Tag: antitrust

  • Epic Games Ends War with Samsung, Declares Victory in the Pettiest Billionaire Slap Fight of the Year

    Epic Games Ends War with Samsung, Declares Victory in the Pettiest Billionaire Slap Fight of the Year

    In the latest episode of Big Tech’s never-ending courtroom soap opera, Fortnite creator Epic Games has gracefully slammed the door shut on its antitrust lawsuit against Samsung—a lawsuit that, in true Epic fashion, was less about justice and more about strategic whining.

    The case, filed in September 2023, accused Samsung of conspiring with Google to stifle the competition by making rival app stores practically invisible on Samsung devices. In other words, Epic was mad that people weren’t lining up to download their shiny new app store.

    “We’re dismissing our court case against Samsung following the parties’ discussions,” said Epic CEO Tim Sweeney on X, formerly Twitter, because that’s where all serious legal announcements go now. “We are grateful that Samsung will address Epic’s concerns,” he added, without actually specifying what those concerns were or how they’d be addressed—classic PR smoke and mirrors.

    Samsung, for its part, responded to the settlement with complete and utter silence. TechCrunch reported that neither Samsung nor Google replied to their request for comment, which in legal speak loosely translates to: “We don’t care enough to dignify this with a statement.”

    The lawsuit centered on Samsung’s “Auto Blocker,” a feature that prevented users from installing apps from anywhere other than the Google Play Store or Samsung’s own Galaxy Store. Epic screamed foul, suggesting this amounted to a two-headed tech dragon colluding to choke out any third-party stores, including its own.

    Back in 2023, Epic launched its own mobile app store in a valiant effort to be the Robin Hood of digital distribution—or, more accurately, to avoid paying Google’s 30% cut of all in-app purchases. This latest lawsuit was yet another attempt by Epic to portray itself as a rebel championing developer freedom, when in reality it’s mostly just mad about lost revenue.

    Google had previously called Epic’s claims “meritless,” reminding the world that Android manufacturers can implement whatever security features they want. Samsung, equally unimpressed, vowed to “vigorously contest Epic Game’s [sic] baseless claims,” typo and all.

    The timing of this settlement is telling. It comes hot on the heels of Epic’s courtroom win against Google in 2023, where a jury agreed that Google’s app store practices were indeed monopolistic. That ruling forced Google to open the Play Store to rival platforms, a move that had Google’s legal team reaching for their appeal papers faster than you can say “anticompetitive behavior.”

    While that appeal is still pending, Epic’s strategic retreat from the Samsung case suggests it may have squeezed enough juice from its courtroom drama with Google. After all, fighting two trillion-dollar corporations at once is exhausting—even for a company with Fortnite money.

    This truce, however vague and anticlimactic, allows Epic to focus on building its fledgling app store empire without wasting more money on legal fees. It also gives Samsung the opportunity to pretend like this lawsuit never happened—because let’s be real, no one was really losing sleep over Epic’s crusade for digital fairness.

    For consumers, the impact of this legal armistice is minimal, unless you were among the five people who actually used Epic’s mobile store. For developers, it might mean marginally easier paths to app distribution in the future—assuming Epic doesn’t pick another fight before breakfast.

    At the end of the day, this settlement is just another footnote in Epic’s quest to turn every business disagreement into a high-stakes public drama. But hey, if nothing else, it’s a great reminder that in tech, litigation is just another product feature.

  • Google Chrome Amputation? Feds Want to Slice Off Google’s Crown Jewel to Tame Search Power

    Google Chrome Amputation? Feds Want to Slice Off Google’s Crown Jewel to Tame Search Power

    Google has asked a federal judge to reject a U.S. government proposal that would force it to divest its Chrome browser, arguing it would do little to help competition in online search.

    The request came during closing arguments in an antitrust case where the Department of Justice accused Google of illegally maintaining its search monopoly.

    Government lawyers claim Chrome, combined with AI advancements, will only deepen Google’s dominance, especially with exclusive deals tying its search engine to devices from Apple and Samsung.

    Google insists no evidence shows consumers would flock to alternatives like Microsoft Bing without those deals, citing testimony from over 100 witnesses.

    The Justice Department wants Google barred from such contracts and floated even more drastic measures, including splitting off Chrome or potentially Android.

    Google argues such remedies are extreme, globally disruptive, and would degrade Chrome’s performance while failing to boost competitors.

    The case comes amid rising pressure from AI-powered rivals like ChatGPT and Perplexity, which are gaining ground in internet search.

    Judge Amit Mehta is now weighing whether to defang the tech giant or risk entrenching its dominance for another digital generation.