Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 55 Filed 07/11/22 Page 1 of 53
`
`
`
`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
`
`Jonathan I. Kravis, pro hac vice
`Jonathan.kravis@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 500E
`Washington, DC 20001
`Telephone: (202) 220-1130
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`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
`
`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
`
`Glenn D. Pomerantz, Bar No. 112503
`glenn.pomerantz@mto.com
`Kuruvilla Olasa, Bar No. 281509
`kuruvilla.olasa@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426
`Telephone: (213) 683-9100
`
`Kyle W. Mach, Bar No. 282090
`kyle.mach@mto.com
`Justin P. Raphael, Bar No. 292380
`justin.raphael@mto.com
`Emily C. Curran-Huberty, Bar No. 293065
`emily.curran-huberty@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
`Telephone: (415) 512-4000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO MATCH’S COMPLAINT
`Case Nos. 3:22-cv-02746-JD; 3:21-md-02981-JD
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 55 Filed 07/11/22 Page 2 of 53
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`IN RE GOOGLE PLAY STORE
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`Match Group, LLC. et al. v. Google LLC et
`al., Case No. 3:22-cv-02746-JD
`
`
`Case No. 3:21-md-02981-JD
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER,
`DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`TO MATCH’S COMPLAINT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
` INTRODUCTION
`Google Play allows a developer to distribute its apps for free to billions of Android users
`around the world without paying a single cent to Google unless and until it makes a sale. Yet, in
`filing their complaint, Match Group now attempts to fully disregard its agreement with Google
`and take advantage of Google Play’s value by misusing antitrust laws to force Google to give
`away its valuable services for free.
`While Match Group claims that Google Play only provides payment processing, that
`simply isn’t true. Google Play provides tools and a global distribution platform that has allowed
`Match Group to thrive and build a successful network of users that is critical for its dating
`apps. Match Group now seeks to access Google Play’s global distribution platform and users
`and leverage Google’s substantial investments in the platform, all for free.
`Match Group’s Complaint is a cynical attempt to take advantage of Google Play’s tools
`and global distribution platform and sidestep the reasonable service fees that come with these
`benefits. Even worse, Match Group aims to undermine user experience to improve its own
`bottom line. A senior vice-president at Match Group shockingly acknowledged that Match
`Group’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. He wrote:
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO MATCH’S COMPLAINT
`Case Nos. 3:22-cv-02746-JD; 3:21-md-02981-JD
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 55 Filed 07/11/22 Page 3 of 53
`
`
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`
`
`
`Match’s deceptive approach to subscription cancellation has been called out by the Federal Trade
`Commission (FTC) and other consumer protection agencies. The FTC filed a complaint alleging
`that Match requires a cumbersome process to cancel certain subscriptions that leads consumers to
`think they have canceled when they have not. Match executives have acknowledged that the
`Match cancellation process is “hard to find, tedious and confusing.” In 2017, Match’s head of
`customer service admitted that it takes “up to 7 or 8 clicks to complete the flow to turn off
`[subscriptions] if you can even figure out how to do it.” See FTC v. Match Group, Inc., Case No.
`3:19-cv-02281 (N.D. Tex.) at ¶¶ 55-61.
`Match Group’s troubling perspective on consumer billing demonstrates exactly why
`Google Play’s billing system is an integral part of a consumer’s overall experience on Google
`Play. Google Play’s billing system gives consumers a consistent, safe, and secure way to pay for
`apps, subscriptions, and in-app purchases. This experience leads to more consumer transactions,
`which in turn generates demand for developers to continually innovate to create new and better
`apps and in-app products. Google Play’s billing system thus benefits users and developers alike,
`and is a key part of the success of the Android ecosystem.
`Match Group disguises its true motives by alleging copycat and fundamentally defective
`antitrust theories. In so doing, Match Group ignores that Android competes aggressively against
`Apple’s iOS. And, by providing Android as an open source mobile operating system (“OS”) to
`smartphone manufacturers (“OEMs”) for free, Google has expanded access to smartphones and
`the marketplace for mobile apps, creating enormous incentives for developers to invest in apps
`that make virtually every sector of the American economy more efficient, affordable and
`accessible for users. Match Group also ignores that, unlike competitors with closed ecosystems
`(like Apple’s iOS), Google does not require Android users or developers to use Google Play to
`download, install, or distribute apps on Android smartphones. Rather, those developers and users
`can freely choose the app stores and other platforms they wish to use to interact with app
`
`2
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO MATCH’S COMPLAINT
`Case Nos. 3:22-cv-02746-JD; 3:21-md-02981-JD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 55 Filed 07/11/22 Page 4 of 53
`
`
`
`consumers. Match Group itself has taken advantage of the choice afforded by Android and
`Google Play by distributing its apps on other app stores, like the Samsung Galaxy Store, which
`comes preloaded on a significant portion of devices in the United States. Match Group complains
`of foreclosure where there is none.
