Smartphone Price Fixing Class Action Settlement
Photo Credit: Unsplash | Updated: October 7, 2025
If you're one of over 250 million American consumers who use a smartphone you might be part of a pending smartphone open class action. The
class action was filed
against Qualcomm, an American processor chip manufacturer, which owns patents critical widely used
smartphone technology, such as 5G.
It is unclear at this time whether the smartphone class action also includes smartwatches such as Apple watches, Samsung Galaxy
watches, Garmin watches, or Fitbits.
As of October 7, 2025 there is no settlement and no active claims process. The district court entered
judgment for Qualcomm on October 5, 2023. Plaintiffs appealed. On February 25, 2025, the Ninth Circuit
largely affirmed the district court’s dismissal and summary judgment rulings. On April 9, 2025, the
district court dismissed the remaining UCL unfairness claim. You can still register for case updates on
the official notice site here.
Yes. Many Android devices use Qualcomm chipsets, and those purchases could be part of the case if a class is
certified. This includes phones made by Samsung, LG, Motorola, and other manufacturers that relied on
Qualcomm’s technology.
No payout amount has been determined. Plaintiffs estimate that consumers collectively overpaid more than $5
billion for smartphones. If a settlement or judgment is reached, payments would depend on how many valid
claims are filed and the total settlement fund approved by the court.
Yes. While there is no active claim form, consumers can register on the official case website to receive
future updates. Registration ensures you will be notified if a settlement or new claims process opens.
It’s a good idea to keep any proof of purchase, carrier bills, or device serial numbers for smartphones
bought after February 11, 2011. These records could help verify eligibility if a claims process becomes
available later.
No specific deadline exists right now. Since the class is not certified and no claims are open, registration
remains available on the official notice site to ensure you receive future updates.
The case is being managed by plaintiffs’ class counsel and is consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California under Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. The case name is In re Qualcomm
Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:17-md-02773-JSC.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld earlier dismissals, and the district court has since ruled
on remaining claims. Plaintiffs may pursue additional appeals or settlement negotiations. Consumers can
continue to register for updates as the legal process develops.
The FTC case was brought by the Federal Trade Commission over similar antitrust concerns but focused on
regulatory violations, not direct consumer damages. The current smartphone class action seeks monetary
compensation for consumers who allegedly overpaid for their devices.
There is no claim form at this time. You can register to receive future notices and case updates from
the official notice website here. If a class is certified again or a settlement is announced later, the
notice site will provide instructions.
Yes, the consumer Qualcomm smartphone class action has been dismissed for now. On February 25, 2025, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals largely affirmed earlier rulings in favor of Qualcomm, which had dismissed
most of the plaintiffs’ claims. Then, on April 9, 2025, the district court dismissed the final remaining
“UCL unfairness” claim, closing the case at the trial level.
There is currently no active class, no settlement, and no open claim process. Plaintiffs may still seek
further review or appeal, but as of now, the case remains dismissed. Consumers can continue to register on
the official notice site to receive updates if new proceedings or settlements are announced in the future.
The “UCL” stands for California’s Unfair Competition Law. It allows consumers to challenge business
practices that are deceptive, unlawful, or unfair — even if they don’t break a specific federal law. In this
case, plaintiffs claimed that Qualcomm’s licensing and chip sales practices were “unfair” because they
allegedly inflated smartphone prices for consumers.
The court ultimately dismissed the UCL unfairness claim in April 2025, finding that the plaintiffs did not
show enough evidence that Qualcomm’s conduct harmed consumers in a way that violated California’s
competition laws.
The most recent operative complaint focused on California consumers who purchased, paid for, or
reimbursed the price of UMTS, CDMA, or LTE smartphones for personal use on or after February 11, 2011.
The exact definition could change if a new class is certified by the court in the future.
Smartphones that used CDMA or LTE modem technology supplied under Qualcomm’s licensing practices. This
historically included phones sold by major brands. Accessories like smartwatches are not part of the
case based on current filings.
