Apple wants the Delhi High Court to tell the Competition Commission of India to stop asking for Apples records from all around the world. Apple also wants the court to stop the Competition Commission of India from taking any steps in the antitrust inquiry that is going on about the App Store. This is all happening while Apple is waiting for a decision on its challenge to the penalty rules in India. These rules let the Competition Commission of India decide on fines based on Apples turnover from everywhere. Apple is really concerned, about the App Store and Apple is fighting this. Apple says the rule is not fair and does not make sense. They think it is also too harsh. Indias regulator has an opinion. They believe that big companies, like Apple need to be fined based on how money they make all over the world. This is because these companies might not make a lot of money in India. They still need to follow the rules. The court is going to listen to what Apple and the regulator have to say on January 27 2026 about Apple and the rule.

1) Background. Let us talk about the CCI probe and how we got to this point with the CCI probe. The CCI probe is something that has been, on our minds. We need to understand the CCI probe and its history. So the CCI probe is where we are going to start. We will look at the CCI probe. See how it all began with the CCI probe.

The people at the CCI started looking into Apples App Store policies because of complaints that were made a time ago. If you look back you can see that the investigation started to become public in 2021. The companies that complained include Match Group, which owns Tinder and some startups from India. They said that Apples rules for payments inside the apps and the fees that Apple charges to let people sell apps, on iOS were not fair. They thought that Apple was being abusive and that it was hurting the people who make apps and the people who use them in India. The CCI wanted to know if Apple was being unfair and if its App Store rules were stopping companies from competing with it. The CCI looked at Apples rules to see if they were excluding or hurting companies that might want to compete with Apples App Store. Apple has always said it does not abuse its power. Apple has denied this times before. The company Apple says it is not doing anything when it comes to being, in charge of the market. Apple wants people to know that it is fair and does not take advantage of its position.

In 2023 to 2024 India changed its rules for competition penalties. This change means the Competition Commission of India or CCI for short can now calculate penalties based on a companys turnover around the world not just what they make in India. The CCI can impose fines in situations. These fines can be up to a percentage usually around 10 percent, of the companys average global turnover, for the years that matter. Apple says that if this rule is applied completely to a company big as Apple they could have to pay a huge amount of money. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars. Some people think it could be around $38 billion. This is the part of the law that Apple is really fighting against now. Apple is very concerned about this because it is the reason for Apples current challenge, to this law.

2) What Apple wants to happen in court. Apple is making a move and this is what Apple is asking the court to do with Apples case. Apple wants the court to take an action. Apple is hoping the court will rule in favor of Apple.

The Apple company has made a request to the Delhi High Court. This request, from Apple has two parts that are connected to each other. Apple is asking the Delhi High Court for something. These two things are related to the request that Apple is making.

A direction (stay) preventing the CCI from seeking or obtaining Apple’s global financial records for the purpose of the ongoing investigation.

The court has to stop the CCI from doing anything to Apple for now. This is because Apple is currently fighting against some rules and penalty provisions in court. Apple wants the court to look at these rules and provisions again. The CCI cannot take any actions against Apple until the court makes a decision, about Apples challenge. The court has to wait until Apples case is finished before the CCI can do anything to Apple.

Apple thinks the penalty is not fair. They believe it is wrong to base the penalty on how money Apple makes all over the world for something that happened in India. Apple says the rules that allow this to happen are not legal. They think these rules go against what the lawmakersre allowed to do.

Apple does not want to give the Competition Commission of India or CCI its global financial information before the court makes a decision. Apple is worried that if they do this it will hurt their argument in court. Apple wants to make sure that the investigation does not move forward in a way that would make it hard for them to make their case. Apple wants the court to decide on the rules first. The main thing is that Apple does not want the investigation to make its legal challenge useless. Apple is concerned, about the 2024 regulations and the amendments.

3) The regulator’s position (CCI) and the governmental response

The CCI and government lawyers have an opinion. They say that when a companys income from India is very small compared to what they make all over the world just looking at the income, from India to decide on penalties would not be enough. This is because the fines would be so small that they would not stop the company from doing things. The CCI thinks that sometimes they need to look at how the company makes all over the world to decide on penalties. This is so that big companies do not get away with behavior. The CCI wants to stop companies from finding ways to make it look like they do not make money in India when really they make a lot of money all over the world. The CCI says this is called arbitrage and they want to prevent the CCI from happening. The CCI has said that they will use the global-turnover option when it is suitable. The CCI is doing this because it is part of what the legislature and the regulator have decided. The legislature and the regulator made this choice as part of their policy. The global-turnover option is something that the CCI will consider when making decisions.

