• by Wendy Davis , August 26, 2025

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is backing Google's effort to reverse an order mandating sweeping changes to its app store, arguing in a friend-of-the-court brief that the injunction will "affect the security of millions of app developers and users."

That injunction -- issued last year by U.S. District Court Judge James Donato and upheld late last month by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals -- requires Google Play to host other companies' app stores, and give those companies access to Google's library of apps.

Those terms "will harm app developers and app users, expropriating developers' intellectual property while exposing users’ most sensitive data to all comers," the Chamber of Commerce writes in papers filed Monday with the 9th Circuit.

<p"Google has no discretion to determine whether an app store is a bona fide third-party, a fraudulent designer trolling for user data, or an agent of a foreign power," the organization adds. "If the district court’s forced-sharing requirement comes into force, it will provide innumerable and unregulated 'app stores' unfettered access to highly sensitive ongoing information about app users, such as health information, private communications, and political affiliations."

The business group's brief comes in a battle dating to 2020, when Fortnite developer Epic Games sued both Google and Apple for allegedly violating antitrust laws.

Epic filed suit soon after Google and Apple removed Fortnite from their mobile app marketplaces for allegedly attempting to bypass Google and Apple commissions on in-app purchases. Both Google and Apple charge fees on purchases made in apps that have been downloaded from Google Play or the App store.

Officially, Google has always allowed users to sideload apps -- meaning download them from sources other than the Play Store -- and doesn't charge commissions on in-app purchases from sideloaded apps.

But Epic contended that Google thwarted sideloading by displaying warnings about potential security risks. (Google -- which was also sued by state attorneys general -- said last year it would streamline the sideloading process.)

Epic's suit against Apple went to trial in 2021, and largely resulted in a defeat for Epic. U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California, who presided over the non-jury trial, ruled that Epic failed to prove the bulk of its claims. 

But Epic's case against Google went to trial and resulted in a jury verdict that Google created or maintained an illegal monopoly in two “markets” -- Android app distribution, and Android in-app billing.

Google appealed to the 9th Circuit, which late last month upheld the jury's finding and Donato's injunction.

The company recently sought a new hearing at the 9th Circuit, and is seeking to stay the injunction pending appeal.

The Chamber of Commerce says it supports Google's request for a new hearing regarding the injunction.

In addition to raising security concerns, the business organization says the injunction's terms "go far beyond the conduct that Epic initially complained about -- fees charged for in-app transactions -- or argued at trial."

Epic is opposing Google's request for a new appellate hearing and a stay, arguing that halting the injunction "allows Google to continue extracting supracompetitive profits from illegal conduct."

Epic elaborates in papers filed last week with the 9th Circuit that Google's commission on in-app purchases amount to "supracompetitive profits" that "come directly at the expense of developers and, ultimately, consumers who pay higher prices."

"Granting a stay would inflict further losses on developers and consumers on top of the billions of dollars of harm illegally inflicted in years past that will never be recovered," Epic argues.