DRAM Price-Fixing Lawsuit Targets Samsung, SK Hynix, Micron

Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron are now defendants in a federal antitrust lawsuit that accuses the three memory makers of coordinating to restrict conventional DRAM supply — and of using the AI boom's demand for high-bandwidth memory (HBM) as cover for it. The case, Garciaguirre v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., was filed June 25, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and is assigned to Judge Noel Wise. It does not prove collusion happened — the claims are allegations only, and the companies have moved to dismiss — but it lands in the middle of a RAM and SSD price surge that Micron's own leadership says will keep getting worse through at least 2028, which is why it matters even if it never reaches a jury.

What the lawsuit actually alleges

According to the complaint, a group of individual consumers and small businesses — including Marc Garciaguirre and more than a dozen co-plaintiffs, among them small PC-building and repair shops — accuse Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., SK Hynix Inc., SK Hynix America Inc., and Micron Technology, Inc. of an unlawful agreement to restrain trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The public docket on CourtListener lists the case's nature of suit as antitrust litigation under 15 U.S.C. § 1, the same statute at the center of the DRAM industry's 2000s price-fixing scandal.

The core theory, as described in court-filing coverage and reflected in Micron's own securities disclosures, is that the three companies did not need to fix prices directly. Instead, the complaint alleges they coordinated a shift of wafer capacity away from older, commodity DRAM standards — DDR3 and DDR4, the memory still used in a large share of existing PCs, laptops, and budget devices — toward HBM, the stacked memory architecture AI accelerators depend on. With conventional DRAM supply squeezed from the top down, plaintiffs argue, prices for ordinary RAM and the NAND flash used in SSDs rose sharply starting around October 2022, a run-up that accelerated through 2026.

The suit seeks class certification on behalf of indirect purchasers of DRAM and NAND products, a permanent injunction against the alleged conduct, and treble damages — a standard antitrust remedy that triples whatever actual damages a court finds. None of that has happened yet, and it's worth repeating: this is what plaintiffs allege, not a judicial finding of wrongdoing.

The companies named, and what each is accused of

Micron's fiscal 2026 Form 10-K, filed with the SEC, confirms the suit's existence from the company's own side: it discloses that on June 25, 2026, a putative class action was filed in the Northern District of California against Micron, Samsung Electronics and a subsidiary, and SK hynix, alleging a conspiracy to restrict DRAM supply and fix prices, and seeking damages, treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs. The filing also notes a second, similarly worded complaint filed in the District of Hawaii in July 2026, and states that the litigation touches "substantially all" of Micron's DRAM, NAND, and other memory and storage products — which is to say, most of the company's revenue base.

This isn't the industry's first price-fixing fight

DRAM antitrust litigation has a long history, and most of it has gone against plaintiffs recently. In the early 2000s, the Department of Justice prosecuted a real, admitted price-fixing cartel: Samsung, SK Hynix (then Hynix), Micron, Infineon, and Elpida all pleaded guilty to criminal price-fixing conspiracies running from roughly 1998 to 2002, and paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. Micron, notably, received leniency for being the company that reported the cartel to regulators.

More recently, in April 2018, law firm Hagens Berman filed a civil class action against Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron alleging a new round of DRAM price-fixing tied to price increases in 2016 and 2017. A federal district court dismissed that case, finding that the plaintiffs' evidence was at least as consistent with ordinary parallel conduct in a concentrated market as with an actual conspiracy — a standard legal bar that civil antitrust plaintiffs must clear under the Supreme Court's Twombly pleading standard. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that dismissal in March 2022, and the full court declined to rehear the case that May (see Wikipedia's history of DRAM price-fixing litigation for the earlier cases and fines).

That history matters directly to the new case. According to reporting on the defendants' September 2026 motion to dismiss, Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron argue that Garciaguirre is substantially the same theory the Ninth Circuit already rejected, now repackaged around the AI-driven shift to HBM, and that the new allegations don't fix the pleading defects that sank the 2018 case. The court has not yet ruled on that motion.

Where the case stands right now

No class has been certified, no discovery into the companies' internal communications has been made public, and no court has ruled on whether the case can even proceed past the defendants' motion to dismiss. If the case survives that motion, the next phase would typically involve discovery — the stage where internal emails, capacity-planning documents, and executive communications could become public record, which is when civil antitrust cases either gain real teeth or quietly fall apart.

