Introduction

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) closed a four-year old case into Google's Play Store with a finding of contravention in 2022. Similarly, it started an investigation against Apple for, more or less, the same practices such as mandatory in-app payments and a 30% commission, during the same time and the case is currently stuck. This delay is partly due to multiple extensions sought by the company and a parallel constitutional challenge keeping the CCI jurisdiction at bay. The question this raises is not just whether Apple is guilty, but whether India's competition watchdog has quietly lost by the time decision is arrived in technology markets.

Google vs. Apple – A comparison

In Google case, the matter started with three individual complainants filing a case against Google LLC in 2018 for abuse of dominance. The allegations were somewhat different as compared to Apple but the fact there was a big technology company, comparable to a gatekeeper, was in scrutiny was common. The order passed by the Commission was detailed in nature where it imposed a penalty of ₹1,337.76 crore and issued a cease-and-desist order requiring Google to unbundle its app suite from Play Store licensing.

In comparison, the CCI started investigating Apple in 2021 where there is no end in sight by 2026. It is to highlight that the Commission is not at fault. It duly completed the investigation by 2024, however what changed was a systemic pattern of Apple being granted repeated extensions. The CCI did call the foul in an order refusing a further pause only to be followed by Apple withholding crucial financial data required for completion of the case. The position taken by the Delhi High Court was somewhat mixed where it allowed the CCI proceedings to continue but barred it from passing a final order adding to the delay. Apple has further trumped up charges where it has accused CCI of "copy-pasting" rivals' claims. It is not publicly known what has further transpired only to prolong the limbo.

A Different Kind of Losing Ground

The allegation of copy-pasting by Apple isn’t novel. Google has also accused the CCI of copying substantial portions of a European Commission ruling in its case which finally did not hold merit. As noted here, original regulatory prose should not anyway determine the effectiveness of competition regulator and the copy-paste allegation by Apple should fail at the threshold level.

The novelty in Apple case lies in the amended competition law framework which lets the CCI calculate penalties on a company's global turnover rather than domestic revenue. The outcome of the challenge mounted by Apple would also determine whether the amendment survives constitutional scrutiny. The Delhi HC has correctly decided to pause the final order unless this important aspect is resolved. This is also happening on the side-line when India now accounts for a quarter of global iPhone production.

The Template Problem

Some other developments also warrant a closer look. Google is simultaneously facing a separate, live investigation into its online advertising practices, widened by the CCI in August 2025. Meta's fight is further along but no less stuck: a November 2024 order fining WhatsApp Rs 213.14 crore and banning it from sharing user data went to the NCLAT, which partly reversed the ad-data ban a year later; both sides then cross-appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case remains pending. Amazon and Flipkart face something stranger still: nearly two dozen separate writ petitions filed across five different High Courts, not only by the companies themselves but by affected sellers, Samsung, and Vivo, aimed, in the CCI's own words to the Supreme Court, at trying to "debilitate and scuttle" the investigation before any finding is even reached.

The common thread is that while different companies tend to tread different path, the CCI has to run the same ex-post-race every time from the beginning – delineate relevant market, prove dominance and abuse against companies in public which have every resource to contest each step of that proof.

Digital Competition Bill, 2024

The Indian government is currently considering enactment of ex-ante digital competition law to address this kind of situation. The Digital Competition Bill would designate large platforms such as Google and Apple as Systemically Significant Digital Enterprises based on objective criteria and apply a predefined set of obligations automatically on designation, i.e. no self-preferencing, no forced bundling, defined limits on data use, rather than starting from scratch. This would resolve a lot of issues which are currently raised before the CCI or other courts such as turnover-based penalty formula, length and proportionate nature of remedy and open-ended field of dominance.

This of course would not be an end to litigation. Europe's experience under the Digital Markets Act shows that gatekeepers still fight designation and specific obligations in court, though more specifically and in a time-bound manner. The Indian Bill, however, currently remains stuck in pre-legislative consultation, with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs still working through more than a hundred stakeholder submissions and no fixed timeline on action.

Conclusion

The essence of competition enforcement is in timely action. The CCI has shown its ability in the Google case to decide in a timely and effective manner. The companies under investigation, however, seem to have find a breakthrough. The DCB is also stuck. The rule now is that a decision would come in time when it has already lost relevance. The Commission could only be a mute spectator.

Muhammed Mubarak C is a student at Faculty of Law, Delhi University and a Research Intern at the Centre.