Google agrees to pay $700M in antitrust settlement reached with states

https://apnews.com/article/google-android-play-store-apps-antitrust-settlement-e4e2f422baa846c66deac90c7866c5fd

by DocFeind • 3 years ago

176 184 3 years ago

apnews.com

primatperfctnsm2• 3 years ago

"Insert coin to continue"

g-b-r41• 3 years ago

At least they're forced to (gradually, slowly, after 15 years) make a few improvements though...

primatperfctnsm2• 3 years ago

I agree, of course, but it's not enough force.

"If violence doesn't help, you're not using enough violence." (It's from a manga called 'Bleach')

The one thing these settlements are good for is to make the employees and customers of Google aware of the fact, that despite being too big to fail and having their hands in a lot of pockets (not judging here, this' the way of capitalism), _the attack surface is actually gigantic and impossible to defend_.

Corporations have more weak spots than the average skinny-fat human who's never been in a fight.

koolba• 3 years ago

Eligible consumers will receive at least $2, according to the settlement, and may get additional payments based on their spending on the Play store between Aug. 16, 2016 and Sept. 30, 2023.

I bet they give it as a play store credit. How else would they actually distribute $2 to so many people without costing a huge percentage of the payout?

Like Apple does in its iPhone app store, Google collects commissions ranging from 15% to 30% on in-app purchases — fees that state attorneys general contended drove prices higher than they would have been had there been an open market for payment processing.

The real lesson here is to not let anyone get a foot in the door of your walled garden.

Google also agreed to make other changes designed to make it even easier for consumers to download and install Android apps from other outlets besides its Play Store for the next five years. It will refrain from issuing as many security warnings, or “scare screens,” when alternative choices are being used.

The States that asked for this are idiots. The real world consequence of this won’t be improved competition. It will be grandma getting fleeced.

It’s not that it should be possible, but making it not “scary” is not a good idea for the reality we live in.

ehsankia2• 3 years ago

Right, I think the solution to this, which already exists, is other preinstalled stores, like Samsung or Amazon stores, by OEMs. What should probably be illegal is making deals forcing OEMs to have exclusive app store deals?

That being said, that's also a shitty situation for consumers, as having many or different app stores is confusing and just leads to the very fragmentation people have complain about on Android for a decade.

This is the real duality of the situation. On the one hand, people criticize Android for not being as cohesive an experience as iOS, but on the other hand, anything Google does to make it more cohesive will be seen as anti-competitive. Same with security.

amadeuspagel7• 3 years ago

Right, I think the solution to this, which already exists, is other preinstalled stores, like Samsung or Amazon stores, by OEMs. What should probably be illegal is making deals forcing OEMs to have exclusive app store deals?

I have another store on my phone called "Mi Picks", which was preinstalled. I've never used it. Why would I?

The only reason people would ever use another store is if they were forced to, to install a specific app, this is of course the situation on PC where you need to install another store for every game, and this is the only thing that Google made deals to prevent.

g-b-r41• 3 years ago

anything Google does to make it more cohesive will be seen as anti-competitive..

Sure, anything Google does to make it more cohesive...

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on...

https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-l...

AnthonyMouse6• 3 years ago

That being said, that's also a shitty situation for consumers, as having many or different app stores is confusing and just leads to the very fragmentation people have complain about on Android for a decade.

Are people confused because they can choose whether to buy things at Walmart, Target, Amazon or the local convenience store? Is this "fragmentation"? Should we get rid of these others and have only Amazon, so people aren't confused?

It's not really that confusing. You can go to any shady website on the internet and give them your credit card number and find out what happens, but people mostly just buy things from stores they trust -- even though there are many of them. Why is this different?

(Actual reason: Because the incumbents suppress the other stores so none of them gets popular enough to establish a reputation with the public at large.)

qingcharles• 3 years ago

The payout I just got from the last Google class action was PayPal or check. I chose PayPal and they mailed me a check.

wredue3• 3 years ago

TLDR: Google was exploiting “openness” as a concept while actively not being open. This is a win for openness, not a loss as op asserts.

It’s neat that you make this a Google vs apple thing somehow, but the walled garden had very little to do with the lawsuit.

Google was found to be engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. This behaviour is used by at least some consumers to make decisions (being an “open platform”), but which Google was forcibly manipulating behind to scenes to not actually be as open as they were pretending to be.

