200 – 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
    The “agitators.”

    Epic wasn’t the only company that Google was worried about setting off a “contagion effect.” The document we’re looking at shows the Samsung Galaxy Store was asking for 20 percent rev share, rather than 30 percent, and that OnePlus was asking for 20 percent as well — and also offered third-party billing options for a 5 percent rev share.

    Koh confirms that Google internally referred to those with a lower than 30 percent fee as “agitators.”

    Google planned to target developers who were discontent with Google’s 30 percent rev share and had the capabilities to “go-it-alone” on Android, according to the document.

    Sean Hollister
    Sean Hollister
    The “contagion effect.”

    Lawrence Koh, who ran Google Play’s games bizdev, is getting quizzed about a document that seems to show Google running scared.

    If I’m reading it correctly, Google was forecasting that 100 percent of top game developers would defect from Google Play by 2020 and that the “contagion effect” would consume an increasing percent of Google’s app store revenue every year, including 6 percent ($630M worth) in 2021, and 7 percent (over $800M) in 2022, for a cumulative total of $2B by the end of that year.

    Sean Hollister
    Sean Hollister
    Time for a hug.

    “Project Hug,” to be specific, the one where Epic alleges that Google paid off game developers to stick with the Play Store.

    Lawrence Koh, former director of games business development at Google from 2019–2020, is now on the stand answering questions from Epic about Hug and a presentation titled “Boosting Top Game Developer Support & Securing Play Distribution on Samsung Devices.”

    Sean Hollister
    Sean Hollister
    “You cannot guarantee that the documents that were destroyed will contradict the testimony we’re going to hear?”

    Lopez couldn’t.

    “We’ll never know that,” Moskowitz replied.

    And with that, Epic seems to have thoroughly made its point that Google may have destroyed evidence. Not that it did — but that it might have.

    The court is going on a short break.

    Sean Hollister
    Sean Hollister
    Google says there are important reasons not to retain employees’ personal chats.

    Lopez says some employees are in substance abuse recovery groups, for example. Most of Google’s questions about their own information retention policies seemed to be about how they work, though. I may have missed the point there.

    Epic lawyer Moskowitz is asking tough questions again: “[The legal hold] required employees to take affirmative steps to retain chats, and you didn’t take affirmative steps to ensure they did so?”

    “That’s right,” he says.

    Sean Hollister
    Sean Hollister
    She went in for the kill.

    Google’s chats czar is looking a little dodgy right now! Moskowitz asked: “You concede that business chats were destroyed while Google was under a legal obligation to preserve evidence?”

    Lopez repeatedly said he didn’t know, couldn’t know, and wouldn’t speculate on what was inside them — even though he admitted earlier that Google employees absolutely use them for business, and after we’d seen Google employees turning off Chat History. “It’s quite possible that those chats contained substantive business information, right?” He wouldn’t say.

    Google’s turn to talk to him, and perhaps make the decision not to retain employee’s personal chats seem reasonable.

    Sean Hollister
    Sean Hollister
    Google is not denying that it could have changed its retention policies — forcing every employee to automatically retain all their chats.

    Epic’s attorney Lauren Moskowitz is on a roll here, with Lopez agreeing again and again that Google technically had the ability to force Chat History on for every conversation — but didn’t.

    “Google did not change its normal retention policy for chats, even when it was on a legal hold to do so?”

    “That’s right,” answered Lopez.

    Sean Hollister
    Sean Hollister
    Google’s HR training for employees suggested that chatting off-the-record was better.

    In a theoretical scenario where an angry Google employee might send an email to another employee, the “correct” answer was to “talk to the team lead in the morning,” partially because, “It’s less likely that a record of the conversation could be discovered by an adversary and used against you, and Google, in ways you didn’t imagine.”

    The second-best answer was not to send the email and chat “off the record” via Hangouts instead because there’s still a risk that “any chat participant may save the conversation by simply pasting it into a doc or email.”

    Sean Hollister
    Sean Hollister
    Epic really wants Lopez to say that turning chat history off was a “tool” that employees could and did use to protect Google from discovery.

    Epic’s lawyer asked the question several different ways, including “If a person did not want something kept after 24 hours, this is a tool you could use for that?”

    Lopez would not explicitly say that an employee might use it that way on purpose — he suggested it might be to protect their own personal conversations — but he did wind up roundabout admitting the tool could be used that way.

    Sean Hollister
    Sean Hollister
    We’re getting into the nitty-gritty of how long Google stores internal communications before auto-deleting them.

    Google’s 2020 Chat Retention Policy says in black and white (and Lopez has confirmed) that chats are permanently deleted after these amounts of time:

    24 hours if chat history is turned off

    Otherwise: 30 days for one-on-ones

    18 months for chats in a threaded room (though apparently Google planned to change this back to 30 days in 1H 2021).