Dozens of states targeted Google’s App Store in a no-confidence suit
Dozens of states are targeting Google in the face of growing legal action against Big Tech. The lawsuit, filed late Wednesday, targeted the Google Play Store, where users download apps designed for Android software that power most of the world’s smartphones.
San Ramon, California. – Dozens of states are targeting Google in the face of increasing legal action on bag tech.
This time, the Attorney Generals of 36 states and the District of Columbia have filed a lawsuit targeting Google’s Play Store, where users download apps designed for Android software that powers most of the world’s smartphones. ۔
The 144-page lawsuit filed in a Northern California federal court late Wednesday represents the fourth no-confidence motion against Google by government agencies across the United States since last October.
In most recent lawsuits last August, similar allegations were echoed by mobile game maker Epic Games against both Google and Apple, exclusively for the iPhone. Runs a separate app store.
As Apex did, the lawsuit focuses on controlling Google’s own app store to collect up to 30 commissions on digital transactions within apps installed on Android-powered smartphones. Those devices represent more than 80 in the global smartphone market.
Against Apple – the maker of the widely played Fortnight video game – a high profile trial epic that ended in late May. A ruling by a federal judge presiding over the month-long trial is expected later this summer. The epic lawsuit against Google is still pending.
Although its app commissions are similar to Apple’s, Google has tried to differentiate itself by allowing users to download apps from places other than their Play Store. In contrast, Apple does not allow iPhone users to install apps from any outlet other than its own store.
But the lawsuit, filed Wednesday, alleges Google’s claims that its Android software is an open source operating system that embarrasses users.
The complaint states that Google has taken various measures and put up contradictory barriers to ensure that it will ensure the distribution of more than 90% of apps on Android devices – a market share that attorneys argue. That it represents an illegal monopoly. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Google is using its power to subsidize commissions by making billions of dollars in profits from high-paying users, and making apps that have less money. And they encourage innovation.
“Google’s monopoly is a threat to market space,” said Sean Reyes, a Utah attorney general who has led lawsuits with his peers in New York, Tennessee and North Carolina. Google Play is not a fair game. Harm to small businesses and consumers. “
Google did not immediately respond to a lawsuit, but has strongly defended its way of running the Play Store in response to the Epic lawsuit and other occasions.
The Mountain View, California-based company is also fighting three other lawsuits filed against it last year, including a landmark brought by the U.S. Department of Justice. The cases focus on the alleged abuse of Google’s dominant search engine and its digital advertising network, which generates more than 100 100 billion in annual revenue for its corporate parent, Alphabet Inc.
As scrutiny of their app stores has intensified, both Apple and Google are taking conciliatory steps. Most importantly, both have reduced their commissions to 15 to the first ڈالر 1 million collected by app developers.
Minnesota Democrat Sen. Amy Cloughbacher, who chairs a subcommittee overseeing the no-confidence motion, said the measures did not reduce the heat on any major tech companies. They should be.
“This is the kind of no-confidence motion that we need to rein in the power of big tech and resolve the issue of US monopoly,” he said in a statement.
But fighting Big Tech will not be easy. In addition to being able to spend heavily on their positions, companies also claim to have the law. For example, Facebook had a major breakthrough last week when a federal judge dismissed a no-confidence motion against a social media company by the Federal Trade Commission and a coalition of states on the grounds that they He did not present enough evidence to justify his monopoly allegations. .