Google has just two weeks to begin cracking open Android, it admits in emergency filing

Yesterday, when Epic won its Google antitrust lawsuit for a second time, it wasn’t quite clear how soon Google would need to start dismantling its affirmed illegal monopoly.

Today, Google admitted the answer was: 14 days. Google had just 14 days to enact major changes to its Google Play app store, and the way it does business with phonemakers, cellular carriers, and app developers, unless it won an emergency stay (pause) from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as it continues to appeal. It must stop forcing apps to use Google Play Billing, allow app developers to freely steer their users to other platforms, and limit the perks it can offer in exchange for preinstalled apps, among other changes.

Those changes would not yet include Epic’s biggest wins. They don’t yet force Google to carry rival app stores within the Google Play Store, or to share its full app catalog with those rival stores, so don’t expect the Epic Games Store or the Microsoft Xbox Store to appear inside Google Play quite yet.

And as of Friday afternoon, all of this may take even longer. Hours after we published our story, Google won its emergency stay, and now has at least three weeks before it has to change Android app store policy.

When he issued the permanent injunction to begin cracking open Android, Judge James Donato gave Google eight months to come up with a “narrowly tailored” system of safety and security procedures before it would be forced to carry rival app stores, so Google has seven and a half months left once the stays have been lifted. Rival app stores won’t appear inside Google Play until 2026 at the earliest.

But according to Google’s emergency stay request, it believes other changes are required far faster: “the remedies in 4-7, 9-10, and 13 of the District Court’s injunction will go into effect in 14 days.” Google claims this is an emergency because it’ll have a “significant impact” on “millions of Google’s users and over 500,000 app developers—as well as Google itself,” and that “requiring these changes to be imposed in only 14 days would expose users and developers to substantial risks and jeopardize the entire Android ecosystem.”

So, which remedies are 4-7, 9, 10, and 13? They’re the ones that:

Some of these provisions mirror changes that Epic scored in its otherwise mostly unsuccessful antitrust suit against Apple. They take on what are known as anti-steering rules — policies that, now in two major cases, courts have agreed unfairly limit developers’ access to a competitive market.

I’ve copied each of those required remedies out of Judge Donato’s injunction so you can read for yourself:

4. For a period of three years ending on November 1, 2027, Google may not share revenue generated by the Google Play Store with any person or entity that distributes Android apps, or has stated that it will launch or is considering launching an Android app distribution platform or store.

5. For a period of three years ending on November 1, 2027, Google may not condition a payment, revenue share, or access to any Google product or service, on an agreement by an app developer to launch an app first or exclusively in the Google Play Store.

6. For a period of three years ending on November 1, 2027, Google may not condition a payment, revenue share, or access to any Google product or service, on an agreement by an app developer not to launch on a third-party Android app distribution platform or store a version of an app that includes features not available in, or is otherwise different from, the version of the app offered on the Google Play Store.

7. For a period of three years ending on November 1, 2027, Google may not condition a payment, revenue share, or access to any Google product or service, on an agreement with an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) or carrier to preinstall the Google Play Store on any specific location on an Android device.

9. For a period of three years ending on November 1, 2027, Google may not require the use of Google Play Billing in apps distributed on the Google Play Store, or prohibit the use of in-app payment methods other than Google Play Billing. Google may not prohibit a developer from communicating with users about the availability of a payment method other than Google Play Billing. Google may not require a developer to set a price based on whether Google Play Billing is used.

10. For a period of three years ending on November 1, 2027, Google may not prohibit a developer from communicating with users about the availability or pricing of an app outside the Google Play Store, and may not prohibit a developer from providing a link to download the app outside the Google Play Store.

13. Within thirty days of the date of this order, the parties will recommend to the Court a three-person Technical Committee. Epic and Google will each select one member of the Technical Committee, and those two members will select the third member. After appointment by the Court, the Technical Committee will review disputes or issues relating to the technology and processes required by the preceding provisions. If the Technical Committee cannot resolve a dispute or issue, a party may ask the Court for a resolution. The Technical Committee may not extend any deadline set in this order, but may recommend that the Court accept or deny a request to extend. Each party will bear the cost of compensating their respective party-designated committee member for their work on the committee. The third member’s fees will be paid by the parties in equal share.

We asked Google how any of these remedies might “expose users and developers to substantial risks,” and it replied with a link to this document, where Google argues that letting malicious actors link out to external app downloads could expose them to malware and attacks, and that letting developers remove Play Billing might make payments less secure and remove expected features.

The three-judge Ninth Circuit panel denied Google’s earlier motion for a stay, and affirmed that all parts of Judge Donato’s permanent injunction were valid and appropriate, but it still decided to grant this emergency stay while Google gets the chance to argue for a longer stay while a higher court considers the case. Google has signaled that it could appeal to both the full Ninth Circuit, and to the Supreme Court.

You can read Google’s full emergency stay request below:

Update, August 1st: Added that Google has now been granted its emergency stay, and Google’s response to our question.