The CCI is really upset with Apple. They think Apple is trying to slow them down by using the courts a lot and causing delays. This is why the CCI made an order on December 31 to get some financial information from Apple even though Apple did not want to give it to them. The CCI said they will do what they need to do even if Apple does not help.

The government also has to explain to the court why they are using the worlds turnover to figure out how much Apple should pay in penalties. The CCI and Apple are having some problems working together. The CCI wants to get some information from Apple. Apple is not making it easy, for them.

4) So what are the main legal problems that we need to think about and how can we understand them in a way? The central legal issues are things that we should be able to explain in language. We need to look at the legal issues and figure out what they really mean.

If you look past all the news stories the argument is really, about a few main legal questions:

A. Constitutional and statutory scope:

Does Indias Competition Act, which has been amended and the regulations that will come into effect in 2024 really allow the Competition Commission of India to decide on penalties based on the sales of a company all over the world when that company has done something wrong with competition rules in India? The Competition Commission of India is the one that decides these things. So the question is, can the Competition Commission of India use the turnover of an enterprise to figure out the penalties when the enterprise breaks competition rules, in India?

Is that exercise of power within the legislature’s competence and consistent with constitutional protections (e.g., due process, proportionality and equality)?

B. Proportionality and reasonableness:

So the law says it is okay to use the sales of a company to decide on a penalty.. Is it really fair to use the total sales of a company like Apple to punish something that only happened in one place, like India? Apple will say that it is not fair. They will say that it does not make sense to use sales from over the world to decide on a penalty for something that only happened in India.

The government or the Competition Commission of India will say that the penalty should be big enough to stop companies from doing things in the future. They will say that if the penalty is based on the sales in India it will be too small and companies will not care about following the rules, in India.

C. Procedural fairness and interim relief:

The question is should the CCI be allowed to make companies like Apple give them information from all over the world when Apple is still in court fighting the CCIs right to ask for this information. Apple says that if they have to give the CCI this information it will not matter if they win the court case later. The CCI says that they cannot wait forever for the court to make a decision and that they need to be able to use their power to investigate companies at any time. The CCI wants to be able to look at the financials of companies, like Apple as they are investigating them not after the investigation is over.

D. Choice of remedy and extraterritoriality:

If a regulator in one country wants to see the financials of a company does that cause problems with the regulator reaching too far into other countries the privacy of the company protecting the companys data or disagreements with the laws of other countries? These are problems that can happen, not just legal issues: when a company has to show its financial information from all around the world it has to deal with its subsidiaries and operations in many different countries and each of these countries has its own rules, about what information needs to be shared.

These questions are really important because they will decide if the Delhi High Court will stop the CCI for now or let the CCI keep using its tools to investigate while they figure out the issue about the constitution. The Delhi High Court has to make this decision. It is crucial for the CCI. The CCI needs to know if it can keep using its investigatory tools. The Delhi High Court is very important, in this matter. The CCI is waiting for its decision.

5) So let us look at how we got to these headlines that say things like thirty eight billion dollars. What does that number thirty eight billion dollars actually mean when we see it in the news, about the thirty eight billion dollars?

Media outlets kept using the US$38 billion figure to show how big Apples problem could be if they had to pay based on how much they sell everywhere. This number is an example. It shows what happens when you multiply the huge amount of money Apple makes all over the world by the maximum percentage that regulators can charge which is, up to 10% of what they usually sell in some cases. There are some things to remember:

The headline number is an example it is not something that will definitely happen. This number is like a limit. People in charge do not usually give the penalty allowed by law. What really matters is how the penalty is calculated, what. If there are any reasons to reduce the penalty. The specifics of the penalty like the method used to calculate it the time period it covers and any factors that might make it less severe are very important. The regulators consider all these things when deciding on a penalty for something, like this.

The situation, with the alleged misconduct is that the size of the fine is not proof that something was done wrong. It is the penalty that Apple would have to pay if a certain way of calculating the fine is used and if the regulators decision that Apple did something is upheld. Apple is arguing that it is not fair to use this way of calculating the fine for things that Apple did in India.

6) The players and their incentives

Apple wants to stop the CCI from using the amount of money Apple makes everywhere in the world to decide how much Apple should pay as a penalty. Apple does not want the regulator to get all of Apples information right away. It is clear why Apple wants this: Apple wants to avoid paying a large fine and Apple wants to avoid setting a precedent that would allow regulators from all over the world to look at Apples financial records. Apple also has business reasons for not wanting to share certain information, such, as how much money Apple makes from each product what kind of deals Apple has with other companies and what Apple pays to other companies to sell Apple products.

