Apple Inc has opened a new front in its global antitrust battles by asking the Delhi High Court to shield its worldwide earnings data from India’s competition regulator. At the heart of the dispute is whether the Competition Commission of India can demand global financials to calculate penalties for alleged abuses linked to the App Store in the Indian market. I see this clash as a test case that will shape how far regulators can reach into the books of multinational tech companies when the alleged misconduct is confined to a single country.
The petition pits one of the world’s most valuable companies against a regulator that has signaled it is willing to use the full weight of its powers against digital platforms. It also lands at a moment when India is trying to attract more investment from global technology firms while simultaneously tightening scrutiny of their market conduct. How the Delhi High Court balances those competing pressures will resonate well beyond Apple’s immediate legal risk.
Apple’s legal gambit in Delhi
Apple Inc has turned to the Delhi High Court after the Competition Commission demanded access to its global financial statements as part of an ongoing antitrust probe into the App Store. In its filing, the company argues that the regulator is overreaching by insisting on worldwide earnings data when the allegations relate to conduct in India, and it is effectively asking the court to draw a line around what information the watchdog can compel. I read this as Apple trying to narrow the scope of the investigation from the outset, not only to limit potential penalties but also to avoid setting a precedent that other jurisdictions might copy.
The company’s move follows a series of procedural skirmishes with the Competition Commission, which has been pressing ahead with its investigation into Apple’s app distribution and payment rules. Reporting indicates that the tech titan has specifically asked the court to stop the Competition Commission from seeking its financials, framing the demand as disproportionate to the issues at stake. In parallel, Apple has urged the court to block the Indian antitrust body from seeking financials at all in this phase of the case, according to court papers cited in a separate Indian report, underscoring how central this disclosure fight has become to its defense strategy.
The Competition Commission’s push for global data
On the other side of the courtroom, the Competition Commission of India is signaling that it sees global financials as essential to enforcing competition law against multinational platforms. The regulator has already rejected attempts by Apple to slow the process, warning earlier this year that it would proceed with the antitrust case after the company sought more time to respond to the investigation’s findings. In that context, the demand for worldwide earnings data looks less like an administrative request and more like a deliberate assertion of authority over how penalties should be calculated for companies that operate across borders.
The CCI has defended its approach in a court filing that lays out why it believes penalties should be linked to global turnover rather than just Indian revenue. According to that filing, the Competition Commission of argues that using worldwide figures is necessary when dealing with platforms that have vast global operations, because local revenue alone may not reflect the economic power that allows them to impose restrictive terms. Earlier this year, The CCI also reminded Apple that it had already asked the company in October 2024 to file objections to the investigation’s findings and had rejected a request for more time, warning that it would move ahead with the case, according to India warns Apple. Taken together, these steps show a regulator intent on establishing that global scale can and should influence domestic penalties.
Apple’s argument against global turnover penalties
Apple’s core contention is that punishing conduct limited to India by referencing global turnover violates basic legal principles. In its latest filing, the company has argued that using worldwide earnings to set fines for alleged abuses in the Indian segment of the App Store would be a breach of proportionality, because it would expose the company to sanctions far out of proportion to the revenue actually generated in that market. From my perspective, this is not only about the size of any eventual penalty but also about the legal theory that will govern how digital platforms are treated when they face similar scrutiny elsewhere.
The company has told the Delhi High Court that penalising conduct restricted to the Indian market by using global turnover is a breach of legal principles and that the Competition Commission should instead focus on local metrics. That position is laid out in detail in a filing where Apple asks the court to prevent the CCI from accessing its global earnings data over the antitrust case, arguing that the regulator’s approach would effectively turn every national investigation into a referendum on the company’s entire worldwide business. The filing, which describes the demand for worldwide earnings as a breach of legal, makes clear that Apple is trying to draw a bright line between domestic conduct and global financial exposure.
What is at stake for India’s digital regulation
For India, the dispute is about more than one company’s balance sheet. The Competition Commission’s insistence on global data is part of a broader effort to show that India can effectively regulate powerful digital platforms that serve hundreds of millions of local users. If the Delhi High Court sides with the regulator, it would strengthen the CCI’s hand not only in the Apple case but also in future investigations into other large platforms that rely on app stores, digital payments, or online marketplaces to reach Indian consumers.
At the same time, policymakers must weigh the risk that an aggressive stance on penalties could chill investment or prompt companies to rethink how they roll out services in India. Apple has already framed the CCI’s demand as an overreach, and its petition to the Delhi High Court to block the demand for global financials in the App Store probe underscores how seriously it views the precedent. In my view, if courts endorse the CCI’s global turnover framework, other regulators in emerging markets may feel emboldened to adopt similar models, reshaping the risk calculus for companies that have long treated local fines as a manageable cost of doing business.
A global playbook for tech antitrust
Apple’s confrontation with the Competition Commission of India fits into a wider pattern of tech giants testing the limits of national regulators’ authority. By challenging the demand for global earnings data in Delhi, Apple is effectively asking courts to clarify how far a single country can reach into a multinational’s global operations when the alleged misconduct is local. I see this as part of a global playbook in which large platforms push back against expansive interpretations of competition law, hoping to avoid a domino effect where one regulator’s success encourages others to follow suit.
The optics of the case also matter. Apple has approached the Delhi High Court for relief, a move that has been highlighted in coverage that describes how Apple seeks court relief to block India’s antitrust body from accessing global financials, underscoring the company’s willingness to fight the issue in public as well as in legal filings. That narrative, captured in an Apple Seeks Court post, reinforces the sense that this is not a routine procedural dispute but a strategic battle over the future of tech antitrust enforcement. Whatever the Delhi High Court decides, I expect both regulators and companies in other jurisdictions to study the outcome closely as they refine their own approaches to digital competition.
