Google's App Store Appeal Eyed Skeptically by Judges

Google's bid to overturn a jury verdict declaring its app store for Android smartphones an illegal monopoly is being viewed with skepticism by a panel of judges in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The tech giant's emergency motion for a partial stay, seeking to block penalties imposed by a federal judge, is facing scrutiny from the three-judge panel, which heard arguments from both Google and Epic Games on Monday.

Google lawyer Jessica Ellsworth argued that the district court improperly allowed the market in the case to be defined differently than it had in a similar antitrust trial involving Apple. She also asserted that Google should have been granted a bench trial instead of a jury trial, as Apple had in its case. However, the judges seemed unconvinced by Google's arguments, indicating that they believed the market definitions could differ in the separate app store cases and that the competition between Google and Apple in making the two operating systems that power virtually all of the world's smartphones did not prevent Google from acting as a monopolist in the app market.

Epic Games attorney Gary Bornstein countered Google's arguments, outlining why both the verdict and punishment should be affirmed to foster more innovation and lower prices. He reminded the judges that the bar should be set high before reversing a jury's verdict and the ensuing punishment ordered by a lower court judge.

The judges seemed more troubled by the district court's decision to stick with a jury trial after the case changed shortly before the Epic trial when Google settled lawsuits brought by attorneys general across the U.S. and another prominent app developer, Match Group. An agreement for a jury trial had been reached when the attorneys general and Match cases were consolidated with the Epic case.



The International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) submitted an amicus brief urging the court to grant Google's motion and issue a stay of the district court's injunction pending appeal. The ICLE argued that the injunction poses risks to the safety, security, and reputation of Google Play, which could harm competition between Google Play and Apple's App Store and ultimately harm consumers on both platforms.

The appeals court has not set a timeline for issuing a ruling in the Play Store case, but it typically takes several months before a decision is reached. Google is also currently facing other potential penalties, including being forced to sell its Chrome web browser after a judge in another antitrust trial ruled its ubiquitous search engine an illegal monopoly.



In conclusion, Google's bid to overturn the Epic Games verdict and block penalties imposed by a federal judge is facing skepticism from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The judges seemed unconvinced by Google's arguments regarding market definition and competition with Apple, while Epic Games attorney Gary Bornstein presented a strong case for affirming the verdict and punishment. The International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) submitted an amicus brief urging the court to grant Google's motion and issue a stay of the district court's injunction pending appeal. The appeals court has not set a timeline for issuing a ruling in the Play Store case, but it typically takes several months before a decision is reached. Google is also facing other potential penalties, including being forced to sell its Chrome web browser after a judge in another antitrust trial ruled its ubiquitous search engine an illegal monopoly.