Google and Epic Games filed November 4 seeking court approval for settlement modifying Android app distribution remedies through 2032 with fee caps.
Google and Epic Games filed a joint motion on November 4, 2025, requesting modification of the permanent injunction issued in their antitrust case. The proposed settlement would resolve disputes spanning more than five years while introducing changes to Android’s app distribution system and payment processing requirements.
The companies submitted their motion to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, asking Judge James Donato to approve changes that would take e…
Google and Epic Games filed November 4 seeking court approval for settlement modifying Android app distribution remedies through 2032 with fee caps.
Google and Epic Games filed a joint motion on November 4, 2025, requesting modification of the permanent injunction issued in their antitrust case. The proposed settlement would resolve disputes spanning more than five years while introducing changes to Android’s app distribution system and payment processing requirements.
The companies submitted their motion to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, asking Judge James Donato to approve changes that would take effect contingent on court acceptance. A hearing has been scheduled for December 11, 2025.
Subscribe PPC Land newsletter ✉️ for similar stories like this one
Settlement addresses past anticompetitive conduct
The proposed modified injunction maintains prohibitions on several practices that formed the basis of Epic’s successful antitrust claims. Google cannot share Play Store revenue with any entity that distributes Android apps or considers launching an app distribution platform. This restriction prevents the revenue-sharing arrangements that a jury found violated antitrust laws in December 2023.
The modified injunction prohibits Google from requiring app developers to launch first or exclusively on Google Play Store. According to court documents filed November 4, the settlement explicitly addresses “sim-ship agreements” that would require simultaneous launches on Play alongside other Android stores. Developers can meet any Android distribution obligations in the United States through any Android app store rather than Google Play specifically.
Feature parity requirements remain prohibited under the settlement terms. Google cannot require apps to offer identical features on Play compared to other Android app stores. The company also faces restrictions on conditioning payments to original equipment manufacturers and carriers based on agreements preventing rival app stores from specific device placements.
Registered App Store program replaces catalog access
The settlement introduces a “Registered App Store” system designed to streamline installation of qualified third-party app stores. Google must modify the Android operating system to enable users to install registered stores through a single-screen installation flow using neutral language.
According to the November 4 filing, when users download a registered app store, they will see one screen explaining that the store has registered status, will be able to install and manage apps on the device, and that the responsible entity will manage downloads and updates for distributed apps. Users clicking “install” will complete the process without additional friction screens.
The parties specified neutral safety and security criteria that third-party stores must meet to qualify as registered app stores. Google may charge reasonable fees to cover operational costs of the review process. The Technical Committee established under the original October 7, 2024 injunction will provide guidance on implementation questions.
Apps downloaded through registered app stores will follow installation flows similar to those used for Play Store downloads. The settlement extends these provisions through 2032, more than twice the three-year duration of the catalog access and third-party store distribution remedies in the original injunction.
The registered app store remedy addresses installation frictions that Epic identified at trial as major competitive barriers for rival app stores. “This remedy addresses the install frictions that Epic contended at trial to be a major competitive challenge for rival app stores,” the parties stated in their filing.
Buy ads on PPC Land. PPC Land has standard and native ad formats via major DSPs and ad platforms like Google Ads. Via an auction CPM, you can reach industry professionals.
Global implementation exceeds U.S.-only remedies
The modified injunction’s impact extends beyond United States borders. Changes to the Android operating system required for the registered app store program will occur worldwide rather than only in the United States.
“The benefits of Registered App Stores involve changes to the Android operating system that would occur everywhere and promote competition across Android,” according to the joint motion. This global implementation addresses Epic’s concern that U.S.-only remedies would leave competing app stores unable to achieve the scale necessary to challenge Google Play’s worldwide presence.
The original October 7, 2024 injunction applied only to the United States. That ruling required Google to allow third-party app stores to access the Play Store catalog and to distribute competing app stores through Play itself for three years beginning November 1, 2024.
The parties acknowledged that the catalog access and third-party store distribution remedies would likely generate disputes requiring Technical Committee review and ultimately court resolution. Security risks associated with making third-party apps available represented a particular concern that Judge Donato recognized when establishing the Technical Committee.
