Standard “I am not a lawyer” disclaimer, but this is a bit like if homebuilders managed to make houses with unbreakable doors and windows, and the government insisting that locksmith retain a copy of every door key. I assume that a recalcitrant user who refused to unlock their phone could be held in contempt of court.
And The Washington Post needs better editors. The third sentence of the second paragraph says the opposite of what they intend. They could correct it by changing to, “Google’s next version of its popular Android operating system will also not be unlockable by the company.” Or perhaps, “Similarly, Google’s will not be able to unlock the next version of its popular Android operating system.”