‘That is not acceptable’: Judge orders Google to make rival app store installs easier
A US judge has ordered Google to remove several barriers that make it harder for Android users to find and install rival app stores through Google Play. The ruling is part of the long-running Epic Games antitrust case and matters because it seeks to make Android app distribution more competitive after a jury found Google held an illegal monopoly.
Judge James Donato criticised what he called unnecessary “anticompetitive friction”, including search results that failed to show third-party app stores and an extra “view” step before installation. He told Google to improve searches for terms such as “app store” and “store for apps”, replace the “view” button with “install”, and ensure rival stores can appear in ordinary search results rather than behind a separate banner. The orders build on an earlier remedy requiring Google Play to carry rival Android app stores and give them access to Google’s app catalogue.
- Judge orders Google to ease rival app store installation.
- Search and installation barriers must be removed.
- The ruling follows Epic’s Android monopoly case.
New here? Start with this
Epic Games makes Fortnite and other games, and it sued Google over how the company runs its Android app business. Android is Google’s mobile operating system, and Google Play is its main shop for downloading apps.
The case concerns whether Google’s control over app distribution limits competition from other app stores. A US jury found that Google had an illegal monopoly in this area; the dispute matters because Android users and app makers may have more choice in how apps are found and distributed.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those supporting the ruling argue that removing these barriers simply eliminates artificial obstacles erected to entrench Google's proven illegal monopoly. The required changes—making rival app stores searchable, changing a button label, ensuring equal placement in search results—directly address the anticompetitive conduct identified by the jury without compromising functionality or security. Users deserve easy access to alternatives, and modest UI adjustments enable genuine competition. The remedy is proportionate and precisely targeted at the specific anticompetitive effects found.
The case against
Those opposing it contend that prescriptive UI mandates represent inappropriate judicial intervention into platform design decisions that should remain with the operator. Google may legitimately maintain design consistency and security standards, particularly since third-party app stores could expose users to lower-quality or less safe experiences. Rather than micromanaging interface elements, structural remedies such as interoperability requirements or licensing arrangements would address monopoly concerns whilst respecting platform autonomy. Such detailed judicial design mandates set a troubling precedent for technology regulation and may ultimately hinder innovation and coherent user experience.