The ongoing debate over digital platform control in the United States reached a new intensity as Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) strongly defended her proposed App Store Freedom Act, a bipartisan bill that seeks to fundamentally restructure how Apple and Google operate their mobile ecosystems. As Congress accelerates its focus on online safety, particularly related to children, the proposed legislation has emerged as a flashpoint between lawmakers pushing for decentralization and tech giants arguing that such reforms could undermine security and harm users.
Cammack’s remarks, delivered to reporters during the latest round of legislative discussions, underscore the widening gap between policymakers and major technology companies. “The status quo doesn’t really like to be disrupted,” she said, directly addressing criticism from industry leaders—most notably Apple, which has warned that the bill would backfire and create dangerous loopholes in digital safety.
As lawmakers ramp up consideration of multiple bills targeting online harms, Cammack is positioning her legislation as a necessary corrective to what she describes as entrenched gatekeeping by dominant app-store operators. The fight over the App Store Freedom Act represents more than a regulatory scuffle—it is part of a broader battle for the future of digital governance in the United States.
Background: The Genesis of the App Store Freedom Act
Introduced in May by Rep. Cammack and Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), the App Store Freedom Act aims to confront long-standing concerns about platform monopolization. Over the past decade, Apple and Google have consolidated overwhelming control over the mobile app ecosystem, dictating how apps are discovered, installed, monetized, and moderated.
Developers, regulators, and digital rights advocates have increasingly accused the companies of exploiting their dominance to restrict competition, impose excessive fees, and maintain opaque rules that disadvantage smaller players. Meanwhile, an entirely separate but increasingly overlapping set of criticisms centers around how these tech giants manage apps accessed by children—a topic that has become politically charged as social media and mobile use continue to surge among minors.
Cammack and Trahan’s measure is designed to both promote competition and advance child safety by reducing the concentrated power of platform gatekeepers. The bill’s twin focus on market openness and youth safety is what distinguishes it from earlier antitrust proposals like the Open App Markets Act, which stalled in Congress.
In recent years, parents, advocacy groups, and lawmakers have accused Apple and Google of inconsistently enforcing rules, allowing predatory apps to operate, and failing to prevent harmful content from reaching minors. Lawmakers supporting the bill believe that a more competitive marketplace could catalyze better safety standards and innovative tools—while industry giants insist it would do the opposite.
What the App Store Freedom Act Proposes
At the core of the legislation is a mandate for true app-store choice. The bill would require device manufacturers and operating system providers—chiefly Apple and Google—to allow users to:
- Install third-party app marketplaces
- Set these alternative stores as their default option
- Hide or delete pre-installed app stores
- Install apps from outside the official store without penalty or friction
Beyond user freedoms, the bill directly addresses developers, prohibiting platform operators from:
- Requiring the use of proprietary in-app payment systems
- Penalizing developers who distribute their apps through competing stores
- Creating contractual barriers that restrict alternative distribution channels
If enacted, the App Store Freedom Act would represent one of the most significant regulatory interventions into mobile platforms in U.S. history—effectively dismantling the “walled garden” model that has defined Apple’s ecosystem since its inception in 2008.
Apple Pushes Back: Security, Privacy, and Child Safety Concerns
Shortly after the bill was introduced, Apple issued a strongly worded critique, arguing that the legislation would compromise some of its most fundamental commitments—namely user privacy and device security. A spokesperson said the company “is deeply committed to kids’ online safety” and supports “meaningful child safety legislation,” but warned that this particular bill could have unintended consequences.
According to Apple, allowing third-party app stores without stringent oversight could expose children to unvetted content, malicious software, and weakened privacy protections. The company emphasized that its tightly controlled ecosystem exists largely to protect users from the rampant malware, spyware, and fraudulent apps seen in more open systems.
“The App Store Freedom Act would have the opposite impact,” Apple’s spokesperson said, stating it would “undermine kids’ online safety while also stifling competition and eroding privacy and security protections for consumers.”
This argument—a familiar refrain from the company—centers on the belief that the iOS ecosystem’s security model is inseparable from its near-total control over how apps are installed. Apple insists that any weakening of this control would inevitably lead to more harmful digital experiences for children.
Cammack’s Counterargument: “Spare Me That”
Rep. Cammack forcefully rejected Apple’s security criticisms during her recent media briefing. She argued that Apple’s claims about maintaining strict vetting and protecting users are contradicted by the presence of controversial and foreign-controlled apps—most notably TikTok and Temu—on its own platform.
“I take issue with that significantly because Apple hosts TikTok on its platform and Temu and many other Chinese-controlled apps,” Cammack said. Her message was pointed: if Apple is truly concerned about child safety and data privacy, why does it allow apps that have faced repeated scrutiny over their data practices?
She added, “So truthfully, they can spare me on the argument that they are vetting these apps and protecting consumers.” By invoking these specific examples, Cammack sought to undermine the credibility of Apple’s position and frame the debate around real-world inconsistencies rather than theoretical security risks.
To supporters of the bill, Apple’s stance appears less about protecting children and more about preserving a lucrative business model. Apple’s App Store generates massive revenue through commissions on in-app purchases and subscriptions—revenue streams that could be threatened if developers were allowed to bypass the company’s payment systems.
The Larger Legislative Context: A Wave of Online Safety Bills
The introduction of the App Store Freedom Act comes at a critical moment in Washington, where bipartisan consensus around children’s online safety is strengthening. Lawmakers from both parties agree that the current digital ecosystem exposes minors to addictive design, harmful content, predatory algorithms, and exploitative data practices.
A suite of online safety bills is currently under consideration in the House, with reports indicating that the House Energy and Commerce Committee may unveil a comprehensive package as early as next week. A hearing is expected in early December, marking one of the most ambitious legislative pushes on digital regulation in recent years.
Cammack hopes her bill will be included in this broader package, positioning the App Store Freedom Act as a structural reform necessary to enable better safety across platforms. Her argument is that monopolistic control by Apple and Google limits the capacity for innovation in safety tools, reduces options for parents, and allows problematic apps to flourish within a closed ecosystem.
A Pivotal Moment for U.S. Digital Governance
The clash between lawmakers and major tech companies over the App Store Freedom Act is emblematic of a larger shift in the U.S. technology landscape. For decades, American policymakers adopted a largely hands-off approach, allowing Silicon Valley to regulate itself. But mounting concerns about privacy, algorithmic harms, and platform monopolization have triggered a reevaluation.
The debate surrounding this bill highlights critical questions:
- Should two private companies control the mobile software distribution channels used by hundreds of millions of Americans?
- Does competition inherently improve safety, or does centralization ensure stronger protections?
- How should the United States regulate foreign-owned apps used heavily by minors?
- Are existing vetting processes adequate, or are they compromised by business considerations?
As lawmakers continue to negotiate, the stakes extend far beyond app stores. The outcome has the potential to reshape the architecture of the mobile internet, redefine platform responsibility, and signal how aggressively the government plans to intervene in digital markets moving forward.