LogInThe court says Epic Games and Google have not demonstrated sufficient changes to justify altering an earlier ruling in their long-running Android app store dispute.
A California court has postponed approval of the proposed settlement between Epic Games and Google, raising questions about whether the agreement adequately addresses the tech company’s previously identified anti-competitive practices.
Fortnite, Epic Games
The settlement proposal, submitted last week, would allow easier installation of third-party app stores on Android and reduce Google’s commission fees in the United States to between 9% and 20%, depending on the type of in-app purchase. The companies described the deal as a resolution to the long-running legal dispute that began in 2020.
However, Judge James Donato, who is overseeing the case, said the proposal may not meet the legal threshold required to modify an existing court ruling. Under US law, parties must demonstrate a significant change in circumstances – such as shifts in market conditions, company policy, or legislation – to justify such revisions.
"The only changed circumstance that I can see right now is Epic and Google – two mortal enemies who pounded each other relentlessly in this courtroom for many years – are suddenly BFFs," Donato remarked.
The judge also noted that Google's previous appeals had delayed the enforcement of the earlier verdict, allowing the company to continue benefiting from practices that the court had defined as "predatory and anti-competitive."
“The Epic–Google settlement has hit a pause, which highlights ongoing uncertainty around how much real change developers will see from these negotiations. While the proposal introduced alternative payments and third-party app stores, it still kept those systems under Google’s control with new service fees of up to 9% and 20% that continue to tax direct-to-consumer revenue.
The court’s hesitation underscores what many developers have been saying all along: true openness means the freedom to build, market, and monetize directly with players without platform tolls or hidden constraints.
At Xsolla, we’ll continue helping developers navigate this shifting landscape and sustain independent, direct-to-consumer businesses no matter how platform rules evolve.”
Chris Hewish, President of Xsolla
Citing concerns that the proposed settlement might not sufficiently address those issues, Donato scheduled another hearing for December or January to further review the agreement’s implications.
According to filings, the proposed structure would still allow Google to collect up to 20% on in-app purchases that affect gameplay, such as loot boxes or power-boosting items, and up to 9% for cosmetic or subscription-based purchases. The plan would also permit Google to approve which third-party app stores can access installation and payment privileges.
Both companies sought to keep the full details of the settlement confidential. Still, Judge Donato rejected that request, emphasizing the public interest in transparency: "I don’t want to do this in the dark," the judge said.
As of October 29, Google is already prohibited from forcing developers in the US to use Google Play Billing or from restricting alternative payment systems, but the broader implications of the proposed changes remain under review.
You can find more court files here. Don't forget to check out 80 Level's new digital art courses, subscribe to our Newsletter, and join our 80 Level Talent platform, follow us on Twitter, LinkedIn, Telegram, and Instagram, where we share breakdowns, the latest news, awesome artworks, and more.