- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Google Pleads Before Court Of Appeals To Put District Court Ruling On Hold
Google Pleads Before Court Of Appeals To Put District Court Ruling On Hold
The tech giant requests to stay the order while it pursues the matter
Google has approached the US District Court in California to pause its order requiring the opening of Google Play to greater competition.
A unit of Alphabet, Google requested the court to stay the order while it pursued an appeal.
The tech giant stated that the injunction order goes into effect on 01 November. However, it would harm the company and introduce "serious safety, security, and privacy risks into the Android ecosystem."
The injunction was issued recently by Judge James Donato in a case brought by Fortnite-maker Epic Games. In 2023, the firm appealed before a federal jury that Google was illegally monopolizing how consumers downloaded apps on Android devices and paid via app transactions.
The judge ruled that Google must allow users to download competing third-party Android app platforms or stores. It could no longer prohibit the use of competing in-app payment methods. The bench also barred the company from making payments to device makers for preinstalling the Play Store and sharing revenue generated from it with other app distributors.
Google has appealed before the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco.
However, if Judge Donato denies Google's bid to put the injunction on hold, the company can request the appeals court for it even as it appeals the jury's underlying antitrust verdict. The court would weigh and rule on Google's challenge.