Apple and Google wield significant influence over access to information and user privacy, with their operational decisions bearing profound implications for human rights globally. As transnational corporations, Apple and Google face a maze of country-specific regulations, leading to a more fragmented internet. Instead of standardizing their services, they adjust their responses to government app takedown requests for profit, resulting in inconsistent actions across different governments. This strategy, driven by profit rather than principles, deepens the digital divide as it shapes the internet landscape to their advantage.

Beyond the diverse legal frameworks of countries and varied responses from companies, a third factor further splinters the internet: regional bodies like the EU Commission, which recently enacted the Digital Markets Act, play a significant role. Institutions add complexity by ruling on cases or establishing new regulations solely within their jurisdictions.

This fragmentation, both in legislative frameworks and tech companies' practices, detracts from a uniform global internet experience and obstructs the establishment of global digital rights standards. The absence of a cohesive strategy to align tech operations with human rights principles means that isolated legal victories, such as Epic vs. Google may not suffice in fostering a digital landscape that universally upholds human rights.

Splintered Web: Global Digital Unity in an Era of Regulatory Divergence

The European Union's Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA) epitomize a provisional triumph in which Apple is compelled to modify its iOS app distribution model to possibly permit web-based app distribution. However, this departure from Apple's previously exclusive App Store ecosystem is limited to the EU, representing a loss in the wider context of internet fragmentation.

Region-specific enforcement fragments the global digital ecosystem through geographical disparities. An EU developer, whose main user base is outside the EU, benefits minimally from these regulations if their app is App Store-rejected and they can't provide it alternatively to their intended audience.

The problem of selective application and compliance extends beyond the EU. Globally, various jurisdictions implement distinct regulations, prompting tech companies to adjust their services, terms, and operations in specific markets to align with local laws, ranging from the UK and Japan to Italy and the Netherlands.

The fragmented state of internet governance undermines civil society and human rights organizations reliant on digital platforms for vital apps. In countries with heavy censorship like China and Russia, where human rights are often sidelined, there is an urgent need for tech companies to adhere to universal standards that surpass local laws.

Such standards would guarantee access to uncensored information, privacy protections, and support for marginalized groups and minorities. It is essential to establish universal principles, based on human rights standards like the UN’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, to ensure global accountability for tech companies.

Charting the Path Forward: Elevating the U.S.'s Role in Global Digital Regulation

“Jurisdictional differences highlight the need for companies like Google and Apple to follow global standards, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights," stated Benjamin Ismail, Director of GreatFire's AppCensorship project. “Having consistent rules would help these companies deal with governments in the same way everywhere, preventing, or at least mitigating, authoritarian demands.”

The UN principles establish a clear framework aimed at mitigating the negative impacts of business operations on global human rights. Within this framework, Principle 11 emphasizes the responsibility of corporations to respect human rights, highlighting the incongruity of actions by companies such as Apple and Google, which, for example, limit app developers' capacity to offer alternative purchasing options. Such restrictions, currently imposed by both Apple and Google, are particularly detrimental for developers providing essential VPN services in authoritarian regimes, where payment alternatives are indispensable for protecting user privacy and ensuring access to information.

Principle 19 advocates for thorough due diligence to identify, prevent, and address human rights impacts adversely. It requires companies to proactively assess and rectify the potential human rights consequences of their policies. If Apple and Google were to adhere to these standards, it would impose regulation on their business operations. In the context of Principle 19, this means that the management and moderation of application distribution platforms, such as the App Store and Google Play, must evolve into processes that are transparent and governed by principles aligned with international standards—moving beyond the discretionary choices of the companies themselves.

Despite the obligations outlined in the UN guidelines, the current scenario underscores a significant reliance on tech companies to voluntarily adhere to these principles, a strategy that has proven insufficient. The necessity for an international regulatory framework has become apparent, compelling tech giants to commit to human rights, especially in situations where these rights are most vulnerable.

The Role of the US in Regulating US-based Transnational Corporations

The role of U.S. legislators is pivotal in leveraging the country's position as home to major tech companies to enforce UN guidelines through binding laws, creating a regulatory framework that ensures corporate accountability for human rights globally. This approach gains legitimacy as these tech giants are U.S.-based, making American oversight both relevant and significant.

Such regulation would also address concerns from lawmakers that repressive digital policies from abroad can infringe upon the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens. For instance, in compliance with demands from authoritarian governments, tech companies have implemented measures that limit users' rights on a global scale. For example, in 2022 alone, Apple removed 1,474 apps based on government takedown requests worldwide, with a significant portion, 1,435, originating from China. Furthermore, features like AirDrop have seen restrictions worldwide, too.

This approach would address legal inconsistencies and hold tech firms accountable in the U.S. for any human rights abuses worldwide, setting a global standard for digital rights protection. Championing such legislation would establish the U.S. as a leader in digital rights, fostering a digital environment that prioritizes human rights while addressing many of the antitrust concerns. It's a call to action for lawmakers, stakeholders, and tech companies to support democracy and human rights in the digital realm.