If you’re a small app developer or just someone who relies on apps for, well, everything, recent developments in the courts should have your attention. A district court’s judgment in the Epic v. Google case—both its findings and the remedies it has imposed—clashes with the realities of the app market. And this isn’t just a concern for ACT | The App Association members—it’s a risk for the app economy as a whole, including consumers. As we highlighted in our amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of Google, the verdict and the proposed changes should be reconsidered, and here’s why.
Software distribution platforms like the Google Play store have been transformative for small businesses, providing app developers with access to a secure and trusted marketplace. By doing so, they have leveled the playing field, allowing even the smallest teams to reach consumers around the globe. They offer critical benefits like:
- Secure market access
- Instant reputation and consumer trust
- Developer autonomy
- Tools for dispute resolution
- Data and consumer analytics
These benefits have empowered small developers to grow, innovate, and deliver apps faster and more efficiently. Without platforms like the Play Store, the barriers to market entry would be far higher, and consumers would lose out on the innovation and efficiency that apps bring to virtually every industry. Competition between platforms drives innovation, benefiting businesses and consumers alike. The district court’s ruling jeopardizes this system, distorting the dynamics that fuel progress.
Further, the remedies proposed by the district court are even more troubling. The court has ordered Google to share its app catalog with new app stores. This raises serious concerns because developers elect to have their apps distributed through the platforms they choose, not through unknown or unproven marketplaces. Forcing apps to appear in other stores without the developer’s prior approval could compromise developer agreements, safety standards, and app security. Developers deserve a say in where and how their work is distributed. Imagine an indie fitness app developer, whose success was built on a great app, a loyal user base, and reliable updates. If a third-party app store repackaged the app poorly, users could end up downloading an outdated or buggy version. When the app crashes during someone’s workout, it’s the developer, not the app store, that faces the backlash.
The court’s decision also gives Epic Games, a single company that does not represent the interests of small developers, a disproportionate role in reshaping how the Google Play store operates. Notably, the district court’s remedies would have Epic appoint one of the three members of the court-prescribed technical committee that oversees Google’s compliance with the court order, and partially control another of the three appointments. Elevating one company’s preferences over the broader app developer community sets a dangerous precedent.
Because the district court’s ruling is built on a flawed understanding of the app economy and competition in the market, we argue that the judgment should be vacated for the sake of small developers and the consumers who rely on apps every day. At the very least, the remedies need serious reconsideration to avoid unintended harm to developers, users and platforms.
The app economy has unlocked opportunities, efficiencies, and innovation on a global scale. As we navigate these legal and market challenges, it’s critical to preserve the tools, competition, and infrastructure that have made this growth possible.