Apple helped nix part of a child safety bill. More fights are expected.
Kim Carver, a legislator in the US state of Louisiana, added a provision to a child safety bill forcing Apple and Google to enforce age restrictions on downloads in their application stores. In other words, it would force Apple to make sure minors could not download gambling and casino applications - i.e., 99% of mobile games - that make up the vast majority of Apple's services revenue. It would also make application stores play a role in enforcing age restrictions on social media applications, which makes sense because Apple and Google know the age of every one of their users.
Well, it turns out Apple was not happy. They sent out an absolute army of lobbyists - including a guy known for lobbying on behalf of truck-stop casinos, in case you were wondering about the type of people Apple uses for lobbying - to kill this specific provision. Carver's provision would have breezed through the Louisiana senate, but it needed a key committee approval before being put up for a vote. And it's this committee that Apple started heavily influencing and pressuring.
Carver began hearing rumblings that Apple was making inroads with the committee-his amended bill might be in trouble. Uncertain on how to proceed, he approached the chairwoman of the committee, Sen. Beth Mizell, for advice.
He declined to describe the substance of the conversation to The Wall Street Journal, but in the end, he promised not to object if she removed the app store provisions or support restoring them on the Senate floor.
I made the choice to take the win that we could get," Carver said.
Jeff Horwitz and Aaron Tilley at The Wall Street Journal
This is not the first time Apple has pressured legislatures to drop bills it didn't like. A famous case is the state if Georgia, which intended to pass a number of application store bills to open up the App Store in much the same way the European Union did with the DMA. Apple went absolutely mental in Georgia, including threatening to cancel a $25 million investmentin a historically Black college in Atlanta". Apple won.
The way these sleazebag companies get away with such blatant corruption is by using third-party lobbyists, which technically are not employed by the companies in question, so no matter how low and sleazy these lobbyists go, the companies they lobby for can wash their hands in innocence and absolve themselves from any responsibility for the various financial and legal threats levied at underfunded, understaffed local legislatures. Spending a few millions on a local development project or whatever is peanuts for Apple, but a massive boon for a small community somewhere, so Apple pulling out means nothing to Apple, but would massively affect such a community. It's not surprising local legislatures fold.
Circling back to the age restriction provision itself - telling stores what they can and cannot sell is an entirely normal thing to do, and happens all the time all over the world. It's why in, say, The Netherlands, supermarkets are only allowed to sell light" alcohol like beer and wine, with hard alcohol moved to separate liquor stores that have to be separate from the supermarket, so age restrictions are easier to enforce. There's also just an infinite number of things you're just not allowed to sell, period.
As always, Silicon Valley believes it's a very special snowflake to whom regular, normal, widely accepted rules do not apply. Why shouldn't a store selling gambling applications and similarly addictive and damaging applications have to do the absolute bare minimum to protect minors? Imagine the massive outcry if a Costco or Walmart was found to sell massive amounts of hard liquor to children - why should Silicon Valley companies be treated any differently?