The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday affirmed both a 2023 jury verdict and a permanent injunction in Epic Games, Inc. v. Google LLC. The Ninth Circuit held that Google violated federal and California antitrust laws by unlawfully maintaining monopoly power in the markets for Android app distribution and Android in-app billing services. Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge M. Margaret McKeown concluded that the district court did not err in its legal or factual determinations and acted within its discretion in crafting a three-year injunctive remedy designed to restore competition.
The court upheld a previous jury verdict and rejected Google’s argument that Epic was precluded from asserting different market definitions than those adopted in its earlier case against Apple, explaining that the prior litigation involved materially distinct facts and legal theories. The opinion emphasized that antitrust market definition is inherently context-dependent, noting that Apple’s vertically integrated iOS platform differs significantly from Google’s licensable Android system. Because Epic’s allegations concerned Android-specific barriers to app store competition—including default settings, security prompts, and OEM agreements—the panel held that the litigation raised a separate and non-precluded set of claims.
The court additionally rejected Google’s procedural challenges to the trial format, jury instructions, and Epic’s standing to seek nationwide relief. The panel held that Epic, as a developer who had been removed from the Play Store, faced a continuing threat of injury and was entitled to injunctive relief tailored to address marketwide anticompetitive effects. The opinion clarified that the geographic scope of the injunction—covering the relevant market as defined at trial—was consistent with traditional principles of antitrust equity and did not run afoul of recent US Supreme Court opinion on nationwide injunctions.
Turning to the district court’s decision to enter a permanent injunction, the court applied the standards under Section 16 of the Clayton Act and reaffirmed the district court’s broad discretion to craft forward-looking relief. The court upheld key provisions of the injunction, including a mandate that Google allow rival app stores to access the Play Store’s app catalog and to distribute through the Play Store itself, subject to reasonable security measures. The opinion emphasized the connection between these remedies and the jury’s findings, stating that the provisions were “a reasonable method of eliminating the consequences of [Google’s] illegal conduct.”
The court rejected Google’s contention that the injunction imposed an unlawful “duty to deal,” distinguishing the post-verdict remedial context from the rule in Verizon v. Trinko. It also found that the injunction’s pricing provision—requiring that Google charge no more than a reasonable, cost-based fee to rival app stores using Play Store infrastructure—did not conflict with Image Technical Services v. Eastman Kodak Co., and was appropriate to prevent evasion of the remedy through excessive pricing.
Epic filed suit in 2020 after Google removed its video game “Fortnite” from the Google Play Store. The removal followed Epic’s implementation of “Project Liberty,” a direct-billing mechanism that bypassed Google Play Billing and avoided the 30 percent commission Google typically charges on in-app purchases. After extensive litigation, a jury found in December 2023 that Google had willfully acquired or maintained monopoly power and had unlawfully tied use of the Play Store to its proprietary billing system. In October 2024, the district court entered a permanent injunction requiring Google to cease certain contractual practices, allow sideloading alternatives, and make changes to Play Store policies to enable broader competition.
