Throughout the year, our policy team submits filings with government bodies worldwide to advocate for a regulatory environment that inspires and rewards innovation. From issues around regulating artificial intelligence to digital trade, our team is active on a wide range of topics that could have a positive or negative impact on our small business members driving the app economy. Below is a roundup of our filings from around the globe this past month.
Title: Brief of Amicus Curiae ACT in Support of a Joint Motion to Modify a Permanent Injunction in Epic v. Google
Entity: District Court for the Northern District of California
Jurisdiction: United States
Summary: ACT filed an amicus brief in the Epic v. Google case in support of both companies’ motion to modify their permanent injunction; however, ACT expressed strong concern that the court was still considering Catalog Access as part of a final remedy. As Catalog Access would require Google to share developers’ apps with third parties unless developers took steps to opt out, ACT argued that Catalog Access should not be considered as part of any final order because it would egregiously invade Play store developers’ intellectual property, associational, and contractual rights.
Filed: April 6, 2026
—
Entity: Federal Trade Commission
Jurisdiction: United States
Summary: ACT sent comments to the Federal Trade Commission in response to its proposed amendment to the Negative Option Rule. ACT urged that the Negative Option Rule did not need any changes because existing laws already require online sellers to clearly and conspicuously disclose terms of the transactions, gain consumers consent, and provide simple mechanisms to cancel recurring charges. However, if the Commission were to change the Negative Option Rule, ACT recommended that the Commission should ensure 1) that any changes are balanced between protecting consumers and giving companies appropriate flexibility to meet the rule as technologies change, and 2) that increased implementation costs incurred by small developers are justified through a rigorous market analysis.
Filed: April 13, 2026
—
Entity: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Jurisdiction: Australia
Summary: ACT wrote to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in support of Google and Epic Games’ proposed settlement regarding the Google Play store. As opposed to a potential court decision requiring Google to list third-party apps, ACT noted that a settlement in which Google changed how it charged applications payment processing fees was favorable for small businesses and consumers. ACT also noted that in that settlement small businesses could continue to rely on the Play store’s platform services that protect creators’ intellectual property rights and uphold cybersecurity and data privacy standards that benefit application owners and application consumers alike.
Filed: April 17, 2026
—
Title: Briefs of Amicus Curiae ACT in Support of Reversing the District Court’s Partial Denials of Apple’s and Google’s Motions to Dismiss in Custodero v. Apple and Wilkinson v. Meta, Google
Entity: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Summary: ACT submitted briefs in support of reversing the partial denials of Apple’s and Google’s motions to dismiss in Custodero v. Apple and Wilkinson v. Meta, Google. In both briefs, ACT urged the Ninth Circuit to fully grant the motions to dismiss because it is critical for Section 230 to continue to protect neutral payment processing so that smaller developers can continue to use Apple’s App Store and the Google Play store to process payments in their applications. ACT noted that removing Section 230’s protections for neutral payment processing would place a significant burden on small application developers if the App Store or Play store increased payment processing fees, introduced additional lengthy layers of application review, or ceased offering payment processing altogether because their liability would increase with the removal of Section 230 protections.
Filed April 17, 2026
—
Entity: Competition and Markets Authority
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Summary: ACT submitted a comment to the United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority when the Authority requested comments regarding Apple’s and Google’s proposed commitments about app certainty and interoperability on curated online marketplaces (COMs). ACT supported the companies’ commitments to improve the App Store and Google Play store by increasing transparency, predictability, and speed in app review, as well as their commitments not to use app developer data for the companies’ own apps. ACT emphasized that any additional changes should not undermine COMs’ incentives to provide robust subscription management and data security services because small and medium-sized enterprises use these trusted services on COMs to distribute applications to consumers.
Filed: April 22, 2026
—
Title: ACT’s Motion in Support of Preliminary Injunction in Anthropic v. DOW
Entity: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Summary: ACT submitted an amicus brief in support of Anthropic’s motion requesting a preliminary injunction that would prevent the U.S. Department of War (DOW) from banning U.S. government entities from doing business with Anthropic. ACT argued that the suddenness and lack of a commenting period regarding the government’s proposed ban created confusion that would harm small businesses. As the DOW’s proposed ban would prohibit government entities from using any software that was written with the assistance of Anthropic, ACT explained that small businesses would be forced to grapple with the likely technically infeasible task of determining if any software or testing infrastructure in their supply chain was written with the assistance of Anthropic’s AI tools.
Filed: April 22, 2026
—
Entity: European Commission
Jurisdiction: European Union
Summary: ACT submitted comments to the European Commission regarding its proposed third-party data sharing measures that Google Search would need to implement as required by the Digital Markets Act (DMA). So that smaller companies can participate in pro-competitive data sharing, ACT emphasized that eligibility criteria for third parties to get access to Google Search’s data should be clear, non-burdensome, and calibrated to meet companies’ organizational capabilities. ACT additionally urged that data sharing pricing terms should be configured so smaller companies can participate in data sharing, otherwise the DMA would create new data intermediaries with concentrated market power that would harm smaller operators.
Filed: April 30, 2026