Open App Markets Act

Summary#

This bill, the Open App Markets Act, limits certain practices of very large app stores and the operating systems that run them. Its main change is to stop those companies from forcing developers to use the company’s payment system, from blocking alternative app stores, and from favoring their own apps in search or visibility. The stated policy goal is to boost competition, increase user choice, and reduce gatekeeper power in the app economy.

Key changes:

• No forced in-app payment systems. Covered companies cannot require developers to use the company’s payment system as a condition of distribution.
• No parity or punitive tying. Covered companies cannot force pricing parity or punish developers for using other payment methods or for linking to remote services.
• Must allow alternatives and sideloading. Users must be able to choose third‑party apps or stores as defaults, install apps outside the covered company’s store, and remove preinstalled apps or stores.
• No using nonpublic developer data to compete. Covered companies may not use confidential business information from third‑party apps to compete with them.
• No self‑preferencing in search. Covered companies must not unjustifiably rank their own apps above others in organic search results.
• Open developer access. Covered companies must give developers access to OS interfaces and documentation on the same terms the company gives itself or partners.
• Security/privacy carve-outs. Actions necessary for user security, fraud prevention, IP protection, or law compliance are allowed but must meet narrow tests and be certified by company leaders.
• Enforcement and remedies. The FTC, DOJ, and state attorneys general enforce the law. Developers can sue for triple damages and injunctive relief (with some exceptions). A required review by regulators and GAO comes three years after enactment.

What it means for you#

• Developers

  • You may be allowed to offer your own payment systems inside apps and to use alternative app stores without being blocked or penalized.
  • You should be able to access operating system interfaces and documentation on the same terms as company partners.
  • You may sue covered companies for violations and seek triple damages and injunctive relief (developers of apps owned or controlled by a foreign state are excluded).

• App users (consumers)

  • You could be able to install apps from stores other than the preinstalled one (sideload), set third‑party apps or stores as default, and remove preinstalled apps or stores.
  • You may see more choices for payment methods and potentially different pricing offers from developers.
  • The bill allows security or privacy restrictions where necessary, but it does not specify exact technical rules for how third‑party apps must be checked.

• Large platform companies (covered companies)

  • If an app store they control has over 50 million U.S. monthly users and they control the OS, they must change many business practices (payment rules, search ranking, developer access, preinstallation policies).
  • They may still take actions for security, fraud, IP, or legal compliance, but must meet a narrow “necessary and consistent” test and provide executive certification in court.

• State and federal enforcers

  • The FTC, DOJ Antitrust Division, and state attorneys general can bring enforcement actions under major antitrust and consumer protection statutes as if those laws were part of this act.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Possible fiscal and private costs suggested by the bill’s design:

• This could mean more enforcement work for the FTC, DOJ, and state attorneys general, which may require staff time and resources.
• The private right to triple damages could lead to more litigation by developers, which may increase court workloads and legal costs for companies and developers.
• Covered companies may incur compliance costs to change software, documentation, search algorithms, and business systems to meet the new rules.
• There may be technology and support costs for companies and possibly for users if alternative app stores and side‑loading increase support needs or security responses.

Proponents' View#

The bill appears intended to:

• Reduce the market power of large app stores that act as gatekeepers.
• Increase competition by allowing alternative app stores, payment systems, and developer access to OS features.
• Give users more choice and potentially lower prices or better-quality apps.
• Prevent covered companies from using confidential developer data to gain unfair advantages.
• Make app store search and rankings fairer by limiting self‑preferencing.

Opponents' View#

One concern is that the bill leaves several implementation details unclear, which may cause disputes and litigation over what is allowed or "narrowly tailored." Examples of potential issues:

• The security/privacy exception requires a high showing and a CEO certification. This may lead to legal fights over whether a restriction was truly necessary and consistently applied.
• Allowing installation outside the official store (sideloading) could raise security and fraud risks for users unless clear technical standards and verification practices are set. The bill does not define exact technical checks.
• The phrase "unreasonably preference" in search may be open to interpretation and court challenges.
• The private right to triple damages could encourage many lawsuits, increasing legal costs for companies and developers and burdening courts.
• The definition of a “covered company” depends on a 50 million monthly U.S. user threshold; it is unclear how companies will calculate or report that number for enforcement.
• There is no fiscal note or cost estimate in the materials, so the public cost of enforcement and compliance is not specified.