Not yet. Since there is no active claims process, save any records you have for phones you purchased
since February 11, 2011, such as receipts or carrier bills. If claims open later, guidance about
acceptable documentation will be provided on the notice site.
There is no payment timeline. Payments would only occur if plaintiffs obtain a judgment or a settlement
is reached and approved by the court. That has not happened.
You can read the Ninth Circuit's 2025 opinion here and view the federal docket history here. The official notice site also hosts filings and past notices here.
• No settlement and no claim form at this time.
• Register for updates on the official notice website here.
• Keep purchase records for any smartphones bought since February 11, 2011 in case claims open in
the
future.
The smartphone class action lawsuit was originally filed by the FTC where it claimed that Qualcomm
violated state antitrust laws in the United States, harming competition
and directly causing consumers to overpay for their cell phones for years, at least since 2011. The FTC
claimed that the amount consumers overpaid by more than $5 Billion as a result of Qualcomm's "No
License, No Chips" business practice.
Qualcomm potentially engaged in anti-competitive conduct that raised the price consumers paid for
mobile phones. The cell phones involved in this litigation include phones with CDMA and
LTE technologies. This includes phones manufactured and sold by all of the top smartphone manufacturers
and companies such as Samsung,
Apple, Huawei, LG, Motorola, and ZTE. Below is a list of the manufacturers involved in this class action
lawsuit. A full list of all smartphone models included in this class action can be found on the class
action administration claim form website (see at the bottom of this page).
You may be included in this class action if you are in the United States, and you purchased or paid for
a UMTS, CDMA (including cdmaOne and CDMA2000) and/or LTE smartphone for your personal use from February
11, 2011.
Phones that were included as part of the purchase of a wireless network services contract are included
in this class action as well as single purchases. These contracts are typically offered from some of the
largest conglomerate wireless providers such as Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile,
or Sprint as part of marketing to get contract sign-ups.
How Do I Find Class Action Settlements?
Find all the latest class actions you can qualify for by getting notified of new lawsuits as soon as they are open to claims:
Register in this class action for potential reward online
here.
It is important to note that the class action lawsuit is currently pending in Court; The latest trial
was ruled in Qualcomm's favor in the Ninth Circuit court. Qualcomm's due process was ruled as having
been harmed due to the massive breadth and scope of the case involving almost every single cell phone
purchaser in the U.S. dating back more than a decade. As a result, the trial is currently pending in
lower courts.
An amended class action complaint was filed on behalf of the proposed 250 million Americans affected by
the alleged price fixing of smartphones that contained Qualcomm processors. According to Reuters, the central thesis of the Qualcomm class
action lawsuit is that the company violated California state law, specifically anti-trust law called the
Cartwright Act. Previously, a third-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
overturned the certification of the Qualcomm class action.
The argument made by Qualcomm's lawyers, among other arguments for the defense of Qualcomm, was that the
size of the class action settlement, 250 million class action members and an estimated $5 Billion in
funds, is too unwieldy. The size and scope of such a class action would make this one of the single
largest class action lawsuits in history.
The Qualcomm class action lawsuit has had its class action certification reversed by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and is currently pending a second amended class action lawsuit, which you can find here.
Please note that your claim form will be rejected if you submit a settlement claim with fraudulent
information. By providing this information and your sworn statement of its veracity, you agree to do so
under the penalty of perjury. You would also be harming others that actually qualify for the class
action settlement. If you are not sure whether or not you qualify for this class action settlement,
visit the class action administrator's website below. OpenClassActions.com is a participant in the Amazon affiliate advertising
program and this post may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a commission or fees if you
make a purchase via those links.
Yes. The case is a real federal MDL in the Northern District of California. There is no payout right now.
Only register on the official notice website and avoid third-party forms that ask for sensitive data or
fees.
If a future class is certified, eligibility may include refurbished or used devices purchased for personal
use during the class period. Keep proof of purchase showing model and date. Final rules would appear on the
official notice site.
Yes. Phones obtained through carrier financing, installment plans, leases, or upgrade programs could be
included if a class is certified. Keep carrier bills or finance agreements that show the device and purchase
date.
