Apple vs CCI: Is Apple’s fight over new penalty rules truly warranted?

. Generally, it has been a norm for CCI to impose penalties on ‘relevant turnover’.

Apple filed a writ petition against the Competition Commission of India, challenging a penalty rule allowing fines based on global turnover. Experts say the rule applies only when relevant turnover can't be determined, making Apple's challenge anticipatory.

Did our AI summary help?

Apple, the world’s most profitable phone maker,  surprised market participants in November 2025 by moving a writ petition against the Competition Commission of India (CCI), challenging the constitutional validity of a penalty rule.

To justify the urgency, the company relied entirely on a previous CCI order: the case of Nagrik Chetna Manch. Here, the regulator had imposed a penalty on the global turnover and not relevant turnover, as per the petition filed by Apple in the Delhi High Court.

At the heart of the controversy is an amendment to the competition rules in 2024, which allowed CCI to compute penalties on global turnover of entities.

Generally, it has been a norm for CCI to impose penalties on ‘relevant turnover’ pertaining to where market manipulation happened. But the  Nagrik Chetna Manch verdict was an exception to the rule for reasons peculiar to the case, say competition experts. They add that the verdict should not trigger concerns among companies, including Apple, that CCI may impose penalty on global turnover.

Emails sent to CCI and Apple remained unanswered.

Bid-rigging in Pune Municipal Corporation tenders

The Nagrik Chetna Manch verdict was against six Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises(MSMEs) for alleged bid-rigging and collusive bidding in tenders issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation. The MSMEs confessed that their bids were sham and were meant to ensure that a pre-determined bidder won the tender. The bids pertained to municipal solid-processing plants.

In the case, none of the accused entities were operating in the waste management space. Hence, there was no relevant turnover, forcing CCI to use global turnover to compute penalties instead.

“The Nagrik Chetna Manch order of the CCI has been passed in the context of admitted guilt of the parties, where some of the parties providing cover bids were not engaged in the activity relating to which bid-rigging had taken place, and thus did not have any ‘relevant’ turnover,” said Subodh Prasad Deo, Partner, KBD Partners.

“It seems to me that it would be an uphill task to get the amended definition of turnover to mean global turnover declared unconstitutional. The concept of relevant turnover is pretty much alive in light of the operating penalty guidelines. It’s only where determination of relevant turnover is not feasible that the CCI will consider global turnover,”  Deo added.

Competition experts also point out that the argument of global turnover vs relevant turnover has previously come up in many cases. However, the legal representatives of the companies swear by  relevant turnover, and, in most cases, CCI has been open to examining the arguments.

“This new penalty rule does not render the relevant-turnover argument a noise. Proportionality, nexus to the infringing conduct, and deterrence continue to inform penalty determination, and remain available grounds of challenge before the CCI and appellate forums. Viewed in this context, Apple’s writ petition may be seen as anticipatory. In the absence of a final penalty order applying the amended provision, the challenge rests more on apprehended exposure than on demonstrated legal injury,” said  Ketan Mukhija Partner and Co - Head, PE & VC, Kochhar & Co.

What's the Apple vs CCI case?

In January, Apple told the Delhi High Court, in a rejoinder, that the expansion of the meaning of "turnover" to "global turnover" by the CCI for the purpose of imposing penalties "ultra vires the constitutional mandate".

Apple approached the Delhi HC to stop the CCI ‍from seeking the company’s global ​financial records as part of an investigation into its app store policies – which it initiated in 2021. Apple is challenging the law that allows CCI to seek global financial records.

To be precise, the tech giant is contesting the 2024 amendment to Competition Act, 2002, which introduced Section 27 (b). This section allows the CCI to impose monetary penalties on enterprises found to have engaged in anti-competitive practices, by imposing a penalty of 10 percent of the company’s global turnover for three preceding financial years.

Due to the expanded definition, Apple says that it can face a fine of $38 billion, or Rs 341,295 crore, based on the global turnover for the three preceding years FY22, FY23, and FY24. As of now, the CCI has only asked Apple access to its global financial records.

"Such expansion of the meaning of 'turnover', which was in fact read down as 'relevant turnover' by the Supreme Court in the Excel Crop Judgment to 'global turnover', is in complete derogation of the SC’s binding Excel Crop Judgment," Apple said in the rejoinder, as reviewed by Moneycontrol.