Google is actively seeking to halt a court-ordered injunction through the U.S. Supreme Court that mandates significant changes to its Play Store policies, as part of an ongoing legal battle with Epic Games.

The injunction requires Google to allow developers to include external links in their apps, enabling users to bypass Google's billing system, and to open the Play Store to third-party app stores for three years.

Google argues that these changes could harm over 100 million U.S. Android users and 500,000 developers, citing security concerns and potential impacts on competitive fairness.

This legal dispute is part of broader regulatory scrutiny aimed at major tech companies to promote market competition and address concerns over market dominance.

The case, Epic v. Google, involves significant legal conflicts, with the outcome potentially shaping the future regulation of app marketplaces in the United States.

A jury trial previously resulted in a verdict against Google, which denied wrongdoing, and the court ordered changes that Google is now contesting.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction in July, citing evidence of Google's anti-competitive conduct, and this decision was confirmed by the full court in September, with the Supreme Court's review still pending.

The case highlights ongoing antitrust pressures on Google over its control of app store payments and its market dominance, with legal and regulatory actions intensifying.

Epic Games contends that Google's security justifications are flawed and advocates for the injunction to promote competition, consumer choice, and lower prices.

The lower court's order could significantly impact Google's business operations by forcing changes in app distribution and policies.

Google has until October 2025 to comply with the injunction, which requires allowing developers to set their own payment systems and link to external payment options.

A hearing is scheduled for October 30th where Google and Epic will discuss how they will comply with the injunction if it remains in effect, while the outcome of the Supreme Court review remains uncertain.