A PYMNTS Company

Epic v. Google: Setting the Bar for Affirmative Antitrust Remedies in the Digital Age

By  |  September 15, 2025

In this article, authors Benjamin Rudofsky, Raiber Y. Muhiddin & Meredith Stonitsch (Winston & Strawn) look at the Ninth Circuit’s July 2025 decision in Epic Games v. Google, which represents a major development in antitrust remedies for unilateral conduct in the tech sector. The ruling affirms not only prohibitory injunctions but also mandatory, forward-looking remedies requiring Google to take active steps to open the Android app ecosystem to competition. This marks a stronger approach to antitrust enforcement, particularly in digital markets where entrenched barriers and network effects make it difficult for competition to re-emerge once excluded.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    The case arose from Epic’s 2020 lawsuits against both Apple and Google after Fortnite was removed from their app stores for bypassing in-app payment restrictions and the associated 30% commissions. While Apple largely prevailed under federal antitrust law (with a narrower ruling on California’s Unfair Competition Law), a jury found Google liable for exclusionary conduct relating to restrictions on app distribution and tying in-app payments to Google Play Billing. Following the verdict, the district court issued a broad permanent injunction in October 2024, which the Ninth Circuit upheld in July 2025. The remedies go well beyond simply barring past conduct, requiring Google to make structural changes that enable rival app stores and payment systems to compete fairly.

    Among the remedies affirmed, Google is prohibited from anticompetitive arrangements with distributors and developers, must grant rival app stores access to its Play Store catalog, and must allow those stores to be distributed through the Play Store itself. Oversight will be handled by a three-person Technical Committee reporting to the court. The Ninth Circuit emphasized that such affirmative obligations are necessary to “pry open to competition a market that has been closed” by Google’s practices. By mandating structural remedies in addition to behavioral prohibitions, the decision underscores a more interventionist stance in tech-sector antitrust enforcement, recognizing that digital markets require active measures to restore competitive conditions once network effects and exclusionary conduct have taken hold…

    CONTINUE READING…