Today marked the critical deadline for Google to disclose the measures it has taken to comply with Judge James Donato’s directive—a ruling that requires the technology giant to open the Android operating system to fair competition from independent, third-party app stores. This judicial order, issued as part of the high-profile antitrust scrutiny surrounding Google’s app distribution practices, also compels the company to cease its allegedly unlawful practice of linking or tying the Google Play Billing system exclusively to its Play Store. Additionally, Google must allow application developers within the United States to provide users with clear and accessible links that direct them to alternative locations where apps can be downloaded outside of Google’s own marketplace.
However, despite the apparent mandate for greater openness, Google is not granting developers unrestricted freedom to operate on their own terms or in whatever manner they deem appropriate. Instead, the company has quietly revised its online support documentation, inserting a new requirement that developers enroll by January 28th in specific Google-managed initiatives, namely the so-called “alternative billing” and “external content links” programs. Participation in these programs is not without financial consequences; Google plans to introduce substantial service charges—effectively new “alternative fees”—unless Judge Donato ultimately approves the proposed settlement jointly presented by Epic Games and Google, which might alter future obligations.
Although these fees are not yet being actively collected, Google has announced its intention to levy charges of $2.85 for every app installation and $3.65 for every game installation that occurs within twenty-four hours after a user clicks a link directing them outside of Google Play. In addition to these per-install fees, the company intends to continue taking a commission from in-app monetization: 20 percent of any purchases made within the app and 10 percent from automatically renewing subscriptions. Developers who wish to participate in these programs must still submit their applications for Google’s review process, utilize a designated Google API to facilitate transaction tracking, and report all downloads and purchases—including promotional $0 free trials—if they wish to maintain compliance with the rules governing these initiatives.
For those developers opting to offer their own billing mechanisms rather than Google’s, the situation provides only limited financial relief. In such cases, Google will grant merely a 5 percent reduction in service fees compared to its current standard rates, an adjustment so modest that it may scarcely justify the complexity of implementing an alternative system. Specifically, fees for in-app purchases will remain high at 25 percent, while recurring subscriptions will still generate a 10 percent commission. These developers, too, must use a Google API for verification and ensure that all sales data is reported within twenty-four hours of each transaction.
To offset some of the burden faced by smaller developers, Google has proposed capping certain fees at 10 percent for the first $1 million in a developer’s annual revenue. Yet, this gesture may offer only minimal additional relief, as Google’s existing policy already offers a similar reduction capped at 15 percent—essentially positioning this change as a minor, incremental 5 percent improvement rather than a transformative policy shift.
The outstanding question, of course, is how Judge James Donato will interpret these new measures and whether they truly satisfy the letter and spirit of his order. A recent legal precedent involving Apple provides valuable context: when Apple informed Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers that it would impose a 27 percent commission on external payments in the parallel Epic v. Apple case, she ruled that Apple had violated the court’s injunction and held the company in contempt. That decision was subsequently upheld by an appellate court only days ago, although the appellate judges did suggest that Apple might still be permitted to impose a fee if it could demonstrate that the charge was narrowly tailored to cover only legitimate operational costs associated with coordinating linked-out purchases—nothing more.
In response to such scrutiny, Google now asserts that its own service fees for the external content links program are justified as a fair reflection of the “value provided by Android and Play,” emphasizing that these funds are necessary to support Google’s continuing investment and innovation across both platforms. Nevertheless, the company acknowledges that these charges are not yet being enforced. At present, Google explicitly states that while it intends in the future to apply a service fee on completed transactions and downloads facilitated through external links, it is, for the time being, refraining from assessing such fees and, consequently, is not requiring developers enrolled in the program to report related transactions.
In their joint progress update submitted to the court, legal representatives for Epic Games and Google confirmed that both parties recognize and adhere to the January 28th deadline and most associated rules. However, Epic has formally objected to Google’s plan to introduce future service fees, declaring its intent to challenge those fees legally if and when they come into force.
It is important to note that none of these new obligations, deadlines, or potential fees will take effect if Judge Donato chooses to approve the proposed global settlement between Epic and Google. That settlement would not only extend beyond the U.S. to cover international markets but would also incorporate generally lower transaction costs. Despite this, Google has already indicated that even under settlement conditions, some level of fee would still apply to alternative billing systems and external app downloads. Meanwhile, reports suggest that Judge Donato expressed skepticism toward the proposed agreement when it was first presented in November. He has called for a comprehensive evidentiary hearing scheduled for January 22nd to examine the details before issuing a final ruling.
As the Epic v. Google litigation continues to evolve, the language within Google’s official support documentation remains fluid and subject to change. To preserve a record of the current state of those pages—as they may shift again in response to forthcoming legal developments—the existing text has been archived for reference. Readers who wish to stay informed about this unfolding story can follow the relevant topics and authors to receive personalized updates and notifications as new information emerges.
Sourse: https://www.theverge.com/news/848540/google-app-fees-external-link-downloads-alternative-payments
