Google Play trial begins: 20 million UK consumers could share more than £1bn

The seven-week trial will test whether Google charged excessive Play Store commissions and whether those costs were passed on to people buying apps, in-app purchases and subscriptions.

Google goes on trial today over claims its Play Store fees pushed up the price of apps, games and subscriptions bought on Android phones. The case, brought on behalf of around 20 million UK consumers and businesses, is seeking more than £1 billion and is being heard at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, with the trial expected to run until 20 November 2026.

In her written opening argument, consumer technology expert Liz Coll points to Google’s own documents describing its 30% cut of Play Store purchases as “arbitrary”, including one that said there was “no rationale, other than copying Apple”. Google denies the allegations. The Tribunal has yet to decide whether Google broke the law or whether people paid more as a result.

Liz Coll, who is bringing the claim on behalf of affected consumers and businesses, said:

“For more than a decade, Google has taken a cut of up to 30% on almost everything we buy through the Play Store. We say that charge was unfair and excessive, and that consumers paid for it. Today we begin putting that case to the Tribunal on behalf of 20 million people and businesses across the UK.”

If the claim succeeds, affected Android users could be owed around £60 each. The amount any individual receives would depend on how damages are calculated and distributed.

Check whether you could be included in the Google Play Store claim and stay up to date on the latest consumer claims, compensation news and practical advice from Consumer Voice.

Why the claim says Google’s 30% cut was unfair 

On a purchase with a 30% cut, £3 of every £10 went to Google. Coll’s opening argument says Google’s own documents, from slides in 2009 to presentations in 2020, called that rate arbitrary, and that Google knew many developers felt the value they received did not match what they were paying. 

The claim also says Google Play was very profitable. A 2020 presentation to the board of Alphabet, Google’s parent company, described it as one of the company’s most profitable businesses, with a margin above 60%. Alphabet’s own internal figures cited in the claim show the Play Store’s gross margin, roughly the share of revenue left after direct costs, rising from about 63% in 2015 to about 81% in 2022.

Last year the Tribunal ruled against Apple in a similar case over App Store charges. Coll’s argument draws on that decision. The Google claim is a separate case and will be decided on its own evidence.

Why the claim says people couldn’t easily go elsewhere

The claim says Google also made it hard to use anything other than the Play Store. It cites a 2008 email from one of Android’s co-founders about the warnings users see when installing apps from outside the Play Store, saying that if the warning didn’t stop more than 90% of users, “then we have failed”.

The same goes for payments, the claim says. Developers selling in-app items and subscriptions had to use Google’s payment system, through which Google collected its commission, and for most of the period couldn’t point users to a cheaper way to pay. 

It cites Fortnite, which Google removed from the Play Store in 2020 after its maker, Epic, introduced its own payment option. Coll’s argument says in-app purchases and subscriptions are the biggest part of the claim by value.

Lesley Hannah, partner at Hausfeld, the law firm representing Coll, said: “We allege Google restricted competition in the distribution of apps on Android devices and payments for those apps or content, resulting in Google being able to charge an excessive and unfair commission for those services. The unlawfully high commission was ultimately passed on to Android device users in the form of higher prices.”

Did the 30% cut make consumers pay more?

That is the central question for consumers, and one the Tribunal will have to decide. Coll’s argument says a competitive market would have produced a lower commission, with her economic expert estimating a range of 10% to 20%, and 15% as the most likely level. 

On whether that saving would have reached consumers, the claim relies on real-world price differences. It says Epic charged $9.99 on Google Play but $7.99 through its own direct payment system, and that Meta charges UK users £2.99 a month for ad-free Facebook and Instagram on the web, but £3.99 through Android and iOS apps.

It also points to Google’s own YouTube Premium, which costs $20.99 a month through Apple’s App Store but $15.99 otherwise, a difference an internal Google document puts down partly to the fees Apple charges. And it cites Google’s own internal view that a lower commission would create an opportunity for developers to lower prices for consumers.

Coll’s written arguments says Google’s position is that none of the commission was passed on to consumers. Hannah added: “A key issue for the Tribunal will be what would the commission rates have been if Google had not committed the alleged abuses. They will also examine how much of the alleged overcharge developers passed on to consumers in prices for apps, subscriptions and in app purchases.”

Google denies the allegations as Play Store rules changes

Google denies the allegations. A spokesperson said Android gives people more choice than other mobile platforms over which apps and app stores they use, and that Google Play offers some of the lowest fees in the market.

Google announced changes in March 2026, which it said would reach the UK by the end of June. Developers are to be allowed to use their own payment systems alongside Google’s, or send users to their own websites to pay. Google is also changing its fees, with a separate 5% charge for using its billing system, which it describes as “competitive”, plus service fees of 10% to 20% on new installs.

Coll’s argument points to what Google told Australia’s competition regulator about the changes: that greater competition could lower fees, and lead to lower prices for consumers where developers pass on the savings. She relies on those statements to support her case about what competition would have meant in the past.

What happens over the next seven weeks

Coll opened her case today, with Google’s opening due on 7 and 8 October. Evidence is scheduled through October and early November, and closing arguments are due to finish on 20 November. The Tribunal will decide the case after hearing all of the evidence.

Are you eligible, and what do you need to do?

You could be included if you:

• bought an app, subscription, digital content or service through the UK version of the Google Play Store
• made the purchase between 1 October 2015 and 31 July 2026
• made it on an Android phone or tablet
• used a device where the Play Store was already installed. If you didn’t have to download it yourself, it was probably pre-installed.

There are also UK residence rules, but most people living in the UK when they made their first eligible purchase should be covered. If you were living outside the UK at the time, check the official claim website for the full rules.

Most people who meet these criteria are automatically included in the claim, unless they previously chose to opt out (the deadline for this was 15 May 2026). You do not need to register to be included but it’s worth signing up for updates so you know what happens next and how to claim if the case succeeds. If the claim succeeds or settles, you will be told what you need to do to claim any compensation you are entitled to.

Other claims against Google

Google is also facing a separate major UK consumer claim over Google Search, where consumers could ultimately be entitled to compensation if the case succeeds. 

A £260 million Google Play Store developer settlement was recently approved. That case was brought on behalf of app developers and is separate from the consumer trial now under way.

Sign up for Consumer Voice alerts to follow the Google Play trial and other major consumer claims and rights issues.