The Competition Commission of India which is also known as the CCI really wants to make sure that competition law is enforced properly in India. The CCI is worried that if it does not have the power to give penalties based on a companys sales around the world it will not be able to stop big companies from doing things that are not fair. This is because for some companies that operate in many countries the money they make in India is only a small part of their total sales. The CCI thinks that, without the option to give penalties these companies will not be afraid to break the rules. The CCI wants to make sure that competition law is enforced in a way that’s strong and fair and that all companies have to follow the same rules.

The people who are complaining which are Match Group and some startups want something to be done about this. They think that the rules Apple has for its App Store are really affecting the markets, in India. The complainants, Match Group and the startups also want to make sure that if Apple does something it gets a big enough penalty that it will not do it again in the future. This is what Match Group and the startups are saying.

The Indian government, which includes the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and other counsel is responsible for defending the decisions made by the lawmakers and the regulatory framework of the Competition Commission of India. The Indian government must also provide the court with reasons for the global-turnover rule. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs and other counsel have to make sure that the court understands why the Indian government made this choice. The Indian government has to give justifications for the global-turnover rule.

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the Indian government have a job to do. They have to defend the Competition Commission of Indias framework and the legislative policy choice. This is a responsibility for the Indian government and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. They have to make sure that the court is satisfied with their justifications for the global-turnover rule. The Indian government and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs have to work to provide good reasons, for this rule.

7) Let us consider the legal outcomes and what each of these legal outcomes would mean for the situation, at hand. The legal outcomes are something we need to think about carefully. Each of the legal outcomes would have its own set of consequences. We have to understand what each of the outcomes would mean for us. The legal outcomes are very important.

The Delhi High Court has an options it can consider and these are what might happen if it takes these paths. The Delhi High Court could do a things and the Delhi High Court will probably see some of the following results.

A. The court has given a stop to the CCI. They were asking for the financial records. Now the investigation into the matter has been stopped for the time being. The Court grants this stay to the CCI. This means the CCI has to wait for a while before they can continue with their investigation, into the financials.

This is a thing for Apple in the short term. The investigation into Apple will be put on hold until the court makes a decision about the challenge to Apple. This gives Apple some time to think and come up with a plan. It will probably make the CCI unhappy and they might fight back. The CCI might also get angry. Try to do something about it. This could also make other big companies, like Apple want to do the thing and try to stop their own investigations. Apple will likely face problems because of this. For now Apple has a little bit of time to figure things out about Apple.

The court made a decision. It said no to giving any help. Now the Competition Commission of India or CCI, for short can continue with their investigation of the company. The CCI can also ask the company for their information. The CCI is going to look at the companys financials.

The Competition Commission of India which is also known as the CCI can collect all the information it needs. It can also give penalties using the rules that are already in place. At the time Apple is going to keep fighting the case in court. The CCI will then figure out if Apple has done something and if so the CCI can give a big penalty based on how much money Apple makes all over the world. If Apple wins its case, about the constitution it is going to be really hard to fix everything that has happened because of this case.

The court made a decision on the issue about the constitution. This happened faster than people thought it would. The court ruled against. Limited the rules that affect companies all around the world that make a lot of money. The courts decision was, about the global-turnover rules and the court struck down or narrowed the global-turnover rules.

This will be a win for Apple and many big companies. It will limit the power of the Competition Commission of India to consider the sales of a company when looking at problems that happen in India. The Competition Commission of India will not be able to use the sales of a company to decide on punishments. This decision will also show agencies in India how to handle similar situations, with Apple and other big companies.

The court made a decision that penalties based on a companys sales around the world are okay. This means that these penalties are legal, either completely or, in some way. The court is saying that global turnover penalties are lawful.

The CCI will become a lot stronger because of this. This means that big companies like tech firms that operate in India might have to pay fines if they do something wrong in India. The people in charge of regulating these companies in India will be able to investigate them thoroughly and have more power to make them settle disputes. This will lead to the regulator being able to take action against the tech companies and other multinationals, for things they do in India.

8) Wider implications for regulators, multinationals and policy

For multinationals:

So we just got confirmation that the people in charge can use how money a company makes all around the world to figure out penalties. This means that big companies with a lot of money coming in from over the world cannot just think that having a small presence in one place will keep them safe from legal trouble. Big companies that operate in countries will probably fight back by taking more issues to court asking for clearer rules on how problems in one country affect the penalties they get worldwide and by taking another look at how they follow the rules and manage risks in specific markets like the European market or the American market and also the compliance and risk frameworks, for these specific markets the global penalty calculations and the domestic harm.

