I BACKGROUND

Epic created the video game ‘Fortnite’. It initially published Fortnite on Android devices directly (a process called sideloading) in 2018, but later released Fortnite on Google’s Play Store in 2020. Google only allows payments occurring through the Play Store to be processed within its own payment system, and charges app developers (like Epic) a commission of up to 30% for all payments processed within the Play Store.

In 2020, Epic attempted to side-step the 30% commission by introducing its own payment system. Google responded to this by removing Fortnite from the Play Store. Epic then commenced proceedings against Google.

II EPIC'S ALLEGATIONS

Epic made four allegations, that Google engaged in:

1. Misuse of Market Power: Google misused its market power by requiring all apps to be distributed solely through the Play Store, mandated exclusive use of Google’s payment system and charging a hefty commission, and preventing alternative payment process or app stores to block competition

2. Exclusive dealing: Google engaged in exclusive dealing by making access to the Play Store conditional on using its payment system.

3. Anti-competitive contracts and arrangements: Google substantially lessened competition by banning competing app stores and restricting alternative in-app purchases.

4. Unconscionable conduct: Google acted unconscionably by imposing non-negotiable agreements and enforcing terms that were not reasonably necessary to protect legitimate business interests.

III FEDERAL COURT'S FINDINGS

Epic only succeeded on the Misuse of Market Power allegation.

The Federal Court found Google engaged in conduct that substantially lessened competition in the Android mobile app distribution market and Android in app payment market,[1] in contravention of section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA)[2] by preventing developers and users from using alternative payment methods.[3]

Justice Beach made the following findings:

1. There were three relevant markets: Mobile Operating System (OS) Licensing Market to Original Equipment Manufactures (‘OEM’), the Android App Distribution Market, and the Android In-App payment solutions market.

2. Google has a substantial degree of power in all three markets.

3. Google misused its power only in the latter two markets (by engaging in conduct with the purpose, effect, or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in the markets).

   
   

IV IMPLICATIONS OF THESE FINDINGS:

A POWER SHIFT: PLATFORMS TO DEVELOPERS

Traditionally, companies like Apple and Google exercised substantially control over what app developers could and could not do on their platforms. This ruling shifts power to app developers, who can develop their own app stores or payment platforms. This increased competition could result in consumers seeing lower prices when making in-app purchases.

B REFORM

This ruling strengthens calls for legislative and regulatory reform to control anti-competitive conduct on digital platforms. For example, the ‘ACCC recently recommended a new regulatory regime to prompt competition in the digital platform services.’.[4]

C LITIGATION

The ruling represents a trend of increasing private antitrust litigation, ‘especially in relation to the misuse of market power prohibition in section 46 CCA’.[5] This ruling could signal a new wave of litigation initiated by app developers against large companies with app stores and digital marketplaces.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Epic Games, Inc v Google LLC [2025] FCA 901, [70] (‘Epic v Google’).

[2] Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) s 46 (‘CCA’).

[3] Epic v Google [70].

[4] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, ‘Google Ordered to pay $55m in penalties for anti-competitive conduct’ 2025.

[5] Elizabeth Avery et al, ‘Anti-trust litigation 2025, trends and development’ 2025, Chambers and Partners.