It's called signing legally binding contract on using API between Google and Routebuilder with costs, availability and interface specified. Contracts like this are getting signed all the time - for well known examples look at Microsoft/Bing providing search results to Yahoo and Stripe providing CC processing to Starbucks. You do not need a new law for that.
Yeah, if you have enough clout to get Google or any other API vendor to care and make a special contract for you, then great.
Most tenancies are also dictated by a separate legally binding contract (the "lease"). The reason the law addresses tenancy separately, even though most landlords and tenants sign leases, is so that there's a baseline if no contract is provided or if the contract is unconscionable. The law also provides a custom-tailored process to address issues of non-compliance with that type of contract (eviction) instead of sending it through conventional civil court, which wouldn't resolve that type of issue efficiently.
These custom-built paths in law are useful. We have these to make sure things are as fair as possible for all involved parties in common arrangements, because just falling back on hastily-written contracts isn't always the ideal solution. API tenancy is becoming a common arrangement.
Maybe it's too specific though, you could be right about that. Maybe there's a more abstract level at which we can conceptualize digital property rights that would solve API tenancy issues as well as other digital issues.
I think API access is closer to commercial lease than residential ones. Commercial leases are way less regulated than residential ones - generally it's expected that if you sign commercial lease, you know what you are doing.
If state sets onerous reqirements on API, most companies will just stop provide it for free or at all. Why do you want to commit long term resources to something that does not make you any money and sets you up for legal problems if you want to make changes?
I disagree with you that fewer APIs would be offered, but for argument let's run with that.
Is it possible possible that the increase stability of those APIs still offered would be more valuable than the less stable but more numerous API environment we have now?
Exactly, right now, the closest to a contract we have is the Terms of Service. And the ToS is, by design, entirely in the provider's favor (whoever it is) and not in yours. And there's no possibility to negotiate.
