Google has officially submitted a motion to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting a stay on an order that mandates the company to open the Play Store to competitors. This action follows Google’s loss in an antitrust lawsuit filed by Epic Games. A federal jury determined that Google maintained an illegal monopoly over app distribution and in-app billing services for Android devices. Recently, US District Judge James Donato directed Google to permit access to the Google Play app catalog by third-party app stores and to facilitate the download of these stores from its platform. Presently, Google is seeking a stay on this order during its appeal of the Epic antitrust lawsuit decision, asserting that it could expose 100 million Android users in the US to “substantial new security risks.”
The company described the order as “harmful and unwarranted,” claiming it threatens Google’s ability to provide a “safe and trusted user experience.” Google argued that enabling third-party app stores to be available for download from Google Play might lead users to wrongly assume Google is endorsing these stores, posing “real risks” to the users. The company explained that these app stores might lack rigorous protections, potentially exposing users to harmful and malicious apps.
Google also expressed concerns that allowing third-party stores access to the Play catalog could adversely affect businesses that do not want their products displayed alongside inappropriate or malicious content. Providing third-party stores with access to its entire library could give “bad-intentioned” stores an appearance of legitimacy. Furthermore, Google argued that permitting developers to incorporate links out from their apps “creates significant risk of deceptive links,” as malicious actors might exploit this feature for phishing attacks, potentially compromising users’ devices and data.
A major proposed change by the court is permitting developers to remove Google Play billing as an option, thereby allowing them to offer apps to Android users without paying a commission to Google. However, Google expressed concern that by permitting developers to eliminate its billing system, users might be forced into an option lacking expected safeguards and features.
In its submission, Google stressed that the three-week timeframe provided by the court to implement these extensive changes is insufficient for such a “Herculean task,” posing an “unacceptable risk of safety” that could significantly impact the functionality of users’ Android devices. The company also questioned why the court ruled in favor of Epic in its antitrust lawsuit against Google, yet sided with Apple in a similar case brought by the same video game company. Google noted the inconsistency, highlighting that Apple requires all apps to be distributed through its proprietary App Store, while Google, having built choice into the Android operating system by allowing preinstallation and downloads of competing app stores, was condemned for monopolization.
