Tag Archives: violations


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, July 8, 2021

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg has joined a coalition of 37 attorneys general to file a lawsuit against Google in California. Utah v. Google alleges exclusionary conduct relating to the Google Play Store for Android mobile devices and Google Billing. This antitrust lawsuit is the newest legal action against the tech giant, claiming illegal, anticompetitive, and unfair business practices. The States accuse Google of using its dominance to unfairly restrict competition with the Google Play Store, harming consumers by limiting choice and driving up app prices. The lawsuit is co-led by AGs in Utah, New York, Tennessee, and North Carolina.

“Google’s monopoly is a menace to the marketplace. Google Play is not fair play. Google must be held accountable for harming small businesses and consumers,” said Utah Attorney General Reyes. “Most consumers have no idea that for years Google has imposed unnecessary fees far beyond the market rates for in-app transactions, unlawfully inflating costs for many services, upgrades and other purchases made through apps downloaded on the Google Play Store. As a result, a typical American consumer may have paid hundreds if not thousands of dollars more than needed over many years.” 

According to the lawsuit, the heart of the case centers on Google’s exclusionary conduct, which substantially shuts out competing app distribution channels. Google also requires that app developers that offer their apps through the Google Play Store use Google Billing as a middleman. This arrangement, which ties a payment processing system to an app distribution channel forces app consumers to pay Google’s commission—up to 30%—on in-app purchases of digital content made by consumers through apps that are distributed via the Google Play Store. This commission is much higher than the commission that consumers would pay if they had the ability to choose one of Google’s competitors instead. The lawsuit alleges that Google works to discourage or prevent competition, violating federal and state antitrust laws.  Google had earlier promised app developers and device manufacturers that it would keep Android “open source,” allowing developers to create compatible apps and distribute them without unnecessary restrictions. The lawsuit says Google did not keep that promise.  

When Google launched its Android OS, it originally marketed it as an “open source” platform. By promising to keep Android open, Google successfully enticed “OEMs”—mobile device manufacturers such as Samsung—and “MNOs”—mobile network operators such as Verizon—to adopt Android, and more importantly, to forgo competing with Google’s Play Store at that time. Once Google had obtained the “critical mass” of Android OS adoption, Google moved to    close the Android OS ecosystem—and the relevant Android App Distribution Market—to any effective competition by, among other things, requiring OEMs and MNOs to enter into various contractual and other restraints. These contractual restraints disincentivize and restrict OEMs and MNOs from competing (or fostering competition) in the relevant market. The lawsuit alleges that Google’s conduct constitutes unlawful monopoly maintenance, among other claims. 

The AGs further allege that Google also engaged in the following conduct, all aimed at enhancing and protecting Google’s monopoly position over Android app distribution:

Google imposes technical barriers that strongly discourage or effectively prevent third-party app developers from       distributing apps outside the Google Play Store. Google builds into Android a series of security warnings (regardless of actual security risk) and other barriers that discourage users from downloading apps from any source outside Google’s Play Store, effectively foreclosing app developers and app stores from direct distribution to consumers. 


Google has not allowed Android to be “open source” for many years, effectively cutting off potential competition. Google forces OEMs that wish to sell devices that run Android to enter into agreements called “Android Compatibility Commitments” or ACCs. Under these “take it or leave it” agreements, OEMs must promise not to create or implement any variants or versions of Android that deviate from the Google-certified version of Android. 

Google’s required contracts foreclose competition by forcing Google’s proprietary apps to be “pre-loaded” on essentially all devices designed to run on the Android OS, and requires that Google’s apps be given the most prominent placement on device home screens. 

Google “buys off” its potential competition in the market for app distribution. Google has successfully persuaded OEMs and MNOs not to compete with Google’s Play Store by entering into arrangements that reward OEMs and MNOs with a share of Google’s monopoly profits. 

Google forces app developers and app users alike to use Google’s payment processing service, Google Play Billing, to process payments for in-app purchases of content consumed within the app. Thus, Google is unlawfully tying the use of Google’s payment processor, which is a separate service within a separate market for payment processing within apps, to distribution through the Google Play Store. By forcing this tie, Google is able to extract an exorbitant processing fee as high as 30% for each transaction and which is more than ten times as high as the fee charged by Google’s competitors.  

This effort is led by Utah Attorney General Sean D. Reyes, New York Attorney General Letitia James, North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein and Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery III.  The other states joining the lawsuit include Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.


The Office of the Attorney General is the chief legal officer for the State of South Dakota and provides legal advice to agencies, boards, and commissions of the State as well as representing the State in state and federal court.  The Office of Attorney General also handles prosecutions, felony criminal appeals, civil matters, consumer protection issues, and issues formal opinions interpreting statutes for agencies of the state.  Visit www.atg.sd.gov to learn more. 

Connect with us on Facebook or on Twitter at @SDAttorneyGen

CONTACT: Tim Bormann, Chief of Staff, (605) 773-3215


Read more here >>> usnews

Houston group home operator warned of safety violations weeks before deadly fire, HPD says

Houston group home operator warned of safety violations weeks before deadly fire, HPD says
HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) — Last year, the operator of a group home was warned about major fire safety violations two weeks before the fire that killed a resident, court records show.

Felicia Ekpouko, 63, is charged with injury to an elderly or disabled individual by omission, which is considered a felony. She is being held in jail and is expected to make her first court appearance Friday morning.

The fire happened on Aug. 11, 2020, at 6111 Gladewell in the Alief area. The Houston Fire Department said seven people were living there at the time, and several of them had special needs.

RELATED: 1 killed in fire at group home for people with special needs in SW Houston

The victim killed in the fire was Charles A. Dunn, who was described in court documents as one of society’s most vulnerable, “deaf-mute, elderly and physically disabled.” The 68-year-old did not make it out of the house and police believe he may have never known there was a fire.

Records show Ekpouko was warned on July 28, 2020, about a slew of safety violations. She was cited by HPD Boarding Home Enforcement Unit Officers for at least five violations, which included having a deadbolt on the front door, fire extinguishers that had not been inspected annually as required by law, and no visual smoke alarms that would warn a hearing-impaired resident, like Dunn, of a fire.

Dunn died from smoke inhalation and was “still in bed,” when firefighters found him, records said. In the meantime, the other six residents “were in a panic” at the front door, which was locked with a deadbolt. They were finally able to escape through a side door.

Ekpouko does not yet have an attorney of record.

According to court documents, when investigators asked Ekpouko, who admitted to operating group homes in Houston for 12 years, why she did not correct the problems, she told them it was “on her list of things to do” but could not because of “coronavirus.”

Copyright © 2021 KTRK-TV. All Rights Reserved.

Author: Jessica Willey

This post originally appeared on ABC13 RSS Feed