Europe's DMA shadows Australian leg of Epic Games' global antitrust campaign

After five long years of litigation, it can sometimes seem like there is little left to be said about Epic Games’ global antitrust battle with Apple and Google. But with Epic’s 16-week Australian super-trial having recently wrapped up, the work has only just begun for Jonathan Beach, the judge now tasked with resolving this latest iteration of the Fortnite developer's international app-store campaign. And though the tech giants' Australia defense called on familiar arguments about privacy and security, the existence of Europe’s Digital Markets Act means their effectiveness may now be less compelling.

Keep scrolling for our deep-dive analysis on the potential ramifications—plus a curated selection of highlights from our blow-by-blow reporting.

10 July 2024
By Saloni Sinha and Ryan Cropp

If you’re in need of a senior Australian antitrust lawyer this July, you might want to try looking on a European beach.

After 16 long weeks locked in a Melbourne courtroom debating the merits of Epic Games’ Australian antitrust case against Apple and Google, a not insignificant portion of the country’s competition mafia will be celebrating their recent freedom by putting their app stores away and settling in for some well-earned R&R.

But even as they sip their pina coladas in the Mediterranean sun, few will be able to resist the urge to wonder what it all meant — and how it’s likely to end.

Officially, that challenge sits with Jonathan Beach, the voluble judge at the heart of this marathon trial, who must now put aside all the hullabaloo about missing documents, unreliable experts and executive no-shows and find a way to answer the case’s central question: Did Apple and Google misuse their market power in the operation of their respective app stores?

Of course, there’s a lot of moving parts here — the Apple and Google cases were heard in parallel, along with two related class actions — and Beach’s final judgment will likely be a long one.

And while Epic’s lawsuits stemmed from the way the two companies run their app stores, its courtroom complaints against the tech giants were not entirely identical.

For weeks, the Fortnite-developer went back and forth with Apple’s lawyers over the role of security in the iOS ecosystem — the company’s so-called walled garden — and whether the iPhone maker uses it as a shield to keep competition at arms length.

Google, meanwhile, stood accused of leveraging its dominant position as the Android licensor to impose restrictive contracts on developers and smartphone makers, thereby foreclosing competition.

Throughout, there were also continuous accusations — and frustrations — over the tech giants’ apparent inability to cough up documentary evidence to back up their 30 percent commission rate on in-app payments.

Looming over it all, though, was the specter of Europe’s Digital Markets Act, or DMA. Launched on the eve of the trial, it gave Epic’s lawyers a stick with which to repeatedly clobber the tech companies, particularly on the issue of security.

Beach, too, was his usual talkative, quotable self, poking and prodding skeptically at witnesses and lawyers alike — at one point remarking that Epic’s lawyers would need to embark on a “voyage” to unravel an Apple security expert’s convoluted testimony.

Quips and bon mots are one thing. In the end, it will be on the larger, more substantive antitrust issues — especially the arguments around security, contracts and market definitions — that this case will eventually be decided.

And on those matters, we have only the evidence.

Security

Apple’s Australian arguments did not deviate from the company’s long-held stance that its closed iOS ecosystem is designed to protect the security and privacy of its users, rather than to stifle competition or exert control over app distribution.

“Apple is intimately concerned with protecting the interests of users, not out of pure benevolence [but] because it's the heart of the business model,” argued Apple lawyer Stephen Free.

The problem for Apple, though, was Europe — and specifically the DMA, which has forced the company to adjust its security technology to allow third-party app stores and to permit developers to offer alternative in-app payment solutions.

Appearing near the beginning of the Australian trial, Apple’s senior vice president of software engineering, Craig Federighi, accepted that it was technically possible to roll out the European security technology on a global scale, but argued the experience of iPhone customers would be “compromised”.

“You agree that ‘albeit compromised,’ Apple has the technological means to ensure platform integrity, as well as to protect users' security, privacy and safety without requiring centralized app distribution?” Higgins asked.

“Compromised insurance is not insuring,” Federighi said.

Later, Apple’s security expert Aviel Rubin backed Federighi, arguing that on its own, the company’s notarization process — which tests app safety using technical tools such as app sandboxing and automated app audits — wasn’t enough to maintain the security of iOS on iPhones.

Rubin said that if a third-party app marketplace were to conduct app security reviews that were not as effective as Apple's own, it could expose vulnerabilities for exploitation by potential hackers.

And while at some points Beach appeared to agree with Apple’s security argument, he nevertheless questioned the effects of the conduct.

