249 years ago, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, our founding fathers committed to writing the singular virtues of the new nation. Unlike Europe, the United States rejected the premise that a dictate from above could supplant the will of the people. This Independence Day is an opportunity to remember the freedoms that make us distinct—including the free market that continues to power American ingenuity and leadership around the world.

Last Tuesday, a bill with language eerily similar to European regulatory measures was reintroduced in Congress. The Open Apps Market Act (OAMA) was first introduced in 2021 but ultimately failed to progress. The OAMA is an antitrust law that targets successful American tech companies like Apple and Google. It labels certain groups with app stores as “gatekeepers” and imposes restrictions on their business model in the name of fairness. Europe’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) also uses the narrowly defined “gatekeepers” approach to target American online platforms in particular. Companies like Apple and Meta have been subject to punitive fines at the hands of European regulators. As they continue to face handicaps and threats, the product that European consumers receive is more limited.

Relying on a similar philosophy to the regulators behind the DMA, proponents of the OAMA claim that large app stores harm app developers. The solution offered by the OAMA is to force Apple and Google to allow “sideloading” wherein a user can download apps from other sources, and to allow for alternative payment methods on an app-by-app basis. This misguided approach interferes with the successful models of private businesses while ignoring the reality of the market. App quantity and quality is growing exponentially. Developers are experiencing massive profits while being compelled to improve in the settings of Apple’s and Google’s app stores. In no scenario are the nearly 1.9 million apps currently in competition with each other an indicator of a faltering or stifled marketplace where consumer choice bends to “big, bad tech.”

The app store model also allows for an added layer of consumer protection and establishes protocols for data security and privacy. In a critique of the original OAMA, Wayne Brough, senior fellow at R Street, explains the risks associated with sideloading and alternative payment methods. “Both of these provisions are problematic, posing real concerns over functionality, privacy and security: avoiding an app store’s in app payment exposes user information to third parties, while sideloading allows unvetted apps.” In short, practical reasons abound for why the OAMA is bad practice and could harm or reduce protections for both the company and the consumer.

The results of the European approach to regulation and innovation speak for themselves. Entrepreneurs and investors are increasingly uninterested in a market that contains only four of the world’s top fifty tech companies. With the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI), the ubiquity of social media and smartphones, and the sheer power of tech projects to bring jobs and stability to their respective regions, now is not the time to handicap American tech companies through excessive regulation.

249 years of American innovation in government, culture, and economy has resulted in a thriving free market and a tech industry that leads the world.

 

Links to Learn More

The Open App Markets Act Makes an Ignominious Return – Taxpayers Protection Alliance

When Regulation Clashes with Innovation – Pelican Policy

Open App Markets Act: A Misguided Approach That Could Stifle America