In Congress’s latest attempt to regulate Big Tech, two Republican lawmakers have created a policy paradox. In an effort to shape the future of app stores, each piece of proposed legislation undermines the other—yet both point out a critical blind spot in the conversation surrounding parental responsibility.
Rep. Kat Cammack’s App Store Freedom Act would require major app stores to open their ecosystems, allowing third-party developers to install software outside their platforms, permitting alternative app stores, and enabling users to set third-party apps as default options. This legislative approach opens all mobile devices to any software download. This bill aims to break what Cammack describes as anti-competitive practices in major app store marketplaces—using language similar to that of the European Union’s Digital Markets Act—by removing restrictions on software downloads.
Meanwhile, Rep. John James’s App Store Accountability Act moves in precisely the opposite direction. It demands that app stores implement age verification, require parental consent for users under 18, link minors’ devices to those of their parents or guardians, and establish enforcement mechanisms for any violations. James frames this change as holding “Big Tech companies to the same standard as local corner stores” when it comes to age-restricted materials.
Yet when taken together, these bills create an impossible mandate: Companies must simultaneously act as responsible gatekeepers while dismantling the very gates they’re meant to monitor—a technical implementation nightmare. If both bills were to become law, Apple and Google would face an unresolvable technical challenge. They would need to verify the age of every user accessing their app stores, link minor accounts to parents for permission systems, and create robust enforcement mechanisms to prevent children from accessing inappropriate content. At the same time, they would be required to allow alternative app stores that could bypass these very same protections, with no guarantee that third-party stores would implement equivalent safeguards. As one bill makes platforms responsible for protecting children, the other requires them to enable pathways around those protections. This is akin to requiring liquor stores to verify IDs while simultaneously forcing them to allow unmonitored vendors to set up shop inside their premises.
Most importantly, both bills have a fundamental misunderstanding of where the most effective controls can and should be implemented. While focusing on app store-level interventions, they overlook the fact that the most effective parental controls are already built into the apps themselves. Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and similar platforms offer robust parental control features in their respective settings. These app-specific controls are more fine-tuned and contextually appropriate than anything that could be implemented at the app store level.
Instagram provides supervision tools that enable parents to set time limits and monitor whom their teens follow. Meta includes Family Pairing, which connects parent and teen accounts, allowing parents direct oversight of their teen’s content preferences. Additionally, Meta offers parental supervision options through the Family Center, empowering parents to oversee their children’s online connections and establish time limits on apps. The real power of parental oversight resides in these app-level controls. However, neither bill addresses the use of these tools to strengthen, standardize, or enhance the accessibility of these controls.
Rather than forcing Apple and Google into contradictory roles, legislation should focus on empowering parents with tools already available to them. Establishing platform-agnostic guidelines and education on how app-level parental controls should function and supporting digital literacy programs that teach both parents and children about online safety would yield better results than contradictory store-level mandates. The current legislative approach attempts to outsource parental responsibility to corporations. This creates a false sense of security, all while making effective oversight practically more difficult. Real protection comes from engaged parents using well-designed tools at the app level, not from contradictory mandates imposed on app store operators.
If these conflicting bills are implemented, several unintended consequences are bound to occur. We will likely see increased fragmentation of the digital ecosystem, making parental oversight more difficult. There may be reduced efficacy of existing parental controls as content flows through multiple distribution channels—a compliance nightmare that creates legal uncertainty for platforms, and a false sense of security for parents who believe a government mandate has solved the problem. Together, these two bills may lead to an online environment where minors are subject to less oversight than before, under the guise of greater protection. In their haste to regulate Big Tech through half-baked legislation, lawmakers risk undermining the very protections they claim to champion.
Instead of imposing app store mandates, we need parents to utilize the existing tools at their disposal to help manage their children’s digital activities. Until lawmakers recognize that digital safety begins at the app level—with tools that empower engaged parents—we will continue to see bills that sound effective in press releases, yet create unmanageable compliance scenarios in practice.
The post Congressional Crossfire: How Competing App Store Bills Create an Impossible Mandate appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.
