Epic Games set up his antitrust trial against Samsung, marking a surprising turn in the expanding battle of the Fortnite manufacturer to dismantle what she calls a “duopoly” of the control of the App Store by Google and its close partners.
Placed in September 2024, the case accused Samsung of ending with Google to remove the competition in the distribution of mobile applications – mainly by the deployment of its controversial “Auto Blocker” function which restricts the facilities of applications from the outside of Galaxy and Google Play stores.
On Monday, Epic voluntarily rejected nine of his antitrust complaints in an American judicial file, following what he described as constructive discussions with Samsung.
Register For TEKEDIA Mini-MBA Edition 18 (September 15 – December 6, 2025)) Today for early reductions. An annual for access to Blurara.com.
Tekedia Ai in Masterclass Business open registration.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-INivest in large world startups.
Register become a better CEO or director with CEO program and director of Tekedia.
“We reject our trial against Samsung following the discussions of the parties,” published the CEO of Epic, Tim Sweeney, “we are grateful that Samsung responds to EPIC concerns.”
Although no specific conditions of the regulation has been made public, legal analysts believe that the agreement probably implies adjustments to the way Samsung manages application facilities from alternative sources.
The rules put an end to a chapter of the wider EPIC offensive against what he considers illegal monopolies of App Store – an effort which has already experienced a major victory against Google and a mixed result in a previous case against Apple. Epic has also launched its own mobile app store and prompted the world distribution worldwide.
What was the case
The Epic against Samsung trial focused on the automatic blocker functionality, which was activated by default on Galaxy devices and has created a complex process of 21 steps so that users can install applications from Samsung and Google stores. Epic allegedly alleged that this is equivalent to a deliberate obstruction designed to limit the choice of users and punish competition, especially after an American jury has found Google guilty of illegally monopolizing the distribution of Android applications in December 2023.
Samsung has denied the reprehensible acts at the time, calling the “baseless” Epic costume and claiming that its security features have been designed only to protect users from malware and dangerous applications. Google has also rejected Epic allegations as a merit, stressing that Android partners and Samsung are free to make independent decisions on applications safety mechanisms.
However, the Epic trial calendar – a few months after winning the historic jury’s verdict against Google – suggested that the company intended to guarantee that the judgment would not be compromised by bypass. Epic said that Samsung’s shares have effectively canceled the legal victory by maintaining the status quo in the distribution of applications, in particular on the main American markets where Galaxy phones hold a large market share.
What is in the regulations?
Epic did not disclose the terms of the agreement, but its decision to reject the prosecution without prejudice – which means that it can relaunch complaints later – suggests that Samsung is committed to certain changes. Legal observers speculate that Samsung can accept either to deactivate the default automobile blocker, offer an opt-in mechanism or establish an equitable and transparent white list process for third-party application stores.
The resolution also arrives only a few days before the highly anticipated event of Samsung Galaxy unpacked, the chatter of the industry industry that the Epic game shop could be preinstalled on new Samsung devices, or at least, more accessible thanks to device settings.
It would not be the first time that Samsung has cooperated with Epic in the distribution of applications. In 2018, Fortnite was initially available for Android exclusively via the Samsung Galaxy Store before being published more widely.
The Samsung affair was just a long -standing campaign front of Epic to break the domination of technology giants compared to the distribution of applications. The company began its war against Gatekeeper application stores in 2020 by continuing Apple and Google during their 30% commissions and close control over integrated payments.
While Epic lost a large part of its arguments against Apple, the company won an important legal victory against Google in December 2023 when a Californian jury had found that the company had violated antitrust laws. The verdict forced Google to open its play store to rival markets, but the application of the decision remains in limbo as the company calls it.
In the pursuit of Samsung, Epic sought to ensure that the alleged violations of Google antitrust were not simply reproduced through strategic partnerships.
Sweeney is not optimistic that the change will be immediate.
“If Google hinders a vertical remedy through calls and does not offer an impressive case,” said Sweeney in 2023.
What changes could happen?
According to the file, EPIC retains the right to refection the case if Samsung does not follow up on its commitments. At the same time, the wider legal landscape is still changing. The call by Google of the jury’s verdict is pending, and Washington legislators revisit legislation to limit the monopolies of the App Store, in particular on Android.
The result of the Samsung dispute can also influence other manufacturers. If Samsung agrees to open its devices in third -party application stores, other OEMs like Xiaomi, Oppo and Vivo can face similar pressures – especially in regions where regulators are increasingly asserted in the police on competition on the digital market.
Although the Epic agreement with Samsung did not have the audience drama of its battles with Apple and Google, this could have important implications. By reaching a compromise outside the court, Epic can establish a precedent for the way he wants other companies to cooperate – not with monetary damage, but with structural changes that promote open access.
At a time when developers put pressure for greater visibility, lower costs and direct relations with users, Samsung’s desire to settle can reflect growing recognition among manufacturers that former rootstock models are no longer defended – legally, politically or commercially.
