All Google Arguments for Summary Judgment Fail, Say Play Store Plaintiffs
Google, for nearly 15 years, “deployed a web of unlawful anticompetitive practices to monopolize the markets for Android app distribution and in-app payment solutions,” said the plaintiffs in the consolidated Google Play Store litigation in their opposition Friday (docket 3:21-cv-05227)…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco to Google’s April 20 motion for partial summary judgment. The conduct included “exclusivity and preferred payment arrangements” with OEMs and payments to wireless carriers “to disincentivize them from launching or supporting competing app stores,” it said. The company ensured Google Play “is the only viable way to distribute apps on Android, it said. Through its unlawful “tie,” Google forced consumers and developers to use Google Play Billing for all in-app sales and purchases of digital content in those apps, it said. The plaintiffs “will prove all that at trial,” it said. Google now attempts to prevent the jury “from learning the full scope and history of its scheme” under the guise of a targeted motion, it said. But a complex antitrust case seldom contains a pure issue of law with no genuine dispute of fact, and this case “is no exception,” it said. Google’s motion “rests on disputed facts and incorrect statements of law,” it said: “All five of its arguments for summary judgment fail.”