The Ninth Circuit denied Google’s motion to stay the original injunction on September 12, 2025, establishing a 30-day compliance deadline for immediate restrictions and a 10-month timeline for complex technical implementations.
Payment alternatives gain explicit protections
The proposed modified injunction preserves developers’ ability to offer alternative in-app payment methods and external payment links. Developers can present users with multiple payment options side-by-side, including Google Play Billing and alternative payment processors.
According to the November 4 filing, developers may charge different prices for various payment methods. A developer selling a subscription could offer users the choice to purchase using either Google Play Billing or another payment method, charge a lower price for the alternative option, and display both prices side-by-side in the app.
The settlement explicitly prohibits Google from burdening alternative payment options by limiting their design, placement (except requiring side-by-side placement), formatting or messaging. Developers need not change settings or navigate additional frictions to use alternative payment methods.
Google may adopt reasonable user experience guidelines for alternative payment options. The company can review external payment links for compliance with trust and safety policies. However, the modified injunction prohibits discrimination against developers based on their choice to offer alternative payment methods.
External payment links receive explicit authorization under the settlement. Developers may include in-app links that take users to external websites for completing digital transactions. The settlement permits developers to charge different prices for external website purchases compared to Google Play Billing transactions.
Service fee caps provide developer certainty
The modified injunction establishes maximum service fees that Google may charge on transactions in Play-distributed apps using alternative payment methods. Google cannot charge more than 9% or 20% depending on transaction type and app installation date.
“Epic and Google agree that the service fee ceilings in the Proposed Modified Injunction will provide immediate, meaningful benefits to developers and consumers,” the parties stated in their joint motion. The fee caps extend through 2032, providing long-term pricing certainty for developers.
Google may separately charge for transactions processed through Google Play Billing. Competition from alternative billing methods permitted under the modified injunction will discipline those fees according to the parties’ reasoning.
The service fee provisions resolve a significant dispute between the parties regarding implementation of the original injunction. According to a joint status report filed October 30, 2025, the parties were preparing to litigate whether Google could charge service fees on transactions processed using alternative payment methods.
The fee structure addresses Epic’s concern that competitive forces would require time to discipline Google’s pricing even with structural remedies in place. “While Google’s fees ultimately will be determined in light of competitive conditions, Epic and Google agree that the service fee ceilings in the Proposed Modified Injunction will provide immediate, meaningful benefits to developers and consumers,” the filing states.
Technical Committee oversight continues
The proposed modified injunction retains the three-member Technical Committee established under the original October 7, 2024 order. The committee will review disputes or issues related to required technology and processes under the modified terms.
The committee structure acknowledges that implementation questions will arise regarding the registered app store program and alternative payment systems. However, the parties expect fewer and less complex disputes compared to the catalog access and third-party store distribution remedies that the modified injunction replaces.
Settlement contingent on state case coordination
The settlement’s effectiveness depends on two contingencies. First, the court must enter the proposed modified injunction. Second, the court must not condition preliminary approval of a proposed settlement between Google and state attorneys general on adopting certain remedies from the original injunction that Epic has agreed to forego.
The state settlement in Utah v. Google LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-05227-JD, addresses similar conduct to the Epic case. The contingency provision prevents Google from facing obligations under both the Epic settlement’s new requirements and specified original injunction remedies that Epic agreed to forego.
“To achieve this result, Epic is willing to forego certain remedies in the Existing Injunction, and Google is willing to make certain commitments not currently required under the Existing Injunction and that would benefit developers and consumers,” according to the November 4 filing.
The foregone remedies include portions of the original injunction’s Paragraphs 7, 9 and 10 that do not appear in the proposed modified injunction, plus Paragraphs 11 and 12 covering catalog access and third-party store distribution.
Broader antitrust context shapes settlement
The Epic settlement emerges as Google confronts multiple antitrust proceedings affecting its business operations. The Department of Justice secured a ruling in April 2025 that Google illegally monopolized publisher ad server and ad exchange markets. Remedies in that case could require divestiture of key advertising technology assets.
