A judge has instructed Google to cease complicating the installation of competing app stores.

      The hearing took place on 13 August in a courtroom in San Francisco, as initially reported by The Verge. It was a compliance check rather than a new case. Nearly three years ago, a jury unanimously deemed that Google maintained an illegal monopoly over Android apps. Judge Donato established the remedy for this in October 2024.

      This remedy requires Google to include competing Android app stores within Google Play and grant these competitors complete access to its entire app catalog for several years. Google began implementing this on 22 July, and the recent hearing assessed how effectively this was being done.

      During the hearing, Epic’s attorney Yonatan Even searched for “store for apps” on Google Play. The results showed no third-party stores, only physical ones. Judge Donato responded from the bench, questioning why Walmart appeared in the results and remarking, “That’s not good.” He did not mince words regarding his ruling, stating, “That is not acceptable, that has to be fixed. I want every possible variation that’s even only 70 percent properly phrased.” Google's legal team agreed to ensure this improvement, specifically addressing the Play search functionality for third-party stores, as reported by MLex.

      The requirement for a 70% accuracy standard is unusually precise for an injunction, providing measurable criteria for both parties to assess instead of vague principles. It also indicates the court's focus on the overall issue, emphasizing how various reasonable search phrases are handled, not merely the ranking of a single query.

      The second issue concerned the installation process for third-party stores. Users had to click a View button before the Install button appeared, unlike regular apps where Install is the primary action available directly. Judge Donato expressed his frustration with this disparity, indicating that this would also be rectified. Third-party stores will be treated similarly to standard apps, with the Install button replacing the View button, as reported by 9to5Google. He further criticized an interstitial banner asking “are you looking for” as unnecessary friction.

      The root of the search issue lay in Google's own parameters for discovery; it stated that users would require either a direct link or specific search terms to find third-party stores. When this is juxtaposed with a search for “store for apps” yielding Walmart, the disconnect becomes apparent. A store that is not easily discoverable is included but not effectively promoted. At this hearing, Epic's argument focused on this disparity rather than the wording of the injunction, with Google complying with the text itself.

      Android Authority characterized these additional steps as intentionally creating anticompetitive friction to discourage everyday users. Google's defense maintained that these friction points were necessary to protect users and devices, as installing another store necessitates access to system permissions, which the warnings highlight. The court did not dismiss this reasoning entirely but rejected the use of safety as a justification to preserve market position, according to Android Authority's perspective on the ruling.

      This distinction is significant. Google is not being instructed to stop warning users but rather to cease placing unnecessary warnings that serve no real purpose. Google has one week to implement these changes, setting a deadline of 20 August, and it has not indicated whether it will appeal.

      Meanwhile, another change in Android will be implemented in the weeks following, which will introduce new sideloading rules on 30 September. These will require developer verification, and installations from unverified developers will incur a 24-hour waiting period. This mechanism differs from the court case focus, which pertains to stores hosted within Play.

      Both changes will impact the same users within a six-week timeframe. One pathway will become easier due to the court's order, while the other will become more challenging due to company policy. Google presents both changes as protective measures for users, although the court has scrutinized this framing once already, focusing on the narrower case.

      On 10 August, Aptoide Games, based in Lisbon, became the first competing store in the US Play Store. Aptoide has been developing Android marketplaces since 2009, predating this ongoing case. With around 25 million monthly users and over 400,000 apps, the US represents its largest market. The entry point into the Play Store requires Play Catalog Access, which includes a $5,000 annual review fee and a 1% malware threshold.

      However, the launch has been inconsistent. The Verge posed the question to readers two days later about their ability to see a rival store within the US Play Store. Years spent operating outside Play appeared to qualify these companies for entry into it, with those least affected by the existing friction being the ones most prepared to adapt.

      In a different development, Epic is concurrently challenging both platform owners but at different stages. Apple recently faced a finding of contempt regarding the 27% commission it charged on external payment links. That situation is escalating, as the Supreme Court agreed to hear Apple's appeal in June.

      In contrast, Google pursued a different route, proposing a settlement with Epic in March before jointly