Google filed a counterclaim against Epic Games and demanded damages

Last year, Epic Games filed a lawsuit not only against Apple, but also against Google. However, only now Google has decided to put forward counter-claims to the developer. The company said that the creators of Fortnite knowingly violated the agreement with Google Play, and demanded to pay her compensation.

Recall, as in the case of Apple, the conflict between Epic Games and Google flared up after the Fortnite battle royale was removed from the app store. The reason was that Epic Games added its own payment system to the game, which allowed bypassing the Google Play commission. Immediately after the removal, the developers sued Google, accusing the corporation of monopoly.

A year later, Google decided to file a counterclaim. The corporation wrote that it did not violate antitrust laws, while Epic Games was not going to comply with the Google Play Software Distribution Agreement (DDA) from the very beginning.

According to the lawsuit, Epic Games provoked the conflict. She added a third-party payment system to Fortnite, knowing full well that the game would be removed from the store because of her. This removal untied the developers’ hands, and Epic Games was able to start legal proceedings.

Google also noted that it did not disable the Epic Games account on Google Play after Fortnite was removed. The company hoped that later the developer would upload a version of the title to the store, which would no longer violate its rules. Epic Games didn’t do that. Moreover, Fortnite users who managed to download the title could still use the Epic Games payment system.

Now Google is demanding that Epic Games compensate for the lost profits, as well as pay the costs of lawyers.

Epic Games has not commented on the lawsuit.

Recall that on September 10, the court issued a verdict as part of a similar trial between Epic Games and Apple. In 9 points out of 10, he supported Apple, but decided that the company should allow developers to add links to other payment methods to applications. This decision did not suit both sides.