What is the status of the Google Play Store class action lawsuit? In the UK, the consumer claim brought by Liz Coll against Alphabet and four Google companies has reached trial: the Competition Appeal Tribunal listed it to begin on 28 September 2026 with a reading week, and hearings start on 6 October, more than five years after the claim was filed. The Financial Times reported on 4 October that Google is set to defend the £1.2bn lawsuit rather than settle it, weeks after it paid £260m to end a parallel claim by UK app developers. The case asks whether Google abused a dominant position by forcing Android developers to use its Play Store and billing system and by charging a commission of up to 30%, and whether that cost was passed on to roughly 20 million UK users. This analysis sets out what the claim alleges, who is covered, how the figures have moved, what the Tribunal must decide and how the Kent v Apple judgment, the US Epic litigation and the UK's new digital markets regime bear on the outcome.
What is the status of the Google Play Store class action lawsuit?
The short answer is that the UK consumer case is live, unsettled and at trial. The Tribunal's case record states that the trial was listed to commence on 28 September 2026 "for a period of no more than 10 weeks", with the first week set aside for reading, and its diary lists the trial from 6 October 2026 with a time estimate of eight weeks. The panel hearing the case is chaired by Mrs Justice Bacon, President of the Tribunal, sitting with Tim Frazer and Andrew Taylor.
Final pre-trial steps were still being taken in the last week before the hearings. On 2 October 2026 the President made a consent order giving Ms Coll permission to amend her claim form again, the fourth set of amendments, after Google confirmed it did not oppose the application. Ms Coll must pay Google's costs of those amendments.
Two common points of confusion are worth clearing up at the outset. First, the £260m settlement approved in September 2026 resolved a different claim, brought for app developers by Professor Barry Rodger; it does not compensate consumers. Second, US settlements involving the Google Play Store, which appear prominently in search results, have no bearing on UK class members' rights in this case. No court has yet found that Google infringed UK competition law in relation to the Play Store, and no compensation is currently payable to consumers.
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Case | Elizabeth Helen Coll v Alphabet Inc. and Others, Case No. 1408/7/7/21 |
| Defendants | Alphabet Inc., Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited, Google Payment Limited |
| Filed | 29 July 2021 |
| Certified | Hearing 18 July 2022; reasons [2022] CAT 39 on 31 August 2022; collective proceedings order 9 September 2022 |
| Class | About 19.5 million at filing; around 20 million UK consumers and businesses according to the claimant team in 2026 |
| Basis | Opt-out for UK-domiciled class members, opt-in for those domiciled elsewhere |
| Legal basis | Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 (section 18) and, before 31 December 2020, Article 102 TFEU |
| Claimant lawyers and funder | Hausfeld & Co LLP; funded by Vannin Capital |
| Trial | Reading week from 28 September 2026; hearings from 6 October 2026; eight-week estimate |
What the Coll claim alleges against Google
The claim alleges that Google used a network of contractual and technical restrictions to shut out competition to the Play Store on Android devices, then charged an excessive and unfair commission on every relevant purchase. According to the Tribunal's formal notice of the claim, Ms Coll says Google is dominant in two markets, the licensing of smart mobile operating systems and the distribution of Android apps, and holds a monopoly in a third, payment processing for purchases of apps and in-app content from the UK Play Store.
The notice identifies four "mutually reinforcing" practices that, in her case, do not amount to competition on the merits:
- Bundling. Device makers that want Google's key proprietary apps must pre-install and prominently display the Play Store, under Mobile Application Distribution Agreements.
- Distribution restrictions. Contractual and technical limits that make it harder for developers to reach users of Google-licensed devices through channels other than the Play Store.
- Payment exclusivity. The Developer Distribution Agreement requires developers to process relevant purchases only through Google's own payment system.
- Excessive pricing. Charging an excessive and unfair commission on all relevant purchases, which the certification judgment records as "usually set at 30%".
The loss claimed is the difference between the commission actually paid and the commission that would have been paid absent the alleged infringements, passed on to users in the prices they paid. Pre-trial coverage on 4 October gave a worked example from the claimant side: of £10 spent on in-game extras, Google kept £3 for most of the claim period and the developer received £7, and the claim alleges that the £3 was passed on to players through higher prices. The claim is a standalone action: it does not rely on any prior regulator's finding of infringement, so Ms Coll must prove abuse at trial.
Who is in the class and which purchases count
The class covers people who used the UK version of the Play Store on an Android device with Google's apps pre-installed and made at least one relevant purchase from 1 October 2015. Relevant purchases are paid apps, in-app purchases and subscriptions bought through Google's billing system. Purchases mainly for physical goods or services consumed outside the app are excluded, along with bill payments, peer-to-peer services, auctions, donations and gambling-related content.
