Apple has gone to the Delhi High Court to challenge a major change in India’s competition law, a change that lets the Competition Commission of India (CCI) calculate penalties based on a company’s global turnover instead of just its India-specific revenue. This isn’t a small tweak. If upheld, it could dramatically increase the financial risk for multinational companies working in India.
What actually changed?
Earlier, the law followed a simple idea: if a company violated competition rules, the penalty should be based on the revenue earned from the product or service involved in that violation. This approach, called the “relevant turnover” principle, kept things fair and proportional.
But with the 2023 amendments to the Competition Act, the ground shifted. The law now allows the CCI to use an enterprise’s global turnover while calculating penalties. The 2024 Penalty Guidelines added more clarity on how this can be applied. Suddenly, the entire worldwide revenue of a company — even the part unrelated to India — can influence the penalty for conduct happening only here.
Why is Apple pushing back?
Apple’s concern is simple: global turnover gives an overwhelmingly large base for penalties. The company argues that this approach is unfair because it punishes firms for their global size rather than the actual effect of their behaviour in the Indian market.
For example, if a minor violation occurs in a niche segment in India, the penalty could still be based on Apple’s massive worldwide earnings. Apple calls this disproportionate, unpredictable, and potentially harmful for companies operating across several countries.
What does this mean for competition law in India?
This case has wider implications for how India deals with large digital platforms and global businesses.
Some believe this change is necessary. They argue that if penalties are based only on “relevant turnover,” giant multinationals can absorb them easily, reducing the deterrent effect.
Others are worried. They fear this shift could lead to excessive penalties unrelated to actual harm in India. It may also introduce uncertainty, since companies won’t always know whether the CCI will use relevant turnover or global turnover while calculating penalties.
For India’s fast-growing tech and digital markets, this debate matters. As more multinational firms operate here, the balance between tough regulation and fairness becomes increasingly important.
What happens next?
The Delhi High Court will now hear Apple’s challenge. If the Court agrees with Apple, it could revive the idea that penalties should stay linked to the affected product or service. If it doesn’t, companies might have to rethink how they assess risk while doing business in India, especially in sectors under close antitrust scrutiny.
Conclusion
This case is more than a courtroom battle. It’s a test of how India wants to regulate global companies with a focus on strong deterrence or on proportional fairness. Apple’s challenge forces us to confront a bigger question: How do you discipline powerful multinationals without crossing the line into over-punishment?
The answer will shape the future of competition enforcement in India, especially in the digital economy where global giants play a central role.