Small business developers have long warned that certain competition proposals can unintentionally weaken privacy and security protections for users. This Congress, the issue is back: the App Store Freedom Act (ASFA) and the Open App Markets Act (OAMA). Both bills are pending in Congress, where proponents insist they will improve competition. However, both bills risk doing the opposite by undermining the safeguards that allow small developers to compete. With ASFA potentially moving forward on the House side, we’re highlighting how these bills would make it harder for small tech innovators to protect their users’ privacy and data, and to build trust in the digital marketplace.
Behind the Bills
For five years, we’ve analyzed similar app store and platform bills to help small developers understand how these proposals would affect their ability to compete safely. ASFA and OAMA follow the same legislative thread, making it important to outline what’s inside and why it matters. ASFA and OAMA aim to promote competition by changing how app stores operate. But beneath the surface, these proposals would unravel the trusted systems that make it possible for small developers to securely reach users worldwide.
ASFA would require platforms to allow app “sideloading” and third-party payment systems. OAMA would restrict app stores’ ability to enforce security and privacy standards for the apps they host. Separately, each would weaken the privacy and security tools developers rely on to keep users safe. But together, they’d dismantle the shared protections, like encryption, app vetting, and privacy controls that safeguard user data and make it harder for small developers to gain consumer trust.
What’s at Stake
For small developers, ASFA and OAMA would fundamentally change distribution, operations, and overall workload. The bills force mandatory sideloading, third-party payment systems, and inconsistent security expectations, meaning more software to build and maintain, more testing, more compliance reviews, and more points of potential failure. Larger companies can easily absorb these additional costs. Small teams can’t. When every new requirement creates a new responsibility, the burden never falls evenly.
The same imbalance applies to consumer trust. Big companies don’t depend on the built-in credibility of app stores in the same way small developers do. Their brand recognition carries trust on its own. But lesser-known companies rely on the clear signals that vetted marketplaces provide, like standardized security, predictable updates, and privacy safeguards users understand. Fragmenting that environment doesn’t meaningfully harm the biggest players, but it makes it harder for small developers to even get in the door.
This creates a digital market where the biggest companies can accelerate without resistance, using their scale to dominate distribution and visibility. Meanwhile, startups lose the stable infrastructure they rely on, a predictable environment that lets new products gain momentum and reach audiences that would otherwise never find them. As guardrails disappear, the risks and costs of entering the market rise, shrinking the space where small developers can realistically grow. ASFA and OAMA would leave our members further behind than ever.
What’s Next
ASFA and OAMA aren’t hypothetical policy proposals; they’re active bills moving through a Congress juggling multiple priorities, compressed timelines, and end-of-year negotiations. For example, ASFA’s sponsors are lobbying intensively to include the bill in an upcoming legislative hearing on kids’ safety, which would be the first official step toward advancing the bill. What happens next will determine whether these bills advance independently, get folded into larger packages, or are shelved in favor of more balanced approaches.
Small developers deserve clarity, predictability, and a policy landscape that strengthens the environment they build in. As Congress weighs its options, one thing must remain clear: meaningful competition policy must reinforce the privacy, security, and trust that small developers and consumers rely on. Policies that shift risk downward or destabilize the ecosystem don’t make the market fairer; they make it harder for small companies to survive.
ACTivated by this issue? Reach out to Brad Simonich here to get involved!