Epic Games has launched a new legal assault against Samsung and Google, alleging antitrust violations in the app store marketplace for Android users. While Epic aims to paint itself as a champion of so-called “fair competition,” this lawsuit further reveals a concerning desire to weaponize antitrust law for selfish reasons. Rather than play by the same rules as every other similarly situated business, Epic wants special treatment—hurting consumers and their cybersecurity in the process. If Epic is successful in court, antitrust law would mean protecting the interests of multi-million dollar competitors over the welfare of American consumers.
At the heart of Epic’s complaint is Samsung’s “Auto Blocker” feature, which is a security measure designed to protect users from potentially harmful apps by limiting installations to trusted sources in the Google Play Store and Samsung’s Galaxy Store. Epic argues that this collaboration between Samsung and Google violates the law by not including Epic’s own offering on the same exact terms as their app stores, despite launching an untested and unproven app store just recently. But this argument fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of antitrust law and ignores the legitimate business and security concerns that drive product decisions, such as the widespread deployment of Samsung’s “Auto Blocker.”
Antitrust law, as established by landmark cases like United States v. Grinnell Corp., is not meant to punish success or market dominance achieved through superior products or business acumen. Instead, it targets exclusionary conduct that harms consumers through higher prices, reduced quality or stifled innovation. Contrary to Epic’s claims, the collaboration between Samsung and Google is designed to enhance device security. Indeed, Android users—like Apple users—expect safety and security. That behavior falls squarely within the realm of legitimate business practices that benefit consumers.
Particularly in an era of ever-increasing threats from cyber criminals, Samsung and Google are acting as they should—to keep their customers safe. Both still maintain the option for users to “sideload” apps and software, which is to download it from a source that is not the device-provided app store. Given that users rarely sideload and those who do are approximately 80% more likely to accidentally install malware, Samsung’s decision to allow users to opt-in to sideloading rather than have the feature automatically available makes a lot of sense. Yet because it wants the same success as Samsung and Google without having to invest time and resources in competing against them on the merits, Epic Games wants to manipulate antitrust law to prevent its competitor—Samsung—from offering “Auto Blocker.”
Epic’s lawsuit attempts to reframe this pro-consumer partnership as an illegal conspiracy, but neither the facts nor the law is on Epic’s side. In fact, Epic’s claim flies in the face of established legal precedent. In Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., the Supreme Court recognized that vertical agreements between companies at different levels of a supply chain are often pro-competitive, improving efficiencies and benefiting consumers. The pre-installation of the Play Store on Samsung devices and the implementation of security features like Auto Blocker are prime examples of such beneficial vertical integration.
Furthermore, Epic’s demand that Samsung disable or loosen its security requirements for the benefit of competing app stores is particularly troubling. Considering ever-increasing cybersecurity threats, Samsung’s Auto Blocker represents a legitimate product design choice aimed at protecting users. As established in Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, there is no antitrust duty to deal with rivals (in other words: you don’t have to do business with your competitor), especially when doing so would compromise product quality or innovation. Samsung’s focus on user security is not only legally sound but also ethically commendable.
Epic’s lawsuit reveals a self-serving agenda masquerading as consumer advocacy. By attempting to force Android to be designed that benefits their business regardless of consumer interests, Epic is seeking special treatment. This approach is not about fostering competition; it’s about Epic wanting to rewrite the rules of the game for its own advantage.
The implications of this case extend far beyond the immediate parties involved. If successful, Epic’s lawsuit could set a dangerous precedent that discourages companies from collaborating on security measures and other innovations that benefit and actually protect consumers.
Moreover, Epic’s approach represents a fundamental misapplication of antitrust law. Such rules were designed to protect consumers from monopolistic practices that result in higher prices or reduced quality. It was never intended to be a tool for multi-million dollar companies to cudgel their competitors.
While Epic Games presents its case as a crusade for fair competition, closer examination reveals it as a thinly veiled attempt to use the legal system for commercial gain at the expense of consumer protection and technological innovation. The courts should recognize this lawsuit for what it is: a misguided effort to twist antitrust law away from its consumer-centric focus.
As this case proceeds, it is crucial for the legal system to reaffirm the true purpose of antitrust: protecting consumers—not catering to the desires of individual competitors. To rule in Epic’s favor would not only undermine the principles of free market competition but also potentially compromise user security features that millions of Android users have come to rely upon. In the end, it is the consumers—not Epic Games—who stand to lose the most if this lawsuit succeeds.