You may still qualify if you can document the purchase during the class period. Save receipts, carrier
invoices, or account history that list the model and purchase date.
Business or employer-paid purchases are often treated differently from personal purchases. If the company
paid, the company could be the claimant. Keep records and watch the notice site for specific eligibility
instructions.
Eligibility usually follows the purchaser who paid for the device. If you received a phone as a gift, the
person who purchased it may be the eligible claimant. Save purchase documentation if available.
Possibly. If a claims process opens, rules typically allow claims for each eligible device purchased during
the class period, subject to documentation and anti-fraud checks.
Many prepaid phones use Qualcomm chipsets. Inclusion would depend on the final class definition and proof
that the device falls within the covered technologies and dates.
The consumer case focuses on U.S. purchases for personal use. Phones bought outside the United States are
usually excluded unless the notice says otherwise.
Returns are usually not eligible. Trade-ins can still qualify for the original purchase if you can prove the
initial buy within the period. Keep both the purchase and trade-in paperwork.
No. Eligibility is usually based on the device purchase, not which carrier you currently use. Keep the
original purchase or financing records.
There is no confirmed impact on pricing. If future relief changes licensing practices or results in monetary
relief, market effects would take time and are uncertain.
Tax treatment depends on the nature of any payment. If a settlement is approved later, the notice will
include guidance. Consider speaking with a tax professional for personal advice.
In class actions, attorney’s fees are typically paid from any settlement fund and must be approved by the
court. Consumers do not pay out of pocket to participate.
Keep receipts, carrier bills, or order confirmations for phones bought on or after February 11, 2011 until
the case fully resolves or a claims window closes.
Those rights only apply if a settlement is proposed and approved for notice. If that happens, the official
notice will list deadlines and instructions to opt out or object.
Class certification is when a court decides a case can proceed on behalf of a defined group of people with
common issues. The class here is not currently certified.
Summary judgment is a ruling made by the court without a trial when it finds no genuine dispute of material
fact on certain claims. Key rulings favored Qualcomm, which contributed to the case being dismissed at the
trial level.
Apple and Qualcomm settled their separate corporate litigation in 2019. That settlement did not pay
consumers. The consumer case here seeks relief for people who allegedly overpaid for smartphones.
Use the official notice website only. Do not share Social Security numbers or pay fees to file. Look for a
clear case name, court, and administrator contact on the official site.
• Official Notice Website
• Ninth Circuit Opinion (Feb 25, 2025)
• Federal Court Docket on CourtListener
• Second Amended Class Action Complaint (2022)
• Reuters Coverage of the Qualcomm Consumer Lawsuit
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Movie Theater Settlement
Deadline: December 22, 2025
Submit Claim
$1.9M PetSafe e-Collar Settlement
Deadline: Dec 2, 2025
Payout: $30 - $420
Submit Claim
Pickleball Class Action Settlement
Payout: $150 - $300
Submit Claim
$5.5M Corsair DDR4 and DDR5 RAM Settlement
Deadline: Oct 28, 2025
Submit Claim
$6.94M Vending Machine Charges Settlement
Deadline: November 14, 2025
Submit Claim
|
Settlement Summary
|
| Status |
No settlement. Registration for updates only
|
| Case |
In re Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:17-md-02773-JSC (N.D. Cal.)
|
| Class Period |
Purchases on or after Feb 11, 2011 |
| Who Might Qualify |
Consumers who purchased UMTS, CDMA, or LTE
smartphones for personal use |
| Claim Deadline |
Pending |
| Payout |
Varies. None available at this time |
| Proof |
Not required now. Keep purchase records |
| Payment Method |
Mailed check (if a settlement opens later) |
| Official Site |
MobilePhoneClassAction.com
|
| Register |
Register for Updates
|
| Key Court Updates |
District court summary judgment for Qualcomm on Sep 26, 2023. Ninth Circuit largely affirmed
on Feb 25, 2025. Remaining UCL unfairness claim dismissed Apr 9, 2025.
|