“The purpose is security but in effect, it's anticompetitive, isn't it? To the extent that you're keeping out new entrants?” Beach said. Or, as he put it more succinctly later in the trial: “When can security issues trump competition? … or can they never?”

In the US, the answer to that question appeared to go against Epic. In a similar case in California, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said she found Apple’s much-publicized privacy and security claims quite persuasive.

Epic, for its part, contended that the rollout of the DMA in Europe made the bloc a “natural laboratory” for exploring different security scenarios.

The technical measures implemented by Apple in the European Union were “broadly probative of the kinds of technical measures that Apple could and — on the evidence — likely would implement if it were to decentralize app distribution” in Australia, argued Epic lawyer Ruth Higgins.

Web of contracts

Although Apple won in California by convincing Gonzalez Rogers that its security justifications for the App Store restrictions were both “valid and non-pretextual,” Google was caught in its own web of contracts.

Unlike Apple, Google has an open Android ecosystem, which means it allows direct downloading of apps — known to tech policy geeks as “sideloading” — as well as third-party app stores. But Google’s Play Store does not permit developers to offer alternative payment options for in-app purchase of digital content in their apps. As a result, they are forced to choose Google Play Billing.

Epic’s US case against Google focused on the company’s maze of contracts and agreements with developers, gaming companies and smartphone makers, which Epic says include technical restrictions that allow the tech giant to maintain its dominance.

Unsurprisingly, then, this web of allegedly restrictive contracts — one of which was dubbed “Project Hug” — also remained one of the key issues in the Australian trial.

Under the initiative, Google offered a small group of large developers special benefits for choosing the Play Store as a distribution platform for their apps, including tailored revenue-share deals.

Epic argued that Project Hug had a quid pro quo aspect, and claimed that Google was primarily concerned about the "contagion risk" of developers abandoning the Play Store in favor of sideloading as their preferred app-distribution method.

Google, though, countered that the initiative was actually an example of competition in action — on price, quality and merits — while Google's Vice President of Product Management, Paul Gennai, flat out rejected Epic's claim that Project Hug was a means to strike "sweet" deals with developers to retain them on the Play Store.

Epic also took issue with the multiple security warnings that pop up when sideloading an app on Google devices, which it said was designed to deter users from completing the download process.

In Google’s view, Epic placed too much significance on such warnings, although Google’s Security Engineering Manager Sebastian Porst did accept that they could cause install friction.

Market definitions

The other key point of contention between Epic and the tech giants centered on the classic antitrust concern with market definition.

Epic, understandably, contended that the relevant markets encompassed app distribution and in-app payment solutions. Apple, by contrast, suggested that the App Store operates within the market for app transactions, while Google proposed a market where the main product supplied are the services to facilitate app transactions.

To make things even more complicated, Apple and Google also said they faced competition from personal computer platforms and gaming consoles such as Microsoft's Xbox and Sony's PlayStation.

So, which one is it?

For what it’s worth, the jury in Epic’s US case against Google accepted the Fortnite developer’s market definitions: App distribution on Android smartphones and in-app billing services for digital purchases.

In the Australian trial, though, Google lawyer Cameron Moore drew upon local examples to push back at claims regarding technical restrictions and restrictive contracts — in turn providing a useful mental model for how to understand the case.

Moore argued that Epic is free to launch its own app store on Android mobile devices and make it available via sideloading or by partnering with original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, to get it pre-installed on the mobile devices.

Referencing Australia’s two most popular department stores, he said that it would be like “Myer saying to David Jones [that] it wants to set up shop inside the David Jones building with the benefit of the David Jones cash registers and, of course, access to the David Jones customer base … but there's no proper basis on which that should occur”.

Later, Moore attempted to justify anti-steering rules by saying that under this rule the developer is not allowed to direct users to an alternative payment option in the Play Store version of the app but is free to promote alternative payment solutions outside of the Play Store.

The Google lawyer said that if the clothing brand Country Road sets up a section inside David Jones, under the rule David Jones can say to them that you can't put a big sign above your section that says “Don't buy your Country Road clothes here, buy them in the shop outside.”

“But, in the shop outside, you can put up a massive sign saying, ‘Don't buy your Country Road clothes in David Jones, buy them here,’” Moore said.

In response, Epic’s lawyer Neil J. Young criticized Moore for “confusing” the Play Store with the developer’s own app because the anti-steering rule applies to a downloaded app.