For competition enforcement in India:

If the courts say that global-turnover penalties are okay then India will have power to enforce the rules and this will stop other companies from doing wrong things. The courts in India might then take actions against other global platform firms like Google or Facebook.. Some people might say that the courts need to be more careful and make sure they are following the right steps so that they do not punish companies too much. Indias enforcement of these rules will become stronger. This will be a big deal, for global platform firms.

For legal doctrine and constitutional law in India:

A ruling against global-turnover penalties could limit the way authorities enforce rules outside of their country. This means they will have to be more careful and make sure the penalties are fair and only affect the country where the rule was broken.

If the ruling is in favor of global-turnover penalties people will see it as a way to strongly discourage behavior. However global-turnover penalties will also raise some questions about whether the lawsre clear and if there are enough protections in place, for global-turnover penalties.

For consumers and startups:

We need to make sure that the rules are enforced in a way that’s fair and reasonable. This can help developers because it stops the big platforms from taking advantage of them. However if the punishments for breaking the rules are too harsh or seem random this could scare people away from investing in projects. It could also cause problems with getting products to market and deciding how much to charge for them. The rules have to be enforced in a way that makes sense smaller developers, like the ones who make apps for platforms are protected from platform leverage.

9) Things to think about if the CCI’s allowed to look at Apples financial records from all around the world.

The main thing is what will happen if the CCI gets to see Apples financials.

This will have an impact on Apple and the CCI needs to think carefully about this.

The CCI has to consider what it means for Apples business if the CCI gets to see Apples records.

Apples global financials are very important, to Apple and the CCI should think about this when making a decision.

Even if a court says it is okay there are still things that can get in the way of the court decision. Things, like this can make it really hard for people to do what the court says. The court decision is one thing. Making it actually happen is something else.

When we talk about data privacy and disclosure it is really important to consider the rules in different countries. Apple has a lot of subsidiaries around the world and they do business across many borders. This means they have to deal with accounting in different countries. Some of the information they have is very sensitive. Has to be kept private. There are also laws, in some countries that say certain information cannot be shared. Data privacy and disclosure rules are very important for Apple to follow.

The CCI needs to know exactly what is going on. Sometimes there is a difference between the overall financial situation and specific numbers like how much money is made from the App Store around the world or how much services revenue comes from online marketplaces.

The CCI and companies often go to court to figure out what financial information should be shared and how detailed it needs to be. The CCI needs to get the financial metrics, such as the global App Store revenue and the services revenue, from digital marketplaces to make informed decisions.

So when it comes to enforcement and cooperation if India asks for some information that is stored outside of the country Apple might have to get this information through companies that it owns in India.. Apple may have to give India some combined information. But Apple can fight this in court if they do not want to do it. This is something that Apple and India will have to figure out regarding enforcement and cooperation.

10) Comparisons and international context

This problem is not happening by itself. People who make rules in countries like the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, South Korea and Japan are taking new steps to control how platforms behave and are giving out big fines. The fight between India and Apple is similar to what’s happening in other places. It is about making sure local consumers and developers are protected while also dealing with the reality of punishing global companies and the legal issues that come up when local laws affect global companies like Apple. The India-Apple fight is an example of this and it shows the same themes that are happening elsewhere with platform behaviour and global giants, like Apple.

Indias policy to allow penalties based on turnover is pretty much the same as what other countries are doing to stop big companies from doing bad things.. When it comes to how far this policy goes and how big the fines can be for things that happen locally India is really out in front. The idea is to make sure that big companies think twice before they do something in India. Indias policy, on turnover penalties is a big deal because it can fine companies a lot of money for things they do in India.

11) Likely timeline and what to watch next

There is a court hearing on January 27 2026. This court hearing is the big step that we know about, from what the press is saying. The court hearing is very important because it will give us an idea of what will happen. After the court hearing the media will probably talk about it away especially if the court makes any decisions that day. The court might make some decisions and the media will want to tell everyone about these court decisions.

Government and CCI filings are very important. We need to see what the government and the Competition Commission of India have to say. They have to give the court a lot of details about why they think the global-turnover rules are an idea. The government and the Competition Commission of India will explain why these rules are necessary. This will help the court understand the whole thing better. The court will look at what the government and the Competition Commission of India say to decide if the rules are fair and if they make sense. The government and the Competition Commission of India filings will show the court why they came up with these global-turnover rules, in the place.

The CCI is going to keep taking steps that it thinks it can take. It has said that it will do what it wants if Apple does not do what the CCI wants. We need to see if the CCI stops taking action or if the CCI keeps going with its plans regarding Apple. The CCI might get tougher on Apple.

