Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS—N.D. Cal.: Epic, Google move to revise Play Store injunction as settlement reshapes app-store competition remedies, (Mar 5, 2026)

By Martin A. Steinberg, J.D.

The permanent injunction in the Google Play Store antitrust litigation was intended to remedy Google’s anticompetitive conduct by removing barriers to rival app stores, alternative billing, and developer communications with users.

Epic Games and Google filed a joint motion and status report updating the federal court in San Francisco on implementation of the permanent injunction in the Google Play Store antitrust litigation and seeking approval of a revised permanent injunction reflecting a newly negotiated settlement. The proposed revisions would largely preserve the injunction’s core competitive remedies, including catalog access and the prohibition on requiring Google Play Billing, while replacing the existing store-distribution remedy with a six-year “Registered App Store” program intended to streamline installation of qualifying third-party Android app stores. The filings, which included a Status Report and an Exhibit A detailing Google Play fees, also reported that Google has disclosed updated service-fee structures for in-app purchases, link-outs, downloads, and subscriptions, which Epic has indicated it will not oppose, and describe ongoing discussions regarding Google’s compliance plans for catalog access and third-party app-store distribution (In Re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:20-cv-05671-JD (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2026)).

Background. The suit arose after Google removed Fortnite from the Play Store for violating its service rules. Epic had embedded code in the app enabling players to bypass Google’s and Apple’s in-app payment systems, which imposed a 30% commission, and instead process transactions through Epic’s own payment mechanism. Following years of litigation, Epic and Google have now reached a negotiated settlement and jointly asked the court to approve significant modifications to the permanent injunction governing Google’s Play Store practices.

Under the parties’ proposal, the revised injunction would largely preserve key remedies in the existing order, including prohibiting Google from requiring developers to use Google Play Billing and maintaining catalog access, while introducing a revised framework governing Android app distribution. Among other things, the proposal would establish a six-year “Registered App Store” program for Android app-store distribution.

Legal standard. The parties argue that modification of the injunction is permissible under both the terms of the existing order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). The injunction itself provides that either party may request modification for “good cause.” Rule 60(b)(5) likewise permits a court to modify an injunction when continued prospective application becomes inequitable.

Citing Supreme Court precedent, the motion explained that courts may revise an injunction when there has been a significant change in factual conditions or law that makes modification appropriate. Under this framework, the party seeking modification must show that changed circumstances justify revision and that the proposed modification is suitably tailored to address those changes. The parties contend that their newly negotiated settlement and the development of a global app-store distribution program constitute the type of changed circumstances that justify revising the existing injunction.

Good cause. Epic and Google contend that the proposed Revised Proposed Modified Injunction (RPMI) maintains the core competitive objectives of the existing injunction while adjusting certain remedies to reflect the parties’ settlement and the court’s concerns expressed during earlier proceedings. According to the motion, the RPMI preserves most of the existing injunction's provisions aimed at preventing anticompetitive conduct and strengthening competition in Android app distribution and in-app payment services.

The parties emphasize that their revised proposal restores key provisions that had been questioned in an earlier version submitted to the court. In particular, the RPMI maintains the Catalog Access remedy, which is intended to mitigate network effects by enabling rival app stores to access the Play Store catalog. The proposal also retains the injunction’s prohibition on Google requiring developers to include Google Play Billing in their apps, addressing concerns raised by the court and amici regarding the prior proposal.

The RPMI maintains most key provisions. The motion stresses that the revised proposal leaves most of the conduct restrictions imposed by the existing injunction intact. Among other things, the RPMI continues to prohibit Google from engaging in several practices that were found to restrict competition in Android app distribution.

These include restrictions on revenue-sharing arrangements that could discourage competition from rival app stores, restrictions on certain exclusivity agreements with developers, and constraints on agreements with device manufacturers and wireless carriers relating to the placement of third-party app stores on Android devices. The proposal also retains provisions ensuring that developers can communicate with users about transactions occurring inside or outside their apps. The parties argue that preserving these provisions ensures that the injunction continues to address the anticompetitive conduct identified during the litigation while maintaining safeguards designed to reduce network effects and barriers to entry for competing app stores.