Hot fixes

Although it would seem like Epic escaped with only minor injuries during the Australian proceedings, the company’s so-called Project Liberty nevertheless came under heavy scrutiny.

In August 2020, Epic included an undisclosed piece of code — known as the “hot fix” — in the App Store version of its Fortnite app, allowing the use of its own direct payment system.

Epic also included a similar “hot fix” in Play Store’s version of the app in September 2020, just five months after it was launched on the Google platform.

Both Apple and Google lawyers accused Epic of deceiving the companies, as part of a plan to “lure” the tech giants into an antitrust legal battle.

However, Epic’s Chief Executive Officer Tim Sweeney shrugged off the lawyers’ concerns, saying that while his team was fully aware that the approach was “deceitful,” the developer’s heart was in the right place because it wanted to build a “direct relationship” with its users.

So will Beach see it Sweeney’s way?

The answer to that question is likely to have major ramifications for Australia’s tech landscape.

An Epic win, for example, could light a fire under the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission’s campaign for greater regulation of digital platforms. Indeed, with Epic not seeking damages in Australia, the case has played out like a proxy enforcement action on behalf of the competition watchdog.

A victory for Apple and/or Google, meanwhile, could solidify their market positions indefinitely — and make it more challenging to legally contest their dominance in the future.

Beach has flagged it will be a few months before he delivers his judgment. His European holiday will have to wait.

An intense four months for Big Tech and antitrust in Australia

For full access to our litigation archive, start your 14-day free trial today.

July 3: Epic Games exaggerated technical restrictions such as security warnings, Google tells Australian court

Technical restrictions that include multiple security warnings appearing when a user attempts to directly download an app outside of Google Play Store have been mistaken and exaggerated by developer Epic Games, Google told an Australian court today. Google's lawyer Cameron Moore also contended that the company's anti-steering rule, which is part of its payment policy, does not prohibit app developers from steering users to alternative transaction venues and platforms outside of the Google Play Store by promoting them on other channels such as social media.

June 27: Comment: Australian judge's skepticism on non-existent Apple, Google documents points to broader global trend

Like any courtroom cage match of nearly four months duration, Epic Games’ blockbuster Australian antitrust campaign against Apple and Google was always bound to throw up some unusual issues. But one that seems to have particularly frustrated the presiding judge, Jonathan Beach, has been the tech giants’ seemingly calculated inability to produce documentary evidence on important matters, often as a result of their use of self-deleting messaging apps. With US judges and enforcers also cracking down on the practice, Beach’s courtroom skepticism points to a broader global trend — one that companies facing future legal action may well want to avoid.

June 25: Google witnesses rejected own business records to avoid damages to company, Epic Games tells Australian court

Developer Epic Games today claimed that during the Australian antitrust trial, Google’s top managers refused to accept the “plain meaning” of a company’s internal records as doing so could be “damaging” for the company. Epic Games lawyer Garry Rich told the court that some of Google's witnesses refused to accept that multiple security warnings while sideloading an app cause install friction and "the obvious proposition that the Play Store is an enormously profitable business."

June 24: Apple's failure to produce records on key decisions is evidence that it is a monopoly, Epic Games tells Australian court

As the closing arguments commenced in the Australian antitrust case brought by Epic Games against Google and Apple’s app store policies, the Fortnite developer pointed out the iPhone maker’s failure to produce any internal documents on key business decisions. Epic lawyer Neil J. Young said that this is compelling evidence that Apple knows it is a monopoly. Judge Jonathan Beach also noted what he described as the “strange” practice by Apple of not maintaining records even for the purpose of passing it on to new hires who may join the company to replace existing executives.

June 14: 'Project Hug' didn’t affect 90 percent of Google Play Store revenue in Australia, antitrust trial told

Google’s “Project Hug” contracts offering special benefits to some developers didn’t affect at least 90 percent of the Play Store Revenue in Australia, an economic expert for the tech giant told an antitrust hearing in the lawsuit brought by Epic Games targeting Google and Apple over their app-store policies. Responding to a claim suggesting Google's special deals weren't predicated on notions of competition, John Asker told the Federal Court of Australia that Project Hug was materially different from the mere cutting of fees.

June 11: Android-agreement claims by Google expert face Australian judge's pushback in Epic antitrust trial

Google’s agreements with Android phone makers came under scrutiny in an Australian court today, with the judge presiding over the antitrust case pushing back at claims by an expert witness that Google shouldn’t be seen as selling its operating system to original-equipment manufacturers. The exchange followed statements by Google economic expert John Asker suggesting that phone makers and Google should both be viewed as joint manufacturers of Android phones, given that Google doesn't demand payment for the use of its operating system.