Broader litigation: This legal point could bring in people like groups that represent a whole industry or people who speak up for consumers or even other technology companies to give the court their thoughts on the matter.

12) What a user, like an investor or a developer or a lawyer should really think about is the user experience. The user should care about how the system works for the user. This is what the user needs to know. The user whether it is an investor or a developer or a lawyer should think about what’s best for the user. What matters to the user is that the user gets what the user wants. The user experience is very important, for the user.

Developers and startups need to think about what happens if Apples App Store gets in trouble. If something goes against Apple it could change the fees they charge and the rules they have. This could also mean ways for people to pay for things that are not connected to Apple. But lawsuits take a long time so things might not change right away for businesses that only think about the short term. Developers and startups should remember that Apples App Store is a part of their business so they need to pay attention to what happens with Apples App Store.

People who invest in companies and those who follow the market are watching Apple. The financial risk that Apple faces from India is not clear. A lot of people talk about the 38 billion dollar figure. That is just a maximum amount. What is more important to think about is how this situation can affect Apples reputation and the rules they have to follow. There is also a chance that Apple will have to deal with rules and regulations in many different places. Investors and market watchers should pay attention to what happens with Apple and India. The reputational and regulatory risk, to Apple is something that people who invest in companies and those who follow the market should keep an eye on.

People who practice law and those who make policies: This case is going to be a deal. It will show us what the Indian courts think about how much power regulators should have. The case will also look at whether the punishments given to companiesre fair.. It will be interesting to see how the Indian courts handle ideas that come from other countries. The Indian courts will have to decide on the limits of regulator power and the proportionality doctrine in corporate penalties and how they will treat extraterritorial concepts. The case is a test of regulator power and the proportionality doctrine, in corporate penalties and how the Indian courts will treat extraterritorial concepts.

13) Now we need to think about who has the better point to make in this situation. We have to look at the arguments and figure out which one is stronger the one person is making or the other one. Balanced assessment is what we need to do so we can see who has the argument.

Apple has some points. They make arguments about things being fair and reasonable. They say that it is not right to punish a company for something that happened in one place by taking a lot of money from them. This is because the punishment should fit the crime. Apple thinks that courts usually try to stop punishments that’re too harsh and do not fit the problem. They want to make sure that the punishment is fair and does not hurt them much for something that was only a local issue. Apples arguments are, about proportionality. The fact that imposing big penalties for something that happened in a small area is not right.

The strengths of the Competition Commission of India are clear. One good point is that it makes sense to have a policy that really stops behavior. If a big company that operates over the world does very little business in India then a penalty that only applies in India might not be very effective. The people who make the laws have chosen a method that is meant to prevent punishments from being too weak to make a difference. The Competition Commission of India is an example of this.

The decision that wins out depends on how the court weighs up the meaning of the law, what the people who made the law wanted and the limits of the constitution. In India the courts usually respect the decisions made by the people who create the laws. They also make sure that these decisions are fair and that the people in power use their power in a sensible way. The courts in India want to make sure that the people who make the laws are being fair, to everyone and that they are using their power for reasons this is what Indian courts do when they look at the laws and the decisions made by the legislature the Indian courts look at the laws and the decisions made by the legislature.

14) Conclusion. This is why the Apple case is important and it affects more than Apple. The Apple case is a deal and it has a lot to do with things beyond Apple. We need to think about how the Apple case will impact people and companies not just Apple. The Apple case is really important because it sets a precedent, for things that can happen to companies just like Apple.

The big question is how should the people in charge of making rules in a country punish companies that do something wrong in that country. This is a deal because these companies are huge and operate all over the world. India has decided to use a way to figure out how much to punish these companies, which is a pretty bold move. If the court in Delhi says that India cannot do this then the people who enforce the rules in India will have their hands tied. This decision could also make other countries think before making similar rules for global giants. The issue of giants is what is really at stake here and how national regulators punish global giants, for local misconduct is the main question. If the court says the rules are okay India will have ways to deal with big digital companies from other countries. This means India can take action against these companies.. The court and the people who talk about these things will want to make sure there are rules, in place to stop really harsh penalties from happening to these digital platforms like Google or Facebook. The court and commentators will want India to be careful so it does not punish these digital platforms too much.

Either way, the Apple–CCI fight will be a landmark test of how 21st-century competition enforcement squares with constitutional norms, proportionality principles, and the practicalities of cross-border corporate accountability. Expect more filings, careful judicial reasoning, and significant industry attention as the case advances.