Google has submitted a formal motion requesting the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to delay the enforcement of an order demanding the company to permit competitors access to its Play Store. This action follows Google’s loss in an antitrust lawsuit initiated by Epic Games, where a federal jury determined that the company maintained an illegal monopoly over app distribution and in-app billing services on Android devices. Earlier, US District Judge James Donato instructed Google to allow third-party app stores access to the Google Play app catalog and enable these stores to be downloadable from its platform. Google is now seeking to stay the order while appealing the lawsuit’s outcome, arguing that compliance could expose 100 million Android users in the US to significant security risks.
Google has criticized the order, deeming it “harmful and unwarranted,” and warned that it could undermine the company’s ability to offer a “safe and trusted user experience.” The company expressed concerns that making third-party app stores downloadable from Google Play might lead users to mistakenly believe that Google endorses them, potentially exposing users to “real risks.” Google highlighted that these stores might have less stringent protections, increasing the risk of harmful and malicious apps.
Furthermore, Google argued that granting third-party stores access to its Play catalog could negatively impact businesses by inadvertently associating their products with inappropriate or malicious content. Such access could lend “bad-intentioned” stores an undeserved authenticity. Google also cautioned that allowing developers to link externally from their apps could facilitate phishing attempts, jeopardizing user devices and data.
The court’s proposed amendment includes allowing developers to eliminate Google Play billing, enabling them to offer their apps without incurring a commission. Google, however, contends that this change might compel developers to use transaction options lacking essential safeguards and features expected by users.
In its legal filing, Google stressed that the three-week timeframe provided by the court for implementing these extensive changes is insufficient for what it described as a “Herculean task.” The company claimed that rushing such alterations poses an “unacceptable risk of safety,” potentially causing significant problems with Android device functionality. Additionally, Google questioned the court’s decision to rule against it in contrast to a similar case involving Apple, where the court did not find Apple to be monopolistic despite its exclusive App Store requirements. Google highlighted the inconsistency, noting that Apple mandates all apps go through its proprietary App Store, while Google’s Android system inherently supports the preinstallation and download of competing app stores.