Last week, Epic and Google submitted to the United States courts a proposal for a restraining amendment, limited to the United States, to completely eliminate the restrictions on the payment and third-party application stores in the game, which would totally subvert the profitability of the Android game and even impact on the entire mobile game market. However, at a time when all practitioners were looking forward to it, the United States judge in charge of the Epic and Google Antimonopoly cases challenged the settlement agreement between the two parties.
According to the agreement between the parties, Google agreed to reduce the commission for most of the purchases in its applications to 20 per cent and the IAP-type commission for decorative prop, which has less impact on the game, to 9 per cent, with several important limitations. They also proposed the establishment of a third-party application shop audit mechanism through which specific installation and payment rights could be obtained. Epic and Google described the agreement as the end of their long-standing legal dispute since 2020. According to Law360, however, the presiding judge did not consider the proposal sufficient to correct Google ‘ s anticompetitive behaviour. Judge Donato asked for a further hearing in December or January of this year to clarify the matter. “I am concerned that these amendments … failed to adequately remedy Google’s misconduct,” Judge Donato stated in court. He pointed out that, for such proposals to be approved by the Court, there would have to be substantial changes in circumstances, facts or law, and that the proposed amendment to the injunction was far from being met.” The only change I can see at this point is that Epic and Google, who have been fighting for years in this trial, suddenly became close allies.”
Judge Donato further suggested that Google deliberately delayed the case on appeal and by amending the recommendations, with the aim of securing “a year to seize the ill-gotten gains” for its “grabbing and anti-competitive behaviour”. It is worth noting that Epic and Google had requested that the settlement clause be kept confidential, but the judge refused: “I do not want to see any kind of covert operation in between, which involves too much public interest.”According to the legal documents submitted by the parties, the main provisions include: Application of 20% commission:IAP to provide game advantage, including but not limited to trophies to purchase and influence game results/pacing/role intensity 9% Commission Scope:IAP for game content/level/activity/decoration/subscription services/ non-play applications/pays and games
Special provisions:If the currency of the game can be purchased at the same time, Google will charge a higher rate, unless it is able to split the portion of the commodity at a lower rate proportionally; Google may require developers to develop customized versions of the game to apply the new provisions; Google will receive up to 20 per cent of the commission through payment transactions processed through links to external web pages. As at 29 October, Google had been prevented from restricting the use of alternative payment systems at Play stores in the United States or from enforcing the Google Play settlement system for developers. Neither Epic nor Google should have asked for further clarification of these provisions.