1. What the New Antitrust Penalty Law Actually Does

The Government of India has updated its competition law to allow regulators to:

Impose penalties based on global turnover

Earlier, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) could only calculate fines based on a company’s India-specific revenue.

The new law allows fines to be calculated on worldwide turnover if the company is found abusing market dominance or engaging in anti-competitive behavior.

For companies like Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta, etc., this creates a massive financial risk, because:

• Their Indian revenue is small compared to global revenue.

• Even a small violation could trigger multi-billion-dollar penalties.

• Apple’s global turnover is so high that penalties could reach tens of billions of dollars.

This shift is the heart of the conflict.

2. Why Apple Believes the Law Is Unfair

From Apple’s perspective, the law introduces multiple problems:

a) Penalties become disproportionate

• If a dispute affects a small part of Apple’s Indian operation (for example, App Store billing rules), Apple could still be fined based on its entire global business, which feels excessive.

b) Different countries, same issue, multiple huge fines

• Apple already faces antitrust scrutiny and large fines around the world.
  If India also begins using global turnover as the base, the risk multiplies.

c) It creates global regulatory uncertainty

If other developing countries follow India’s model, Big Tech companies may face a domino effect of:

• higher regulatory costs

• unpredictable financial exposure

• legal burden across markets

Apple wants to avoid setting a precedent.

d) India becomes a test-case for future global regulations

Apple knows India is a growing digital economy.

Regulations adopted here often influence:

• other Asian countries

• Africa

• emerging markets

So Apple is strategically intervening early.

3. Apple’s Core Argument in Court

Apple has made three major claims:

1. The penalty rules violate principles of fairness and proportionality.

• The company argues that a local issue should not trigger global punishment.

2. The law gives excessive discretionary power to the regulator (CCI).

• Apple fears that CCI could impose extremely large fines even for technical or policy-related disputes.

3. The rule indirectly discriminates against global companies.

• Indian companies (with small global footprint) are less affected, whereas multinational firms carry the full burden.

This creates an imbalance in competitive conditions.

4. Why India Introduced the Law

• On the Indian government’s side, the objective is clear.

a) Big Tech’s dominance affects millions of Indian users

India wants a stronger enforcement tool to prevent:

• unfair app store rules

• anti-competitive pricing

• bundling of services

• data misuse

• monopoly behavior

b) Local turnover-based fines were too small

• For trillion-dollar companies, earlier penalties were insignificant, sometimes just a few million dollars.
• India wants penalties that genuinely deter anti-competitive conduct.

c) India is asserting digital sovereignty

• India wants control over how global tech companies operate in its market.

d) Aligning with EU’s tougher model

• Europe already imposes fines based on global turnover (GDPR, Digital Markets Act).
• India is moving in the same direction.

5. The Larger Story: A Power Struggle Between Governments and Big Tech

Beyond Apple and India, this issue reflects:

Global pushback against Big Tech power

Countries worldwide are tightening rules on:

• App store billing

• Data privacy

• Market dominance

• Competition in online marketplaces

• Algorithmic transparency

Big Tech companies are resisting because these rules directly impact their business models.

Apple’s India case is symbolic

If Apple wins, it weakens aggressive antitrust frameworks globally.
If Apple loses, governments gain a powerful tool to regulate multinational tech companies.

6. The Impact on Consumers, Developers, and the Indian Tech Ecosystem

a) If Apple loses

• The government gets stronger authority to enforce fair competition.

• App Store fees, payment rules, and policies could be forced to change.

• Developers might benefit from a more open ecosystem.

• Consumers may get more choices and lower digital costs.

b) If Apple wins

• India may have to revise the penalty framework.

• Big Tech companies get more room to negotiate regulations.

• Global companies may feel more secure investing in India.

7. Final Human Perspective

At its core, Apple’s challenge is a battle of philosophies:

• India: wants fairness, digital sovereignty, and stronger tools against monopolistic behavior.

• Apple: wants predictable, proportionate, globally consistent regulations.

Neither side is entirely wrong.

Both want to protect their interests. India wants to safeguard its digital economy, and Apple wants to safeguard its global business.

This court battle will set a landmark precedent for how India and potentially other countries can regulate global tech giants.

See less