Epic Games and Google’s Antitrust Settlement Faces Scrutiny Over Potential Partnership
A potentially game-changing partnership between Epic Games and Google, involving the Unreal Engine, Fortnite, and Android, is raising concerns that it may be influencing the outcome of their long-running antitrust battle. A court hearing in San Francisco revealed a new agreement encompassing “joint product development, joint marketing commitment, joint partnerships,” prompting questions from California District Judge James Donato about whether the deal could soften epic’s demands for changes to the Android ecosystem.
The judge allowed most details of the plan to remain confidential, but pressed witnesses – including Epic CEO Tim Sweeney and economics expert doug Bernheim – on its potential impact on settlement negotiations. “you’re going to be helping Google market Android, and they’re going to be helping you market Fortnite; that deal doesn’t exist today, right?” Donato asked Bernheim, who confirmed the arrangement as a “new business between Epic and Google.”
Sweeney’s testimony shed further light on the agreement, linking it to the “metaverse” – a term he frequently uses in reference to Epic’s game, Fortnite. He explained that Epic’s technology is already utilized by numerous companies, including Google, for product training, and the deal would expand Google’s access to the Unreal Engine. “Epic’s technology is used by many companies in the space Google is operating in to train their products, so the ability for Google to use the Unreal Engine more fullsome… sorry, I’m blowing this confidentiality,” Sweeney stated.
The financial scope of the partnership is ample. Judge Donato revealed a planned $800 million expenditure over six years, with Epic committing to purchase services from Google. Sweeney clarified that this represents a shift in strategy, stating, “Every year we’ve decided against Google, in this year we’re deciding to use Google at market rates.” He emphasized that the companies are pursuing separate product development efforts, clarifying, “This is Google and Epic each separately building product lines,” despite language in the agreement suggesting collaboration.
Google declined to comment on the deal, and Epic did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Judge Donato expressed skepticism, questioning whether the partnership could represent a “quid pro quo” that might diminish Epic’s commitment to securing favorable terms for other developers. Currently, Epic is advocating for a settlement that would compel Google to lower app store fees globally and facilitate easier installation of option app stores on Android.
Sweeney vehemently disputed any suggestion of a payoff, arguing that Epic is the party making a important financial investment. “I don’t see anything crooked about Epic paying Google off to encourage much more robust competition than they’ve allowed in the past,” he asserted, framing the arrangement as “a significant transfer of value from Epic to Google.” He also stated that the Epic Games store would not receive preferential treatment on Android consequently of the deal.
The settlement and the business agreement appear to be intertwined, with Judge Donato suggesting the deal is contingent on a successful settlement. sweeney acknowledged this expectation, stating that the specific terms are still under negotiation but that he anticipates a connection. He affirmed that both the settlement and the deal are “an crucial part of Epic’s growth plan for the future.”
Sweeney reiterated Epic’s past commitment to fair practices, referencing his stance after the initial Epic v.Google victory in 2023. He told The Verge at the time, “we’ve always turned down special deals just for Epic. We’ve always fought on the principal that all developers should be, you know, given the same opportunities.”
disclosure: Vox Media, the parent company of The Verge, has filed a lawsuit against Google, alleging damages from its illegal ad tech monopoly.
