In the Epic v. Google trial, a jury found Google guilty of anti-competitive practices, ruling that the Play Store’s dominance stifled competition by enforcing exclusive app distribution and requiring third-party devices to pre-install the store. The court ordered Google to allow alternative app stores and restricted it from offering monetary incentives for exclusive Play Store releases. This decision, upheld by the Ninth Circuit in July 2025, was a win for Epic, the maker of Fortnite, which has long challenged the 30% revenue share imposed by Google and Apple on app stores. Google’s petition for an en banc review, filed with the Ninth Circuit, argues that the ruling creates inconsistent antitrust regulations, potentially disrupting the Android ecosystem. The request seeks a broader panel of judges to reconsider the decision, a rare step in high-stakes cases.
Why Google Wants a Rehearing
Google’s petition hinges on the claim that the Epic ruling conflicts with other judicial interpretations of antitrust law, creating uncertainty for tech companies. The company argues that Android’s open platform, which allows sideloading and alternative app stores, differs fundamentally from Apple’s closed iOS ecosystem, making the monopoly ruling overly punitive. Google points to its negotiations with Epic, which included offers to reinstate Fortnite on the Play Store, as evidence of its willingness to compete fairly. The petition also emphasizes the risk of “diverging opinions” from different court panels, which could lead to fragmented regulations. If granted, the en banc review would involve a larger group of Ninth Circuit judges, potentially overturning or modifying the original decision.
The Stakes for Android Users
For Android users, the Epic v. Google case could redefine how apps are discovered and purchased. The court’s injunction requires Google to allow third-party app stores and alternative payment systems, potentially lowering app prices by bypassing the Play Store’s 30% fee. This could lead to more options, such as downloading Fortnite directly from Epic’s store with cheaper in-game purchases. However, Google warns that opening the ecosystem could introduce security risks, as sideloading apps may expose users to malware or unverified clones, a concern raised when Epic initially bypassed the Play Store in 2020. Users stand to benefit from increased competition but may need to navigate a more complex app landscape.
Epic’s Broader Fight
Epic’s lawsuit, filed in August 2020, is part of a larger campaign to challenge app store monopolies. Launched alongside a similar case against Apple, Epic’s “Project Liberty” aimed to disrupt the 30% revenue cut that dominates digital storefronts. While the Apple case resulted in a partial victory—allowing apps to advertise alternative payment methods—Epic’s win against Google was more decisive, targeting the Play Store’s deals with partners like Samsung to maintain dominance. The jury’s findings exposed practices like “Project Hug,” where Google paid hundreds of millions to keep major developers like Activision and Nintendo on the Play Store, and “Project Banyan,” which weakened Samsung’s Galaxy Store. These revelations underscore Epic’s argument that Google’s practices limit developer freedom and consumer choice.
What’s Next for the Case
The en banc petition is a long shot, as such reviews are rarely granted, but the case’s high profile makes it a candidate for reconsideration. If the Ninth Circuit denies the petition, Google could appeal to the Supreme Court, though the court’s recent refusal to hear Epic’s appeal against Apple suggests a narrow path forward. The current injunction, partially stayed pending Google’s appeal, requires Google to begin opening Android to third-party stores within weeks, a deadline Google calls burdensome. For now, the legal wrangling continues, with Epic pushing for immediate enforcement of the court’s orders to foster a more open Android ecosystem.
Implications for Developers and Consumers
The Epic v. Google saga has far-reaching implications. Developers could gain more control over distribution and payments, potentially reducing costs and enabling innovative business models. For consumers, this could mean lower prices and more app sources, but it also raises questions about security and consistency. Google’s petition highlights the tension between innovation and regulation, as the company argues that Android’s flexibility sets it apart from competitors. As the case unfolds, it will shape not only how Android operates but also how tech giants balance openness with control, directly affecting the apps and services millions use daily.
