The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has issued a further set of disclosure directions in the long-running litigation concerning Google’s app distribution practices, ordering both Google and the Rodger Class Representative to provide additional material following a dedicated case management conference (CMC) on 25 September 2025.
The ruling, made on 1 December 2025, affects all three related proceedings: the Rodger class action, the Coll class action, and the Epic Games standalone claim.
The order follows the CAT’s earlier decision of 24 March 2025 to consolidate the factual trial in the three actions, which will now be heard together in October 2026.
Tribunal directs further disclosure from Google
The Tribunal has compelled Google to provide a substantial tranche of additional documentation and data in response to outstanding requests pursued by the Rodger Class Representative.
Key disclosures include:
OEM payments and agreements
- Google must produce data on activation and other payments made to major Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), including Samsung, under Placement Agreements.
CMA Mobile Browsers and Cloud Gaming investigation materials
- Google must disclose unredacted versions of specific paragraphs of the Competition and Markets Authority’s Mobile Browsers and Cloud Gaming Final Report, as well as all written submissions and underlying documents.
Revenues from Google’s licensing agreements
- The company must disclose data on revenues generated from OEM European Mobile Application Distribution Agreement (EMADA) licensing fees, again disaggregated by OEM and country.
Indian developer suspensions
- Google must also produce any documents illustrating reasons for the suspension of ten Indian app developers in March 2024
Alphabet’s unallocated costs
The Tribunal ordered partial compliance with a wide-ranging request on cost allocation, requiring Google to:
- Provide a list of categories of Alphabet Inc.’s unallocated costs.
- On a best endeavours basis, explain which unallocated joint and common costs relate to the Play Store, why they should be deducted in profitability analysis, and how they should be calculated.
- Identify where such information sits within existing disclosure.
The Tribunal otherwise refused the remaining aspects of Requests R14 and R21.
Obligations placed on the Rodger Class Representative
The Rodger Class Representative must disclose any developer data obtained through the Class Mailout, together with all documents received from developers that are responsive to Requests G1 and G2—including materials relating to pricing, distribution decisions, marginal costs, procurement policies and any mitigation strategies. In addition, in respect of Request G3, any documents relied upon by trial witnesses, or shown to them during the preparation of their evidence, must be produced at the same time as the Rodger Class Representative’s factual witness statements.
Disclosure disputes resolved as litigation enters trial-preparation phase
The order reflects a major step toward resolving remaining disclosure disputes across the three interconnected cases, which collectively challenge Google’s conduct in the UK Android app distribution market.
With disclosure now significantly advanced and trial preparations underway, the claims continue to progress toward the combined October 2026 trial, which is expected to address allegations of anticompetitive self-preferencing, excessive fees, and restrictions affecting app developers and consumers.
Elizabeth Coll (Coll Class Representative) is represented by Hausfeld. Professor Barry Rodger (Rodger Class Representative) is represented by Geradin Partners. And Google (Alphabet Inc and related defendant entities) are represented by RPC.
The cases are: 1378/5/7/20 Epic Games, Inc. and Others v Alphabet Inc., Google LLC and Others
1408/7/7/21 Elizabeth Helen Coll v Alphabet Inc. and Others and 1673/7/7/24 Professor Barry Rodger v (1) Alphabet Inc et al. in the CAT.
