CCI Defends Global Turnover Penalty Framework in Apple Antitrust Case

India’s competition regulator, the Competition Commission of India, has mounted a strong defence of its global turnover–based penalty framework, arguing that the approach is necessary to effectively deter antitrust violations by large multinational technology companies.

In a court filing reviewed on January 9, 2026, the CCI responded to a legal challenge filed by Apple before the Delhi High Court, contesting amendments to India’s competition law that came into force in 2024.

Apple approached the court in November, arguing that the revised framework could expose companies to disproportionate penalties by linking fines to global turnover rather than revenue generated in India. The challenge arises from a CCI investigation initiated in 2021 into Apple’s App Store practices, in which the regulator found that the company had abused its dominant position—findings that Apple has appealed and continues to dispute.

Under the amended law, penalties can be calculated at up to 10% of a company’s global turnover. Based on Apple’s worldwide revenue, this creates a theoretical maximum exposure of roughly $38 billion, though any final penalty would be determined by the regulator after due process and subject to judicial review.

Regulator stresses deterrence, not punishment

In its submission, the CCI argued that relying solely on India-specific turnover would be inadequate in cases involving digital platforms with vast global operations. It said such an approach would fail to meaningfully deter anti-competitive conduct, particularly where revenues from the Indian market form a small fraction of a company’s global earnings.

The regulator told the court that the 2024 amendment brings India’s competition regime closer to international practice, pointing to enforcement models in jurisdictions such as the European Union, where penalties are also linked to global turnover. The CCI emphasised that the intent of the framework is deterrence, not excessive punishment.

The regulator further argued that Apple’s submissions risked creating confusion about the scope of its powers. While the law allows the CCI to seek global financial information where necessary, it said that, so far, it has sought only India-specific data from Apple in the ongoing proceedings. Apple has objected to these data requests, maintaining that they could pave the way for an unfairly large penalty.

Wider implications for multinational firms

The outcome of the case, with the next hearing scheduled for January 27, 2026, is being closely watched across corporate India and beyond. Legal experts say the court’s ruling will clarify whether India can legally anchor antitrust penalties to global turnover when violations are found to have occurred within the domestic market.

A decision upholding the framework could have implications for other multinational companies facing antitrust scrutiny in India, particularly in sectors such as technology, e-commerce, consumer goods, and digital advertising.

Summary

The Competition Commission of India has defended its global turnover–based penalty framework in the Delhi High Court, arguing that it is essential to deter anti-competitive conduct by multinational companies. Apple, which is challenging the law, faces a theoretical maximum penalty of up to 10% of its global revenue if the framework is upheld. The court’s decision, due later this month, is expected to set an important precedent for antitrust enforcement in India.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What is the global turnover penalty framework?

Introduced through amendments in 2024, the framework allows the CCI to calculate antitrust penalties based on a company’s total global turnover, rather than limiting fines to revenue earned in India.

Q2: Why is Apple challenging the law?

Apple argues that applying penalties based on global turnover could result in disproportionate fines for conduct that affects only the Indian market. The company has also questioned the application of the amended law to past conduct.

Q3: Why is the figure of $38 billion being mentioned?

The amount represents a theoretical maximum exposure, based on 10% of Apple’s global revenue. It does not indicate the size of any actual penalty, which would depend on regulatory and judicial outcomes.

Q4: When did the Apple investigation begin?

The CCI initiated its investigation into Apple’s App Store practices in 2021 following complaints from Indian developers and industry bodies.

Q5: When will the court hear the case next?

The Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear Apple’s challenge to the penalty framework on January 27, 2026.

Q6: Why does this case matter beyond Apple?

The ruling could shape how India enforces competition law against multinational companies and determine whether global revenue can be used as a benchmark for penalties in domestic antitrust cases.