Apple and Google face new rules: let users pick app stores, drop forced payments

What it does

This bill requires large tech companies that control both an operating system and an app store (Apple, Google) to allow users to install competing app stores, set different default apps, and delete pre-installed apps. It prohibits these companies from forcing developers to use their payment systems, punishing developers who use competitors, or using confidential developer data to compete unfairly. The FTC and state attorneys general can enforce the rules with civil penalties up to $1 million per violation.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is a direct prohibition on anti-competitive gatekeeping practices by dominant platform operators. It is substantively a competition/antitrust measure framed as consumer protection against unfair or deceptive acts, which is accurate to its function.

What the text implies

• The 100-million-user threshold for 'covered company' status is narrow enough to apply primarily to Apple and Google, but leaves room for future platforms (e.g., Meta if it launches a mobile OS) to escape regulation until they reach scale.
• The 'nonpublic business information' prohibition may be difficult to enforce in practice because platform operators can argue data use is necessary for security, fraud prevention, or legitimate business purposes not explicitly carved out.
• State enforcement authority is preserved but subordinated to federal FTC action, potentially creating coordination delays if states move faster than the Commission.
• The intellectual property carve-out (section 5(3)–(5)) is broad enough that platforms could argue security or trademark concerns justify blocking third-party app stores, creating litigation risk.
• Effective date is tied to FTC guidance issuance (180 days post-enactment), meaning the bill does not self-execute and enforcement depends on regulatory action.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Users gain the ability to install competing app stores and set default apps, reducing lock-in and enabling price competition. Developers escape forced use of proprietary payment systems and punitive retaliation, lowering distribution costs that would otherwise be passed to consumers. The bill directly addresses documented anti-competitive practices that have inflated app prices and limited consumer choice.

Who stands to gain

• third-party app developers (reduced distribution costs and payment processing fees)
• alternative app store operators (new market entry opportunity)
• payment processors competing with Apple Pay and Google Pay
• consumers (lower app prices, increased choice)

Named in the bill

Apple Inc., Google LLC (Alphabet Inc.), Federal Trade Commission, State attorneys general, Third-party app developers, Alternative app store operators

Where it stands

6 cosponsors: 4 Democrats, 2 Republicans.

• May 6, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• May 6, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

21 lobbying clients named this bill on 31 disclosure filings across 3 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $74,741,909 in lobbying spend. A filing names 6 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 97% of bills with at least one filing.

Kat Cammack, the sponsor, reported $799,000 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A. — $54,660,000 on 3 filings
• Google Client Services LLC — $6,920,000 on 2 filings
• Meta Platforms, Inc. and Various Subsidiaries — $5,990,000 on 1 filing
• Apple Inc — $2,740,000 on 1 filing
• Software & Information Industry Association — $1,396,909 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.