Last week, court proceedings in the long-running Epic vs. Google antitrust case revealed a previously undisclosed detail: a quiet, six-year agreement valued at roughly $800 million between Google and Epic Games.
The disclosure raised questions across the industry, specifically about how mobile monetization rules are being shaped in real time.
What We Know About the Epic and Google Deal
The agreement broke on pocketgamer.biz after questioning by US District Judge James Donato who is overseeing the remedies phase of the Epic vs. Google case.
Key details that emerged:
- The deal will run for six years, with Epic paying Google up to $800M over that time
- It covered joint product development, marketing, and collaboration
- The partnership was closely tied to Fortnite, Android, and Unreal Engine
The agreement remained undisclosed until now while Google and Epic were in the public legal conflict.
Judge Donato described the arrangement as a form of “new business” between the two companies, despite the public image presenting that Google and Epic are adversaries. While the court did not rule on the legality of the deal itself, its existence became relevant as regulators continue to examine Google’s conduct and incentives around the new Play Store policies.
The secret agreement re-enforces the Judge's earlier skepticism, and likely signals that we don't have a final decision on how Google is enforcing new D2C regulations in the US any time soon. The takeaway is that large platforms will still try to use their weight and influence to make gains, but there are important points that Studios can use now to build a strong D2C strategy:
TLDR, What This Means for Mobile Developers
1) “Choice” doesn’t automatically mean better margins.
Google technically allows alternative billing and external links, but once fees kick in (10–25%), many studios will find the math for going D2C for better margins doesn't actually move the needle - especially if the developer or publisher is still carrying UX, compliance, and support overhead.
2) Android DTC is an opportunity, but only works at scale or with the right setup.
The upside comes when studios can route meaningful volume outside in-app checkout. But simply swapping one billing flow for another inside the app has limited benefit.
3) Policy windows matter but timing is strategic.
Right now, studios can capture value since enforcement and fee collection are still in flux. Waiting for “final clarity” will mean missing this short window.
4) Operational burden shifts to the studio.
Alternative billing means owning payments, refunds, fraud, tax, and compliance. Without the right infrastructure or a Merchant of Record, complexity rises fast and so will costs.
5) Expect more regional and platform fragmentation.
With different rules across U.S., EU, Japan, Australia and others for both Android and iOS direct monetization, studios need flexible monetization stacks, not one-size-fits-all assumptions. Especially as the rules themselves change in such a fast pace.
What this doesn’t mean
It’s tempting to read this as a definitive sign of where Android monetization is headed. But things are shifting fast and relying on assumptions would be a mistake.
Especially since the report itself doesn't draw conclusions about:
- Whether the deal influenced Epic’s legal strategy
- Whether it directly shaped Google’s current policy proposals
- How future fee structures will ultimately land
These are big unresolved questions, and the court has still not not issued final remedies.
What is clear is that the mobile payments landscape remains in motion, and studios should expect continued change rather than stability in the near term.