`RESPONSE TO NUMBERED PARAGRAPHS
`The section headings in the Complaint do not require a response. To the extent that the
`section headings contain allegations requiring a response, Google denies all such allegations.
`1.
`Defendants Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Ltd., Google
`Asia Pacific Pte. Limited, and Google Payment Corp. (collectively "Google") deny the allegations
`in Paragraph 1, except admit that Google LLC acquired the Android mobile operating system and
`that Android is an open ecosystem that, at its core, has always been about openness. Google avers
`that Google users use Google Play's billing system ("Google Play Billing") for in-app purchases
`with respect to apps distributed through Google Play with some exceptions, including purchasing
`physical goods and purchasing digital content elsewhere that is consumed within the app.
`2.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 2, except avers that Google provides
`benefits to developers, including Match Group, including discoverability made possible by
`distribution, e-learning opportunities, free tools for developers to effectively build apps for
`Android devices, testing and monitoring tools, and a global digital payment infrastructure to
`enable developers to transact with users using the most effective payment methods regardless of
`where the developers or users are located. Google further avers that Google has enabled
`developers to create revenue streams for themselves.
`3.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 3, and avers that, during the time when
`Match Group distributed its apps through Google Play, Match Group app users had the choice
`whether to pay for services using Google Play Billing or another mechanism because it was
`possible to purchase subscriptions and upgrades outside of Google Play for use in the version of
`the Match Group app available on Google Play.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO MATCH’S COMPLAINT
`Case Nos. 3:22-cv-02746-JD; 3:21-md-02981-JD
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 55 Filed 07/11/22 Page 5 of 53
`
`
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 4, except admits one or more
`4.
`defendants receive a payment for in-app purchases with respect to apps distributed through
`Google Play and charge up to 30% as a service fee.
`5.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.
`6.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 6, and avers that Google charges a
`service fee when a developer chooses to charge for app downloads, in-app purchases, or
`subscriptions for content distributed on Google Play, and Google is paid for the extensive services
`it provides developers and the sizable investment it makes in Google Play's tools, software, and
`technology, only if and when a user pays for an app, in-app product, or subscription.
`7.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 7.
`8.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 8.
`9.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 9. Google is without knowledge or
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 9 about
`Match Group and its users.
`10.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 10. Google is without knowledge or
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 10 about
`Match Group and its users.
`11.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 11, except avers that Android users and
`developers have access to its open ecosystem.
`12.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 12.
`13.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 13.
`14.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 14.
`15.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 15.
`16.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 16, and respectfully refers the Court to
`the developer agreements for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`17.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 17.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO MATCH’S COMPLAINT
`Case Nos. 3:22-cv-02746-JD; 3:21-md-02981-JD
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 55 Filed 07/11/22 Page 6 of 53
`
`
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`
`
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 18, but admits the existence of lawsuits
`18.
`involving Google and state Attorneys Generals and the Department of Justice and the existence of
`government investigations and inquiries.
`19.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 19, and respectfully refers the Court to
`the cited legislation for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`20.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 20.
`21.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 21.
`22.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 22.
`23.
`Google admits to the existence of a new pilot program for User Choice Billing, but
`otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 23.
`24.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 24.
`25.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 25.
`26.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 26.
`27.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 27.
`28.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 28.
`29.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 29.
`30.
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 30.
`31.
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 31.
`32.
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 32.
`33. Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 33.
`34.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 34, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO MATCH’S COMPLAINT
`Case Nos. 3:22-cv-02746-JD; 3:21-md-02981-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 55 Filed 07/11/22 Page 7 of 53
`
`
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`
`
`
`Google Play Developer Distribution Agreement ("DDA"). Google further admits that Google
`LLC is a subsidiary of XXVI Holdings Inc., which is a Delaware corporation and a subsidiary of
`Alphabet Inc. Google further admits that Alphabet Inc. is a publicly traded company that is
`incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and that maintains its principal
`executive offices in Mountain View, California.
`35.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 35, except admits that Google Ireland
`Limited is organized under the laws of Ireland with its principal place of business in Dublin,
`Ireland, is a subsidiary of Google LLC, and is a party to the DDA.
`36.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 36, except admits that Google
`Commerce Ltd. is organized under the laws of Ireland with its principal place of business in
`Dublin, Ireland and is a party to the DDA.
`37.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 37, except admits that Google Asia
`Pacific Pte. Ltd. is organized under the laws of Singapore with its principal place of business in
`Mapletree Business City, Singapore and is a party to the DDA.
`38.
`Google admits 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 subject matter jurisdiction.
`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
`only—the personal jurisdiction of this Court, but Google otherwise denies the allegations in
`Paragraph 40.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 41, except admits that each of the
`41.
