Apple’s App Store Dilemma

Safety is among the top priorities parents consider when buying their child a phone. Kevin Carver, a newly elected representative in Louisiana, was one of these parents who expressed concerns about what children are exposed to on their screens. However, most government regulations regarding phones up to this point have focused on privacy, such as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998. These regulations do not directly affect Apple, as they did not create the internet itself—only the devices used to access it. So when new legislation was proposed targeting the App Store specifically, Apple quickly resorted to lobbying.

Lobbying is an effective strategy used by corporations to influence public policy. In lobbying, building strong relationships is essential, and establishing trust is a fundamental component. The messaging coming from lobbyists should align with policymakers’ values while also using clear, concise, and fact-based arguments. Another effective strategy is building coalitions to rally support and diversify the political base. Conversely, certain approaches can lead to ineffective lobbying. Failing to prioritize the needs of policymakers’ constituents can undermine influence, as can ignoring opposing viewpoints, which weakens credibility. Unrealistic demands can have the same effect. Apple’s use of effective lobbying strategies ultimately contributed to the withdrawal of Carver’s legislation.

Apple called on its four largest lobbyists in Baton Rouge to ensure the legislation did not pass. They even threatened to pull production of Apple’s new movie, Emancipation, a move that would have negatively impacted Louisiana’s economy. The lobbyists also used constituency pressure, encouraging voters to contact their legislators. While Apple’s efforts may appear extreme, the company believed it had strong justification. Apple recognized that state-level laws often serve as testing grounds, and if the bill succeeded in Louisiana, it could inspire similar legislation in other states—or even on the federal level. Their central concern was that broader adoption of such legislation would weaken the App Store’s dominant position nationwide. Furthermore, they were aware of the risks associated with public framing: if Apple succeeded in blocking the bill, its stance could be portrayed as anti-child-safety.

In the days following continued debate, Carver ultimately withdrew his provisions. The bill passed, but without the App Store regulations. Apple also understood that because Carver was new to politics, they could leverage his inexperience. Although Carver had significant support, he was unaware of how many legislators backed his ideas. Had he pushed forward, his legislation may very well have passed. Through this experience, Carver witnessed firsthand the lengths to which corporations will go to influence policy.

Works Cited:

Horwitz, Jeff, and Aaron Tilley. “Apple Helped Nix Part of a Child Safety Bill. More Fights Are Expected.” The Wall Street Journal, 2 Sept. 2024, https://www.wsj.com/tech/apple-helped-nix-part-of-a-child-safety-bill-more-fights-are-expected-23905d4d. Accessed 24 July 2026.

Kaspersky. “Internet Laws and Online Safety Regulations.” Kaspersky Resource Center, https://usa.kaspersky.com/resource-center/preemptive-safety/internet-laws. Accessed 24 July 2026.