You can call it just “apple keeping a walled garden” all you like, it doesn’t change that Google was attempting to shift market behaviours based on what was demonstrably a lie. For all intents and purposes, Google *was a walled garden*, and comments like yours show that their manipulation worked.

amadeuspagel7• 3 years ago

The walled garden has everything to do with the lawsuit. This lawsuit would not have happened had Android been a walled garden.

g-b-r41• 3 years ago

Why was that comment downvoted??

buu7002• 3 years ago

I'm dismayed that Google wasn't forced to revert the decision to block new apps from using their own signing keys[1]. That's far more problematic than the so-called "scare screens".

1: https://www.xda-developers.com/google-play-apk-replacement-p...

EE84M3i• 3 years ago

How would this effect normal users? For 99.9% of android users I don't think matters.

ceejayoz2• 3 years ago

I bet they give it as a play store credit. How else would they actually distribute $2 to so many people without costing a huge percentage of the payout?

I got a $0.13 cent check from some iTunes class action settlement.

edit: Think it was this one. https://www.nola.com/louisiana_inspired/we-received-a-16-cen...

wesapien3• 3 years ago

I just don't see many supposed grandma's (or prey people) make tweaks or go out and seek software outside of the playstore. The only reason my dad uses Newpipe is because of me. Someone knowledgeable has to introduce it to them. The most adventurous thing these people will do on their own is download apps on the playstore by themselves and sign in their app.

ralph84• 3 years ago

Until grandma gets a call from a nice gentleman at “Google tech support” who walks her through the process.

scarface_746• 3 years ago

And my mom who is 80 and is somewhat computer literate - she is a retired school teacher who used our Apple //e with AppleWorks back in the 80s and has had multiple fairly up to date computers since then.

She went to download a printer driver and she went on a website that had crapware. It’s not just the shady websites. CNET (download.com) and whatever company use to own Slashdot use to bundle Firefox with crapware.

turquoisevar7• 3 years ago

It will be grandma getting fleeced.

Not just grandma. We need to move away from the idea that just a handful of digital illiterate seniors will get screwed.

Android has been the main target for malware for a while now.

Nokia’s Threat Intelligence Report in 2021[0] reported that Android makes up more than half of all the infected systems, in the recent 2023 report this had dipped to 49%[1]. But as they’ve done in prior reports, this year they again highlight that most Android malware is a trojanized version of legitimate apps distributed via alternative means:

Android based devices are not inherently insecure. However, most smartphone malware is distributed as trojanized applications and since Android users can load application from just about anywhere, it’s much easier to trick them into installing applications that are infected with malware. Android users can protect themselves by only installing applications from secure app stores like Google Play and installing a mobile anti-virus product on their device.

0: https://pages.nokia.com/T006US-Threat-Intelligence-Report-20...

1: https://www.nokia.com/networks/security-portfolio/threat-int...

g-b-r41• 3 years ago

Uh installing from just about anywhere that's unheard of in the history of computing!!!

g-b-r41• 3 years ago

Whether those numbers are true, malware on Android can generally do a lot less damage than on other systems (first of all because Android is not used for servers and workstations).

Aunche• 3 years ago

Android is also the most popular OS in the world right now. There billions of people who developing countries who use a cheap Android phone as their only computing device. I'm sure a lot of them come bundled with rather questionable apps and app stores.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste...

factormeta• 3 years ago

Android users can protect themselves by only installing applications from secure app stores like Google Play and installing a mobile anti-virus product on their device.

F-Droid is a much better option for consumers. If I download an app that runs on my hardware and uses my mobile data, then it would be dame good idea that NOT ONLY the source is available, but there is build-able from the available source.

g-b-r41• 3 years ago

Ok I just noticed that you called the play store a "secure app store".

That's ludicrous.

quitit2• 3 years ago

Agreed. We have the entire history of personal computing to know the consequences of these changes.

Industry experts still state, ad nauseam, that side loading and 3rd party app stores are the overwhelming source of Android malware. (Source: Nokia Threat Intelligence report: literally every single year it is issued.)

There are better solutions available, such as directly addressing developer's complaints, rather than hoping a competitor will materialise:

- Requiring google spin off the approval process into an independent, audited entity.

- Legislate a maximum price for transaction fees (like how some markets do with bank fees)

- Legislate a maximum price for listing/admin fees (like how some markets do with staple goods)

What isn't the solution is removing all guard rails from the number 1 source of malware.

Also I don't care much for deemphasising the role of a trusted app store. This is mainly harmful to startups and small developers, since the likes of Spotify can fly solo and undercut smaller developers which rely on Google’s store for visibility and user trust in transactions. Few will hand over their banking details to these smaller developers, especially if they’re overseas or using a different currency.

