Epic Games has scored another major legal victory over tech giant Google. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a 2023 jury verdict that found Google’s Play Store and billing system to be illegal monopolies.
This decision triggers a permanent injunction that will force Google to alter its Android business practices significantly, Epic CEO Tim Sweeney was quick to celebrate the outcome, calling it a “total victory in the Epic v Google appeal.”
In a 2023 trial, a jury unanimously ruled that Google unlawfully monopolized Android app distribution and in-app billing markets. That decision has now been affirmed by a three-judge panel, who rejected Google’s appeal. The opinion, authored by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, took a sharp and thoughtful tone, contrasting the intensity of Epic’s Fortnite with the methodical legal principles guiding the court’s decision. Google, for its part, intends to appeal again, but it has already acknowledged that the ruling compels it to begin implementing changes within weeks unless further delays are granted.
The ruling compels Google to allow third-party app stores and alternative billing systems within Android. Developers will no longer be forced to use Google Play Billing, and rival app marketplaces will be able to distribute apps through the Play Store. While Google had originally been given eight months to devise a secure and narrowly tailored framework to comply with the ruling, that clock will now begin ticking, with just over seven months remaining. In the meantime, some parts of the injunction, like lifting restrictions on billing systems, are set to kick in almost immediately unless new legal stays are secured.
Epic has already seized on the opportunity. Sweeney confirmed that the Epic Games Store will launch inside the Google Play Store, taking full advantage of the ruling. The broader impact of this development stretches far beyond Epic’s own products, it reshapes the very architecture of Android’s app economy. For three years, Google will be required to dismantle practices deemed anticompetitive by the court, setting a precedent for how mobile ecosystems can operate in a more open and competitive fashion.
Google’s regulatory team has warned that the decision may pose risks to user safety and developer trust. In a statement, global regulatory affairs head Lee-Anne Mulholland said the ruling could “significantly harm user safety, limit choice, and undermine the innovation” that defines Android. Still, barring a sweeping reversal, Google has no choice but to begin complying with the injunction.
What makes this case stand apart from Epic’s earlier loss against Apple is how the courts viewed the market dynamics. Judge McKeown dismissed the relevance of the Apple verdict, stating that the market definitions and competitive realities between the two companies are vastly different. Apple’s walled-garden iOS system is exclusive and vertically integrated, whereas Android is a licensed, open platform offered by multiple manufacturers. In one colorful analogy, McKeown compared the two tech giants to fast-food rivals: McDonald’s and Chick-fil-A might compete in fast food generally, but McDonald’s competes with Burger King in hamburgers, not with Chick-fil-A in chicken sandwiches.
Similarly, Apple and Google may both operate app stores, but they don’t directly compete in the Android app distribution market, which is where the jury found Google had monopolized power.
During the trial, evidence including internal Google emails and secret revenue-sharing agreements revealed how the company tried to neutralize emerging threats like Epic by locking in exclusivity with major game developers and phone manufacturers. These behind-the-scenes strategies likely played a key role in convincing the jury that Google had crossed the legal line into monopolistic behavior.