Core Viewpoint - Apple is challenging India's new antitrust law, which could impose fines of up to $38 billion, arguing that the use of global turnover for penalty calculations is unconstitutional and unjust [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Challenges - Apple has filed a case in Delhi High Court against the Competition Commission of India (CCI) regarding the calculation of penalties based on global turnover [1]. - The company claims that the CCI's approach is "unconstitutional, grossly disproportionate, unjust" [2]. - The CCI is investigating complaints from Indian startups and Match Group, alleging that Apple engages in "abusive conduct" by enforcing high commissions for in-app purchases [2]. Group 2: Market Performance - Apple recorded its highest-ever quarterly shipments in India, reaching 5 million units in Q3 2025, according to IDC data [3]. - The CCI's preliminary view suggests that Apple's mandatory use of its in-app purchase (IAP) system restricts app developers' choice of payment processing systems [3].

Core Argument - Apple Inc has challenged the constitutionality of India's anti-trust law provisions that link penalties to global turnover, arguing that this violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution [1][2][4] Legal Provisions and Arguments - The company argues that the amended Section 27(b) of the Competition Act, which defines "turnover" as "global turnover," expands the basis for penalties to include worldwide revenue, which it claims is unconstitutional [3][4] - Apple seeks to quash the amended provisions and certain guidelines from the Competition Commission of India (CCI) that it deems arbitrary and ultra vires of the Competition Act [7][9] Confidentiality and Financial Statements - The petition requests the quashing of parts of the 'confidentiality ring' order that requires Apple to submit interlinked financial statements, arguing that this direction is legally invalid [5][6] Supreme Court Precedent - Apple references the Supreme Court's judgement in the Excel Crop Care case, which interpreted turnover as "relevant turnover," asserting that the doctrine of proportionality is protected under the Constitution [8] Specific Examples of Disproportionate Penalties - The company illustrates its argument by providing an example where a penalty based on total turnover would be arbitrary and disproportionate, as it would consider revenue from unrelated markets [10][11]