Apple, unsurprisingly, disagrees. The company argues that its closed ecosystem ensures security, privacy, and a seamless user experience. It maintains that its commission structure is standard industry practice and necessary to sustain the platform’s infrastructure. Apple also points out that developers benefit from access to a premium user base and global distribution. In its view, regulatory interference risks undermining innovation and product quality.

However, the Indian antitrust case cannot be viewed in isolation. Globally, Apple is facing similar challenges. Regulators in the European Union, the United States, South Korea, and Japan have questioned the company’s control over app distribution and payments. The EU’s Digital Markets Act has already forced Apple to allow alternative app stores and payment options in certain regions. India’s action, therefore, is part of a broader international pushback against “gatekeeper” tech platforms.

What makes the Indian case particularly important is the context in which it arises. India has one of the world’s largest and fastest-growing digital economies, with millions of app developers, startups, and small businesses relying on mobile platforms. When a single company controls access to users, it wields immense power over pricing, visibility, and business viability. Indian developers have long complained that Apple’s policies are especially burdensome in a price-sensitive market where margins are thin and scale is crucial.

From a legal perspective, the case tests the strength and ambition of India’s competition law framework. The Competition Act, 2002 was drafted for traditional markets, but its application to digital ecosystems has required creative interpretation. By taking on Apple, the CCI is signalling that dominance in digital markets will not be treated lightly. It also aligns with India’s broader policy direction, which emphasises fair competition, startup growth, and digital self-reliance.

Yet, there are legitimate concerns about overregulation. Apple is not just a tech company in India; it is also a major investor and manufacturing partner. With increasing iPhone production under the “Make in India” initiative, Apple plays a role in employment generation and global supply chains. A confrontational regulatory environment could send mixed signals to foreign investors, particularly at a time when India is competing with other countries to attract global manufacturing and technology firms.

The challenge, therefore, lies in balance. Competition law must prevent abuse of dominance without punishing success or innovation. Remedies should aim to open markets, not micromanage business models. Allowing alternative payment systems or reducing restrictive clauses could foster competition while preserving Apple’s core product integrity.

Ultimately, the Apple antitrust case is about more than one company. It is about who controls digital markets, how power is exercised in platform economies, and whether national regulators can effectively protect consumers and businesses in a globalised tech landscape. India’s response will set an important precedent—not just for Apple, but for every major technology platform operating in the country.

As the case heats up, all eyes will be on how India navigates this high-stakes confrontation. A fair, transparent, and well-reasoned outcome could strengthen India’s credibility as a regulator and reinforce the message that in the world’s largest democracy, even the biggest corporations are not above competition law.