Why this matters now, not just as legal trivia

The lawsuit's central factual claim — that the industry has been quietly favoring HBM over conventional DRAM — lines up with what Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron have been saying openly to their own investors, just without the word "conspiracy" attached. On Micron's fiscal fourth-quarter 2026 earnings release, dated September 30, 2026, chief executive Sanjay Mehrotra told investors on the accompanying call that memory supply-demand conditions will be tighter in calendar 2027 and 2028 than they were in 2026, and that the company does not have visibility into when supply and demand return to balance. More than three-quarters of Micron's planned fiscal 2027 output is reportedly already committed under contract, with new customer negotiations now centered on 2028 volumes — a sign that the crunch isn't a near-term blip.

SK Group chairman Chey Tae-won made a similar point earlier in 2026, telling an industry audience that securing additional wafer capacity takes four to five years and that industry-wide wafer supply could trail demand by more than 20% through the rest of the decade, driven in large part by the same AI-fueled HBM demand the lawsuit centers on. Neither executive's comments are an admission of coordinated conduct — they describe a real, demand-driven shortage, not a conspiracy — but they confirm the underlying mechanism the complaint describes: capacity is moving toward HBM, and conventional DRAM supply is the one absorbing the squeeze.

That's the connection worth sitting with. Pandromeda's September explainer on why RAM and SSD prices are surging walked through the supply-demand mechanics driving 2026's price spike. This lawsuit doesn't change that underlying math, but it puts a legal spotlight on whether the capacity shift was simply market forces responding to AI demand, as the memory makers maintain, or something that crossed into illegal coordination, as the plaintiffs allege.

What it could mean for RAM and SSD prices if the case proceeds

In the near term: effectively nothing changes for anyone buying memory today. Pricing is set by actual supply and demand, not by the existence of a lawsuit, and that dynamic is already stretched thin — Micron's own guidance points to tighter conditions through 2028 regardless of how the litigation turns out. Shoppers comparing builds or weighing how much capacity to buy, including how much memory a modern system actually needs, should plan around continued high prices rather than a legal outcome.

If the case survives the motion to dismiss and eventually succeeds, the more direct consumer impact would come through the damages and injunction stages, not the shortage itself. A successful outcome could result in a settlement fund for class members (indirect purchasers of DRAM and NAND products during the relevant period) and, if an injunction is granted, court-ordered changes to how the companies plan and disclose capacity decisions. Treble damages, if awarded, could be a meaningful liability for all three companies, though given the 2018 case's fate, defense attorneys will be pushing hard to end this one at the motion-to-dismiss stage before it gets anywhere near that point.

It's also worth being clear about what this lawsuit is not: it is not evidence that today's prices are illegally inflated, and it does not establish that any coordination occurred. The AI-driven demand for HBM is real and well documented in all three companies' own public filings and statements; what's contested is whether the way they responded to it crossed a legal line.

What to watch next

A few concrete things will indicate whether this case has legs:

• The ruling on the motion to dismiss. If Judge Wise denies it, the case moves into discovery, where internal company communications could surface. If she grants it — especially citing the 2022 Ninth Circuit precedent — the case may end quickly, similar to the 2018 suit.
• Whether the Hawaii case gets consolidated. Multiple similar suits are often merged into a single multidistrict proceeding, which would be a sign regulators and plaintiffs' firms see this as more than a one-off filing.
• Any regulatory interest. The original 2000s DRAM scandal involved both criminal DOJ prosecution and parallel European Commission fines. Watch for any sign that antitrust regulators, as opposed to private plaintiffs' firms, are independently investigating the current HBM/DDR capacity shift.
• Micron, Samsung, and SK Hynix's own quarterly disclosures. Because Micron is a U.S. public company, its SEC filing history will keep tracking the case's status in plain language even if the companies say little to the press.

For now, the honest framing is the accurate one: a serious, well-represented federal lawsuit exists, it echoes a theory that failed in court once before, and it's set against a genuinely worsening memory shortage that has nothing to do with whether the allegations are true.

Written byMara Lindqvist

Mara Lindqvist edits the hardware desk. She covers graphics cards, processors, memory and storage, the foundries and chip designers behind them, and what the numbers on a spec sheet mean for people choosing a PC. Specifications in her stories come from manufacturer spec pages and datasheets.

More from Mara LindqvistAll Hardware coverage