Antitrust IntelligenceAntitrust IntelligenceAntitrust Intelligence
Prices
Notification
Font ResizerAa
  • What We Offer?
    • Training
    • Intelligence
  • For Lawyers
  • For Investors
  • News
  • Antitrust Club
Reading: Epic Games Seeks $205 Million in Legal Fees From Google After Antitrust Trial Win
Font ResizerAa
Antitrust IntelligenceAntitrust Intelligence
Search
  • What We Offer?
    • Training
    • Intelligence
  • For Lawyers
  • For Investors
  • News
  • Antitrust Club
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
News

Epic Games Seeks $205 Million in Legal Fees From Google After Antitrust Trial Win

Editorial
Last updated: August 26, 2025 7:37 am
Editorial
Published August 26, 2025
Share
Photo by appshunter.io on Unsplash

Fortnite developer Epic Games has asked a U.S. judge to order Alphabet’s Google to pay more than $205 million in legal fees following its landmark antitrust victory over the tech giant.

In a filing on Friday, Epic’s attorneys at Cravath, Swaine & Moore argued the request was justified given the scope and complexity of the case, as well as the outcome achieved. U.S. District Judge James Donato had previously ruled that Epic was entitled to recover fees under federal antitrust law, Reuters reported.

Epic sued Google in 2020, accusing it of monopolizing how consumers access apps and process payments on Android devices. In December 2023, a San Francisco jury sided with Epic, finding that Google unlawfully stifled competition in the mobile app marketplace.

Judge Donato followed with an injunction in October 2024 requiring Google to allow rival app stores to operate within Google Play and to make its app catalog available to competitors. The injunction was upheld by a federal appeals court in July 2025, though Google is continuing its legal fight and has said it is prepared to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Epic’s filing said its base fee request of $170 million should be adjusted upward to $205 million to account for inflation. The company did not disclose billing rates but said its law firms had discounted their standard fees. According to court documents, Cravath litigation co-head Gary Bornstein logged more than 3,800 hours on the case.

Google has denied wrongdoing and did not immediately comment on the fee request. Epic also declined to comment.

The case is one of the biggest legal fights yet over the power of app stores, echoing Epic’s separate clash with Apple.

You Might Also Like

EU Court Upholds Bond Cartel Fines for UBS, Trims Penalties for Nomura and UniCredit

EU Has Tough DMA Choices to Make, Now Including AI

Dentsu Claims Leniency in India Media Cartel

Shift4 Payments Seeks Antitrust Nod in Portugal for Global Blue’s $2.5Bn Deal

Lufthansa Cleared to Acquire Minority Stake in airBaltic

TAGGED:antitrustepic gamesFortnitegooglelegal feesUSA

Weekly Newsletter

Insights you can turn into money or clients
Antitrust Intelligence

About Us

We identify and quantify regulatory risks so you can take better decisions
Menu
  • Lawyers
  • Investors
  • News
  • My Bookmarks
  • About Us
  • Contact
Legals
  • Cookie Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy

Subscribe Us

Subscribe to our newsletter to get weekly ideas to make money and get new clients!

© 2025 Antitrust Intelligence. All Rights Reserved. - Web design Málaga by Seb creativos
Antitrust Intelligence
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}
Antitrust & Financial Markets? Download Your Free Guide NOW
Five tips to find unique regulatory intelligence
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?