As the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade prepares to examine the App Store Freedom Act (H.R. 3209) today, a wide range of policy experts, researchers, and free-market organizations are raising the same warning: a bill sold as pro-competition policy would actually just strip away the security architecture that protects hundreds of millions of American smartphone users every day. From cybersecurity researchers to economists to consumer advocates, the growing chorus of skepticism reflects a simple concern—forcing platforms to accept unvetted apps and app stores doesn’t create freedom; it creates exposure.
Several of the country’s leading tech policy scholars have zeroed in on what ASFA would do to app vetting:
1. Taxpayers Protection Alliance: “If passed, [ASFA] will mean weakened cybersecurity and a flood of unvetted apps, which won’t benefit American consumers.” TPA President David Williams has also called ASFA part of “a never-ending saga of lawmakers forcing their way into organically developed markets to remedy nonexistent wrongs.”
2. Parkview Institute: “With the rising technological skill of scammers well in mind, it’s more crucial than ever that those who know technology best work diligently to deter them.” John Tamny, Parkview Institute president continued, “If the app stores are opened up to any and all third parties by legislative fiat, the ease of scams will only grow as the most sophisticated technology companies in the world…are deterred from carefully vetting who can and can’t interact with their customers.”
3. Mark Jamison, American Enterprise Institute: “The deceptively named App Store Freedom Act, a bill that would turn one of the most successful innovations of the 21st century—mobile e-commerce—into another casualty of political micromanagement.” Mark Jamison, nonresident senior fellow at AEI, cautions that the bill would force fundamentally different platform models to converge under one government-imposed standard, ultimately “undermin[ing] security, weaken[ing] consumer choice, and threaten[ing] the very innovations that empower consumers across the globe.”
4. Consumer Choice Center: “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.” James Czerniawski, Head of Emerging Technology Policy at the Consumer Choice Center, notes that “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.”
5. Ginn Economic Consulting: “Ultimately, the App Store Freedom Act is a solution in search of a problem, driven not by consumer harm but by ideological suspicion of successful firms.” Vance Ginn, Ph.D., observes how “This approach fundamentally misunderstands how innovation and competition actually work…These app stores are not mere conduits; they are integrated environments that balance safety, performance, and consumer trust.”
6. American Action Forum: “The bill raises significant concerns about user security…by potentially allowing an influx of fraudulent behavior in app stores by restricting firms’ pro-consumer behaviors that are often deemed anticompetitive. As Congress debates this and similar legislation, it should carefully consider the full scope of potential impacts on both app stores and users.”
7. Reason Magazine: “[ASFA] would unintentionally deny consumers the ability to choose a private, secure, and reliable smartphone experience.” Jack Nicastro notes, “For years, federal lawmakers and regulators have used their power to penalize Big Tech companies for successfully serving American consumers. Rep. Kat Cammack (R–Fla.) is continuing this trend.”
The Common Thread
ASFA’s controversial measures apply to the security infrastructure that stands between everyday users and bad actors. Whether the concern is malware, fraud, or the erosion of platform accountability, experts agree that forcing open access without a comparable vetting standard for new entrants isn’t a neutral policy change. It’s a tradeoff, and one that falls hardest on the consumers ASFA claims to help.
As lawmakers weigh this legislation, the expert record points to one conclusion: Congress should build on the safeguards that already work, not dismantle them in the name of a “competition” mandate that carries serious security costs.
Image via Unsplash.