New Delhi: Apple has become the centre of a major legal dispute after India’s antitrust watchdog has defended a law that allows penalties to be calculated based on a company’s global turnover.
The law, enacted in 2024, has been challenged by Apple before New Delhi judges, with the company arguing that it could lead to disproportionate fines for conduct that has occurred only within India.
In a court filing dated December 15, the Competition Commission of India has said that the law has been designed to discourage violations by multinational corporations operating across borders. The regulator has stated that relying only on India-specific turnover, particularly for global digital firms, has failed to deter anti-competitive behaviour effectively.
According to the filing, the global turnover method has ensured that penalties retain real deterrent value in complex digital markets, where large companies operate at scale. The regulator has added that the approach mirrors established practices in jurisdictions such as the European Union and brings Indian competition enforcement in line with global standards.
Apple has argued in its lawsuit that the law could expose the company to excessive fines. The company has expressed concern that it could face penalties of up to $38 billion (£29.8bn) following an investigation by the Competition Commission of India that found Apple had abused its dominant position in the app store market.
The dispute has broader implications beyond Apple, as the law could affect other global corporations facing antitrust scrutiny in India. Companies such as Amazon, Pernod Ricard and Publicis have also been identified as potentially impacted by the interpretation of turnover under the revised framework.
Apple has also accused the Competition Commission of India of applying the new law retrospectively in another case. The regulator has rejected this claim, stating that it has always held the authority to impose fines of up to ten percent of a company’s turnover.
The recent amendment, the commission has said, merely clarified how turnover should be defined. The Competition Commission of India has argued that clarificatory provisions can operate retrospectively because they explain the true intent of the legislature.
Regulators have maintained that the law has not expanded their powers but has provided clearer guidance on calculating penalties.As the legal battle continues, the case has highlighted growing tensions between India’s competition authorities and global technology firms.
The outcome is expected to shape how antitrust penalties are enforced in India and how companies like Apple navigate regulatory scrutiny in one of the world’s largest digital markets.
IMPORTANT | Peace deal talks advance as UK and France plan Ukraine troop role
