Epic Games, which is already engaged in antitrust litigation against Google and Apple, has initiated another antitrust lawsuit targeting Google and Samsung Electronics.
Epic Games is alleging that Google and Samsung have illegally conspired to hinder app distribution competition, thereby undermining the jury verdict in the Epic vs. Google case.
The focus is on Samsung Electronics’ security risk automatic blocking feature, called the “Auto Blocker.” In 2023, this feature made Google Play the only pathway for downloading apps on Samsung devices, effectively blocking fair competition from other stores, according to Epic Games.
To disable the pathway and run the mobile Epic Games Store, a total of 21 steps are required—which are significantly more than the three steps needed on Windows.
This process also frequently triggers pop-ups in Android and Chrome warning of “potentially harmful files” or “unknown apps,” misleadingly portraying the Epic Games Store as unsafe.
Furthermore, Samsung’s update in July automatically activated this feature, aligning with Google to block the app distribution competition on Android-based devices launched by Samsung, according to the claim by Epic Games.
In early September, Epic attempted to persuade Samsung to exempt trusted apps like the Epic Games Store from the Auto Blocker, but this request was reportedly declined.
Based on these grounds, Epic Games is suing Google and Samsung for antitrust violations, seeking to deactivate the default setting of the Auto Blocker to promote competition.
Tim Sweeney, CEO of Epic Games, clarified his position on the antitrust lawsuit in a video interview conducted with domestic media on the 30th:
■ Interview with Tim Sweeney:
Q: With which court in the United States are you filing the lawsuit?
A: We are filing in a federal court in California. This court is also handling our lawsuits against Google and Apple. The judge could be James Donato, who presided over our previous cases, or it might be another judge.
Q: Do you plan to file a separate lawsuit in Korea?
A: We will only be filing in the United States. We are considering our options in Korea, but there are no current plans for litigation there.
Q: Is there a possibility of a settlement before the main lawsuit proceeds in the United States?
A: We are always open to a settlement.
Q: If Samsung disables the Auto Blocker default setting through an update during the lawsuit, are you planning to withdraw the lawsuit immediately?
A: Our only complaint is about the default setting. If it is excluded and a whitelist is applied, then we will be satisfied.
Q: Is the lawsuit focused on disabling the Auto Blocker or on having the Epic Games Store recognized as a verified app?
A: We are fighting not just for ourselves, but for the rights of all developers. We are asking for the Auto Blocker to be stopped for all safe apps.
Q: Is there anything additional you desire from Samsung and Google in this case?
A: What we want from Samsung is simply to turn off the Auto Blocker default. Google's case is bigger, and more lawsuits may follow. We do not want to fight Samsung.
Q: Does this situation apply to other Android manufacturers besides Samsung?
A: So far, we have not found this practice among other major manufacturers. It seems to be unique to Samsung. We will keep an eye on other companies and will proceed through legal means if similar actions occur.
Q: What specific harm are other developers facing due to this issue?
A: The primary harm is the blocking itself. From a developer's perspective, the lack of competition and the absence of multiple stores is inherently harmful. Other stores may charge lower fees, but Google's fees are high. This hampers the competition and leads to developer losses. On PC devices, we can launch directly and keep all the profits. If a game is launched on various stores, the prices can be lower, and users can experience the games at more affordable rates.
Q: How does this lawsuit differ from your previous lawsuit against Google? If the issues are similar, do you expect a similar outcome?
A: The previous lawsuit was more comprehensive, but this lawsuit specifically targets the Auto Blocker. It hinders competition and misrepresents safe, well-known apps as unsafe. We expect the U.S. courts to issue a stop order on these illegal activities, while Google is instructing other companies to continue such practices. This is seen as a violation of the rule of law.
Q: Was the request related to the Auto Blocker officially made to Samsung?
A: Yes, through two channels. We communicated via email to senior executives and through external legal advisors. We want a simple action from Samsung: to turn off the feature. We do not wish for conflict, as they are our partners. However, due to their relationship with Google, this situation seems inevitable.
Q: Why did Samsung refuse your request, and what is your counterargument?
A: Our request was only about the Auto Blocker. We cannot disclose further discussions. In addition, it is not honest for Google to act in a security-conservative way for the same apps that are verified by other stores. We do not believe it is honest for Samsung to use security as an excuse.
Q: There are concerns among users that external stores could be a hotbed for malicious apps. How does the Epic Store manage the blocking of malicious apps or malware?
A: We manage our apps by directly installing and running them, using various tools for scanning. We also have features to report problematic apps. Therefore, there has never been an instance of malware being distributed through the Epic Games Store. We believe that human review, although it is more detailed and time-consuming compared to Apple's quicker reviews, is better.
Q: Could Samsung argue that it took this measure to protect consumers, because it is impossible to verify the app itself? What are your thoughts on this?
A: Samsung should be honest and should not harm developers. There should be a whitelist application or a review process for all apps. They cannot continue as they are now. Samsung is lying, and they know it. They should not mislead by claiming ignorance of the source or the damage. If they were to take such actions, it should be done legally, and we would welcome that. We support fair and legal anti-malware measures and would actively support Samsung, if they reflected this in their actions.
김태만 기자 ktman21c@gamevu.co.kr