1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-md-02981-JD Document 205 Filed 03/31/22 Page 1 of 32
`
`
`
`
`Brian C. Rocca, S.B. #221576
`brian.rocca@morganlewis.com
`Sujal J. Shah, S.B. #215230
`sujal.shah@morganlewis.com
`Michelle Park Chiu, S.B. #248421
`michelle.chiu@morganlewis.com
`Minna Lo Naranjo, S.B. #259005
`minna.naranjo@morganlewis.com
`Rishi P. Satia, S.B. #301958
`rishi.satia@morganlewis.com
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`One Market, Spear Street Tower
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: (415) 442-1000
`
`Richard S. Taffet, pro hac vice
`richard.taffet@morganlewis.com
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`101 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10178
`Telephone: (212) 309-6000
`
`Ian Simmons, pro hac vice
`isimmons@omm.com
`Benjamin G. Bradshaw, S.B. #189925
`bbradshaw@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`1625 Eye Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 383-5300
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`Glenn D. Pomerantz, S.B. #112503
`glenn.pomerantz@mto.com
`Kuruvilla Olasa, S.B. #281509
`kuruvilla.olasa@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue, Fiftieth Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`Telephone: (213) 683-9100
`
`Kyle W. Mach, S.B. #282090
`kyle.mach@mto.com
`Justin P. Raphael, S.B. #292380
`justin.raphael@mto.com
`Emily C. Curran-Huberty, S.B. #293065
`emily.curran-huberty@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`560 Mission Street, Twenty Seventh Floor
`San Francisco, California 94105
`Telephone: (415) 512-4000
`
`Jonathan I. Kravis, pro hac vice
`jonathan.kravis@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 500E
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`Telephone: (202) 220-1100
`
`Daniel M. Petrocelli, S.B. #97802
`dpetrocelli@omm.com
`Stephen J. McIntyre, S.B. #274481
`smcintyre@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`1999 Avenue of the Stars
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Telephone: (310) 553-6700
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`IN RE GOOGLE PLAY CONSUMER
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`In re Google Play Consumer Antitrust
`Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-05761-JD
`
`
`Case No. 3:21-md-02981-JD
`
`DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED
`ANSWERS AND DEFENSES TO
`CONSUMER PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD, 3:20-cv-05761-JD
`
`AMENDED ANSWERS AND DEFENSES TO CONSUMERS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-md-02981-JD Document 205 Filed 03/31/22 Page 2 of 32
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Ltd., Google Asia
`
`Pacific Pte Ltd., and Google Payment Corp. (collectively “Google”) answer Consumer Plaintiffs’
`
`Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”), through its undersigned
`
`counsel, as set forth below.
`
`Android, Google’s open-source mobile operating system (“OS”), is a critical source of
`
`competition against other operating systems, such as Apple’s iOS. This competition has brought
`
`tremendous benefits to developers and users. By providing Android to smartphone manufacturers
`
`for free, Google has expanded access to smartphones and the marketplace for mobile apps,
`
`10
`
`creating enormous incentives for developers to invest in apps that make virtually every sector of
`
`11
`
`the American economy more efficient, affordable and accessible for users. These benefits have
`
`12
`
`typically come at little or no cost to manufacturers, developers, or users.
`
`13
`
`Google also offers an app store, Google Play, which works on Android. But Google does
`
`14
`
`not require Android users or developers to use Google Play in order to download, install, or
`
`15
`
`distribute apps on Android. Rather, Google gives app developers and smartphone consumers
`
`16
`
`more openness and choice than any other major competitor. Most Android phones in and outside
`
`17
`
`the United States come preloaded with more than one app store, and consumers can download
`
`18
`
`apps directly from a developer’s website if they choose via sideloading. Developers can also
`
`19
`
`directly reach users through web apps—a distribution channel that Android and Google’s Chrome
`
`20
`
`web browser embrace. Consumers and developers don’t have to use Google Play; they choose to
`
`21
`
`use it when given a choice among Android app stores and distribution channels. Google supports
`
`22
`
`that choice through Android itself, Google Play’s policies, and Google’s agreements with
`
`23
`
`developers and device manufacturers.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`RESPONSE TO NUMBERED PARAGRAPHS
`
`The section headings in the Complaint do not require a response. To the extent that the
`
`26
`
`section headings contain allegations requiring a response, Google denies all such allegations.
`
`27
`
`1.
