A judge has denied a motion by Micron, Samsung, and SK hynix to dismiss a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing them of colluding to fix DRAM prices, ruling that the plaintiffs had established some new evidence suggesting collusion.
Judge Noël Wise, who presides over the case, rejected the companies' argument that the lawsuit was a “rerun” of an earlier antitrust action filed in 2018, finding that the plaintiffs had established some new evidence suggesting collusion between the three memory chip manufacturers.
The plaintiffs, 17 individuals and small businesses, allege that the companies made four parallel moves that restricted DRAM supply and led to the current shortage, which saw prices jump by as much as 500% in one year. These include simultaneous production cuts from October 2022 to April 2023, a coordinated pivot to high-bandwidth memory (HBM), announcements that the companies would wind down DDR4 production over a span of three months, and a failure to expand production capacity “despite these extraordinary prices — the single most powerful supply signal the DRAM industry has ever produced.” The complaint also points to the introduction of stringent customer vetting procedures, a refusal to sign long-term contracts, Micron's decision to shut down its Crucial consumer memory brand, and multiple statements projecting a shortage.
Micron, Samsung, and SK hynix argued that their actions were independent business decisions made in response to high demand in a concentrated market. They said their behavior was "consistent with [their own] independent self-interest" and that similar responses were natural when "reacting to the same market pressures."
Judge Wise rejected the characterisation of their conduct as merely competitive, saying the alleged behaviour goes beyond monitoring rivals. "Their contentions are more akin to hawks flying in formation — an activity that hawks ordinarily do not do," she wrote.
The ruling is not a judgment. Both sides would still have to present evidence and arguments before the court reaches a decision. The companies have until December 7 to respond to the original complaint, and a case management conference is set for January 2027.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The ruling allows discovery to proceed, potentially revealing internal communications about pricing and production decisions.
- DRAM price spikes affect consumer electronics, data center costs, and the broader tech industry.
- The outcome could set a precedent for antitrust enforcement in the concentrated memory chip market.
Background
The case echoes a 2018 antitrust lawsuit against the same DRAM manufacturers, which resulted in settlements. DRAM prices have soared in recent years due to surging demand from AI data centers and constrained supply. The three companies control the vast majority of the global DRAM market.
Key Perspectives
Plaintiffs (individuals and small businesses): Allege the three companies made coordinated moves to restrict DRAM supply, driving up prices by 500% in one year, including simultaneous production cuts and a failure to expand capacity despite record prices.
Micron, Samsung, SK hynix (defendants): Argue their actions were independent business decisions consistent with their own self-interest in response to common market pressures in a highly concentrated industry.
Judge Noël Wise: Ruled the plaintiffs' evidence of collusion is plausible enough to move forward, rejecting the companies' characterization as mere competitive behavior.
What to Watch
- Whether the companies settle before trial or push for summary judgment after discovery.
- The December 7 deadline for the defendants to respond to the original complaint.
- The January 2027 case management conference, which will set the schedule for the litigation.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 12 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedA judge allowed the DRAM price-fixing lawsuit against Micron, Samsung and SK hynix to proceed.Latest from Tom's Hardware: “Judge denies motion to dismiss DRAM price-fixing lawsuit against Micron, Samsung, and SK hynix”
- SupportedThe court found evidence suggesting collusion as DRAM prices rose by as much as 500% in one year.Latest from Tom's Hardware: “the plaintiffs have established that there’s some new evidence suggesting that there was collusion between the big three memory chip manufacturers. [...] prices jump by as much as 500% in one year.”
- SupportedJudge Noël Wise denied the companies’ motion to dismiss, ruling that plaintiffs had established some new evidence suggesting collusion.Latest from Tom's Hardware: “Judge Noël Wise [...] has denied the companies’ motion to have the case dismissed. According to the decision, the defendants’ argument that the legal action is just “a rerun” [...] was rejected as the plaintiffs have established that there’s some new evidence suggesting that there was collusion”
- SupportedWise rejected the companies’ claim that the case was a “rerun” of an antitrust action filed in 2018.Latest from Tom's Hardware: “the defendants’ argument that the legal action is just “a rerun” of the same antitrust case filed against the industry in 2018 was rejected”
- SupportedThe plaintiffs are 17 individuals and small businesses who allege four parallel moves restricted DRAM supply and led to the current shortage.Latest from Tom's Hardware: “The plaintiffs, which are made up of 17 individuals and small businesses, allege that the companies made four parallel moves that restricted DRAM supply and led to the current shortage”
- SupportedThe alleged simultaneous production cuts ran from October 2022 to April 2023.Latest from Tom's Hardware: “the “simultaneous DRAM production cuts” from October 2022 to April 2023”
- SupportedThe plaintiffs also cited a coordinated pivot to HBM.Latest from Tom's Hardware: “which was quickly followed by a “coordinated pivot to HBM.””
- SupportedThe companies announced they would wind down DDR4 production over a span of three months.Latest from Tom's Hardware: “the three companies announced the winding down of DDR4 production in a span of three months”
- SupportedThe complaint says the companies failed to expand production capacity “despite these extraordinary prices — the single most powerful supply signal the DRAM industry has ever produced.”Latest from Tom's Hardware: “have failed to expand the production capacity “despite these extraordinary prices — the single most powerful supply signal the DRAM industry has ever produced.””
- SupportedThe plaintiffs also point to customer vetting procedures, refusal of long-term contracts, Micron’s Crucial shutdown and statements projecting a shortage.Latest from Tom's Hardware: “Other factors that the suing parties brought to the table include the introduction of stringent customer vetting procedures in response to the shortage, the refusal to sign long-term contracts for DRAM customers, Micron’s decision to shut down Crucial (its consumer memory brand), multiple statements projecting the shortage”
- SupportedThe companies said their actions were “consistent with [their own] independent self-interest” and that they were “reacting to the same market pressures.”Latest from Tom's Hardware: “they are “consistent with [their own] independent self-interest.” They also said that they appear to have similar behaviors because they’re in a highly concentrated market, and that they’re all “reacting to the same market pressures,””
- SupportedWise wrote, “Their contentions are more akin to hawks flying in formation — an activity that hawks ordinarily do not do.”Latest from Tom's Hardware: ““Their contentions are more akin to hawks flying in formation — an activity that hawks ordinarily do not do.””
