The submission, reported for the first time, represents the sharpest exchange yet between Apple and the Competition Commission of India, which is examining whether the tech giant abused its dominance through its App Store practices on iOS devices.
At the centre of the dispute are allegations that Apple engaged in “abusive conduct” by restricting app distribution and requiring developers to use its in-app payment system. Apple has consistently denied wrongdoing.
“Minuscule player” defence and market share argument
In its filing, Apple argued that it is not dominant in India’s smartphone ecosystem, describing itself as a “minuscule player” with under 6% market share.
The company warned that any forced changes to its App Store model could disrupt what it called its “integrated business model,” adding that sweeping regulatory remedies could “create regulatory uncertainty and could deter investments in India’s digital economy.”
Apple also pushed back against the possibility of penalties or behavioural remedies, arguing that such measures would be disproportionate and harmful to its operations in one of its fastest-growing manufacturing hubs.
“Copy-pasting” allegations against investigators
One of Apple’s strongest criticisms targeted the investigation process itself.
The company accused the CCI’s Director General of “copy-pasting” large portions of rival submissions from companies including Match Group, Paytm, and PhonePe, as well as Walmart-backed payments platform Walmart-linked apps in India.
Apple claimed investigators “made no effort whatsoever to independently verify or critically assess these statements,” alleging that some sections of the report were reproduced verbatim.
The company further argued that parts of the investigation relied on European Union findings rather than India-specific market conditions, saying this weakened the basis of the conclusions.
CCI probe and global context
The Indian regulator has not responded publicly to Apple’s latest claims, while Apple also declined to comment beyond its submission.
The case is part of a wider global regulatory push against major technology firms over app store fees and platform control, with Apple facing scrutiny across multiple jurisdictions.
A similar dispute involving Alphabet Inc.’s Google previously led to mandated changes in Android distribution practices in India, signalling the CCI’s willingness to enforce structural remedies.
Claims of delays and procedural disputes
The CCI has previously accused Apple of slowing down proceedings, alleging the company delayed responses and challenged India’s antitrust penalty framework in parallel legal action. Under Indian law, fines can reach up to 10% of a company’s global turnover over a three-year period.
Apple, however, insists it has complied with disclosure requirements, stating it has submitted its “relevant turnover of Apple in India” for fiscal years 2022–2024.
The company also argued it was denied adequate opportunity to present oral evidence during the investigation, contrasting its treatment with other tech firms such as Google, which it said was given multiple hearings.
Legal experts note that while oral hearings are common in complex cases, they are not always mandatory under CCI procedures, leaving the decision to the regulator’s discretion.
A high-stakes hearing ahead
Senior officials at the CCI are scheduled to meet all parties in a closed-door hearing on July 21, a session expected to play a key role in shaping the next phase of the case.
The outcome could have major implications for Apple’s business model in India, a market that is rapidly becoming more important as the country emerges as a major iPhone manufacturing hub. Industry estimates suggest India could account for roughly 26% of global iPhone production by 2026, up from just 6% four years ago.
Apple has also highlighted its economic footprint in the country, pointing to $51 billion worth of iPhone exports over the past five years as it argues against punitive measures.
As the case moves forward, it now sits at the intersection of global tech regulation, platform power debates, and India’s expanding role in the global electronics supply chain.