Why Apple is fighting India penalties based on global turnover, and what it means for Big Tech
The change significantly increases the shares of multinational technology companies, as penalties calculated on global turnover can reach tens of billions of dollars. Apple, for example, faces a fine of approximately $38 billion if found guilty of abusing its market dominance in India.
Unsurprisingly, the company sued, calling the law “arbitrary, unconstitutional, grossly disproportionate and unfair.” Apple’s Constitutional challenge is the first major legal test of this far-reaching new power. “This Apple case could easily become the first real stress test of the CCI’s new criminal powers,” Delhi High Court lawyer Ekta Rai said. he said.
The outcome could determine how Big Tech is regulated in one of the world’s fastest-growing digital markets. Let’s take a closer look.
What exactly does the amended rule say?
The issue at the heart of Apple’s legal challenge is the CCI’s method of calculating penalties. Under the amended Article 27(b) of the Competition Act (renewed in 2023) and the CCI’s 2024 fine rules, the regulator may base the calculation of fines on a company’s global turnover in certain cases.
The guidelines lay out a multi-step approach. Typically, CCI starts with the relevant turnover (revenue from the product or business in which the anti-competitive conduct is alleged to have occurred, or revenue earned by the company’s incorporation in India). Up to 30% of this amount may be collected as a basic penalty, with adjustments made according to aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
However, it may resort to the statutory maximum of up to 10% of the company’s average global turnover for the previous three financial years where it believes that a penalty based on the turnover figure would not create a sufficient deterrent, particularly in digital markets where India-specific revenues are difficult to isolate or represent a very small slice of global earnings. This significantly increases the potential liability of global firms operating in India.
What caused this change?
An April 2023 analysis in Moneycontrol by partners of Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas noted that the concept of “relevant turnover” was never clearly defined in the original Competition Act. The CCI initially interpreted ‘turnover’ as total turnover, which led to huge fines. In 2012 CCI fined Excel Crop Care 9% of its total turnover or ₹63.9 crore, instead of basing this figure solely on the turnover of aluminum phosphide, which is the subject of the matter.
Excel Crop Care appealed to the High Court for relief and in 2017 the court ruled that penalties should normally be linked to the relevant turnover. However, this relevant turnover is difficult to determine in cases involving modern digital platforms and global businesses, where it is almost impossible to focus on the revenue of a specific disruptive product.
The 2023 amendment and 2024 guidelines were introduced to provide the CCI with additional tools where calculating the relevant turnover is impractical or ineffective as a deterrent. By doing this, they reverse the practical impact of the Excel Plant Care precedent.
Deterrence was an important factor contributing to this change; because the use of the relevant endorsement generally resulted in modest fines that were unlikely to deter abuses by large firms with deep pockets. For example, Apple’s revenue in India was approximately $8.9 billion in FY25 ( ₹79,378 crore) is a tiny fraction of the $416 billion global revenue. Match Group’s private submission to the CCI in October (more details below) clearly argued that a penalty based solely on Indian revenue would be too small to change the behavior of dominant firms.
How do these rules compare with similar rules around the world?
Approaches to antitrust vary around the world. The United States does not maintain an antitrust regime that focuses on fines. Instead, enforcement focuses on structural solutions such as divestitures, breaking up monopolistic companies, and imposing behavioral restrictions.
EU law, on the other hand, allows fines of up to 10% of global turnover. In practice, however, the European Commission (EC) usually starts with the relevant market turnover and then applies adjustments. For example, the European Commission’s €4.34 billion fine against Google in 2018 (Android case) was calculated based on revenue from Google’s search services on Android devices in the European Economic Area, not the company’s global revenue.
Similarly, when the EC fined Apple €1.84 billion in 2024 for restrictions affecting music streaming apps, it stated that this amount represented 0.5% of Apple’s global turnover, well below the 10% limit.
India’s model is similar to the EU’s, but companies like Google and Apple have much higher EU revenues, while India’s revenues are much higher. Apple’s European revenue reached $101.33 billion in FY24 (October 2023 – September 2024). India revenue was around 8 billion dollars ( ₹67,121 crore from April 2023 to March 2024. While Apple follows the October-September financial year for its global earnings reporting, in India it follows the April-March financial year.
What is Apple’s argument against the law? So why is he taking action now?
Apple’s petition argues that relying on worldwide revenues for India-specific behavior is “arbitrary” and “grossly disproportionate,” especially when the alleged misconduct involves only a small portion of Apple’s global business.
The petition also raises concerns about retroactive effect; because the law uses the average turnover of the previous three years even for behavior before the change. Apple argues that this change conflicts with the Supreme Court’s Excel Plant Care decision, which held that penalties should normally be based on the turnover involved. Apple said the new provisions “reverse the spirit and spirit” of that decision.
The timing of the issue ties into the ongoing CCI investigation into Apple’s App Store apps. Between 2021 and 2022, NGOs, Indian startups and Match Group (owner of dating app Tinder) approached the CCI, accusing Apple of abusing its dominance by mandating the use of the in-app payment system and charging commissions of up to 30%. CCI pooled all the cases and found prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, but Apple denied any wrongdoing.
In a private presentation to the CCI in October 2025, reported by Reuters, Match Group argued that a fine based on global turnover would be a “significant deterrent against recidivism.” Facing a potential fine of up to $38 billion, Apple has moved to challenge the basis on which such a penalty could be imposed.
What are the risks and who else will be affected?
The implications of this case extend far beyond Apple. Multinational firms whose behavior in India could be construed as ‘misconduct’ under competition law now face fines far greater than those available on Indian revenues.
Even a partial win (for example, if the court favors global turnover in principle but reads it within the framework of proportionality, product nexus and absolutely non-retroactivity) would give other tech companies such as Meta, Google and Amazon a strong basis to challenge the CCI’s overly broad penalty calculations, according to B. Shravanth Shanker, counsel of record at the Supreme Court of India.
However, Shanker warned that if Apple loses, CCI could begin imposing penalties based on global turnover, greatly increasing financial risk for Big Tech.
Indian startups and developers have long argued that dominant platforms impose restrictive practices that affect profits and competition, and that the outcome of this situation will directly affect these companies.
“For global tech companies, this case is a sign of how serious India is about policing digital markets,” Rai said. “If the government’s stance is supported, India will enter the ‘high regulation, high risk’ club alongside the EU. If Apple manages to tighten the law, Big Tech will still see India as a tough country, but also as a place where courts will step in to keep penalties proportionate.”
The Delhi High Court will hear Apple’s petition on December 3. The case will determine whether India’s newly strengthened antitrust penalty framework can withstand Constitutional scrutiny, and its outcome will be closely watched by global tech companies, investors and regulators seeking clarity on sanctions in India’s digital economy.
