Apple Fighting CCI On Behalf Of All Big Tech Companies, Says High Court Lawyer

Apple Inc. has been dominating the headlines following their decision to approach the Delhi High Court to challenge the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) authority to calculate penalties based on a company’s global turnover. According to High Court lawyer Manu Chaturvedi, this legal could define the regulatory landscape for all major technology firms operating in India.

The writ petition comes after a prolonged probe into Apple's billing practices within the app store, which are considered anti-competition. Chaturvedi, the trigger for the litigation was a procedural demand from the antitrust watchdog following its investigation.

“Apple and Alphabet have been under investigation for a while regarding their billing system,” Chaturvedi told NDTV Profit. “Investigation was concluded sometime last year, and thereafter Apple was told by the CCI to file its financial statements for a number of years, as well as a reply to DG’s investigation. This appears to have been the trigger for this petition.”

The dispute revolves around a significant shift in India’s competition regulations introduced in March 2024. Previously, penalties were levied on "relevant turnover"—revenue generated specifically by the business segment under investigation within India. The new amendments, though, empower the CCI to impose fines based on a company's total global income.

“When this financial information was sought by the CCI, one of the apprehensions of Apple seems to be that under the new turnover regulation... the new regulations actually allow CCI to impose penalties on the global turnover of Apple across all its products and services,” Chaturvedi explained.

Chatuvedi added that Apple is effectively fighting the CCI in behalf of all silicon valley giants such as Alphabet, Microsoft and all the other Mag 7 companies.

“Apple is leading this litigation perhaps on behalf of various big tech companies,” Chaturvedi said. “If they are found to be in violation, [penalties] will have to be determined.”

Apple contends that the new amendments conflict with the principle of proportionality established by the apex court, in a 2017 case.

“Apple argues that these amendments are contrary to and override the Supreme Court in this other case in 2017, where the SC had clarified that you cannot impose a penalty on the basis of global turnover,” Chaturvedi concluded.