On Monday, Google answered a complaint filed by Match Group LLC, the operator of several popular dating websites including Match.com and Tinder. In its answer, Google defended the Android OS app distribution and payment system run through its Google Play Store and said that the complaint was legally meritless.
Match sued Google in May alleging that it illegally monopolized the market for distributing apps on Android devices, rendering the Google Play Store the only viable choice a mobile application developer has to reach Android users.
Further, Google’s recent requirement mandating that Match use Google’s proprietary billing system allegedly forces the plaintiff to part with 15-30% of the sale of dating app subscriptions or in-app purchases. The policy change eliminates user choice and extends Google’s dominance to the separate market for Android in-app payment, the complaint said. Noting that ten years ago Match was Google’s “partner,” the lawsuit concluded that it is now Google’s “hostage.”
This week’s responsive filing comes after Google agreed to permit Match’s in-app billing process to remain alongside its own and agreed not remove Match’s apps from the Google Play Store during the pendency of the litigation.
Google’s answer defended its distribution system, noting that app developers do not pay Google a cent until they make a sale. The defendant noted that app developers like Match receive the benefit of tools and a global distribution platform that has allowed it to “thrive and build a successful network of users that is critical for its dating apps.”
Google also countered that Match’s real motivation for bringing the suit is to “undermine user experience to improve its own bottom line.” In support, Google pointed to a statement by a Match senior vice-president purportedly acknowledging that Match’s true concern about Google Play’s billing system is “the ease with which users can cancel their subscriptions using Google’s account management tools.”
Google said Match’s antitrust allegations ignore the fact that Android vigorously competes with Apple’s iOS, and unlike Apple, Google does not require Android users or developers to use Google Play to download, install, or distribute apps on Android smartphones. Further, it pointed out that Google’s expansion of access to smartphones and mobile apps has boosted developers’ incentive to invest in apps that boost nearly every sector of the American economy.
The responsive filing also stated 12 defenses, including failure to state a claim, legitimate business justification, a Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act bar, and defenses involving Match Group’s allegedly unclean hands and own culpable behavior.
Match Group is represented by Hueston Hennigan LLP and Google by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP and O’Melveny Myers LLP.
