Chinese startups are setting up operations in Singapore to reassure global clients that their intellectual property is insulated from Beijing’s oversight, while U.S. firms are drawn by easier access to international talent amid tightening visa rules at home, industry executives and analysts said.

Kerry Goh, chief executive of Kamet Capital, said relocating operations to Singapore provides “comfort” to international clients by ensuring data and intellectual property are governed locally. He cited support for a new AI video venture launched by former executives of Alibaba as an example of this shift.

The trend reflects broader fallout from intensifying Sino-U.S. competition over advanced technologies, including export controls and talent mobility restrictions. Policies under U.S. President Donald Trump, particularly changes to H-1B visa rules, have made it harder for companies to deploy global workforces in the United States.

Singapore has responded with incentives aimed at building an AI-focused economy, including fast-track visas for skilled workers and tax benefits for intellectual property registration. Officials say these measures have strengthened the country’s appeal as a technology hub.

Major global firms are expanding their presence. AI developer Anthropic is planning a Singapore office, according to people familiar with the matter, joining companies such as OpenAI, Meta’s Superintelligence Labs, and Google’s DeepMind.

At the same time, the shift has raised concerns among policymakers. Washington has tightened restrictions on advanced chip exports, including limits on sales by Nvidia to China, while Beijing has reportedly imposed constraints on talent mobility for some AI firms expanding overseas.

Analysts warn Singapore’s growing role as a “neutral” jurisdiction could draw scrutiny from both sides. Chong Ja Ian, a political scientist at the National University of Singapore, said the city-state risks being viewed as a grey zone for technology transfers, potentially prompting regulatory pushback.

Despite such risks, companies continue to be attracted by Singapore’s streamlined visa processes, with some employment passes approved within days, and its reputation as a stable, business-friendly environment.

Apple has moved to challenge India’s revised antitrust penalty framework, arguing that linking fines to global turnover could expose the company to disproportionate financial risk.

Apple has formally contested India’s amended antitrust penalty law, stating that the revised framework could subject the company to an exceptionally large fine based on its worldwide revenue, prompting a significant legal dispute with potential global implications for competition enforcement standards.

The challenge has been filed before the Delhi High Court and marks the first major objection to India’s penalty calculation reforms, which now allow the Competition Commission of India to base penalties on a company’s total global turnover rather than on its India-specific revenue.

According to Apple’s filing, the company believes the new rules create the possibility of fines that far exceed the scale of its operations within India, arguing that the framework results in excessive punishment that does not align with the nature or scale of alleged market conduct.

The filing notes that Apple’s potential maximum penalty, calculated at 10% of its global turnover over a three-year period, could be approximately $38 billion, a figure the company argues would be arbitrary and disproportionate given the size of its Indian business relative to global operations.

Apple has expressed concern that the law creates uncertainty for multinational firms operating in India, as it introduces a penalty structure that may not adequately differentiate between domestic behaviour and global business performance.

The company has emphasised that it has not engaged in any conduct violating competition law and continues to contest allegations that it abused dominance within the iOS app marketplace by limiting third-party payment options and imposing high commission fees on developers.

The antitrust case was initiated following complaints from app developers and firms including Match Group, who have argued that Apple’s in-app payment rules restrict competition and lead to higher costs for consumers and developers.

Investigation findings previously indicated concerns about Apple’s policies, though the final determination on whether the company acted in violation of competition rules remains pending before the Competition Commission.

Apple’s legal filing also references a recent antitrust case in which the updated penalty rules were applied retrospectively, leading the company to argue that it now faces heightened legal risk should the same approach be used in its own case.

The company contends that penalties should relate only to the business segment directly involved in the alleged violation, comparing the situation to a hypothetical scenario where a small toy business within a larger stationery company is penalised based on the entire conglomerate’s revenue.

Apple maintains that this interpretation would result in an unreasonable and inequitable enforcement system, as penalties would not be aligned with the revenue generated by the specific business unit under investigation.

The company further argues that global turnover-based penalties are more appropriate in jurisdictions where firms possess overwhelming market dominance, noting that in India it remains a significantly smaller player than competitors operating on Android-based ecosystems.

Industry analysts have observed that Apple’s user base in India has grown rapidly in recent years, reflecting rising demand for premium smartphones and expanding retail presence, though the company’s market share remains modest in comparison with broader national smartphone trends.

Legal experts highlight that the revised law offers clear authority for the competition regulator to consider global turnover, suggesting that Apple may face difficulty convincing courts to overturn rules that were intentionally designed to strengthen antitrust enforcement.

Supporters of the rule argue that global turnover calculations create stronger deterrence for multinational companies by ensuring penalties cannot be absorbed as minor operational costs, particularly in high-value digital markets where firms generate substantial global revenue.

Critics, however, warn that overly broad penalties may discourage investment and complicate the operating environment for companies that run diversified global businesses but maintain smaller operations in emerging markets.

The company’s plea is scheduled for a hearing on December 3, marking a key moment in India’s evolving competition law landscape as regulators and multinational corporations navigate tensions between enforcement strength and proportionality in penalty assessment.

Observers expect the case to influence how global companies evaluate regulatory risk in India and could set an important precedent for the interpretation of turnover-based penalties across sectors involving digital platforms, technology companies and global service providers.