London class-action sueball against Google is a lot like Epic's case except fandroids might win enough for a pint
- Reference: 1627644612
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/07/30/anti_google_competition_class_action_london/
- Source link:
Kicked off in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), this sueball was flung by one Liz Coll, billed as a "consumer champion". In a canned statement she said: "Google created the Android app marketplace, and controls it with a vice-like grip. Customers are herded towards the Google Play Store, and once there have no option but to pay a 30 per cent fee whenever they buy an app or make an in-app purchase."
If this sounds familiar, back in January Epic Games [1]also launched a lawsuit against Google in the CAT , alleging that Google was infringing Britain's competition laws by taking a 30 per cent cut from all Google Play Store transactions. In that case Epic seeks damages for itself over Google kicking Fortnite out of the Play Store; here Coll seeks damages on behalf of 19.5 million UK Android users.
[2]
As is usual for these kinds of lawsuits, there's a deep-pocketed commercial fund behind Coll's anti-Google case: that fund is US-owned Vannin Capital, last seen in the news after abandoning a planned 2018 IPO and then being [3]bought out by New York HQ'd Fortress Investment Group. At the time, a legal news site [4]reckoned Vannin was trying to raise £70bn.
[5]Epic vs. Apple Australian side quest allowed to resume
[6]Facebook Giphy merger stays on ice after failed challenge to UK competition regulator
[7]Proposed collective action aims to take Apple to task over its 30% App Store cut on behalf of 20 million Brits
[8]Epic Games files competition lawsuit against Google in the UK over Fortnite's ejection from Play Store
[9]The Epic vs Apple trial is wrapping up, but the battle has just begun
Coll and Vannin seek £920m from Google, which equates to £47.18 per each allegedly affected Android user. However, that sum is far too simplistic; litigation funders normally demand a hefty cut of the damages, and in the original lawsuit which kickstarted all these Big Tech group litigation cases, the funder was in line for billions if its side won. Any payout could be more than halved once the funder and the lawyers have had their pound of flesh.
London's courts have become a popular venue in the last couple of years for not-quite-class-action lawsuits targeting Big Tech companies. This was all [10]kicked off by former Which? director Richard Lloyd and Therium Litigation Funding IC, another for-profit litigation funder. They scored a Court of Appeal victory in 2019 that opened the floodgates for these kinds of lawsuits by loosening rules on "class action"* lawsuits in the English courts.
[11]
Cynics might say for-profit litigation means that while lawsuits are brought in the names of millions of allegedly wronged people, the a good proportion of any compensation payouts might end up in the pockets of lawyers and venture capital funds. Advocates of these cases argue that distributing a few pounds to some affected users is better than the £0.00 members of the public receive when State agencies fine misbehaving companies for breaking the law. ®
Lawnote
*English law doesn't have class actions under that name, though to the man on the Clapham omnibus the "representative action" and "group litigation" procedures are pretty much the same thing.
Get our [12]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/15/epic_games_google_fortnite_competition_lawsuit/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YQQiEzgWqjzWbQ3A6ho-dwAAAAQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.ft.com/content/1288d980-d0ae-11e9-b018-ca4456540ea6
[4] https://www.legalbusiness.co.uk/blogs/vannin-capital-ends-flotation-plans-after-acquisition-by-private-equity-house-fortress/
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/09/epic_vs_apple_in_australia/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/14/facebook_giphy_court_appeal/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/11/apple_app_store_collective_action_uk/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/15/epic_games_google_fortnite_competition_lawsuit/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/26/the_epic_vs_apple_trial/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2019/10/02/lloyd_v_google_court_appeal_goahead/
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YQQiEzgWqjzWbQ3A6ho-dwAAAAQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Vice-like grip
Must admit I was wondering the same thing. You can load an apk from anywhere as long as you change your security settings to allow it? so not sure where they think their case is?
Re: Vice-like grip
so not sure where they think their case is?
as long as you change your security settings to allow it
There, I found it for you.
It does not cost 30% of developers revenue to run a Play store, even if you consider a healthy margin. Pure extortion and abuse of dominant position.
Re: Vice-like grip
The cost is irrelevant. If people are willing to pay, it's worth it.
Re: Vice-like grip
I think the question is with Google's dominant position have they really got a choice? Your average user isn't likely to know how to go to another App Store and Google steer you away if you try.
My concern is how, under English law, a venture capital firm can profit. Surly any award can be used to cover costs but has to be split between those represented?
Why are they picking on Google?
Unlike Apple, you can install alternative app stores on Android, and you can sideload apps that you obtain directly.
Gambling apps used to be, and possibly still are, distributed this way, because Google wouldn't (doesn't?) allow them on their store.
[edit] I checked, they are now available on the Play Store. They weren't at one point.
Re: Why are they picking on Google?
Apps that might be connected to your post icon are distributed that way since Google definitely does not allow them in Play. Not that I'd know anything about that... was looking for a friend...
Re: Why are they picking on Google?
To quote Willie Sutton, "That's where the money is."
Re: Why are they picking on Google?
The problem is that you will put off many potential consumers by saying to install our app, download this file and change your security settings to run it. It's kind of like trying to sell your products from a back alley.
The .apk should be a first class citizen and you should be able to install them without having to menu dive, as long as the file is signed with a trusted key.
Swings and round-abouts.
If memory serves me correctly Therium Litigation Funding IC were the people who funded the Justice for Sub-Postmasters Alliance in their titanic struggle against The Post Office.
The JSPA won, as is well known, but a lot of the £57 million award went to Therium and its lawyers.
Having said that if Therium had not stumped up the money in the first place the Post Office might have got away with the cover-up and a huge miscarriage of justice would not now be in the process of being put right after twenty years.
So, there are good and bad things about legal "guns-for-hire. "But to my mind, if nothing else comes out of it and those affected get little or no recompense, at least the bad behaviour and outright illegality of these big corporations would never be exposed.
Re: Swings and round-abouts.
The fact that we don't have institutions that would work to protect the victims like in case of Post Office is crazy. They should at very least pay the £57 million award AND the fees.
Especially when we are looking at another scandal of Post Office calibre emerging - that is the Loan Charge / IR35 / Umbrellas.
While Android in my opinion is the least restrictive ecosystem when it come to installing apps from outside of Google Play, it will only take a win against Google for other such legal action to come after Apple, Microsoft, Sony and any one else who runs an app store. So that would probably get them all do something about their restrictive policies before they do get sued. So I hope they do win this case, although I doubt any Android users will ever see a penny of any damages awarded.
Hypocrisy
Let me get it straight:
Google is taxing developers 30% on their revenue, but they themselves don't want to be taxed on their revenue?
We should start reaping the benefits of Brexit and slap 30% tax on revenue for FAANG companies.
I bet they'll quickly drop fees for UK developers to 1-2%.
Re: Hypocrisy
Google aren't "taxing" anybody. They are not a government.
"Advocates of these cases"
are lawyers looking at the $$$ signs that they stand to reap.
I'm getting sick of all these hypocrites pretending to work for the benefit of the public.
It's for the benefit of the public ? Then you get your hourly rate and not a cent more.
Liars.
Coll and Vannin seek £920m from Google
while I hate google with a passion, I hate trolls even more (looks like I need a proper scale by my monitor!). I do hope they lose and they're made to pay FULL costs. That's in alternative reality though, because in our reality...
I suppose that having someone front for them Vannin are protected against being declared vexatious litigants.
Vice-like grip
Except they allow other stores. Are they thinking of Apple?