Apple to Submit India Financials by June 25 in Antitrust Case Threatening $38 Billion Fine
Updated
Updated · Reuters · Jun 3
Apple to Submit India Financials by June 25 in Antitrust Case Threatening $38 Billion Fine
3 articles · Updated · Reuters · Jun 3
Summary
A May 21 hearing ended with Apple winning a final extension to June 25 to file India-specific financial data, moving a long-delayed CCI case toward a penalty decision.
The filing matters because India's antitrust watchdog said the figures are needed to calculate penalties after a 2024 probe found Apple abused its position in the iPhone app market.
Apple had resisted since 2024, arguing the case should pause while it challenges a law allowing fines based on global turnover; it says such an approach could expose it to penalties of up to $38 billion.
The dispute stems from complaints by Match, a nonprofit group and Indian startups over App Store rules that barred third-party payment systems for in-app purchases.
The case has become Apple's highest-profile regulatory fight in India, where iPhone share has risen to 9% from about 2% five years ago as the company expands beyond China.
Is Apple’s compliance in India a strategic retreat to avoid a multi-billion dollar global penalty?
Will India's antitrust crackdown on Apple risk sabotaging its 'Made in India' manufacturing goals?
As global regulators circle, is the 'Apple Tax' that built its services empire finally facing extinction?
Apple Faces $38 Billion Antitrust Fine in India: Legal Battle, Regulatory Shifts, and Global Implications
Overview
The antitrust case against Apple in India began with a 2021 complaint from a coalition of companies, who argued that Apple abused its dominant position by making its App Store an unavoidable trading partner for developers. These developers were not allowed to use third-party payment services and were forced to use Apple’s own system for in-app purchases. After a detailed investigation, the Competition Commission of India concluded in 2024 that Apple had indeed abused its market dominance, setting the stage for possible penalties and further regulatory action. This case highlights the challenges global tech firms face in adapting to stricter local regulations.