The three companies that produce nearly all of the world's DRAM chips are once again facing antitrust allegations.
A class action filed June 25 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California accuses Micron Technology Inc. (MU), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SSNLF), and SK hynix Inc. of unlawfully coordinating production to restrict DRAM supply and drive prices higher.
Together, the three companies account for roughly 90% of global DRAM production. The complaint, “Garciaguirre v. Samsung Electronics,” alleges violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
According to the lawsuit, commodity DRAM prices have surged roughly 700% over the past four years. Plaintiffs seek class-action status, an injunction against the alleged conduct, and treble damages.
What It Means
DRAM is the working memory inside almost every computer, phone, tablet, and server. For years it behaved like a commodity: prices rose, somebody built more, prices fell.
That cycle has stopped.
The plaintiffs argue that the reason is coordination.
They say the three makers used a synchronized pivot toward high-bandwidth memory—the stacked, premium DRAM that feeds AI accelerators—as cover to quietly choke production of older DDR3 and DDR4 modules.
Less mainstream supply, higher mainstream prices.
Picture three bakeries that supply nearly all the bread in town. Wedding cakes suddenly sell for 10 times the price of a loaf, so all three shift their ovens to cakes.
Bread gets scarce and expensive.
No fourth bakery opens to undercut them, because a new one costs tens of billions and takes years to build. That is the DRAM market in 2026, and it is also why the plaintiffs say no rival could step in to discipline prices.
The squeeze has already reached households. Apple Inc. (AAPL), not a defendant, has raised prices across its lineup and lifted its cheapest MacBook Pro by $400 to $1,999, citing memory and storage costs it could no longer absorb.
For investors, the lawsuit strikes at the industry's biggest bullish argument: pricing power.
If plaintiffs ultimately prove that coordinated supply restrictions violated antitrust law, court-ordered remedies could weaken the supply discipline that supports today's elevated memory prices.
The Precedents
Price-fixing claims in the memory market have already occurred in the past.
In the early 2000s the Department of Justice ran a criminal DRAM case and won: Samsung paid $300 million, Hynix $185 million in 2005, Micron cooperated and avoided penalties. But that case had direct evidence, such as emails and an actual agreement.
The more relevant precedent failed. In 2018 a near-identical class action accused the same three makers of coordinating cuts.
Judge Jeffrey S. White dismissed it in 2020.
On March 7, 2022 the Ninth Circuit affirmed, ruling the cutbacks were “more consistent with conscious parallelism” than collusion.
What Investors Should Watch Next
A motion to dismiss is expected in the coming months.
The defendants have not yet responded in court.
Publicly, memory manufacturers have consistently described production decisions as independent responses to AI demand and manufacturing constraints. Meanwhile, analysts continue forecasting tight supply, with Jefferies expecting DRAM prices to climb further through 2026.
Among the defendants, Micron is the only primary U.S.-listed company and therefore the stock most exposed to investor reaction.
Micron shares have rallied over 300% year-to-date as enthusiasm surrounding the AI memory boom intensified, while Wall Street has largely maintained bullish ratings following the lawsuit.
For now, investors appear to view the case as a legal overhang rather than a fundamental threat.
If the complaint is dismissed—as the previous lawsuit was—the impact on memory stocks is likely to be minimal.
If plaintiffs survive dismissal and obtain discovery into internal company communications, however, the litigation could become a longer-term risk for the entire AI memory trade.
