134 – Breaking News & Latest Updates 2026
Skip to main content

Sean Hollister

Sean Hollister

Senior Editor

Senior Editor

    More From Sean Hollister

    Sean Hollister
    Sean Hollister
    Epic: “Fragmentation just means competition.”

    Epic’s lead attorney is striking through Google’s “justifications” one by one for its alleged monopoly power over Android: “Apple”, “Fragmentation”, and “Security.”

    He claims that fragmentation is no longer a justification because Android was “already the monopoly operating system in smartphones” by the time Google signed its most aggressive deals with OEMs and developers in 2018, 2019, and 2020. I’m not sure I agree, but it’s an interesting thought.

    Sean Hollister
    Sean Hollister
    “Her market definition is so broad, so incomprehensible, it is, and I do not use this word lightly, absurd.”

    Epic’s lead attorney on Google’s optimal market definition for this case, the one that Professor Tucker brought up and the judge was broadly skeptical of in court.

    He’s pointing the jury to the very first question on their verdict form, where they get to decide if there’s a relevant antitrust market for this case. That’s important: if they choose that the market is anything other than Android app distribution and Android in-app payment solutions, Epic’s unlikely to win.

    Sean Hollister
    Sean Hollister
    Never mind, that was just a ploy to start talking about Google’s deleted chats.

    The screens were off for less than a minute before Bornstein began talking about (what’s admittedly the elephant in the room): Google’s deleted chats. The dark screens were a visual aid.

    “Google witness after Google witness after Google witness came in here and failed to give straight answers,” he says, adding that some testimony was contradicted by documents in this case.

    “As damning as the evidence is that we do have, the documents they deleted would have been even more damning,” Bornstein tells the jury.

    Sean Hollister
    Sean Hollister
    Epic’s closing argument is becoming a blur — whiplash between the screen and lead attorney Bornstein’s words.

    At the beginning, he had the jury’s full attention — they were looking directly at him. Now, they’re looking down at their monitors, up, around, and one keeps closing his eyes, as Epic tries to cram in lots of evidence we’ve seen before at the same time.

    It seems he knows this: “I want to go dark for a second,” he says, turning off the screens.

    Sean Hollister
    Sean Hollister
    Did Epic just make an intentional flub?

    “People who took the Hug money had to launch only on the Google Play Store,” Epic’s Gary Bornstein begins, before stopping himself and saying that the Project Hug agreements that Google secured with game developers required them to ship simultaneously on other stores instead. “Sim-ship” isn’t nearly as compelling an argument for Epic — but it did find one Google exec’s email admitting that it was intended to disincentive other app stores.

    Sean Hollister
    Sean Hollister
    Google’s contagion defense is “nonsense,” Epic tells the jury.

    “Some witnesses tried to tell you that contagion meant apps would leave Android and only be on iOS. That’s nonsense,” says Epic’s lead attorney. “There’s no single app that’s given up the 3 billion potential users on Android just to be on IOS.”

    Having been in the courtroom every day, I have to agree: Google knew full well that the “contagion risk” it feared was from other Android app stores cutting into Google Play.

    Sean Hollister
    Sean Hollister
    Epic claims Project Banyan was “just one incident in a long history of Samsung and Google agreeing not to compete in one way or another.”

    “Samsung knew what it meant,” says Bornstein, pointing out that Samsung documents show it judged the proposal as designed to “prevent unnecessary competition on store,” But though Bornstein admits Google never went through with Project Banyan, he’s attempting to show the jury that Samsung and Google were closer than competitors.

    We’re looking at evidence we’ve seen before, like former Google Play Store head Jamie Rosenberg’s assertion that “any sort of rev share arrangement with Samsung is that we’d achieve structural alignment on business model.”

    Sean Hollister
    Sean Hollister
    “It was a misleading statement and the evidence showed that at trial.”

    Epic lead attorney Bornstein on the challenged idea that a billion Android users have enabled the unknown sources sideloading flow.

    “That sounded great. I wrote it down too,” he told the jury. But he says it isn’t true.

    Sean Hollister
    Sean Hollister
    “When people try to download the Fortnite installer, 35 percent of those people dropped off.”

    I suggested harm might be the hardest bit for Epic to prove, and Bornstein is tackling that right away by suggesting Google’s unknown sources sideloading flow kept Epic’s Fortnite downloads low. I don’t know if Epic proved that either, but this was a good quote from Bornstein today: “Google knew this was a problem, internally they knew what was happening to the Amazon app store. They knew the hurdle was too high.”

    Sean Hollister
    Sean Hollister
    We’re back to “bribe or block.”

    Well, technically now Epic’s attorney is saying “bribe and block,” but he’s returned to his opening argument. I’m not sure Epic proved that its Project Hug deals were outright bribes, but he’s sticking to his guns.

    On “block,” he’s turning back to something his expert economists brought up, saying, “To be anticompetitive, the competition doesn’t have to be blocked entirely, it has to be impaired or limited in some way.”