June 7: Apple expert denies App Store commission-overcharge claim in Australian antitrust lawsuit

Commission rates imposed by Apple on game-app developers using the iOS App Store are competitive, an economic expert has told an Australian court in two class-action lawsuits being heard alongside Epic Games’ antitrust case targeting Apple and Google. In today’s Federal Court of Australia hearing, Apple’s economic expert Lorin Hitt, responding to the commission overcharge claim argued that App Store commission rates are competitive for games because “most, if not all, [other] platforms have charged a 30 percent headline commission rate.”

June 5: Comment: Apple, Google face litany of bad days in Australian Epic Games antitrust case

Epic Games’ antitrust lawsuit against Apple and Google over their app-store policies is, to a large extent, a rerun of similar trials that have taken place in the United States. Yet both tech giants have faced serious setbacks, with expert evidence tossed out by an often skeptical judge and the European Union’s Digital Markets Act being used by Epic lawyers as a stick with which to beat their claims. And with the marathon trial not far from the finishing line, the digital giants need to start landing punches.

June 3: Epic Games, Apple economic experts clash in Australian court over relevant product supplied by tech giant

Economic experts for developer Epic Games and Apple in an ongoing antitrust hearing in Australia clashed today over definitions of products and services supplied by the tech giant, as well as whether in-app purchases offered by the iPhone maker should be viewed as a separate product. As the trial brought by Epic Games against Apple and Google over their app-store policies entered the twelfth week, Apple’s economic expert, Lorin Hitt, and Epic’s economic expert, Julian Wright, were challenged on whether iOS in-app payments solutions should be viewed as a single product.

May 30: Popularity, usability of app not useful security metrics, Google expert tells Australian court

A Google expert witness today told an Australian court hearing an antitrust lawsuit brought by developer Epic Games that the popularity of an app and the number of times it may be downloaded aren’t reliable security metrics. Epic lawyer Ruth Higgins asked Traynor if he believed there was a correlation between the risk that an app is malicious and the number of times that app is downloaded. Google security expert Patrick Traynor said there were apps with a few million downloads that have turned out to be malicious.

May 29: Judge grills Apple expert on missing security analysis in Australian antitrust trial

An Apple witness on security has come under fire in an Australian court, with the presiding judge asking the expert why he hadn’t asked for the tech company’s “threat model” document when preparing his evidence in the antitrust lawsuit brought by Epic Games. During the cross-examination, Epic lawyer Ruth Higgins asked the Apple expert, Aviel Rubin, whether he had seen any physical- or digital-threat model document that Apple had created before or after the launch of iPhone. Rubin confirmed that he had not seen any such document.

May 23: Apple suffers setback as Australian judge rejects IP expert's report in antitrust trial

Apple’s intellectual-property expert evidence was rejected today by an Australian court hearing a landmark antitrust case, with the judge ruling that the witness had gone beyond his expertise when preparing a report that was “a combination of speculation, inference, personal and secondhand views.” In today’s Federal Court of Australia hearing in Melbourne, Judge Jonathan Beach said the report by James Malackowski, an IP expert for Apple, wasn’t admissible in the ongoing trial because it failed to reach the objectives expected of it.

 May 16: Apple expert's evidence will be excised from Epic antitrust trial, Australian judge rules

An Apple economist’s report into a landmark antitrust case, described as “substantially duplicative” of the testimony of the tech giant’s other economic experts, will be excluded from concurrent evidence, an Australian judge ruled today. Judge Jonathan Beach, presiding over the trial that has pitted developer Epic Games against Apple and Google over their app-store policies, today ordered the exclusion of evidence provided by Greg Houston from evidence available for cross-examination, over concerns that the expert had been briefed on a similar trial that unfolded in the United States. 

May 8: Google's multiple security warnings cause install friction for users 'sideloading' apps, top manager tells Australian court

A top manager at Google has acknowledged in an Australian court that is hearing a landmark antitrust lawsuit that the multiple “unknown source” warnings appearing on a mobile device while direct downloading an app cause install friction for users. Epic had argued in the opening weeks of the trial that these warnings created friction for users and deterred them from completing the download process. Google had rejected the argument, saying that the warnings were important for security purposes. However, Google Security Engineering Manager Sebastian Porst today accepted that the warnings do cause install friction for users.

