Google Faces £1.2bn UK Class Action as 20 Million Play Store Users Sue

Google is on trial in London over the economics of its app store. A £1.2 billion ($1.6 billion) opt-out class action brought on behalf of roughly 20 million UK consumers opened this week at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, with consumer advocate Liz Coll alleging that the company used its grip on Android app distribution to extract commissions of up to 30% on apps, subscriptions and in-app purchases — fees her lawyers say were ultimately absorbed by users through higher prices.

The claim covers purchases made between 1 October 2015 and 31 July 2026, an eleven-year window that makes it one of the largest consumer actions ever assembled against a technology platform in the UK. Google denies any anti-competitive conduct and has asked the tribunal to dismiss the case outright.

• Who is covered: because the case is structured as an opt-out action under the UK’s Consumer Rights Act 2015, anyone who bought a paid app, in-game extra or subscription through Google Play in that period is automatically included — no sign-up needed.
• The alleged overcharge: the claim contrasts Google’s typical 15–30% cut with the 2–5% an independent payment processor would charge for the same transaction.
• The precedent: Google settled a separate £260 million claim from UK app developers in September 2026 without admitting wrongdoing — a deal the claimants now cite as evidence their theory of harm is credible.
• The stakes: if a tribunal concludes that 30% store commissions are anti-competitive, the fallout reaches well beyond one balance sheet.

How the case is constructed

The core argument is that Google’s commission on digital transactions exceeded what a genuinely competitive market would have produced, and that developers passed at least part of that cost on to buyers. Coll’s legal team has pointed to Google’s own YouTube Premium pricing through Apple’s App Store as evidence that platform levies do reach the customer, and has disputed Google’s defence on how costs flowed through the chain. Crucially, the claimants are not required to prove individual harm for each of the 20 million class members; the 2015 legislation allows damage to be calculated in aggregate.

Compensation is being sought at a maximum of £1.2 billion. Spread across an estimated 20 million people, that works out to roughly £60 per claimant before legal and administrative fees are deducted. Research from the UK communications regulator suggests the affected pool skews older: 57% of smartphone users over 65 rely on an Android device, compared with just 31% of those aged 16 to 24.

Google’s defence and the shadow of the developer deal

“Free of competitive shackles, Google has exploited its market strength to extract unfair prices to the detriment of users and generated extraordinary returns for almost two decades.”

“Google is not dominant in the market for the facilitation of digital content transactions between developers and consumers.”

The company’s filings argue that dominance requires market power it simply does not hold in this segment, that Android offers more choice of apps and app stores than any rival platform, and that Play’s fees rank among the lowest available. That argument has to contend with a developer settlement reached only weeks earlier, following a claim brought on behalf of UK businesses over Play Store app sales. Google paid £260 million without admitting liability — a structure that signals a preference for negotiation over a final judgment.

For the consumer claim, that outcome cuts two ways. It validates the underlying theory that commissions were excessive, while also suggesting Google will settle when the risk of an adverse ruling becomes concrete. A nine-figure payout to developers is one thing; a publicly fought defeat involving millions of ordinary users is a different reputational problem.

A broader crackdown on app store economics

The hearing lands in the middle of a global squeeze on platform fees. The UK’s competition regulator has previously found that Apple and Google hold an effective duopoly in mobile platforms and has imposed conduct guardrails on the pair. Apple was fined €1.8 billion by the European Union in 2024, later followed by a €500 million penalty under the Digital Markets Act, while Google’s Play Store was hit with a €430 million fine this year for restricting developers from steering users to cheaper payment channels. The tribunal itself ruled last year that Apple abused its dominant position through excessive developer commissions; that case now sits before the Court of Appeal.

Google has also been fighting on other fronts, reaching a worldwide settlement with Epic Games in March 2026 under which it agreed to broaden billing options and reduce certain developer fees. Similar claims targeting Apple’s App Store and Sony’s PlayStation Store are working their way through UK courts, making this action part of a coordinated legal campaign rather than an isolated dispute.

The headline number looks less intimidating when set against Play Store revenue that exceeds $11 billion a year, and Google can afford to litigate for years while class members lose interest — a pattern that has produced late settlements in comparable cases. The genuine exposure is doctrinal. A ruling that 30% store commissions are anti-competitive would hand regulators and litigants a template applicable to every major app marketplace, rewiring how software is priced and how much of each subscription reaches the developer. That is the outcome Google’s lawyers are really fighting, and it explains why a case worth roughly £60 per person matters far more than its arithmetic suggests.