Filing Suit Against Google and Samsung for Illegally Colluding to Block Competition in App Distribution and Undermining the Epic v Google Jury Verdict
September 30, 2024
We are filing a court case against Google and Samsung over coordinated efforts to block competition in app distribution on Samsung devices with Samsung’s default-on Auto Blocker feature. Auto Blocker is the latest in a long series of dealings in which Google and Samsung have agreed not to compete to protect Google’s monopoly power. Auto Blocker cements the Google Play Store as the only viable way to get apps on Samsung devices, blocking every other store from competing on a level playing field.
Our litigation alleges that Samsung’s recent implementation of the Auto Blocker feature was intentionally crafted in coordination with Google to preemptively undermine the U.S. District Court’s remedy following the jury’s verdict in Epic’s case against Google. The jury found that Google’s app store practices are illegal, including the unlawful agreements Google enters into with phone manufacturers such as Samsung.
Allowing this coordinated illegal anticompetitive dealing to proceed hurts developers and consumers and undermines both the jury’s verdict and regulatory and legislative progress around the world.
What is Auto Blocker and why is it illegal?
Auto Blocker is a setting that Samsung introduced on their mobile devices in October 2023 as an opt-in feature that disables the user’s ability to install apps from any sources other than the Google Play Store and the Samsung Galaxy Store. In July 2024, however, Samsung reversed course and made Auto Blocker the default setting, requiring every user to change their device settings before they could download and install any app from third party app stores or the web.
Auto Blocker defaulting to “on” requires an exceptionally onerous 21 step process to download an app outside of the Google Play Store or the Samsung Galaxy Store, mirroring Google’s “Unknown Sources” process with multiple steps and scare screens. Auto Blocker is the first time that Samsung has imposed additional friction on consumers who try to get apps outside of the Google Play Store or the Samsung Galaxy Store.
Auto Blocker undermines the jury’s unanimous decision in Epic v. Google, specifically that “Google entered into one or more agreements that unreasonably restrained trade in a relevant antitrust market” including “Agreements with OEMs [original equipment manufacturers] that sell mobile devices”.
Google has a long history of inducing Samsung into anticompetitive dealings
As the United States v. Google and Epic v. Google cases showed, Google is in the habit of paying OEMs billions to prevent competition.
For example, as the world’s largest Android phone manufacturer, Samsung’s Galaxy Store is well-positioned to be a meaningful competitor to the Google Play Store. The shady handshake deals proposed by senior Google executives to Samsung and the agreements they have entered into were designed to disadvantage competition and enrich Google’s bottom line at the expense of developers and consumers.
During the Epic v Google trial there was exhaustive and detailed evidence of Google’s schemes to pay Samsung to not compete with the Google Play Store and to block other app stores from trying to compete. Key exhibits are available here.
Our litigation alleges that Samsung’s recent implementation of the Auto Blocker feature was intentionally crafted in coordination with Google to preemptively undermine the U.S. District Court’s remedy following the jury’s verdict in Epic’s case against Google. The jury found that Google’s app store practices are illegal, including the unlawful agreements Google enters into with phone manufacturers such as Samsung.
Allowing this coordinated illegal anticompetitive dealing to proceed hurts developers and consumers and undermines both the jury’s verdict and regulatory and legislative progress around the world.
What is Auto Blocker and why is it illegal?
Auto Blocker is a setting that Samsung introduced on their mobile devices in October 2023 as an opt-in feature that disables the user’s ability to install apps from any sources other than the Google Play Store and the Samsung Galaxy Store. In July 2024, however, Samsung reversed course and made Auto Blocker the default setting, requiring every user to change their device settings before they could download and install any app from third party app stores or the web.
Auto Blocker defaulting to “on” requires an exceptionally onerous 21 step process to download an app outside of the Google Play Store or the Samsung Galaxy Store, mirroring Google’s “Unknown Sources” process with multiple steps and scare screens. Auto Blocker is the first time that Samsung has imposed additional friction on consumers who try to get apps outside of the Google Play Store or the Samsung Galaxy Store.
Auto Blocker undermines the jury’s unanimous decision in Epic v. Google, specifically that “Google entered into one or more agreements that unreasonably restrained trade in a relevant antitrust market” including “Agreements with OEMs [original equipment manufacturers] that sell mobile devices”.
Google has a long history of inducing Samsung into anticompetitive dealings
As the United States v. Google and Epic v. Google cases showed, Google is in the habit of paying OEMs billions to prevent competition.
For example, as the world’s largest Android phone manufacturer, Samsung’s Galaxy Store is well-positioned to be a meaningful competitor to the Google Play Store. The shady handshake deals proposed by senior Google executives to Samsung and the agreements they have entered into were designed to disadvantage competition and enrich Google’s bottom line at the expense of developers and consumers.
During the Epic v Google trial there was exhaustive and detailed evidence of Google’s schemes to pay Samsung to not compete with the Google Play Store and to block other app stores from trying to compete. Key exhibits are available here.
**Excerpt from an exhibit introduced in the U.S. Epic v. Google trial. Full exhibit is available here.**
- Google expressed a strong desire to avoid competing with Samsung.
- Google sought to pay Samsung to phase out the Samsung Galaxy Store, including as part of an initiative called Project Banyan.
- In 2020, Google signed a Revenue Sharing Agreement with Samsung. Since the agreement, Samsung has not entered into exclusive deals with major game developers to launch on the Galaxy Store, has not competed to offer developers a better headline rate than 30%, and has not taken other necessary steps in order to meaningfully compete with the Google Play Store.
What Epic is asking for
We are asking the court to prohibit Samsung’s and Google’s anti-competitive and unfair conduct and mandate that Samsung eliminate the Auto Blocker by default and enable competition.
The jury’s decision was unanimous and clear; Google’s agreements with OEMs to block competition are illegal. This applies not only to Google, but to the device manufacturers that collude with them. We will take all necessary steps to ensure this decision is fully upheld.
21 Step Install Flow on Samsung Devices
