https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/app-store-oligopoly Skip navigation Back to News & Commentary Your Smartphone, Their Rules: How App Stores Enable Corporate-Government Censorship Closeup of app store icon on a phone screen Big Tech Oligopoly helps the Trump Administration crack down on free speech Closeup of app store icon on a phone screen Daniel Kahn Gillmor, Senior Staff Technologist, ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project Share This Page November 18, 2025 Subscribe to the Free Future Newsletter Free Future home Who controls what you can do on your mobile phone? What happens when your device can only run what the government decides is OK? We are dangerously close to this kind of totalitarian control, thanks to a combination of government overreach and technocratic infrastructure choices. Most Americans have a smartphone, and the average American spends over 5 hours a day on their phone. While these devices are critical to most people's daily lives, what they can actually do is shaped by what apps are readily available. A slim majority of American smartphone users use an iPhone, which means they can only install apps available from Apple's AppStore. Nearly all the rest of US smartphone users use some variant of Android, and by default they get their apps from Google's Play Store. Collectively, these two app stores shape the universe of what is available to most people as they use the Internet and make their way through their daily lives. When those app stores block or limit apps based on government requests, they are shaping what people can do, say, communicate, and experience. Recently, Apple pulled an app called ICEBlock from the AppStore, making it unavailable in one fell swoop. This app was designed to let people anonymously report public sightings of ICE agents. In the United States people absolutely have a First Amendment right to inform others about what they have seen government officials doing and where -- very much including immigration agents whose tactics have been controversial and violent. Apple pulled the ICEBlock app at the demand of the US Department of Justice. The following day, Google pulled a similar app called Red Dot from the Google Play Store. The DOJ's pressuring of Apple is an unacceptable, censorious overreach. And Google's subsequent removal of Red Dot looks like troubling premature capitulation. While some experts and activists have expressed concerns over ICEBlock's design and development practices, those concerns are no reason for the government to meddle in software distribution. The administration's ostensible free speech warriors are trying to shape how Americans can communicate with each other about matters of pressing political concern. Infrastructure choices But the government's overreach isn't the whole story here. The current structure of the mobile phone ecosystem enables this kind of abuse and control. Apple's iOS (the operating system for any iPhone) is designed to only be able to run apps from the AppStore. If Apple hasn't signed off on it, the app won't run. This centralized control is ripe for abuse: * Apple has handed the Chinese government control over what apps are available to iPhone users in China, including banning gay dating apps. * The corporation has used its authority over the AppStore to block a game that critiqued its labor practices. * Apple's guidelines say that "'Enemies' within the context of a game cannot solely target a specific ... government, corporation, or any other real entity." That represents a potential for sweeping censorship of anyone who wants to use the art of games to criticize companies or otherwise advance political messages. * It banned the popular game Fortnite from the App Store as it was battling the gamemaker to get a bigger cut of money from user transactions. * In 2012 Apple rejected an app that compiled reports of highly controversial overseas drone strikes by the U.S. government during the "War on Terror." Unlike Apple, Google's Android operating system has traditionally allowed relatively easy access to "sideloading", which just means installing apps through means other than Google's Play Store. Although most installations default to getting apps from the Play Store, the availability of sideloading means that even if Google censors apps in the Play Store, people can still install them. Even apps critical of Google can make it onto an Android device. It's also possible to run a variant of Android without the Play Store at all, such as GrapheneOS. Unfortunately that is all set to change with a recent Google announcement that it will block apps from "certified Android" devices (which is nearly all Android phones) unless they come from what Google calls a "verified developer." This means that the common Android user trying to install an app will have to get Google's blessing: does this app come from someone that Google has "verified"? How Google will decide who is allowed to be verified and who is not is still unclear. Can a developer become "unverified"? This upcoming change is framed by Google as a security measure, but merely knowing the identity of the developer of an app doesn't provide any security. So the only way that the "verified developer" requirement can offer security is if Google withholds "verified developer" status from people it deems bad actors. But Google's ability to withhold that status can be abused in the same way that Apple's AppStore lock-in is being abused. A government will simply make a demand: "treat this developer as a bad actor" and effectively cut off any app by targeting its developer. When a lever of control is available, the would-be censors will try to use it. It has never been true that someone who buys a Lenovo or Dell laptop, for example, has to let Lenovo or Dell tell them what programs they can and cannot install on their computer. Yet that will soon be the situation with regards to nearly all cell phones used in the United States. Note that American iPhones are limited to only apps from the AppStore, but European Union (EU) iPhones don't have that restriction. The EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA) required Apple to permit alternate app stores and sideloading (which Apple calls "web distribution"). As a result, marketplaces like AltStore are starting to become available -- but Apple only lets EU customers use them. The European regime is not perfect, however; while sideloaded apps and alternative app stores aren't subject to the app store's constraints, they are still obliged to follow Apple's "Notarization" requirements, which requires Apple to review all iOS apps - even from these alternate sources - on the basis of several vaguely worded rationales. For example, if the DoJ were to claim that ICEBlock "promoted physical harm" (even though it clearly does not), Apple could use this as an excuse to justify revoking their notarization of the app, which would prevent it from being installed even from these alternate channels. App store security and surveillance Both Apple and Google make claims that their app distribution mechanisms improve security for their users. And clearly, these tech giants do block some abusive apps by exercising the control they have. But both of them also regularly allow apps that contain common malicious patterns, including many apps built with surveillance tooling that sell their users' data to data brokers. If either tech giant were serious about user security, they could ban these practices, but they do not. Google's security claims are also undermined by the fact that the cellphone hacking company Cellebrite tells law enforcement that Google's Pixel phones can be hacked, while those running GrapheneOS, created by a small non-profit, cannot. (Asked by a reporter why that was so, Google did not respond.) Making matters worse, organizations like Google are unclear about their policies, and some of their policy statements can put developers and users at risk. Discussing blocking Red Dot, for example, Google told 404Media that "apps that have user generated content must also conduct content moderation." This implies that Google could become unwilling to distribute fully end-to-end encrypted apps, like Signal Private Messenger or Delta Chat, since those app vendors by design are incapable of reviewing user-generated content. End-to-end encrypted apps are the gold standard for secure communications, and no app store that signals a willingness to remove them can claim to put security first. In addition, even if you've carefully curated the apps you have installed from these dominant app stores to avoid spyware and use strongly secure apps, the stores themselves monitor the devices, keeping dossiers of what apps are installed on each device, and maybe more. Being a user of these app stores means being under heavy, regular surveillance. Other options exist These centralized, surveilled, censorship-enabling app stores are not the only way to distribute software. Consider alternative app stores for Android, like Accrescent, which prioritizes privacy and security requirements in its apps, and F-Droid, which enables installation of free and open source apps. In addition to offering quality tools and auditing, F-Droid's policies incentivize the apps distributed on the platform to trim out overwhelming amounts of corporate spyware that infest both Google and Apple's app stores. Neither F-Droid nor Accrescent do any surveillance of their users at all. The F-Droid developers recently wrote about the impact that Google's upcoming developer registration requirements are likely to have on the broader ecosystem of privacy-preserving Android apps. The outcome doesn't look good: the ability to install free and open source software on a common device might be going away. Those few people left using unusual devices ("uncertified" Android deployments like GrapheneOS, or even more obscure non-Android operating systems like phosh) will still have the freedom to install tools that they want, but the overwhelming majority of people will be stuck with what can quickly devolve into a government-controlled cop-in-your-pocket. How we can push back In an increasingly centralized world, it will take very little for an abusive government to cause an effective organizing tool to disappear, to block an app that belongs to a critical dissenting media outlet, or to force invasive malware into a software update used by everyone. We need a shared infrastructure that doesn't permit this kind of centralized control. We can disrupt oligopolistic control over software through user choice (e.g., preferring and installing free software), building good protocol frameworks (e.g., demanding tools that use open standards for interoperability), and through regulatory intervention (e.g., breaking up monopolistic actors, or mandating that an OS must allow sideloading, as the EU did with the DMA). The device you carry with you that is privy to much of your life should be under your control, not under the control of an abusive government or corporations that do its bidding. Learn More About the Issues on This Page * Free Speech * Immigrants' Rights Related Content * Press Release Nov 2025 ACLU Demands Information From DHS About Alarming Pattern of Retaliation against Those Recording Immigration Agents Free Speech ACLU Demands Information From DHS About Alarming Pattern of Retaliation against Those Recording Immigration Agents NEW YORK -- Following a troubling wave of retaliations against journalists, advocates, and bystanders recording immigration enforcement activity in public view, the ACLU and ACLU of Northern California filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking transparency about DHS's policies and practices related to people filming immigration and law enforcement activity. The FOIA requests filed come after multiple incidents of aggressive hostility towards those who record immigration and law enforcement activity in public. For example, in June, immigration agents threw to the ground and arrested a U.S. citizen filming immigration agents detaining workers at a Home Depot parking lot in Hollywood. The requests also seek answers about agency targeting of individuals or organizations that record and share documentation regarding immigration raids and arrests. "If the Department of Homeland Security needs a reminder: the right to record immigration and law enforcement activity is squarely protected by the First Amendment" said Byul Yoon, legal fellow at the ACLU's Speech, Privacy & Technology Project. "We are concerned that activists, journalists, and concerned bystanders are at risk of assault and arrest, simply for sharing information about public safety in their communities. We demand transparency into this unconstitutional practice, and we must ensure that the government is held accountable for these egregious violations." "This is part of a broader Trump administration strategy to intimidate and silence people who document immigration enforcement or criticize government actions" said Jake Snow, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California. "The First Amendment robustly protects expressions of disapproval, advocacy for reform, and demand for governmental accountability. This speech is protected even when the criticism is severe or politically charged." The requests were filed with DHS as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The federal government has 20 business days to respond to the request. The FOIA request can be found here. Aclu Demands Information From Dhs About