{"id":3966,"date":"2024-08-05T10:54:24","date_gmt":"2024-08-05T14:54:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/10q\/?p=3966"},"modified":"2024-08-05T10:54:24","modified_gmt":"2024-08-05T14:54:24","slug":"historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/","title":{"rendered":"Historic Jury Verdict Finds Google Monopolized Google Play Store and Google Play Billing"},"content":{"rendered":"

August 5, 2024<\/p>\n

On December 11, 2023, after less than four hours of deliberation, the jury in Epic v. Google<\/em> delivered a unanimous verdict on all counts that Google unlawfully maintained a monopoly over the Google Play Store and Google Play Billing. The ruling comes more than three years after Epic first filed separate antitrust lawsuits against Apple and Google. Epic\u2019s case against Google was later consolidated with four similar lawsuits brought by 39 attorneys general, a class of consumer plaintiffs, a class of developer plaintiffs, and Match Group (a portfolio of popular dating apps).<\/p>\n

Case History<\/strong><\/p>\n

Epic, the creator of the popular game \u201cFortnite,\u201d decided to implement its own in-app payment system in 2020 to evade a 30% commission charged by Google Play Billing and Apple Pay. When Google subsequently banned Fortnite from the Google Play Store for violating its policies, Epic brought claims against Google under Sherman Act \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 2 and under California state law alleging Google maintained an unlawful monopoly, unreasonably restrained trade, and engaged in an unlawful tying arrangement between the Google Play Store and Google Play Billing. Epic challenged Google\u2019s contracts with app developers to: (1) restrict app distribution to Google\u2019s Play Store, (2) require in-app purchases to utilize Google\u2019s payment processor, and (3) limit the ability of app developers to communicate the availability of other payment options to Android users.<\/p>\n

Foreclosure and Harm<\/strong><\/p>\n

In its opening statements, Epic told the jury that Google has \u201charmed consumers who have less choice and pay more [and] it has harmed app developers like Epic.\u201d Epic argued that this conduct resulted in higher prices, lower quality, and less choice while permitting Google to make billions in profit, including 30% of all revenue from app downloads. For example, testimony at trial included lower-cost in-app payment processing solutions that could be offered to Android developers in addition to Google Play Billing \u201cbut for\u201d its Play Store policies. As a result, the jury found that Google\u2019s conduct caused substantial harm to competition. Specifically, the jury found that Google\u2019s agreements with developers and OEMs that sell mobile devices constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Sherman Act \u00a7 1.<\/p>\n

Procompetitive Benefits<\/strong><\/p>\n

The jury was instructed to \u201cbalance any competitive harms . . . against any competitive benefits.\u201d Google argued that its Google Play Store policies have several procompetitive benefits, including added security for Android devices when apps are downloaded from the Play Store, and the ability for developers and consumers to access Google Play Store and Google Play Billing for free. Epic, by contrast, argued that any procompetitive benefits were outweighed by the substantial harm to competition of \u201csystematically, deliberately, and unlawfully preventing all competition against the Google Play Store.\u201d The jury, after the instruction, found the harm outweighed any procompetitive benefits.<\/p>\n

Document Spoliation<\/strong><\/p>\n

The trial also highlighted the importance of adequate document retention policies at the outset of litigation. At issue was the absence of Google employees\u2019 \u201cChat\u201d messages, which served as the company\u2019s default instant-messaging platform.<\/p>\n

Google\u2019s standard, pre-litigation retention policy was that one-on-one chat messages were deleted after 24 hours unless<\/em> the employee activated a \u201chistory on\u201d setting, which extended retention for 30 days. After the lawsuit was filed, Google preserved one-on-one Chat messages where history had previously been turned on by the user. But for all other one-on-one communications, Google left it up to recipients of the legal hold to decide whether their Chats would be preserved. Google did instruct hold recipients that history should be turned on for any conversations related to the case. But as the Court explained, \u201cGoogle left employees largely on their own to determine what Chat communications might be relevant to the many critical legal and factual issues in this complex antitrust litigation.\u201d<\/p>\n

