With the government’s historic 44-day shutdown officially over and in the rearview mirror, Congress is getting back to regular order. Hearings are resuming and among the proposals likely to be discussed is Rep. Kat Cammack’s App Store Freedom Act, a bill pitched as a way to “open up” the mobile app ecosystem by forcing mandatory sideloading and third-party app store access on smartphones like the iPhone and Android devices.
While the bill appears pro-consumer on the surface, promising more choice, flexibility, and freedom to consumers, the details tell a different story. When it comes to cybersecurity, privacy, and basic practicality, this bill introduces far more risk than benefit.
A Bigger Attack Surface is Not Consumer Protection
The current app distribution model, especially for iOS, is intentionally designed to reduce risk. Apple’s “walled garden” has often been the target of attack by proponents of this legislation. The App Store Freedom Act would require companies to open their devices to installation processes they cannot fully secure. If apps can come from anywhere, malicious actors can hide malware in repackaged apps, clone legitimate products, or distribute altered versions through less reputable stores. That is not hypothetical; it was the exact tactic deployed in high-profile malware campaigns found on Android.
Creating more doors into an operating system invariably means creating more ways for bad actors to break in.
For consumers, they are aware of this trade-off, and many have chosen the iPhone for this exact reason: the strict security and installation processes that give some peace of mind. Users who want more control and access can easily switch to a new device.
Privacy Protections Break Down in a Fragmented App Ecosystem
A central privacy benefit of Apple’s current model is unified enforcement. Privacy labels, permission disclosures, and data-use policies all run through a standardized process. These were some of the very hallmarks that led to Apple’s popularity among phone users.
Forced sideloading destroys that model:
- Third-party app stores will not follow the same data protection process that Apple uses necessarily.
- Alternative stores can easily host trackers, spyware, or apps that harvest contacts and location data, and the risks fall on the user
The Practicality Problem: Fragmentation is Not “Freedom”
Proponents often argue that sideloading is easy and common on desktops, so why not bring that mentality to the smartphone ecosystem?
This mentality ignores how consumers actually use their devices.
Yes, in theory, you can install software from many different sources on a computer. In practice? Most consumers rely on a handful of trusted repositories. In my personal experience, I use the Steam store for the supermajority of my gaming needs and the Microsoft Store for certain utility apps. I have the EPIC Games Store for some limited items. However, it can get messy going from store to store to store to access certain items. Now imagine that getting ported over to a smartphone:
- A fragmented app experience: You want to download an app. Is it on Store A? Store B? Or maybe Store C? You’d have to check multiple places just to find what you need.
- The more stores you download from, the more consumers are checking that many more spots for potential updates. One store might notify you, others might not. Some apps would almost always be out of date, introducing security vulnerabilities.
That isn’t convenience and choice for consumers. It’s chaos.
Mobile devices are designed with simplicity in mind. The App Store Freedom Act replaces that simplicity with a patchwork of competing update schedules, conflicting UX standards, and more consumer headaches.
The Bill Doesn’t Improve Kids’ Safety
Some proponents have floated the idea that forcing Apple and Google to open their platforms would lead to an improvement in children’s online safety. The argument is that by opening up the mobile ecosystem, parents could have additional tools or “safer” environments for kids. The logic is flawed, to say the least.
Children are uniquely vulnerable to malicious apps, predatory design, and invasive data collection. The current mobile ecosystem, while imperfect, does provide built-in protections ranging from age controls, app rating systems, parental permission, and more. The App Store Freedom Act would create an environment where parents are now tasked with evaluating the trustworthiness of multiple app stores. It would also create an environment where it is easier for kids to sideload apps and bypass parental controls, filtering, or screen-time limits. The features on Apple’s OS work in part because the ecosystem is a closed network, and the process to be included on the App Store is standardized.
A Government-Mandated Wealth Transfer Disguised as “Competition”
An aspect of the App Store Freedom Act that is most alarming is that it effectively forces a government-orchestrated wealth transfer. Supporters frame the bill as a blow against “Big Tech,” but in practice, it shifts billions of dollars to other massive corporations. Companies like EPIC Games, Spotify, Match Group, and others have spent years lobbying for legislation like this.
Their goal isn’t altruistic consumer empowerment. It’s to offload distribution and security costs onto Apple and Google while forcing billions of dollars their way.
Apple and Google invest heavily in maintaining secure app stores. From malware detection, review teams, fraud prevention, privacy standards, developer tools, and global distribution infrastructure to billions of consumers around the globe. This law forces them to allow competing stores onto their platforms. Those competitors get to avoid many of those initial costs absorbed by Google and Apple, but enjoy access to the billions of consumers that those companies built up by having a safe and reliable product in their app stores.
One of the primary vectors of attack from proponents of this legislation surrounds the fees assessed to developers by the platforms. This legislation doesn’t wave a magic wand and make apps cheaper. Proponents market this bill as something for the little guy. However, the primary beneficiaries are among some of the largest firms that stand to gain the most by rewriting the mobile ecosystem rules in their favor. The bill doesn’t free up markets; it just creates government-mandated ones that are not even necessary. It artificially advantages some multibillion-dollar firms at the expense of others. It is an odd argument for lawmakers who claim to support competition and innovation.
As hearings resume following the shutdown, lawmakers should be wary of proposals that sound pro-consumer but ultimately present them with more headaches while simultaneously compromising their privacy and exposing them to worse security on their devices.
The App Store Freedom Act may promise freedom, but the real-world consequences are more malware, less privacy, greater consumer confusion, fragmented updates and higher security risks across the entire mobile ecosystem.
True digital freedom isn’t forcing every platform to look the same. It’s allowing consumers to choose the ecosystems that work best for them. Simple, secure, and consistent should be an option if they want it. Congress shouldn’t mandate chaos under the banner of choice.
James Czerniawski is the Head of Emerging Technology Policy at the Consumer Choice Center.
