Open App Markets Act
proposed antitrust bill in the US Congress
The Open App Markets Act (OAMA) is a proposed antitrust bill in the United States Congress. The Senate version of the legislation, S.2710, was introduced on August 11, 2021, by Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). On August 13, 2021, a companion bill in the House of Representatives was introduced by Hank Johnson (D-GA) and Ken Buck (R-CO).
The legislation aims to prevent Apple and Google, operators of the App Store and Google Play, respectively, from engaging in what supporters of the legislation deem anti-competitive practices in app markets. The Open App Markets Act is intended to protect the ability to sideload apps and prevent operators of app marketplaces from "self-preferencing" their own products. On February 3, 2022, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the legislation in a 20–2 bipartisan vote.
The bill never came up for a vote after passing through the Senate Judiciary Committee. A modified version of the bill was reintroduced in June 2025.
Background
Both Apple and Google have received national and international scrutiny regarding their operation of their in-house app marketplaces. In Epic Games v.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Open App Markets Act” as proposed antitrust bill in the US Congress. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as proposed antitrust bill in the US Congress. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 2, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q111951984. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2021, 2022 and 2025.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Open App Markets Act”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Open App Markets Act primary sources, Open App Markets Act archive and Markets research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Open App Markets Act”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Open App Markets Act” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.