This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Antitrust
Price Fixing
Unlawful, Unfair and Fraudulent Business Practices

In re: Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation

Published: Apr. 5, 2024 | Result Date: Dec. 18, 2023 |

Case number: 3:20-cv-05761-JD Settlement –  $700,000,000

Judge

James Donato

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Karma M. Giulianelli
(Bartlit Beck LLP)

Hae Sung Nam
(Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer LLP)

Brendan P. Glackin
(Office of the Utah Attorney General)


Defendant

Glenn D. Pomerantz
(Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP)

Kuruvilla J. Olasa
(Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP)

Emily C. Curran-Huberty
(Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP)

Justin P. Raphael
(Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP)

Kyle W. Mach
(Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP)

Jonathan I. Kravis
(Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP)


Facts

In this case, various plaintiffs, including a majority of states' attorneys general, brought consumer protection and antitrust claims against the Google Play Store, and the cases were consolidated into a multi-district litigation for centralized proceedings in the Northern District.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that Google had monopolized the application distribution market for the Android operating system. The plaintiffs contended that Google required all app developers to use its platform for distribution and for payment processing; and that it charged unreasonable and monopolistic fees of roughly 30 percent for processing payments for in-app purchases. The plaintiffs argued that Google's conduct established an unlawful monopoly over Android app distribution; that it engaged in unreasonable restraints of trade by doing so; that Google unlawfully required using the Google Play marketplace to Google Play billing; that Google monopolized in-app payment processing and engaged in unreasonable restraints of trade in doing so.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: The defendants denied any wrongdoing or liability.

Result

The parties agreed to a settlement fund of $630,000,000 to settle the consumers' claims, as well as a States' Monetary Fund of $70,000,000 to be distributed directly to States, for a total of $700 million.


#142673

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390