The end date has moved. Hausfeld said in an April 2026 statement on the extended claim period that the Tribunal had approved amendments taking the period to 30 January 2026, "although this period may be extended further". It added that apps such as Deliveroo and Uber, which do not have to use Google's payment system, fall outside the claim. Pre-trial coverage on 4 October described the claim as covering purchases up to 31 July 2026.
For readers asking how to claim in a UK collective action, the answer is that UK-domiciled class members do not need to sign up: they are included automatically unless they opt out, and the opt-out deadline for newly added class members was 15 May 2026. Non-UK residents had to opt in. Class members pay no fees, the action is insured against adverse costs, and anyone who does nothing is bound by the outcome. Any money would be paid only after a judgment or settlement and a Tribunal-approved distribution process.
How much is the claim worth?
There is no single figure, because the estimate has moved with the class period, the evidence and interest. At certification, the Tribunal recorded a preliminary estimate of aggregate losses for about 19.5 million class members of between £263m and £752m, excluding interest. Ms Coll also seeks simple interest at 8% a year, which over a period starting in 2015 adds materially to any award.
| Date | Figure | Source and basis |
|---|---|---|
| August 2022 | £263m to £752m | Preliminary estimate recorded in the certification judgment, excluding interest |
| July 2022 | About £920m | Reuters estimate at certification, 19.5 million class members |
| April 2026 | Around £1bn | Hausfeld, after the class period was extended to 30 January 2026 |
| 4 October 2026 | £1.2bn | Financial Times report on the eve of the hearings |
These are claimant-side or press figures, not findings. The amount, if any, will depend on how the Tribunal resolves three linked questions: what commission a competitive market would have produced, how much of Google's overcharge developers passed on to users, and what interest applies. No per-person entitlement has been fixed, and the £160m pot in the developer settlement cannot be read across to consumers.
How the claim reached trial: certification, funding and case management
The claim was filed on 29 July 2021, and the route to trial has been long but, for a UK opt-out action, not unusual. Google withdrew its opposition to certification before the July 2022 hearing, but the Tribunal declined to decide the application on the papers. Citing the Supreme Court in Merricks, it said the Tribunal has "an important screening or gatekeeping role" and that transparency mattered given the impact on class members.
Funding was examined closely. The certification judgment records a litigation funding agreement with Vannin Capital PCC, for and on behalf of a protected cell called Project Pontac, financed through lenders managed within the Fortress group, with funding at that stage of £11,290,031, plus after-the-event insurance. Google raised concerns about the funder's own financing arrangements, which the Tribunal considered before granting certification. These arrangements sit within the wider debate over litigation funding in the UK after PACCAR.
Case management then knitted the claim together with related proceedings. The Tribunal ordered part consolidation with Epic Games' claim against Google in May 2024 and joint case management with the Rodger developer claim in March 2025, with reasons in [2025] CAT 25. In July 2025 Ms Coll applied to have Sir Gerald Barling, a former President of the Tribunal and a member of her consultative group, appointed as temporary class representative for about two months; the order was set aside on 13 August 2025 and Ms Coll was reinstated. In April 2026 the President refused her request for a further tranche of transaction data and updated expert evidence. The Tribunal sits in London, and claims of this kind are run largely by advisers in England for funders, class representatives and defendants.
What the Competition Appeal Tribunal must decide
The Tribunal must decide whether Google abused a dominant position and, if so, how much the class lost. The issues certified as common to the class, in the claim notice, map the order in which it will work:
- Market definition. Whether the relevant markets are those Ms Coll alleges, including Android app distribution and payment processing for Play Store purchases.
- Dominance. Whether Google holds a dominant position in those markets.
- Abuse. Whether the restrictions and the commission are abusive, including whether the commission is excessive and unfair.
- Causation and pass-on. Whether any abuse caused class members to pay higher prices, and the aggregate loss.
- Interest. The rate and duration of pre-judgment interest.
On excessive pricing, the Tribunal in Kent v Apple applied the two-limb test from United Brands: whether the price is excessive in relation to costs, and whether it is unfair in itself or by reference to suitable comparators. Specialists in abuse of dominance will watch closely how the Tribunal handles comparators and costs for a platform service. Pass-on is likely to be the main battleground on quantum: the class can recover only the part of any overcharge developers passed on in their prices. Ms Coll seeks an aggregate award, which the collective regime permits without assessing each class member's individual loss, a feature that distinguishes this regime from the fine-setting arithmetic behind EU cartel penalties.
