US – Federal Court Case: Latest on Google vs Epic Games 

The legal battle between Epic Games and Google isn’t a novelty; it’s an ongoing dispute between tech giants that has been continuous for more than half a decade. In a few words, it’s based on Epic Games’ claim that Google has a monopoly on purchases made through the Google Play Store and, as such, holds a dominant position in Android-backed software solutions. 

We have already devoted significant time to investigating the legal matters arising from the last case, so to avoid unnecessary repetition, kindly refer to our previous article on this subject. Guided by the desire to not only review the points of the Google Epic Games case, but also practically explain the following concepts: 

• What is a Merchant of Record, and how does the Google billing system operates 
• When the Google Play Store is deemed a supplier for sales tax compliance, and when an app developer is accountable for sales tax 
• Commission fees structure employed by the Google Store 
• Concept of “monopoly” when using the Google Play Store 

We have tried to explain these very broad and complex points plainly and succinctly, so that the educational note of the text could also be easily understood within the ranks of digital service providers or developers who offer their products/services through the Google Store or similar marketplaces. 

In this article, our main focus is to share updates on this extensive legal battle so you, as an app developer or service provider, can stay informed about the potential changes the court decision could entail for your offering or pricing strategy. 

Latest on Epic Games vs Google 

The Epic Games vs. Google legal saga has been ongoing for the past several years. The plaintiff is trying to make its own store available on Android devices, fuelled by claims that Google’s Billing solution (Google Pay) is in a pure dominant position and blocks any alternative payment method from being chosen for transactions facilitated through the Google Play Store. 

Last July, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s injunction with connected remedies demanded by Epic Games. It was another win for Epic Games. This win should force Google Play to open its Play Store to other app stores and marketplaces. 

Previously, Judge Donato issued a decision requiring Google to implement a policy allowing third-party app stores or products to be distributed through the Google Play Store. However, Google is also on this decision. 

The upheld injunction has also imposed an obligation on Google to permit app store providers to attach other payment service providers with different fee rates, thereby dismantling Google’s billing system’s dominant position. 

Settlement: Proposal

All of a sudden, after many Epic triumphs, the idea of the settlement between Google and Epic rose on the horizon. It’s all of a sudden, because no “one” officially mentioned or directed towards this ending. But, Google and Epic decided to “bury a hatchet” and to sign an agreement with, of course, new conditions.

The previously deliberated decision would “only” apply to the US and have a fixed three-year timeframe, while a new settlement agreement might affect the Android-supported app industry worldwide. 

Google agreed to reduce its standard fee to 20% or 9%, depending on the transaction type and the date the app was installed. The mutually agreed settlement, pending court approval, stated that updated Google Play Store “terms & conditions” would guarantee lower fees for developers. 

The proposed settlement, if approved by the court, should also introduce the option to list additional payment methods and greater flexibility in setting prices for their digital products. 

Settlement: California Court Says No-Go 

The California Court hasn’t approved the proposed settlement between Epic Games and Google, emphasizing in its decision that the submitted settlement isn’t aligned with the requirements defined in the previously issued Ruling. 

The Judge Donate, who is a special advisor overseeing the case, stressed that the submission, as such, does not appear acceptable, as it doesn’t meet the compulsory legal requirements, which, when combined, provide the necessary conditions to modify the previously adopted ruling. 

The Judge emphasized to the parties that the conditions for modifying the previous ruling, i.e., a shift in market conditions, the company’s policies, or legislation, haven’t been met, as it appears from the preliminary review. The responsible parties haven’t deployed the necessary changes. 

The Judge continued, the only circumstances that have changed “ so far seem to be that two giants, who have been pounding each other for half a decade, decided to be best buddies”.

Google’s numerous appeals delayed enforcement of the earlier rulings, allowing the company to reap the benefits of the framework, which the court described as “abusive and dominating”. 

The settlement is pending the decision that should reach the surface during the first months of 2026. 

Takeaway

Frequently Asked Questions