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 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.
Entity: European Parliament and European Member States
Jurisdiction: European Union
Summary: ACT wrote a letter to the European Parliament and European Member States urging for the adoption of the AI and Digital Omnibus to deliver real simplification for startups and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). ACT advocated for creating a more coherent and predictable regulatory environment that would support European startups and scaleups, especially the “one-stop reporting” mechanism that would allow SMEs to report once, through a single-entry point, to fulfill all relevant obligations across EU digital legislation. In addition to a simplified reporting framework, ACT also discussed the importance of a simplified compliance framework so that SMEs can avoid litigation for accidentally not complying with a complex standard.
Filed: May 5, 2026
—
Title: ACT Responds to the European Commission Consultation on the Business Wallet
Entity: European Commission
Jurisdiction: European Union
Summary: ACT submitted comments to the European Commission regarding proposed changes to the European Business Wallet (EBW). ACT emphasized that it is critical to ensure that business adoption of the EBW is voluntary. ACT noted that within a voluntary framework, small and medium-sized businesses would adopt the EBW once it worked. This makes it additionally important that the EBW is designed to be fully interoperable within the EU and that public authorities should be required to accept the EBW.
Filed: May 6, 2026
—
Entity: European Commission
Jurisdiction: European Union
Summary: ACT submitted feedback to the European Commission regarding the DMA Consultation on the Proposed Measures for Interoperability with Google Android. ACT warned the European Commission that the remedies proposed in the DMA Article 6(7) would go far beyond interoperability by reaching deep into Android’s inner workings, compromising data security, encryption, and privacy. Some of the main security and privacy concerns ACT raised included the mandate for Android to make available passively collected information about a device owner’s physical context to any third-party AI service, the requirement for Android to provide all processing power available to Android’s own services to any third-party AI service that demands it, and the lack of security architecture requirements for AI services seeking screen automation access. ACT argued that the DMA Article 6(7)’s measures would degrade overall user experience, making consumers less likely to install apps, which would be especially harmful to small and medium-sized enterprise app developers.
Filed: May 13, 2026
—
Entity: United States Trade Representative
Jurisdiction: United States
Summary: ACT provided comments to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) on the modernization of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). ACT advocated for principles that would both improve Africa’s digital economy and trade while also expanding opportunities for American innovators, such as enabling cross-border data flows, prohibiting data localization policies, prohibiting customs duties on digital content, ensuring market entry is not contingent on source code transfer or inspection, preserving the ability to utilize strong encryption techniques to protect user security and privacy, securing intellectual property protections, and avoiding the misapplication of competition laws to new emerging technology markets.
Filed: May 15, 2026
—
Entity: California State Assembly
Jurisdiction: California, United States
Summary: ACT wrote a letter to the California Assembly leadership opposing their proposed COMPETE Act (AB 1776). ACT expressed concern that this bill would create a broad, California-specific antitrust regime for single-firm conduct. That regime, ACT argued, would depart from established legal principles and weaken familiar limiting principles that help businesses distinguish unlawful exclusion from ordinary competitive conduct. ACT stressed that, although AB 1776 may be framed as a bill aimed at large companies, its practical effects would be felt across the broader innovation ecosystem, especially for the small business developers, startups, and emerging technology companies that leverage integrated and curated offerings from larger platforms. ACT highlighted that developers substantially benefit from app store practices, such as removing copycat apps and consumer scams. This instills consumer trust, which creates an environment where users willingly download apps from smaller, lesser-known developers. ACT noted AB 1776’s vague and expansive liability framework would make it riskier to curate digital marketplaces and provide, improve, or integrate the tools and services that smaller firms rely on every day, and this uncertainty would fall hardest on startups and small businesses.
Filed: May 19, 2026
—
Title: ACT’s Amicus Brief in Exafer v. Microsoft in Support of Microsoft’s Petition for a Rehearing En Banc
Entity: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Summary: ACT filed an amicus brief in support of Microsoft’s petition for a rehearing en banc in Exafer v. Microsoft. ACT stressed that the rehearing is necessary to ensure that the reasonable royalty framework under 35 U.S.C. § 284 remains in place. ACT urged the Court to ensure that damages are determined by the use made of the invention, not based on the value of every product that shares some causal link to the patented technology. By not following this framework, ACT argued the Court’s error threatens small businesses that implement standard-essential patents (SEPs), because SEP holders will leverage a mere “causal connection” to demand royalties on entire products which would make small technology companies uniquely vulnerable to patent hold-up and supra-FRAND royalties because they lack the resources to litigate apportionment.
