Here’s what the Google Play lawsuit ruling means for Android users
Here’s what the Google Play lawsuit ruling means for Android users
The final ruling in the ‘Fortnite’-maker’s court battle against Google could lead to changes in the Google Play store for Android users. Here’s what to know.
BY Chris Morris
Epic Games scored a massive victory against Google Monday, when the judge overseeing the case issued his final ruling, ordering the company to largely open up its Google Play app store to competition for the next three years.
The ruling essentially ticked off every item on Epic’s wish list and it has the potential to permanently change the Android-app market experience. It was the cherry on top of last December’s jury ruling, which found Google Play acted as an illegal monopoly.
What does Judge James Donato’s ruling mean for Android users, though? And when will they start to see changes? Here’s what you need to know.
When will I start to see changes to the Android app marketplace?
The injunction is scheduled to go into effect on November 1 and run through 2027. Google, however, has announced plans to appeal the ruling, which it hopes will delay enforcement.
“The Epic verdict missed the obvious: Apple and Android clearly compete. We will appeal and ask the courts to pause implementing the remedies to maintain a consistent and safe experience for users and developers as the legal process moves forward,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, vice president of regulatory affairs at Google, in a blog post.
What did the judge rule?
Judge Donato’s ruling effectively takes down the walled garden in the Google Play store. For the next three years, the company will have to open its app store up to competition, including rival third-party apps.
In addition, Android developers will be allowed to link to and tell users about alternate ways to pay both from within the Play Store and externally. App makers will also be able to set their own prices for apps and won’t be forced to use Google Play Billing on apps distributed via the Play Store. Additionally, Google is prohibited from incentivizing app makers (via financial or other means) to launch exclusively on the Play Store or to not launch on other systems.
Will that mean lower prices for in-app purchases?
It could. The majority of app makers have to pay Google a 30% fee on in-app purchases, which many creators have passed along to customers. By being able to offer or use alternate payment options, that could lower costs for users—and will certainly increase margins for app makers.
Does this mean the Epic Games Store is coming to Google Play?
If the injunction isn’t paused, it likely does. Epic CEO Tim Sweeney, in a post on X after the ruling said, “The Epic Games Store and other app stores are coming to the Google Play Store in 2025 in the USA—without Google’s scare screens and Google’s 30% app tax—thanks to victory in Epic v Google.”
What are the security impacts of this ruling?
That depends on whom you ask. Google says the changes ordered by the judge “would put consumers’ privacy and security at risk, make it harder for developers to promote their apps, and reduce competition on devices.”
The injunction, though, gives Google some control over security, saying it can “take reasonable measures” that are “strictly necessary and narrowly tailored” and are in line with existing policies. (Google will also be able to charge a fee for that oversight.)
Is Google facing any other changes to Google Play?
Almost certainly, but those are still unknown. Prosecutors in the Justice Department’s successful monopoly case against the company are expected to submit a document as early as Tuesday which would outline potential remedies against Google. Those could range from a breakup of the company to forcing it to share search data to restricting exclusivity deals. One scenario could see Google divesting the Android unit.
Those won’t be finalized with that submission, though. A separate remedies hearing is expected to take place in 2025. And the company has vowed to appeal this case as well.
How did Apple avoid this sort of ruling?
In 2021, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers shot down Epic’s antitrust arguments against Apple. An appeals court upheld that decision two years later, saying Epic had “failed to prove the existence of substantially less restrictive alternatives” to Apple’s app store. Apple was, however, required to allow developers to provide links and buttons that could send people to other ways to pay for in-app content. Apple tried to get that requirement removed, but earlier this year, the Supreme Court declined to hear arguments in the case. The execution of that requirement has resulted in some backlash, however, as Apple’s new fees are roughly the same as the old ones. Epic has taken Apple back to court, arguing it failed to comply with the ruling. That case is ongoing.
Epic’s case against Apple was a separate trial—and while that one was argued before a bench judge, this one was held in front of a jury. Also, some of the evidence presented at the Google trial was rather damning. (Spotify, for instance, was shown to be able to bypass Google Play fees, and Netflix was offered special treatment as well. That blew up any argument that all developers were treated equally.) Google also deleted Chats that the judge told the jury could have “contained evidence that would have been unfavorable to Google in this case.”
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
(2)
