November 27, 2025 :  Apple Inc. has formally challenged India’s newly revised antitrust penalty framework, filing a detailed petition before the Delhi High Court that warns of potential fines reaching as high as $38 billion. The unprecedented figure stems from the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) updated approach to calculating penalties—one that allows fines to be imposed based on a company’s global turnover, rather than revenues generated solely within India.

This legal confrontation highlights mounting tensions between global technology giants and India’s increasingly assertive regulatory environment. At stake is not only Apple’s financial exposure but also the fundamental principles under which multinational corporations are held accountable in one of the world’s fastest-growing digital markets.

A Shift in India’s Competition Law

The controversy arises from amendments made to the Competition Act in recent years, granting the CCI enhanced powers to levy penalties. Under the updated law, the watchdog can now impose fines amounting to up to 10% of a company’s average global turnover over the preceding three financial years.

For Apple, whose global revenue crosses hundreds of billions annually, the maximum penalty under this formula could theoretically reach $38 billion—one of the largest corporate fines in history.

Previously, Indian competition law limited fines to a company’s relevant turnover, meaning the revenue generated from the specific business segment tied to alleged anti-competitive practices within India. The new rule marks a significant departure from this narrower approach and aligns Indian regulations more closely with jurisdictions such as the European Union, where penalties based on global turnover are common.

Apple’s Argument: ‘Arbitrary and Disproportionate’

In its extensive petition, Apple claims that the use of global turnover as a basis for penalties is “manifestly arbitrary”, “unconstitutional”, and “disproportionate”. The company argues that such penalties bear no reasonable correlation to the scale of its operations or alleged misconduct in India.

Apple states that no nation should impose penalties tied to worldwide operations when only a fraction of revenue is earned domestically. The company also warns that the penalty framework could set a troubling precedent, exposing multinational businesses to unpredictable and excessively punitive fines.

One of Apple’s key arguments revolves around the idea of proportionality. The petition asserts that a fine must be linked to the “relevant turnover”, or the revenue specifically related to the product or service at the centre of the antitrust case. Forcing a company to pay fines based on total global revenue—even from unrelated product lines—violates fundamental legal principles, Apple claims.

The Underlying Antitrust Case

Apple’s legal move is closely tied to an ongoing investigation initiated by complaints from several app developers, including dating-app provider Match Group and local Indian startups. They allege that Apple’s App Store policies force developers to use its in-app payment system and pay steep commissions, thereby abusing dominance.

The CCI has been examining whether Apple’s control of the iOS ecosystem constitutes anti-competitive conduct. While the investigation has not yet resulted in a final ruling or penalty, the new penalty regime means Apple could face fines far exceeding what would have been possible under the old rules.

Apple argues that the retrospective application of the amended penalty rules is unjust—since the alleged violations occurred before the amendments were introduced.

India’s Rising Regulatory Muscle

India, now among Apple’s fastest-growing markets, has taken increasingly firm positions on competition and digital-market regulation. With a rapidly expanding user base and major global companies investing heavily in India, regulators have become more vigilant about ensuring fair market practices.

Supporters of the new penalty law argue that India needs strong deterrents to prevent exploitative or monopolistic behaviour, especially from powerful global corporations with deep pockets. They believe the ability to impose penalties based on global turnover ensures that fines remain meaningful and impactful.

Critics, however, say the approach may backfire by discouraging investment or leading to prolonged legal battles. They caution that hefty fines unrelated to Indian revenue could create uncertainty for businesses seeking to expand in the country.

Impact Beyond Apple

Apple’s challenge may have implications far beyond its own case. Several global technology companies—including Google, Meta, Amazon, and others—are already under scrutiny by Indian regulators. If the Delhi High Court sides with Apple, the ruling could limit the CCI’s power to impose substantial fines based on global turnover.

Conversely, if the challenge is dismissed, Indian regulators will wield one of the strongest penalty mechanisms worldwide—potentially reshaping the regulatory landscape for big tech in the country.

What’s Next?

The Delhi High Court is expected to hear Apple’s plea in the coming weeks. Legal experts suggest that overturning the amended penalty framework may be difficult, as the law explicitly provides for global turnover-based penalties.

However, the court may consider whether applying the rule retrospectively—or applying it to unrelated global turnover—is constitutionally valid.

The outcome of this case will be closely watched, both in India and internationally. For Apple, the stakes are enormous—not just financially but in shaping its long-term operational and regulatory strategy in a market it considers essential for future growth.

Summary

Apple has challenged India’s revised antitrust law that allows penalties based on global turnover, warning the rule could expose it to a massive $38 billion fine. The Delhi High Court will review the petition.