- India’s antitrust regulator is defending a law that allows fines based on global turnover.
- Apple argues the rule could lead to disproportionate penalties for India only conduct.
- Regulators say India specific fines are ineffective against large multinationals.
- The court’s decision could impact many foreign companies operating in India.
India’s competition regulator has mounted a strong legal defence of its revised antitrust penalty framework, pushing back against Apple’s challenge to a law that allows fines to be calculated using a company’s global turnover rather than just its India revenues.
The case, now before the Delhi High Court, has become a critical test of how aggressively India intends to police alleged anti-competitive behaviour by multinational corporations operating in its rapidly expanding digital economy.
At the centre of the dispute is a 2024 amendment to India’s competition law. The change empowers regulators to impose penalties based on worldwide revenue, a move Apple argues could lead to disproportionate punishment for conduct that occurred solely within India.
The Competition Commission of India, however, insists the measure is essential to ensure meaningful deterrence, particularly for large global technology firms.
Why India Changed the Penalty Framework
In a detailed court filing submitted in December, India’s antitrust watchdog explained that calculating penalties solely on India specific turnover often fails to discourage violations by multinational corporations.
According to the regulator, companies with massive global revenues can easily absorb fines that are limited to earnings from a single market, making such penalties largely symbolic.
The commission argued that the revised approach aligns India’s enforcement regime with international competition practices, especially those followed in advanced jurisdictions dealing with complex digital markets.
In sectors where companies operate across borders and platforms simultaneously, local revenue figures may not reflect the scale or impact of alleged misconduct.
By referencing global turnover, the regulator said, penalties retain their deterrent value and prevent large firms from treating fines as a routine cost of doing business.
The filing emphasised that this approach is particularly relevant in digital markets, where dominance in one country is often reinforced by global scale, data advantages, and network effects.
Apple’s Legal Challenge and Financial Concerns
Apple has taken a firm stance against the new penalty calculation method, arguing that it exposes the company to excessive and unfair financial risk.
In its lawsuit, Apple warned that applying the global turnover rule could result in a fine of up to 38 billion dollars following a competition investigation into its app store practices in India.
The company maintains that any alleged violations identified by Indian authorities were confined to the domestic market and should therefore be assessed using India specific revenue.
Apple has also expressed concern that the law mirrors European Union practices without adequately accounting for local legal and economic conditions.
Another key element of Apple’s challenge is its claim that the competition authority is applying the amended law retrospectively. Apple argues that such an application would be unlawful and would undermine legal certainty for businesses operating in India.
Regulator Rejects Claims of Retrospective Enforcement
The competition commission has strongly rejected Apple’s accusations, stating that the amended law does not introduce new punitive powers but merely clarifies how turnover should be interpreted.
According to the regulator, Indian competition law has long permitted fines of up to ten percent of a company’s turnover, and the recent amendment simply removes ambiguity around whether that turnover can be global.
The regulator told the court that clarificatory provisions are, by nature, retrospective because they explain the original intent of lawmakers rather than creating new obligations.
It also accused Apple of attempting to mislead the court by suggesting that the authority had already moved to impose a global turnover-based fine.
In its filing, the commission noted that it has so far requested only India-specific financial information from Apple, contradicting claims that the company is being subjected to an immediate global revenue assessment.
Apple, however, maintains that the very act of seeking broader turnover definitions under the new framework significantly increases its exposure to higher penalties.
What the Case Means for Global Companies
The outcome of this case could have wide-ranging implications beyond Apple. Several multinational firms across industries such as technology, advertising, and consumer goods are currently under antitrust scrutiny in India.
A ruling in favour of the regulator would strengthen India’s hand in imposing tougher penalties and could reshape how global corporations assess regulatory risk in the country.
The Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear the case later this month, and its decision will be closely watched by businesses, investors, and policymakers alike.
Follow TechBSB For More Updates