Alarming Pattern Of Retaliation Against Those Recording Immigration Agents. Explore Press Release. * Podcast Nov 2025 [AtLiberty_] Free Speech LGBTQ Rights From The Joke Files: A Comedy and Censorship Roundtable By: ACLU From The Joke Files: A Comedy And Censorship Roundtable. Explore Podcast. * Pennsylvania Supreme Court Nov 2025 Commonwealth v. Johnson Free Speech Commonwealth v. Johnson This case presents the question whether a person can be convicted of disorderly conduct for speech that the state deems "obscene" but that does not actually qualify as unprotected obscenity under the First Amendment. The outcome of this case could have serious implications for free speech and the rights of criminal defendants in Pennsylvania, where law enforcement frequently misuses the disorderly conduct statute to punish constitutionally protected speech. Status: Ongoing Commonwealth V. Johnson. Explore Case. * Press Release Nov 2025 ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Maintain Block on Trump's Deployment of Military Troops to Chicago National Security Free Speech ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Maintain Block on Trump's Deployment of Military Troops to Chicago WASHINGTON -- Free speech organizations filed a friend-of-the-court brief today in the Supreme Court in Trump v. Illinois, the state's lawsuit challenging President Trump's attempt to federalize National Guard troops and deploy them into Chicago and surrounding counties. Both the federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit have so far blocked this deployment. The case is at the Supreme Court on the Trump administration's emergency application seeking to stay or temporarily lift the lower courts' orders blocking the deployment. "Protest plays an essential role in our democracy and President Trump is hellbent on suppressing it," said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "The president is attempting to normalize military policing of protest, but as the founders of this country made abundantly clear, turning troops on civilians is an intolerable threat to our liberties. President Trump is imperiling our First Amendment rights, and we urge the court to deny his application." The Trump administration asserts that courts have no role, or at most only an extraordinarily deferential one, in reviewing the president's legal and factual justifications for troop deployment. "Residents of Chicagoland peacefully but vigorously oppose the Trump Administration's increasingly reckless and violent immigration activities," said Colleen Connell, executive director of the ACLU of Illinois. "It is unconscionable - and we believe unlawful - for Trump to use opposition to his administration's policies as a pretext for mobilizing military forces, including federalized National Guard, onto our streets. Deploying troops in American cities would terrorize our communities and create an environment hostile to the free speech our Constitution guarantees." The groups explain that the right to protest is part of the fabric of our free society, and that President Trump's deployment of military troops in response to it is incompatible with settled First Amendment law. It underscores that the founders of this country feared and rejected the military's use as a tool of oppression and would have viewed President Trump's claims of unreviewable authority to deploy troops in response to political protest as an intolerable threat to liberty. "President Trump's federalization of the National Guard in Chicago is an effort to chill political protest, and disregards the First Amendment," said Jennifer Jones, staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. "The First Amendment requires the government's response to be tailored to the threat, and it forbids the government from holding peaceful demonstrators accountable for the sporadic violence of others. We urge the court to protect the right to dissent by denying the President's request to deploy troops in Chicago." The organizations press the Supreme Court to reject the president's assertion that his actions here are unreviewable or at least worthy of unusual deference from the courts. U.S. history, tradition, and laws strictly limit the use of the military to police the American people, and domestic deployment of troops chills the exercise of constitutionally protected speech and association. Their brief describes the common pattern of troop deployments in Chicago, Portland, and Los Angeles so far: The Trump administration surges armed federal agents into neighborhoods, resulting in widespread rights violations. When residents exercise their First Amendment right to protest the president's actions -- overwhelmingly peacefully -- federal agents respond with abusive force, including chemical weapons and stun grenades. Nevertheless, seizing on sporadic or isolated instances of unlawful conduct that local officials can address, President Trump falsely proclaims himself unable to enforce the law, declares a rebellion, and seizes command of National Guard troops over the objections of state governors. "The President's attempt to turn the National Guard into a standing army on American soil--deploying troops against the American people--is one of the abuses of power the Constitution was written to restrain," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Each time the President uses troops to intimidate and control civilians, it moves the nation closer to normalizing a police state. When he treats ordinary protest as rebellion and sends soldiers to enforce order in our cities, he's not defending the nation--he's dismantling the very freedoms that define it, all the while betraying its Constitution." This friend-of-the-court brief comes as President Trump continues to threaten deployment of military troops and federal agents to multiple major cities, and as the Defense Department is implementing the president's August 2025 directive for each state's National Guard to develop a "quick reaction force," totaling 23,000 troops, "to deal with civil disturbances and riots"-- with no evidence of any need. "Americans everywhere recognize the difference between peaceful protest and open rebellion -- and rightly expect their government to do the same," said Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). "The National Guard exists to protect people in genuine emergencies, not to protect the government from criticism." Amici include the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Illinois, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, the Foundation for Individual Rights & Expression, and The Rutherford Institute. Affiliate: Illinois Aclu And Partners Urge Supreme Court To Maintain Block On Trump's Deployment Of Military Troops To Chicago. Explore Press Release.