Epic Games is once again taking legal action against Google, and now Samsung, over what it claims is an illegal conspiracy to stifle competition in the app store market. This new antitrust lawsuit, filed on September 2024, according to The Verge, builds on Epic’s previous legal battle with Google, which it won in December 2023.
Epic’s latest complaint alleges that Google and Samsung have implemented measures to make it harder for users to install third-party app stores, thereby reducing competition in the mobile app ecosystem.
The central issue revolves around Samsung’s Auto Blocker feature, which is enabled by default on new Samsung phones and blocks the installation of apps from sources other than Google’s Play Store or Samsung’s own Galaxy Store. Epic claims this feature is designed not for security purposes, as Samsung asserts, but to prevent competition by making it extremely difficult for users to install rival app stores, including Epic’s newly launched Epic Games Store.
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 16 (Feb 10 – May 3, 2025) opens registrations; register today for early bird discounts.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
Epic’s CEO, Tim Sweeney, argues that this practice creates undue friction for third-party stores, requiring users to go through what he calls an “onerous 21-step process” to disable Auto Blocker and install apps from unauthorized sources. While Epic concedes that the actual number of steps may be fewer, the difficulty and complexity of the process, they argue, deter most users from continuing.
Sweeney believes this feature is not about protecting users from malware but is a deliberate strategy to safeguard the app market duopoly between Google and Samsung. Although Sweeney admits there is no hard evidence of collusion between the two tech giants, he expects the legal discovery process to reveal more details, as it did in the previous Epic v. Google case.
Epic claims that the timing of the Auto Blocker rollout is suspicious. It went live just a month before the launch of the Epic Games Store on Android. Sweeney suggests that this move was strategically implemented to stifle the growth of Epic’s platform, preventing the company from reaching its target of 100 million mobile installs by the end of the year.
Samsung, in its defense, insists that the Auto Blocker feature is optional and users are informed about it during the initial setup of their devices. A Samsung spokesperson emphasized that the feature is intended to enhance security and user control, allowing users to disable it at any time if they choose.
“Contrary to Epic Game’s assertions, Samsung actively fosters market competition, enhances consumer choice, and conducts its operations fairly.
“The features integrated into our devices are designed in accordance with Samsung’s core principles of security, privacy, and user control, and we remain fully committed to safeguarding users’ personal data. Users have the choice to disable Auto Blocker at any time.
“We plan to vigorously contest Epic Game’s baseless claims,” the spokesperson said.
Google, on the other hand, dismissed the lawsuit as meritless, reiterating that device manufacturers are free to implement their own security measures.
“This is a meritless lawsuit. Android device makers are free to take their own steps to keep their users safe and secure,” reads a statement from Google spokesperson Dan Jackson.
Epic’s Broader Fight for App Store Freedom
Epic’s new lawsuit is part of its broader battle to break the monopolies held by major app store platforms. This began in 2020 when Epic sued both Google and Apple for what it described as anti-competitive practices. The company’s fight has since grown more complex, especially as its Epic Games Store has now been launched on Android and in the European Union for iPhones, thanks to the EU Digital Markets Act, which forces Apple to allow alternate app stores.
Sweeney has positioned Epic’s legal battles not as fights for special privileges for his company but as efforts to level the playing field for all app developers. He argues that features like Samsung’s Auto Blocker and Google’s previous Unknown Sources settings (which made installing third-party apps more difficult) are designed to protect the dominance of the Play Store and Galaxy Store, respectively, and to prevent competition from smaller or independent app stores.
Epic’s ultimate goal is to create an environment where alternative app stores can coexist and compete on an equal footing. In the earlier Epic v. Google case, the company had argued that restrictions like those on Unknown Sources forced them to distribute their popular game Fortnite through the Play Store, despite having initially promised Samsung it would not.
This new lawsuit comes at a time when the U.S. courts are expected to issue a final ruling in the Epic v. Google case. Depending on how the judge rules, the outcome could have significant implications for the current case. If the court sides with Epic’s most ambitious demands, such as forcing Google to allow third-party stores like Epic’s to be distributed through the Play Store itself, the relevance of Samsung’s Auto Blocker could diminish.
However, Sweeney is keen to prevent what he calls a “malicious compliance strategy,” where Google and Samsung could continue finding creative ways to circumvent legal rulings that are meant to foster competition. Sweeney has made it clear that Epic will continue to monitor the practices of other companies that may implement similar barriers to third-party app stores, though so far, only Samsung has enacted such policies.
The Stakes for the Future of App Stores
Epic’s legal efforts are part of a larger push to dismantle the near-total control Google and Apple have over the mobile app ecosystem. Sweeney’s goal is to prevent major tech companies from creating environments that stifle innovation and competition, which he argues harms both developers and consumers.
Samsung and Google, for their part, maintain that their actions are focused on user security and providing safe environments for app installations. How the court rules in this case could set a precedent for how much control app store owners can exert over their ecosystems, potentially reshaping the mobile app landscape for years to come.