Google Agrees to Make Major Play Store Changes to Settle Epic Games Antitrust Lawsuit

Google has proposed sweeping changes to its Play Store and Android to end an ongoing antitrust dispute with Epic Games. The two companies filed a joint settlement agreement with the court last night, and if approved, Apple will be left as the only company embroiled in a public antitrust fight with Epic.

Google Logo Feature Slack
Google will allow Android app developers to use alternative payment methods in apps or through external links instead of forcing them to use Google Play Billing. Google is supporting Registered App Stores, which are alternative app stores that can be easily installed alongside Google Play. ‌Epic Games‌ would be a Registered App Store, able to be installed on Android devices to offer its own catalog of app titles.

As for fees, Google will charge a maximum of 9 percent or 20 percent based on transaction type and date of install, with the lowered fees applicable worldwide instead of solely in the United States. Google can charge a fee for transactions completed using alternative payment methods, and it is also able to charge an additional fee for transactions processed by Google Play Billing.

The wording around fees is complicated and could be somewhat open to interpretation for virtual items in games, plus it applies to new app installs, not existing app installs. Google can charge a 20 percent fee for in-game purchases providing more than a de minimis gameplay advantage, which would presumably be things like power ups, items that increase experience, or loot boxes.

Google can only charge a 9 percent fee for items that do not affect gameplay, such as additional levels, events, or Fortnite skins that are considered cosmetic. The 9 percent maximum fee is also applicable to in-app subscriptions, non-game app purchases, or up front app and game purchases. In a situation where there's a mixed bundle that includes in-game items like weapons and in-game skins, Google can charge the higher 20 percent rate. Google told The Verge that it would also charge a five percent fee for apps that choose to use the Google Play Billing system, which would be in addition to the 9 to 20 percent fee.

To simplify, the base fee for all apps will be 9 percent, while fees for games will range from 9 percent to 20 percent. Developers will pay another five percent if using Google Play Billing. For alternative app stores, Google is able to charge reasonable fees that cover operational costs, but nothing additional. ‌Epic Games‌ will be able to create an ‌Epic Games‌ Store on Android, paying minimal fees to Google, which is what the company set out to do when it initially filed lawsuits against Apple and Google back in 2020. ‌Epic Games‌ CEO Tim Sweeney said that Google's proposal is "awesome" and a "comprehensive solution that stands in contrast to Apple's model of blocking all competing stores."


Google agreed not to enter into agreements that would see apps launch "first or exclusively" on Google Play, and it will not require an app to provide the same features on Google Play that it does on another app store. Developers are also free to communicate with customers about cheaper prices available outside of the Google Play Store.

It's possible that Google's settlement with ‌Epic Games‌ could impact the eventual outcome of the ‌Epic Games‌ v. Apple case. Apple and Google have charged developers similar fees historically, and there is inevitable change coming to the ‌App Store‌ ecosystem.

There are important differences between the two legal disputes, however, so what's going on with Google is not directly applicable to Apple. In Epic v. Apple, Apple largely won the case. The judge did not find that Apple had a monopoly, and Apple was only required to allow developers to link to web-based purchase options.

In Epic v. Google, Google lost. If Google didn't settle with Epic, it was going to be forced to make Play Store changes anyway. A jury decided that Google abused its power by operating an app store monopoly and charging developers exorbitant fees. Google has also always allowed for sideloading on Android devices and has been more open to it, even though it isn't as easy as it will be in the future.

Apple has consistently opposed sideloading and will not likely make the same concessions that Google made without being forced into it.

In Epic v. Apple, Apple is currently fighting an injunction requiring it to allow developers to link to outside purchase options in apps in the U.S. Apple is currently not allowed to collect fees on purchases made through in-app links, an order that came after the court found that Apple had willfully violated the original order requiring links by controlling the appearance of links and charging high fees.

The court is planning to review the proposed Epic v. Google settlement on November 6.

Popular Stories

Apple Logo Zoomed

Tim Cook Teases Plans for Apple's Upcoming 50th Anniversary

Thursday February 5, 2026 12:54 pm PST by
Apple turns 50 this year, and its CEO Tim Cook has promised to celebrate the milestone. The big day falls on April 1, 2026. "I've been unusually reflective lately about Apple because we have been working on what do we do to mark this moment," Cook told employees today, according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. "When you really stop and pause and think about the last 50 years, it makes your heart ...
wwdc sans text feature

Apple Rumored to Announce New Product on February 19

Thursday February 5, 2026 12:22 pm PST by
Apple plans to announce the iPhone 17e on Thursday, February 19, according to Macwelt, the German equivalent of Macworld. The report, citing industry sources, is available in English on Macworld. Apple announced the iPhone 16e on Wednesday, February 19 last year, so the iPhone 17e would be unveiled exactly one year later if this rumor is accurate. It is quite uncommon for Apple to unveil...
Finder Siri Feature

