Epic v. Google remedies debate

The fight over Epic v. Google is now about what Google must change in Google Play, not whether Epic won. (ca9.uscourts.gov) A federal jury found in December 2023 that Google monopolized Android app distribution and Android in-app billing services and unlawfully tied Google Play to Google Play Billing. The Ninth Circuit unanimously upheld that verdict and Judge James Donato’s injunction on July 31, 2025. (ca9.uscourts.gov) Judge Donato’s October 7, 2024 injunction ran for three years and barred Google from requiring Google Play Billing in Play-distributed apps through November 1, 2027. It also ordered Google to let third-party Android app stores access the Play catalog and barred Google from paying developers, phone makers or carriers to advantage the Play Store. (storage.googleapis.com) The compliance clock then shifted. On September 12, 2025, the Ninth Circuit denied Google’s stay request, gave Google 30 days after the mandate for short-term changes, and gave it 10 months after the mandate for the catalog-access and app-store-distribution provisions. (ca9.uscourts.gov) That timing turned the case into a design problem. If rival stores can only exist through sideloading, or if developers can use outside billing but still face fees and friction inside Play, the legal remedy may leave Google’s market position largely intact. (secretariat-intl.com) Epic sued in 2020 after Google removed Fortnite from Google Play when Epic added code that bypassed Google’s payment system. Epic said Google used contracts, technical restrictions and payments to steer users and developers back to Play and Google Play Billing. (ca9.uscourts.gov; secretariat-intl.com) Google has answered that Android already allows multiple app stores and sideloading, and said Epic’s requested changes would create privacy, security and developer-promotion problems. In an October 7, 2024 post, Google said it would appeal because Android and Apple’s iPhone compete directly and Google Play is not the only way to get apps on Android. (blog.google) The U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission took a narrower position in a 2024 amicus brief. They said courts have broad authority to craft antitrust injunctions, can account for network effects, and can impose reasonable, cost-based pricing if needed to restore competition. (justice.gov) The case changed again in November 2025, when Epic and Google jointly moved to modify the injunction after announcing a settlement. Secretariat reported that the proposal would let Google deny rival stores access to the Play catalog and keep them out of Play distribution, leaving them to rely on sideloading instead. (cbs17.com; secretariat-intl.com) The Supreme Court never ruled on the merits of Google’s appeal. It denied Google’s application for a partial stay on October 6, 2025, and the companies later filed a joint stipulation on March 5, 2026 to dismiss Google’s certiorari petition. (scotusblog.com; supremecourt.gov) As of March 4, 2026, the parties had filed revised proposed modifications that Secretariat said were meant to track the original injunction more closely after concerns raised at a January 22, 2026 hearing. The live question is no longer whether Google broke antitrust law, but whether the final remedy changes where Android apps are found, how they are paid for, and who controls those defaults. (secretariat-intl.com)