Why the App Store Freedom Act Undercuts Innovation

Originally published on National Review.

In an era frequently defined by legislative overreach, the App Store Freedom Act (HR 3209) stands out as a prime example of the misguided, neo-Brandeisian antitrust thinking that has gained traction across the political spectrum with fans of big government on both left and right. Introduced by Representative Kat Cammack (R., Fla.), the bill shows how even Republicans are drifting toward a more interventionist mindset — and many Democrats are happy to join them in expanding federal control over the tech economy.

While the legislation claims to “promote competition,” it would instead represent a significant government intrusion into private enterprise — undermining the very principles of free markets and innovation that conservatives have long defended.

At its core, the bill seeks to dictate how private companies operate their platforms. A “covered company” — defined as one controlling an operating system and app store with more than 100 million users — would be required to allow third-party app stores as defaults, permit users to install apps outside the “official” store, and enable deletion of preinstalled apps. Developers must be given, “without cost . . . on terms equivalent,” the same interfaces and documentation used by the platform itself. It also bans “pricing parity” requirements, prevents companies from mandating their own in-app payment systems, and forbids platforms from using internal data to compete with developers.
This approach fundamentally misunderstands how innovation and competition actually work.

Companies such as Apple and Google have invested billions in building secure, efficient, and user-friendly ecosystems. These app stores are not mere conduits; they are integrated environments that balance safety, performance, and consumer trust. By forcing open their systems, Congress would effectively punish the very success that benefits users.

The claim that these firms are “monopolies” deserving heavy-handed regulation ignores the dynamic, constantly evolving nature of tech markets. Dominance in one product line today — whether in mobile operating systems, AI models, or hardware — rarely guarantees permanence. Disruption is the rule, not the exception. Meanwhile, these platforms have created global marketplaces enabling millions of developers to reach audiences they could never access otherwise.
The App Store Freedom Act reflects a troubling trend: government picking winners and losers instead of letting competition work.

The measure attempts to “fix” what isn’t broken — an area where the market already rewards innovation and consumer choice. When the government imposes rigid “equivalent terms” mandates, it discourages the next breakthrough. Why should a company invest in new infrastructure if Washington can simply force it to open its system to competitors?

The most problematic provision is its use of the Federal Trade Commission’s “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” (UDAP) authority. UDAP laws were designed to protect consumers from predatory or misleading behavior — not to referee business-to-business contracts between sophisticated developers and billion-dollar tech firms. Treating app developers as vulnerable consumers misapplies the intent of the law and risks turning ordinary commercial disagreements into new rounds of federal litigation. As the American Action Forum correctly warns, this expansion of UDAP would “open the door to endless regulatory interference.”

​​The bill’s restrictions on “non-public business information” also raise fundamental property-rights concerns. In a free economy, companies should be able to use their proprietary data to improve products — so long as they comply with existing privacy standards. Mandating how firms manage their assets assumes bureaucrats know better than innovators.

Ultimately, the App Store Freedom Act is a solution in search of a problem, driven not by consumer harm but by ideological suspicion of successful firms. It would replace competition with compliance, entrepreneurship with entitlement, and discovery with regulation.

A genuinely conservative approach would do the opposite — limit government power, protect voluntary exchange, and let market discipline reward those who innovate. If Washington truly wants more competition, it should get out of the way.