May 6: Google was ready to pay Epic Games to avoid Play Store-developer exodus, Australian court hears

Google’s top managers were ready to pay Epic Games to launch its popular Fortnite game on the search giant’s app store, fearing that any move to sidestep the Play Store could prompt other developers to follow suit, an Australian court hearing the landmark antitrust case has been told. In the Federal Court of Australia hearing in Melbourne, Epic’s lawyer, Garry Rich, argued that Google was considering paying Epic Games about $147 million in exchange for the developer launching Fortnite on Play Store, rather than choosing direct downloading as an option to distribute its app.

April 29: Android phone makers must pre-install Google Play Store on mobile devices, Australian court hears

Manufacturers of devices using the Android operating system have no choice but to sign an agreement with Google requiring them to place the Play Store on the default home screen, Epic Games has told a landmark Australian antitrust trial targeting Apple and Google over their app store policies. In the Federal Court of Australia trial in Melbourne, Epic lawyer Garry Rich argued that the Android provider’s agreements ensured that developers must pre-install Google apps and described arguments put forward by senior Google manager Paul Gennai as “nonsense.”

April 22: Epic Games' Australian antitrust case against Apple, Google will grapple with DMA's impact, court rules

Epic Games has convinced the judge hearing a landmark Australian antitrust trial against Apple and Google to admit a supplementary report from security experts assessing the impact of the European Union’s newly introduced Digital Markets Act on the two company’s security protocols. With the trial brought by the maker of the popular videogame Fortnite entering its second month, lawyer Neil J. Young, acting for Epic, asked Judge Jonathan Beach to allow each of the security experts —from Google, Apple and Epic — to provide a supplementary report no longer than 10 pages to update the court.

April 18: Apple devices' security is 'compromised' under the EU's DMA, Federighi tells Australian court

Apple could introduce to Australia the same security technologies that apply to third-party app stores that the iPhone maker has been required to deploy in the European Union under the new Digital Markets Act, the tech company’s top engineer has told an antitrust trial. Appearing for another day of cross-examination in the landmark lawsuit brought against Apple and Google by Epic Games, Craig Federighi also said that the DMA requirements had ‘compromised’ the security of Apple device users in the EU.

April 16: Apple lawyers removed Epic from developer program without managers' knowledge, Australian court hears

Apple’s legal team removed Epic Games’ Swedish division from the Apple Developer Program in March 2024 without consulting management, senior Apple executive Phil Schiller told an Australian court today as part of a landmark antitrust lawsuit. In the fifth week of the trial, Epic lawyer Neil J. Young continued to cross-examine Apple’s former marketing head Schiller, who told the court that he didn’t know that Apple was going to remove Epic from the developer program, which was to help the gaming company bring the Epic Games Store and Fortnite to iOS devices in Europe under the new Digital Markets Act. The controversial email was sent to Epic in March 2024.

April 15: Apple's Schiller tells Australian court there was no paper trail for meetings setting the App Store's 30 percent commission

Apple based its 2008 decision to charge developers a 30 percent commission for paid apps on an analysis it carried out before its App Store was launched, although the tech giant wasn’t able to produce any record of that analysis, a landmark Australian antitrust court hearing was told today. At the start of the fifth week of a lawsuit that’s pitting Epic Games against both Apple and Google, Phil Schiller, a top Apple executive, was questioned repeatedly on the decisions the iPhone maker made in the lead-up to its launch of the app store.

April 12: Comment: Epic Games' Project Liberty hogs the spotlight in Australian Apple-Google antitrust trial

A secret plan by Epic Games to highlight and challenge what it considered the unfair policies governing Apple and Google’s app stores has become central to the first four weeks of a landmark antitrust trial in Australia, which has pitted the Fortnite creator against the two tech giants. Yet it’s unclear whether the implied evils of Project Liberty will resonate with the Federal Court of Australia judge hearing the case, with Epic’s chief executive officer, Tim Sweeney, using his time on the witness stand to offer a strong defense of both the campaign and his motives for waging war on the app stores.

April 11: Paddle founder testifies for Epic Games in Australian Google-Apple antitrust trial

UK-based payment-infrastructure provider Paddle received several inquiries from app developers for alternate in-app payment support within iOS and Android, an Australian court was told today, during hearings in Epic Games’ landmark antitrust lawsuit targeting Apple and Google. As the fourth week of the trial wrapped up, the Federal Court of Australia heard from Christian Owens, founder and former chief executive officer of Paddle, a payment-infrastructure provider to software companies and developers. He said that these inquiries reinforced his view that there was demand for alternative in-app payment solutions and, specifically, for the Paddle platform to be used within iOS native apps for purchases of digital content.

