Auto Blocker is Not designed to Protect against Malicious Compliance: The Epic v. Google Suggestions Involved by Judge Donato

But a Google appeal is guaranteed, and Epic is positioning today’s new lawsuit as a way to prevent and dissuade Google and partners from pursuing a “malicious compliance strategy” in the meanwhile. You could even argue that’s what Judge Donato asked for: in Epic v. Google, he repeatedly told Epic’s lawyers that he wouldn’t grant their request for an anti-circumvention provision to keep Google from getting creative with workarounds.

We’ve asked Samsung to confirm or deny whether Auto Blocker actually scans an app for threats or suspicious activity, and whether it worked with Google on the feature. We haven’t heard back yet.

Epic claims it now requires “an exceptionally onerous 21-step process” to download a third-party app store onto a Samsung phone, making it that much more likely users will give up somewhere along the way.

There are not any relevant search results when I try to remove auto blocker from my phone; instead, I have to use a variety of screens to shut it off. One of them asks me if I’m really sure, claiming “Auto Blocker keeps your phone safe by blocking threats and other suspicious activity.”

The thing is not designed to protect against Malware according to Tim Sweeney. “The thing’s designed to prevent competition.”

He says the 100 million target is beyond reach as the store has reached 10 million installs. He characterizes that as “traction but not an enormous amount.”

The Malware Case and Obstruction of Competition in the Internet – a Briefing at Sweeney’s First Hearing in a United States vs. Second Amendment

“It is not about reasonable measures to protect users against malware,” Sweeney told reporters in a briefing ahead of the lawsuit filing. “It’s about obstruction of competition.”