Samsung Electronics, SK hynix, and Micron have been hit with a class-action lawsuit in the United States over alleged price-fixing of DRAM. The plaintiffs said the three companies intentionally reduced supply of commodity DRAM under the pretext of expanding production of high-bandwidth memory (HBM) for artificial intelligence (AI), driving up prices.
On the 29th (local time), according to U.S. information technology (IT) outlet Wccftech and others, 14 U.S. consumers and three small and mid-sized PC assembly and distribution companies filed a class-action lawsuit against Samsung Electronics, SK hynix, and Micron on the 25th in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case was classified as an antitrust suit and was assigned to Judge Noel Wise of the Northern District of California.
The plaintiffs argued that the three companies have systematically limited DRAM supply since 2022, pushing prices up about 700% over the past four years. They said the defendant corporations cut production under the pretext of inventory management but in reality induced shortages to raise prices.
The core issue in the lawsuit is the relationship between expanding HBM production and reducing supply of commodity DRAM. The plaintiffs said the three companies, in the process of increasing HBM production used in AI Semiconductor, restricted commodity DRAM production lines and investment capacity. HBM is high-performance memory that stacks multiple DRAM chips vertically to boost data processing speed and power efficiency.
The plaintiffs claimed that in a competitive market, when one corporations reduces production, another corporations typically increases production to gain market share, but the three companies cut production or reduced their commodity DRAM product lineups around the same time. Their argument is that this can effectively be seen as coordinated production control or a supply-restriction cartel.
In the complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the DRAM market is an oligopoly centered on Samsung Electronics, SK hynix, and Micron, leaving U.S. consumers and small PC companies no choice but to rely on these corporations. They also asked the court to order the three companies to stop restricting supply and to award treble damages. Under U.S. antitrust law, treble damages are possible if collusion is recognized.
The plaintiffs also cited the U.S. Department of Justice's past DRAM price-fixing case. Samsung Electronics and Hynix Semiconductor were fined $300 million and $185 million, respectively, in 2005 on charges of fixing DRAM prices in the U.S. market from 1998 to 2002. Hynix Semiconductor is the predecessor of SK hynix. Micron was said to have avoided punishment at the time by cooperating with the investigation.
Whether the current rise in memory prices can be seen as the same as past collusion cases is expected to be a key issue. The prevailing analysis is that the recent DRAM price increases result from overlapping factors: expanded investment in AI data centers, a surge in HBM demand, and a shortage of commodity memory supply. The three companies are also moving to expand supply through investments in new plants and production lines.
If the court recognizes the requirements for a class action, the plaintiff scope could expand to consumers and corporations that purchased products containing DRAM. Conversely, if the plaintiffs fail to prove collusion or intentional supply restrictions by the three companies, it could be judged as a typical supply-demand imbalance due to surging AI demand. Samsung Electronics and SK hynix are aware that a complaint has been filed and are said to be reviewing the contents and responding according to legal procedures.