Why Congress Must End the App Store Duopoly

Google and Apple have final say over almost all of the apps Americans use on a daily basis. The Open App Markets Act would change that.

Every morning, billions of people wake up and reach for a device that has become essential to modern life. Whether iPhone or Android, smartphones connect us to work, family, entertainment, and the vast digital economy. Yet despite their revolutionary impact, these devices operate under a peculiarly restrictive model: The software we can install, the payment systems we must use, and the choices available to us are controlled by just two companies.

The Open App Markets Act, co-led by Senators Marsha Blackburn and Richard Blumenthal, offers a simple proposition: In a competitive market, consumers and developers should have choices. The Senate Judiciary Committee should move swiftly to approve this overdue reform.

Consider the absurdity of our current arrangement. Imagine if Dell or HP could dictate that you could only install software on your laptop through their proprietary store, taking a 15-30% cut of every transaction. Picture Microsoft demanding that Netflix use only Microsoft’s payment system for subscriptions, or face removal from Windows entirely. We would recognize this immediately as anticompetitive overreach. Yet this is precisely the reality for mobile devices, where Apple and Google have constructed elaborate justifications for maintaining iron control over their platforms.

The companies argue that their restrictive practices protect consumers, particularly children, from harmful content and security threats. This claim deserves scrutiny. Despite their supposed vigilance, both platforms have repeatedly distributed problematic apps. Meanwhile, they’ve demonstrated remarkable efficiency at one particular form of protection: protecting their revenue streams. When Epic Games attempted to offer direct payment options to customers, bypassing app store fees, it was summarily banned from both platforms within hours.

The Open App Markets Act would establish basic principles of competition without compromising security. The bill requires major app store operators to allow users to install apps from other sources, choose third-party app stores as defaults, and delete pre-installed applications. Developers would gain equal access to the interfaces and features that Apple and Google reserve for themselves. Crucially, the legislation includes provisions for reasonable security measures, acknowledging that openness need not mean chaos.

Critics will argue that this legislation threatens innovation or the user experience. History suggests otherwise. The personal computer revolution flourished precisely because platforms remained open. The Internet itself emerged from principles of interoperability and user choice. When Microsoft faced antitrust action for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, the resulting competition sparked a wave of browser innovation that continues today. Markets thrive when gatekeepers cannot extract monopoly rents or dictate terms to entire industries.

The economic implications extend far beyond Silicon Valley. Small businesses, educational institutions, and creative professionals all depend on mobile apps to reach customers and provide services. When app stores can unilaterally change terms, impose fees, or restrict functionality, these entities have no recourse. A restaurant using a booking app, a therapist providing telehealth services, a musician selling directly to fans—all must accept whatever terms the duopoly imposes or forfeit access to half their potential market.

The international context matters too. Jurisdictions in Asia, South America, and Europe have moved forward with reforms and antitrust enforcement targeting app store chokepoints. While their approaches differ, they all recognize that concentrated platform power threatens innovation. The United States, having pioneered the digital revolution, risks falling behind in establishing fair rules for the digital economy—and ceding leadership overseas. The House’s companion legislation, the App Store Freedom Act, demonstrates growing recognition in Congress that reform is necessary.

Perhaps most importantly, this legislation represents a choice about the kind of digital future we want. Do we accept a world where two companies determine what software billions can use, which business models are permitted, and how much tax every digital transaction must pay? Or do we insist that revolutionary technologies should expand rather than constrain human freedom?

The Open App Markets Act provides ample room for Apple or Google’s business models. These companies would remain free to operate their app stores, compete on quality and security, and profit from their innovations. They simply couldn’t leverage their control over mobile operating systems to exclude competition. This is a return to the basic competitive principles that have driven American innovation for generations.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has an opportunity to help restore competition to one of the economy’s most vital sectors. Every day of delay means billions in extracted rents, stifled innovations that never see daylight, and consumers denied choices they never knew existed. The committee should approve the Open App Markets Act without delay, sending a clear message: in America, even the biggest platforms must compete fairly. The age of the app store monopoly must end.

Evan Swarztrauber is a senior fellow at the Digital Progress Institute and Principal at CorePoint Strategies. Previously, he served as a policy advisor at the Federal Communications Commission.