Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict finding that Google violated federal and California antitrust laws in the markets for Android app distribution and Android in-app billing services. The court also upheld the district court’s permanent injunction, rejected Google’s issue-preclusion argument based on Epic’s separate litigation against Apple, and found no abuse of discretion in the trial procedures or jury instructions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether findings and market definitions in Epic's separate litigation against Apple precluded Epic from litigating different relevant markets against Google.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying bifurcation and conducting a single jury trial involving Epic's equitable antitrust claims and Google's damages counterclaims.
- Whether the district court erred by refusing to give a single-brand-aftermarket jury instruction.
- Whether the district court's Rule of Reason instruction improperly excluded consideration of procompetitive benefits in markets outside the relevant Android markets.
- Whether the permanent injunction exceeded the district court's remedial authority, lacked a significant causal connection to the antitrust violations, imposed an impermissible duty to deal, used an impermissible reasonable-fee provision, or was impermissibly vague under Rule 65(d).
- Whether the district court properly created a Technical Committee to address implementation disputes.
- Whether Epic had Article III standing to seek the nationwide permanent injunction.
Holdings
- The Apple litigation did not preclude Epic from litigating the relevant markets in its action against Google because the market-definition issue was not identical and the Google-specific market was not actually litigated or decided in Apple.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Google's request to bifurcate the proceedings and by conducting a single jury trial on the overlapping factual issues underlying Epic's equitable antitrust claims and Google's legal damages counterclaims.
- The district court properly refused to give Google's proposed single-brand-aftermarket instruction because the theory was not presented by either party and was unsupported by the evidence.
- The district court did not err by instructing the jury to consider whether Google's conduct produced competitive benefits in the relevant market without requiring consideration of procompetitive benefits in other markets.
- The district court acted within its broad equitable authority under Section 16 of the Clayton Act to prohibit exclusionary arrangements, require catalog access and third-party app-store distribution, and require reasonable fees for security measures.
- The injunction satisfied Rule 65(d)'s reasonable-detail requirement, and the district court acted within its authority by creating a Technical Committee to address implementation disputes while retaining ultimate judicial control.
- Epic had Article III standing to seek the permanent injunction, and the nationwide scope of the antitrust injunction was within the district court's remedial discretion.
Key quotations
“Just because parties compete in one market does not mean, as a matter of law, that there cannot be a narrower or overlapping market in which the parties do not compete.” (24)
“The factual issues underlying Google’s legal counterclaims overlapped and intertwined extensively with the factual issues underlying Epic’s equitable antitrust claims.” (33)
“the available injunctive relief is broad, including to ‘terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure that there remain no practices likely to result in monopolization in the future.’” (42-43)
“These cases underscore that, after establishing liability, the district court had within its basket of remedial powers the authority to require Google to deal with parties harmed by its anticompetitive conduct, including its competitors.” (45-46)
“The nationwide prohibitions fit squarely within the district court’s “large discretion” to craft equitable antitrust remedies.” (67)
Factual background
Epic distributed Fortnite through mobile app stores and embedded code allowing users to bypass Google Play Billing and its commission. Google removed Fortnite from the Play Store, after which Epic sued Google for antitrust violations. The jury found that Google monopolized and restrained trade in Android app distribution and Android in-app billing, and unlawfully tied Play Store access to Google Play Billing. The district court entered a three-year injunction prohibiting specified exclusionary arrangements and requiring catalog access, third-party app-store distribution, and alternative billing-related access.
Procedural history
Epic sued Google after Google removed Fortnite from the Google Play Store following Epic's use of an alternative in-app payment method. The claims were consolidated in multidistrict litigation; after other plaintiffs settled, Epic's antitrust claims for equitable relief proceeded to a jury trial. The jury returned a unanimous verdict for Epic, and the district court entered a three-year permanent injunction addressing Google's conduct in Android app distribution and in-app billing. Google appealed the liability verdict and injunction, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.