`
`Defendants Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Ltd., Google
`
`28
`
`Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., and Google Payment Corp. (collectively “Google”) deny the allegations in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD, 3:20-cv-05761-JD
`
`AMENDED ANSWERS AND DEFENSES TO CONSUMERS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-md-02981-JD Document 205 Filed 03/31/22 Page 3 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Paragraph 1, except admit that consumers and businesses rely on mobile devices, mobile devices
`
`require an operating system, and one or more defendants license Android OS to original
`
`equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”).
`
`2.
`
`Google admits that apps allow users to add features to their devices designed to
`
`serve their needs and interests and that access to a variety of apps is valuable to consumers, but is
`
`without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 3.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 4, except admits that the Google Play
`
`10
`
`Store is an online platform where app developers can make their apps available for download by
`
`11
`
`Android users. Google further admits that the Google Play Store was previously known as the
`
`12
`
`Android Marketplace.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 6.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 7, except admits that one or more
`
`16
`
`defendants license Android to OEMs and provides OEMs with the option of preloading a suite of
`
`17
`
`apps known as Google Mobile Services (“GMS”). Google further admits that GMS includes
`
`18
`
`proprietary apps such as Google’s search app, Chrome, YouTube, Google Maps, and Google
`
`19
`
`Play.
`
`20
`
`8.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 8, except admits that each of the
`
`21
`
`defendants, except Google Payment Corp., is a party to a Google Play Developer Distribution
`
`22
`
`Agreement (“DDA”), to which document Google refers the Court for a complete and accurate
`
`23
`
`statement of its contents.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 9.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 10, except admits that in certain
`
`26
`
`instances sideloaded apps do not automatically update in the background on the Android
`
`27
`
`operating system.
`
`28
`
`11.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 11.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD, 3:20-cv-05761-JD
`-3-
`AMENDED ANSWERS AND DEFENSES TO CONSUMERS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-md-02981-JD Document 205 Filed 03/31/22 Page 4 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 12.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 13, except admits that once an app is
`
`downloaded to a user’s device, the developer may offer in-app content or digital products for
`
`purchase, including but not limited to accessories, upgrades, advertisement-free app usage, and
`
`subscriptions.
`
`14.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 14, and respectfully refers to the Court
`
`to the cited document for a complete and accurate statement of its contents.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 15.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 16, and respectfully refers to the Court
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`to the cited document for a complete and accurate statement of its contents.
`
`11
`
`17.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 17, and respectfully refers the Court to
`
`12
`
`the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents, except admits that
`
`13
`
`one or more defendants receive a payment for in-app purchases with respect to apps distributed
`
`14
`
`through Google Play, and charge up to 30% as a service fee. Google avers that beginning on
`
`15
`
`January 1, 2018, the service fee on subscriptions with respect to apps distributed through Google
`
`16
`
`Play was reduced from 30% to 15% in the second year, and that as of January 1, 2022, the service
`
`17
`
`fee on such subscriptions is 15% from day one of the subscription. Google further avers that
`
`18
`
`beginning on July 1, 2021, the service fee was reduced to 15% for the first $1 million of
`
`19
`
`developer earnings on digital goods or services every developer earns each year.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 18.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 19.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 20.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 21.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 22.
`
`Google admits that Ms. Carr purports to maintain certain claims on behalf of a
`
`26
`
`purported class for alleged violations of the federal antitrust laws, California’s Cartwright Act
`
`27
`
`(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16700 et seq.) (the “Cartwright Act”) and California’s Unfair
`
`28
`
`Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.) (the “UCL”). Google further states
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD, 3:20-cv-05761-JD
`-4-
`AMENDED ANSWERS AND DEFENSES TO CONSUMERS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-md-02981-JD Document 205 Filed 03/31/22 Page 5 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`that it is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 23.
`
`24.
`
`Google admits that Mr. Egerter purports to maintain certain claims on behalf of a
`
`purported class for alleged violations of the federal antitrust laws, California’s Cartwright Act and
`
`California’s UCL. Google further states that it is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 24.
`
`25.
`
`Google admits that Mr. Palmer purports to maintain certain claims on behalf of a
`
`purported class for alleged violations of the federal antitrust laws, California’s Cartwright Act and
`
`California’s UCL. Google further states that it is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`10
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 25.
`
`11
`
`26.
`
`Google admits that Ms. Moglia purports to maintain certain claims on behalf of a
`
`12
`
`purported class for alleged violations of the federal antitrust laws, California’s Cartwright Act and
`
`13
`
`California’s UCL. Google further states that it is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`14
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 26.
