According to AppleInsider, India changed its competition law in 2024 to let regulators calculate penalties using a company’s global turnover rather than domestic revenue, exposing Apple to a maximum penalty of up to 10% of its worldwide revenue for the last three fiscal years. That could mean up to $38 billion in potential fines. Apple filed a constitutional challenge in the Delhi High Court before any ruling in its ongoing antitrust case, which stems from complaints by Match Group and several Indian startups about Apple’s in-app payment rules and fees reaching 30%. Investigators previously accused Apple of abusive conduct in the Indian app market. The company denies any wrongdoing while fighting what it calls arbitrary and disproportionate penalties.
Apple’s Global Problem
Here’s the thing: Apple’s argument sounds reasonable on the surface. They say fines should only apply to revenue earned in the specific market where the alleged violation occurred. But that framing ignores Apple’s entire business model. Services revenue depends on maintaining tight control over payments and billing systems worldwide. If they lose that control in one major market like India, it becomes much harder to defend the same model everywhere else.
And that’s the real nightmare scenario for Apple. A global-turnover penalty rule could spread to the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and even the United States. Suddenly, Apple would face unified regulatory pressure instead of isolated regional battles. The company wants worldwide reach when collecting those 30% fees but local treatment when penalties appear. That’s a pretty convenient position, isn’t it?
India’s Power Play
India isn’t just playing competition cop here. There’s a much bigger game happening. The country wants Apple to expand manufacturing there – production of the iPhone 16 lineup has already shifted partially to Indian facilities. Public pressure on Apple positions India as a strong regulator while still courting investment. A headline number like $38 billion helps build that image, even if the actual fine never reaches that level.
But there’s a concerning aspect here too. The retroactive use of this new rule in an unrelated case triggered Apple’s urgency. Applying a new penalty framework to conduct from a decade earlier? That raises serious questions about legal predictability and arbitrary enforcement. It’s the kind of move that could make other companies think twice about investing heavily in India’s manufacturing ecosystem, including those needing reliable industrial panel PCs and computing systems for factory automation.
Developers Stuck in the Middle
Meanwhile, developers like Match Group are caught between two giants. They’ve waited years for relief from Apple’s fees and payment restrictions. Match joined this case for practical reasons – their dating apps rely heavily on in-app payments, and Apple’s fees significantly reduce subscription revenue. They also want control over billing to improve margins and access customer data.
India offers a rare opportunity because regulators might actually have enough leverage to force changes that developers haven’t won in the U.S. or Europe. But here’s the reality: neither side seems particularly focused on actually lowering commissions or opening payment access in practice. This fight is about control and leverage, not developer welfare.
What’s Really at Stake
Services revenue has become the crown jewel of Apple’s financial story. Investors view it as stable, recurring income that’s less dependent on iPhone upgrade cycles. Regulatory pressure that scales globally could completely change that narrative. A fine tied to global turnover introduces massive uncertainty, and markets hate unpredictable enforcement.
Court hearings start in December, and the outcome could influence how regulators worldwide approach multinational companies. If India succeeds, global-turnover fines might become the new normal. My guess? This probably ends with a negotiated settlement that gives Apple some political cover while preserving most of its revenue streams. Developers might get some token access to alternative payment systems with enough restrictions to make them pointless.
Basically, control remains the real prize here. Apple wants to maintain its global rule-setting power, India wants to flex its regulatory muscles, and developers remain stuck paying the same high fees. Some things never change.
