Apple Challenges Findings of India's Competition Authority in App Store Case

01.07.2026

Apple has approached the Competition Commission of India (CCI) requesting rejection of the findings from the antitrust investigation into the App Store, claiming that CCI staff effectively copied competitors' arguments instead of conducting an independent analysis.

In this material REVERA examines the substance of Apple's claims, the timeline of the CCI case, and its significance for companies operating in the Indian digital market.

What Happened

According to Reuters, Apple submitted comparison tables to the CCI demonstrating textual overlap between the investigation materials and submissions from competitors in the case, including Match Group, Walmart's Indian payments division, PhonePe, and Paytm. Apple claims that the CCI investigation team did not conduct an independent verification of these submissions and instead reproduced them without separate analysis.

Apple separately noted that the CCI, without accounting for differences between markets, reproduced a graphic diagram from the European Commission's 2024 decision without taking into account the specifics of the Indian market, including consumer behavior patterns and competitive dynamics.

Timeline of the Case

The CCI investigation into the App Store began in 2021 following a complaint from a nonprofit organization and was subsequently expanded to include submissions from Indian startups, industry associations, and Match Group. The central subject of the claims has remained unchanged: mandatory use of Apple's proprietary in-app purchase system for paid applications and in-app purchases, with commissions of up to 30%.

In December 2021, the CCI formulated a preliminary position that mandatory use of Apple IAP restricts developers' choice of payment systems. In summer 2024, CCI staff concluded that Apple abused its dominant position, as the App Store functions as the unavoidable trading partner for developers.

Since October 2024, the CCI has requested global financial data from Apple to calculate a potential fine. Apple refused to provide this data, arguing that disclosure would undermine its ongoing challenge to the fine calculation methodology itself.

In November 2025, Apple filed a claim with the Delhi High Court challenging the constitutionality of the 2023 amendment to the Competition Act and the 2024 Penalty Guidelines, which allow the CCI to calculate sanctions based on a company's global turnover rather than India-derived revenue. Apple estimates that under this approach the fine could reach 38 billion dollars. In its December submission to the court, the CCI maintained that linking the fine solely to Indian revenue would not provide a sufficient deterrent effect for multinational corporations.

On 18 May 2026, the Delhi High Court ordered Apple to fully cooperate with the CCI investigation, declining the request to fully suspend proceedings, while also directing the CCI not to issue a final decision before 15 July 2026. In early June 2026, Apple agreed to disclose revenue data for India to avoid immediate application of the maximum sanction calculated from global turnover.

Apple's Position

In submissions filed on 29 June 2026, Apple describes itself as a "minor player" in the Indian market, citing an iPhone market share of approximately 9% amid Android device dominance. The company argues that forced changes to App Store rules would create regulatory uncertainty and could reduce the investment attractiveness of the Indian digital economy.

A similar argument was previously used by Google in its dispute with the CCI in the Android case in 2023. Despite arguments regarding the risk of slowing growth, the CCI required Google to amend its practices for promoting its own operating system. This creates a precedent limiting the likelihood of success for a similar strategy by Apple.

International Context

The CCI case is developing against the backdrop of a series of similar proceedings in other jurisdictions. In March 2024, the European Commission fined Apple 1.8 billion euros for restricting user information about cheaper subscriptions available outside the App Store, following a complaint by Spotify. In April 2025, the Commission additionally fined Apple 500 million euros for violating the anti-steering prohibition (failure to inform users about cheaper payment methods through third-party resources) under the Digital Markets Act. In the Netherlands, a court upheld a fine of 50 million euros imposed by the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) for similar restrictions concerning dating applications.

The Indian case differs from the European cases in two respects. First, the fine calculation methodology in India is tied to a company's global turnover, making the potential sanction substantially higher than European precedents. Second, unlike the DMA, India has no specific legislation governing digital ecosystems, and regulation is based exclusively on general antitrust law.

REVERA Commentary

The Apple v. CCI case establishes a procedural precedent that extends beyond this single dispute. The argument that the CCI Director General reproduced competitors' arguments, including those of Match Group, PhonePe, and Paytm, without independent verification, directly affects the standard of proof that antitrust authorities apply to complaints from platform competitors. If the Indian court or the CCI itself finds this argument well founded, regulators in other jurisdictions will need to document the independence of their analysis more thoroughly when working with submissions from interested parties, including application developers, who traditionally act as informants in such cases.

The dispute over the fine calculation base also merits attention. The CCI's approach, which allows sanctions to be tied to global turnover rather than local revenue, creates a substantially different level of financial risk for international companies compared to the EU model and could potentially be adopted by other developing jurisdictions.

For B2C application developers and game development studios, this case is significant as it affects the core monetization model at issue: mandatory use of IAP, commissions of up to 30%, and the prohibition on informing users about cheaper payment methods. In parallel with the Indian case, the EU already enforces a prohibition on anti-steering restrictions, reflected in Apple's 500 million euro fine in April 2025, while a Dutch court has confirmed a similar approach with respect to dating applications. The logic of these decisions is transferable to gaming and other B2C services.

Arbitration & IT Disputes Practice