Judge Amit Mehta ruled in August 2024 that Google violated antitrust laws by maintaining its search monopoly through exclusive distribution agreements. The Justice Department proposed remedies including Chrome browser divestiture and unprecedented data-sharing requirements with competitors.
The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission filed an amicus brief on January 7, 2025, supporting Epic’s antitrust victory and rejecting Google’s arguments that court-ordered remedies exceeded legal authority. The filing emphasized that courts retain broad discretion to craft effective relief after finding antitrust violations.
Tim Sweeney, Epic Games founder and CEO, described the proposed settlement in social media posts as an “awesome proposal” that “genuinely doubles down on Android’s original vision as an open platform.” He noted that the settlement would “streamline competing store installs globally, reduce service fees for developers on Google Play, and enable third-party in-app and web payments.”
Sameer Samat, president of Android Ecosystem at Google, stated in social media posts that the proposed changes would focus on “expanding developer choice and flexibility, lowering fees, and encouraging more competition all while keeping users safe.”
The settlement would also resolve Epic Games’ separate lawsuit against Samsung Electronics filed in 2024. That case challenged screens shown to users when downloading Epic’s apps and app store on Android devices. The court ordered the parties to engage in settlement discussions on September 11, 2025.
Technical implementation spans multiple years
Google has eight months from any court approval to implement necessary technology for the registered app store program according to requirements established in the original October 7, 2024 injunction. The modified injunction maintains that timeline for technical implementations.
The settlement provides detailed specifications for installation flows and user interface elements that Google must implement. Screen language and button placement follow agreed-upon standards designed to present neutral information to users without favoring Google’s own app store.
Safety and security reviews for registered app stores must follow specified criteria that the parties negotiated as part of the settlement. Google cannot use review processes to disadvantage competing app stores beyond neutral application of established standards.
Timeline
- August 13, 2020: Epic Games files antitrust lawsuit against Google challenging Play Store practices
- December 11, 2023: Jury finds Google violated antitrust laws through Play Store and billing monopolies
- October 7, 2024: Judge Donato issues permanent injunction requiring Google Play Store changes for three years
- September 12, 2025: Ninth Circuit denies Google’s motion to stay injunction
- November 4, 2025: Google and Epic file joint motion to modify injunction based on settlement agreement
- December 11, 2025: Scheduled hearing on proposed modified injunction
Subscribe PPC Land newsletter ✉️ for similar stories like this one
Summary
Who: Google LLC and Epic Games filed joint motion with U.S. District Court for Northern District of California seeking Judge James Donato’s approval of settlement modifying permanent injunction issued following Epic’s successful antitrust litigation.
What: Proposed modified injunction replaces catalog access and third-party store distribution remedies with Registered App Store program enabling streamlined installation of qualified third-party stores globally, establishes maximum service fees of 9% or 20% on transactions using alternative payment methods, prohibits various anticompetitive practices including revenue sharing with potential competitors and exclusivity requirements, and extends protections through 2032 rather than three-year term in original injunction.
When: Parties filed joint motion November 4, 2025, requesting court approval at December 11, 2025 hearing scheduled for 10:00 a.m. before Judge James Donato, with settlement contingent on court entering proposed modified injunction and not conditioning separate state settlement on adopting specific original injunction remedies.
Where: U.S. District Court for Northern District of California oversees proceedings affecting Google’s Android operating system practices worldwide, with registered app store program requiring changes to Android that will occur globally rather than only in United States, extending competitive benefits beyond territorial scope of original U.S.-only injunction.
Why: Settlement resolves five years of disputes while maintaining prohibitions on anticompetitive conduct, addresses implementation disputes that parties anticipated would require Technical Committee review and court resolution under original injunction, provides developers with fee certainty through 2032, enables competing app stores to achieve global scale necessary to challenge Google Play dominance, and allows parties to avoid continued litigation over attorney’s fees, remedies implementation, and separate Epic-Samsung case.