Skip to main content
S
Quote
The most difficult bit for Epic, IMO:

Finally, Epic must establish that its injury is the type of injury that the antitrust laws were intended to prevent. This is sometimes referred to as “antitrust injury.” If Epic’s injuries were caused by a reduction in competition, acts that would lead to a reduction in competition, or acts that would otherwise harm consumers, then Epic’s injuries are antitrust injuries. On the other hand, if Epic’s injuries were caused by heightened competition, the competitive process itself, or by acts that would benefit consumers, then Epic’s injuries are not antitrust injuries and Epic is not entitled to a verdict that Google has violated the antitrust laws.

In summary, if Epic can establish that it was in fact injured by Google’s conduct, that Google’s conduct was a material cause of its injury, and that Epic’s injury was the type that the antitrust laws were intended to prevent, then Epic is entitled to a verdict that Google has violated the antitrust laws. 

I don’t remember Epic spending a lot of time on how it’s been injured during this case. Certainly it didn’t have opportunities it might have had... but that may not be enough. The jury instructions talk about “material injury.”