An entire generation of people were scared of, or did not meaningfully use computers because of malware. Yet this same generation is not scared of smartphones and tablet computers and contributes significant spend to the app ecosystem. I fear that once legislators and court rooms bring back the risks of computing in the '90s, it will take us back to square 1.

g-b-r41• 3 years ago

An entire generation of people were scared of, or did not meaningfully use computers because of malware

Sorry but that's just a ridiculous and entirely false claim

dragonwriter2• 3 years ago

An entire generation of people were scared of, or did not meaningfully use computers because of malware.

Which entire generation was this?

g-b-r41• 3 years ago

A single monopolistic store gives raise to all kinds of problems anyhow, at least unless it's _entirely_ controlled by a trustworthy entity devoting enough resources to its management.

Check how happy developers are with it.

And you're enormously overestimating the security checks that are performed on apps.

sneak• 3 years ago

How else would they actually distribute $2 to so many people without costing a huge percentage of the payout?

It’s rentseeking monopolies all the way down.

henriquez2• 3 years ago

Grandma getting fleeced is a small price to pay when the alternative is totalitarianism.

graeme• 3 years ago

If Android is perceived as a place where normal people get fleeced, then the logical recommendation for non tech literate people will be “get an iphone”

amadeuspagel7• 3 years ago

It's shocking that it's illegal to make an OS that allows people to install apps from other sources after warning them, but not illegal to not allow that at all.

queuebert• 3 years ago

Government of the people, by the people and for the people.[1]

1. Corporations have been determined to be people.

megaman8214• 3 years ago

Blah, this generic sentiment is so tired. What specific rights should we take away from groups of people but are present as individuals?

YetAnotherNick• 3 years ago

Law is so weird. Apple stopped watch sales today for using decades old technology[1]. And Google for this. Out of ALL the bad things they have done.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiejennings/2023/10/31/some-a...

crazygringo• 3 years ago

This is the problem that arises when the legislature doesn't make laws specifically around things like app stores.

The courts take existing laws and regulations and try to make them fit, and different courts come up with different answers because the laws they're using never imagined this precise scenario.

Ideally we'd have a functioning Congress that would debate these issues and write carefully thought-out laws to regulate app stores. Until then, we just get messes of seemingly contradictory rulings that seem to be decided more by chance than by any clear cohesive principle.

In other words -- blame the legislature, not the courts.

cogman103• 3 years ago

These things would be processed faster if we had sane laws and/or procedures around lawsuit discovery requests and motions. Still a problem with the legislature, but also a little with the courts.

We simply do not have enough judges to handle caseloads in a timely fashion. But also, whenever a major company is sued you end up with 8 billion motions that the court has to rule on before you even get close to a trial date.

A major problem is there's no real penalty for wasting the court's time. Companies are incentivized to make longshot motions because in the worst case, the court will just say no. For lawfirms, the more motions you make the bigger their paycheck so they not only go unpunished, they are rewarded for making as many motions as possible.

dfgfek• 3 years ago

Ideally we'd have a functioning Congress that would debate these issues and write carefully thought-out laws to regulate app stores.

Why is it ideal that there are more laws, more regulations...?

alephnan2• 3 years ago

because the laws they're using never imagined this precise scenarios

These scenarios precisely avoided the law

AnthonyMouse6• 3 years ago

It's shocking that it's illegal to make an OS that allows people to install apps from other sources after warning them, but not illegal to not allow that at all.

That hasn't been established yet. This wasn't a court decision, it was a settlement. Epic separately sued both Google and Apple and won against Google but lost against Apple, but both of the cases are being appealed and you don't have a national precedent until you have a Supreme Court decision.

s3p• 3 years ago

I think it's a little more complicated than that. You can have precedent when courts follow fellow courts' decisions. The supreme court just has the final say. Also, even if SCOTUS rules one way, it can just overrule itself a few years later if it wants to (like it did in the summer).

madeofpalk3• 3 years ago

Google created a market, and then they stifled that market.

There's no "iOS app distribution" market for Apple to act anti-competitively in.

vorticalbox2• 3 years ago

Cydia?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydia

turquoisevar7• 3 years ago

It’s because the acts in a vacuum aren’t illegal. It’s about leveraging power derived from market dominance.

(Although in this case the legality hasn’t been adjudicated because a settlement was reached).

If you create a platform and app market with strict rules, that’s not illegal. The logic here is that you’re new in the market and if the terms aren’t commensurate with market conditions, you will never grow. If you do grow, then the market has decided that the gains outweigh the limitations you imposed.

There comes a point where you have gained enough dominance where your actions can be scrutinized. But in general as long as you don’t actively tighten the reigns, you’re in the clear. So if you had strict rules when you started and despite those strict rules you grew and since then you haven’t made the rules stricter, then you’re in the clear because you haven’t abused your market dominance.

