In 3.2 of the Android SDK (and Android Studio) EULA, it says that I am not supposed to develop for non-CTS compliant versions of Android. Does that mean Google can sue people who use Android Studio to develop apps for rooted phones, or apps (like the free open-source MicroG) intended to replace Google's proprietary Android Play Services?

Here are the exact wordings of the relevant parts of the agreement

1.3 A "compatible implementation" means any Android device that (i) complies with the Android Compatibility Definition document, which can be found at the Android compatibility website ( and which may be updated from time to time; and (ii) successfully passes the Android Compatibility Test Suite (CTS).

3.2 You may not use this SDK to develop applications for other platforms (including non-compatible implementations of Android) or to develop another SDK. You are of course free to develop applications for other platforms, including non-compatible implementations of Android, provided that this SDK is not used for that purpose.

I observed that [C-0-4] prohibits compatible devices from offering "alternate runtimes" granting root abilities. So if su is considered an alternate runtime, any phone with su (aka rooted phones) fail CTS.

Based off of question Confusing EULA statement in Adnroid SDK .

Your Answer


By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.