`
`15
`
`27.
`
`Google admits that Mr. Atkinson purports to maintain certain claims on behalf of a
`
`16
`
`purported class for alleged violations of the federal antitrust laws, California’s Cartwright Act and
`
`17
`
`California’s UCL. Google further states that it is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`18
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 27.
`
`19
`
`28.
`
`Google admits that Mr. Iwamoto purports to maintain certain claims on behalf of a
`
`20
`
`purported class for alleged violations of the federal antitrust laws, California’s Cartwright Act and
`
`21
`
`California’s UCL. Google further states that it is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`22
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 28.
`
`23
`
`29.
`
`Google admits that Ms. Silver purports to maintain certain claims on behalf of a
`
`24
`
`purported class for alleged violations of the federal antitrust laws, California’s Cartwright Act and
`
`25
`
`California’s UCL. Google further states that it is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`26
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 29.
`
`27
`
`30.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 30, except to the extent that Paragraph
`
`28
`
`30 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Google avers that consumers may
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD, 3:20-cv-05761-JD
`-5-
`AMENDED ANSWERS AND DEFENSES TO CONSUMERS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-md-02981-JD Document 205 Filed 03/31/22 Page 6 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`purchase applications from the Google Play Store and may pay for certain in-app content through
`
`Google Play Billing. Google further refers the Court to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
`
`Developers’ Claim For Damages (ECF No. 91-1) for a complete and accurate statement of its
`
`contents.
`
`31.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 31, except to the extent that Paragraph
`
`31 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`
`32.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 32, except admits that Google LLC is a
`
`limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its
`
`principal place of business in Mountain View, California, and that Google LLC is a party to the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`DDA. Google further admits that Google LLC is a subsidiary of XXVI Holdings Inc., which is a
`
`11
`
`Delaware corporation and a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. Google further admits that Alphabet Inc.
`
`12
`
`is a publicly traded company that is incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of
`
`13
`
`Delaware and that maintains its principal executive offices in Mountain View, California.
`
`14
`
`33.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 33, except admits that Google Ireland
`
`15
`
`Limited is organized under the laws of Ireland with its principal place of business in Dublin,
`
`16
`
`Ireland, is a subsidiary of Google LLC, and is a party to the DDA.
`
`17
`
`34.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 34, except admits that Google
`
`18
`
`Commerce Ltd. is organized under the laws of Ireland with its principal place of business in
`
`19
`
`Dublin, Ireland and is a party to the DDA.
`
`20
`
`35.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 35, except admits that Google Asia
`
`21
`
`Pacific Pte. Ltd. is organized under the laws of Singapore with its principal place of business in
`
`22
`
`Mapletree Business City, Singapore and is a party to the DDA.
`
`23
`
`36.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 36, except admits that Google Payment
`
`24
`
`Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California
`
`25
`
`and is a subsidiary of Google LLC.
`
`26
`
`37.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 37 are legal conclusions not subject to admission or
`
`27
`
`denial. To the extent a response is required, Google does not dispute subject matter jurisdiction.
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD, 3:20-cv-05761-JD
`-6-
`AMENDED ANSWERS AND DEFENSES TO CONSUMERS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-md-02981-JD Document 205 Filed 03/31/22 Page 7 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`38.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 38 are legal conclusions not subject to admission or
`
`denial. To the extent a response is required, Google does not dispute—for purposes of this action
`
`only—the personal jurisdiction of this Court, but Google otherwise denies the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 38.
`
`39.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 39 are legal conclusions not subject to admission or
`
`denial. To the extent a response is required, Google does not dispute—for purposes of this action
`
`only—the venue of this action, but Google otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 39.
`
`40.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 40 are legal conclusions not subject to admission or
`
`denial. To the extent a response is required, Google does not dispute—for purposes of this action
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`only—the venue of this action or the personal jurisdiction of this Court, but Google otherwise
`
`11
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 40.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 41.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 42, except admits that many currently
`
`14
`
`available mobile devices utilize operating systems that include touch commands, a graphical user
`
`15
`
`interface, cellular and Wi-Fi connectivity, GPS positioning, and/or mobile apps.
`
`16
`
`43.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 43, except admits that many currently
`
`17
`
`available mobile devices require an operating system.
`
`18
`
`44.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 44, except admits that an OS may serve
`
`19
`
`basic functions for mobile device users, may provide a software development platform for app
`
`20
`
`developers, and contains code, including APIs; and that developers may write apps that run on an
`
`21
`
`OS and/or are compatible with other apps or platforms.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 45.