The flip side of this coin is that if you created a platform and app market that didn’t have strict rules and was very open, but once you’ve gained market dominance you put up hurdles or you impose stricter rules, then there could be a problem because now it can be explained as you abusing your market dominance after everyone got in.

Personally I don’t think the so called “scare screens” fall under dominance abuse because they serve a legitimate purpose. If anything I think they’re not enough.

Nokia’s Threat Intelligence Report in 2021[0] reported that Android makes up more than half of all the infected systems in the recent 2023 report this had dipped to 49%[1]. But as they’ve done in prior reports, this year they again highlight that most Android malware is a trojanized version of legitimate apps distributed via alternative means:

Android based devices are not inherently insecure. However, most smartphone malware is distributed as trojanized applications and since Android users can load application from just about anywhere, it’s much easier to trick them into installing applications that are infected with malware. Android users can protect themselves by only installing applications from secure app stores like Google Play and installing a mobile anti-virus product on their device.

In any case, whether something is legal or illegal in this case depends on whether it was or wasn’t done while having market dominance.

0: https://pages.nokia.com/T006US-Threat-Intelligence-Report-20...

1: https://www.nokia.com/networks/security-portfolio/threat-int...

lijok• 3 years ago

Am I misunderstanding or are you suggesting it should be illegal to make an OS that doesn't permit certain functionality?

wouldbecouldbe2• 3 years ago

Can someone tell me why Google "loses" and Apple still gets away with the same behaviour?

gbear605• 3 years ago

The EU is forcing Apple to allow third party app stores by April. As for the US issue, law cases like this are unique and have to be dealt with individually.

https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/18/third-party-app-stores-apple-...

delusional• 3 years ago

My understanding is that Apple's defense is that they never opted in to a free market, and therefore they aren't required to have one. Google however sold android as being a "free market" choice, and as such can't artificially skew that market.

I don't know if it really makes sense, but that's my understanding of these two verdict when held in contrast.

didibus• 3 years ago

My understanding is that Google's behavior was seen as strong-arming their way into signing non-competitive agreements with competitors.

For example, they'd make a deal with Samsung that if they want Google services on Samsung phones, Samsung had to agree to not let anyone else put competing app stores or payment processing other than Samsung's own and Google's own.

Where-as Apple it's more seen that they simply are not letting competitors put their alternatives on their own Phones, which isn't seen as anti-competitive, but more as how Apple itself competes.

And probably Google also internally used bad language that talked more about how to prevent competitors, etc. that might have been more incriminating.

So I think they see it more like if CocaCola told Walgreens they won't sell Coke products at Walgreens if Walgreens caries Pepsi products. Where Coke is seen as such a big player, that their leading market position forces Walgreens to agree, because not selling Coke would harm them financially so much due to the market leading position of Coke, but also it's seen as a anti-competitive agreement from Coke.

kevindamm• 3 years ago

Jurors confirmed that a big part of their decision was based on Google's internal behavior, not explicitly the deals. The evidence that upper management would move sensitive conversations to chat where they knew a short 24hr retention period existed was a very influential piece, as well as some of the wording in internal emails.

I always thought the Communicating with Care courses were a reasonable amount of legal paranoia, but I see how it could also look sketchy.

its_ethan• 3 years ago

I heard on a podcast that some part of the difference in the two rulings was due to the fact that Google was cutting deals with some companies/developers to lure them to their store, meaning not everyone was equally subject to the 30% fee. Apple (to my knowledge) hasn't done any deals like this - everyone pays the same fee, no special treatment (until recently, when they reduced the fee for apps with revenue <$1m)

wouldbecouldbe2• 3 years ago

No, Apple does that as well: https://www.theverge.com/c/22611236/epic-v-apple-emails-proj...

jncfhnb• 3 years ago

Just give it time. People tripping over themselves to insist they’re fundamentally different will lose out. It’ll even out and regulation will catch up

atonse• 3 years ago

Having to settle and pay $700 million is not a loss. That is NOTHING for Google.

This is a huge win for them, because you can rest assured Google will get a ton of concessions out of the states in exchange of paying the fine. It's not even high enough to make Google feel "let's never do this again" – it wouldn't be for Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, any of these guys.

It should be in the order tens of billions or a hefty amount of their revenue, whichever is greater. Google must be celebrating such a low fine.

jsnell• 3 years ago

First, it wasn't a fine.

Second, the settlement wasn't just this $700M, it was a bunch of changes to how Android works. As explained in the article.

