Prominent members of Congress are reviving the Open App Markets Act (OAMA), a bill they say will create “a freer and fairer marketplace” in Apple’s App Store and Google’s Play Store. But rather than opening “the door to more choices and innovation,” the legislation would do the opposite: It would weaken security, reduce customer choice, and stifle the very dynamism that made America the global tech leader.

Supporters of OAMA argue that Apple and Google “inhibit competition” in the app economy. But the facts tell a different story. Apple’s App Store hosts nearly 2 million apps involving over 815,000 publishers; Google’s Play Store exceeds 2 million apps. From 2019 to 2024, app revenues grew at over 6 percent annually, app developers’ profit margins averaged 14.4 percent last year, and app developers are using more data and AI than ever before. Far from “coercive walls,” Apple and Google provide innovative ecosystems that allow small developers to reach billions of users.

My research center has studied the ecosystems closely. Our first study found that Apple not only spurs developers to create and update more apps—it boosts user engagement. Google’s system elicited more neutral developer responses, but it still supported broad access and choice. Ironically, OAMA and the European Union’s Digital Markets Act would push Apple’s model closer to Google’s, weakening the competitive differentiation between them and limiting consumer options.

Our most recent study focuses on how Apple and Google impact apps that compete with their own. Our results are not final, but in more than half of cases, there’s no impact on rivals. In 20 to 30 percent of cases, Apple and Google benefit their rivals on a global basis. This is not a monopolistic squeeze; it’s a sign of companies competing to create vibrant ecosystems.

If Congress wants to scrutinize anticompetitive conduct, maybe it should consider the bill’s corporate backers. Our research finds that the largest third-party app developers have greater negative impacts on their rivals than do Apple or Google. Could it be that large developers want to use regulation to hobble the platforms that enable smaller rivals? That’s not pro-competition; it’s rent-seeking.

Worse, OAMA would compromise customer and national security. My colleague Shane Tews has explained how OAMA would dismantle critical vetting processes that protect users from malware, spyware, and foreign surveillance. The legislation mandates “sideloading”—allowing users to install apps from outside official app stores—exposing devices to unvetted code and malicious actors, including state-sponsored hackers.

OAMA would also force Apple and Google into regulatory sameness, eroding the distinctive approaches that drive competition between them. Apple is known for its integrated, secure ecosystem. Google offers a more open model. That diversity creates meaningful consumer choice—something the legislation claims to promote but would ultimately destroy.

This isn’t the first time Washington has confused amazing success with dominance. The Department of Justice sued both IBM and Microsoft, claiming each was dominant, only for new technologies—the PC, the web, and smartphones—to render those cases largely obsolete. The government tried to create telecommunications competition by breaking up AT&T, but Congress later had to abandon the scheme and essentially deregulate the industry.

The rise of Apple and Google is another case in point. In 2007, BlackBerry and Nokia were the market leaders. Then Apple introduced the iPhone, followed by Google’s Android platform. In less than a decade, BlackBerry and Nokia were out of the smartphone business. The disruptors became the leaders—not by government favor, but by building better products.

Now, OAMA threatens to short-circuit that same competitive cycle. Instead of encouraging the next generation of mobile platforms, it would freeze the current ones in place and hand oversight to bureaucrats, choking innovation and competition.

In a world of rising geopolitical tensions and cybersecurity threats—not to mention growing competition from Chinese tech firms—the US cannot afford to undermine its free-market foundations. The app economy didn’t emerge from a regulatory mandate. It emerged from the permissionless innovation, open competition, and strong private investment that OAMA threatens.

Congress should reject this misguided legislation. America’s tech markets don’t need a government referee—they need the freedom to provide security and innovation.