A judge has instructed Google to cease making it difficult to install competing app stores.

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

      As part of that remedy, Google has been mandated to include competing Android app stores within Google Play and to provide those competitors complete access to its entire app catalog for several years. Google began implementing this on 22 July, and this hearing was to assess how well they had done so.

      During the hearing, Epic’s lawyer, Yonatan Even, searched Google Play for “store for apps,” and only physical stores appeared, not any third-party stores. Judge Donato reacted immediately from the bench, asking, “Wait, why did Walmart come up?” and then added, “That’s not good.” He was clear in his response: “That is not acceptable; that has to be fixed. I want every possible variation that’s even only 70 percent properly phrased,” he stated.

      Google’s legal counsel agreed to rectify the issue. This order pertains to the search experience in Play for third-party stores, as reported by MLex. The 70% threshold is notably specific for an injunction, providing both parties with a concrete measure rather than a principle for debate. It also indicates the court's perception of the issue—not merely the ranking of a single query, but how each plausible variation of search phrasing is handled.

      The second issue concerned the installation process. Users needed to click a View button before the Install button became visible for third-party stores. In contrast, ordinary apps only require a single tap on the Install button from their listings. Judge Donato was critical of this discrepancy, indicating that it would also change. Third-party stores would be treated similarly to regular apps, with Install replacing View, as reported by 9to5Google. He also criticized an interstitial message, stating the “are you looking for” banner constitutes “friction… that has no purpose whatsoever.”

      The overarching issue with the search process was highlighted by Google itself, which had defined the terms of how users could discover third-party stores—by requiring either a direct link or specific search phrases. This contrasted with a search for “store for apps” that yields Walmart, making it clear that a store no one can find is merely being included but not distributed effectively.

      Epic's argument during this hearing focused on that discrepancy rather than challenging the language of the injunction. Google was adhering to the text of the injunction. Android Authority described the additional steps as intentional anticompetitive friction aimed at deterring average users.

      In its defense, Google claimed these friction points were in place to protect users and their devices, emphasizing that installing an alternative store involves system permissions, which come with warnings. However, the court did not completely dismiss this reasoning but rather rejected the use of safety as a justification for maintaining market position, according to Android Authority's account of the ruling. This distinction is significant; Google was not instructed to stop warning users, only to cease overwhelming them with unnecessary warnings.

      Google has until 20 August to implement the required changes, and it has not indicated whether it will appeal any part of the ruling.

      In a different vein, another change regarding Android will be introduced a few weeks later, with new sideloading rules taking effect on 30 September. These rules will necessitate developer verification, and installing an app from an unverified developer will come with a 24-hour waiting period. This situation involves a different mechanism than what was presented in court. While sideloading refers to installing apps outside of any store, this case revolves around stores hosted within Play.

      Both developments will impact the same users within six weeks. One method becomes easier due to the court's order while the other becomes more challenging due to company policy. Google represents both as protective measures for users; however, the court has now scrutinized this framing once, focusing on the more limited aspect.

      On 10 August, Aptoide Games, operated from Lisbon, became the first competing store available within the US Play Store. Aptoide has been creating Android storefronts since 2009, predating the current case's duration. It services approximately 25 million monthly users and over 400,000 apps, with the US being its largest market. Its entry was via Play Catalog Access, which entails a $5,000 annual review fee and a threshold of 1% for malware.

      However, the rollout has been uneven. The Verge conducted a survey asking readers two days later whether they could see a rival store within the US Play Store at all. The companies most likely to navigate this friction were those that had already been operating outside of Play.

      Meanwhile, Epic is engaged in separate battles with each platform owner at different stages. Apple recently faced a contempt ruling over the 27% commission it imposed on external payment links