in an interview that unlike this lawsuit, this case is probably easier to fight in court.

“It’s very similar to Apple. But the complaint is about some agreements that have been imposed by third parties like the phone makers,” she said.

“It’s easier to tackle anti-competitive behavior when there’s a deal than when Apple just does things unilaterally on its own; it’s usually a more difficult case,” Hubbard said.

And while Epic Games is in the middle of a fight with Apple, it has also sued Google for antitrust violations. In that lawsuit, Epic Games alleged that Google forced phone maker OnePlus to break a deal that allegedly saw a Fortnite Launcher preinstalled on OnePlus phones.

According to the trial documents: “Google was” particularly concerned that the Epic Games app would have the ability to install and update multiple games with a silent install bypassing the Google Play Store. “In addition, any Google’s waiver of restrictions “would be rejected due to the Epic Games app serving as a potential game portfolio and game updates.”

Hubbard, whose work focuses on Big Tech, explained that unlike Apple, Google licenses its entire operating system to third-party companies, and “no phone maker can sell their phones without the system. operating Android, without the Google Play Store and therefore, therefore, they must accept the terms and conditions of Google. “

Google has much tighter control over OEMs than it ever has

She said that this case is quite comparable to that of the United States against Microsoft, in which the United States government accused Microsoft of illegally maintaining its monopoly in the PC market through the restrictions it imposed on manufacturers and retailers. users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs like Netscape. and Java.

“Phone makers have no bargaining power or option to do anything other than what the monopoly tells them to do,” she said.

Neil Shah, vice president of research at Counterpoint Research, said in an interview that because there is a duopoly of app stores – iOS and Android, having almost a similar payment and revenue structure for developers of apps. ‘applications – the narrative must be balanced. This means that while Apple is accused of monopolistic behavior, Google also deserves to be touched, he said.

The problem for developers is that Google has integrated its platform so much that it is becoming “more and more difficult for OEMs and developers to get around Google because it has built a platform that is now much superior and only better. when integrated with Google services “.

In his defense, Google Senior Director of Public Policy Wilson White wrote in a blog post that the lawsuit alleges the company has no options other than using Google Play, which is not. exact.

“Choice has always been a major tenant of Android,” White wrote. “In fact, most Android devices come with at least two app stores preloaded. And popular Android devices such as the Amazon Fire home tablet preloaded with a competitive app store and without the Google Play store.”

Google also noted that the company offers more “openness and choice than others,” adding that the Play Store is different from other app stores and “does not impose the same restrictions as other operating systems. mobile “.

But despite this, the lawsuit says Android is the “only viable operating system available for licensing by mobile device makers and selling their devices to US customers.” He noted that Google, “which controls about 99% of this market,” has lasting monopoly power in the market and considerable leverage over mobile device manufacturers and Android application developers.

He also adds that the Play Store distributes more than 90% of all Android applications in the United States and that “no competing Android application store has more than 5% of the market”.

In 2020, Google Play users around the world downloaded 108.5 mobile apps, up from 76 billion apps in 2018, according to Statista. Data shows that the Play Store “generates significantly more downloads than Apple’s App Store because it is available for a wider range of devices than Apple’s closed iOS ecosystem, which is only available. for Apple devices “.

Find more statistics on Statista

Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel of NetChoice, an industry group whose founders include Google, Facebook and Amazon, said the lawsuits were invalid.

“It is very interesting that this is brought against the Google App Store when the case is potentially one of the weakest, and it is because the Android operating system allows sideloading”, a- he declared. “Every Android device has two or more app stores preinstalled when you get the device. And there are examples of Android-based devices that don’t even have the Play Store’s App Store installed.”

Szabo, who worked for former FTC commissioner Orson Swindle, added that the lawsuit questions whether what is alleged really does correspond to reality, noting that they do not correspond.

He said that in the case of Epic Games, as soon as the judge dismisses the case, so will this trial with the Google Play Store.

“State prosecutors will have little or no footing to stand on,” he said.

Google must change its approach

Carmi Levy, a technology analyst, said Google will need to stop “trying to point fingers at other people” and instead focus on the history of its own business practices.

“He has to prove somehow that, despite the accusations, his model offers more opportunity than choice-less desperation to Google’s often much smaller competition, that its rules are not at all draconian, and instead are designed to create opportunities and encourage innovation among all players, ”he said. “It’s a steep hill to climb, and in the current climate, I doubt Google’s lawyers will find much sympathy in open court given the evidence to the contrary.”

He said the entire App Store ecosystem is at stake and how much power Google deserves to have as it balances its own profitability and growth against accusations.

“And while this particular case focuses on Google, let’s face it that the shadows don’t extend to Apple either. Indeed, the entire App Store economy will potentially be in the spotlight. test here, because whatever precedent set here is also impacting Apple’s platform, ”he said.

Levy agreed with Hubbard and noted that unlike Apple, Google won by building the platform in the first place and continuing to set and enforce the rules.

“When your only choice is to distribute your digital products through an app store, you have no voice if the company that runs that app store decides to play hard,” he said.

He added that the timing of this trial is no coincidence, as more lawmakers around the world are scrutinizing Big Tech. And while no one can predict the outcome of this particular lawsuit, Levy says, “Google is no different than any tech company on the wrong side of an antitrust charge: it disagrees with the charges, stand up for them firmly and spend as much time, money and energy as he can to prove his thesis. “