Filed: May 20, 2026
—
Entity: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Jurisdiction: United States
Summary: ACT submitted a statement for the record for the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, From the Courtroom to Congress: Why Landmark Social Media Verdicts Demand Federal Action to Protect Kids Online. ACT urged Members to support the Parents Over Platforms Act (POPA) because it offers a well-targeted approach that will empower parents with meaningful tools to protect their children online, and it avoids unintended consequences for privacy and innovation. Additionally, ACT adamantly outlined why Members should not pass the App Store Accountability Act (ASAA) that is actively being championed by Meta, noting how ASAA would shift liability away from the platforms best positioned to address online safety harms and would simultaneously introduce new risks to consumer privacy and security.
Filed: May 20, 2026
—
Entity: California Privacy Protection Agency (CalPrivacy)
Jurisdiction: United States
Summary: ACT submitted comments concerning the California Privacy Protection Agency (CalPrivacy) proposed rulemaking on notices & disclosures and employee data. ACT urged CalPrivacy to adopt a balanced, flexible approach to regulations governing notices & disclosures and employee data instead of opting for a one-size-fits-all mandate for small businesses. ACT suggested that CalPrivacy provide clearer guidance through additional standardized terminology, plain-language guidance, sample clauses, and adaptable model disclosure templates that businesses can tailor to their own practices, as well as harmonize privacy policy and disclosure requirements with regulators in other states with comprehensive privacy laws.
Filed: May 20, 2026
—
Entity: Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ)
Jurisdiction: United States
Summary: ACT responded to the Federal Trade Commission’s and the Department of Justice’s joint public inquiry on potential additional guidance regarding collaboration among competitors. ACT suggested that the updated guidance should restore certainty for procompetitive collaboration, recognize infrastructure and resource-access collaborations that expand capacity, and maintain its original scope for IP and standards guidance. ACT stressed that having clarity, accessibility, and usability of antitrust guidance helps emerging technology companies determine whether procompetitive collaboration would be a practical pathway or if it remains available only to companies with extensive legal and administrative resources.
Filed: May 21, 2026
—
Entity: Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ)
Jurisdiction: United States
Summary: ACT submitted comments to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding their request for public comments on making improvements to the Premerger Notification and Report form. ACT alerted the FTC and DOJ that overbroad or unclear filing obligations can impose costs on transactions that are competitively neutral or procompetitive, including transactions that help small businesses scale innovation, reach customers, and compete more effectively. ACT stressed the need for merger review rules that are clear, predictable, administrable, and proportionate to the competition policy questions presented by the transaction. ACT also advocated for the removal of any unnecessary burdens for transactions that do not present a plausible competition concern, such as transactions with no horizontal overlap between merging parties or transactions that target firms with thresholds or revenues that fall below the Small Business Administration size standards, to help support small business development
Filed: May 26, 2026
—
Entity: United Kingdom’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Summary: ACT responded to the UK’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology’s request for comments on Growing Up in the Online World: A National Consultation. ACT urged policymakers to develop and prioritize online safety legislation approaches that place parents in control of their children’s digital experiences instead of implementing broad controls. ACT also urged policymakers to consider that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), especially startups and scaleups, that operate online services have limited staff and resources to comply with new requirements in comparison to their larger counterparts. ACT further noted that requiring SMEs to undertake certain age assurance measures could have the unintended effect of significantly expanding the number of entities collecting and cataloging children’s data, which is directly opposed to the goal of improving children’s privacy online.
Filed: May 26, 2026
—
Title: ACT’s Amicus Brief in Google v. Virtamove in Support of Google’s Petition
Entity: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Summary: ACT filed a brief in Google v. Virtamove in support of Google’s petition. ACT highlighted how the Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) new “settled expectations” policy—which denies inter partes review (IPR) (i.e., a legal standard for addressing the validity of an issued patent) for patents over six years old based solely on patent age—directly threatens ACT’s members by insulating potentially invalid patents from meaningful review. ACT stressed that a robust, accessible, and efficient IPR process at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is a critical tool for preserving competition, deterring abusive litigation, and ensuring that innovation is not stifled by weak patents, especially because small businesses rely on IPR as a fast, cost-effective alternative to district court litigation, which can cost millions of dollars and take years to resolve.
Filed: May 29, 2026