Epic v. Google: everything we learned in Fortnite court
See all Stories
“What would you expect to happen to price to consumers if the tie were severed?” asks Epic’s lawyer, referring to a hypothetical world where Google didn’t require its 30 percent Play Billing fee.
Tadelis says that “savings from the reduced fees would naturally be passed onto the users.” As anyone who’s lived through inflation-as-excuse-for-price-gauging will tell you, that seems a little optimistic?
Judge Donato picked up on this instantly, pausing the testimony to ask a question of his own: “Let’s say in a hypothetical world, Google eliminated all fees. Why do you expect a user would see any benefit in that, in the price a user pays for an app?”
Tadelis suggested that if he opened a pancake shop and suddenly the cost of milk and eggs drop, he’d make more profit right away — but if he drops the price a bit, he can sell even more goods and make a wider margin.
“Macroeconomic analysis shows that some of that will optimally be passed on to consumers,” he says. The judge seems satisfied, at least from where I’m sitting.
