(SINGAPORE 2026.4.23) Chinese media have observed that India’s increasing resort to antitrust enforcement and hefty fines to compel regulatory compliance by foreign companies—effectively using access to its vast market as leverage —may prompt foreign firms, including Chinese companies, to reassess the legal and financial risks of operating in the country.
India’s ongoing antitrust case against Apple has emerged as a landmark test. Indian regulators are reportedly weighing a potential fine of up to a staggering US$38 billion (about S$51 billion). The figure is calculated based on Apple’s global, rather than domestic, turnover under a revised legal framework that substantially increases penalties. Apple is accused of using its dominance in its App Store to force users of developers’ apps to make payments through its in-app payment system, from which it takes a commission.
While Indian regulators argue that massive fines are necessary to ensure fair competition and curb platform power, the scale of the penalties has sent a strong signal to global investors about the level of regulatory risks in India, according to a column in the Chinese tech news outlet 36Kr.
For multinational companies already operating in India or considering entering the market, the case highlights a shifting regulatory landscape in which participation in India’s growth story may come with critical financial and legal risks, the column Redianweiping (热点微评) pointed out.
The potential record-breaking penalty is not a sudden development. It stems from a five-year-long legal dispute, Redianweiping noted. In 2021, the Indian startup association, together with America’s Match Group—the parent company of Tinder—filed a complaint against Apple for the payment practice commonly referred to as the “Apple tax.” The dating app Tinder has a large user base in India.
Indian authorities claimed that the payment system has placed heavy pressure on local developers, forcing a huge share of their earnings to be transferred to Apple and leaving them with thin profit margins.
After a three-year investigation, India’s Competition Commission issued a preliminary report in 2024 concluding that Apple had abused its prevailing market position. However, no immediate penalties followed, and Apple reportedly made no concessions.
Later in 2024, India revised its antitrust penalty framework. Under the new approach, fines are no longer limited to revenue generated within India. Instead, penalties can be computed based on global turnover, with a maximum of up to 10% of worldwide revenue for companies found guilty.
Based on this revision, Apple calculated that its potential penalties could reach US$38 billion—about 40% of its 2025 net profit. The figure exceeds the annual GDP of several small countries, including Laos and Timor-Leste. It is also equal to Apple’s total revenue in India over four years, or, in profit terms, akin to operating in India for more than a decade without earnings, the column estimated.
Apple is not the only company facing scrutiny. Hyundai Motor has also come under investigation. The company reportedly received an order from the Chennai Customs Commissioner’s office on April 21, stating that its imported air purifiers were misclassified, resulting in reduced tariff payments. Authorities are now demanding 72.745 million rupees (about S$990,000) in back taxes, along with an equivalent penalty. Including interest, the total reaches about 220 million rupees—modest in comparison with Apple’s case.
Some analysts interpret India’s actions against Apple through a geopolitical lens, suggesting that Apple has become a key pawn in New Delhi’s broader playbook as it navigates its relationship with the United States.
Washington has long viewed India as a strategic counterweight to China, according to some interpretations. Even India’s military confrontation with Pakistan last year has been read by some as having been encouraged by the US, only for India to suffer setbacks and see its strategic value diminished, Redianweiping reported.
With India’s negotiating position reportedly weakened, the US administration adopted a tough stance, imposing tariffs of up to 50% on Indian exports, placing pressure on India’s export sector, the column added.
Meanwhile, India remains heavily dependent on imported energy. It has temporarily reduced imports of discounted Russian oil under US pressure and pledged greater market access for American agricultural goods. Later disruptions in Middle Eastern supply chains contributed to shortages in fertilizers and agricultural inputs, raising concerns over food security.
Some analysts argue that Apple may now represent India’s most significant bargaining chip in its dealings with the US. The company is expanding its investments in India, and parts of its supply chain are gradually shifting from China to India. By 2025, India had become the world’s fifth-largest iPhone market.
As Apple deepens its presence in India, some observers believe New Delhi is now better positioned to exert pressure on the US. If the US weaponizes tariffs and energy against India, New Delhi could respond using Apple as a counterbalance, forcing Washington to act more cautiously.
Beyond geopolitics, critics point to a recurring concern: India’s reputation as a “graveyard for foreign capital.” Companies are first attracted to India because of its incentives such as subsidies, tax exemptions, and expedited approvals. Once investments are committed and assets are locked in, regulatory scrutiny tends to increase, the column warned.
Authorities may then use tax investigations, compliance audits, foreign exchange rules, or antitrust probes to impose weighty penalties. Companies including Samsung, Walmart, Nokia, Ericsson, Google, Xiaomi, Oppo, and Vivo have all faced scrutiny in various forms, the column recalled.
For instance, Xiaomi had 55.5 billion rupees frozen in 2022 over alleged royalty payments. In 2025, Samsung was ordered to pay US$601 million in taxes, alongside penalties for senior executives. Britain’s Vodafone faced multi-billion-dollar tax claims, while Walmart, Amazon, and Google were fined US$1.35 billion, US$172 million, and US$275 million respectively.
The Apple case has intensified these concerns, particularly because India now ties fines to global revenue. Under the previous model, Apple’s maximum fine in the current suit would have been around US$900 million based on its approximately US$9 billion annual revenue in India. Now the sum might rise to US$38 billion—a more than 40-fold increase.
This shift means that the larger a company’s global footprint, the greater its regulatory risk in India. Some investors therefore expect firms to adopt “light-asset” strategies, focusing on sales rather than deeper operational investment.
However, critics argue this still offers limited protection, since penalties are tied to global revenue regardless of local asset structure. Such regulatory uncertainty, they suggest, is difficult for multinational firms to assess. If India has not hesitated to challenge an American tech giant, Chinese companies are unlikely to be exempt, the column advised.
Although India has recently shown signs of easing investment restrictions in certain sectors, underlying regulatory risks remain high, the column assessed.
For Chinese companies, strategic caution may be the more prudent approach. If earlier measures such as new certification requirements for CCTV equipment already constrained firms like Hikvision ( 海康威视 ) and Dahua ( 大华技术 ) in parts of India’s market, the Apple case represents another prominent signal of India’s risk environment, Redianweiping concluded.
