Apple Takes Aim at CCI, Alleges Overreach in Delhi High Court Jurisdiction

Apple Challenges Competition Commission of India's Authority

In a recent submission to the Competition Commission of India (CCI), Apple has voiced its opposition to the anti-trust watchdog's recent moves, calling them an attempt to "pre-empt the Delhi High Court's authority" in a 2021 probe against the iPhone maker's App Store practices.

The tech giant made these comments in an April 24 submission, a copy of which has been reviewed by Moneycontrol. The filing was made in response to CCI's April order, which stated that Apple had failed to submit the "requisite financial information" despite multiple reminders.

The CCI has again "overreached its power and attempted to usurp the Hon’ble Court’s authority by directing the Petitioners to submit the relevant turnover and the global turnover in line with the Impugned Amended Penalty Provisions", Apple said in its submission. This move, according to Apple, defeats the purpose of the writ petition, rendering it infructuous.

Read also: Treasury Yields Experience Largest Increase in Two Weeks Following Release of Labor Market Data

Apple and the CCI did not respond to Moneycontrol's queries at the time of publication. This copy will be updated when they respond.

The American company moved the High Court in November, challenging the competition watchdog's regulatory powers on the 2024 penalty guidelines. These rules allow the CCI to calculate fines based on a company's global turnover rather than just the local revenue.

According to Apple, the expansion of the meaning of "turnover" to "global turnover" by the CCI for imposing penalties is "ultra vires the constitutional mandate". Apple claimed it could face a massive $38 billion (Rs 341,295 crore) fine because of the expanded definition of global turnover.

Comparison of Apple's Potential Fines

Read also: US-Iran Tensions Spark Uptick in Oil Prices Amid Global Market Decline

As of now, the CCI has only asked Apple for access to its global financial records.

Apple has argued that the regulator's actions are unjustified, stating that the matter is sub judice and that the CCI has not provided any rationale or justification for proceeding with the investigation in parallel during the pendency of the present proceedings before the High Court.

Furthermore, Apple claims that it has a "strong prima facie case" with the balance of convenience being in its favour, and that irreparable harm and injury will be caused to the company if the High Court does not grant the reliefs sought in the present application.

Apple also said that if it were to submit its global turnover data in line with the revised definition, the regulator could impose a heavy penalty, making its plea infructuous.