`
`Google denies the allegations in paragraph 46, except admits that most mobile
`
`24
`
`device manufacturers do not develop their own OSs.
`
`25
`
`47.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 47 to the extent they imply the
`
`26
`
`existence of a Licensable Mobile Operating System Market. Google admits that Google Android
`
`27
`
`OS, “Tizen mobile OS,” and Windows Phone OS are mobile operating systems, and that “Apple’s
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD, 3:20-cv-05761-JD
`-7-
`AMENDED ANSWERS AND DEFENSES TO CONSUMERS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-md-02981-JD Document 205 Filed 03/31/22 Page 8 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`iOS is a broadly-used mobile OS in the United States.” Google is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 47.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 48.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 49.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 50.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 51, except admits that the “direct
`
`downloading of apps” is “sometimes called ‘sideloading’” and avers that multiple app stores and
`
`access points to apps exist, as users can and do multi-home in accessing apps.
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 52.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 53, except admits that “[a]pp stores
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`allow consumers to use their mobile device to browse, search for, access reviews on, purchase (if
`
`12
`
`necessary), download, and install mobile apps.”
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 54.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 55.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 56.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 57.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 58.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 59.
`
`Google admits that developers may offer products within an app, but is without
`
`20
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph
`
`21
`
`60.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 61.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 62.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 63.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 64, and respectfully refers the Court to
`
`26
`
`the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents. Google is without
`
`27
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations relating to
`
`28
`
`what developers could allegedly do with other payment systems.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD, 3:20-cv-05761-JD
`-8-
`AMENDED ANSWERS AND DEFENSES TO CONSUMERS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-md-02981-JD Document 205 Filed 03/31/22 Page 9 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`65.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 65, and is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 65
`
`concerning developers’ alleged need for “the ability to offer efficient and seamless purchases
`
`within their applications.”
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 66.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 67.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 68, except admits that Google LLC
`
`acquired Android in 2005, that Android is an open source operating system “available for anyone
`
`to view, download, modify, enhance and redistribute,” and that Android enables developers to
`
`10
`
`have “an open and unobstructed environment to make their content available.” Google
`
`11
`
`respectfully refers the Court to the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their
`
`12
`
`contents.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 69.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 70.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 71.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 72.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 73, except admits that OEMs may
`
`18
`
`select an OS for devices they manufacture and ensuring compatibility between mobile devices
`
`19
`
`and OS may require some time and investment.
`
`20
`
`74.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 74, and respectfully refers the Court to
`
`21
`
`the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 75.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 76, and is without knowledge or
`
`24
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 76 regarding
`
`25
`
`what OEMs have acknowledged concerning OSs.
`
`26
`
`77.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 77, and respectfully refers the Court to
`
`27
`
`the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`28
`
`78.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 78.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD, 3:20-cv-05761-JD
`-9-
`AMENDED ANSWERS AND DEFENSES TO CONSUMERS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-md-02981-JD Document 205 Filed 03/31/22 Page 10 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`79.
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`82.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 79.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 80.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 81.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 82, except admits that Google Play
`
`offers over 3 million apps, and that the large number of apps available through Google Play
`
`attracts users, as well as developers who choose to offer apps on Google Play because of the
`
`benefit of free distribution and discoverability that Google Play provides.
`
`83.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 83, except admits that the large number
`
`of apps available through Google Play attracts users, as well as developers, who choose to offer
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`apps on Google Play because of the benefit of free distribution and discoverability that Google
`
`11
`
`Play provides.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`84.
`
`85.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 84.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 85, and is without knowledge or
`
`14
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 85 about
`
`15
`
`Microsoft’s and Epic’s terms and offerings and refers the Court to the referenced announcement
`
`16
`
`for a full and complete statement of its contents.
`
`17
`
`86.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 86, except admits that Alphabet Inc.’s
`
`18
`
`total revenue for 2020 was $182 billion.
`
`19
`
`87.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 87, except admits that many devices
`
`20
`
`carry more than one store, including the Samsung Galaxy Store, in addition to Google Play.
