A new antitrust lawsuit filed by Beth Dunn alleges that the major DRAM manufacturers—Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron—have engaged in collusive behavior since 2022, artificially inflating conventional DRAM prices by approximately 700% over four years. The complaint highlights coordinated actions such as simultaneous supply restrictions, shifting production focus to less profitable High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), and implementing uniform customer vetting procedures. Despite DRAM’s higher profitability compared to HBM, the manufacturers have refused to expand supply, acting counter to typical economic incentives. This has forced OEMs and system integrators like HP, Dell, and Apple to pass these price hikes onto consumers.
The lawsuit points to the DRAM market’s inherent susceptibility to collusion, citing factors such as a highly concentrated manufacturer base, commodity product sales, transparent pricing data, inelastic demand, and significant barriers to market entry. Historically, these same companies were involved in a DRAM cartel from 1998 to 2002, which was eventually busted by the DOJ. Despite hefty fines and some legal consequences, many implicated executives remained in influential positions, enabling the possibility of renewed collusion. A previous class action lawsuit from 2018 was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, but the current complaint presents more concrete allegations of coordinated conduct.
The complaint details how after a pandemic-driven oversupply, the big three manufacturers coordinated supply cuts starting in late 2022, with Samsung initially resisting but eventually joining the reductions. This behavior contrasts with Samsung’s historical strategy of aggressively gaining market share during downturns. Additionally, the companies collectively shifted production capacity away from conventional DRAM to HBM, despite DRAM’s superior margins. Micron notably shuttered its consumer DRAM brand, Crucial, at peak profitability, which the lawsuit argues is economically irrational unless part of a collusive strategy.
Financial data cited in the complaint shows that conventional DRAM now yields higher operating margins than HBM, with Micron reporting consumer memory operating margins as high as 86%. The manufacturers’ refusal to expand conventional DRAM supply, despite record-high prices and profitability, suggests coordinated restraint. The complaint also notes that smaller DRAM producers not involved in the alleged collusion expanded output and posted record results, further indicating that the big three’s supply restrictions were strategic rather than market-driven.
The filing is currently a putative class action pending certification by a judge. If certified, it could represent all U.S. purchasers of conventional DRAM products from October 2022 onward. Other law firms are also investigating potential price-fixing in the industry, signaling increasing legal scrutiny. The video emphasizes the need for DOJ intervention, referencing the agency’s past successful DRAM cartel bust and outlining how the industry’s characteristics align with common antitrust red flags. The case’s resolution may take years, but the allegations have reignited concerns about anti-competitive practices in the memory chip market.
