TradingKey - On June 25, 2026, 14 individuals and three companies filed an antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Citing Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the plaintiffs allege that Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix, and Micron Technology coordinated to restrict legacy DRAM supply starting in 2022, seeking class-action certification, injunctive relief, and treble damages.

DRAM prices continue to rise, but U.S. courts have not found that Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix (SKHY) and Micron Technology (MU) engaged in coordinated supply restrictions or price manipulation. The relevant allegations stem from the plaintiffs' complaint, and the case remains in its early procedural stages.

Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron Accused of Coordinating Supply Cuts: What Is the Focus of the DRAM Lawsuit Dispute?

On June 25, 2026, 14 consumers and three small businesses sued Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix, and Micron, alleging that the three companies coordinated to restrict the supply of legacy DRAM starting in 2022. The defendant entities jointly filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on September 2, and the court has not yet ruled.

The plaintiffs cited the three companies' successive production cuts, expanded investment in HBM, and reductions in DDR3 and DDR4 output as evidence of conspiracy. In the fourth quarter of 2022, impacted by falling PC and smartphone demand along with rising inventory, global DRAM revenue declined 32.5% quarter-over-quarter. SK Hynix, Micron, and Samsung subsequently cut capital expenditures or output.

After demand for AI servers, cloud provider procurement, and inventory replenishment drove a market recovery, contract prices for legacy DRAM rose 45% to 50% quarter-over-quarter in the fourth quarter of 2025 and climbed another 93% to 98% in the first quarter of 2026. HBM shares front-end wafer capacity with legacy DRAM; producing the same capacity of HBM requires more wafer and packaging resources, making expanded HBM investment one of the factors tightening legacy DRAM supply.

The plaintiffs contend that even after the profitability of legacy DRAM improved, the three companies still failed to significantly expand relevant supply, supporting the inference of coordinated production limits. The complaint claims that legacy DRAM prices rose roughly 700% cumulatively over four years, but its detailed calculations correspond to the third quarter of 2024 through the first quarter of 2026, creating an inconsistent timeframe.

Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, plaintiffs must allege specific facts sufficient to reasonably infer the existence of an agreement. Facing identical inventory pressures, AI demand, and profit fluctuations, the three companies could also independently make similar decisions. The complaint lacks direct evidence such as internal communications, meeting minutes, or witness testimony, and the court will review whether existing circumstantial factors can collectively support an inference of conspiracy.

In a related 2022 case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that parallel production cuts and other circumstantial factors alleged at the time were insufficient to reasonably infer an illegal agreement at the pleading stage. Whether this case presents new facts sufficient to distinguish it from the prior precedent will be a key focus in reviewing the motion to dismiss.

Do Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron Have a History of Price Fixing?

The U.S. Department of Justice previously investigated DRAM price-fixing between April 1, 1999, and June 15, 2002. Samsung Electronics pleaded guilty in 2005 and paid a $300 million criminal fine, while Hynix, the predecessor to SK Hynix, pleaded guilty in the same year and paid a $185 million fine.

In 2002, Micron reached an antitrust leniency agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice and cooperated with the investigation, avoiding criminal prosecution or fines for the related price-fixing conduct.

In 2018, indirect purchasers filed a proposed class-action lawsuit regarding changes in DRAM supply and prices from June 2016 to February 2018. The district court dismissed the core conspiracy claims, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling in 2022.

The appellate court held that simultaneous production cuts, capital expenditure reductions, and other parallel conduct could be explained by independent business decisions made by companies facing the same market environment, and that the indirect factors presented by the plaintiffs were insufficient to plausibly infer an agreement among the companies.

While the above cases serve as industry background, they do not prove that the three companies have engaged in new unlawful coordinated conduct since 2022.

Where Does Traditional DRAM Supply Pressure Mainly Come From?

The DRAM industry is highly concentrated, and building new fabs or expanding effective capacity typically takes several years. After manufacturers cut capital expenditures during oversupply phases, the pace of capacity recovery may lag behind demand growth, causing temporary supply tightness.

Growing demand for AI servers is altering DRAM capacity allocation. HBM is formed by stacking multiple DRAM dies, requiring a higher wafer input than conventional DRAM to produce the same capacity, while consuming resources such as through-silicon vias, wafer thinning, and advanced packaging.

As manufacturers expand HBM and server DRAM capacity, the capacity allocated to consumer electronics and general-purpose DRAM is squeezed, becoming one of the factors tightening conventional DRAM supply.

Capacity reallocation can explain part of the price increases and product mix adjustments for conventional DRAM, but it alone cannot prove coordinated supply restriction among manufacturers. At this stage, the court will examine whether the plaintiffs' complaint presents facts sufficient to reasonably infer an agreement; if the case moves to discovery and trial, the existence of an illegal conspiracy will then be judged based on evidence such as internal communications and meeting minutes.

Could This Lawsuit Affect DRAM Prices?

The legal proceedings will not directly increase short-term wafer capacity or alter product configurations. DRAM prices over the next few quarters will remain primarily determined by AI server demand, HBM capacity allocation, conventional DRAM supply, and downstream inventory changes.

TrendForce forecasts that server DRAM contract prices will rise by 13% to 18% quarter-over-quarter in the third quarter of 2026. Driven by AI server demand and limited supply growth, server DRAM contract prices may increase quarter-over-quarter from the second half of 2026 through the second half of 2027, although the rate of increase is expected to slow, and a supply shortage may persist in 2027.

At this stage, the court will review the plaintiffs' complaint to evaluate whether the alleged facts are sufficient to infer concerted action among the three companies. If these claims are not dismissed, the case will proceed to subsequent procedures such as discovery and class certification.

Coordinating to restrict DRAM supply currently remains an allegation by the plaintiffs, and the court has not yet determined that Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron Technology engaged in illegal collusion.

Find out more