Samsung, SK hynix, and Micron sued over alleged DRAM price fixing amid record memory costs — lawsuit claims coordinated HBM shift was cover to curtail DDR3 and DDR4 production

Samsung, SK hynix, and Micron were sued on June 25th in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where 17 plaintiffs accuse the three memory makers of illegally coordinating to restrict DRAM supply and inflate prices that the complaint says have risen roughly 700% over four years. The class action, filed as Garciaguirre v. Samsung Electronics and assigned to Judge Noel Wise, invokes Section 1 of the Sherman Act and targets companies that together hold around 90% of the global DRAM market. Samsung and SK hynix have pleaded guilty to criminal DRAM price fixing once before, with the latter paying a $185 million fine in April 2005.

The complaint argues that the three companies used a coordinated shift toward high-bandwidth memory (HBM), the stacked DRAM that feeds AI accelerators, as a cover to curtail production of older DDR3 and DDR4 modules. That contraction in commodity DRAM, the plaintiffs argue, pushed prices to record highs while no rival could step in: building a new DRAM fab costs tens of billions and takes years, leaving the incumbents free to cut output without fear of being undercut.

The named plaintiffs include 14 individuals and three small PC businesses, among them Troy’s Computers and Florida repair outfit My Florida PC, and they cite Apple’s recent iPad and Mac price increases as evidence of the squeeze. They’re seeking class status, an injunction, and treble damages as a result.

However, this case revisits a precedent that was already established in the same courthouse. A 2018 class action brought by law firm Hagens Berman made similar claims about parallel production cuts, and the district court dismissed it in 2020. The Ninth Circuit upheld that dismissal in 2022, ruling the trio’s conduct was “more likely explained by lawful, unchoreographed free-market behavior” than by an illegal agreement.

It was held at the time that the plaintiffs’ eight “plus factors” didn’t clear Section 1’s threshold, which demands evidence of an actual agreement rather than the conscious parallelism common in a three-supplier market. The new complaint leans on the pivot to HBM as the additional evidence that this earlier lawsuit lacked.

The three memory makers have publicly stated they’re operating independently while redirecting capacity to HBM, and senior executives have warned the shortage could run for years. Investment bank Jefferies expects DRAM prices to rise another 40% to 50% in the third quarter and a further 30% to 40% in the fourth, with no meaningful relief before 2028. The allegations remain unproven, and the defendants have not yet responded in court.