Google's defence
Google denies the claim and says it will fight it. In a statement reported on 4 October, a Google spokesperson said that "Android gives people more choice than any other mobile platform in deciding which apps and app stores they use, with Play offering some of the lowest fees in the market", adding that the lawsuit "ignores that choice as well as the competitive market in which we operate, and we will defend our services vigorously."
That statement points to the likely shape of Google's case: that Android is more open than rival platforms, that alternative app stores and other routes to install apps exist, and that its fees compare well. The detail of Google's pleaded defence and expert evidence has not been published, so its specific arguments on market definition, comparators and pass-on will emerge at trial.
On the claimant side, Ms Coll said that "millions of us have paid for apps, games and subscriptions on our phones without knowing a hidden charge was built into the price", and Lesley Hannah of Hausfeld said Google "has been able to use its position in the market to charge an excessive commission for well over a decade." Both are statements of position, not findings.
The £260m developer settlement and why it does not end the consumer case
Google settled the developer claim for £260m without admitting liability, but the consumer claim is a separate action with a separate class. Professor Barry Rodger filed for certification on 23 August 2024 on behalf of UK app developers; the Tribunal certified the claim on an opt-out basis by order of 23 May 2025, noting that the class was likely to contain about 2,200 developers.
In 2026 Google tried to change that footing. Relying on the Supreme Court's December 2025 decision in Evans v Barclays Bank, it asked the Tribunal to require the 25 largest developers, later the five largest, to opt in. The Tribunal refused in [2026] CAT 49, noting that at certification it had regarded the claims as strong and that Google had not sought strike-out or summary judgment.
The parties finalised a settlement on 22 August 2026. A separately constituted panel chaired by James Wolffe KC heard the approval application on 15 and 16 September, and the collective settlement approval order of 18 September 2026 allocates £160m for UK-domiciled developers who made relevant sales between 22 August 2018 and 31 July 2026 and £100m towards the class representative's costs, fees and funding entitlements. Google must pay within 50 days. For the consumer trial, the settlement removes one class but none of the issues Ms Coll must prove; the Tribunal's findings, if against Google, would be made in a contested judgment rather than a negotiated outcome.
Kent v Apple: the precedent on the other side of the courtroom
The closest precedent is the Tribunal's October 2025 judgment against Apple, described by Hausfeld as the first claim under the UK collective proceedings regime to succeed at trial. In Kent v Apple, [2025] CAT 67, brought for about 36 million class members, the Tribunal accepted Dr Kent's markets for iOS app distribution and iOS in-app payment services, found Apple had "near absolute market power" in both, and held that Apple abused its dominance through exclusionary restrictions, tying and an excessive and unfair 30% commission. Hausfeld, which acts for Ms Coll, puts Apple's liability at around £1.5 billion in damages and interest.
| Issue | Kent v Apple (decided) | Coll v Alphabet (at trial) |
|---|---|---|
| Class size | About 36 million | About 20 million |
| Headline commission | 30% | Up to 30% |
| Markets | iOS app distribution; iOS in-app payments (accepted) | Android app distribution; Play Store payment processing; licensable mobile OS (alleged) |
| Competitive benchmark | 17.5% for distribution, 10% for payments | To be decided |
| Pass-on to users | 50% | To be decided |
| Interest | Simple 8% | 8% sought |
| Status | Permission to appeal refused by the CAT; Apple applied to the Court of Appeal | Hearings from 6 October 2026 |
The comparison has limits. Google's case that Android gives users more choice than any other mobile platform raises different arguments from those Apple ran, and the Tribunal will decide Coll on its own evidence. The Tribunal refused Apple permission to appeal on 13 November 2025, and Apple then applied to the Court of Appeal. The Kent case record also shows the Tribunal refusing, in January and again in July 2026, to extend that class period to the date of judgment. Apple's regulatory exposure in Europe runs in parallel, as the General Court's DMA gatekeeper ruling showed.
Epic v Google in the US and Google's global fee changes
In the US, Epic Games won its Play Store case before a jury, and the litigation has since reshaped Google's fees worldwide. A federal jury in California found in December 2023 that Google had illegal monopolies in its app store and billing. Judge James Donato issued a permanent injunction in October 2024 barring, for three years, payments for exclusivity and mandatory use of Google Play Billing, and the Ninth Circuit upheld the verdict in July 2025. Epic sought no damages; it wanted the market opened.
