Google is contesting a federal court ruling that found its Play Store policies anti-competitive today, arguing that the decision was based on legal errors and a flawed understanding of the mobile app market.
The case, now before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, could determine the future of app distribution on Android, with implications far beyond Google itself.
The dispute began when Epic Games sued Google in 2020, alleging that the company maintained an unlawful monopoly over Android app distribution. Epic argued that restrictions on sideloading, exclusive revenue-sharing agreements with developers, and Google’s control over in-app purchases stifled competition.
A San Francisco jury sided with Epic in December 2023, leading to a court order in October 2024 that required Google to make substantial changes, including allowing rival app stores to operate inside the Play Store itself.
Google’s appeal has temporarily halted the enforcement of these changes, but the outcome of the case could reshape how Android apps are distributed, how developers earn revenue, and whether Google can continue collecting a percentage of in-app transactions.
The decision is also being closely watched by developers, regulators, and competitors like Microsoft, which is planning to enter the mobile app distribution market.
Google Argues That the Ruling Misinterprets Market Competition
In its appeal, Google asserts that the trial judge incorrectly defined the competitive landscape of the mobile app market. The company contends that the Play Store does not function as a monopoly since Android users can sideload apps and use alternative stores like Samsung’s Galaxy Store.
Moreover, Google claims that the court failed to recognize how the Play Store competes directly with Apple’s App Store, which dominates app distribution on iOS.
Google also takes issue with the court order requiring it to allow third-party app stores within its own Play Store ecosystem. In legal filings, the company described the ruling as “turning the court into a central planner responsible for product design.”
Google insists that its control over the Play Store benefits users by maintaining security and consistency in the app ecosystem.
The company’s legal stance echoes similar arguments made by Apple in its own legal battle with Epic Games.
Apple previously claimed that opening iOS to third-party app stores would create security risks, a position that faced scrutiny when the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) forced Apple to ease some restrictions in Europe. However, unlike Apple, Google has historically positioned Android as an open ecosystem, which complicates its defense against Epic’s accusations of anti-competitive behavior.
Epic and Microsoft Push for a More Open Mobile Ecosystem
Epic Games has rejected Google’s appeal, arguing that the tech giant is attempting to delay competition. The company, which has long fought against what it calls excessive platform fees, insists that Google’s dominance over Android app distribution has harmed developers and consumers alike.
“Google has spent years suppressing competition among app stores and payment providers,” Epic stated following the initial verdict. The company maintains that a truly open marketplace would give developers more flexibility in distributing their software and setting their own pricing models.
Epic’s position has gained backing from major industry players, most notably Microsoft, which is preparing to launch its own Xbox mobile store. Microsoft has argued that platform operators should not be allowed to dictate how developers distribute and monetize their apps. The U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission have also weighed in, filing legal briefs in support of Epic’s position.
Google, however, remains firm in its belief that its current policies provide the best balance between competition, security, and user experience. The company continues to warn that allowing third-party stores to operate within Play Store could weaken Android’s security protections.
Google’s Security Argument: Real Concern or Business Strategy?
One of Google’s central defenses in its appeal is that the ruling could compromise Android’s security by allowing third-party app stores to operate inside the Play Store. The company argues that its strict vetting process ensures that apps listed on Google Play meet security and quality standards, reducing the risk of malware and fraud.
Google’s legal team has likened its position to that of Apple, which has long maintained that sideloading apps and allowing external marketplaces would weaken iOS security. However, this argument has faced criticism from regulators and industry observers who note that Android has always allowed sideloading, yet the Play Store remains dominant.
A previous legal filing by Google warned that enforcing the court order could lead to a “deterioration in user trust and app security.” However, critics argue that the company’s concerns are more about maintaining control over app distribution than protecting users.
Epic Games has pointed out that alternative Android stores already exist, such as the Samsung Galaxy Store and the Amazon Appstore, yet Google still maintains a dominant market position.
The European Union has taken a different approach, requiring both Apple and Google to comply with new competition laws under the Digital Markets Act (DMA). This legislation mandates that platform holders allow alternative app stores and payment methods.
Google has already made adjustments in Europe to comply with the law, which raises questions about whether its security concerns apply universally or only when its revenue model is threatened.
Legal and Industry-Wide Implications
The outcome of Google’s appeal will have significant consequences not just for Android developers, but for the broader mobile app industry. If the 9th Circuit upholds the ruling against Google, the company will be forced to allow competing app stores within the Play Store, significantly reducing its control over app distribution and payments.
A loss could also trigger increased regulatory scrutiny in other markets. In Europe, investigations into Big Tech practices have been temporarily paused as regulators reassess their enforcement strategy. However, should Google lose its appeal, there could be renewed momentum for stricter app store regulations worldwide.
Microsoft, which has been vocal about its support for Epic’s legal battle, stands to benefit from an open Android ecosystem.
Will the Case Go to the U.S. Supreme Court?
If Google loses its appeal at the 9th Circuit, the company may escalate the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. This would significantly delay the enforcement of any mandated changes, potentially allowing Google to continue its current Play Store policies for years while litigation continues.
A Supreme Court decision on this matter would set a far-reaching precedent for app store regulation in the U.S. and could influence policies in other jurisdictions. However, Epic Games has indicated that it will continue fighting to ensure that Google complies with the court’s initial ruling.
For now, the Play Store remains unchanged as Google continues its legal battle. But developers, regulators, and tech companies are closely watching the case, as its resolution could reshape how apps are distributed and monetized across mobile platforms.
