Published
July 5, 2026
A new antitrust class action says the three companies that make almost all of the world's memory coordinated to choke DRAM supply while prices roughly septupled — there is no settlement or claim form, but anyone who bought RAM, a laptop, a phone, or a prebuilt PC since October 2022 could eventually be covered.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron have not been found liable in this case, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
A group of consumers and small computer-building businesses has filed a proposed antitrust class action against the world's three dominant memory chip makers — Samsung (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its U.S. arm Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.), SK Hynix (SK Hynix Inc. and SK Hynix America Inc.), and Micron Technology, Inc. The complaint alleges these companies, which it says together account for more than 90% of the world's DRAM, coordinated to restrict the supply of conventional (commodity) DRAM and drive up prices for the memory found in nearly every laptop, desktop, phone, and server.The complaint, captioned Garciaguirre, et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-06345, was filed on June 25, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and demands a jury trial. The named plaintiffs bring the case on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of indirect purchasers. None of the defendants has been found liable in this case, and every claim described below is an unproven allegation.
Status
Complaint Filed
Proposed class action · Garciaguirre v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. · filed June 25, 2026 (N.D. Cal.)
Allegation
Coordinated DRAM supply restriction & price inflation
Suit says the three makers behind 90%+ of DRAM cut and withheld conventional memory supply while contract prices rose roughly 697% from Q3 2024 to Q1 2026
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to claim yet
No settlement, no fund, no claim form at this stage
What the Lawsuit Alleges
The case centers on what the complaint calls conventional or "commodity" DRAM — the standardized memory built to industry (JEDEC) specifications and sold for ordinary use, including the DDR4 and DDR5 modules in computers, the LPDDR memory in phones, and the memory in data-center servers. According to the suit, because a chip built to a given specification performs the same no matter which of the three firms made it, buyers treat commodity DRAM as interchangeable, and no other product can substitute for it. The complaint distinguishes this from high-bandwidth memory (HBM), a specialized, higher-priced product stacked for AI accelerators that it says is cut from the same limited wafer capacity.Plaintiffs allege that, beginning in October 2022, the three companies pursued a coordinated program of supply restriction rather than competing. The complaint points to a series of parallel moves it says make economic sense only if the firms were acting in concert: simultaneous production and capital-spending cuts in late 2022 and early 2023; a shared pivot of wafer capacity toward HBM (which, on Micron's own description, allegedly means giving up roughly three bits of conventional memory for each bit of HBM); a coordinated wind-down of older DDR3 and DDR4 lines despite ongoing demand; and a refusal to expand commodity DRAM output even as prices set records. The suit also alleges the companies imposed near-identical customer "vetting" on orders during the shortage and publicly signaled "supply discipline" to one another through earnings calls.
The complaint singles out two 2025 developments. It alleges that around October 2025, Samsung and SK Hynix reportedly agreed to supply OpenAI's "Stargate" data-center project with a volume of DRAM wafers that — if fully implemented — the suit estimates at up to roughly 40% of global output committed to a single customer. And it alleges that in December 2025, at the peak of the consumer shortage, Micron announced it would shut down Crucial, its long-running direct-to-consumer memory brand — a channel the complaint says a company competing for the shortage would have used to sell into record prices, not surrendered. Plaintiffs frame these as consistent with an agreement rather than independent competition. Each of these is an unproven allegation, and the companies have publicly attributed the same conduct to surging AI demand.
According to the complaint, the result was a price spike far beyond anything a competitive market would sustain: conventional DRAM contract prices allegedly rose about 171.8% year-over-year by the third quarter of 2025, then roughly 50% more in Q4 2025 and about 93%–98% more in Q1 2026 — a compounded increase of approximately 697% from Q3 2024 to Q1 2026. At retail, the suit says common DDR5 kits tripled or quadrupled, and downstream sellers including Dell and CyberPowerPC raised prices, with CyberPowerPC reportedly citing a 500% jump in memory costs.
