Google's app store monopoly faces setback as court denies stay request

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Google's request to delay implementation of a permanent injunction on September 12, 2025, forcing the tech giant to comply with restrictions on its Google Play Store monopoly. The ruling marks a significant defeat for Google's efforts to maintain existing app distribution and billing practices while appeals proceed through the federal court system.

Google faces a 30-day compliance deadline for several immediate restrictions following the court's decision to deny the stay of mandate pending Google's petition for certiorari. The Ninth Circuit modified the original injunction timeline to provide extended implementation periods for the most complex technical requirements, setting a 10-month deadline for catalog access and app store distribution provisions.

The permanent injunction stems from Epic Games' successful antitrust lawsuit against Google, resulting in a jury verdict on December 11, 2023, that found Google violated Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, and California's Cartwright Act. U.S. District Judge James Donato issued the comprehensive permanent injunction on October 7, 2024, targeting multiple aspects of Google's app store and billing monopoly.

The injunction prohibits Google from sharing revenue with entities that distribute Android apps or consider launching competing distribution platforms for three years ending November 1, 2027. This restriction specifically targets Google's practice of providing financial incentives to device manufacturers and app developers to maintain exclusivity with Google Play Store distribution.

Google faces immediate restrictions on conditioning payments, revenue sharing, or access to Google services based on app developer agreements requiring first or exclusive launches on Google Play Store. The court found these practices created artificial barriers to competition in Android app distribution markets by preventing developers from simultaneously releasing apps on competing platforms.

The company must eliminate restrictions on alternative in-app payment methods within 30 days of the mandate issuance. "Google may not require the use of Google Play Billing in apps distributed on the Google Play Store, or prohibit the use of in-app payment methods other than Google Play Billing," according to the permanent injunction text.

App developers gain new rights to communicate directly with users about alternative payment options and pricing outside Google Play Store. The injunction states "Google may not prohibit a developer from communicating with users about the availability or pricing of an app outside the Google Play Store, and may not prohibit a developer from providing a link to download the app outside the Google Play Store."

Technical implementation requirements present the most complex challenges for Google's compliance efforts. The company must provide third-party Android app stores access to Google Play Store's catalog of apps within 10 months following the mandate issuance. "Google will permit users to complete the download of the app through the Google Play Store on the same terms as any other download that is made directly through the Google Play Store," the court ordered.

Google retains authority to implement "reasonable measures to ensure that the platforms or stores, and the apps they offer, are safe from a computer systems and security standpoint." However, the court specified these review measures must be "comparable to the measures Google is currently taking for apps proposed to be listed in the Google Play Store."

A three-person Technical Committee will oversee disputes related to implementation technology and processes. Epic Games and Google each select one committee member, with those two members selecting the third member. The Technical Committee serves as the first-instance decision maker for implementation challenges, with the court maintaining final authority when necessary.

The Ninth Circuit's September 12, 2025, order acknowledged the extended timeline between the December 2023 jury verdict and potential implementation. "Imposition of the verdict has already been suspended more than twenty months since the December 2023 jury verdict in favor of Epic and almost a year since the Permanent Injunction," the court noted.

Google's primary appeals arguments focus on factual disagreements with the district court and attempts to apply outcomes from the Epic v. Apple litigation to the Google case. The Ninth Circuit rejected these arguments in its 67-page opinion upholding the jury's antitrust liability finding and the district court's injunction.

Security concerns raised by Google received specific attention in the appeals court analysis. The court determined the injunction "explicitly address these risks" through reasonable safety measures requirements and Technical Committee oversight of security-related disputes.

The court rejected Google's claims of irreparable harm from compliance requirements. "Google's claim for irreparable harm is unfounded in light of trial testimony," the Ninth Circuit stated, dismissing arguments about market confusion, monetary expenditures, and national security implications.

Revenue sharing agreements between Google and Android ecosystem participants face substantial restrictions under the permanent injunction. Google cannot condition payments or revenue sharing on agreements preventing app developers from launching on competing Android app distribution platforms.

Original equipment manufacturers and carriers gain new freedoms regarding app store preinstallation. Google cannot condition payments or services on agreements requiring specific Google Play Store placement or preventing preinstallation of competing Android app stores.

