Published
September 26, 2026
The consumer antitrust case against Qualcomm, In re Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation, once covered up to 250 million smartphone buyers and carried a damages estimate of at least $4.84 billion. It ended in April 2025 with no class, no settlement and no payment, after losing its governing law, its liability theory and its expert evidence in turn.
The Short Version
The case did not lose in one ruling. It lost four things in sequence, and each loss made the next one more likely.• Its governing law. Phone buyers could not sue for damages under federal antitrust law, so the nationwide class ran on California law. In 2021 the Ninth Circuit held that was a mistake and vacated the class.
• Its liability theory. The consumer complaints borrowed the Federal Trade Commission’s case against Qualcomm. The Ninth Circuit reversed the FTC’s trial win in 2020.
• Its evidence. The theory that survived needed proof the case had not been built to produce. A late expert report was excluded, and Qualcomm won summary judgment in 2023.
• Its last exit. The one claim the appeals court preserved had to be refiled in California state court. No refiling has been publicly reported.
Qualcomm denied the allegations throughout and was never found liable to consumers. If you are looking for the claim status, our Qualcomm smartphone class action page has it: there is nothing to claim.
The Structural Problem: Phone Buyers Were Indirect Purchasers
Consumers did not buy chips or patent licenses from Qualcomm. They bought phones from Apple, Samsung and carriers, which bought chips and licenses from Qualcomm. That makes them indirect purchasers, and under the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, indirect purchasers generally cannot recover damages under the federal Sherman Act. The district court applied that rule early and dismissed the federal damages claims.About half the states responded to Illinois Brick by passing “repealer” laws that let indirect purchasers sue under state antitrust law. California is one. The rest, the “non-repealer” states, left the federal rule in place. So from 2018 on, the entire damages case depended on California’s Cartwright Act — applied to every class member in the country.
The Case Rode on the FTC
The FTC sued Qualcomm on January 17, 2017, alleging that Qualcomm refused to license its standard-essential patents to rival chipmakers, would not sell chips to phone makers unless they took a patent license (the “no license, no chips” policy), and used exclusive arrangements with Apple from 2011 to 2016. Consumer class actions followed within weeks, built on the same allegations, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation sent them to Judge Lucy H. Koh in the Northern District of California in April 2017 — the same judge hearing the FTC case (see multidistrict litigation).That pairing sped the consumer case up. It also meant the consumer case would stand or fall with the government’s theory.
The Rise: 250 Million People
On September 27, 2018, Judge Koh certified a nationwide class of U.S. smartphone buyers — by the Ninth Circuit’s later count, up to 250 million people, with a lower-bound damages estimate of $4.84 billion. She applied California law to all of them, including buyers in non-repealer states whose own laws would not have allowed the claim. Qualcomm sought immediate review under Rule 23(f), and the Ninth Circuit agreed to hear the appeal.Then, in May 2019, the FTC won: after a bench trial, Judge Koh held Qualcomm liable under the Sherman Act and ordered worldwide changes to its licensing practices. For a few months, the consumer case looked as strong as it would ever be.
The Fall, Step One: The FTC Theory Is Reversed
On August 11, 2020, a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel reversed the FTC judgment in FTC v. Qualcomm. It held that licensing patents only to phone makers, rather than to rival chipmakers, did not violate the Sherman Act; that “no license, no chips” was not an anticompetitive surcharge on rivals; and that the Apple agreements did not substantially foreclose the modem-chip market. The FTC did not seek Supreme Court review.That ruling did not formally bind the consumers, who were not parties to it. But it meant the conduct at the center of their complaint had been held lawful under federal antitrust law by the court that would hear their appeal.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
The Fall, Step Two: Stromberg and Choice of Law
On September 29, 2021, in Stromberg v. Qualcomm, the Ninth Circuit vacated the nationwide class. This is the ruling that made the case a textbook example of choice of law defeating a class.California uses a governmental-interest test to decide whose law applies. Under that test, the panel held, non-repealer states have real interests of their own: limiting antitrust litigation against businesses that deal with their residents, avoiding complicated damages calculations, and preventing the same conduct from being paid for twice by suits at different levels of the supply chain. Applying California law to phones bought in those states would override those choices — what the court called the “false federalism” that the Class Action Fairness Act was meant to stop. The court concluded that “differences in relevant state laws swamp predominance,” so the Rule 23(b)(3) damages class could not stand (see class certification).
The panel also vacated the injunction class in light of FTC v. Qualcomm, and warned that because the consumers’ claims overlapped with the FTC’s, there would have to be “some extraordinary difference” for them “to not fail as a matter of law.”
The Fall, Step Three: A Smaller Case on an Old Record
The case moved to Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley in 2022. The plaintiffs refiled as a California-only class covering February 11, 2011 through September 27, 2018, with only Cartwright Act and UCL claims. They still alleged more than $9 billion in overcharges to phone makers, most of it passed on to buyers.In January 2023, the court dismissed the tying theory — the claim that Qualcomm unlawfully tied its chips to its patent licenses — as not viable under California law. What survived was an exclusive-dealing theory, which is judged under the rule of reason and requires proof that the deals shut rivals out of a substantial share of a defined market. The court declined to reopen discovery for the new theory, and suggested the plaintiffs could file a separate exclusive-dealing lawsuit instead. They did not.
The plaintiffs then offered a supplemental report from their economist, Dr. Kenneth Flamm, aimed at the surviving theory. The court excluded it under Rule 37(c)(1) as untimely (see expert testimony). In September 2023, Qualcomm won summary judgment on everything; the public, redacted order is dated October 5, 2023.