In November 2025 the parties proposed a global settlement under which Google would cut its standard fee to 20% or 9% depending on the transaction. In March 2026 Google said it would not wait for approval and would, by 30 June, lower most app store fees in the US, UK and European Economic Area to 20% or less, with a "Registered App Stores" programme outside the US by the end of the year. In June 2026 it began replacing the flat 30% fee with decoupled billing and service fees, while the court had still not signed off on the settlement.
For the UK case, the changes cut both ways. They post-date almost all of the claim period, so they do not reduce historic loss, but both sides may draw on them: the class to show what lower fees look like, Google to show a market that responds to pressure. Google's wider US antitrust exposure continues separately, as in the ad-tech remedies ruling and six-year monitor.
The CMA's strategic market status regime and app store rules
The UK regulator now has its own tools for app stores, but they look forward and do not compensate anyone for past overcharges. Under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, in force from 1 January 2025, the CMA designated Google and Apple with strategic market status in their mobile platforms on 22 October 2025. For Google, the designation covers its mobile operating system, native app distribution and its mobile browser and browser engine. The CMA stressed that designation "is not a finding of wrongdoing".
Since then, according to the CMA's Google mobile platform case page, Google has given commitments, published in final form on 1 April 2026, on app review, app ranking and use of data, and the CMA has called for evidence on recent changes to app store rules. From 30 June to 28 July 2026 it consulted on a proposed steering conduct requirement that would let developers steer users out of the app, including to complete transactions on fair and reasonable terms, and it published the responses on 14 August. The EU is pursuing parallel obligations under the Digital Markets Act, as Google's challenge to the DMA search data order and the €403m location data fine show. Advisers in technology, media and telecoms are fielding questions on both fronts.
What the trial means for funders and opt-out collective actions
The Coll trial is a test of whether the UK opt-out regime can deliver a contested damages judgment against a platform a second time. Kent v Apple showed that a class representative can win at trial; Rodger showed that a credible trial date can produce a large settlement, with £100m of the £260m allocated to costs, fees and funding returns. Both outcomes will feed the policy debate on funder returns and distribution that followed the High Court's ruling on the funder award in Merricks.
The Tribunal's refusal to move Rodger's largest developers to an opt-in basis also matters. Google's application was the first test of how far Evans v Barclays could be used to reopen a certified class late in the day, and it failed on the facts. Defendants will be weighing that ruling alongside other recent CAT case management decisions, such as the stay in the Moy Park interchange fee claim, and the English courts' handling of mass claims such as the Mercedes diesel emissions litigation.
What happens next, and when to take advice
The hearings run from 6 October 2026 on an eight-week estimate, within the overall ten-week listing. Judgment is likely to follow some months later; in Kent the gap between the end of trial and judgment was about eight months. Either side may then seek permission to appeal, and any damages would need a distribution plan approved by the Tribunal before money reaches class members. Settlement remains possible at any stage, but would need Tribunal approval as just and reasonable.
For app developers, the outcome may influence how they price and where they process payments, particularly as Google's fee changes and the CMA's steering proposals take effect. For funders and defendants, the case will shape how the Tribunal approaches excessive pricing claims against platforms. Businesses and in-house teams with questions about competition exposure, app store terms or participation in collective proceedings can find competition and antitrust advisers, dispute resolution and litigation specialists and other advisers in the UK through Corporate INTL's directory.
Frequently asked questions
What is the status of the Google Play Store class action lawsuit in the UK?
Liz Coll's consumer claim against Google, Case 1408/7/7/21, is at trial in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. A reading week began on 28 September 2026 and hearings start on 6 October with an eight-week estimate. The claim has not settled and no court has yet found that Google broke competition law.
What is the case against Google?
Ms Coll alleges that Google abused dominant positions by bundling the Play Store with its other apps, restricting rival app distribution, requiring developers to use its billing system and charging an excessive commission of up to 30%. She says developers passed that cost on to Android users through higher prices.
How do I claim in the Google Play Store lawsuit in the UK?
UK-domiciled class members do not need to register. The claim is opt-out, so eligible users who made relevant Play Store purchases from 1 October 2015 are included automatically unless they opted out. Non-UK residents had to opt in. Any payment would follow a judgment or settlement and a Tribunal-approved distribution process.
How much is the Google Play Store settlement payout for consumers?
There is no consumer payout. The only settlement so far is the £260m developer settlement in the Rodger claim, of which £160m is for eligible UK app developers. The consumer claim, estimated at £1.2bn by the Financial Times, is at trial and no per-person amount has been set.
Is the Google Play Store lawsuit real?
Yes. It is a certified collective action listed on the Competition Appeal Tribunal's website as Elizabeth Helen Coll v Alphabet Inc. and Others. The Tribunal granted a collective proceedings order on 9 September 2022, with reasons published as [2022] CAT 39. Class members should rely on the Tribunal and the official claim website for information.
