*Originally published in Conjur.

**This is an AI-powered machine translation of the original text in Portuguese.

When defining and implementing a given regulatory objective — such as promoting competition, protecting privacy, or ensuring security — the government, in a broad sense, may affect other interests that are equally protected by the Constitution, and this interdependence is often underestimated.

In the field of Law and Technology, in particular, the speed of innovation and its broad social impact make it even more important to map how regulation — whether through the issuance of a rule or an administrative decision — can affect rights, bringing benefits in some respects but also risks in others. In some cases, these tensions are clear; in others, only a rigorous impact assessment can reveal them.

An illustrative example is a potential government intervention regarding whether economic agents can restrict sideloading, that is, the ability for users to install applications from sources outside official app stores. While some see this as a way to expand freedom of choice and promote competition, such openness may be accompanied by greater security and privacy risks, especially if adequate controls are not in place. Thus, there is a tension between the need to ensure maximum security in transactions and the promotion of a competitive environment. Each objective must be viewed in light of the impacts it may have on the other, since ignoring their interdependence may result in negative consequences on both sides.

Currently, consumers who prioritize safer environments may prefer platforms that restrict the installation of unverified apps, relying on the security barriers offered by their providers. Those who value flexibility, on the other hand, may choose devices that allow sideloading, assuming the associated risks. Thus, consumers’ decision-making may take these different trade-offs into account, depending on what they value most. In this context, universally imposing sideloading could, paradoxically, reduce the welfare of groups of consumers who specifically sought a more closed ecosystem.

Therefore, the extent of regulatory intervention should consider whether it might be more beneficial for consumers to have the option of choosing between platforms that offer different levels of control over app installation. In this way, the coexistence of multiple business models — both those that adopt sideloading and those that restrict it — expands the options available in the market and promotes a healthy balance between security, privacy, and freedom of use. Regulations that eliminate such diversity may harm those who would opt for more controlled solutions.

A path of our own

These discussions are not uniquely Brazilian, but a global issue. Worldwide, major players and regulatory authorities debate diverse governance models for digital markets. The European Union, for example, approved the Digital Markets Act, which imposes requirements on large platforms, including possible changes to app distribution rules.

However, Brazilian authorities must find a path that does not simply imitate Europe. Each country has its own competitive, cultural, and legal characteristics — and a careful impact assessment helps avoid unintended consequences. Ignoring the interdependence between competition, security, and privacy may lead to scenarios in which well-intentioned policies end up undermining other fundamental values essential to consumer welfare.

This is not merely a matter of prioritizing one interest over another, but of mapping the implications of each regulatory choice and acknowledging the potential tensions among different objectives. A perfect and simultaneous alignment of all interests is often unfeasible; even so, identifying potential conflicts and designing solutions that account for these side effects are essential steps toward a regulatory environment that consciously balances innovation, security, privacy, and competition in favor of overall consumer welfare.

Once the choice is made, it will be necessary to ensure an adequate implementation period for the proposed rules, so that — among the objectives that may be partially diminished — there is no need to sacrifice them even further in a race against time that overlooks the technical complexities inherent in technology regulation.