Google asks appeals court to suspend Play changes in Epic case

Google filed an appeal in the Epic case today and wants the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to “pause the proposed changes to Android and Google Play” until the trial is complete.

On October 7, a district court judge ruled that Google:

• “…may not prohibit a developer from communicating with users about the availability or price of an app outside of the Google Play Store, and may not prohibit a developer from providing a link to download the app outside of the Google Play Store.”
• “…may not require the use of Google Play Billing in apps distributed on the Google Play Store or prohibit the use of in-app payment methods other than Google Play Billing.”

There are a few more restrictions on developers and OEMs that come into effect on November 1st and will last for three years, while the biggest changes are to require third-party stores to be distributed in Google Play and give them access to the Play store. Grant catalog of apps. Google has eight months to implement this, with both of these requirements also valid for three years.

Google lawyers describe the appeal as follows:

---

The liability verdict is fatally flawed

• The district court made several legal errors in allowing Epic to exclude Apple from the common sense rule analysis
• The district court disagreed with other circuits on serious legal issues that raised substantive appeal issues

The interim injunction is legally incorrect

• The injunction makes the court – and its expert committee – the central planner for vague bans
• The injunction disregards fundamental legal limitations on appeal powers
• Epic failed to demonstrate the validity of Article III

---

When Google asks for a stay pending the outcome of the appeal process, it states that the three-week implementation of the first changes creates an “unacceptable risk of security deficiencies in the Android ecosystem,” with the filing even pointing out what happened with Crowdstrike happened a few weeks ago as a warning against “acting too quickly”.

The appeal also raises a point that is frequently raised in discussion of the case:

It’s troubling that Apple, which requires all apps to run through its proprietary App Store, is not a monopolist, but Google – which has built choices into the Android operating system so that device makers can pre-install it and users can download competing app stores – was condemned for monopolization.

The Epic v. Apple case, which the latter largely won, ended when the Supreme Court rejected an appeal earlier this year. Apple must continue to allow developers to link to other payment systems.

You can read the full 41-page appeal here, while Google has also published a fact sheet.

Google’s filing also revealed that there are “more than 100 million U.S. users of Android devices,” which is consistent with third-party estimates. There are also “over 500,000 US developers.”