It sort of does though, it is really all a question of market share, but it is exactly the same premise that IE had, they put the browser as standard software on computer with a monopoly on the operating system and essentially Netscape was dead over night, people could chose to use netscape, but why download another piece of software when you have one.

The only reason anything was done about it was that IE was so shit that people actively looked for alternatives, it became so bad that people who can't be bothered became bothered, but the original product wasn't bad and once again now competition has return it isn't so bad once again.

While it may not inherently be a monopoly as yet, it is a monopolistic tendency that has been regulated against in the past, I would be more interested to see the EU's judgement on these issue as they are far more consumer concious than the American courts.

There are many issue that have to be looked at in this case, firstly that even if monopolistic practises are being pushed with the play store, Android as an operating system isn't even close to a monopoly, you can also make arguments that the apple store and play store compete, I wonder if these would hold up as they don't directly, but Amazon does. Then of course their are thing like crapware that are put on a lot of phones, what is really the difference between Googles play store and the crappy music app another company has put on your phone, just because you actually want to use one of these doesn't make it bad.

I could easily see how in the future if it does become a true monopoly in a free market system that it could be regulated against, it isn't their now, but on the other side of the coin, Apples play store is a monopoly on Apple, and it is built that way, you would go after that and its anticompetitive practises before the play store.