Global tech giant Apple has filed a major constitutional challenge in Indian courts, contesting a sweeping amendment to the country’s antitrust law. In a petition filed before the Delhi High Court, Apple argues that the revised penalty regime enforced by the CCI — which uses global turnover to compute fines — is arbitrary, disproportionately punitive, and unconstitutional. The case highlights growing tensions between multinational firms and Indian regulators over how to regulate digital markets in the era of global business.

Why the dispute matters: Global turnover vs Indian revenue

The heart of Apple’s objection lies in a 2023 amendment to the Competition Act, 2002. Under the amended Section 27(b) and the accompanying 2024 penalty guidelines, the CCI is empowered to impose fines based on a company’s average global turnover over the three preceding fiscal years — covering all products and services worldwide.

Previously, under the legal precedent set by the Excel Crop Care v. Competition Commission of India verdict (2017), penalties were to be calculated only on the “relevant turnover” — i.e., revenue generated in respect of the product or service under investigation within India. That principle ensured proportionality: fines would correspond to the scale of domestic impact rather than global business.

By using global turnover, regulators arguably risk punishing business segments wholly unconnected to the alleged anti competitive conduct in India. Apple’s petition warns that this could result in excessively large penalties, even if only a small portion of its business relates to India.

The potential penalty: A staggering $38 billion

According to Apple’s 545 page court filing, the structure of the amended law exposes it to a potential penalty of up to 10% of its average global turnover for the fiscal years 2022 through 2024. Given Apple’s scale of business worldwide, this “maximum penalty exposure” could amount to roughly US $38 billion.

Apple argues that such a fine, based on global operations, would be “manifestly arbitrary, unconstitutional, grossly disproportionate, and unjust.” The company contends it would contravene the constitutional protections under Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 21 (protection of personal liberty and life) of the Indian Constitution.

Moreover, Apple challenges the retrospective application of the amended law. It notes that CCI had already directed it to furnish audited financial statements for FY 2022–2024 under the new provisions, raising concerns that the law might be used to penalize conduct predating the amendment.

The background: CCI’s antitrust allegations against Apple

This legal battle stems from an antitrust investigation initiated in 2022, following complaints by the owner of Tinder (via its parent Match Group) and a coalition of Indian startups. They accused Apple of abusing its dominant position in the iOS App Store by forcing app developers to use Apple’s in app purchase (IAP) system — which levies commissions of up to 30% — thereby restricting developers’ choice of payment systems.

Last year, CCI reportedly issued a “prima facie” finding that Apple’s mandatory IAP policy amounted to “abusive conduct,” limiting the ability of app developers to choose third party payment processors.

Apple has denied these allegations, arguing that its payment policies ensure security and trust in digital transactions, and maintain that in India it represents a much smaller share of the overall smartphone market — dominated largely by Android devices.

Apple’s legal arguments: Fairness, Proportionality, and Jurisdiction

According to the petition:

• The CCI lacks jurisdiction to factor in global revenue for foreign markets that have no connection to the alleged anti competitive behavior in India. The company argues that the amended law violates the “doctrine of proportionality” enshrined in Indian constitutional jurisprudence.


• Global turnover based fines could penalize parts of the business unrelated to the alleged offence — for instance, hardware sales or services outside India. Apple illustrated this with an analogy: a stationery business should not be penalised for the misdeeds of a toy business under the same corporate umbrella.


• Retrospective application of the law is especially problematic. Apple pointed to a prior case where the CCI applied the new turnover based penalty rule to a violation that allegedly occurred a decade earlier, raising alarm about potential retroactive punishment.

In its filing, Apple has urged the Delhi High Court to strike down the amended provisions as unconstitutional, or at least clarify that penalties must be based only on Indian or relevant turnover. The matter is scheduled for hearing on December 3, 2025.

Broader implications: What this could mean for Big Tech in India

If Apple succeeds, the verdict could reshape how India enforces competition law against multinational firms. It could limit the ability of the CCI to impose massive fines based on global revenue, and require a more nuanced, market specific approach.

On the other hand, if the court upholds the amended law, this may signal to other global tech firms — including those operating digital platforms, app stores, online marketplaces, and beyond — that global revenue is fair game when regulators assess antitrust penalties. Legal analysts suggest that in jurisdictions such as the European Union or the United Kingdom, it is common to impose fines based on worldwide turnover.

Law firms note, however, that overturning a “clearly defined legislative policy” in court will be difficult.

For India, this case underscores an evolving regulatory framework in response to the global business models of major tech companies. As more firms shift parts of their supply chains and operations to India, questions about jurisdiction, fairness, and proportionality are likely to resurface — making the outcome of this case especially significant.

Apple’s growing footprint in India

Apple’s challenge comes amid its expanding presence in India. Over the past few years, the U.S. firm has ramped up iPhone manufacturing and exports from India, partly as part of a broader global supply chain diversification strategy.

This expansion has made India a more important market for Apple — not just for sales, but also for production and exports. For regulators, the stakes are high: applying global turnover based fines to companies that derive only a fraction of their business from India may effectively leverage global business to influence behavior in Indian markets.

What’s next: A December 3 hearing and a possible precedent

The case is slated for a hearing before the Delhi High Court on December 3, 2025.

• If the court strikes down the global turnover penalty framework (or limits its applicability), it could set a precedent that protects multinational firms from potentially disproportionate fines.


• If the court upholds the amended law, it would reinforce the expanded powers of the CCI and send a strong message to Big Tech companies operating in India — that global revenues may be used to penalize local antitrust violations.

Either outcome would carry major implications — not only for Apple, but for the regulatory landscape of digital economy in India, foreign businesses’ approach to compliance, and future enforcement actions by CCI.

Conclusion

Apple’s legal challenge underscores a fundamental tension: on one hand, the need for effective antitrust enforcement in a rapidly digitizing economy; on the other, the risk of disproportionately large penalties for global companies based on business segments unrelated to the alleged offence. As India seeks to regulate powerful multinational firms operating within its borders, the Delhi High Court’s decision may shape the contours of competition law enforcement for years to come.

Given Apple’s growing footprint in India — both in sales and manufacturing/export — the stakes for the company, as well as for regulators and other global firms, could not be higher. The December hearing could well become a landmark case defining how global enterprises are held accountable under Indian competition law.