A coalition of 53 state and territorial attorneys general accused Google of using its control over the Google Play Store—the main default app marketplace on most Android phones—to stifle competition and inflate prices for consumers. The states alleged that Google made it difficult for rival app stores to gain traction, steered developers toward Google Play Billing, and imposed commissions that were often as high as 30% on many paid apps, subscriptions, and in‑app purchases—costs developers could pass along through higher prices or fewer discounts. Google denies wrongdoing, but agreed to a $700 million settlement covering qualifying Google Play Billing purchases made from August 16, 2016 through September 30, 2023, with $630 million earmarked for consumer restitution (often paid automatically, typically at least $2, with larger amounts based on spending) and $70 million going to the states for penalties and costs, subject to court approval. The lawsuit was filed under state and federal antitrust principles that target conduct used to maintain monopoly power or unlawfully restrain trade, and it matters because it challenges the “gatekeeper” role of dominant app stores in the digital economy. Beyond the cash fund, the settlement requires operational changes aimed at boosting competition: allowing developers to communicate about cheaper options and alternative billing, permitting alternative in‑app billing in the U.S., making it easier to install and use third‑party app stores, and limiting penalties that could discourage device makers or carriers from preinstalling competing stores—paired with compliance monitoring so states can check follow‑through. This case fits into a broader wave of scrutiny of platform fees and app-store rules across the tech industry, echoing disputes over Apple’s App Store policies and other actions targeting Google, including major government cases about search and ad-tech dominance. Regulators worldwide have increasingly focused on whether app stores function like essential infrastructure—where rules about ranking, warnings, payment systems, and commissions can shape competition—leading to settlements, court orders, and new digital competition regimes that pressure platforms to open up distribution and payments without compromising security or user privacy.