App Store Governance - Google Play (Paul)

The governance of Google Play involves a system of institutions that determine the conditions under which applications can be published, accessed, and distributed. The institutions involved can be classified differently depending on the conceptualization of institutions adopted. This case study follows Douglass North's conception of institutions as the “rules of the game”, focusing on the rules and constraints governing interactions rather than on the organizations or actors exercising authority.

Regulatory Governance

As a the largest app store by download volume and userbase, Google Play is subject to (supranational) regulatory governance, a mode of formal institution. Among these, the DMA stands out as a particularly significant instrument, as it designates Google Play as a core platform service and imposes legally binding obligations on Google as a designated gatekeeper. The DMA derives its formal authority from the EU's supranational legal and political institutions, but operates as one layer within a broader, decentralised governance system in which public regulation interacts with Google's private platform governance. The DMA is primarily furthers the European public interest and is specifically concerned with contestability and fairness in digital markets, though it benefits smaller entrants into the digital market space by preventing self-preferencing. Google’s technical expertise and control over the platform may prove to be an insurmountable information and enforcement disadvantage over the European Commission. The lacking enforcement capacity and resulting dependence on the regulated platform make this a major shortcoming of the DMA and instruments like it.

Internal Governance

The play store is governed internally by way of formal policies such as the Developer Program Policy. As a private institution, it supports Google’s interests in maintaining platform security, quality, trust, and commercial value. However, its governance may suffer from an accountability and legitimacy deficit, as Google has substantial discretion over rule-making and enforcement while developers and users have limited influence over how these rules are created or changed.

Social Governance

Beyond the hurdles set by national law and the guidelines of the Google Play Store itself, published apps may still be subject to public scrutiny and therefore social norms. Individual perception of the app is informed, inter alia, by the reviews it receives. There is of course no binding regime that affords reviews their authority, but their averages may nonetheless be considered authoritative through peer expectations and public trust. Google promotes the trustworthiness, and therefore the authority, of individual reviewers through association with their actual account name. In a functioning review system, the consumer protects his own interest. The same mechanism, that is reputational harm, also ensures the authority of developer norms. These are fostered and developed through best practice exchange, validated by peer expectations, and enforced by social economic behavior. Both developer and social (review) norms suffer the same weakness in the form of malicious actors. This issue is exacerbated by the low cost of circumventing their continued identifiability: the fee for registering as a developer on the Play Store is only $25, while personal accounts remain free.