Who is funding the claim against Google?
The certification judgment records funding from Vannin Capital PCC on behalf of a protected cell, Project Pontac, backed by lenders managed within the Fortress group, plus after-the-event insurance against adverse costs. Hausfeld says class members pay no fees and face no financial risk from participating.
How is this case different from Kent v Apple?
Kent v Apple concerned Apple's App Store and about 36 million users; the Tribunal found against Apple in October 2025, setting competitive benchmarks of 17.5% and 10% and a 50% pass-on rate. Coll concerns Google's Play Store and Android, where Google argues the platform is more open. The Tribunal will decide Coll on its own evidence.
Did Google settle the developer claim?
Yes. Google agreed to pay £260m to settle Professor Barry Rodger's claim for UK app developers, without admitting liability. The Tribunal approved the settlement after a hearing on 15 and 16 September 2026, by order dated 18 September. It covers developers' relevant sales from 22 August 2018 to 31 July 2026.
Does the CMA's regulation of Google affect the trial?
Not directly. The CMA designated Google with strategic market status in its mobile platform in October 2025 and is consulting on conduct requirements such as steering. Those measures shape future conduct. The Tribunal trial decides whether Google infringed competition law in the past and what damages are owed.
Sources
- Competition Appeal Tribunal: 1408/7/7/21 Elizabeth Helen Coll v Alphabet Inc. and Others (case record)
- Competition Appeal Tribunal: Notice of application to commence collective proceedings, Case 1408/7/7/21 (2021)
- Competition Appeal Tribunal: Coll v Alphabet, Judgment (Certification) [2022] CAT 39 (31 August 2022)
- Competition Appeal Tribunal: Order following pre-trial review, Coll and Rodger proceedings (31 July 2026)
- Competition Appeal Tribunal: Consent order on pleading amendments, Coll v Alphabet (2 October 2026)
- Competition Appeal Tribunal: Rodger v Alphabet, Judgment (CPO Variation Application) [2026] CAT 49
- Competition Appeal Tribunal: 1673/7/7/24 Professor Barry Rodger v Alphabet Inc. and Others (case record)
- Competition Appeal Tribunal: Collective settlement approval order, Rodger v Alphabet (18 September 2026)
- Competition Appeal Tribunal: Kent v Apple, Judgment summary [2025] CAT 67 (23 October 2025)
- Competition Appeal Tribunal: 1403/7/7/21 Dr Rachael Kent v Apple Inc. and Apple Distribution International Ltd (case record)
- Hausfeld: Key takeaways from the historic Dr Kent v Apple judgment
- 9to5Mac: Apple files appeal in £1.5 billion case over App Store fees in the UK (29 December 2025)
- Hausfeld & Co LLP via Business Wire: Claim period for Google Play collective action extended ahead of October trial (24 April 2026)
- Brit Brief: Google faces £1bn Play Store "hidden charges" trial in UK (4 October 2026)
- Reuters via Yahoo Finance: Google faces $1 billion UK trial over app store pricing (19 July 2022)
- The Verge: Jury decides Google has illegal monopoly in app store fight (December 2023)
- CNBC: Google ordered to open Android app store in Epic Games case (7 October 2024)
- The Verge: Epic wins its Google lawsuit again at the Ninth Circuit (31 July 2025)
- The Verge: Epic and Google agree to settle their lawsuit (5 November 2025)
- The Verge: The 30 percent Android app store fee is dead (4 March 2026)
- The Verge: Google is finally opening the Play Store to outside payments (24 June 2026)
- CMA: CMA confirms Apple and Google have strategic market status in mobile platforms (22 October 2025)
- CMA: Google's mobile platform (case page)
- CMA: Proposed steering conduct requirement for Google's mobile platform (consultation, 30 June to 28 July 2026)
About this article
This analysis was researched and written by The Corporate INTL Newsroom, which covers cross-border legal, regulatory and business developments for lawyers, professional advisers and financiers in over 150 jurisdictions. It has been checked against the Competition Appeal Tribunal's case records, orders and judgments, the CMA's published decisions and consultations, statements by the parties and primary reporting. The parties' trial pleadings, skeleton arguments and expert reports had not been published at the time of writing, and figures for the value of the claim are estimates attributed to their sources, not findings. This article is general information, not legal advice; for advice on a specific matter, consult a qualified adviser. Last reviewed 4 October 2026. For more analysis like this, visit the Corporate INTL newsroom or subscribe to Corporate INTL.
