Google to appeal ban on its anticompetitive app store practices

Following last December's jury verdict that Google Play is an illegal monopoly, judge James Donato of the US District Court for Northern California has now issued a permanent injunction against Google, banning it from certain anticompetitive practices for three years.

First and foremost, Google must distribute rival app stores through Google Play itself, and these stores will be able to offer the full catalogue of Google Play apps, unless the developer opts out. It will be up to Google ensure that rival stores are not havens for malware or illegal goods or services.

This is comfortably the most consequential part of the injunction, and Google has been given eight months to implement the technology necessary to comply with the provision. Once it has, Google Play could be flooded with clones, giving app makers the power to choose whichever one offers the best terms or has the biggest reach.

As well as hosting rival app stores, judge Donato has ordered Google to refrain from various other dubious behaviour.

It is not allowed to pay or coerce developers – in any way, shape or form – to either launch their app exclusively on Google Play, or to stop them from launching it on a rival app store. Similarly, Google is not allowed to dangle carrots or sticks in front of device makers to convince them to pre-install Google Play in a prominent location on any Android device, or to exclude rival app stores from any Android device.

It is also prohibited from requiring developers to use Google Play Billing for apps listed on Google Play, and it cannot ban developers on Google Play from informing users about alternative payment methods either.

Developers must also be allowed to provide users with links to download their apps from locations other than Google Play. Google is also not allowed to share Google Play revenue with rival app store owners – presumably because Donato wants to stimulate competition, not just give Google a network of affiliates.

In a separate document explaining his reasoning behind the injunction, Donato said the expectation is that after three years, the wheat will have been separated from the chaff, and Google will be free to compete with whoever's left standing.

"As competition comes into play and the network effects that Google Play unfairly enjoys are abated, Google should not be unduly constrained as a competitor," he said.

With the exception of mandating rival app stores on Google Play, the remaining provisions within the injunction are due to come into effect on 1 November, that is unless Google gets its way.

Understandably, the internet giant is not thrilled with the idea of hosting rival app stores, or losing revenue to alternative payment methods.

Its position is that the unabated proliferation of app stores represents a potential privacy and security nightmare for end users, and that far from being a monopoly, Google faces stiff competition in the app ecosystem from Apple.

Despite the Epic case exposing Google's history of doing deals with developers and device makers to keep a lid on competition, it also still insists that it has nothing against rival app stores being installed on Android devices.

"These changes would put consumers' privacy and security at risk, make it harder for developers to promote their apps, and reduce competition on devices," said Lee-Anne Mulholland, VP of regulatory affairs at Google. "Ultimately, while these changes presumably satisfy Epic, they will cause a range of unintended consequences that will harm American consumers, developers and device makers."

Google is already appealing last year's jury verdict and said it will also call on the court to pause the injunction. This case is far from over.