Open Letter Demands Google End Mandatory Developer Registration for Android Apps

The coalition’s letter, signed by dozens of NGOs, open‑source advocates and midsize tech firms, argues that Google’s “mandatory developer registration” policy would convert Android from a historically open ecosystem into a de‑facto gated platform. According to Keepandroidopen, the rule would require any developer who wishes to distribute an app outside Google Play—whether via a personal website, third‑party store, enterprise channel or direct sideload— to submit a verification package that includes a fee, government‑issued ID and acceptance of Google’s terms of service. The signatories contend that this extends Google’s control “beyond its own marketplace into distribution channels where it has no legitimate operational role,” effectively giving the company the power to disable any app worldwide at its discretion (Keepandroidopen).

Beyond the legal‑theoretical concerns, the letter highlights concrete barriers for specific developer groups. Individual creators, small teams and open‑source projects often lack the resources to absorb registration costs or navigate bureaucratic hurdles. Developers in regions with limited access to Google’s infrastructure—or those subject to sanctions that prevent them from signing up—would be excluded entirely. Privacy‑focused engineers, humanitarian responders needing rapid app deployment, and activists operating under repressive regimes also risk being silenced, since the policy would force them to expose personal identification to a corporate entity that could be compelled to share data with governments (Keepandroidopen). The coalition warns that each additional compliance step “reduces diversity in the software ecosystem and concentrates power in the hands of large established players” capable of absorbing the overhead (Keepandroidopen).

The privacy implications are equally stark. By mandating a centralized database of every Android developer, Google would collect personal identifiers for developers who may never use any of its services. The coalition questions how this data could be used, noting that “what personal…[information]” would be stored and potentially accessed by law‑enforcement or other third parties (Keepandroidopen). Such a repository runs counter to Android’s long‑standing design, which relies on decentralized security mechanisms—such as app signing, permission models and sandboxing—rather than a single point of authority for vetting distribution channels.

In response, the signatories call on Google to collaborate with the open‑source community and existing security experts to devise “less restrictive alternatives” that preserve user safety without sacrificing the platform’s openness. They cite Android’s existing security layers—cryptographic signing of APKs, Google Play Protect’s on‑device scanning, and the ability for users to enable installation from “unknown sources”—as sufficient foundations for a more nuanced approach (Keepandroidopen). By working with stakeholders rather than imposing a blanket registration regime, the coalition believes Google can address legitimate security concerns while maintaining the competitive, innovative environment that has made Android the world’s dominant mobile OS.

The open letter also copies regulatory authorities and policymakers, signaling that the coalition expects potential antitrust scrutiny. Industry analysts have long warned that any move expanding Google’s gatekeeping powers could attract enforcement actions under competition law, especially given past investigations into Google’s Play Store practices (see prior coverage of antitrust probes by the European Commission). If Google proceeds, it may face not only legal challenges but also a backlash from the developer community that could drive migration toward alternative Android forks or even accelerate interest in competing platforms that promise fewer corporate constraints.