Where we are
A quick recap for anyone catching up. In 2023 a jury unanimously found that Google Play constitutes an illegal monopoly on Android app distribution, and in October 2024 Judge Donato issued a sweeping injunction: rival app stores inside Google Play, no forced Google Play Billing, and a protected right for developers to put download links inside their apps.
Then came the settlement saga. Epic and Google proposed a deal in November 2025 that would have rolled back the injunction’s core remedies in exchange for a global fee framework. The court was skeptical from the start, and on July 12 the court-appointed independent economist, Prof. Nancy Rose, filed a declaration that took the revised settlement apart. Three days later, on the eve of what was meant to be the “final act” evidentiary hearing, Epic and Google withdrew it. The original injunction stands, and rival app stores start appearing inside the US Play Store on July 22. I covered the withdrawal and what it means in detail yesterday.
That left one open question going into today: with the settlement dead, what does the rest of this case actually look like?
Today’s status conference
I was in court today for the first status conference of the post-settlement phase. Not much happened, and that is itself the news. There was no ruling, no fireworks, and no fee resolution. But the session was useful because it framed where the case now sits: this is no longer litigation, it is supervision.
A few things stood out.
The judge will monitor outcomes, not just policy. Judge Donato will receive monthly data from Google to check injunction compliance across three areas: the number of apps using in-app link-outs, the number of apps using rival app stores, and fees. This is notable. The court is not simply asking whether Google’s written policies conform to the order; it is measuring whether the competitive program is actually succeeding in the market. For an adjudicated monopolist, that is the right test, and it is a harder one to game.
The fee question remains open, with one useful clarification. On fees, the court will take the chart in Exhibit A (Doc 118-1), with its five entries under Standard Fees, and get the underlying data in table form. There may still be disagreement over interpretation. Credit again to Prof. Rose for flagging the ambiguity on download links: the emerging distinction is that there should be no fee when an in-app link takes a user to a store, but a fee may apply when a link goes to a direct, immediate download. Nothing was resolved today, so the next move is Google’s. If they assert a fee, it will be contested in front of the judge, and Rose’s cost-based framework is sitting there waiting for that fight.
The machinery of compliance is running. The three-person technical committee is up and running: two disputes have been brought to it, one resolved, one still contested. The court also asked how many stores have applied under the rival app store program, which fits the outcomes-over-policy theme above.
One live UX dispute to watch. Google wants a dedicated, interim search step for app stores in Play; Epic objects and wants rival stores appearing in results alongside other apps. The judge will review. This sounds small but it is exactly where distribution outcomes get decided: an extra step in search is the difference between actual access to Play’s users and merely potential access, which was the core of Rose’s critique of the settlement.
What happens next
We are now in steady state injunction compliance mode. Google has to comply with the order, but the interpretation of what the order means can be contested, and it will be monitored by the judge until the injunction expires, roughly two and a half years from now. The court will receive monthly data submissions, with regular check-ins likely on a bimonthly or quarterly cadence.
Beyond that, it depends on whether Google wants to try their chances with fees in the US. If they do, that would certainly be litigated in front of Judge Donato, whose court-appointed economist Nancy Rose has suggested any link-out fee should be capped according to Google’s actual costs of supporting link-outs: a guardrail designed to stop Google recreating the prior status quo through pricing.
Aside from the fee question, it is very clear the judge is laser focused on alternative app stores. This is typical of policymakers and judges in these antitrust cases: they are far more comfortable setting up a competitive environment than dictating terms on things like price. That is why the judge is looking at the data, in particular, to make sure the rival store program is actually succeeding.
For developers, the position I described yesterday holds. The injunction is in force, link-outs remain zero-fee in the US today, rival store distribution goes live July 22, and the fee question is the one front still open. Watch what Google does next; we will be watching the data with the judge.
The takeaway: the court can open the door, it cannot make players walk through it
Everything above is about access. Access is not revenue. The court can’t make a player come make a player purchase regularly. The margin win is contingent anyway: the fee question is open, and the injunction expires in two and a half years. The player relationship never does.
So the risk is not slow compliance. It is putting a templated webshop behind that link that doesn’t boost loyalty. Stash builds the opposite: a personalized store wired to your backend, so buying feels like part of the game. That is revenue velocity, and it outlasts the fee fight.
A synopsis of the stash playbook to get you there
- Start with the game, not the checkout. Your catalog, your live ops calendar, and how players actually progress: that is the design brief.
- We build it and wire it in. One connection to your backend gives you a single catalog, real-time updates, no new account for the player, and no engineering headcount for you.
- Go live behind the link-out while it is free. Rival store distribution opens July 22. Stash operates as merchant of record, so tax, fraud, and compliance sit with us.
- Then run it like live ops. Tie offers to progression and to what is happening in your game this week, lead with status over markdowns, and measure first-purchase and repeat rate rather than the margin bump.
Whatever Google does next on fees, it will not decide your growth opportunity. Let's talk about building the store that gets you the growth curve you deserve.
