FOLLOW US

Google has urged the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a lower court ruling requiring it to permit third-party app distribution on its Play Store, arguing the decision undermines its ability to compete with Apple and threatens its Android ecosystem.

In an opening brief filed Wednesday, Google described the injunction as part of Epic Games’ attempt to “restructure” Google’s business model through federal courts, calling the lawsuit a bid to reshape markets in ways that could harm consumers and developers.

Google asserted the Ninth Circuit should reverse both the injunction and the liability ruling that led to it, claiming the decision compromises the competitive dynamic between Android and Apple’s iOS platforms. This rivalry, the company said, has historically spurred innovation and benefited users globally.

Antitrust Claims and Differing Court Rulings

Epic Games’ lawsuit is part of its broader legal strategy targeting alleged antitrust violations by Apple and Google. Google contends, however, that Epic's claims falter due to the fierce competition between the two tech giants, whose app stores operate within the same market.

A separate federal court overseeing Epic's case against Apple found that the App Store competed against Google’s Play Store and ruled Apple was not liable for antitrust violations. Google criticized U.S. District Judge James Donato for taking a divergent approach in the Google case, imposing “unprecedented and legally unfounded” duties on the company to facilitate competing app stores.

The injunction, issued in October, mandates Google to allow app downloads from rival platforms and prohibits exclusive agreements with app developers or payments to discourage competition.

Google's "Open" Android Philosophy

Google argued its Android operating system has always been a more open alternative to Apple’s restrictive iOS. While Apple requires apps to be downloaded exclusively through its App Store, Google permits sideloading, third-party app stores, and browser-based downloads, it said.

This openness, however, limits Google’s ability to protect users from threats like malware, which the Play Store is designed to address, the company added. It described the Play Store as a “secure, trusted environment” and claimed the court’s ruling undermines these safeguards.

Google also pointed to a prior settlement with all 50 states and the District of Columbia, which resolved many of the same claims brought by Epic. Despite this, the district court allegedly prioritized Epic’s requests over broader consumer protections.

Epic’s Response and Broader Legal Context

Epic Games has countered Google’s appeal, calling its arguments misleading and legally baseless. Epic launched the litigation in 2020 after both Google and Apple removed Fortnite from their platforms. The companies acted after Epic introduced direct payments for in-game purchases, bypassing app store payment systems that charge up to 30% in commissions.

While Epic secured a partial victory in its case against Apple under California’s Unfair Competition Law, it failed to prove federal antitrust violations. Post-trial proceedings in that case are ongoing.

Meanwhile, trade groups and cybersecurity experts have filed amicus briefs supporting Google’s position, warning the injunction could disrupt app distribution ecosystems. The U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission filed briefs arguing Google misinterpreted legal standards but declined to back either party.

Future of App Market Oversight

Google maintains that its current Play Store policies benefit users and developers, and the injunction would introduce significant risks. As the Ninth Circuit considers the appeal, the case underscores broader questions about antitrust enforcement and the regulation of dominant tech platforms.

Representatives for Epic Games and Google declined to comment further, though Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, criticized the ruling in a recent blog post. Mulholland claimed the decision jeopardizes privacy, security, and competition, describing it as inconsistent with other court findings.