India’s antitrust regulator, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), has declined Apple’s request in Apple Antitrust Case to suspend an investigation report alleging that the tech giant violated competition laws. The decision allows the proceedings to move forward, according to an internal CCI order obtained by Reuters.
Apple Antitrust Case: Background of the Case
Background of the Case
The dispute dates back to 2021, when Apple was accused of exploiting its dominant position in the app store market on its iOS platform thereby with the result of Apple Antitrust Case. The allegations were brought forward by the Indian non-profit organization, Together We Fight Society (TWFS). The CCI’s investigation concluded that Apple’s practices adversely affected app development peers, users, and other payment service providers.
Apple has consistently denied these allegations, asserting that its market share in India is relatively small compared to the dominance of Google’s Android operating system. Despite this defence, the CCI deemed the initial findings sufficient to continue the case.
Controversy Over Investigation Reports
The issue of Apple Antitrust Case escalated in August 2024 when Apple challenged the CCI’s handling of confidential business information. The company accused the regulator of disclosing sensitive commercial details, including those involving Match Group, the parent company of Tinder. Apple argued that such disclosures breached procedural norms and could give competitors an unfair advantage. Consequently, the CCI ordered the recall and destruction of the original investigation reports.
However, new reports were subsequently issued. In November 2024, Apple alleged that TWFS had failed to comply with the directive to destroy the original documents. Apple urged the CCI to take action against TWFS for non-compliance and requested the regulator to withhold the revised reports. These pleas were rejected in an order dated November 13, 2024.
“The request to hold the investigation report in abeyance was deemed untenable,” stated the CCI order.
Current Status
As the case progresses, the CCI has asked Apple to submit its audited financial statements for fiscal years 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24. This step is part of the regulator’s process to determine potential monetary penalties in the event of a ruling against Apple.
Senior officials at the CCI will now review the revised investigation report before delivering a final decision. The outcome could have significant implications for Apple’s operations in India, a market where the company is seeking to expand its presence.
Reactions from Stakeholders
Neither Apple nor the CCI has issued any comments on the recent developments. It is reported that Apple did not respond to its queries, and calls to TWFS representatives went unanswered.
This legal confrontation comes amid a broader global trend of increasing scrutiny over Big Tech’s market practices. In the United States, Apple is also facing antitrust lawsuits, with plaintiffs accusing the company of monopolistic practices in the smartphone market.
Implications for Apple
Apple’s app store policies have come under fire in various jurisdictions, with critics arguing that the company’s commission structure and payment processing restrictions stifle competition. In India, these allegations take on added significance, given the country’s potential as a growth market for technology companies.
If the CCI rules against Apple, the company could face hefty fines and be compelled to alter its business practices in the region. Such a decision would align with India’s broader push for fair competition and consumer protection in the digital economy.
As Apple navigates this legal battle, the case underscores the growing regulatory challenges faced by multinational tech companies in diverse markets. The CCI’s decision to reject Apple’s plea reflects India’s commitment to upholding its competition laws, even when powerful global players are involved. The final ruling, expected in the coming months, will determine the extent of Apple’s accountability and could set a precedent for similar cases in the future.
