Google faces billion-quid bruising over Play Store fees in the UK
- Reference: 1749735253
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/06/12/google_play_store_fees/
- Source link:
The [1]order [PDF] was made in May and a notice was sent to affected businesses today. An estimated £1.04 billion ($1.4 billion) in compensation is up for grabs if the trial, due to begin in October 2026, finds against the ad slinger.
The case hinges on apps sold by UK developers on Google's Play Store for Android customers. Google charges up to 30 percent in fees for the sale of digital content, although developers with revenue streams of $1 million or less are subject to a fee of 15 percent. The claim accuses Google of "abusing its dominant position to the detriment of thousands of UK businesses" that sold apps on the Play Store.
[2]
"Google has then used its dominant position to require developers to pay excessive and unfair commissions … on all their sales of digital content to customers."
[3]
[4]
The advertising giant is the subject of a European Commission [5]investigation over alleged failures to comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA), including a claim that users were steered away from cheaper downloads and services outside the Play Store. The US legal system has also taken a dim view of [6]alleged business practices used by Google to bolster the Play Store.
Apple has also [7]come under fire for its App Store practices from the European Commission and US federal courts. However, Android is a more open platform than iOS. It is possible to side-load apps onto Android devices, whereas Apple's operating system is considerably more locked down.
[8]
Class representative Professor Barry Rodger, an academic specializing in EU and UK competition law, noted that while sideloading was technically possible on Android phones and there are alternative Android app stores, Google took steps to undermine those as alternative methods of distributing apps and in-app content.
[9]Mozilla frets about Google's push to build AI into Chrome
[10]Google outfoxed by crafty squatters in $1B London HQ's rooftop garden
[11]Cloud brute-force attack cracks Google users' phone numbers in minutes
[12]Cops want Apple, Google to kill stolen phones remotely – so why won't they?
Rodger said: "The Tribunal's decision is a significant step towards ensuring redress for small businesses in the UK that have lost money through Google's conduct. Google abuses its Play Store monopoly by imposing excessive commissions, harming small business app developers and stifling crucial innovation and growth in the UK tech landscape."
Rodger claims that Google uses a variety of technical and contractual restrictions to keep UK app developers in the Play Store. "In a fair market, app developers would be paying less to distribute their apps and sell their digital content," he says.
Businesses that do not opt out of the claim could be in line for a share of the potential compensation.
The Register asked Google to comment, but the ad giant referred us to a previous statement, saying: "This lawsuit ignores the benefits and choice Android and Google Play provide as well as the competitive market in which we operate and we will defend it vigorously.
[13]
"Android has always allowed flexibility not found on other platforms – including multiple app stores and sideloading, and enables developers to build successful businesses.
"We compete vigorously and fairly for developers and consumers – our fees are the lowest of any major mobile platforms and 99 per cent of developers qualify for a service fee of 15 percent or less."
The trial will not start until October 2026. However, the decision by the Competition Appeal Tribunal to allow it to proceed to trial piles yet more pressure on Google over the Android Play Store. ®
Get our [14]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/cat/files/2025-06/16737724%20-%20Order%20of%20the%20Chair%20%28CPO%29%20%2023%20May%202025.pdf
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aEr5lIOb-PiwZXnJL84MuwAAAFY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aEr5lIOb-PiwZXnJL84MuwAAAFY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aEr5lIOb-PiwZXnJL84MuwAAAFY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/19/google_apple_dma_eu/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/07/google_android_play_store_epic/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/01/apple_epic_lies_possible_crime/
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aEr5lIOb-PiwZXnJL84MuwAAAFY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/11/mozilla_worries_googles_browser_ai/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/10/fox_google_london_hq/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/10/google_brute_force_phone_number/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/04/apple_google_stolen_phones/
[13] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aEr5lIOb-PiwZXnJL84MuwAAAFY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[14] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Digital serfs
Where is Elliot Ness when we need him? The play store nothing more than an elegant racket with all the mob trappings, bag men, runners, enforcers and hit men
Re: Digital serfs
I think you might be rather surprised if you were to investigate the fees charged by some shopping malls in the UK, they're not dissimilar and in some cases, worse, with penalty fees for not meeting turnover targets, opening hours, rotationf window displays etc etc
Trivial to fix.
HMRC takes 20% of that 30%. Job done.
I wonder if it's time for Vulture Central to look for some new icons ? I'd quite a like a "Fuck you Google" one.
Google took steps to undermine those as alternative methods of distributing apps and in-app content
Yes, trying to enable alternate sources such as fdroid is a huge pain with lots of bogus warnings, and every time you install something new, it puts up yet more scare dialogs.
I've had a ton of useful apps die because they want to support older phones, and they don't have the time/money to navigate the minefield of updating to the latest Android code, the PYKL3 weather radar app for one. Enabling the latest Android OS support removes a lot of functionality and adds a lot of "nanny code" to do basic things like open/save files.
Also it looks like AOSP is going away for Pixel phones, and Google is now developing Android "in private" - they've removed the device trees, driver binaries, and a lot of the kernel commits.
Of course, they say it isn't, but actions speak louder than words.
https://www.androidauthority.com/google-not-killing-aosp-3566882/
I hate Microsoft, but I do wish they still made phones to provide some modicum of competition.
Illusion of competition can be useful
I would have thought the smart move by quasi monopolists potentially facing anti trust lawsuits like this would be to fund the small fry like f-droid just to be able to claim 'flourishing competition, nothing to see here'. Nothing crass, do it by an arms-length charitable foundation if need be. Not too much, just enough to keep the illusion of choice and a functioning market. iirc google continue to be one of the main backers of the Mozilla foundation for instance, long after it has served it's original purpose of breaking into the search market, but it has served to obscure the dominance of chrome and it's critical data slurping
Re: Illusion of competition can be useful
That still accepts the frame set by structurally dependent governments: that abuse is only abuse if there’s no competition.
The truth is, even in a competitive market, charging 15-30% just to process a digital transaction should be illegal. App stores aren't building your product, hosting your backend, or providing support. They’re just a gate. And that gate should cost no more than a payment processor - 1–3%, tops. Anything more is rent extraction, not service.
Digital serfs
Imagine if every time a British shop sold something, 30% of the revenue was siphoned off by a foreign landlord just for existing on the high street - and if you tried to set up your own stall next door, they made sure no one could find it.
That’s Google Play. A private, extraterritorial tax on UK digital businesses, enforced not by law, but by code and contracts. The fact that 15% is pitched as a discount shows how broken the market is. It’s not innovation - it’s digital feudalism, and the lords are overseas.
And let’s be honest: with the UK government increasingly dependent on Google infrastructure, it’s hard to imagine judges won’t feel a "quiet pressure" to tread lightly. Hard to bite the hand that hosts your public sector.