Consumer advocacy group Which? has withdrawn its high-profile lawsuit against chipmaker Qualcomm in the UK, ending a six-year legal battle over alleged anti-competitive practices. The case, brought on behalf of approximately 29 million UK Apple and Samsung smartphone users, claimed Qualcomm inflated smartphone prices by exploiting its dominance in patent licensing and chipset markets.
Case Dismissed: No Payment Required
Which? announced on Tuesday its intention to fully withdraw the proceedings from the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London. Critically, the withdrawal comes with no financial settlement from Qualcomm. The group stated that evidence suggested the tribunal would likely rule in Qualcomm’s favor, finding no coercion in its licensing agreements with Apple, chipset manufacturers, or Samsung.
Allegations and Estimated Damages
The lawsuit sought damages for all affected Apple and Samsung smartphones purchased between October 1, 2015, and January 9, 2024. If successful, consumers could have received around £17 per phone on average. Which? argued Qualcomm illegally leveraged its market position to charge excessive fees to manufacturers, which were then passed on to consumers through higher prices or compromised device quality.
Qualcomm’s Defense and Response
Qualcomm vehemently defended its business practices, with lawyers labeling its supply policies as “innocuous and lawful.” The company issued a statement celebrating the withdrawal, noting the evidence supported its position that its licensing practices are legal and do not harm competition. This outcome mirrors previous rulings in the United States, where Qualcomm’s practices have also been deemed lawful.
“After more than six years of litigation, including a lengthy trial, the class representative (Which?) has agreed to withdraw its lawsuit against Qualcomm in its entirety, pending approval from the Tribunal,” Qualcomm stated.
This case highlights the challenges of pursuing large-scale class action lawsuits against major technology corporations. The complexities of competition law and the burden of proof often favor established companies with extensive legal resources. Ultimately, Which?’s decision to drop the case suggests the evidence did not support its initial claims, and avoiding further legal costs was deemed preferable to a likely defeat in court.
