Google faces UK app store charges trial over £1.2bn consumer claim

Google faces UK app store charges trial over £1.2bn consumer claim
Google faces UK £1.2bn trial

A London trial over Google Play Store fees is due to begin this week, bringing a new UK test of how far competition law can curb the pricing power of major technology platforms. The class action seeks up to £1.2bn for about 20mn consumers and focuses on whether commissions on Android app downloads and purchases since 2015 led to higher prices.

Highlights

  • Google faces a £1.2bn UK class-action trial over Play Store fees, with claimants alleging up to 30 percent developer charges led to higher consumer prices.
  • The lawsuit is backed by Fortress Investment Group and Mubadala, and could result in average payouts of around £60 per affected consumer if successful.
  • This UK trial follows Google's prior £260mn UK settlement with developers and a $700mn U.S. antitrust payout, increasing antitrust scrutiny of app store practices.

London hearing centers on Play Store fees

As first reported by Financial Times, the seven-week case is set to go ahead in London unless a last-minute settlement is reached, with claimants arguing that Google restricted competition and imposed excessive charges through the Play Store on Android devices.

The lawsuit is backed by Fortress Investment Group, with support from Abu Dhabi's Mubadala investment arm, and could result in average payouts of about £60 for affected consumers if the claim succeeds. The case says fees charged to software developers, in some instances as high as 30 per cent, were passed on to users through higher prices for apps, subscriptions and in-app purchases.

Google rejects the allegations and says it has not engaged in anti-competitive conduct. In its defence, the company argues that Android gives users and developers more choice than rival mobile ecosystems, while the Play Store helps protect customers from cyber security risks, scams and fraud.

The claimants are led by consumer policy specialist Liz Coll, who says many users are unaware of the scale of commissions tied to mobile services such as gaming, dating and music-streaming apps. She argues the case is also about establishing that large platforms can be challenged and that consumers have a route to redress.

Case adds to broader antitrust pressure

The UK action follows a series of legal and regulatory challenges to Google's app store practices. In August, Google agreed to pay £260mn to settle a separate UK claim brought on behalf of thousands of software developers over Play Store commissions.

The proceedings also come after the Competition Appeal Tribunal found last year in a similar case that Apple had imposed unfair charges through its App Store. Apple is challenging that ruling, and the Court of Appeal is due to hear the case next year.

Outside the UK, Google lost a prominent California case in 2023 brought by Epic Games, which argued that Google's exclusive deals and revenue-sharing arrangements were illegal. A San Francisco judge ordered Google to open Android to rival app marketplaces and payment systems, and after further appeals Google and Epic agreed to settle the dispute in March this year.

Google also paid $700mn in 2023 to settle a U.S. antitrust lawsuit by multiple states alleging it had shut out rival payment systems and overcharged customers. In the UK consumer case, any eventual award would depend on how much of the alleged overcharge the tribunal decides was passed from developers to end users, while Google maintains that most Play Store apps are free and only a small share of the largest developers pay fees.

Our earlier article on the renewed UK focus on John Maynard Keynes explored how today’s policy debate is shifting from headline growth alone to broader measures of wellbeing, including loneliness, burnout, trust in institutions and quality of life. It also outlined how Keynesian thinking emphasizes active state intervention—through public investment and support for social infrastructure such as care and culture—when traditional metrics fail to capture what people experience on the ground.

This material may contain third-party opinions, none of the data and information on this webpage constitutes investment advice according to our Disclaimer. While we adhere to strict Editorial Integrity, this post may contain references to products from our partners.