The world is currently experiencing a shortage of RAM, a critical component found in nearly every electronic device, including smartphones, laptops and AI data centres. Strong demand coupled with limited supply has pushed memory prices sharply higher in recent months. Now, three of the world’s largest memory manufacturers—Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron—are facing a lawsuit accusing them of manipulating RAM prices by deliberately restricting global supply.
The complaint, filed in a federal court in California, alleges that the three companies, which collectively dominate the global DRAM market, intentionally limited the supply of conventional memory while prices surged. According to the plaintiffs, this behaviour worsened the ongoing memory shortage.
As of now, Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron have not publicly commented on the allegations.
The lawsuit comes shortly after several technology companies, including Apple, raised prices on certain products due to increasing memory costs. Smartphone brands such as OnePlus and Nothing have also implemented price hikes in recent months.
What Does the Lawsuit Allege?
The proposed class-action case has been brought by both individual and business consumers. The plaintiffs accuse Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron of violating multiple US antitrust laws.
According to the complaint, the companies began coordinating supply reductions and pricing strategies in 2022 when memory demand weakened. The lawsuit claims this strategy contributed to DRAM prices rising by approximately 700 per cent over a four-year period.
The plaintiffs argue that all three companies simultaneously reduced production, shifted their focus toward High-Bandwidth Memory (HBM) and phased out older DDR3 and DDR4 memory products. As a result, the supply of conventional DRAM allegedly shrank while prices continued to increase.
HBM is a specialised memory technology widely used in AI servers and data centres. Because AI companies are willing to pay premium prices for HBM, the lawsuit argues that memory manufacturers increasingly prioritised AI-related products over memory used in consumer devices.
Earlier this year, Micron announced the closure of its consumer memory brand, Crucial, to focus more heavily on AI customers. The company has also signed 16 new long-term memory supply agreements extending through 2030, suggesting that tight market conditions could persist for years.
The plaintiffs contend that in a genuinely competitive commodity market, at least one producer would normally increase output to capitalise on rising prices. Instead, they argue, all three major suppliers reduced production simultaneously.
According to the complaint, “None of the three used the others’ retreat to expand and win customers. All three pulled back together.”
The lawsuit seeks court orders to address what it describes as ongoing anti-competitive conduct, along with triple damages, legal costs and attorney fees.
Barriers Prevent New Competitors From Entering
The plaintiffs also argue that the structure of the memory industry makes it extremely difficult for new competitors to challenge existing suppliers.
According to the complaint, building a single DRAM fabrication facility can cost between $15 billion and $20 billion and requires years to complete.
In addition, the production processes are protected by decades of proprietary expertise and trade secrets. The lawsuit further claims that US export restrictions limit access to advanced semiconductor manufacturing equipment in China, while newly produced chips must undergo lengthy qualification processes before major customers approve them for use.
As a result, the plaintiffs argue that when dominant suppliers reduce production, outside competitors cannot quickly increase supply to offset the shortage.
“The practical consequence is that when the three firms restrict supply, no outsider can expand output to undercut them,” the complaint states.
References to Previous Cases
The lawsuit argues that this is not the first time the same companies have faced allegations of anti-competitive conduct.
It points to a US Department of Justice investigation into an alleged DRAM price-fixing conspiracy that operated between 1998 and 2002. During that case, Samsung and SK Hynix pleaded guilty and paid fines of approximately $300 million and $185 million respectively. Micron avoided penalties after reporting the conduct and cooperating with investigators.
The complaint also references another period of significant memory price increases between 2016 and 2018, which led to a separate class-action lawsuit in the United States and scrutiny from Chinese regulators.
According to the plaintiffs, “The conduct alleged here is the third such cycle in the same market, among the same firms.”
The lawsuit was filed on June 25, and no trial date has been scheduled so far.