April 10: Apple highlights ongoing losses at Epic Games' app store in Australian antitrust lawsuit

Epic Games’ app store continues to incur losses more than five years after it was launched as a personal computer-based competitor to the popular Steam app store, an Australian court was told today in a hearing of a landmark antitrust lawsuit against Apple and Google. In the fourth week of hearings in the case, Epic Games’ vice president and general manager of the Epic Games Store, Steven Matthew Allison, today admitted that earnings from the third-party apps on the store remained unprofitable even while the cumulative revenue from a first-party app such as Fortnite and third-party apps made the app store profitable as a whole.

April 3: Epic tried to 'Trojan horse' its way onto Android devices, Google lawyer tells Australian antitrust trial

Videogame developer Epic Games tried to “Trojan horse” its way onto Android devices by continuing to receive assistance for launching the popular game Fortnite on the operating system while concealing the fact that it didn’t plan to launch the game on Google Play Store, an Australian court heard today. In the third week of a 16-week antitrust trial, Epic Games Chief Executive Officer Tim Sweeney was back on the Federal Court of Australia witness stand to answer Google’s questions about why he continued to seek the advice of both the Android and the Google Play Store teams ahead of the launch.

April 2: Epic Games 'deceived' Apple to introduce direct payment service on App Store, Australian court hears

Epic Games’ Chief Executive Officer Tim Sweeney has told an Australian antitrust trial that his company “deceived” tech giant Apple so that it would introduce direct payments services on its App Store. Matthew Darke, the lawyer acting for Apple, told the court that Epic was determined to challenge Apple’s DPLA as part of “Project Liberty,” a codename for Epic’s efforts to “challenge certain App Store and Google Play Store policies” to “free Epic from the app-store monopolies.”

March 27: Google's repeated security warnings could be anticompetitive, Australian judge suggests

The multiple security warnings that are displayed when a user attempts to download an app directly from a website can have psychological influence and discourage people from getting apps outside of  Google's Play Store, an Australian judge presiding over an antitrust trial said today. In an exchange in the Federal Court of Australia today, Judge Jonathan Beach said that while it’s understandable for a security-permission window to pop up before a user can download an app from an external source, too many warnings could lead users to “just throw up their hands and go off and do something else.”

March 22: Comment: Epic's Australian Google, Apple antitrust case is similar — yet different — to US lawsuits

As the first week in what’s set to be Epic Games’ marathon Australian antitrust trial came to an end, the parallels between earlier lawsuits in the United States were on full display. Yet alongside tried and tested allegations that Apple and Google have abused their monopoly power through their app store policies, the Federal Court of Australia began to hear of more recent developments — including the impact of the European Union’s Digital Markets Act. It all suggests that the trial will push Epic’s arguments in new — and hitherto unexplored — directions.

March 21: Google class-action lawsuit isn't 'opportunistic' but linked to public interest, Australian court hears

Google’s description of class actions brought by Australian consumers and developers against the tech giant over alleged commission overcharge and restrictions on in-app payments as “opportunistic” fails to recognize the public-interest dimension of the lawsuits, a court has heard. On the fourth day of a trial in the Federal Court of Australia resulting from a lawsuit brought against both Apple and Google by Epic Games and the class-action applicants, a lawyer representing the aggrieved consumers said Google had failed to recognize the “important public interest in [the] Epic Games litigation.”

March 19: Google hurts competitors to maintain app-store dominance, Epic tells Australian court

Google uses its control over the Android ecosystem to hinder competitors and maintain its app store as the dominant supplier of applications in the market, Epic Games has told an Australian court in the second day of a landmark lawsuit targeting both Google and Apple. After taking shots at Apple’s restrictive contracts with developers on Monday, in today’s Federal Court of Australia hearing, Epic Games’ lawyer also said that it was difficult to accept that Google was constrained by competition from the Samsung Galaxy store.

March 18: Epic slams Apple's 'restrictive' contracts with app developers in first day of Australian lawsuit

Apple engages in explicitly restrictive conduct by imposing mandatory terms and forcing a “relationship of agency” with application developers, an Australian court heard in the first day of a 16-week trial in which Epic Games is targeting both Apple and Google. Appearing in the Federal Court of Australia, the lawyer representing Epic said that Apple’s contracts with developers are restrictive and its 30 percent commissions are arbitrary and untethered from market pressures.