Google has begun fighting one of the biggest consumer lawsuits in British legal history, as a trial worth more than £1 billion opened in London on Tuesday over the fees it charges on its Android app store.
The case, brought on behalf of around 20 million UK consumers, accuses the technology giant of abusing its dominant position to impose excessive commissions on app developers — costs the claimants say were ultimately passed on to ordinary shoppers through higher prices.
At the heart of the claim is the Google Play Store, the main marketplace for apps on Android phones. Lawyers for the claimants told the Competition Appeal Tribunal that Google took a cut of up to 30 per cent from developers on app sales, in-app purchases and subscriptions, and that developers had little choice but to pass those charges on to consumers.
The claim covers anyone in the UK who bought apps through the Play Store or paid for in-app purchases and subscriptions between 2015 and July 2026. Consumer advocate Liz Coll is leading the action, which is being heard as a collective claim — meaning millions of people are automatically included unless they opt out.
Google is contesting the case in full. A spokesperson said the claim ignores the choice that Android gives consumers and developers, and insisted the company charges “some of the lowest fees in the market”. Its lawyers told the tribunal the case was “unfounded”, arguing the Play Store faces strong competitive pressure from Apple’s App Store and alternative platforms.
The trial is being heard at the Competition Appeal Tribunal in the capital, the latest high-stakes case for London’s courts. The Old Bailey is currently hearing the trial into the death of Michaela Boor, killed by falling bricks on a Bow school run, while this year has also seen MI5 admit misleading judges over a neo-Nazi agent.
A familiar fight
The case follows years of scrutiny of the fees charged by the world’s biggest app stores. Similar claims have been brought against Apple and Sony, both of which were accused of taking commissions of up to 30 per cent from developers.
Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite, had its own London lawsuit over Play Store fees due to be heard alongside Ms Coll’s case — but in March the two sides reached a worldwide settlement, under which Google agreed to expand billing options for developers and cut some of its developer fees.
Then, only last month, Google settled a separate £260 million lawsuit brought on behalf of app developers, without admitting liability.
What it could mean for Android users
For the millions of people in Britain who use Android phones, the case could eventually mean money back. Because it is an opt-out collective action, anyone covered does not need to sign up or fill in any forms — they are included automatically. If the claimants win, the tribunal would decide how any compensation is shared out, which in past mass claims has often meant an equal payment to everyone in the group.
But any payout is a long way off. Major competition trials typically run for weeks, and either side could appeal — a process that can drag on for years. Nothing will change about how the Play Store works, or what apps cost, in the meantime.
Google says Android already gives users and developers more choice than rival systems, pointing to alternative app stores and the ability to install apps directly. Its lawyers argue that competition — particularly from Apple’s App Store — keeps its fees in check.
Campaigners taking on powerful opponents through the courts have tasted success before. Chiswick residents recently won a High Court battle over tower plans at Hogarth roundabout, showing that determined legal challenges in London can force even the biggest players to change course.
The trial is expected to hear detailed evidence about how the Play Store operates, how its fees are set and what effect they have on prices, with a ruling not expected for some months. Ms Coll’s legal team says the case is about making sure ordinary consumers are not quietly footing the bill for excessive charges; Google says it will defend its record and the choice its platform offers. For now, the £1 billion question rests with the tribunal.