A Third Cycle, According to the Complaint
The lawsuit leans heavily on the industry's history. Between 1998 and 2002, Samsung and Hynix (SK Hynix's predecessor), along with other manufacturers, took part in a criminal conspiracy to fix DRAM prices sold to major U.S. computer makers. The Department of Justice prosecuted it: Samsung pleaded guilty and paid a $300 million criminal fine, Hynix pleaded guilty and paid $185 million, total criminal penalties exceeded $730 million, and several executives served prison time. Micron took part but avoided a fine by reporting the conspiracy and cooperating under the DOJ's leniency policy. Those guilty pleas and fines are a matter of public record.DRAM prices spiked again in 2016-2018, prompting a U.S. class action in the same district and an antitrust investigation by China's market regulator into all three firms. The complaint frames the current conduct as the third such cycle in the same market among the same companies — but stresses, and so do we, that the earlier criminal case is established history while the 2022-present conspiracy described here remains an unproven allegation that no court has ruled on.
Who Could Be Affected?
The complaint is brought by indirect purchasers — buyers who did not purchase DRAM straight from the manufacturers but paid allegedly inflated prices down the chain. That covers people and businesses who bought conventional DRAM as standalone memory modules (a DDR5 upgrade kit, for example) or as a component inside a finished device such as a laptop, desktop, phone, gaming console, or server, during the class period that begins October 26, 2022.The suit proposes a nationwide class seeking injunctive relief under federal antitrust law, plus separate damages classes under the antitrust and consumer-protection statutes of California, Florida, Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin. Because those state laws let indirect purchasers recover (unlike the federal Sherman Act, which generally limits damages to direct purchasers), the damages claims are pinned to residents of those five states. No class has been certified, so the exact class definitions and covered time period are not final.
Is There a Settlement Yet?
No. This is a newly filed lawsuit, not a settlement.That means:
• There is no settlement fund.
• There is no claim form.
• There is no payout, and no deadline to act.
• Consumers and businesses do not need to do anything at this stage.
The filing of a complaint is the very beginning of a case. The defendants have not been found liable simply because a lawsuit was filed, and they will have the opportunity to respond, including by moving to dismiss. If the case is ever resolved through a settlement or a class is certified, a formal claims process with its own eligibility rules and deadlines would be announced separately.
Read the Complaint
The full class action complaint is embedded below.What Happens Next?
The defendants will respond to the complaint, likely with motions to dismiss, and the court will decide whether the claims can proceed. Prior DRAM class actions in this district have turned on whether plaintiffs alleged genuinely coordinated conduct rather than mere parallel pricing, and this complaint is built around specific parallel actions it says go beyond coincidence. If the case survives, it would move into discovery, and plaintiffs would eventually ask the court to certify their proposed classes. Antitrust cases of this scale routinely take years, and the complaint could be amended, consolidated with similar cases, narrowed, or resolved along the way.OpenClassActions.com will continue watching the case for major updates, including any motions to dismiss, class-certification activity, parallel government enforcement, settlement talks, or any future claim form.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a DRAM price-fixing settlement yet?
No. This is a proposed class action lawsuit against Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron. There is no settlement, no fund, and no claim form. The defendants have not been found liable just because a lawsuit was filed.What does the lawsuit allege?
According to the complaint, the three companies behind more than 90% of the world's DRAM coordinated to restrict conventional memory supply starting in October 2022 — through simultaneous production cuts, a shared pivot to HBM for AI, a coordinated exit from DDR4/DDR3, and a refusal to expand output — while contract prices allegedly rose roughly 697% from Q3 2024 to Q1 2026. The allegations are unproven.Who could be part of the class?
Indirect purchasers who bought conventional DRAM or devices containing it (laptops, desktops, phones, servers) at allegedly inflated prices since October 26, 2022. The suit proposes a nationwide injunctive class plus damages classes in California, Florida, Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin. No class has been certified, so the definitions are not final.Do I need to file a claim?
No. Because this is a lawsuit and not a settlement, there is nothing to claim and no deadline. If a settlement or certified class ever produces a claims process, deadlines and eligibility would be announced then.Sources
• Complaint — Garciaguirre, et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-06345 (N.D. Cal., filed June 25, 2026): Class Action Complaint (PDF)• U.S. Department of Justice — DRAM price-fixing prosecutions (1998-2002 cartel): DOJ Antitrust Division
• European Commission — May 19, 2010 DRAM cartel decision (Case COMP/38.511): European Commission press release
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.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Complaint Filed — Proposed Class Action
Case Title
Garciaguirre v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.
Case Number
5:26-cv-06345
Court
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Defendants
Samsung, Samsung Semiconductor, SK Hynix, SK Hynix America, Micron
Date Filed
June 25, 2026
Complaint
Read the Complaint (PDF)
