Apple's main memory suppliers Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron recently faced class action lawsuits in California, USA. Consumers and small businesses accused the three companies of coordinating to cut DRAM production and push up memory prices, which indirectly affected the cost of a large number of end products including Apple devices.
According to court documents, the plaintiff believes that Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix and Micron Technology have simultaneously reduced the production capacity of mainstream DRAM (including DDR3, DDR4, etc.) in recent years, resulting in a tightening of market supply and an overall increase in prices. This lawsuit has been filed in California, and the participants include ordinary consumers and small business users who believe that they have suffered unreasonable price losses when purchasing memory products and electronic devices equipped with these memories.
Apple was not accused of any illegal behavior in this case, but since the above three companies are Apple's main memory suppliers for Mac, iPad and other hardware products, the litigation dispute is not far away from the interests of Apple's end users. Apple has previously raised the prices of some Macs, iPads and other products. The company mentioned in the note that the rising costs of key components such as RAM and storage cannot be fully absorbed by itself. Court documents believe that if the coordinated production reduction is true, this behavior played an important role in pushing up memory prices, but the plaintiff still needs to prove the relevant accusations in subsequent proceedings.
Data from industry analyst Counterpoint Research shows that in the first quarter of 2026, Samsung accounted for approximately 38% of global DRAM revenue, SK Hynix accounted for approximately 29%, and Micron accounted for approximately 22%. The three together almost monopolized the global DRAM market. The plaintiff emphasized that this high degree of concentration means that in a fully competitive commodity market, when prices rise, manufacturers will usually choose to expand production to compete for share, but the DRAM industry has seen major suppliers collectively shrink the production capacity of mainstream products.
The focus of the lawsuit is whether these companies have "coordinated behavior" in the process of tilting production capacity towards the AI market. In recent years, the demand for high-bandwidth memory (HBM) for artificial intelligence computing power has exploded, and the unit price and profit are much higher than traditional DRAM. Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron are accused of shifting a large amount of production capacity to HBM to meet the needs of AI companies. From a business logic point of view, it is not illegal for companies to pursue higher profits. The key lies in whether this shift is coordinated through agreements, tacit understandings or information sharing among competitors, thereby violating the antitrust law's prohibition on "horizontal collusion."
Antitrust laws generally target agreements between competitors rather than similar business decisions made under the same market conditions. Therefore, the key to this case is whether the court can find out in subsequent trials whether Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron adjusted production capacity under each other's independent judgment, or whether they jointly restricted the supply of traditional DRAM through some form of coordinated arrangement. If they only make similar choices based on the same cost and demand signals, it is difficult to constitute illegal collusion; if there is an explicit or implicit agreement, it may lead to accusations of price manipulation and production capacity restrictions.
For Apple users, the direction of this lawsuit is worth watching. In the past few months, industry analysts have generally attributed rising RAM and storage prices to a new surge in demand brought about by AI, and Apple has also cited component cost pressures as a factor when raising the prices of some hardware. The plaintiff believes that if the three major manufacturers coordinate production restrictions, then the reason for the current rise in memory prices is not only the "AI story" on the demand side, but may also include a conscious contraction on the supply side.
If the lawsuit proceeds, the court will become a key node in the case during the discovery stage. By then, Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron's internal emails, production plans, investment decisions and communication records with customers may all be retrieved, which will become an important basis for judging whether there is coordinated production reduction. The documents will help the court clarify whether the companies moved capacity to HBM based on independent strategies or whether they acted together through coordinated actions to squeeze the supply of traditional DRAM and drive up prices in the broader market.
It is worth noting that this is not the first time the DRAM industry has faced legal charges related to price manipulation. In the 2000s, the U.S. Department of Justice launched an investigation into DRAM price fixing, in which Samsung and then-Hynix (later renamed SK Hynix) pleaded guilty. In 2005, Samsung agreed to pay a $300 million criminal fine, Hynix agreed to pay a $185 million fine, and several executives were jailed for their role in a price-fixing conspiracy.
However, previous criminal convictions do not directly prove that Samsung, SK Hynix or Micron violated the law in the current case. New lawsuits must be heard independently based on the specific facts and evidence of the current period, while earlier cases can only provide the court and the public with context of similar behavior in the industry. This also means that as the case progresses, the DRAM industry’s transparency in global supply and pricing mechanisms is expected to be further improved, creating a clearer market picture for downstream companies and consumers.