Indian antitrust case: Apple gets a reprieve Apfelpatient

This article may contain affiliate links. Learn more on our Partner Program page.

Make Apfelpatient a preferred source One click – and you'll see us more often on Google

In the multi-billion dollar antitrust case in India, Apple has achieved a small partial victory: The Delhi High Court has postponed its decision by approximately two months. At the same time, however, the court made it unequivocally clear that Apple must release the requested financial data – the threat of a $38 billion fine remains.

The dispute between Apple and the Indian competition authority has entered its next phase. Previously, May 21, 2026, was the final deadline by which the Competition Commission of India (CCI) was to deliver its ruling. This deadline has now been scrapped: The Delhi High Court has prohibited the CCI from deciding before July 15, 2026. For Apple, this grants an additional two months – albeit with clear conditions. The court has simultaneously ordered the company to fully disclose the financial data it has been withholding for months. This shifts the central conflict: less time pressure, but no way around the data release. The magnitude of the potential fine remains unchanged – up to $38 billion is still at stake, which would be the largest antitrust fine against Apple worldwide.

What the court decided

The Delhi High Court has issued two combined orders. First, Apple must submit its audited financial statements for the years 2022 to 2024 to the CCI and "fully cooperate." Second, the CCI may not make its final decision until after July 15, 2026. This weakens the position of both sides: Apple can no longer rely on delaying tactics regarding its financial data, and the CCI must temporarily suspend its strategy of accelerating the process.

Apple had originally requested that the entire proceedings be suspended while the parallel antitrust lawsuit was pending. The court did not grant this further request. Instead, a compromise was reached that leaves the legal question open but effectively allows the proceedings to continue (via TheNextWeb).

The dispute over the amended criminal law

At its core, the issue concerns a change in the law that gives India the right to base fines on a company's global revenue – similar to the practice in the European Union. Apple is contesting the retroactive application of this stricter regulation to the period from 2022 to 2024. The company argues that only a portion of these years should fall under the new law, as it has since been amended.

Apple is attempting to clarify precisely this question in a separate lawsuit before the main proceedings are concluded. So far, there is no explanation as to how Apple arrived at the specific figure of $38 billion. The number is based on the theoretical maximum permitted by the amended law - that is, the highest possible percentage that can be applied to worldwide annual revenue. Whether the CCI would actually utilize this maximum is another matter.

Why Apple must release the data

The CCI needs the financial data to determine a specific penalty. Without this basis, the agency can find Apple guilty, but cannot impose a quantified sanction. Apple's previous strategy of blocking the release of the data was therefore more than just a procedural delay - it effectively prevented the conclusion of the proceedings.

The newly imposed obligation to submit data changes this dynamic. While Apple can continue its dispute over the retroactive application of the law, it must simultaneously provide the data on which the CCI can base its calculations. The timeframe until July 15 may not be sufficient to conclude the parallel antitrust lawsuit – realistically, probably not, as Indian court proceedings at this level typically take longer.

India's broader demands on Apple

The antitrust case is just one of several points of contention that India and Apple are working on simultaneously. Indian authorities continue to demand access to the iOS source code – a request Apple has consistently refused. At the same time, the company is massively expanding its iPhone production in India to reduce its dependence on China. Both of these developments are independent of the antitrust case, but they are shaping the political climate between Apple and New Delhi.

How difficult this climate can be was recently demonstrated by another case: India had initially demanded that Apple pre-install a government identification app on every iPhone. This demand was withdrawn after negotiations – a rare reversal that shows Indian authorities are now more frequently yielding to overly strict requirements imposed on Apple.

Tactical success, strategic stagnation

The extension is a tactical victory for Apple, but not a strategic breakthrough. The company gains time, but loses its previous leeway in disclosing data. This brings the proceedings closer to a decisive phase: once the financial data is available, the CCI can calculate the penalty – and Apple will have to prepare for a specific fine, against which the company can then take legal action.

For India, this case is a test of how far its new antitrust powers can extend against one of the world's largest corporations. A fine approaching the $38 billion mark would be completely unprecedented and would very likely trigger years of appeals. A more moderate sanction, on the other hand, could serve as a precedent for other Indian cases. Meanwhile, Apple continues to pursue antitrust lawsuits internationally – for example, with applications that, in the US case, are also intended to include data from Samsung, a tactic that the US Department of Justice has sharply criticized.

The next crucial deadline

July 15, 2026, will thus become the new key date in the Indian antitrust case. By then, Apple must have provided the financial data, and only then can the CCI make its decision. The authority has only a narrow window of time between data submission and ruling – an indication that the CCI has not abandoned its accelerated approach, but has merely been slowed down by the courts. Whether Apple will make progress in its separate case against the retroactive application of the law by then is unclear, but considered unlikely. (Image: Shutterstock / surprisestock)