Google's 42.1 Billion Won Fine Verdict Set for February Next Year

Published 12 Nov.2025 15:30(KST)

The verdict in the lawsuit filed by Google against the Korea Fair Trade Commission's sanctions over "app market monopoly" is scheduled for early 2026. On November 6, the Seoul High Court's Administrative Division 3 (Presiding Judge Yoon Kangyeol) announced that it would deliver its ruling on February 12, 2026, after hearing oral arguments from both Google and the Fair Trade Commission.

Google: "Game Companies Make Voluntary Choices"

Google argued that "the exclusive conditional transactions claimed by the Fair Trade Commission and One Store are not substantiated." Google stated, "The Fair Trade Commission assumes that mobile game companies prefer to launch on multiple app markets, but that is not always the case," adding, "Some game companies choose a single app market, considering the nature of the game and maintenance costs, and this is especially true for top-tier companies releasing major titles."

Under the Fair Trade Act, exclusive conditional transactions are prohibited; this refers to making deals on the condition that the other party does not transact with competitors. "Featuring" means displaying a game in the most visible spot when consumers open Google Play. In April 2023, the Fair Trade Commission announced that Google had engaged in exclusive conditional transactions by using featuring and overseas expansion support to prevent mobile game companies from launching on One Store, and imposed a corrective order along with a fine of over 42.1 billion won.

Google claimed that there was no coercion involved in featuring or overseas expansion support. "Featuring is merely a basic promotional tool offered by all app markets, and similar effects can be achieved through the game company's own marketing efforts," Google said. "Overseas expansion support is also not something only Google provides." Google further asserted, "We have never disadvantaged a game company in featuring or overseas expansion support simply because they launched their game on One Store."

Fair Trade Commission: "No Game Company Can Refuse Google's Demands"

The Fair Trade Commission countered, "Google is an absolute market dominator, with over 90% market share in the Android-based app market worldwide," adding, "When such a company offers pinned featuring, such as the highlight row banner or 'New Recommended Games of the Week,' only to game companies that launch exclusively on Google Play, what game company would risk launching on One Store?" The commission continued, "One Store is an app market jointly created by the three major Korean telecom operators and Naver, offering a variety of consumer benefits," and "Although many consumers wanted games to launch on One Store, game companies could not choose simultaneous launches on Google Play and One Store due to fears of losing Google's marketing support."

One Store: "Google Blocks Growth of Domestic App Markets"

One Store also argued, "Not only Netmarble, NCSoft, and Nexon, but even Webzen, which achieved significant results on One Store, released 'MU Origin 2' exclusively on Google Play," adding, "Google seems to have enforced exclusive launches by linking them to overseas expansion support." One Store further pointed out, "During the lawsuit with Epic Games in the United States, Google’s 'Project Hug' documents were discovered." Project Hug is a policy where Google provides compensation to game companies in exchange for using Google Play. One Store stated, "Although game companies testified that exclusive launches on Google Play were not mandatory, considering Project Hug, their claims lack credibility."

One Store cited the Supreme Court's ruling in the Korean Re case (2020Du54074) in June 2025, arguing that Google is a similar case. In this ruling, the Supreme Court stated, "Even if the other party voluntarily agrees not to transact with a dominant market operator’s competitor, if this hinders the competitor's entry into the market, the anti-competitive effects must be examined. This is no different from cases where such conditions are unilaterally or coercively imposed by the dominant market operator." In other words, voluntary agreement does not exempt a transaction from being considered an exclusive conditional transaction.