The big picture: Major technology executives are lining up behind a new California bill aimed at curbing self-preferencing by dominant online platforms – legislation that mirrors federal antitrust efforts in Washington. As support for the proposal grows among industry leaders, however, Apple is facing renewed criticism over how it handles emerging software tools that could challenge its control of the App Store.
The proposed law, known as the Blocking Anticompetitive Self-Preferencing by Entrenched Dominant Platforms, or the BASED Act, was introduced by California state senator Scott Wiener. It seeks to restrict tactics that allow large platforms to favor their own products and block emerging rivals. In an unusual twist for a policymaker often at odds with Silicon Valley, Wiener's measure has found allies within the tech industry itself.
Executives from companies such as DuckDuckGo, Proton, Yelp, and Y Combinator publicly endorsed the bill, describing it as a necessary check on entrenched tech powers. "California has led the way on privacy, and now it has a chance to lead on digital competition," said Kamyl Bazbaz. Jeremy Stoppelman called it "the kind of common-sense antitrust reform we need if we want the next generation of startups to have a fair shot."
Supporters say the BASED Act would combat familiar platform behaviors, such as reordering search results to favor a company's own products, using nonpublic sales data from third-party sellers to launch copycat goods, or making it harder for users to export their personal data. The measure would also guarantee consumers the right to share their data with other services if they choose.
While the political battle plays out in Sacramento, Apple has emerged as a high-profile example of the practices the bill targets. According to The Information, the company has recently blocked several so-called vibe-coding apps, including Replit and Vibecode, from releasing new iOS updates.
These apps allow users to generate software through natural-language prompts, a development some see as a long-term challenge to Apple's walled-garden model.
People familiar with the situation told The Information that Apple's app review team halted updates to the two programs unless developers reworked their software to comply with longstanding App Store guidelines. The company cited rules prohibiting apps from executing code that can modify their own or another app's functionality. Apple maintains that its stance does not target vibe-coding tools themselves but enforces consistent safety standards for all developers.
In some cases, Apple reportedly asked developers to remove the ability to generate programs for Apple devices or to change how newly created apps are displayed, requiring them to open in an external browser rather than within the same app. The Information also reported that Replit's mobile app has slipped in Apple's free developer tools rankings since its last approved update in January, a downturn insiders partly attributed to the restrictions.
Apple later told MacRumors that its guidelines aim to encourage innovation while preserving user safety. The company pointed to its existing developer rules, which prohibit downloading or executing code that changes an app's primary function.
Whether intentional or not, the timing places Apple squarely in the debate surrounding self-preferencing and market access – precisely the issues at the heart of Wiener's legislation. As the senator's office highlighted, the BASED Act has drawn "broad support from tech leaders and open-market advocates," generating a rare moment of alignment between policymakers and parts of an industry often wary of regulation.
If the bill advances, it could further test how California balances innovation with oversight in an economy increasingly shaped by a handful of gatekeeping tech giants. For startups hoping to challenge incumbents, the outcome may determine how freely they can build.