Epic eventually moved for sanctions. The Court granted the motion and found that Google\u2019s failure to preserve Chat messages was an intentional subversion of the discovery process. The Court made clear that pre-litigation, Google was free to set a retention period of its choosing for Chat. But after the lawsuit was filed, Google was required to comply with its preservation obligations and \u201cfell strikingly short.\u201d<\/p>\n

At trial, the Court reiterated its concerns about Google\u2019s conduct, stating that it was \u201cdeeply troubling\u201d and constituted a \u201cfrontal assault on the administration of justice.\u201d This finding was reflected in the jury instructions issued at trial, that there was \u201cevidence that Google Chat communications were deleted with the intent to prevent their use in litigation,\u201d and based on this, the jury was permitted to infer that the deleted Chat messages would have been unfavorable to Google.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

The jury found that Google unlawfully monopolized both the Android app distribution market and the market for Android in-app billing services for digital goods and services. To make this finding, the jury was required to define the relevant antitrust markets and find that Google possessed monopoly power in those markets, that Google willfully acquired and maintained its monopoly power in the relevant markets by engaging in anticompetitive conduct, and that Epic was injured because of Google\u2019s conduct. The jury answered \u201cyes\u201d to each element.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The full article in its original form can be found here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Forrest Lovett (LAW \u201919) is an associate in Dechert\u2019s antitrust and competition group where he focuses his practice on antitrust litigation, commercial litigation, and government investigations.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

