Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Suit Claims Google’s Deals With Android Device Makers Violate Antitrust Laws

Do Google’s MADA contracts constitute restraint of trade?

lynnewallenstein/Flickr

A federal class action suit filed on Thursday charges that Google’s deals with certain Android device makers hurt competition and violate antitrust laws.

The suit, brought on behalf of two consumers as well as other Android device makers, says that the Mobile Application Distribution Agreements that Google has with device makers that use its Gmail, YouTube and other proprietary apps hurt competition.

“Google’s MADAs are contracts in restraint of trade that are designed to maintain and extend its monopolies in general search and handheld general search,” according to the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in San Jose, Calif. “Simply put, there is no lawful, pro-competitive reason for Google to condition licenses to pre-load popular Google apps on making its search product the default search engine on covered devices.

The so-called MADA contract came up recently in the Apple vs. Samsung suit as Google has agreed to partially indemnify Samsung for some patent claims based on commitments that are part of the contract.

Google freely gives away the open source core of Android, but device makers that want to distribute any of Google’s proprietary applications have to agree to include all of them and agree to other terms.

“Anyone can use Android without Google and anyone can use Google without Android,” Google said in a statement to Re/code. “Since Android’s introduction, greater competition in smartphones has given consumers more choices at lower prices.”

The suit seeks an injunction against Google as well as monetary damages.

More details to come.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

More in Technology

Podcasts
Are humanoid robots all hype?Are humanoid robots all hype?
Podcast
Podcasts

AI is making them better — but they’re not going to be doing your chores anytime soon.

By Avishay Artsy and Sean Rameswaram
Future Perfect
The old tech that could help stop the next airborne pandemicThe old tech that could help stop the next airborne pandemic
Future Perfect

Glycol vapors, explained.

By Shayna Korol
Future Perfect
Elon Musk could lose his case against OpenAI — and still get what he wantsElon Musk could lose his case against OpenAI — and still get what he wants
Future Perfect

It’s not about who wins. It’s about the dirty laundry you air along the way.

By Sara Herschander
Life
Why banning kids from AI isn’t the answerWhy banning kids from AI isn’t the answer
Life

What kids really need in the age of artificial intelligence.

By Anna North
Culture
Anthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque messAnthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque mess
Culture

“Your AI monster ate all our work. Now you’re trying to pay us off with this piece of garbage that doesn’t work.”

By Constance Grady
Future Perfect
Some deaf children are hearing again because of a new gene therapySome deaf children are hearing again because of a new gene therapy
Future Perfect

A medical field that almost died is quietly fixing one disease at a time.

By Bryan Walsh