Advertising
From Pink Slips to Silent Sidelining: Inside adland’s layoff and anxiety crisis
Apple faces pushback as CCI defends global turnover penalties in court
The Competition Commission of India argues that fines based only on domestic revenue fail to deter misconduct by large multinational companies.
India’s competition watchdog has defended a controversial legal provision that allows penalties to be calculated using a company’s global turnover, arguing that the measure is essential to deter antitrust violations by multinational corporations.
In a court filing dated December 15, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) told the Delhi High Court that limiting fines to India-specific revenue, particularly for large digital firms, weakens enforcement and allows companies with deep pockets to absorb penalties without changing behaviour. The filing was made in response to a legal challenge mounted by Apple against a 2024 amendment to India’s competition law.
Apple has asked the court to strike down the provision, warning that the use of global turnover could result in disproportionately large fines for conduct that allegedly occurred only within India. The company has argued that the change exposes it to penalties running into tens of billions of dollars following a CCI investigation into its App Store practices, allegations Apple has denied.
In its submission, the CCI said the revised framework brings India’s enforcement regime in line with international standards, including those followed in the European Union. According to the regulator, penalties based on worldwide revenue ensure that sanctions retain “real deterrent value” in increasingly complex and cross-border digital markets.
The watchdog also rejected Apple’s claim that the law was being applied retrospectively. It said the authority has always had the power to levy fines of up to 10% of a company’s turnover, and that the amendment merely clarified how turnover should be interpreted. Clarificatory provisions, the CCI argued, can legally apply to ongoing cases because they explain the legislature’s original intent.
The CCI further accused Apple of attempting to mislead the court, stating that it had only sought India-specific financial information from the company despite having the authority to consider global revenue. Apple, however, maintains that the information requests align with the amended law and could significantly increase its potential liability.
Neither Apple nor the CCI have responded on this matter. The case is expected to have wider implications for multinational firms such as Amazon, Publicis and Pernod Ricard, which are also under antitrust scrutiny in India.
The Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear the matter on January 27.
SPOTLIGHT
From purpose-driven work and narrative-rich brand films to AI-enabled ideas and creator-led collaborations, the awards reflect the full spectrum of modern creativity.
Read More“Confusion creates opportunity for agile players,” Sir Martin Sorrell on industry consolidation
Looking ahead to the close of 2025 and into 2026, Sorrell sees technology platforms as the clear winners. He described them as “nation states in their own right”, with market capitalisations that exceed the GDPs of many countries.