Lead
On November 5, 2025, Google filed a formal proposal to modify Android and Google Play that it will present to the court overseeing the Epic Games case on Thursday, November 6. The changes would make it simpler for users to install third-party app stores on Android and revise Play Store fees into a multi-tiered “service fee” framework. Google says the measures are intended to comply with the court ruling while preserving safety and choice; Epic Games’ CEO Tim Sweeney has publicly praised the plan. If adopted, the proposal could substantially reshape app distribution and revenue for developers ahead of Android 17.
Key Takeaways
- Google submitted the proposal on November 5, 2025, to be discussed in court on November 6, 2025.
- The plan would let users install a Registered App Store from a website with a single neutral-install screen, starting in the next major Android release (Android 17).
- Play Store service fees would shift to either 9% or 20% for apps distributed via Play that use alternative payment options; the 20% applies where purchases provide “more than a de minimis gameplay advantage.”
- Google Play Billing’s fee would be 5% for the first $1 million in annual developer revenue, down from 15%, and 30% for revenue above that threshold.
- Alternative payment options may be shown alongside Google Play Billing inside apps.
- Google will remain barred from exclusivity and pre-installation deals and must allow developers to contact users about pricing outside Play; those rules are already in effect.
- The Registered App Store install flow and related permissions are proposed to remain available through at least June 30, 2032.
Background
The proposals come after a prolonged legal dispute between Epic Games and Google that began in 2020 and culminated in rulings requiring changes to Play Store practices. Epic’s challenge targeted Google’s billing rules and distribution controls; courts have since pressured platform owners to open alternative commerce channels and reduce anti-competitive restrictions. Regulators in multiple jurisdictions have also scrutinized app-store gatekeeping, prompting platform operators to propose remedies that balance developer revenue, user safety, and competitive access.
Google faces the technical and policy task of enabling third-party stores on Android while maintaining security expectations that users and manufacturers rely on. Historically Android has allowed sideloading, but device makers and carriers often preinstall Google Play as the primary store, giving it practical dominance. The proposed Registered App Store mechanism aims to standardize and neutralize the way competing stores are offered and installed, reducing friction compared with ad-hoc sideloading methods.
Main Event
Google’s submission, confirmed by Sameer Samat, President of Android Ecosystem, describes a package of changes that will be tabled with the judge on November 6. Key operational elements include a single, neutral install screen for Registered App Stores and permission that lets those stores install apps, which Google says will begin in Android 17. The company frames the approach as a way to give users real choice while retaining platform safeguards.
On fees, Reuters and other outlets report a dual service-fee model: a 9% fee for general purchases and subscriptions, and a 20% fee for purchases that provide substantial gameplay advantages. Separately, Google would reduce its Play Billing commission to 5% for the first $1 million of annual developer revenue and set 30% beyond that — an adjustment from the current 15% first-tier rate that applied previously.
The proposal also allows apps to display alternative payment options alongside Google Play Billing. Google says this preserves user choice and developer flexibility while Play continues to offer its billing infrastructure. Google additionally kept previously ordered behavioral limits: no exclusivity or pre-installation agreements favoring Play, and developers may notify users about pricing options outside the Play ecosystem.
Analysis & Implications
If the court accepts Google’s package, the immediate legal pressure from the Epic Games litigation would ease, potentially ending a high-profile chapter of platform litigation that began in 2020. For developers, the blended fee model creates new calculus: revenue splits depend on distribution channel, payment method, and the nature of purchases (notably whether an item confers gameplay advantage). Smaller developers earning under $1 million per year could see immediate relief from lower Play Billing commissions.
Consumers should gain easier, standardized access to alternative app stores, reducing the friction and fragmentation that ad-hoc sideloading often produces. However, increased installation of third-party stores raises questions about app vetting, malware prevention, and update reliability — areas Google signals it will govern via the Registered App Store registration and permitted install flow. Device makers and carriers will watch how the changes affect preinstallation economics and user experience.
Platform economics may shift: the 9% vs 20% service-fee distinction creates incentives for developers to design offerings that avoid the higher bracket, and it may spur new payment intermediaries and marketing strategies. Market competition could increase, but so could operational complexity for developers managing multiple billing systems and compliance requirements across stores and jurisdictions.
Comparison & Data
| Item | Current Google Policy | Proposed (Google) |
|---|---|---|
| Play Billing commission (first $1M) | 15% | 5% |
| Play Billing commission (above $1M) | 30% | 30% |
| Service fee for alternative-pay apps | Not specified / varying | 9% (general purchases/subscriptions) or 20% (items with gameplay advantage) |
| Third-party store install flow | Manual sideloading / OEM-dependent | Single neutral store-install screen; Registered App Store permission (from Android 17) |
The table highlights how proposed fees reduce the entry-tier commission while introducing a separate service-fee tiering for apps distributed through Play that use non-Google payment options. This bifurcated structure aims to balance reduced charges for ordinary transactions with higher fees where Google sees material gameplay impact.
Reactions & Quotes
“We filed a proposed set of changes to Android and Google Play that we will discuss with the court.”
Sameer Samat, President of Android Ecosystem, Google (company statement)
“Awesome — a comprehensive solution that stands in contrast to Apple’s model of blocking all competing stores.”
Tim Sweeney, CEO, Epic Games (public comment)
The suggestion to allow neutral store installs starting in Android 17 marks a technical pathway to wider store competition, but operational details must still be clarified.
Industry analyst (paraphrased)
Unconfirmed
- How exactly Google will define “more than a de minimis gameplay advantage” and which products will qualify for the 20% fee remains unspecified.
- Operational details for Registered App Store vetting, security audits, and how installers will be labeled to users have not been published in full.
- How regulators in separate jurisdictions will react or demand amendments to this plan is unresolved and may lead to divergent regional implementations.
Bottom Line
Google’s proposal attempts to reconcile court-ordered openness with platform control by creating a standardized route for third-party stores and a nuanced fee system. For many developers, the lower Play Billing rate for the first $1 million and the option to use alternative payment methods could improve margins and distribution flexibility. However, the added complexity of dual fee types and the need to interpret the gameplay-advantage threshold mean developers will need clear guidance to adapt.
The proposal, if approved by the judge, would likely de-escalate the Epic Games litigation and set a precedent for how major platforms accommodate competition while preserving safety. Close attention to the court hearing on November 6, 2025, and subsequent technical documentation from Google will be crucial for developers, regulators, and device makers preparing for Android 17.