`
`21
`
`88.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 88, except admits that one or more
`
`22
`
`defendants have agreements called Mobile Application and Distribution Agreements (“MADAs”)
`
`23
`
`with some OEM partners, and respectfully refers the Court to the cited documents for a complete
`
`24
`
`and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`25
`
`89.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 89, except admits that the Samsung
`
`26
`
`Galaxy Store is a competitor of the Google Play Store, and respectfully refers the Court to the
`
`27
`
`cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD, 3:20-cv-05761-JD
`-10-
`AMENDED ANSWERS AND DEFENSES TO CONSUMERS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-md-02981-JD Document 205 Filed 03/31/22 Page 11 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`90.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 90, and respectfully refers the Court to
`
`the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`91.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 91, and respectfully refers the Court to
`
`the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`92.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 92, and respectfully refers the Court to
`
`the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`93.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 93, and respectfully refers the Court to
`
`the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`94.
`
`95.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 94.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 95, except admits that the Samsung
`
`11
`
`Galaxy Store is a competitor of the Google Play Store.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`96.
`
`97.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 96.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 97, and avers that evidence shows that
`
`14
`
`users can and do switch and multi-home among and between mobile and nonmobile ecosystems,
`
`15
`
`including between Android and iOS.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`98.
`
`99.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 98.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 99.
`
`100. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 100.
`
`101. Google admits that mobile apps expand the utility of mobile devices, but is
`
`20
`
`without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`21
`
`allegations in Paragraph 101.
`
`22
`
`102. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 102, except admits that “mobile apps
`
`23
`
`can be browsed, purchased (if necessary), and downloaded” on the Google Play Store.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`103. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 103.
`
`104. Google admits the allegations in Paragraph 104, and respectfully refers the Court
`
`26
`
`to the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`27
`
`105. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 105, and respectfully refers the Court
`
`28
`
`to the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD, 3:20-cv-05761-JD
`-11-
`AMENDED ANSWERS AND DEFENSES TO CONSUMERS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-md-02981-JD Document 205 Filed 03/31/22 Page 12 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`106. Google admits the allegations in Paragraph 106, and respectfully refers the Court
`
`to the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`107. Google admits the allegations in Paragraph 107, and respectfully refers the Court
`
`to the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`108. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 108.
`
`109. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 109, and respectfully refers the Court
`
`to the cited document for a complete and accurate statement of its contents.
`
`110. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 110, and respectfully refers the Court
`
`to the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`111. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 111.
`
`112. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 112.
`
`113. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 113, and respectfully refers the Court
`
`13
`
`to the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents, except admits that
`
`14
`
`mobile manufacturers have a choice whether to enter into a MADA to distribute devices with
`
`15
`
`proprietary Google apps, including the Google Play Store, and that these agreements contain
`
`16
`
`various provisions regarding placement of certain Google apps for the initial out-of-the-box
`
`17
`
`settings, though the specific terms have changed over time.
`
`18
`
`114. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 114, and respectfully refers the Court
`
`19
`
`to the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`20
`
`115. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 115, and respectfully refers the Court
`
`21
`
`to the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`116. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 116.
`
`117. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 117.
`
`118. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 118, and respectfully refers the Court
`
`25
`
`to the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`26
`
`119. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 119, and is without knowledge or
`
`27
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 119 regarding
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD, 3:20-cv-05761-JD
`-12-
`AMENDED ANSWERS AND DEFENSES TO CONSUMERS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-md-02981-JD Document 205 Filed 03/31/22 Page 13 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Kakao. Google respectfully refers the Court to the cited documents for a complete and accurate
`
`statement of their contents.
`
`120. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 120, and respectfully refers the Court
`
`to the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`121. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 121, and respectfully refers the Court
`
`to the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`122. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 122, except admits that DDA, Section
`
`4.5 states, “You may not use Google Play to distribute or make available any Product that has a
`
`purpose that facilitates the distribution of software applications and games for use on Android
`
`10
`
`devices outside of Google Play.” Google respectfully refers the Court to the cited documents for
`
`11
`
`a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`12
`
`123. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 123, and respectfully refers the Court
`
`13
`
`to the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`14
`
`124. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 124, and respectfully refers the Court
`
`15
`
`to the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`16
`
`125. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 125, respectfully refers the Court to the
`
`17
`
`cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents, and is without
`
`18
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph
`
`19
`
`125 regarding what OnePlus told Epic.
`
`20
`
`126. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 126, and respectfully refers the Court
`
`21
`
`to the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`22
`
`127. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 127, and respectfully refers the Court
`
`23
`
`to the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`24
`
`128. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 128, and respectfully refers the Court
`
`25
`
`to the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`
`26
`
`129. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 129, and respectfully refers the Court
`
`27
`
`to the cited documents for a complete and accurate state