The permanent injunction represents part of broader antitrust enforcement targeting Google's business practices across multiple markets. The company faces concurrent antitrust litigation regarding search monopolization and digital advertising technology monopolization, with potential remedies including structural breakup of Google's integrated services.

Google's notification on October 10, 2024, of its intent to appeal the permanent injunction initiated the appellate process. The company appealed "all rulings, orders, findings, and conclusions leading up to that order, including but not limited to the jury's verdict" and related district court decisions.

Market implications extend beyond Google's immediate compliance obligations. Third-party app developers and competing app distribution platforms prepare for increased market access opportunities following the implementation deadlines. The permanent injunction creates potential for new competitive dynamics in Android app distribution markets.

Chris Faught, Founder and CEO of Neon, characterized the ruling as "another major win for developers, publishers, consumers" in his LinkedIn analysis of the court decision. According to Faught's assessment of the compliance requirements, Google must implement several immediate changes including stopping "anti-steering rules" that block developers from informing users about alternative payment methods, allowing "direct links to outside payments" through buttons and links directing users to web checkout systems, and loosening "in-app billing restrictions" that force developers to use Google Play Billing exclusively.

Faught emphasized the broader competitive implications, noting Google must "end exclusivity deals" with phone manufacturers, carriers, and large developers that discourage competing app stores or billing systems. His analysis highlighted how revenue-share terms cannot be "designed to punish developers who use alternative payment systems" under the permanent injunction's restrictions.

The Department of Justice filed an amicus brief supporting Epic Games' position on January 7, 2025, rejecting Google's arguments that court-ordered remedies exceeded legal authority. Federal antitrust enforcers emphasized the importance of preserving courts' remedial powers to address monopolistic conduct in digital markets.

Implementation timelines provide Google with technical development periods while establishing firm compliance deadlines. The court recognized that complex technical requirements necessitate extended preparation periods while maintaining momentum toward competitive market restoration.

The geographic scope of the permanent injunction applies to "the United States of America" with effective dates beginning November 1, 2024, for most provisions. Specific implementation deadlines vary based on the complexity of required technical and procedural changes.

Google retains the right to request injunction modifications "for good cause" under court supervision. Epic Games similarly maintains modification request rights, except for the 10-month compliance deadline for catalog access and app store distribution provisions.

Timeline

• December 11, 2023: Jury finds Google violated federal and state antitrust laws in Epic Games case
• October 7, 2024: U.S. District Judge James Donato issues permanent injunction against Google
• October 10, 2024: Google files notice of appeal challenging permanent injunction
• November 1, 2024: Original effective date for permanent injunction provisions
• January 7, 2025: Department of Justice files amicus brief supporting Epic Games' legal arguments
• August 1, 2025: Ninth Circuit stays injunction pending appeal despite district court's denial
• August 8, 2025: Former Google executive exposes advertising manipulation in new book
• September 2, 2025: Federal judge orders Google to share search data with competitors
• September 5, 2025: European Commission imposes €2.95 billion fine on Google for advertising technology abuse
• September 8, 2025: PubMatic files comprehensive antitrust lawsuit against Google seeking billions in damages
• September 12, 2025: Ninth Circuit denies Google's stay request and modifies compliance timeline
• November 1, 2027: Three-year restrictions on revenue sharing and exclusive agreements expire

Summary

Who: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, comprised of Circuit Judges M. Margaret McKeown, Danielle J. Forrest, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, denied Google LLC's motion for a stay of the permanent injunction in the Epic Games antitrust case.

What: The court rejected Google's attempt to delay compliance with a permanent injunction that restricts revenue sharing agreements, eliminates app store exclusivity requirements, allows alternative payment methods, and mandates third-party access to Google Play Store's app catalog.

When: The Ninth Circuit issued its decision on September 12, 2025, establishing a 30-day compliance deadline for immediate restrictions and a 10-month timeline for complex technical implementations following mandate issuance.

Where: The ruling applies to Google's operations throughout the United States, affecting Google Play Store practices, Android app distribution, and billing systems across the American market.

Why: The court determined Google failed to demonstrate grounds for delaying the permanent injunction, finding the company did not meet requirements for stay pending certiorari regarding meritorious Supreme Court review prospects, significant reversal possibility, or irreparable harm from compliance with antitrust remedies.