Google Antitrust Trial Focused on Android App Store Payments to Be Handed Off to Jury to Decide

(FILES) This illustration photograph taken on October 30, 2023 in Mulhouse, eastern France, shows figurines next to a screen displaying a logo of Google, a US multinational technology company. (Photo by SEBASTIEN BOZON / AFP)
(FILES) This illustration photograph taken on October 30, 2023 in Mulhouse, eastern France, shows figurines next to a screen displaying a logo of Google, a US multinational technology company. (Photo by SEBASTIEN BOZON / AFP)
TT
20

Google Antitrust Trial Focused on Android App Store Payments to Be Handed Off to Jury to Decide

(FILES) This illustration photograph taken on October 30, 2023 in Mulhouse, eastern France, shows figurines next to a screen displaying a logo of Google, a US multinational technology company. (Photo by SEBASTIEN BOZON / AFP)
(FILES) This illustration photograph taken on October 30, 2023 in Mulhouse, eastern France, shows figurines next to a screen displaying a logo of Google, a US multinational technology company. (Photo by SEBASTIEN BOZON / AFP)

A federal court jury is poised to begin its deliberations in an antitrust trial focused on whether Google's efforts to profit from its app store for Android smartphones have been illegally gouging consumers and stifling innovation.
Before the nine-person jury in San Francisco starts weighing the evidence Monday, the lawyers on the opposing sides of the trial will present their closing arguments in a three-year-old case filed by Epic Games, the maker of the popular Fortnite video game, The Associated Press said.
The four-week trial included testimony from both Google CEO Sundar Pichai, who sometimes seemed like a professor explaining complex topics while standing behind a lectern because of a health issue, and Epic CEO Tim Sweeney, who painted himself as a video game lover on a mission to take down a greedy tech titan.
Epic alleged that Google has been exploiting its wealth and control of the Android software that powers most of the world's smartphones to protect a lucrative payment system within its Play Store for distributing Android apps. Just as Apple does for its iPhone app store, Google collects a 15-30% commission from digital transactions completed within apps — a setup that generates billions of dollars annually in profit.
Google has staunchly defended the commissions as a way to help recoup the huge investments it has poured into building into the Android software that it has been giving away since 2007 to manufacturers to compete against the iPhone and pointed to rival Android app stores such as the one that Samsung installs on its popular smartphones as evidence of a free market.
Epic, though, presented evidence asserting the notion that Google welcomes competition as a pretense, citing the hundreds of billions of dollars it has doled out to companies such as game maker Activision Blizzard to discourage them from opening rival app stores.
The jury's verdict in the case will likely hinge on how the smartphone app market is defined. While Epic has been contending Google's Play Store is a de facto monopoly that drives up prices for consumers and discourages app makers from creating new products, Google drew a picture of a broad and fiercely competitive market that includes Apple's iPhone app store in addition to the Android alternatives to its Play Store.
Google's insistence that it competes against Apple in the distribution of apps despite the company's reliance on incompatible mobile operating systems cast a spotlight on the two companies' cozy relationship in online search — the subject of another major antitrust trial in Washington that will be decided by a federal judge after hearing final arguments in May.
The Washington trial centers on US Justice Department allegations that Google has been abusing its dominance of the online search market, partly by paying billions of dollars to be the automatic place to field queries placed on personal computers and mobile devices, including the iPhone.
Evidence presented in both the San Francisco and Washington revealed Google paid $26.3 billion in 2021 for its search to be the default choice on a variety of web browsers and smartphones, with the bulk of the money going to Apple. Without providing a precise dollar amount, Pichai confirmed Google shared 36% of its revenue from searches in the Safari browser with Apple in 2021.
Epic's lawsuit against Google's Android app store mirror another case that the video game maker brought against Apple and its iPhone app store. The Apple lawsuit resulted in a monthlong trial in 2021 amid the pandemic, with Epic losing on all its key claims.
But the Apple trial was decided by a federal judge as opposed to a jury that will hand down the verdict in the Google case.



US May Target Samsung, Hynix, TSMC Operations in China

A man walks past the logo of Samsung Electronics displayed outside the company's Seocho building in Seoul on April 30, 2025. (Photo by Jung Yeon-je / AFP)
A man walks past the logo of Samsung Electronics displayed outside the company's Seocho building in Seoul on April 30, 2025. (Photo by Jung Yeon-je / AFP)
TT
20

US May Target Samsung, Hynix, TSMC Operations in China

A man walks past the logo of Samsung Electronics displayed outside the company's Seocho building in Seoul on April 30, 2025. (Photo by Jung Yeon-je / AFP)
A man walks past the logo of Samsung Electronics displayed outside the company's Seocho building in Seoul on April 30, 2025. (Photo by Jung Yeon-je / AFP)

The US Department of Commerce is considering revoking authorizations granted in recent years to global chipmakers Samsung, SK Hynix and TSMC, making it more difficult for them to receive US goods and technology at their plants in China, according to people familiar with the matter.

The chances of the United States withdrawing the authorizations are unclear. But with such a move, it would be harder for foreign chipmakers to operate in China, where they produce semiconductors used in a wide range of industries, Reuters said.

A White House official said the United States was "just laying the groundwork" in case the truce reached between the two countries fell apart. But the official expressed confidence that the trade agreement would go forward and that rare earths would flow from China, as agreed.

"There is currently no intention of deploying this tactic," the official said. "It's another tool we want in our toolbox in case either this agreement falls through or any other catalyst throws a wrench in bilateral relations."

Shares of US chip equipment makers that supply plants in China fell when the Wall Street Journal first reported the news earlier on Friday. KLA Corp dropped 2.4%, Lam Research fell 1.9% and Applied Materials sank 2%. Shares of Micron, a major competitor to Samsung and SK Hynix in the memory chip sector, rose 1.5%.

A TSMC spokesman declined comment. Samsung and Hynix did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Lam Research, KLA and Applied Materials did not immediately respond, either.

In October 2022, after the United States placed sweeping restrictions on US chipmaking equipment to China, it gave foreign manufacturers like Samsung and Hynix letters authorizing them to receive goods.

In 2023 and 2024, the companies received what is known as Validated End User status in order to continue the trade.

A company with VEU status is able to receive designated goods from a US company without the supplier obtaining multiple export licenses to ship to them. VEU status enables entities to receive US-controlled products and technologies "more easily, quickly and reliably," as the Commerce Department website puts it.

The VEU authorizations come with conditions, a person familiar with the matter said, including prohibitions on certain equipment and reporting requirements.

“Chipmakers will still be able to operate in China," a Commerce Department spokesperson said in a statement when asked about the possible revocations. "The new enforcement mechanisms on chips mirror licensing requirements that apply to other semiconductor companies that export to China and ensure the United States has an equal and reciprocal process.”

Industry sources said that if it became more difficult for US semiconductor equipment companies to ship to foreign multinationals, it would only help domestic Chinese competitors.

"It’s a gift," one said.