Donato to Google: the extra tap on rival app stores comes out in a week

Judge James Donato ordered Google to make installing rival app stores on Android easier, after Epic Games walked a San Francisco courtroom through the current flow step by step ^[1][5]. The significance is not the principle, which was settled two years ago, but the venue: a federal judge is now dictating button labels and search behaviour inside the Play Store, with a one-week deadline ^[4][10][20].

The sequence matters. A jury unanimously found nearly three years ago that Google held an illegal monopoly over Android apps ^[3]. Almost two years ago Donato ordered Google to carry rival app stores inside Play and to give those rivals complete access to Google's full app catalog for several years ^[4]. Last month Epic and Google appeared to stop fighting over Android distribution ^[2]. They were back in court because, Epic argued, the remedy exists on paper while the install path still does not work ^[5].

Three specific defects came out of the demo. Epic's lawyer Yonatan Even showed that searching the Play Store for "store for apps" surfaces no third-party app stores at all, only physical retailers ^[7]. Donato's reaction from the bench was "Wait, why did Walmart come up?" followed by "That's not good" ^[8]. He then ordered the search behaviour fixed and set the tolerance himself: "I want every possible variation that's even only 70 percent properly phrased." Google's counsel agreed ^[9].

Second, installing a third-party app store currently requires pressing a "view" button before an "install" button. Donato ordered the label changed to install, and Google agreed ^[10]. His comparison was to a first-party listing: "You don't get that when you're looking at Apple Music" ^[11].

Third, and the most consequential for anyone considering entering the market, searching for "app store" or even for Aptoide by name does not return a normal list of apps ^[12]. Aptoide is the first rival store to reach the Play Store ^[13]. Instead Google shows a banner that routes the user through to a dedicated third-party app store page ^[12]. Even's argument was about deterrence rather than inconvenience: an established company such as Amazon might not launch a store at all if the cost is losing normal app store search placement ^[14]. Google's attorney defended the interstitial by pointing out that both sides had already agreed app stores are a special category of app with advanced permissions ^[16]. Donato held that the warning already on the third-party store page was enough ^[17], noting that users of any large store expect one relevant result plus ten they did not ask for and are not confused by getting what they typed ^[18]. His instruction: "Take off the 'are you looking for' screen, there's no purpose for that. There's a friction there that has no purpose whatsoever" ^[19].

All three changes were ordered ^[21], and Google conceded two of them on the spot ^[22]. Donato told Google to have it done a week from the hearing and to tell him if there was a problem ^[20].

What to watch: whether Google ships the search-variation coverage Donato specified rather than a narrow keyword patch ^[9], whether removing the interstitial changes Aptoide's install volume ^[12][13], and whether a larger entrant treats normal search placement as the condition it was waiting on ^[14].