Epic Games has alleged that Google used its billions to “bribe and block” its Android partners and app developers from using alternatives to the Play Store.

After four weeks of testimony from Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Epic CEO Tim Sweeney, a jury is set to start deliberating this week to decide if Google broke antitrust law.

Google defended itself, arguing its partnerships are intended to help better compete against Apple.

The Epic trial has offered a window into previously unpublicised strategic forays by market cap by the company, as well as deals made with Samsung, Activision Blizzard, and Spotify.

Android, which is used in 70% of smartphones globally, and is given away free by Google. However, to use the Play Store, smartphone makers must sign an all-or-nothing deal to preinstall a bunch of Google programs.

The agreement also requires the Play Store to be installed on the Home Screen, and blocks users from deleting it.

To bring in money, Google charges app developers between 15 and 30%. In 2020, the Play Store raked in U$14.66 billion in revenue, and U$11.44 billion in gross profits.

Google challenges this profit figure, claiming it doesn’t take into account costs that come with improvements to Android.

The company claimed 97% of app developers pay nothing since the apps are free. For developers with under $1 million in sales, as well as companies offering subscriptions, the charge is 15%.

Larger developers pay 30% and many are gaming companies. In 2019, 31% of money spent by consumers in the Play Store came from products created by multiple game developers.

When a mobile version of Fortnite was offered by Epic Games, the company opposed the 30% fee. Instead of launching on Play, CEO Tim Sweeney told Google Epic would let users directly download the game from its website.

There was also a deal made with Samsung, where Fortnite was offered exclusively through the Galaxy Store with a reduced 12% fee.

The caused an upset within Google and the company explored approaching Epic’s investors to buy out stakes, which is a strategy code-named ‘Project Electra.’ It would have required an investment in billions.

The plan was ditched, and Epic was offered U$147 million by Google to launch via the Play Store. It was estimated by Google that Fortnite’s absence would lead to a direct revenue loss between $130 and $250 million. Employees of Google were also worried about “contagion to other developers,” who could follow Epic in launching games on other app stores.

Some Android manufacturers also offer their own app store, which Epic alleges Google worried would cut into its Play Store revenue.

Back in 2019, Google developed a strategy to persuade smartphone makers to use Play exclusively, which is similar to one the Justic Department alleged is an illegal scheme.

For the largest manufacturers, Google offered a pay out 16% of what was made through the Play Store, if it was the exclusive app store. For the smaller makers, Google offered between 4 and 6%.

The company said the payments encourage manufacturers to build Android phones to compete with Apple, and not all products need to be exclusive.

The biggest worry for Google, alleged by Epic, was Samsung. In early 2019, the company started to persuade developers to distribute through the Galaxy Store instead, offering a 20% fee instead of 30%.

Google responded by developing ‘Project Banyan,’ offering Samsung U$200 million over four years, for Samsung to take the Galaxy Store off its phone. The deal was rejected, and instead, the company sent a counterproposal to “prevent unnecessary competition on Store.”

At the end, the two agreed Google would pay Samsung U$8 billion over four years. Some of the money comes from making Google’s search engine the default on Samsung.

The final deal didn’t include a Play Store exclusivity requirement. “This saves us $1 billion over four years,” a document said.

At the same time, Google directly approached game developers as part of a strategy called ‘Project Hug.’ The company offered the developers credits to use on its advertising and cloud, along with cash incentives for marketing.

The Play Store team asked Google leaders for U$575 million to approach 22 of the biggest mobile game developers. These included Nintendo, Activision Blizzard, Ubisoft, and Tencent.

In exchange, the developers agreed to offer games on the Play Store at the same time as other platforms. Google executives testified the deals didn’t require developers to ditch plans of creating their own app stores or distribute on other app stores.

The company also acknowledged several developers, including Riot Games, and Activision Blizzard, all revealed they intended to create their own app stores, and abandoned the efforts after the deals from ‘Project Hug.’

Riot received U$17 million in March 2019 to develop the League of Legends mobile game. In a memo on the deal, Google revealed that with the payment, Riot “agreed to put aside their off-play distribution platform and launch on Play.” In 2020, Riot signed a deal worth U$90 million.

Activision Blizzard and its Kind unit, maker of Candy Crush, also signed deals. King received U$20 million in credits. Activision separately signed the largest agreements, U$360 million over three years, with $60 million in cloud, $105 million in advertising credits, $135 million for the license to broadcast Esports leagues on YouTube, and $60 million in marketing funds.

Spotify has been one of the most vocal opponents of the app store fees, having filed a complaint with European antitrust regulators against Apple over fees.

A document discussed during the trial showed Google employees arguing they should do a “strategic deal for Spotify” since it was seeking legislation in Europe, which would undermine the Google Play Store.

Google proposed a deal in 2020, where it would charge Spotify a 6% fee if a user chose Spotify’s payment system, according to testimony.

Following further negotiation, both companies agreed last year that Spotify will pay nothing if users choose its payment system, and 4% is the pay is processed through Google Play.

The deal was announced with the financial terms being indicated in March 2022. It was described as an experiment for a new form of ‘User Choice Billing.’

As of May this year, between 75 and 80 developers began using Google’s billing option, however testimony states in those cases, Google only agreed to give developers a 4% discount for processing their own transactions, which mean an 11% or 26% fee.

Google claimed the program was intended to address developer complaints about them lacking a choice in payment processing options, not complaints about the fees.

Susan Wojcicki, former CEO of YouTube, also complained to a top Android executive when YouTube was forced to switch to Google Play’s billing features.

“Our team feels it will hurt us competitively to have to use Google Play. We need to know how we can innovate on billing.”