Australia Finds Apple and Google Abused App Store Power

Australian court rules Apple and Google abused app store power

The Federal Court of Australia has delivered a significant ruling against Apple and Google, finding both tech giants engaged in anti-competitive conduct in the market for app distribution. Judge Jonathan Beach concluded the companies abused their dominant positions to limit competition, though he declined to find that either engaged in "unconscionable conduct."

The decision is a partial victory for Epic Games, which has been challenging platform fee and distribution practices globally. Epic won a related battle in the U.S. earlier this year that helped bring Fortnite back to Apple’s U.S. App Store after five years; Epic’s CEO Tim Sweeney said Fortnite and the Epic Games Store will return to Apple’s Australian store soon.

Apple and Google pushed back. Apple said its App Store remains the safest way for users to get apps and disagreed with parts of the ruling, while Google welcomed the court’s rejection of Epic’s demands around distributing app stores from within Google Play and defended its security protections.

• Platform policy changes: court findings increase pressure for more flexible billing and distribution options.
• Return of competing stores and high-profile apps: Epic signals Fortnite and its store will reappear on Apple in Australia.
• Regulatory ripple effects: other jurisdictions and lawmakers will watch closely for precedents on market power and platform conduct.
• Security trade-offs: platforms will emphasize user safety while critics push for more openness and rival stores.

For developers and businesses the ruling forces a rethink. Game publishers, subscription services, and fintech apps must reassess distribution, pricing, and compliance strategies. Will you rely on a single store and its billing rules, or build parallel distribution channels and direct-billing models? The answers will differ by risk tolerance, user base, and regulatory exposure.

The ruling also sharpens a familiar tension: centralized control can improve security and user experience, but it can also cement market power and limit innovation. Expect platform vendors to tighten arguments about malware, fraud, and privacy as they defend policies that critics call restrictive.

• Run impact models to estimate revenue and fee changes under alternative app-store rules.
• Prototype secure sideloading or multi-store strategies to preserve UX while reducing platform dependency.
• Prepare regulatory and PR playbooks that balance user safety claims with competition arguments.
• Audit contracts and historical partnerships to identify exposure and negotiation leverage.

This ruling won’t instantly rewrite global platform rules, but it raises the bar for how dominant app stores justify closed ecosystems. For many organizations the smart move now is to measure scenarios, test low-risk distribution alternatives, and be ready to act if regulators push for structural changes.

QuarkyByte’s approach is to combine market modeling, risk analysis, and technical feasibility studies so leaders can choose pragmatic paths forward. Whether you’re a developer weighing direct billing, a publisher mapping multi-store rollouts, or a regulator assessing remedies, data-driven scenarios reduce guesswork and speed decisions.