App Store Freedom Act Misreads the Economics of App-Store Fees, ICLE Scholar Says
Washington, D.C. (July 21, 2026) — The App Store Freedom Act rests on a simple premise. Large app stores charge developers high fees while providing little in return, and forcing them to open their systems will lower prices and expand consumer choice.
Eric Fruits, director of economic research at the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE), argues that the bill misunderstands how app stores work and what their fees pay for.
Fruits shared his analysis ahead of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s scheduled July 22 markup of the bill.
The legislation would impose several requirements on app stores with more than 100 million U.S. users. It would bar them from requiring developers to use their in-app payment systems or restricting communication between developers and customers.
The bill also would require app-store operators to give rival developers the same access to interfaces, hardware and software features, and development tools available to their own apps. It would further require them to permit rival app stores and “sideloading,” which allows users to install apps from outside an official store.
Supporters say these rules would increase competition. Fruits argues that they ignore the services app-store fees fund.
“It’s tempting to picture the fee as a tollbooth on an empty road—money collected for nothing,” Fruits said. “But that fee pays for the service people signed up for. The store distributes apps, processes payments, screens for fraud, reviews software before it reaches users, and offers a secure and convenient marketplace.
“If Congress bans the fee or forces the store to open its system, those costs do not disappear. They move elsewhere, often reaching users in ways that are harder to see and control.”
Fruits said the bill treats an app store like an ordinary monopoly. App stores instead operate as “two-sided” markets, serving developers and users at the same time. The price charged to one group affects the services and prices offered to the other.
“An app store has to attract both developers and users, and the price it sets for one group depends on the other,” Fruits said. “Looking only at what developers pay captures half the picture. Lower developer fees do not automatically produce lower consumer prices, and the bill does not explain why they would.”
Fruits also questioned whether lawmakers can design a better app store than the companies that built them and the consumers who chose them.
“Mandatory sideloading and requirements that competing systems work together may sound simple and cost-free,” Fruits said. “In practice, they restrict design choices involving security, privacy, and quality. Those choices distinguish one platform from another, and many users value them.
“Congress would be writing one theory of competition into law while describing it as neutral.”
Fruits said the bill targets harms that remain uncertain while imposing costs that would arrive immediately.
“Before Congress rewrites the rules governing billions of devices, it should show that the current system is harming consumers,” Fruits said.
To arrange an interview with Fruits, contact Jim Fellinger at [email protected].
For more on the economics at issue, see Brian Albrecht and Dirk Auer, “Free Riding in Mobile Ecosystems,” International Center for Law & Economics, Dec. 2, 2025.
About ICLE
The International Center for Law & Economics is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research center working with a roster of more than one hundred academic affiliates and research centers from around the globe. ICLE scholars promote the use of law and economics methodologies to inform public policy debates.