Google’s 30 percent fee on app sales through its Play Store was established without a clear business rationale and largely mimicked Apple’s longstanding commission structure, according to internal communications revealed as part of a £1.2 billion consumer lawsuit. The legal case, which began hearings Monday at London’s Competition Appeal Tribunal, alleges that Google’s commission policy led to inflated prices for consumers after app developers passed on the additional costs.
The lawsuit, initiated by consumer technology policy expert Liz Coll on behalf of roughly 20 million users, asserts that Google exploited its dominant position in the Android app marketplace by imposing an excessive fee on app purchases, in-app transactions, and subscriptions. Google denies wrongdoing and has pledged to contest the claims vigorously.
Court filings include emails from senior former Google executives expressing doubts about the justification for the Play Store’s 30 percent commission. In a 2018 message, Sarah Karam, then a senior director at Google Play, described the fee as an "arbitrary" carryover from Apple’s "music industry royalties business model" without thoughtful adaptation to Google’s own ecosystem. A presentation slide titled “Exploring new business models” explicitly stated that the fee had “no rationale, other than copying Apple.”
Further internal remarks from 2020 by Sameer Samat, who then led Google's Android ecosystem division, indicated that the value Google Play offered to developers was misaligned with the 30 percent commission, which he called "arbitrary and high" relative to the cost borne by developers.
Other documents suggest Google used contractual and technical measures to reinforce the Play Store’s dominance on Android devices. A 2009 internal email described a contractual clause preventing competing app stores as “100 percent protectionist.” An earlier 2008 email from Android co-founder Nick Sears revealed that Google implemented default warning prompts aimed at deterring users from downloading apps outside the Play Store. Sears noted that if these prompts failed to block over 90 percent of users from sideloading apps, Google’s strategy would be considered a failure.
Google maintains that its platform investments justify the fees and its services foster financial success for both developers and the broader app ecosystem. A company spokesperson emphasized that building and maintaining competitive platforms involves significant costs and highlighted that approximately 3 percent of the largest app developers currently pay any commission.
The tech giant also underscored Android’s openness relative to other mobile platforms, asserting that consumers have more freedom in app and app-store selection than elsewhere, and noted that Play Store fees are among the lowest in the market. Google argued that the lawsuit overlooks the competitive environment and user choice that define the Android ecosystem.
The trial is expected to continue for seven weeks, during which both sides will present evidence and testimonies regarding the fee structure’s fairness and its impact on developers and consumers.