Sean Hollister

monopolization

unreasonable restraints of trade

tying

Finally, Epic must establish that its injury is the type of injury that the antitrust laws were intended to prevent. This is sometimes referred to as “antitrust injury.” If Epic’s injuries were caused by a reduction in competition, acts that would lead to a reduction in competition, or acts that would otherwise harm consumers, then Epic’s injuries are antitrust injuries. On the other hand, if Epic’s injuries were caused by heightened competition, the competitive process itself, or by acts that would benefit consumers, then Epic’s injuries are not antitrust injuries and Epic is not entitled to a verdict that Google has violated the antitrust laws.

In summary, if Epic can establish that it was in fact injured by Google’s conduct, that Google’s conduct was a material cause of its injury, and that Epic’s injury was the type that the antitrust laws were intended to prevent, then Epic is entitled to a verdict that Google has violated the antitrust laws.

You may find that a tying arrangement exists between the Google Play Store and Google Play Billing if Google refuses to distribute Android apps through the Google Play Store unless Android app developers agree to use Google Play Billing to facilitate the sale of digital goods or services in those apps.

If you find that the tying arrangement serves a legitimate business purpose of Google, and that there are not substantially less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve that purpose, then you must find for Google and against Epic on the tying claim.

The essential characteristic of an invalid tying arrangement is a seller’s exploitation of its market power over the tying product (app distribution services) to force a buyer to purchase the tied product (in-app billing services) that the buyer might have preferred to purchase elsewhere.

You have seen evidence that Google Chat communications were deleted with the intent to prevent their use in litigation. You may infer that the deleted Chat messages contained evidence that would have been unfavorable to Google in this case.