U.S. Judge Keeps DRAM Collusion Lawsuit Against Samsung, Micron and SK hynix Alive
Key Facts
A U.S. federal judge denied Samsung, Micron and SK hynix’s motion to dismiss a class action accusing them of collusion in the DRAM memory market, in a decision dated November 14, 2026. The court concluded that the complaint "plausibly alleges an agreement in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act." The decision allows the lawsuit to proceed, but does not mean the companies violated the law. The decision summary stressed that the allegations, which are taken as true when considering a motion to dismiss, have not yet been proven. The case centers on claims of restricted supply and price coordination, allegations that will remain under consideration in later proceedings.
The complaint stems from a proposed class action filed by individuals and companies in California on June 25, 2026, according to Micron’s disclosure to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint says the companies restricted DRAM supplies and fixed prices during a period that began on October 26, 2022. It also alleges that conventional DRAM prices rose 171.8% in the year through the third quarter of 2025, and increased by a cumulative 697% over 18 months. Both percentages remain part of the plaintiffs’ allegations; the court did not present them as a judicial finding or established fact. The complaint seeks damages, treble damages, an injunction, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.
According to the decision summary, the lawsuit alleges that the three companies accounted for more than 91% of global DRAM market revenue in the third quarter of 2025. The alleged share puts the companies at the center of accusations involving supply and price coordination, but the decision did not record it as a fact determined by the court. Part of the dispute concerns whether the companies shifted production capacity from conventional DRAM to high-bandwidth memory (HBM), which is used in artificial intelligence applications. Micron’s reference to expected supply constraints provides industry context: in an outlook published in March 2026, it said industry demand for DRAM bits in 2026 would be constrained by supply. The company added that supply and demand conditions would remain tight after 2026, attributing limits on supply growth to a shortage of cleanroom space, lengthy factory construction timelines and a higher HBM mix.
The court also rejected the companies’ argument that the case repeats an earlier lawsuit known as DRAM II. In that case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022 upheld the dismissal of claims against the three companies over alleged supply restrictions between 2016 and 2018. Judge Wise wrote: "The Court finds that this case is not." According to the decision summary, that conclusion distinguishes the current case from the earlier dispute based on the period and allegations at issue. In a separate matter, the U.S. Department of Justice recorded a guilty plea agreement in a landmark criminal case against Samsung Electronics and Samsung Semiconductor dated November 30, 2005. That old record does not prove the allegations in the current lawsuit, which concerns different accusations and a different period.
Company disclosures show that similar allegations were raised in other legal proceedings during 2026. Micron said a similar lawsuit was filed in Hawaii on July 17 of that year, in addition to the case in California. On the industry outlook, SK hynix said in its third-quarter 2026 results that demand was outpacing supply growth and that it expected memory supply shortages to continue through 2030. It also said it would increase HBM4 production by ramping its M15X facility to full capacity by year-end, and expected HBM4 to become a major product in the fourth quarter of 2026. These statements reflect the companies’ market expectations and do not, on their own, resolve the collusion allegations in the case.
According to EL7 data, Micron shares closed at $778.31 on November 13, 2026, while SK hynix shares closed at $131.79 in the same session. These prices came on the day before the court order, but do not by themselves show how investors assessed the decision or its effect on the two stocks. The available information did not include a comparable price for Samsung shares or market movement directly attributed to the ruling. The case now moves to the response and case-management stage; defendants must file their answers by December 7, 2026. The court scheduled the initial case-management conference for January 12, 2027, at 9 a.m.