Epic Games Wins 'Total Victory' in Google Play Store Dispute

While Apple largely won the lawsuit that Epic Games levied against it back in 2020, Google hasn't been as lucky. Google today failed to win an appeal in the ongoing ‌Epic Games‌ v. Google case, handing another victory to Epic.

Google Logo Feature Slack
As noted by Reuters, a federal appeals court rejected Google's claim that the original court overseeing the antitrust case had made legal errors when finding in favor of Epic, which means Google will need to implement Play Store changes. ‌Epic Games‌ CEO Tim Sweeney said the company had scored a "total victory" in the appeal.

‌Epic Games‌ first sued Google in 2020, right around the same time that it sued Apple. In 2023, a jury unanimously agreed that Google had abused its power by operating an app store monopoly and charging developers exorbitant fees. Google then appealed, leading to today's loss.

As a result of the ‌Epic Games‌ lawsuit, Google will be forced to allow Android users to download rival app stores from the Play Store. Google will also be required to make the Play app catalog available to competitors.

Sweeney says that the ‌Epic Games‌ Store for Android will be coming to the Google Play Store, but Google plans to appeal again.

Popular Stories

iPhone 17 Pro Dark Blue and Orange

iPhone 17 Release Date, Pre-Orders, and What to Expect

Thursday August 28, 2025 4:08 am PDT by
An iPhone 17 announcement is a dead cert for September 2025 – Apple has already sent out invites for an "Awe dropping" event on Tuesday, September 9 at the Apple Park campus in Cupertino, California. The timing follows Apple's trend of introducing new iPhone models annually in the fall. At the event, Apple is expected to unveil its new-generation iPhone 17, an all-new ultra-thin iPhone 17...
xiaomi apple ad india

Apple and Samsung Push Back Against Xiaomi's Bold India Ads

Friday August 29, 2025 4:54 am PDT by
Apple and Samsung have reportedly issued cease-and-desist notices to Xiaomi in India for an ad campaign that directly compares the rivals' devices to Xiaomi's products. The two companies have threatened the Chinese vendor with legal action, calling the ads "disparaging." Ads have appeared in local print media and on social media that take pot shots at the competitors' premium offerings. One...
maxresdefault

The MacRumors Show: iPhone 17's 'Awe Dropping' Accessories

Friday August 29, 2025 8:12 am PDT by
Following the announcement of Apple's upcoming "Awe dropping" event, on this week's episode of The MacRumors Show we talk through all of the new accessories rumored to debut alongside the iPhone 17 lineup. Subscribe to The MacRumors Show YouTube channel for more videos We take a closer look at Apple's invite for "Awe dropping;" the design could hint at the iPhone 17's new thermal system with ...
iPhone 17 Pro Iridescent Feature 2

iPhone 17 Pro Clear Case Leak Reveals Three Key Changes

Sunday August 31, 2025 1:26 pm PDT by
Apple is expected to unveil the iPhone 17 series on Tuesday, September 9, and last-minute rumors about the devices continue to surface. The latest info comes from a leaker known as Majin Bu, who has shared alleged images of Apple's Clear Case for the iPhone 17 Pro and Pro Max, or at least replicas. Image Credit: @MajinBuOfficial The images show three alleged changes compared to Apple's iP...

Top Rated Comments

dynamojoe Avatar
4 weeks ago
Next Ford dealerships will be required to give floor space to Chevrolet and Honda.
Score: 32 Votes (Like | Disagree)
germanbeer007 Avatar
4 weeks ago
ah so you can download a store within a store. just like how I can shop inside a Target inside a Walmart inside Amazon right? because that's what consumers really want: more complexity.

so dumb.
Score: 29 Votes (Like | Disagree)
TheDailyApple Avatar
4 weeks ago
Why force them to host other app stores? Can’t apps be installed outside the Google Play Store? At this rate epic should be forced to allow Steam, Xbox PC, and Ubisoft Store to be downloaded from their store. And anyone who sells their game through epic should be allowed to advertise lower priced options via direct download or alternate stores in the epic store.


Google will also be required to make the Play app catalog available to competitors.
Am I misunderstanding something here? This makes it seem like anyone can just create a new interface, charge their own fees, and profit off of google’s work.
Score: 21 Votes (Like | Disagree)
surferfb Avatar
4 weeks ago

If Target was the only company that owned land for the state of New York and got to dictate where, when, and how Walmart could build their stores, what they could sell, and even whether or not Walmart could build a store, we would all agree that would be bad.
Android exists. Everyone knows what they’re getting into when they buy an iPhone.



Apple in the case of the iPhone is the land owner. They control what other stores are allowed to operate and how they sell their goods or services, same with google for the most part.

Saying “just leave the iPhone” is like saying “just leave New York” in my target example.
No it’s not. Moving states is a massive effort, buying a new phone is easy.


Also there are stores within a store. Starbucks inside Target, Toys R Us inside Macys, Malls in general. I am dumbfounded why people advocate against consumer choice.
And those stores within a store pay rent, or otherwise sign agreements with store owner. They don’t get access to the other store’s customers and property for free.
Score: 17 Votes (Like | Disagree)
surferfb Avatar
4 weeks ago

Such a catastrophic loss for every apple owner that the Jury ruled wrong in that case. It could be a decade or longer before Apple is forced to allow the owner of the device to use it as the owner wishes.

I would like to know how they came to such a ridiculous verdict.
Wasn’t a jury, was a judge. And she ruled correctly (except, ironically, on the one part she ruled in favor of Epic on - she ruled the anti-steering provision violated California law, but a California court later said it didn’t, the appeals court agreed it didn’t. But unfortunately for Apple, they didn’t rule until after the federal case was done).

The reason Apple won and Google lost was well explained by Ben Thompson ('https://stratechery.com/2023/google-loses-antitrust-case-to-epic-the-differences-between-apple-and-google-revisited-the-tying-question/'), but it’s behind a paywall. Apologies for the long quote:



* Discovery showed extensive evidence that Google was purposely acting to limit not just Epic but other developers from launching (or joining) alternative game stores.
* One way that Google limited developers was by buying them off, i.e. investing in them directly.
* Google similarly effectively paid off OEMs to stop them from shipping with alternative stores; this payment usually took the form of Google Play revenue shares.
* Google made special deals with top app makers, including allowing Spotify to not use Google payments at all (in lieu of their own), and Netflix only needing to pay a 10% fee.
* Google offered little evidence to justify its 30% fee.

That last point may seem odd in light of Apple’s victory, but again, Apple was offering an integrated product that it fully controlled and customers were fully aware of, and is thus, under U.S. antitrust law, free to set the price of entry however it chooses. Google, on the other hand, “entered into one or more agreements that unreasonably restrained trade” — that quote is from the jury instructions, and is taken directly from the Sherman Act — by which the jurors mean basically all of them: the Google Play Developer Distribution Agreement, investment agreements under the Games Velocity Program (i.e. Project Hug), and Android’s mobile application distribution agreement and revenue share agreements with OEMs, were all ruled illegal.
Score: 16 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Justin Cymbal Avatar
4 weeks ago
An EPIC win for Epic
Score: 14 Votes (Like | Disagree)