Google asks US appeals court to block app store overhaul
Adds comment from Google in paragraph 5
By Mike Scarcella
Oct 17 (Reuters) -Google has asked a U.S. appeals court to block a judge’s order requiring the Alphabet GOOGL.O unit to redesign its app store Play, as the tech giant prepares for what could be a lengthy appeal in its antitrust battle with "Fortnite" maker Epic Games.
In a filing on Wednesday night, Google urged the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to pause an Oct. 7 order by U.S. District Judge James Donato that would compel the company to redesign its app store to foster more competition.
Donato is set to hear arguments on Friday on an earlier request by Google to put his order on hold while the 9th Circuit weighs a jury's antitrust findings in the case. Donato’s order is currently due to take effect on Nov. 1.
"This is Google’s last ditch effort to protect their control over Android and continue extracting exorbitant fees," an Epic Games spokesperson said in a statement. "The court’s injunction must go into effect swiftly so developers and consumers can benefit from competition in the mobile ecosystem."
Google in a statement said Donato's order "would have negative consequences for Android users, developers and device manufacturers who have built thriving businesses on Android."
Epic persuaded a federal jury in December that Google was illegally monopolizing Android software distribution and controlling how users pay for content with apps.
Donato’s injunction requires Google to make a host of changes to its app business, including allowing users to download third-party app stores within Play, and to make Play’s library of more than 2 million apps available to rivals’ stores.
“The court gave Google just three weeks to make many of these sweeping changes — a Herculean task creating an unacceptable risk of safety and security failures within the Android ecosystem,” Google’s lawyers told the appeals court on Thursday.
Google added a prominent appellate team headlined by Neal Katyal of the Hogan Lovells law firm to handle the appeal.
Epic mostly lost a parallel antitrust lawsuit it filed in 2020 against Apple. Apple was required to make some changes to its App Store, and the company is still fighting with Epic about the scope of those reforms.
The case is Epic Games v Google, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 24-6256 and 24-6274.
For Google: Neal Katyal and Jessica Ellsworth of Hogan Lovells; Glenn Pomerantz of Munger, Tolles & Olson; and Brian C. Rocca of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
For Epic: Christine Varney, Gary Bornstein and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore
Read more:
Google's antitrust woes mount in US cases over search, apps, ads
US judge orders Google to open up app store to competition
Epic Games accuses Samsung, Google of scheme to block app rivals
US judge says 'monopolist' Google can't avoid app store reforms
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
