Samsung, SK Hynix, Micron sued over DRAM pricing: Judge rules evidence is insufficient
On May 3 last year, U.S. law firm Hagens Berman filed a consumer class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron have jointly manipulated the DRAM market and affected the pricing of DRAM, in order to obtain considerable profits. Hagens Berman said that these DRAM makers have acted very similarly since 2016 to control DRAM production through production cuts.
This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the allegations against the DRAM chip maker lacked sufficient credible evidence and dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiff presented multiple “evidence” to prove that the defendant’s business conduct was pre-agreed. However, the court considered various factors and believed that it was considered more as a whole and that the allegations did not constitute the plaintiff’s claim, which needed to be bolstered by “some further factual enhancement,” in order to progress with an antitrust conspiracy case.
In its analysis of the court case, the court noted that the defendants’ actions were “more likely explained by lawful, unchoreographed free-market behavior” than by illegal agreements. To put it simply, it is the similar behavior of Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron, because they made a more consistent decision after rationally analyzing the market. This means that Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron have avoided this antitrust case, and if Hagens Berman is brought up again, Hagens Berman will need more additional evidence that they have not seen before.