Third, where in the world are you getting this fairytale about "concessions from the states" from?

gerash2• 3 years ago

There's no point in trying to find an "explanation" or justification here. This is by no means a fair outcome.

madeofpalk3• 3 years ago

The Verge has a pretty good explainer on how, in relation to the Google/Epic case https://www.theverge.com/24003500/epic-v-google-loss-apple-w...

The tl;dr is that the jury determined that "android app distribution" is the relevent market, and google has lots of dodgy emails where they stifled competition in it. There is no "ios app distribution" market.

turquoisevar7• 3 years ago

The long and short of it is that it matters when you started doing it, or more precisely how dominant you were when you started doing it.

If you have strict rules form the get go while you’re a nobody in the relevant market, then you’re free to maintain those strict rules even if you all of a sudden became a big player (although you can’t become more strict). This is in part because the assumption is that if your rules would’ve been too strict, then you would’ve never been able to become a dominant market player, because nobody would’ve wanted to deal with you.

If on the other hand you were open and didn’t have strict rules in place but you start changing your tune once you’re big and powerful then it could be explained as you abusing your power (i.e. luring people in with relaxed rules, only to turn up the thumbscrews once everyone depends on you).

Apple has always had a walled garden with strict rules and a 30% commission, and despite that many were happy to join. Since then they’ve not turned up the thumbscrews, in fact they’ve done the opposite by lowering the commission for the vast majority of developers. The flip side is that they can’t go stricter and to a higher commission from here because they are too dominant now.

That’s also in part why Apple has all these hills they’re willing to die on, anything they concede now, they can never undo or return to.

They don’t have the flexibility of testing a 5% commission for example and see if that works better, because the moment they decide it didn’t work out for them and they increase it back to 15% or 30%, it can be explained as an abuse of dominance because of the people that joined in, and became dependent on them, during that test.

Smaller companies can try new pricing strategies, new monetisation strategies, etc. Sure when they announce that from now on their “free plan” is discontinued some customers might moan and complain, but they never have to worry about government intervention on the basis of antitrust.

paulddraper• 3 years ago

If you have strict rules form the get go while you’re a nobody in the relevant market, then you’re free to maintain those strict rules even if you all of a sudden became a big player (although you can’t become more strict). This is in part because the assumption is that if your rules would’ve been too strict, then you would’ve never been able to become a dominant market player, because nobody would’ve wanted to deal with you.

My head hurts.

scarface_746• 3 years ago

It’s simple case law. You can’t change the rules of the game after the product is purchased. People bought iPhones knowing they were locked to one store.

Google claimed to be open and weren’t

mattcantstop• 3 years ago

One thing that always surprises me is how toothless any anti-trust settlement is. I don't think I have ever seen an anti-trust fine that was so painful that it would deter people from trying to do it in the first place. It almost always is a sum that would encourage anti-competitive behavior in the future because the fine is so much less than the spoils of the behavior.

pulse72• 3 years ago

This settlement is a joke...

doublerabbit• 3 years ago

you'll better enjoy your $2 or else

hereme888• 3 years ago

Not for the lawyers. I bet they just filled their multi-generational retirement fund.

pulse72• 3 years ago

$2 for people, millions for lawyers... US has become a slave of its own legal system...

g-b-r41• 3 years ago

To all the comments claiming that Android is open, managed cooperatively and in the best interest of users:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on...

https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-l...

hedora• 3 years ago

Google also agreed to make other changes designed to make it even easier for consumers to download and install Android apps from other outlets besides its Play Store for the next five years. It will refrain from issuing as many security warnings, or “scare screens,” when alternative choices are being used.

Note that they're not agreeing to stop actively sabotaging third party android variants and app stores by encouraging app developers to take on bogus Play Service dependencies.

troyvit• 3 years ago

Google has agreed to pay $700 million and make several other concessions to settle allegations that it had been stifling competition against its Android app store
[...] it’s a fraction of the $10.5 billion in damages that the attorneys general estimated the company could be forced to pay if they had taken the case to trial instead of settling.
The settlement represents a “loud and clear message to Big Tech [...]", said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong.

It sure does. It's just not the message you think or claim it is.

SCM-Enthusiast• 3 years ago

I wonder if they can claim that as a loss and pay less taxes?

gentleman11• 3 years ago

And they also have to do a few small things for 5 years. That’s it?

In other words, google won

alephnan2• 3 years ago

What would have happened if Google didn’t agree?

shortsunblack• 3 years ago

10.5 B USD was the correct amount. Not this mere couple bucks.

caroleva• 3 years ago

How do I qualify for the money rebate from google

Google agrees to pay $700M in antitrust settlement reached with states

Related Stories