
Epic Games and Match are attempting to expand their lawsuits against Google to include additional allegations against the search giant. In a motion filed on Friday with a federal court in the Northern District of California, the two companies accused Google of paying off developers that had the means and ability to create competing Android app stores.
Specifically, Epic and Match point to agreements like Project Hug. The initiative, later called the “Apps and Games Velocity Program,” saw Google spend millions of dollars to keep some of Android’s most popular developers on the Play Store, according to a complaint filed by Epic last year.
“Some of these agreements were intended to, and did, stop developers from launching competing app stores,” the motion states, adding Google committed a “per se” violation of the Sherman Act, the primary US antitrust law. Under the Sherman Act, per se violations don’t require a plaintiff to show how a certain behavior negatively affected the market since it’s generally accepted such actions reduce competition.
Google told Engadget it would oppose the motion. “Epic and Match are adding more inaccurate claims to their failing lawsuits and we’re looking forward to setting the record straight in court,” a company spokesperson said.
“The program on which Epic and Match base their claims simply provides incentives for developers to give benefits and early access to Google Play users when they release new or updated content; it does not prevent developers from creating competing app stores, as they allege,” they added. “In fact, the program is proof that Google Play competes fairly with numerous rivals for developers, who have a number of choices for operating systems and app stores.”
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
House Budget Bill’s Moratorium on State AI Laws Could Undo A Range of Tech Regs, Critics Say
May 14, 2025 by
CPI
Microsoft Nears EU Antitrust Resolution Over Teams Bundling, Sources Say
May 14, 2025 by
CPI
CMA Investigates Aviva’s £3.6B Acquisition of Direct Line Group
May 14, 2025 by
CPI
Google Urges Texas Judge to Disregard Virginia Antitrust Ruling
May 14, 2025 by
CPI
Anthropic Ordered to Respond After AI Allegedly Fabricates Citation in Legal Filing
May 14, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Healthcare Antitrust
May 14, 2025 by
CPI
Healthcare & Antitrust: What to Expect in the New Trump Administration
May 14, 2025 by
Nana Wilberforce, John W O'Toole & Sarah Pugh
Patent Gaming and Disparagement: Commission Fines Teva For Improperly Protecting Its Blockbuster Medicine
May 14, 2025 by
Blaž Višnar, Boris Andrejaš, Apostolos Baltzopoulos, Rieke Kaup, Laura Nistor & Gianluca Vassallo
Strategic Alliances in the Pharma Sector: An EU Competition Law Perspective
May 14, 2025 by
Christian Ritz & Benedikt Weiss
Monopsony Power in the Hospital Labor Market
May 14, 2025 by
Kevin E. Pflum & Christian Salas