Late last year, the landmark antitrust case between Google and Epic Games came to a startling conclusion when a jury found Google guilty of operating an illegal monopoly over Android apps through the Google Play Store. While appeals are expected to extend the drama, the verdict does allow the judge to prescribe remedies to Google’s alleged antitrust violations. What Epic Games has demanded, however, would radically change the app market beyond what is warranted and expose Android users to malware.

In its complaint, Epic Games contended that Google systemically worked to make  Google Play the dominant app store for Android. Epic claims Google does so in a way that undermines the openness that characterized Android before the acquisition. Epic also believes Google has used its alleged monopoly to force app developers to go through its payment system, making excess profits and using that money to secure contracts to maintain its position. Epic Games argues Google’s practices have impacted the distribution of its products such as the game Fortnite and 3D creation tool Unreal Engine, which has been used to build many popular games.

Epic Games’ 16-page proposed injunction includes sweeping demands to restructure the Android app store ecosystem, remove warnings against installing apps outside of stores, and allow third parties to access the entire Google Play catalog. Epic Games’ demands would force Google to host rival app stores as well as undermine the security of Android users by removing warnings about sideloading.

In response, Google claims that if implemented, those demands would harm developers and consumers.

On the issue of Google Play’s catalog made available to other Android-based app stores, Google argues it would be singled out as the only company unable to offer exclusive in-app content and be unable to negotiate for an exclusive deal with app developers By comparison, Google’s biggest competitor is the Apple app store; its platform is the only app store for the iPhone because of their walled garden approach. Essentially Google’s biggest competitor will be able to maintain a closed system while Google is put at a unique disadvantage. For Android app developers this means less robust competition for their products and potentially less favorable deals as a result.

According to Google, that would completely transform how app markets currently work and goes far beyond what would be reasonable, using the settlement with states over the same issue as an example. Those settlements allowed more billing options for app developers and streamlined the sideloading process without removing critical warnings. The result was that key areas of Android’s system were open, especially around payment, without sacrificing much in terms of security.

Another major area of concern is the issue of sideloading apps and the security risks involved. In the complaint, Epic Games argued that Google made sideloading apps difficult in order to push users to the Google Play Store. Epic requests the removal of existing warnings, known malware being a noticeable exception, about downloading apps from outside sources.

However, Epic Games mischaracterizes the increased difficulty of sideloading apps. Sideloading apps is known to increase the risk of downloading apps with flawed or outdated security that can leave the app open to hackers or is outright malware disguised as a regular app. For most users, the official app stores are the best route, and removing warnings against this will leave Android users less safe without improving competition.

As the case between Google and Epic Games draws to a close, how Android is ultimately impacted is still yet to be seen. However, honoring Epic Games requests would expose Android users to harm.