Over five years ago, Epic Games, the studio behind the global hit Fortnite, took on Google in a high-stakes legal battle over how Android apps are distributed and paid for. Now, the two rivals have just agreed to a tougher, revamped court order that will change how Android apps are bought, sold, and paid for. If the judge approves, Play Store rules and developer options will shift for years to come. Let’s take a step back through the legal timeline before we go into the details of the new order.
This Will Be an Epic Fight
The case arose after Epic attempted to offer Fortnite on the Google Play Store and, in an effort to bypass Google’s payment system and associated service fee, embedded code in the app to allow users to make purchases directly through Epic’s own payment system. This move violated Google Play’s policies, and Google responded by removing Fortnite from the Play Store, a decision that sparked the lawsuit. All of this was part of Epic’s plan from the start — they were intentionally picking a fight.
Epic accused Google of using its control over the Android ecosystem to shut out competition. The company argued that Google required phone makers to feature the Play Store on home screens, offered revenue-sharing deals that discouraged rivals, and made it harder for users to download apps from outside the Play Store. Epic also claimed that Google blocked developers from distributing competing app stores and forced them to use Google’s payment system, giving Google a cut of every in-app purchase.
At trial two years ago, evidence showed that the Play Store dominated Android app downloads in the United States and that Google’s contracts and technical barriers kept competitors at bay. The court agreed that these practices helped cement Google’s dominance and that its rules on billing and payment options further restricted competition.
Still, not all of Epic’s claims stuck. The court did not confirm broader allegations that Google sought to eliminate competition entirely, for example. Google defended its actions as necessary to protect users and ensure a stable Android experience, noting that its platform still allowed access to other app stores.
Ultimately, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Epic Games, finding that Google had violated federal and state antitrust laws and unlawfully tied its app store to its in-app payment system. Google attempted to challenge the findings and raised numerous objections, but the court upheld the verdict, confirming that the evidence supported the conclusion of anticompetitive conduct and harm to competition.
Epic Wins Big in Courts
The court then launched a detailed process to decide how to restore competition in the Android app market while respecting legitimate business and security interests. Both Epic and Google submitted proposed injunctions and extensive briefs in support of their respective positions. Two evidentiary hearings followed, one with economists and another with technical experts and Google engineers. Numerous amici, including the Federal Trade Commission, weighed in with briefs urging strong corrective measures.
A year ago, the trial judge issued a permanent injunction: a detailed rulebook laying out what Google must do (and avoid) as it reshapes the Android app world. More on that later.
Google appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit, arguing, among other things, that Epic was precluded by its prior litigation against Apple from pursuing antitrust claims specific to the Android market. But this past summer, the circuit court affirmed the district court’s rulings in full, upholding the permanent injunction as a reasonable and well-supported remedy to restore competition.
Google then filed a motion seeking to stay enforcement of the injunction while it prepared petitions for rehearing and for Supreme Court review. This September, the Ninth Circuit denied that motion because it found that Google had not shown a significant possibility of reversal or irreparable harm. It did throw Google a bone, giving it extra time to comply with the injunction and extending deadlines.
Even with the Supreme Court petition pending, the focus shifted to Google’s practical implementation of the required changes to its Play Store practices.
Hammering Out Terms
Epic and Google then worked together (they were forced to) to propose a modified injunction. This document clarified and updated the terms of Google’s obligations and timelines for compliance, and was intended to replace the earlier court-ordered injunction.
After months of back-and-forth, the two opponents finally agreed on a revamped version. The new proposed order clarifies Google’s deadlines and obligations, fine-tuning the earlier injunction with an eye toward restoring competition without throwing the Play Store into chaos.
The original 2024 injunction and the new 2025 proposed injunction agreed upon by Epic and Google both apply across Google and its affiliates, covering Android smartphones and tablets sold in the United States. Both aim to break Google’s anticompetitive grip on the Android app and in-app payment markets, but the new version refines, expands, and clarifies several key aspects.
The two versions share core features. Both orders ban Google from making revenue-sharing or exclusive launch deals with developers, device makers, or carriers that would disadvantage rival app stores or block alternative payment systems. Both also require Google to allow developers to offer and communicate alternative payment options to users, while preventing retaliation or discrimination against those who use these options. Both also establish a technical committee to help resolve implementation disputes and allow the court to oversee any necessary adjustments.
But the new version sets forth much more detailed processes and requirements. It defines clear timelines for compliance and adds more granular definitions around third-party app store access. The enforcement and compliance measures in the 2025 injunction are designed to make the rules both easier to apply and harder to circumvent.
Details of the New Injunction
Perhaps most notably, the new injunction mandates the creation of “Registered App Stores” with a streamlined one-click installation process and a transparent certification program. Service fee caps for developers who use alternative payments are specified at 9% or 20% depending on the nature of the transaction, providing more certainty than the original order.
The new injunction is also more explicit about technical and security review processes. Specifically, Google is prohibited from making the process for using alternative in-app payment methods or external purchase links any more burdensome than using its own system. This means Google cannot restrict the design, placement (except for requiring side-by-side display), formatting, or messaging for these alternative options, nor can it require users to navigate additional steps (called "frictions") to access them.
While Google is still allowed to apply reasonable user experience guidelines and review external links for legitimate security and safety reasons, those standards must be “reasonable” (whatever that means) and cannot be used as a pretext for hindering competition. Furthermore, when users install a certified “Registered App Store,” Google must allow installation through a single, neutral-language screen — meaning Google cannot favor its own Play Store or discourage third-party installations through wording or additional prompts.
Importantly, the new injunction gives developers a lot more flexibility to talk directly to users about other ways to pay and new places to get apps. Developers can easily tell users about alternative payment methods and third-party app stores, whether that's inside their app or somewhere else, like a website or email. They can explain different pricing or deals when users don't use Google Play Billing, and they're allowed to advertise and link to these options. The only real limits are that developers can't put links inside Play Store apps that directly download outside apps or app stores, but they can share information in other ways. This makes it much simpler for users to learn about and choose alternatives, and it also stops Google from blocking or punishing developers who want to offer more choices.
There is also greater clarity on how long particular provisions remain effective. Most last three years, with some extending until 2032.
Waiting for the Final Word
Sameer Samat, President of the Android Ecosystem at Google, tweeted last week of the new proposed injunction: “If approved, this would resolve our litigations. We look forward to discussing further with the Judge on Thursday.” That referred to Thursday, November 6th, and any updates from that discussion haven’t been made public yet, so stay tuned.
Related Resources:
- Meta's Monopoly Trial In a Nutshell (FindLaw’s Courtside)
- Epic Wins Battle Royale Against Google in Fortnite Antitrust Suit (FindLaw’s Courtside)
- Google's Grip on Search Gets Gently Grounded (FindLaw’s Federal Courts)