Why Apple's iOS 26.4 Siri Upgrade Will Be Bigger Than Originally Promised

Friday February 6, 2026 3:06 pm PST by
In the iOS 26.4 update that's coming this spring, Apple will introduce a new version of Siri that's going to overhaul how we interact with the personal assistant and what it's able to do. The iOS 26.4 version of Siri won't work like ChatGPT or Claude, but it will rely on large language models (LLMs) and has been updated from the ground up. Upgraded Architecture The next-generation...
iOS 26

iOS 26.3 and iOS 26.4 Will Add These New Features to Your iPhone

Tuesday February 3, 2026 7:47 am PST by
While the iOS 26.3 Release Candidate is now available ahead of a public release, the first iOS 26.4 beta is likely still at least a week away. Following beta testing, iOS 26.4 will likely be released to the general public in March or April. Below, we have recapped known or rumored iOS 26.3 and iOS 26.4 features so far. iOS 26.3 iPhone to Android Transfer Tool iOS 26.3 makes it easier...
iphone 17 pro dark blue 1

iPhone 18 Pro Max Rumored to Deliver Next-Level Battery Life

Friday February 6, 2026 5:14 am PST by
The iPhone 18 Pro Max will feature a bigger battery for continued best-in-class battery life, according to a known Weibo leaker. Citing supply chain information, the Weibo user known as "Digital Chat Station" said that the iPhone 18 Pro Max will have a battery capacity of 5,100 to 5,200 mAh. Combined with the efficiency improvements of the A20 Pro chip, made with TSMC's 2nm process, the...

Top Rated Comments

justanotherdave Avatar
14 weeks ago

Apple should comply in the same way that Google did.
No. Apple has a different business model than Google.

There’s a reason Google lost against Epic while Apple won on 9/10 counts. Also why Google is far more likely to face antitrust scrutiny compared to to Apple.
Score: 15 Votes (Like | Disagree)
justanotherdave Avatar
14 weeks ago

It's utter BS Apple got away with it and Google didn't.
It’s amazing people don’t understand these two court cases (Epic vs Apple and Epic vs Google).

If so then it becomes clear why Apple won and Google lost.

Google is like Microsoft licensing Android (Windows) to OEMs and then trying to tie certain products/services or making deals that favor some OEMs over others.

Apple doesn’t license iOS to smartphone makers and are therefore exempt from a whole slew of antitrust issues that Microsoft & Google need to watch out for.
Score: 12 Votes (Like | Disagree)
techfreak23 Avatar
14 weeks ago

It’s amazing people don’t understand these two court cases (Epic vs Apple and Epic vs Google).

If so then it becomes clear why Apple won and Google lost.

Google is like Microsoft licensing Android (Windows) to OEMs and then trying to tie certain products/services or making deals that favor some OEMs over others.

Apple doesn’t license iOS to smartphone makers and are therefore exempt from a whole slew of antitrust issues that Microsoft & Google need to watch out for.
I really wish more people understood this significant difference, but unfortunately they don’t. Apple makes and sells integrated hardware/software products. They don’t license the OSes, as you stated. You can’t have one without the other. It’s not like building a pc and then deciding if you want to run windows, Linux, or both. I would understand and likely agree with these legal proceedings if Apple did license, but they don’t.

It’s frustrating when people point to macOS and say “well I can do it and it works that way there, shouldn’t be different on iOS”. While technically true, they don’t share paradigms. They are separate product categories that don’t need to function the same way. Each one has different goals and use cases. Apple shouldn’t be under any pressure other than consumer pressures to make any changes to their products as they are platforms of singular products of hardware and software. Again, you can’t have one without the other.
Score: 9 Votes (Like | Disagree)
robvalentine Avatar
14 weeks ago
It's utter BS Apple got away with it and Google didn't.
Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Seoras Avatar
14 weeks ago
Tim Sweeney, what a free loader.

Devs DO have choice, though. They can choose not to develop for Apple platforms. :)
If other devs are like me then they will favour Apple's App Store over Google's Play simply because it pays better.
WAY better.
That's really the only choice factor I believe.
If I spend X hours/weeks/months writing this app will I get paid enough to justify it?
I struggle to justify my Android apps but never the iOS ones.
The 15% (yes, 15, not 30) is well worth it for all the hassle I avoid with being the "merchant of record" for tax, dealing with credit cards, refunds, charge backs and payment support. Plus a much nicer set of tools to develop the apps on.
If there are alternatives App stores would I use them?
No.
Why not?
Because, for a lone developer, it's just more overhead in supporting one more app store. I tried Amazon fire. Got pennies and it just wasted my time.
So sick of Sweeney going on about how he's the champion of the little guys like me. He aint. He's a freeloader.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
justanotherdave Avatar
14 weeks ago

My solution?
Stores and default apps should show alternatives at the first startup.
If I made the rules, even the OS should. Give me the product without an OS, I'll pick the one I prefer and they must be allowed to run.
See how they'll compete to actually be the best.
And before you object: it's this or mandatory Siri. Siri forever. "This is what I've found on the internet" forever.
Sure. And when I go to a Ford dealership to buy a car they should be forced to show me similar Chevy models as well. ?‍♂️
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)