Epic Games vs Google Antitrust Trial Begins: Both Sides Present Opening Statements and Witnesses Testify on Day One

Epic Games claims Google manipulated market to limit competition, citing 90% dominance on app installs and accusing Google's block on third-party app stores as monopolistic while Google argues for market definition and asserts app store agreements are legitimate business incentives.

Epic's lawyer, Gary Bornstein, claimed in his opening statement that Google manipulated the market to maintain a monopoly. He highlighted that the Google Play Store accounted for 90% of app installs in 2020, despite Google's argument pointing towards the prevalence of other platforms, such as the Samsung app store.
Epic accused Google of employing anti-competitive practices by paying potential competitors not to compete. Epic pointed to a 30% fee for app store sales, which equals $12 billion a year for Google and carries a 70% profit margin, as an example of this behavior.
Google's lawyer, Glenn Pomerantz, argued in his opening statement that market definition should be based on the entire gaming industry or mobile gaming market, rather than only Google-dominated Android app stores. He maintained that users have a choice of app stores and reminded the court that Anti-Fragmentation Agreements with Android developers were legitimate business tools, not anti-competitive instruments.
Testifying as a witness for Epic, the head of the Epic Games Store, Steve Allison, asserted that Steam set a precedence of a 30% royalty fee, which he considered unrepresentative of the actual costs. He also revealed that, despite its 12% royalty model, the Epic Games Store was not yet profitable.
Google defended its 30% fee by arguing that it provided more than just payment processing services, reminding the court that Epic had once stated its own store's fee was for audience access, suggesting Google's larger audience justifies a higher fee.