{"id":69632,"date":"2026-06-29T15:07:40","date_gmt":"2026-06-29T13:07:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/?p=69632"},"modified":"2026-06-29T15:08:48","modified_gmt":"2026-06-29T13:08:48","slug":"apple-india-cartel-allegations-dismissed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/en\/news\/apple-indien-kartell-vorwurf-abschreiben","title":{"rendered":"Indian antitrust case: Apple accuses the authority of plagiarism"},"content":{"rendered":"

Apple has long resisted taking action in the Indian antitrust dispute, but now the company is going on the offensive: It claims that large parts of the three-year investigation by the competition authority were simply copied from submissions by competitors. Apple is presenting comparative tables to support its claim and demanding that the findings be completely rejected.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the Indian antitrust case concerning App Store fees, Apple has filed a new submission \u2013 and turned the tables. The case stems from a complaint filed in 2021; in 2024, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) accused Apple of anti-competitive behavior, which the company has been fighting ever since. Instead of refuting the agency's allegations, Apple is now attacking its methodology. The dispute is so explosive because a potential fine of up to $38 billion<\/a> is at stake \u2013 which would be the largest antitrust penalty in the world. The submission comes just before a closed-door hearing with high-ranking CCI representatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The accusation: copied passages instead of independent review<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

According to a Reuters<\/a> report, Apple claims in its statement that investigators from the regulatory authority adopted key content without verification. For example, a graphic on consumer spending was allegedly taken unchanged from an EU regulation. To support this claim, Apple reportedly presents tables that directly compare the CCI report with submissions from opposing parties \u2013 including competing Indian payment service providers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple argues that the responsible Director General made no independent effort to verify or critically evaluate these statements, but often adopted them verbatim. From the company's perspective, the agency therefore failed to conduct an independent investigation \u2013 and its findings should therefore be completely overturned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple feels sidelined<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A second point of criticism concerns the process itself. Apple states that the CCI did not grant the company a single opportunity to give its own statements or present evidence orally during the three-year investigation. This refusal stands in stark contrast to a similar case against Google, which was given multiple opportunities to defend itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What's interesting is that Google also argued at the time that the CCI had copied parts of a European ruling. The authority rejected this claim at the time \u2013 and the objection had no bearing on the outcome against Google in 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The real argument is about money<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Behind the legal battle lies a question of money. The proceedings are at the point where Indian regulators are determining the amount of a potential fine. This is based on an antitrust law that came into effect in 2024, which allows the authorities to calculate fines based on global revenue rather than just local revenue. Apple derives its figure of approximately 38 billion US dollars precisely from this calculation method.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple is challenging this law in a separate case before a court in New Delhi. The central objection is that since the regulation only came into effect in 2024, it should not be applied retroactively to the entire investigation period from 2022 to 2024. This legal case is still ongoing, and no new hearing dates have been set.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From delay to counter-offensive<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The timing of the filing is noteworthy. The regulatory authority had repeatedly accused Apple of delaying the proceedings<\/a> \u2013 primarily because the company long refused to release the requested financial data for the period from 2022 to 2024. In early June 2026, Apple relented and agreed to cooperate, but was permitted to submit local accounts instead of global figures. The company requested a "final extension" until June 25, 2026, to process this data \u2013 and immediately thereafter filed the now-public allegation of plagiarism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It remains unclear why Apple is only now questioning the validity of the investigation. However, a look at the Google case offers little reassurance for the company: there, an almost identical objection had no effect on the decision. The next closed-door hearing between the CCI and Apple is scheduled for July 21, 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

India is gaining importance for Apple<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The dispute comes at a time when India is becoming increasingly important for Apple. At the same time, health authorities are inspecting the iPhone factory of supplier Tata, which was recently the target of a cyberattack involving stolen Apple documents<\/a>. Despite this tense environment, production in the country is growing rapidly: Apple only began assembling iPhones there in 2017 \u2013 initially exclusively the iPhone SE for the local market. By March 2026, one in four iPhones manufactured worldwide was already produced in India. It is precisely this growing commitment that makes the outcome of the antitrust case more than just a footnote for Apple. (Image: Shutterstock \/ Jayantt)<\/p>\n\n\n\n