The Fall, Step Four: The Appeal and the Unused Exit
On February 25, 2025, in Key v. Qualcomm, the Ninth Circuit affirmed almost all of it. On tying, it held that without a market for the tied product, there was no competition to foreclose. On the expert report, it noted that Flamm’s original report “expressly disclaimed the opinions that Plaintiffs later sought to add.” On exclusive dealing, it found no defined market and no proof of substantial foreclosure, and said another plaintiffs’ expert’s statement about what “might” happen to prices “was highly speculative” because he “assumed, rather than proved, that costs were passed through to consumers.” A theory built on Qualcomm’s dealings with Samsung was forfeited because it was not developed in the opening brief. The court also declined to send questions to the California Supreme Court.The plaintiffs won one narrow point. A federal court can hear a UCL claim for restitution only if the plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy at law, and losing a damages claim does not make that remedy inadequate. So the panel vacated summary judgment on the UCL unfairness claim tied to exclusive dealing and ordered it dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.
On April 1, 2025, Judge Corley announced she would dismiss that claim and gave the parties until April 8 to object. No one did. On April 9, 2025, she dismissed it and closed the case. As of September 26, 2026, we have found no public report of a state-court refiling and no Supreme Court petition — though public web sources cannot rule out a filing somewhere.
How the Case Shrank
| When | What was left |
|---|---|
| 2018 | Nationwide class of up to 250 million, federal and California claims, FTC theory |
| 2020 | FTC theory reversed on appeal; class certification under review |
| 2021–22 | California-only class, state-law claims only |
| 2023 | One theory (exclusive dealing), then summary judgment for Qualcomm |
| 2025 | One UCL claim, dismissed without prejudice; case closed |
The UK Case Ended the Same Way
A parallel UK opt-out claim, brought by the consumer group Which? for about 29 million buyers of certain Apple and Samsung phones, went to trial in the Competition Appeal Tribunal from October 7 to November 4, 2025. Before a judgment issued, the parties applied in February 2026 to settle on a “drop-hands” basis. The Tribunal approved it on June 10, 2026 in [2026] CAT 50: no damages, no costs, no payment either way. The Tribunal accepted that, after the trial evidence, the claim no longer had a realistic prospect of success.Other Cases Where the Same Problems Showed Up
The Qualcomm case is an extreme example, but the forces that sank it show up across our coverage:• Indirect purchasers and Illinois Brick. In the earlier homebuyer commission case, the court dismissed the federal antitrust damages claim in 2022 because homebuyers did not pay the commissions directly. The current $120.3M NAR homebuyer settlement explains how that case was rebuilt.
• Consumer classes built state by state. Food price-fixing cases show the structure the Qualcomm plaintiffs could not keep: the $117M pork price-fixing settlement pays grocery shoppers in 24 states, and the turkey price-fixing settlements separate direct and indirect buyers into different tracks.
• Contract terms and choice of law. In the Marriott Starwood data breach litigation, the Fourth Circuit vacated class certification and pointed to a class-action waiver and choice-of-law provision in the loyalty program contract.
• State law that limits a class. In the Ryobi 40V mower fire lawsuit, the claims that survived rest on Louisiana law tied to where one plaintiff bought the mower, which makes a nationwide class harder.
What the Qualcomm Case Shows
• A nationwide indirect-purchaser class needs a law that reaches the whole country. Federal law does not allow it, and after Stromberg, one repealer state’s law will not stretch to cover buyers in non-repealer states.• Borrowing a government theory carries the government’s risk. When the FTC lost, the consumer case lost its foundation.
• A new theory needs its own record. The exclusive-dealing claim had to be proven with discovery and expert work built for a different case, and the courts would not reopen either.
• Pass-through is the hardest link. Even with a violation, indirect purchasers must trace the overcharge through the middle of the supply chain to what they paid. Here the appeals court found that step assumed rather than proved.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Qualcomm smartphone class action pay anything?
No. There was no settlement and no judgment for consumers. The federal case was closed on April 9, 2025, and the parallel UK case ended in June 2026 with a no-payment settlement. There is nothing to claim.
Was Qualcomm found to have broken antitrust law?
No. The FTC won at trial in 2019, but the Ninth Circuit reversed in 2020, and the consumer case ended with summary judgment for Qualcomm, largely affirmed on appeal in 2025. Qualcomm denied the allegations throughout.
Why did the nationwide class get thrown out?
Phone buyers were indirect purchasers, so they had to rely on California’s Cartwright Act instead of federal antitrust law. In 2021 the Ninth Circuit held that California law could not be applied to buyers in states that bar indirect-purchaser suits, and that the differences among state laws defeated predominance.
Can the case still be refiled?
Only one narrow claim was dismissed without prejudice: a California UCL unfairness claim that could be refiled in state court. No such refiling has been publicly reported as of September 26, 2026.
Sources
• Stromberg v. Qualcomm, No. 19-15159 (9th Cir. Sept. 29, 2021)• Key v. Qualcomm, No. 23-3354 (9th Cir. Feb. 25, 2025)
• FTC: complaint announcement, January 17, 2017
• In re Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:17-md-02773 (N.D. Cal.) docket
• Order of intent to dismiss UCL claim, Dkt. 1045 (April 1, 2025)
• Reuters: Qualcomm defeats consumers’ antitrust claims (September 27, 2023)
• Competition Appeal Tribunal: Consumers’ Association v. Qualcomm case page
About This Page
OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news and information site, not a law firm. This is a procedural analysis based on court opinions, docket records and agency materials current through September 26, 2026. It is general information, not legal advice.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
