Apple Challenges India’s Penalty Framework as Antitrust Case Escalates

New Delhi — Apple has moved to halt ongoing antitrust proceedings in India by contesting the legality of a key provision that allows financial penalties to be calculated based on a company’s global turnover.

The challenge has intensified the dispute between one of the world’s largest technology companies and India’s competition regulator, which has been examining the firm’s business practices since 2021.

The case stems from complaints filed by app developers, including the parent company of a major global dating platform and several Indian startups, who argued that Apple’s in-app payment rules impose burdensome charges on smaller market participants.

India’s antitrust authority had previously concluded that the structure of these fees could harm competition, setting the stage for potential financial penalties.

Apple has argued before the Delhi High Court that using global turnover as the reference point for calculating penalties would be excessive and disproportionate, especially when the alleged breach pertains only to practices within India.

The company has warned that the law could expose it to an extraordinarily large penalty, even though its market share in India is significantly smaller than that of competing mobile platforms.

During a recent hearing, counsel representing the Competition Commission of India stated that the company’s challenge appeared intended to delay the ongoing proceedings.

The regulator maintained that the penalty framework, amended in 2024, was designed to strengthen enforcement by giving authorities the ability to consider global revenues when determining fines for violations of competition law.

Judges of the Delhi High Court directed the competition regulator to file a comprehensive response to Apple’s objections.

The court will assess whether the amendment aligns with constitutional requirements and whether it can be applied to cases that began before the legal change took effect.

Apple requested that the regulator be prevented from initiating coercive measures while the matter is under judicial review.

The dispute has drawn attention from legal experts who note that several jurisdictions worldwide have updated their competition laws to address the increasing complexity and global reach of digital markets.

Supporters of the amendment argue that basing penalties solely on India-specific turnover would reduce the deterrent effect for multinational firms whose revenues are overwhelmingly drawn from outside the country.

Critics counter that penalties tied to global turnover risk imposing excessive burdens unrelated to domestic market conduct.

In confidential submissions referenced by the complainants earlier this year, advocates for stricter enforcement argued that using global turnover ensures companies consider the consequences of anti-competitive practices more seriously.

They maintained that the framework promotes compliance and discourages repeated violations, especially among large international firms.

Apple, however, has denied any wrongdoing and insists that it operates within the bounds of competition law.

It maintains that its policies support consumer safety and platform integrity, and it emphasizes that its presence in India remains substantially smaller than that of competitors whose platforms dominate the local market.

The company has stated that the penalties under the amended law could threaten commercially viable operations if applied without a proportionality test.

The case continues to unfold at a time when India is strengthening its regulatory oversight of major technology platforms, reflecting broader global debates on digital market governance.

The outcome of the challenge will determine not only the future of Apple’s antitrust proceedings in India but also the broader interpretation and reach of the country’s competition law amendments.

A final decision on the penalty is still pending, and further hearings are expected as the court evaluates arguments from both sides.

The regulator maintains that the amendment is essential for effective oversight, while Apple continues to argue that the law requires judicial scrutiny to ensure fairness and proportionality in its application.