A federal judge has refused to toss a class-action lawsuit accusing Samsung, SK hynix and Micron of conspiring to choke off the supply of conventional computer memory chips, allowing allegations of a price-fixing scheme that ran from October 2022 until the June 2026 filing to move forward in court. U.S. District Judge Noël Wise denied the three companies' joint motion to dismiss the case on Nov. 14, 2026, in the Northern District of California, finding the plaintiffs' theory plausible enough to proceed to the next stage of litigation.
The case, known as Garciaguirre v. Samsung Electronics and numbered 5:26-cv-06345, was filed June 25, 2026, by 17 named plaintiffs made up of consumers and small businesses from five states, according to the complaint itself. As MLQ.ai reports, the ruling is a pleading-stage decision and does not amount to a finding of liability against any of the three companies. As Tom's Hardware put it, this isn't a judgment — both sides still have to present evidence and arguments before any final decision.
What the Complaint Alleges
The plaintiffs claim that beginning in October 2022 and continuing through the filing date, Samsung, SK hynix and Micron engaged in a coordinated scheme to restrict the supply of commodity DRAM, the memory chips used in everyday computers and devices. The suit alleges the conspiracy violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, per the complaint, along with additional claims under California, Florida, Minnesota, New York and Wisconsin law.
According to the complaint, conventional DRAM prices rose 697% over 18 months without meaningful output expansion by the companies. Tom's Hardware, in its own coverage of the ruling, characterized the plaintiffs' allegation as prices jumping by as much as 500% in a single year.
A Timeline of Parallel Moves
Court filings cited in the case lay out a sequence the plaintiffs say shows coordination rather than coincidence. SK hynix cut production on Oct. 26, 2022, and Micron followed with its own cut roughly three weeks later, according to the complaint. Samsung, after publicly stating there would be no artificial production cut, reversed course and cut output in April 2023.
The plaintiffs also point to a coordinated exit from DDR4 production across all three companies, arguing the memory makers offered no rationale for what the suit describes as a sudden, rapid and coordinated departure from that chip standard. The filing further alleges the companies locked up long-term supply agreements with AI customers while refusing similar long-term contracts to conventional buyers, and that all three introduced near-identical customer-vetting procedures in January 2026. Micron separately decided to close its Crucial consumer brand on Dec. 3, 2025, according to the complaint.
The Judge's Reasoning
In her ruling, Judge Wise said the cited actions appeared unlikely to have occurred absent some prior agreement, at least at this early pleading stage of the case. She set aside the plaintiffs' DDR3-related allegations specifically because Micron continued producing that chip type, undercutting claims of a coordinated exit there. Wise also found that the industry's broader pivot toward high-bandwidth memory for AI applications, combined with a decision to restrict supply, was insufficient on its own to support the conspiracy claim.
Notably, the judge gave no weight to the companies' public statements to investors or remarks made at industry conferences in reaching her decision. She also said the current case does not simply repeat an earlier, failed lawsuit known as DRAM II, which concerned a 2016–2018 supply restriction and was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit in 2022 after that appeals court found the alleged conduct was more likely explained by lawful, unchoreographed free-market behavior, as Tom's Hardware reported in its history of prior DRAM litigation. The defendants had argued each company acted in its own self-interest and that this case repeats DRAM II's flawed theory, but Wise rejected that comparison. Tom's Hardware also reported that the plaintiffs themselves compared their contentions to hawks flying in formation — distinct birds moving together with purpose rather than by chance.
Market Dominance and Industry Backdrop
The complaint alleges Samsung, SK hynix and Micron together held more than 91% of global DRAM revenue in the third quarter of 2025. Separate data from TrendForce shows global DRAM industry revenue reached $41.4 billion that quarter, up 30.9% quarter over quarter, with SK hynix posting $13.75 billion in revenue and a 33.2% market share, Samsung at $13.5 billion and a 32.6% share, and Micron at $10.65 billion and a 25.7% share — a gain of 3.7 percentage points from the prior quarter. TrendForce had also forecast that conventional DRAM contract prices would rise another 45% to 50% quarter over quarter in the fourth quarter of 2025.
This isn't the industry's first brush with price-fixing allegations. Samsung and SK hynix previously paid fines over a 1998–2002 DRAM price-fixing cartel, while Micron received immunity in that earlier case as a cooperating whistleblower, according to the underlying case history. None of the three companies had publicly commented on the latest ruling as of the reporting from Hardware Busters.
What Happens Next
Under the schedule laid out in the ruling, the defendants must answer the original complaint by Dec. 7, 2026. The first case management conference in the matter is set for Jan. 12, 2027, which will begin shaping the timeline for discovery and further proceedings. The article was produced by MLQ.ai's AI newsroom and checked against primary sources including court filings, official releases and other court documents, with Peter Foy serving as editor.