August 5, 2024
\nForrest Lovett (LAW \u201919) co-authored an article discussing the unanimous jury verdict in Epic v. Google that Google unlawfully maintained a monopoly over its Google Play Store and Google Play Billing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":3968,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,33],"tags":[134,1627,2847,2848,2849,721,1088],"coauthors":[2842,2843,2844,2845,2846],"class_list":["post-3966","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-alumni-authored","category-antitrust","tag-antitrust","tag-competition","tag-document-spoliation","tag-epic-v-google","tag-google-play","tag-monopoly","tag-sherman-act","masonry-post","generate-columns","tablet-grid-50","mobile-grid-100","grid-parent","grid-33"],"yoast_head":"\nHistoric Jury Verdict Finds Google Monopolized Google Play Store and Google Play Billing - The Temple 10-Q<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Historic Jury Verdict Finds Google Monopolized Google Play Store and Google Play Billing - The Temple 10-Q\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"August 5, 2024 Forrest Lovett (LAW \u201919) co-authored an article discussing the unanimous jury verdict in Epic v. Google that Google unlawfully maintained a monopoly over its Google Play Store and Google Play Billing.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Temple 10-Q\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-08-05T14:54:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2024\/08\/LOVETT_Photo-scaled-1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1707\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Forrest Lovett (LAW \u201919), Jay Jurata, Russell Cohen, Julia Chapman, Christie Boyden\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Forrest Lovett (LAW \u201919), Jay Jurata, Russell Cohen, Julia Chapman, Christie Boyden\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Erica Maier\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/#\/schema\/person\/d88f9d6c1e573914b328a9fc287d495a\"},\"headline\":\"Historic Jury Verdict Finds Google Monopolized Google Play Store and Google Play Billing\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-08-05T14:54:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/\"},\"wordCount\":893,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2024\/08\/LOVETT_Photo-scaled-1.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"antitrust\",\"Competition\",\"Document Spoliation\",\"Epic v. Google\",\"Google Play\",\"Monopoly\",\"Sherman Act\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Alumni Authored\",\"Antitrust\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/\",\"name\":\"Historic Jury Verdict Finds Google Monopolized Google Play Store and Google Play Billing - The Temple 10-Q\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2024\/08\/LOVETT_Photo-scaled-1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-08-05T14:54:24+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/#\/schema\/person\/d88f9d6c1e573914b328a9fc287d495a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2024\/08\/LOVETT_Photo-scaled-1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2024\/08\/LOVETT_Photo-scaled-1.jpg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":1707},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Historic Jury Verdict Finds Google Monopolized Google Play Store and Google Play Billing\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/\",\"name\":\"The Temple 10-Q\",\"description\":\"Temple's Business Law Magazine\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/#\/schema\/person\/d88f9d6c1e573914b328a9fc287d495a\",\"name\":\"Erica Maier\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/287d6d70b5641c5fca2014a2642c81f4173a498c7b1d1dafac589e1a9dc74e18?s=96&d=mm&r=g5e523333d61dc7fabb86b49c5ffcbaee\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/287d6d70b5641c5fca2014a2642c81f4173a498c7b1d1dafac589e1a9dc74e18?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/287d6d70b5641c5fca2014a2642c81f4173a498c7b1d1dafac589e1a9dc74e18?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Erica Maier\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/author\/emaier\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Historic Jury Verdict Finds Google Monopolized Google Play Store and Google Play Billing - The Temple 10-Q","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Historic Jury Verdict Finds Google Monopolized Google Play Store and Google Play Billing - The Temple 10-Q","og_description":"August 5, 2024 Forrest Lovett (LAW \u201919) co-authored an article discussing the unanimous jury verdict in Epic v. Google that Google unlawfully maintained a monopoly over its Google Play Store and Google Play Billing.","og_url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/","og_site_name":"The Temple 10-Q","article_published_time":"2024-08-05T14:54:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":1707,"url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2024\/08\/LOVETT_Photo-scaled-1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Forrest Lovett (LAW \u201919), Jay Jurata, Russell Cohen, Julia Chapman, Christie Boyden","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Forrest Lovett (LAW \u201919), Jay Jurata, Russell Cohen, Julia Chapman, Christie Boyden","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/"},"author":{"name":"Erica Maier","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/#\/schema\/person\/d88f9d6c1e573914b328a9fc287d495a"},"headline":"Historic Jury Verdict Finds Google Monopolized Google Play Store and Google Play Billing","datePublished":"2024-08-05T14:54:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/"},"wordCount":893,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2024\/08\/LOVETT_Photo-scaled-1.jpg","keywords":["antitrust","Competition","Document Spoliation","Epic v. Google","Google Play","Monopoly","Sherman Act"],"articleSection":["Alumni Authored","Antitrust"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/","name":"Historic Jury Verdict Finds Google Monopolized Google Play Store and Google Play Billing - The Temple 10-Q","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2024\/08\/LOVETT_Photo-scaled-1.jpg","datePublished":"2024-08-05T14:54:24+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/#\/schema\/person\/d88f9d6c1e573914b328a9fc287d495a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2024\/08\/LOVETT_Photo-scaled-1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2024\/08\/LOVETT_Photo-scaled-1.jpg","width":2560,"height":1707},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/historic-jury-verdict-finds-google-monopolized-google-play-store-and-google-play-billing\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Historic Jury Verdict Finds Google Monopolized Google Play Store and Google Play Billing"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/#website","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/","name":"The Temple 10-Q","description":"Temple's Business Law Magazine","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/#\/schema\/person\/d88f9d6c1e573914b328a9fc287d495a","name":"Erica Maier","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/287d6d70b5641c5fca2014a2642c81f4173a498c7b1d1dafac589e1a9dc74e18?s=96&d=mm&r=g5e523333d61dc7fabb86b49c5ffcbaee","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/287d6d70b5641c5fca2014a2642c81f4173a498c7b1d1dafac589e1a9dc74e18?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/287d6d70b5641c5fca2014a2642c81f4173a498c7b1d1dafac589e1a9dc74e18?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Erica Maier"},"url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/author\/emaier\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2024\/08\/LOVETT_Photo-scaled-1.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3966","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3966"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3966\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3968"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3966"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3966"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3966"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/10q\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=3966"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}