Registered App Store Program. The principal modification proposed in the motion is the creation of a “Registered App Store” program, which would replace the store-distribution remedy in the existing injunction. Under the proposed revisions, Google would allow qualifying third-party app stores that meet specified safety and security requirements to be installed on Android devices through a streamlined process outside the Google Play Store. The parties argue that reducing friction in the installation process will significantly increase the likelihood that users download and use competing app stores.

The motion asserts that the Registered App Store program provides several advantages over the existing remedy. First, it would apply globally as part of the parties’ settlement, enabling competing app stores to pursue a consistent distribution strategy worldwide. Second, the program would last six years, longer than the current store-distribution remedy's three-year duration. Third, distributing rival app stores outside the Play Store would reduce the need for Google Play review processes that might otherwise create friction between Google and competing app stores. The parties also address concerns about Google’s role in approving registered app stores, explaining that the program relies on neutral security-based criteria negotiated by the parties to prevent Google from excluding legitimate competitors.

Creation of a Uniform Global System. The motion further argues that the global rollout of the Registered App Store program constitutes a significant change in circumstances that justifies modifying the injunction. Because the settlement requires Google to implement the program outside the United States regardless of the court’s decision, the parties contend that adopting the RPMI would align the U.S. distribution framework with the system that will apply internationally. According to the motion, creating a uniform global distribution system will allow competing app stores and developers to pursue a consistent strategy for reaching Android users and building scale, thereby promoting competition and improving market access.

Commitments in the Settlement Agreement. Finally, the parties address concerns that the settlement may involve a quid pro quo in which Epic received consideration in exchange for agreeing to modify the injunction. The motion emphasizes that the settlement agreement is not contingent on the court's approval of the RPMI. The settlement includes Epic’s agreement to purchase certain Google services and a potential collaboration involving a metaverse browser project. Still, these arrangements will proceed regardless of whether the court adopts the modified injunction. The parties therefore contend that the settlement does not undermine the competitive objectives of the existing injunction and does not depend on the court granting the requested modification.

Status Report. Epic Games and Google also jointly filed a status report updating the court on implementation of the permanent injunction in the Google Play Store antitrust litigation and referencing planned service fees for Play Store transactions detailed in an accompanying exhibit. The report follows earlier joint submissions describing compliance milestones and timelines for the injunction’s remedies. The parties state that Google has provided Epic with updated information regarding the fees it intends to charge for in-app purchases, link-out transactions, downloads initiated from external links, and subscriptions, and Epic has indicated that it will not object to the proposed fee structure.

The report also updates the court on Google’s plans for complying with the injunction’s catalog-access and third-party app-store distribution provisions, noting that Google shared a proposed catalog-access implementation plan with Epic in February 2026 and that the parties are discussing the proposal, with any disputes to be referred to the case’s Technical Committee. Google has indicated that it will provide its compliance plan for third-party app-store distribution by March 31, 2026. Exhibit A sets forth Google’s planned fee schedule, including service fees of roughly 20–25% for certain non-recurring in-app purchases, 10% for subscriptions and the first $1 million of developer earnings, per-download fees for certain externally initiated installs, and a 5% fee for transactions processed through Google Play Billing.

Google’s announcement. Separately, Google publicly outlined its broader plans for implementing these changes to the Android ecosystem on its Android Developers Blog. According to a company announcement, Google intends to expand developer billing choices by allowing developers to use their own billing systems or direct users to external purchase options, introduce a Registered App Stores program that would streamline the installation of qualifying third-party app stores that meet security standards, and implement a revised fee structure that separates service fees from billing-processing fees. Google said that the new system will reduce certain service fees, maintain a 10% fee for subscriptions, and charge a separate 5% fee for developers that use Google Play Billing, with the changes rolling out in stages beginning in the EEA, UK, and US simultaneously.

The Case is No. 3:20-cv-05671-JD.

Judge: Donato, J.

Attorneys: Paul J. Riehle (Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP) for Epic Games, Inc. Glenn D. Pomerantz (Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP) for Google LLC.

Companies: Epic Games, Inc.; Google LLC

News: Antitrust CaliforniaNews