The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Monday to pause a sweeping injunction requiring Google to change its app store policies in a case being brought by Epic Games Inc., after the tech giant argued that the changes threaten the security and privacy of Android users.

The Google Play Store had been ordered to change its policies after a California federal jury found the rules violate antitrust law. Google had attempted to pause that order, but was turned down at the high court. (Photo by Stanislav Kogiku / SOPA Images/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images) The justices denied an application from Google LLC seeking a partial stay of the injunction in an order list without explanation. Google was looking to pause several aspects of an injunction issued in California federal court after a jury found its Play Store policies violated antitrust law, while it petitions for review of the order and Epic's underlying win at trial.

The Ninth Circuit dissolved a temporary stay last month despite contentions from Google that the order threatens to create security and privacy concerns for millions of users, an argument Google repeated in its application to the high court.

A representative for Google said in a statement on Monday that the company is disappointed the order was not stayed but will continue the appeal.

"Android provides more choice for users and developers than any mobile OS, and the changes ordered by the U.S. district court will jeopardize users' ability to safely download apps," the statement said.

Epic CEO Tim Sweeney acknowledged the decision in a Monday post on X.

"Starting October 22, developers will be legally entitled to steer US Google Play users to out-of-app payments without fees, scare screens, and friction — same as Apple App Store users in the US," the post said.

Epic filed its response to Google's application to the high court on Friday, arguing that the degree of security risk is a "distinctly factual issue" that was already addressed by the district court based on the trial record and through the remedies proceedings.

"The only thing a stay would achieve is further extending the year-long delay in implementing the district court's much-needed injunction — itself entered nearly ten months after the jury verdict — allowing Google to continue to shield its app store from competition and to reap monopoly profits at the expense of Android developers and users," Epic said in its response.

Google's application targeted provisions in the order set to go into effect later this month that would require the company to allow developers to provide links to outside websites in their apps. The requested stay would also cover parts of the order set to go into effect in July 2026 requiring Google to allow downloads of rival app stores in the Play Store and to give alternative stores access to the Play Store catalog of apps.

Epic said in Friday's response to the application that there's no reason to stay the parts of the order set to go into effect next summer, long after the court will have ruled on Google's expected petition for review. The only possible justification, the response said, is that Google is trying to avoid the costs associated with planning to comply with these measures.

"The need for one of the most valuable companies in the world to spend relatively modest amounts of money to prepare to comply with an injunction that has already been forestalled for more than a year is hardly an emergency warranting this court's intervention — especially when considering the vast monopoly rents Google already has illegally collected from developers and consumers, and will continue to collect if allowed to further delay its compliance," the response said.

Google's application said security experts, former national security officials and industry experts all agree that allowing developers to include links in their apps makes it more likely that malicious actors, including "foreign adversaries, scammers and blackmailers," will be able to deceive Android users into sharing sensitive information. The Supreme Court has also received several amicus briefs backing Google's bid for a stay.

But Epic responded these security concerns were already addressed by the lower court through declarations, depositions, and live testimony at two evidentiary hearings.

Epic also attacked the argument Google expects to make in its forthcoming petition for review that the jury should have been asked to decide if there was a less restrictive way to achieve the goals of the Android app policies. Google contends its policies are meant to ensure security and to allow Android to effectively compete with Apple, which it says offers an even more restrictive, "walled garden" approach to the mobile ecosystem in its App Store.

But Epic said Google is asking for an approach that would mean "any showing of procompetitive benefit, however meager, negates liability even for wildly anticompetitive conduct" unless a less restrictive alternative is shown.

"There is no reasonable likelihood that this court will grant certiorari and accept that extreme position," the response said. "The instructions allowing the jury to balance the magnitude of procompetitive and anticompetitive effects were consistent with the decisions of this court and the law of other circuits."

Google said its petition will also argue that the Ninth Circuit's "duty-to-deal" holdings, regarding other app stores, created a split with other circuits, most notably the D.C. Circuit's decision in the monopolization case against Microsoft Corp. in the early 2000s. The Microsoft court, the application said, declined to impose remedies that would have allowed rivals to effectively "clone" the Windows operating system.

Epic contended that the justices do not need to consider these arguments because they only apply to the remedy provisions scheduled to take effect next year. But it said the high court has also recognized that injunctions in antitrust cases can go beyond simply prohibiting past unlawful conduct to require a defendant to deal with competitors.

"Once an antitrust violation has been adjudicated, the district courts have broad discretion to craft a remedy that will address the violation's ongoing competition-suppressing effects," Epic said.

Epic also pushed back on Google's contention that the Ninth Circuit was wrong to find that Epic did not need to establish standing to obtain an injunction that applies to all Android developers nationwide. The challenge portions of the remedies, Epic said, are intended to address the injuries it suffered both as a customer of Google and as a competitor, since it plans to offer the Epic Games Store in the Play Store once those provisions go into effect.

The stay bid is the latest chapter in years of litigation initiated by Epic, maker of the popular Fortnite video game, over restrictions on Apple and Android devices that allegedly block competition from rival app stores and require use of the tech giants' own in-app payment systems.

Epic sparked the disputes in 2020 by including links in Fortnite that allowed users to make purchases outside of the app, prompting Google and Apple to remove the game from their stores.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict in the case against Google on July 31, backing findings that Google monopolized the Android app-distribution market, along with a three-year injunction from U.S. District Judge James Donato requiring Google to open the Android platform to more competition from rival app stores.

Apple, meanwhile, largely beat the case against it, although U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found after a bench trial that rules preventing developers from steering users to outside payment methods violated California state law. The Supreme Court declined petitions from both Apple and Epic contesting aspects of that case after the Ninth Circuit largely affirmed the decision.

Apple is appealing to the Ninth Circuit again after Judge Gonzalez Rogers found the tech giant violated an order blocking the anti-steering rules by imposing new fees and restrictions on developers.

Epic Games is represented by Gary A. Bornstein, Antony L. Ryan, Yonatan Even, Lauren A. Moskowitz, Justin C. Clarke, Michael J. Zaken and M. Brent Byars of Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Paul J. Riehle of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP and Kevin Russell and Daniel Woofter of Russell & Woofter LLC.

Google is represented by Glenn D. Pomerantz, Kuruvilla J. Olasa, Justin P. Raphael, Jonathan I. Kravis and Dane P. Shikman of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Brian C. Rocca, Sujal J. Shah, Michelle Park Chiu and Leigha M. Beckman of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Reedy C. Swanson, Jessica L. Ellsworth, Natalie Salmanowitz, Johannah Cassel-Walker and Katherine B. Wellington of Hogan Lovells and Neal K. Katyal of Milbank LLP.

The stay application is Epic Games Inc. v. Google LLC et al., case number 25A354, in the Supreme Court of the United States.