For months the fight in India’s App Store antitrust case was not really about app stores. It was about a spreadsheet. The Competition Commission of India wanted Apple’s financial records; Apple did not want to give them up, least of all the global ones. On 3 June, Apple agreed to submit the financials, removing the obstacle that had stalled the long-pending case.
The reason the data mattered so much is the reason Apple resisted it. Under India’s competition law as updated in 2024, penalties can be calculated against a company’s global turnover rather than its revenue inside the country. For most companies that distinction is academic.
For Apple, whose Indian revenue is a sliver of a business that turns over hundreds of billions of dollars worldwide, it is the difference between a manageable fine and an existential one. Apple has said it fears a penalty of up to $38bn, a figure it has invoked as evidence the regulator is overreaching.
That fear is what drove the months of manoeuvring. Apple had refused to fully comply with the CCI’s demand for detailed financial disclosures, argued that global figures should be out of scope, and escalated the dispute to the Delhi High Court, seeking to pause the proceedings before they reached a final hearing.
The 💜 of EU tech
The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!
The regulator declined to slow down. The result was a standoff in which the substance of the case, whether Apple abused its market position, was held up by a procedural fight over what the regulator was allowed to see.
The underlying allegation is not new. A 2024 CCI investigation found that Apple had abused its dominant position in the iPhone apps market by requiring developers to use its proprietary in-app purchase system, the same conduct that has drawn regulatory fire in the European Union, the United States and elsewhere. India’s case has moved more slowly, but its penalty framework, anchored to global turnover, gives it unusual teeth.
TNW readers have followed the procedural thread. The Delhi High Court recently brokered a compromise in which it told Apple to cooperate while ordering the CCI not to issue its ruling before 15 July, granting Apple a roughly two-month reprieve while requiring it to produce the data. Wednesday’s agreement is Apple acting on that, handing over the records it had fought to keep back rather than continuing a fight the courts had signalled it would lose.
What the concession does is unblock the case rather than decide it. With the financials in hand, the CCI can move toward the part that actually matters: whether to penalise Apple and, if so, how much.
The global-turnover framework means that calculation is where the real stakes sit, and it is the calculation Apple’s resistance was designed to forestall. Handing over the data does not concede the underlying conduct; it concedes the regulator’s right to the information it needs to act.
The case is now one of several fronts on which Apple’s in-app payment rules are under pressure at once, and India’s is among the more dangerous because of how the fine could be sized. Apple has bought itself a deadline of mid-July and lost the argument over disclosure. The ruling that follows, and the number attached to it, is the part still to come, and the part Apple spent months trying to delay.
Stephan is the sports journalist for the Maple Grove Report.
