美国第九巡回上诉法院关于支持Epic_Games诉谷歌案上诉人的Amicus简报（英）-2025.8_25页_819kb

Summary of ITIF Amicus Brief Supporting Google's Rehearing Petition

Introduction and Background

The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF), an independent non-profit think tank dedicated to policy solutions for innovation and productivity, filed this amicus curiae brief to support Google LLC's petition for rehearing in the case In re: Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation (Nos. 24-6256, 24-6274, 25-303). ITIF seeks to ensure consistency with the Ninth Circuit's prior ruling in Epic v. Apple and to challenge the district court's catalog access remedy. Google consented to the filing, but the plaintiff-appellee, Epic, declined consent without agreeing to disclosure conditions not required by Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Core Arguments

First Argument: Departure from Ninth Circuit's Prior Ruling

• ITIF contends that the district court's decision and the court's affirmation diverge from its earlier analysis in Epic v. Apple, which acknowledged Google and Apple as competing in the mobile gaming space.
• ITIF emphasizes that Google and Apple vigorously compete in mobile gaming, citing their differing platform designs (Google's "open distribution" vs. Apple's "walled garden"), and criticizes the court for establishing narrower, inconsistent market definitions in this case compared to Epic v. Apple.
• The argument highlights technological dynamism in the mobile ecosystem, which ITIF believes counters monopoly power claims and should be recognized to maintain consistent antitrust standards.

Second Argument: Flawed District Court Remedies

• ITIF deems the court's catalog access remedy legally unsound, noting that antitrust relief must terminate illegal conduct, deny benefits, and prevent future violations, but the remedy imposes an undue burden without clear causal links to the anticompetitive effects.
• The remedy risks damaging the Android ecosystem by potentially stifling innovation and encouraging free-riding on Google's investments, as it forces Google to share its catalog with rival app stores.
• ITIF argues for rehearing to avoid undoing the district court's "exceptional remedy," which could destabilize the ecosystem and harm consumers and developers.

Identity and Interest of Amicus Curiae

• ITIF, as an expert on antitrust and innovation policy, dedicates significant resources to analyzing market competition in high-tech industries. Its Schumpeter Project promotes dynamic competition and innovation through antitrust enforcement.
• ITIF's involvement is based on its study of the mobile ecosystem, supporting that rehearing is essential to ensure market consistency, address dynamic competition, and avoid excessive remedies that could chill innovation.

Conclusion

• ITIF respectfully requests rehearing to resolve inconsistencies in antitrust rulings and to set aside the catalog access remedy, which ITIF believes exceeds traditional antitrust limits and could harm the Android platform's vitality. If granted, rehearing would uphold market dynamics and protect innovation in the digital economy.