In the ongoing antitrust trial between Epic and Google, Google attorney Glenn Pomerantz suggested sealing portions of an upcoming exhibit that would reveal details of Google’s confidential deal with music streaming service Spotify. Pomerantz stated that revealing the terms of the agreement would be “very, very detrimental” to negotiations Google is currently having with other unspecified parties.
While Pomerantz said he agreed to share “two numbers” of the agreement, he insisted that the full terms should remain sealed and not be read aloud in court. His arguments indicate that Spotify likely received preferential rates or other benefits that Google does not want to be widely known, as it could weaken its negotiating position with other app developers.
Epic claims Spotify received special treatment
Epic Games’ lead attorney, Gary Bornstein, argued that under the Google-Spotify deal, Spotify pays “much lower” commission rates than the industry-standard 30% rate frequently discussed during the trial process. He stated that this special treatment demonstrates that Google’s new User Choice Billing program does not sufficiently address anti-competitive concerns about the Google Play Store’s billing policies.
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney has previously referred to the Spotify deal as a “sham” in which Google “takes 26% of the revenue in exchange for doing exactly nothing.” Epic’s legal team echoed this view in court, stating that based on publicly available information about the deal, they do not view user-choice billing as a viable alternative for most app developers. In his opinion, the conditions continue to be discriminatory and anti-competitive.
The judge asks if the agreement solves the problems
Judge James Donato, who is overseeing the Epic v. Google initially thought Spotify’s special deal could resolve Epic’s complaint about Google’s alleged monopolistic control over in-app payment systems. However, Epic’s lawyer firmly rejected this idea, responding that even under the new User Choice Billing program, the basic economic terms imposed by Google remain very unfavorable for app makers.
Donato questioned why the deal doesn’t sufficiently address Epic’s concerns if Google allows alternative payment systems. Bornstein insisted that Google is not materially changing the economy, but instead trying to make it seem like developers’ complaints have been resolved when that is not the case.
The decision on the disclosure of the terms of the agreement is still pending
Judge Donato has not yet made a final decision on whether confidential financial details of Google’s special deal with Spotify can be revealed in open court. Google and Spotify are fighting tenaciously to keep specific numbers and terms secret. However, Epic maintains that allowing the agreement to be introduced into evidence is important to demonstrate that the agreement does not constitute true competition.
Donato acknowledged that he should have been given more time to review the matter before he was asked to make a decision on the spot during the trial. He stated that additional time is needed to fully consider arguments from both sides about the implications of disclosing the agreement. His hesitation shows the complexity of balancing legal concerns about confidentiality with the right to an open and transparent judicial process.
Broader implications of the Spotify deal
The controversy over Google’s Spotify deal highlights the tech giant’s reliance on secret deals to maintain dominance over the mobile app ecosystem. If the full terms became publicly known, they could have far-reaching impacts on Google’s relationships across the industry. Other app developers would likely demand similar concessions or even consider giving up on Google’s Play Store altogether.
Greater transparency around the Spotify deal could also influence the outcome of Epic’s trial. The specific details of the fees could weaken Google’s position that its billing policies are fair and applied consistently to all developers. With billions at stake, it’s understandable why Google is fighting vigorously to avoid setting a precedent that could undo its carefully built mobile app market power.
Subscribe to our latest newsletter
To read our exclusive content, register now. $5/Monthly, $50/Yearly
Categories: Technology
Source: vtt.edu.vn