Sean Heather
Senior Vice President, International Regulatory Affairs & Antitrust, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Published
December 04, 2025
The principle of fairness in competition enforcement is under increasing scrutiny, most recently seen in Apple’s challenge to fines in India. Under the amended Competition Act, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) can penalize a company up to 10% of its “global turnover derived from all the products and services,” a change from the “relevant turnover” provision that previously governed such cases. With this change, Apple could be fined as much as $38 billion. For obvious reasons, Apple has appealed to the Delhi High Court.
This case—and the absurd ceiling for Indian fining authority—highlights the need for penalties to be tied to actual harm caused, rather than arbitrarily based on global turnover. Such extraterritorial fines unfairly target multinational companies, punishing them for their global success rather than addressing specific issues in a particular market. A harm-based approach ensures proportionality, respects jurisdictional boundaries, and fosters a predictable regulatory environment that encourages investment and innovation.
The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) offers a model to ensure fair competition enforcement. The competition chapter includes provisions requiring fines to be calculated based on profits or revenue derived from the territory where the violation occurred. This ensures penalties are proportionate and directly tied to local impact, avoiding undue burdens on global operations. Such provisions reflect widely-shared values of fairness and due process, and their inclusion in trade agreements should be a priority.
The Trump administration and the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) deserve recognition for their leadership in advancing these principles. As the Chamber pointed out earlier this year, Europe’s failure to respect these principles when it comes to its use of fines is well-documented and has added to transatlantic tensions. U.S. pushback on the European Commission’s disproportionate fines on U.S. companies underscored the importance of fair treatment in competition enforcement.
Similarly, USTR’s recent trade negotiations with South Korea secured new due process protections for competition investigations. These efforts demonstrate a commitment to upholding fairness and protecting U.S. businesses from discriminatory practices abroad while strengthening the rule of law.
The Trump administration and USTR have the policy playbook to make fairness and due process in India’s competition proceedings a trade priority. Fortunately, India’s high court can still take the right approach and strike down the extraterritorial basis for calculating fines in its competition law.
About the author
Sean Heather
Sean Heather is Senior Vice President for International Regulatory Affairs and Antitrust.