`defendants, except Google Payment Corp., is a party to the DDA, to which document Google
`respectfully refers the Court for a complete and accurate statement of its contents. Google further
`avers that the allegations in the fourth sentence are legal conclusions not subject to admission or
`denial, and to the extent a response is required, Google does not dispute—for purposes of this
`action only—personal jurisdiction of this Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO MATCH’S COMPLAINT
`Case Nos. 3:22-cv-02746-JD; 3:21-md-02981-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 55 Filed 07/11/22 Page 8 of 53
`
`
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`
`
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 42 are legal conclusions not subject to admission or
`42.
`denial. To the extent a response is required, Google does not dispute—for purposes of this action
`only—the venue of this action, and respectfully refers the Court to the cited statutory codes for a
`complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`43.
`The allegations in Paragraph 43 are legal conclusions not subject to admission or
`denial. To the extent a response is required, Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 43.
`44.
`Google avers that internet and mobile devices are used by billions of users over the
`world, but is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`allegations in Paragraph 44.
`45.
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 45.
`46. Google admits that MGI offers dating services through its subsidiaries Tinder®,
`Match®, OkCupid® PlentyOfFish®, and OurTime®, but is without knowledge or information
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 46.
`47.
`Google admits that MGI companies offer services that can be used by users to
`connect with one another, but is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
`to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 47.
`48.
`Google admits that Match Group's Tinder is a dating service and app, but is
`without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`allegations in Paragraph 48.
`49.
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 49.
`50.
`Google admits that Tinder offers various subscription tiers and a la carte digital
`purchase options, but is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 50.
`51.
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 51.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO MATCH’S COMPLAINT
`Case Nos. 3:22-cv-02746-JD; 3:21-md-02981-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 55 Filed 07/11/22 Page 9 of 53
`
`
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`52.
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 52.
`53.
`Google admits that Match offers multiple subscription plans, including a plan
`without a charge, but is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 53.
`54.
`Google admits that Match offers services through its mobile app, but is without
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in
`Paragraph 54.
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`55.
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 55.
`56.
`Google admits that OkCupid offers multiple subscription plans, including a plan
`without a charge, but is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 56.
`57.
`Google admits that PlentyofFish is a dating service, but is without knowledge or
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 57.
`58.
`Google admits that PlentyofFish offers multiple subscription options, but is
`without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`allegations in Paragraph 58.
`59.
`Google admits the allegations in the first two sentences of Paragraph 59. Google is
`without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`allegations in Paragraph 59.
`60.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 60, except admits that companies that
`design and sell smart mobile devices are known as OEMs.
`61.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 61, except admits that smart mobile
`devices generally use an operating system to provide core device functionality and to enable the
`operation of programs.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO MATCH’S COMPLAINT
`Case Nos. 3:22-cv-02746-JD; 3:21-md-02981-JD
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 55 Filed 07/11/22 Page 10 of 53
`
`
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 62, except admits that OEMs may
`62.
`select an OS for devices they manufacture.
`63.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 63.
`64.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 64, except admits that Apple operates
`its own OS.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 65.
`65.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 66, except admits that Google LLC
`66.
`acquired the Android mobile operating system in 2005.
`67.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 67, except admits that it takes
`significant money, time, and resources to develop an OS.
`68.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 68.
`69.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 69.
`70.
`Google admits the allegations in Paragraph 70.
`71.
`Google admits the allegations in Paragraph 71, but is without knowledge or
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 71 about the
`time users spend online on their smart mobile devices.
`72.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 72, except admits that "[a]pp stores
`allow users to easily browse, search for, access reviews on, purchase, download, and install
`mobile apps."
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 73.
`73.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 74.
`74.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 75, and avers that evidence shows that
`75.
`users can and do switch and multi-home among and between different OSs.
`76.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 76.
`77.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 77.
`78.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 78.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO MATCH’S COMPLAINT
`Case Nos. 3:22-cv-02746-JD; 3:21-md-02981-JD
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 55 Filed 07/11/22 Page 11 of 53
`
`
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 79, and respectfully refers the Court to
`79.
`the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`80.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 80.
`81.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 81, and respectfully refers the Court to
`the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`82.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 82.
`83.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 83.
`84.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 84.
`85.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 85, and respectfully refers the Court to
`the cited document for a complete and accurate statement of its contents.
`86.
`Google admits that there are app developers that provide only dating apps, but is
`without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`allegations in Paragraph 86.
`87.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 87, and respectfully refers the Court to
`the cited document for a complete and accurate statement of its contents.
`88.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 88, and respectfully refers the Court to
`the cited documents for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`89.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 89.
`90.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 90.
`91.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 91, except admits that one or more of
`the defendants have agreements called Mobile Application and Distribution Agreements
`("MADAs").
