On November 4, 2025, Google and Epic Games took a significant step in their ongoing antitrust saga by filing a joint motion with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This motion seeks to modify the permanent injunction that has been in place since Epic’s successful antitrust litigation against Google. The proposed settlement aims to resolve disputes that have persisted for over five years and introduces notable changes to the app distribution system and payment processing requirements on Android devices.
Settlement addresses past anticompetitive conduct
The modified injunction retains key prohibitions on practices that were central to Epic’s antitrust claims. Notably, Google is barred from sharing Play Store revenue with any entity that distributes Android apps or is considering launching an app distribution platform. This measure is designed to prevent revenue-sharing arrangements that were deemed anticompetitive by a jury in December 2023.
Furthermore, the modified injunction prohibits Google from mandating that app developers launch their applications exclusively on the Google Play Store. The settlement also addresses “sim-ship agreements,” which would require developers to launch simultaneously on Google Play and other Android stores. Developers can now fulfill any distribution obligations in the U.S. through any Android app store, not just Google Play.
Importantly, the settlement maintains that Google cannot impose feature parity requirements, meaning apps do not need to offer identical features on the Play Store as they do on other Android app stores. Additionally, Google faces restrictions on conditioning payments to original equipment manufacturers and carriers based on agreements that prevent rival app stores from being placed on specific devices.
Registered App Store program replaces catalog access
The settlement introduces a “Registered App Store” system aimed at simplifying the installation process for qualified third-party app stores. Google is required to modify the Android operating system to allow users to install these registered stores through a streamlined, single-screen installation process that uses neutral language.
When users download a registered app store, they will encounter a single screen that informs them of the store’s registered status, its ability to manage app installations, and the management of downloads and updates. This approach minimizes friction during the installation process.
The parties have established neutral safety and security criteria that third-party stores must meet to qualify as registered app stores. While Google may charge reasonable fees to cover operational costs associated with the review process, the Technical Committee formed under the original injunction will oversee implementation questions.
Apps downloaded via registered app stores will follow installation flows similar to those used for Play Store downloads, with these provisions extending through 2032—more than double the three-year duration of the original injunction’s catalog access and third-party store distribution remedies.
Global implementation exceeds U.S.-only remedies
The implications of the modified injunction extend beyond the borders of the United States. The changes to the Android operating system required for the registered app store program will be implemented globally, promoting competition across all Android markets. This broader scope addresses Epic’s concerns that remedies limited to the U.S. would hinder competing app stores from achieving the necessary scale to challenge Google Play’s dominance.
The original injunction, issued on October 7, 2024, was confined to the U.S. and mandated that Google allow third-party app stores access to the Play Store catalog for a three-year period starting November 1, 2024. The parties acknowledged that the catalog access and third-party store distribution remedies would likely lead to disputes requiring Technical Committee review and court resolution, particularly regarding security risks associated with third-party app availability.
Payment alternatives gain explicit protections
The proposed modified injunction safeguards developers’ rights to offer alternative in-app payment methods and external payment links. Developers can present users with various payment options side-by-side, including Google Play Billing and other payment processors.
According to the filing, developers are permitted to charge different prices for different payment methods. For instance, a developer offering a subscription could present users with the option to purchase via Google Play Billing or an alternative method, potentially at a lower price, displayed alongside each other in the app.
The settlement explicitly prohibits Google from imposing restrictions on the design, placement, formatting, or messaging of alternative payment options, ensuring that developers do not face additional hurdles when utilizing these methods. Google may establish reasonable user experience guidelines for alternative payment options but cannot discriminate against developers based on their choice of payment method.
External payment links are also explicitly authorized, allowing developers to include in-app links directing users to external websites for completing transactions. The settlement allows developers to set different prices for purchases made through external websites compared to those made via Google Play Billing.
Service fee caps provide developer certainty
The modified injunction sets maximum service fees that Google can charge on transactions in Play-distributed apps using alternative payment methods, capping fees at either 9% or 20%, depending on the transaction type and app installation date. This fee structure is designed to provide immediate, meaningful benefits to developers and consumers alike.
The agreement between Epic and Google indicates that these service fee ceilings will extend through 2032, offering long-term pricing certainty for developers. Google may charge separately for transactions processed through its own billing system, but the competition from alternative billing methods is expected to keep these fees in check.
This arrangement addresses a significant point of contention between the parties regarding the implementation of the original injunction, as they were preparing to litigate whether Google could impose service fees on transactions processed using alternative payment methods.
Technical Committee oversight continues
The proposed modified injunction retains the three-member Technical Committee established under the original order, which will oversee disputes or issues related to the technology and processes required under the new terms. This committee structure acknowledges that implementation questions will arise concerning the registered app store program and alternative payment systems, although the parties anticipate fewer and less complex disputes compared to previous remedies.
Settlement contingent on state case coordination
The effectiveness of the settlement hinges on two key contingencies: the court’s acceptance of the proposed modified injunction and the absence of conditions imposed by the court on preliminary approval of a separate settlement between Google and state attorneys general. This state settlement, addressing similar conduct to the Epic case, is crucial in preventing Google from facing conflicting obligations under both agreements.
To facilitate this outcome, Epic has agreed to forgo certain remedies from the original injunction, while Google has committed to implementing new requirements that benefit developers and consumers.
Broader antitrust context shapes settlement
The proposed settlement occurs within a broader context of antitrust scrutiny facing Google. The Department of Justice recently secured a ruling indicating that Google had illegally monopolized key advertising markets, with potential remedies including divestiture of critical assets. Additionally, previous rulings have found Google in violation of antitrust laws regarding its search monopoly.
Tim Sweeney, founder and CEO of Epic Games, characterized the proposed settlement as an “awesome proposal” that reinforces Android’s vision as an open platform. He highlighted the settlement’s potential to streamline the installation of competing app stores globally, reduce service fees for developers, and enable third-party payment options.
Sameer Samat, president of Android Ecosystem at Google, echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the focus on expanding developer choice, lowering fees, and fostering competition while ensuring user safety.
Moreover, the settlement is poised to resolve Epic Games’ separate lawsuit against Samsung Electronics, which challenged the user interface presented when downloading Epic’s apps on Android devices.
Technical implementation spans multiple years
Following court approval, Google will have eight months to implement the necessary technology for the registered app store program, adhering to the specifications outlined in the original injunction. The settlement details the installation flows and user interface elements that Google must implement, ensuring that the language and button placements are neutral and do not favor Google’s own app store.
Safety and security reviews for registered app stores must comply with the established criteria, ensuring that the review process does not disadvantage competing app stores beyond the neutral application of these standards.
