- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- AI
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- ESG
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- AI
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- ESG
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Google And Epic Games To Fight It Out In US Court Of Appeals

Google And Epic Games To Fight It Out In US Court Of Appeals
Strap – The showdown focuses on claims of monopolistic practices in in-app transactions on Android devices
The legal battle between Google and ‘Fortnite’ creator Epic Games is again in the limelight, as counsels for both companies appear before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Epic Games initiated the legal proceedings in 2020, accusing Google of monopolistic practices concerning app access on Android devices and in-app transaction processing.
In October last, the jury favored Epic Games. Thus, Google was ordered to introduce competition by allowing users to download rival app stores directly from Google's Play Store. Among other reforms, it was directed to make the Play Store app catalog available to the competing app stores.
Google is seeking to overturn a jury verdict and a subsequent judge's order asking the tech giant to change Play Store practices.
It argued that legal errors committed by Judge James Donato unfairly benefited Epic Games in the antitrust case. Pleading the court’s intervention, the company stated the errors led to an unjust outcome.
The tech giant maintained that its Play Store faced robust competition from Apple's App Store. It added that the judge erred by allowing Epic Games to present the case to jurors as if Google and Apple were not competitors in the app distribution and in-app payment space.
Google has challenged the nationwide scope of the trial judge’s order. It argued that it should have only affected Epic Games specifically, not all users and developers nationwide.
Meanwhile, Epic Games has urged the court to reject Google's arguments, accusing it of employing a "years-long strategy to suppress competition among app stores and payment solutions.”
It added, "The company will fight to ensure that the jury's verdict and the court's injunction are upheld, and Google is held to account for its anticompetitive behavior."
Meanwhile, Microsoft, the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have supported Epic Games.