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 92, except admits that one or more of
`92.
`the defendants have MADAs.
`93.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 93, except admits that Google offers
`apps and services, including Google Play, Google Search, Google Maps, YouTube, and Gmail.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO MATCH’S COMPLAINT
`Case Nos. 3:22-cv-02746-JD; 3:21-md-02981-JD
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 55 Filed 07/11/22 Page 12 of 53
`
`
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`
`
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 94, except admits that Google Play
`94.
`Services contains Google's proprietary application programming interfaces.
`95.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 95.
`96.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 96, except admits that mobile
`manufacturers have a choice whether to enter into a MADA to distribute devices with proprietary
`Google apps, including the Google Play Store, and that these agreements contain various
`provisions regarding placement of certain apps for the initial out-of-the-box settings, though the
`specific terms have changed overtime.
`97.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 97.
`98.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 98, and respectfully refers the Court to
`the quoted Google presentation for a complete and accurate statement of its contents.
`99.
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 99.
`100. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 100.
`101. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 101.
`102. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 102, except admits that DDA is an
`agreement between Google and developers and that developers are generally required to enter
`into the DDA to distribute apps through Google Play.
`103. Google admits the allegations in Paragraph 103.
`104. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 104, except admits that app stores are a
`widely used, accessible channel for distribution of apps.
`105. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 105.
`106. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 106, except admits that Google's App
`Campaigns program offers app developers highly desirable and optimized ad placements on some
`of Google's advertisement platforms.
`107. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 107, except admits that one or more of
`the defendants have agreements called MADAs and optional revenue sharing agreements with
`some OEM and mobile network operator ("MNO") partners.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO MATCH’S COMPLAINT
`Case Nos. 3:22-cv-02746-JD; 3:21-md-02981-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 55 Filed 07/11/22 Page 13 of 53
`
`
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`
`
`
`108. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 108, and respectfully refers the Court
`to the cited agreements for a complete and accurate statement of their contents.
`109. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 109.
`110. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 110, and respectfully refers the Court
`to the cited agreements 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.
`114. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 114.
`115. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 115, except admits that the Senate
`Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights held a hearing
`titled "Antitrust Applied: Examining Competition in App Stores" on April 21, 2021. Google is
`without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in
`Paragraph 115 regarding what Match Group or MGI were asked to do.
`116. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 117, except admits that Mr. Sine
`appeared before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and
`Consumer Rights on April 21, 2021, and respectfully refers the Court to the cited testimony for a
`complete and accurate statement of its contents.
`117. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 117, except admits that Mr. Sine
`appeared before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and
`Consumer Rights on April 21, 2021, and respectfully refers the Court to the cited testimony for a
`complete and accurate statement of its contents.
`118. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 117, except admits that Mr. Sine
`appeared before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and
`Consumer Rights on April 21, 2021, and respectfully refers the Court to the cited testimony for a
`complete and accurate statement of its contents.
`119. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 119.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO MATCH’S COMPLAINT
`Case Nos. 3:22-cv-02746-JD; 3:21-md-02981-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 55 Filed 07/11/22 Page 14 of 53
`
`
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`
`
`
`120. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 120.
`121. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 121, except avers that users can
`download apps directly from a developer's website if they choose via sideloading and that
`multiple app stores and access points to apps exist, as users can and do multi-home in accessing
`apps.
`
`122. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 122.
`123. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 123.
`124. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 124.
`125. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 125, except avers that Google provides
`valuable security screening and safeguards to protect the user experience.
`126. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 126.
`127. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 127, and avers that users select their
`mobile device for many reasons, including that users prefer a mobile device with an app store pre-
`installed, and that users want a secure mobile device. Google also avers that evidence shows that
`users can and do switch and multi-home among and between mobile and nonmobile ecosystems,
`including between Android and iOS.
`128. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 128, and respectfully refers the Court
`to the Anti-Fragmentation Agreement and Android Compatibility Commitment for a complete
`and accurate statement of their contents.
`129. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 129.
`130. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 130.
`131. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 131.
`132. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 132.
`133. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 133.
`134. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 134.
`135. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 135.
`136. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 136.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO MATCH’S COMPLAINT
`Case Nos. 3:22-cv-02746-JD; 3:21-md-02981-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 55 Filed 07/11/22 Page 15 of 53
`
`
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`
`
`
`137. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 137.
`138. Google admits the allegations in Paragraph 138.
`139. Google admits that consumers spend money on in-app purchases of digital content,
`goods, services, and upgrades, but is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 139.
`140. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 140.
`141. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 141.
`142. Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 142, except avers that evidence shows
`that users can and do switch and multi-home among and between mobile and nonmobile
`ecosystems, including between Android and iOS.
`143. Google denies the allegati