Which bills in the 119th Congress regulate app store fees and Apple and Google's app store practices, who sponsors and cosponsors them, and how do their provisions on ranking, in-app payments, and nonpublic data differ?

Three bills regulate app store practices in the 119th Congress

H.R. 3209 (App Store Freedom Act) — Sponsor: Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL-3). Cosponsors: Lori Trahan (D-MA), Darren Soto (D-FL), Nicholas Langworthy (R-NY), Kevin Mullin (D-CA), James Comer (R-KY), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA). Status: Referred to House Energy and Commerce.

H.R. 5313 (App Store Freedom Act) — Sponsor: Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC-7). No cosponsors. Status: Referred to House Energy and Commerce.

S. 2153 (Open App Markets Act) — Sponsor: Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). Cosponsors: Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Mike Lee (R-UT), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Josh Hawley (R-MO). Status: Referred to Senate Judiciary.

Key Provision Differences

Ranking & Algorithms: Only S. 2153 explicitly restricts ranking. It prohibits "unreasonably preferencing" covered company apps in search results and ranking schemes (Section 3(e)). H.R. 3209 and H.R. 5313 contain no ranking restrictions.

In-App Payments: All three bills prohibit requiring developers to use the covered company's payment system as a condition of distribution. All also ban most-favored-nation clauses (requiring equal or better pricing on the platform's store). The bills are substantively identical on this point.

Nonpublic Data: All three prohibit using nonpublic business information derived from third-party apps to compete with those apps. Language is nearly identical across all three.

Scope & Enforcement: S. 2153 applies to companies with 50M+ monthly US users; H.R. 3209 and H.R. 5313 require 100M+ users, narrowing their reach. S. 2153 grants developers a private right of action with treble damages and attorney fees; the House bills rely solely on FTC enforcement. S. 2153 takes effect 180 days after enactment; H.R. 3209 and H.R. 5313 require FTC guidance first, delaying implementation.

Affirmative Defenses: S. 2153 requires covered companies to prove by preponderance of evidence that restrictions are necessary and narrowly tailored, plus executive certification under penalty of perjury. The House bills lack this burden-shifting.

Sources

• H.R. 3209
• H.R. 5313
• S. 2153