The complaint, filed in San Jose as Case No. 5:26-cv-03165, brings 16 counts under the Sherman Act, California's Cartwright Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law. Aptoide is represented by Aaron Teitelbaum and Andrew Chang of Kressin Powers LLC.

Aptoide describes itself as "the world's leading independent Android app store," with "over 200 million direct yearly users" and a catalog of "approximately 436,000 unique apps." According to the complaint, Aptoide generated approximately $18.5 million in U.S. revenue in 2025 from a domestic base of nearly one million monthly active users.

Aptoide alleges that the Ninth Circuit's 2025 affirmance of the Epic v. Google jury verdict and Judge Mehta's findings in United States v. Google LLC establish the relevant markets and Google's monopoly power. According to the complaint, Google's Play Store "accounted for over 80% of all Android app downloads around the world (excluding China), and over 95% of all Android app downloads in the United States."

The filing targets Google's Developer Distribution Agreement, quoting Section 4.5, which Aptoide says states that developers "may not use Google Play to distribute or make available any Product that has a purpose that facilitates the distribution of software applications and games for use on Android devices outside of Google Play." Aptoide alleges it submitted both its store and its Aptoide Wallet for Play listing after the Epic injunction and that Google rejected the store as noncompliant and "shadow-blacklisted" the wallet.

The complaint describes Google's "Project Hug," later renamed the Games Velocity Program, under which Aptoide alleges Google paid Activision Blizzard approximately $360 million and Riot Games approximately $30 million to keep titles on Play. Aptoide alleges Google viewed developers leaving Play as a "contagion" and targeted those "most at risk . . . of attrition from Play."

Aptoide also alleges Google blocked its website in Chrome for a period in 2025, presenting users with a warning that Chrome had "found malware on the site you tried visiting." According to the complaint, "[t]here was no malware on Aptoide's website."

The plaintiff seeks treble damages, restitution, and injunctive relief dismantling the challenged restraints. Aptoide demands a jury trial.