A surprising twist unfolded in a San Francisco courtroom this week when Judge James Donato pressed Epic Games and Google on a previously hidden commercial pact that appears to underpin their sudden settlement in a long-running antitrust battle.
The essence: Epic will spend roughly $800 million over six years on services from Google tied to the Unreal Engine, Fortnite and Android — and the two companies want most of the arrangement to stay confidential. The figure surfaced during a hearing where the judge asked whether the business partnership had softened Epic’s appetite for the court-ordered remedies meant to open Android’s app ecosystem.
A settlement with strings?
Judge Donato described the agreement as involving “joint product development, joint marketing commitment, [and] joint partnerships.” He paraphrased the deal as Epic “helping Google market Android,” and Google “using Epic’s core technology.” Tim Sweeney, Epic’s CEO, inadvertently lifted the confidentiality veil during testimony: “Epic’s technology is used by many companies in the space Google is operating in to train their products, so the ability for Google to use the Unreal Engine more fulsome… sorry, I’m blowing this confidentiality.”
The court was told Epic is the party spending the $800 million. That upends the simple narrative of a platform buying off an adversary: here, Epic is paying Google for services or integration. But the optics — two former foes settling and then agreeing a lucrative commercial relationship — worried the judge and other observers. Could a side deal change the incentives behind a settlement designed to promote competition across Android?
Epic insists it isn’t being paid off. Sweeney argued Epic is transferring value to Google, not the other way around, and said the companies are “each separately building product lines.” He also denied the deal would give Epic special treatment on Android.
Google declined to comment publicly during the hearing.
Why the details matter
This case isn’t just about Fortnite. The litigation that began when Epic pulled Fortnite from Google Play has become a test of platform power across mobile ecosystems. In 2023 a jury found Google ran an illegal monopoly on Android app distribution, and Judge Donato’s earlier injunction required structural changes — like easing how rival app stores reach Android users.
Epic and Google later proposed a private settlement that would cut Google’s app-store fees worldwide and create a Registered App Stores program to let alternative marketplaces operate more easily on Android. Those concessions could reshape developers’ economics globally, but critics say they might also preserve Google’s leverage using complicated fee rules.
Regulators are watching. The Federal Trade Commission filed a brief urging the court to think carefully about any modification to the injunction, warning that watering down catalog access or distribution remedies could hurt rivals’ ability to overcome Google’s network effects.
Quid pro quo or pragmatic partnership?
Judge Donato asked Epic’s economics witness whether the partnership could amount to a “quid pro quo” that reduced Epic’s incentive to press for broader fixes. Epic’s response: the company sees the commercial tie as complementary to pro-competition goals. Whether a judge — or other developers — sees it that way depends on details the companies have successfully kept confidential so far.
What has been made public suggests the arrangement covers services Google will sell to Epic (hence the $800 million spend), plus marketing and technical collaboration around Unreal Engine and Android. Sweeney was careful to say the parties aren’t building a single joint product; rather, they plan to align parts of their product lines.
Stakes for developers and the Play Store
Developers are split. For many, lower fees and a clearer path for alternative app stores would be a win. For others, a settlement that preserves Google’s control — but with new fee mechanics and registration hurdles — could look like less progress than the court-ordered remedies promised.
This episode also arrives as Google continues to tweak Play Store features and business tools: recent Play Store updates, from a digital gift-card shop to cosmetic changes for Pixel users, show Google is still shaping how the store behaves for consumers and partners. Those ongoing shifts are a reminder that any settlement sits atop an evolving commercial platform. For context on the Play Store’s recent moves, see how Google added a digital gift card shop and spotlighted theme packs for Pixel users.
Confidentiality vs. public interest
Antitrust settlements often balance confidential commercial terms with public remedies meant to restore competition. Here the balance is awkward: a company that sued to break a monopoly now seeks a private commercial relationship with the alleged monopolist while asking a judge to approve narrower, negotiated changes to the market structure.
Donato has given the parties some latitude to keep parts of the deal secret but is pressing them to explain — under oath — why that confidentiality shouldn’t block meaningful judicial scrutiny. The court’s eventual decision will test whether a private settlement can deliver the broad competitive repair that antitrust law aims to secure, or whether it lets powerful platforms trade away systemic remedies for bespoke commercial agreements.
The hearing did not produce a final ruling. What it did reveal, bluntly and awkwardly, is that the business of making peace in tech wars sometimes looks a lot like the business that started the war in the first place.