Mint Explainer: Why Apple is fighting India penalties based on global turnover, and what it means for Big Tech

The amendment dramatically increases the stakes for multinational technology firms, as fines calculated on global turnover can run into tens of billions of dollars. Apple, for instance, faces a potential fine of nearly $38 billion if found guilty of abusing its market dominance in India.

Unsurprisingly, the company has approached the court, calling the law “arbitrary, unconstitutional, grossly disproportionate, unjust". Apple’s Constitutional challenge is the first major legal test of this sweeping new power. Delhi High Court advocate Ekta Rai said, “This Apple case can easily become the first real stress test of the CCI’s new penalty powers."

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 does the amended rule say, exactly?

The issue at the heart of Apple’s legal challenge is the method by which the CCI computes fines. Under the amended Section 27(b) of the Competition Act (revamped in 2023) and the CCI’s 2024 monetary penalty guidelines, the regulator can, in certain cases, use a company’s global turnover as the basis for calculating fines.

The guidelines set out a multi-step approach. Typically, the CCI begins with the relevant turnover – the revenue derived from the product or business vertical where the alleged anti-competitive conduct occurred, or the revenue earned by the company’s India entity. It can levy up to 30% of this amount as the base penalty, with adjustments for aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

However, it may invoke the statutory maximum of up to 10% of the company’s average global turnover for the previous three financial years in cases where it believes that a fine based on the turnover figure would not create sufficient deterrence, particularly in digital markets, where India-specific revenues are difficult to isolate or represent a minuscule slice of global earnings. This significantly increases the potential liability for global firms operating in India.

What led to this change?

An April 2023 analysis in Moneycontrol by partners at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas noted that the concept of “relevant turnover" was never explicitly defined in the original Competition Act. The CCI initially interpreted ‘turnover’ to mean total turnover, which resulted in large fines. In 2012, the CCI fined Excel Crop Care 9% of its total turnover, or ₹63.9 crore, instead of basing it on just the turnover in aluminium phosphide, the subject of the issue.

Excel Crop Care approached the Supreme Court for relief, and in 2017 the court ruled that penalties should ordinarily be linked to the relevant turnover. However, this relevant turnover is hard to determine in cases involving modern digital platforms and global businesses, where zeroing in on the revenue of a specific offending product is next to impossible.

The 2023 amendment and 2024 guidelines were introduced to give the CCI additional tools for cases in which the relevant turnover was impractical to calculate or ineffective as a deterrent. In doing so, they reverse the practical effect of the Excel Crop Care precedent.

Deterrence was a major factor that contributed to this change, as using the relevant turnover often resulted in modest fines that were unlikely to prevent misconduct by large firms with deep pockets. Apple’s India revenue in FY25, for instance, was about $8.9 billion ( ₹79,378 crore), a fraction of its $416 billion global revenue. Match Group’s private submission to the CCI in October (more details below) also explicitly argued that a penalty based solely on India revenue would be too small to change the behaviour of dominant firms.

How do these rules rule compare with similar ones worldwide?

Approaches to antitrust vary across the world. The US does not operate an antitrust regime centred around fines. Instead, enforcement focuses on structural remedies such as divestitures, breaking up monopolistic companies, and enforcing behavioural restrictions.

On the other hand, EU law allows for fines of up to 10% of global turnover. In practice, however, the European Commission (EC) usually starts with relevant market turnover and then applies adjustments. For example, the EC’s €4.34-billion fine against Google in 2018 (Android case) was calculated based on revenue from Google’s search services on Android devices within the European Economic Area, and not the company’s global revenue.

Similarly, when the EC fined Apple €1.84 billion in 2024 for restrictions affecting music-streaming apps, it noted that the amount represented 0.5% of Apple’s global turnover, well below the 10% cap.

India’s model is similar to that of the EU, but for companies such as Google and Apple, EU revenues are much higher and Indian revenues. Apple’s Europe revenue amounted to $101.33 billion in FY24 (October 2023 to September 2024), while its India revenue was around $8 billion ( ₹67,121 crore) from April 2023 to March 2024. Apple follows the October-to-September financial year for its global revenue filing, while in India it follows the April-to-March fiscal year.

What is Apple’s argument against the law? And why is it acting now?

Apple’s petition argues that relying on worldwide revenue for India-specific conduct is “arbitrary" and “grossly disproportionate", especially when the alleged misconduct involves only a small part of its global business.

The petition also raises concerns about retrospective impact as the law uses the average turnover of the preceding three years even for conduct that predates the amendment. Crucially, Apple argues that the amendment conflicts with the Supreme Court’s Excel Crop Care judgment, which held that penalties should ordinarily be based on relevant turnover. Apple says the new provisions “purport to reverse the letter and spirit" of that ruling.

The timing of the challenge is linked to the ongoing CCI investigation into Apple’s App Store practices. 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 its in-app payment system and charging a commission of up to 30%. The CCI clubbed all the cases together and found prima facie evidence of abuse, but Apple denied wrongdoing.

In a private submission to the CCI in October 2025, reported by Reuters, Match Group argued that a fine based on global turnover would serve as “a significant deterrent against recidivism". Facing a potential fine as high as $38 billion, Apple has moved to challenge the very basis on which such a penalty could be imposed.

What are the stakes and who else will be affected?

The implications of this case extend far beyond Apple. Any multinational firm whose conduct in India can be construed as ‘abuse’ under competition law now faces fines far larger than could be derived from India revenue.

According to B. Shravanth Shanker, advocate-on-record, Supreme Court of India, even a partial win (for example, if the court upholds global turnover in principle but reads in proportionality, product‑linkage and strict non‑retrospectivity) would still give other tech companies such as Meta, Google and Amazon powerful grounds to challenge the CCI’s overly broad penalty computations.

However, Shanker warned that if Apple loses, the CCI could start imposing penalties based on global turnover, greatly increasing the financial risk for Big Tech.

Indian startups and developers, on the other hand, have long argued that dominant platforms impose restrictive practices that affect earnings and competition, and the result of this case will have a direct bearing on these companies.

“For global tech companies, this case is a signal of how serious India is about policing digital markets," said Rai. “If the government’s position is upheld, India moves firmly into the ‘high-regulation, high-stakes’ club alongside the EU. If Apple manages to narrow the law, Big Tech will still see India as strict, but also as a place where courts step in to keep penalties proportional."

The Delhi High Court is set to hear Apple’s petition on 3 December. 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 technology companies, investors, and regulators seeking clarity on enforcement in India’s digital economy.