Pull to refresh
Logo
What Changed
Following Why Sign Up
Court lets DRAM price-fixing case against three chipmakers proceed

Court lets DRAM price-fixing case against three chipmakers proceed

Rule Changes

A California federal judge found the lawsuit plausibly alleges Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron coordinated supply cuts in a market they dominate.

Yesterday: Judge denies motion to dismiss

Overview

Updated 2 hours ago

Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron make more than 91% of the world's conventional DRAM, the memory in phones, laptops and servers. In late 2022 and early 2023 all three cut output. Prices then rose roughly 697% from the third quarter of 2024 to the first quarter of 2026.

On Nov. 14, 2026, U.S. District Judge Noël Wise denied the companies' motion to dismiss a class action accusing them of agreeing to those cuts. The ruling does not decide whether they colluded. It decides the plaintiffs can demand internal documents and testimony and try to prove it.

Why it matters

Discovery could show whether the three firms that make most of the world's memory coordinated output cuts, and whether AI demand was cover.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

91%
Combined global DRAM revenue share
Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron held more than 91% of global DRAM revenue as of the third quarter of 2025, per the complaint.
697%
Alleged compounded price increase
Conventional DRAM prices rose about 697% from the third quarter of 2024 to the first quarter of 2026, according to the complaint.
17
Named plaintiffs
Consumers and small businesses from five states filed the proposed class action on June 25, 2026.
$300M
Samsung's 2005 criminal fine
Samsung pleaded guilty and paid $300 million for its role in the 1998–2002 DRAM price-fixing cartel.
$185M
Hynix's 2005 criminal fine
SK Hynix's predecessor pleaded guilty in the same cartel; Micron received immunity as a cooperating whistleblower.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

Log in Sign Up

People Involved

Noël Wise
Noël Wise
U.S. District Judge, Northern District of California
Presiding over Garciaguirre et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Organizations Involved

Samsung Electronics
Samsung Electronics
Technology manufacturer
Defendant; must answer the complaint by Dec. 7, 2026

One of three firms that together supply most of the world's conventional DRAM.
SK Hynix
SK Hynix
Technology manufacturer
Defendant; must answer the complaint by Dec. 7, 2026

Korean memory maker and the second of the three dominant DRAM suppliers.
Micron Technology
Micron Technology
Semiconductor manufacturer
Defendant; must answer the complaint by Dec. 7, 2026

Boise-based memory maker and the third of the dominant DRAM suppliers.
Bathaee Dunne LLP
Bathaee Dunne LLP
Plaintiffs' law firm
Represents the proposed class

The firm representing the 17 consumers and small businesses suing the three chipmakers.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Federal trial court
Hearing case No. 5:26-cv-06345-NW

The federal court where the DRAM class action was filed and survived dismissal.

Timeline

October 2022 November 2026

8 events Latest: Yesterday
Tap a bar to jump to that date

  1. Judge denies motion to dismiss

    Latest Legal

    Judge Wise finds the complaint plausibly alleges a Sherman Act agreement.

  2. Consumers and small businesses sue

    Legal

    Seventeen plaintiffs from five states file a proposed class action in California.

  3. Firms adopt near-identical customer vetting

    Corporate

    All three allegedly ask customers the same vetting questions in January 2026.

  4. Micron says it will close Crucial

    Corporate

    Micron announces the closure of its 30-year-old consumer memory brand.

  5. Three firms hold more than 91% of DRAM revenue

    Market

    Combined global DRAM revenue share tops 91% in the third quarter.

  6. All three announce DDR4 wind-downs

    Supply

    Between April and June 2025, the three firms say they will exit mainstream DDR4.

  7. Samsung matches cuts after chip division loss

    Corporate

    Samsung reverses course and cuts output after a multibillion-dollar quarterly loss.

  8. SK Hynix and Micron announce production cuts

    Supply

    SK Hynix cuts output and investment; Micron cuts wafer starts 20%.

Scenarios

1

Chipmakers settle before trial

Possible Resolves by Q2 2028

Discussed by: Antitrust litigators following the docket; no party has signaled settlement talks

Once discovery begins, internal documents on capacity planning would reach the plaintiffs. A settlement would avoid a public trial over how the three firms set output. The 1998–2002 cartel ended in corporate guilty pleas and more than $730 million in criminal penalties, which gives both sides a benchmark.

2

Judge denies class certification and the case collapses

Possible Resolves by Q1 2028

Discussed by: Defense counsel, who argue the complaint repeats the dismissed DRAM II claims

Surviving a motion to dismiss is a low bar. The next test is whether the 17 plaintiffs can represent a nationwide class of DRAM buyers, which requires showing common proof of impact and damages. A denial would end the case as a class action, leaving individual suits that are expensive to bring.

3

Case reaches summary judgment or trial

Uncertain Resolves by Jun 29, 2029

Discussed by: Plaintiffs' counsel, who argue the parallel conduct and plus factors are enough to proceed

If the class is certified, the companies would move for summary judgment on the same question the judge just answered in the plaintiffs' favor. The customer-vetting questions from January 2026 and the failure to add capacity despite record prices are the plaintiffs' strongest plus factors, according to the ruling.

Historical Context

2 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

1998–2002

DRAM price-fixing cartel (1998–2002)

Samsung, Hynix and Micron, along with other manufacturers, took part in a criminal conspiracy to fix DRAM prices sold to major American computer makers. The Department of Justice prosecuted it.

Then

Samsung paid a $300 million criminal fine and Hynix paid $185 million; total criminal penalties exceeded $730 million, and several executives went to prison.

Now

Micron avoided a fine by reporting the conspiracy and cooperating. The case became the reference point for later DRAM price spikes.

Why this matters now

The complaint argues the alleged conduct is the third price cycle in the same market among the same firms. Judge Wise, like the earlier DRAM II court, rejected the companies' argument that two-decade-old history should not count.

2016–2018

In re DRAM Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation (2016–2018)

Prices spiked again, prompting a U.S. class action and a Chinese government investigation into all three firms. The case, known as DRAM II, alleged a supply restriction during those years.

Then

The Ninth Circuit in 2022 affirmed dismissal of the claims against the same three companies.

Now

Its reasoning set the bar for what counts as a plus factor beyond conscious parallelism, and it limited how much weight trade-conference meetings can carry.

Why this matters now

The defendants argued this case is a rerun. Judge Wise disagreed, writing that it is not, though she adopted DRAM II's skepticism toward investor statements and conference meetings.

Sources

(6)
India Power Online MLex Law360 Open Class Actions CourtListener DropDigital