Google wants to stop Play Store restrictions at all costs

Google is desperate to avoid having to comply with a US court order aimed at increasing competition for the distribution of Android apps and associated payment transactions. The company has not only announced an appeal, but has also requested that the court order be suspended for the time being until the appeal has been decided. The competent federal district court is due to rule on this emergency application on Friday. However, Google does not want to let it come to that.

The data company has filed a parallel emergency motion with the higher-level Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. If the federal district court does not rule in Google's favor, the appellate court may do so. Google claims that it is likely to win the appeal and that enforcement of the first instance court order would cause irreparable harm. This is a legal requirement for a stay of the injunction. It would certainly cost millions to reprogram the Play Store by the end of the month. In addition, a suspension would be in the public interest.

According to the injunction, from November Google may no longer force app operators to use the Play Store's expensive payment processing in business transactions with US customers. Furthermore, application providers will be allowed to tell their customers where the application can be obtained outside the Play Store or how fees can be paid by bypassing the Play Store.

In addition, Google must allow competing app stores to be installed via Google Play within eight months and allow competitors to copy apps from Google Play in order to distribute them themselves. (Google believes it needs twice as much time.) In return, Google should charge reasonable fees. However, the company must not offer any financial incentives for app operators to distribute their applications exclusively via Google Play or for manufacturers to deliver end devices with Google Play pre-installed. And if third parties do not do these things, Google may not withhold services from them.

Doesn't anyone think about security?

According to Google, the irreparable damage does not only include the fact that implementing the requirement would cost money and competitors would benefit from it. Google also fears damage to its brand and reputation.

Above all, however, the company is playing the security fiddle. The time pressure makes secure implementation impossible, with Google even citing Microsoft's Cloudstrike debacle in July of this year as a deterrent example of quickly programmed software. External payment service providers would collect highly sensitive data from users, which is obviously bad, except when Google does it.

Malicious alternative app stores, enriched with the treasure trove of apps from Play, could distribute misleading, harmful or illegally copied apps to the public. If such app stores had to be listed in Play, it would give them the appearance of legitimacy. Users would be confused and possibly install fake versions of wanted apps. To make matters worse, they could be exposed to unwanted content such as pornography or hate speech and become victims of data trafficking on the darknet. App operators would also be overwhelmed because they would have to specify in which stores they do not want their apps to be seen.

Epic sees "scaremongering"

Games provider Epic brought the original competition lawsuit against Google and won the ruling. Unsurprisingly, Epic thinks little of Google's arguments."The jury's verdict and the court's order were clear: Google's anti-competitive business practices with the Play Store are illegal," said an Epic spokesperson, "Google's scare tactics are using security as an excuse to delay the changes mandated by the court."

The case is called In Re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation and is docketed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:21-md-02981. The emergency motion to the Ninth Circuit relates to Epic Games v Google et al, Case No. 24-6256.

• Googles Eilantrag an das Berufungsgericht

(ds)