The opt-out case, authorised in May 2025 and led by Professor Barry Rodger, a competition law academic at the University of Strathclyde, automatically includes eligible UK developers who sold apps, subscriptions or in-app digital content through Google Play from August 2018 onwards, as first reported by UKTN. Google denies the claim.
For SME software businesses that rely on Android distribution, the case raises a question with direct balance-sheet consequences: whether the commission they have been paying to reach customers was lawfully set or inflated by market dominance.
What the case alleges, and what Google denies
The claim centres on Google's position in Android app distribution. Professor Rodger alleges that Google abused a dominant market position by using technical and contractual restrictions to make Google Play the essential route to market for UK developers seeking to reach Android users, according to the claim filings reported by UKTN.
Having established that position, the claim argues, Google then charged commissions of up to 30% on sales of apps, subscriptions and in-app digital content. Those commissions, Professor Rodger alleges, were excessive and unfair, and in a competitive market developers would have paid materially less.
Google's standard commission structure, introduced in 2021, charges 30% on the first $1m in annual developer revenue, falling to 15% thereafter. Apple operates a broadly similar model through its App Store, charging 30% as standard and 15% for developers earning under $1m annually through its Small Business Programme.
The parallels are not lost on the litigation landscape. In the United States, Epic Games pursued antitrust claims against both Apple and Google over app store commissions. A federal jury found in December 2023 that Google had unlawfully maintained a monopoly over Android app distribution, while Apple's case produced a more mixed outcome, with a court ordering Apple to allow developers to link to external payment options but stopping short of declaring the App Store a monopoly. A separate opt-out class action against Apple over its App Store fees is ongoing at the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London.
"This is a significant moment for UK app developers. Many small businesses have had little realistic choice but to use Google Play Store to reach Android customers. The cost of doing so, we believe, was excessive and unfair."
Professor Rodger's statement, reported by UKTN, frames the case squarely around the lack of practical alternatives.
Google denies the claim. The trial, scheduled to run for 11 weeks, will examine the commercial terms on which UK developers have distributed apps and sold digital content through Google Play.
Why the opt-out mechanism matters for small developers
The procedural structure of this case matters as much as the substance for the SME operators it covers. The Competition Appeal Tribunal authorised the claim on an opt-out basis, meaning every eligible UK developer is automatically included unless they actively choose to withdraw.
Google had sought to require certain developers to opt in, a move that would have forced individual businesses to put themselves forward publicly or lose their place in the action, according to UKTN's reporting. The Tribunal rejected that application.
The distinction is critical. Under an opt-in model, small developers face the prospect of identifying themselves as claimants against a platform on which their livelihood depends. The commercial pressure to stay quiet is obvious. An opt-out structure removes that exposure entirely; developers benefit from any successful outcome without needing to take a public position.
The UK's collective-action regime for competition claims has expanded significantly since the Consumer Rights Act 2015 opened the door to opt-out proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The mechanism has since been used in a growing wave of claims against dominant technology platforms. Alongside the Apple App Store case, the Competition and Markets Authority announced a separate investigation into Google's search practices in June 2026, signalling sustained regulatory attention on the company's UK operations.
For a five-person app studio in Manchester or a subscription software business in Edinburgh, the opt-out model is the difference between having a seat at the table and having no realistic means of challenging platform pricing at all.
The commercial cost of a 30% commission for SME operators
The UK app economy has grown substantially over the claim period. Data from Sensor Tower, formerly App Annie, indicates that UK consumer spending on mobile apps exceeded $2bn annually in recent years, with Google Play accounting for a significant share of Android transactions. DCMS estimates have consistently placed the UK's app and digital content sector among the fastest-growing segments of the creative economy.
For an SME developer, the arithmetic of a 30% commission is unforgiving. Consider a small studio generating £500,000 in annual revenue through Google Play. At a 30% rate, £150,000 goes to Google before the developer pays salaries, server costs, marketing or tax. That £150,000 is roughly the loaded cost of two mid-level software engineers in a regional UK city, or a meaningful product development budget for a startup-stage business.
If the commission were halved to 15%, the same studio would retain an additional £75,000 per year. Over the claim period from August 2018 to the present, that difference compounds into hundreds of thousands of pounds per business, and across thousands of eligible developers, the aggregate reaches the £1bn-plus figure at the heart of the claim.
Professor Rodger's claim argues that those commissions shaped what businesses could afford to build, who they could hire and how much they could grow, according to UKTN's report. For operators running on thin margins, the commission is not an abstract percentage; it is a direct constraint on headcount, product roadmap and competitiveness.
The claim period also captures a stretch during which Google introduced its reduced 15% rate for the first $1m in revenue, effective from July 2021. Whether that reduction was a competitive response or an acknowledgement that the prior rate was unsustainable for smaller developers is likely to feature in the trial's analysis of market dynamics.
What happens next and what a ruling could change
The trial begins on 28 September and is expected to run for 11 weeks, making it one of the longest competition hearings the Tribunal has scheduled in recent years.
The court will need to determine several questions: whether Google holds a dominant position in Android app distribution in the UK; whether the commissions charged were excessive under competition law; and, if so, what level of compensation is appropriate.
A ruling in favour of the claimant class would not automatically lower Google's commission rates going forward. The case is a damages claim, not a regulatory intervention. However, a finding of abuse of dominance would carry significant implications. It would establish a legal precedent that could inform future CMA enforcement, shape the terms of any settlement in the parallel Apple case, and put pressure on both platforms to revisit their commission structures for UK developers.
More broadly, the case tests whether the UK's collective-action regime can deliver practical outcomes for small businesses against the largest technology companies in the world. The opt-out model was designed precisely for situations where individual claims are uneconomic but aggregate harm is substantial. If the mechanism works as intended, it offers a template for future actions across other sectors where SMEs face concentrated platform power.
For the thousands of UK developers automatically included in the class, the immediate next step is straightforward: nothing. The opt-out structure means they do not need to register, instruct lawyers or take any action. The case proceeds on their behalf unless they choose to withdraw.
The trial's outcome, expected sometime in 2027, will determine whether the commissions they paid were the cost of doing business or the cost of having no alternative.
