DRAM Lawsuit: Judge Lets Case Against Samsung, Micron and SK hynix Proceed

A federal judge in California has refused to dismiss a proposed class action accusing Samsung Electronics, SK hynix and Micron of conspiring to restrict the supply of conventional DRAM, the memory chips used in PCs and other devices. U.S. District Judge Noël Wise of the Northern District of California denied the companies' joint motion to dismiss on Nov. 14, according to MLQ.ai and BigGo Finance.

The ruling is not a finding that the companies did anything wrong. It means the plaintiffs' claims are plausible enough to continue, and the case will now move toward the next stage of litigation.

What the plaintiffs allege

The case is Garciaguirre v. Samsung Electronics (No. 5:26-cv-06345). It was filed on June 25 by 17 consumers and small businesses from five states, MLQ.ai reported. They say the three companies have kept an illegal agreement in place since October 2022, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. They also bring claims under California, Florida, Minnesota, New York and Wisconsin law.

According to the complaint, the three companies held more than 91% of global DRAM revenue in the third quarter of 2025. MLQ.ai and BigGo Finance both say the complaint puts the rise in conventional DRAM prices at 697% over 18 months, with none of the companies meaningfully expanding output. Tom's Hardware gave a different figure, saying prices rose by as much as 500% in one year.

Why the judge let the case proceed

The defendants argued that each company acted in its own interest, and that the suit simply repeats an earlier DRAM antitrust case. MLQ.ai reported that the earlier case concerned a 2016 to 2018 supply restriction and was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit in 2022. Wise rejected the comparison. She wrote that the earlier case and this one are not the same.

The companies also said that rivals in a concentrated market naturally watch one another and respond to the same pressures. Wise answered that the allegations describe something beyond watchfulness, calling them more like "hawks flying in formation."

According to MLQ.ai and BigGo Finance, the court pointed to several allegations:

• Production cuts that began with SK hynix on Oct. 26, 2022, followed by Micron about three weeks later and Samsung in April 2023.
• A coordinated wind-down of DDR4 production, for which, the judge wrote, the companies offered no rationale.
• Long-term supply agreements with AI customers while buyers of conventional DRAM were refused long-term contracts.
• Micron's Dec. 3, 2025, decision to close its Crucial consumer brand.
• Near-identical customer-vetting procedures introduced in January 2026.

MLQ.ai reported that the judge did not give weight to everything the plaintiffs raised. She set aside the DDR3 allegations because Micron kept producing DDR3. She also gave no weight to the companies' statements to investors or to meetings at industry conferences.

Why it matters for buyers of memory and devices

The plaintiffs include everyday consumers and small businesses, and their central claim is that the steep rise in memory prices came from coordination rather than demand alone. The ruling does not decide that question or change prices. It lets the plaintiffs try to prove it.

BigGo Finance noted that DRAM prices have surged over the past year as AI data centers absorb available supply. It said the litigation is likely to run for years before any remedy is imposed. The companies have consistently denied wrongdoing and describe their production decisions as independent business judgments, BigGo reported. Tom's Hardware said the companies call their moves logical ways to maximize revenue during a period of strong demand. MLQ.ai, citing Hardware Busters, said none of the three had commented publicly on the ruling.

The order also notes that Samsung and SK hynix paid fines over a 1998 to 2002 DRAM price-fixing cartel, MLQ.ai reported. Micron received immunity in that case as a cooperating whistleblower.

What happens next

The three companies must answer the complaint by Dec. 7. A first case management conference, which handles administrative matters, is set for Jan. 12, 2027. Both sides must still present evidence and arguments before any decision on the merits.

Around Prague, based on reporting by MLQ.ai, Tom's Hardware, BigGo Finance