Amicus Brief in Support of Stay of Injunction in Epic v. Google Antitrust Appeal
- Ashley Baker
- Aug 19
- 2 min read
The following is the statement of Committee for Justice Executive Director Ashley Baker:
"The Committee for Justice filed an amicus brief urging the Ninth Circuit to stay the district court’s injunction, emphasizing that the ruling represents an extreme departure from settled antitrust law. The injunction does not merely prohibit unlawful conduct—it compels Google to open the Play Store it built through years of investment to competitors for free, to distribute its entire app catalog to rival stores, and even to carry those rival stores within its own platform. Such remedies go far beyond traditional equitable relief and, in effect, require the judiciary to supervise how one company must structure its relationships with competitors. This is not merely aggressive; it is unprecedented.
The brief underscores how sharply this result conflicts with the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, authored by Justice Scalia, which made clear that antitrust law generally imposes no duty to deal with rivals. Trinko explained that compelling firms to share the very source of their competitive advantage not only undermines innovation incentives but also risks transforming judges into “central planners”—a role for which courts are ill-suited. The narrow exception recognized in Aspen Skiing is plainly inapplicable here, as there was no voluntary and profitable course of dealing that was later abandoned. Instead, the panel opinion imposed duties far beyond the “outer boundary” of Sherman Act liability identified in Trinko.
CFJ stresses that the stakes of this case transcend the identity of the litigants. What matters most is ensuring that antitrust doctrine remains faithful to its consumer-welfare purpose and consistent with binding precedent. If courts begin compelling successful firms to hand over their assets to rivals whenever a competitor demands it, the entire balance struck by the Sherman Act is undone. By departing from the clear teaching of Trinko and other circuit authority, the injunction not only threatens irreparable harm in this case but also sets a precedent that will chill innovation and distort competition across the economy. For these reasons, CFJ concludes that the injunction should be stayed pending panel rehearing or en banc review."
Media Inquiries: Ashley Baker; abaker@committeeforjustice.org