US court rejects Google's appeal to delay Play Store overhaul
What's the story
A US appeals court has rejected Google's plea to delay an order mandating major changes to its Play Store. The decision comes as part of a legal battle with Epic Games, the developer of Fortnite. The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Google did not meet the necessary criteria for a stay on the order.
Reform requirements
Court's order mandates Google to promote competition
The court's order demands Google open up the Android Play Store to greater competition: rival app stores must be allowed and alternative payment systems permitted. While certain parts of the injunction must be implemented almost immediately (within 30 days), others have a longer compliance period of up to 10 months.
Industry reaction
Tim Sweeney welcomes court's decision
Tim Sweeney, the CEO of Epic Games, welcomed the court's decision and said it would be beneficial for developers and consumers. The lawsuit was filed in 2020 by Epic Games, accusing Google of monopolizing access to apps on Android devices and controlling in-app payment transactions. A jury had ruled in favor of Epic Games in 2023, finding that Google had illegally stifled competition.
Legal implications
Judge Donato's injunction prohibits Google from blocking in-app payment systems
The injunction issued by US District Judge James Donato prohibits Google from blocking in-app payment systems for three years. It also requires the company to allow users to download competing third-party Android app platforms or stores. The order further prevents Google from paying device manufacturers to pre-install its app store and sharing revenue from the Play Store with other app distributors.
Google's stance
Google's concerns about conflicting decisions from the court
Epic lost a similar lawsuit it brought against Apple in 2020, accusing the company of monopolising app distribution and payments. Google has argued that if the jury verdict and Judge Donato's injunction remain in force, it and Apple would end up operating under "different legal rules arising from two conflicting decisions of this court."