Three of the world's biggest memory chip manufacturers—Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron—are facing a new class-action lawsuit in the United States over claims they illegally worked together to increase the price of DRAM memory.
The lawsuit, filed in a California federal court, accuses the companies of deliberately reducing the supply of traditional DRAM chips while shifting production towards high-bandwidth memory (HBM), which is used in artificial intelligence (AI) systems. According to the complaint, this created an artificial shortage that caused consumer memory prices to rise dramatically.
DRAM (Dynamic Random-Access Memory) is an essential component found in desktop PCs, laptops, servers, smartphones and gaming consoles. Rising DRAM prices have increased the cost of many consumer electronics over the past few years.
The lawsuit claims Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron control around 90% of the global DRAM market, giving them significant influence over pricing. It alleges that the companies coordinated production decisions from 2022 onwards, with the plaintiffs arguing that these actions contributed to rising DRAM prices. They are seeking damages and an injunction to prevent any future anti-competitive behaviour.
The companies have not been found liable, and the allegations remain unproven. Industry experts note that proving illegal collusion in antitrust cases is often difficult, requiring evidence that companies coordinated their decisions rather than simply responding to changing market conditions independently.
The case has also renewed attention on the memory industry's history. Samsung and SK Hynix were previously involved in DRAM price-fixing cases during the early 2000s, resulting in large fines and guilty pleas related to an earlier conspiracy. Those past cases are separate from the current lawsuit but provide important historical context.
Demand for HBM has surged as AI data centres continue to expand, encouraging manufacturers to prioritise production of higher-margin AI memory over conventional PC memory. While the companies argue this reflects changing market demand, the plaintiffs claim it was used as a cover to restrict supply and inflate prices. The court will ultimately determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support those claims.
