The price of a laptop or a PlayStation 5 has gone up another $150 since it came out, so you already know that something is wrong with the way memory is priced. DRAM, which is the chips that are in almost all computers in the world, has become incredibly expensive. The usual industry explanation is that AI data centers are eating up all the supply. But a class action lawsuit filed in late June 2026 in a federal court in California says that something more intentional is going on. It names Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron, the three companies that make more than 90% of the world’s DRAM.
The official case name is Garciaguirre et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. It was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California by seventeen plaintiffs, some of whom were individuals and some of whom were small PC businesses. Their main point is clear. They say that these three companies worked together to limit the production of regular DDR3 and DDR4 memory, putting more resources into making high-bandwidth memory chips that are used in AI data centers. At the same time, they let the prices of consumer-grade DRAM go up by about 500 to 700% over four years. The plaintiffs say that this kind of coordinated shift in production doesn’t make economic sense unless there was some kind of agreement. It’s a strong accusation, and it will be very hard to prove it.
History, on the other hand, gives this lawsuit some weight. Samsung, Hynix, and Micron have been through this before. These companies were caught by the Department of Justice fixing the prices of DRAM that they sold to big American PC makers like Dell, HP, and Apple between 1998 and 2002. Samsung admitted guilt and had to pay a $300 million fine. Hynix paid $185 million. A number of Samsung executives went to jail. Cooperating with investigators kept Micron from getting in trouble. That event is like an old scar in the background of the new complaint, and it’s clear that the plaintiffs want the court to see a pattern.
The businesses have, for their part, pushed back slowly. Micron said in a statement that the claims were false and that it competes fairly and follows the law. SK Hynix said it would respond after a full review, even though it knew about the complaint. Samsung didn’t say anything. At this point, none of this is strange, but the serious tone suggests that no one is just brushing off the suit. Micron’s stock dropped more than five percent the week the lawsuit was made public. However, some analysts said the drop was not as big as it seemed based on the company’s expected future earnings.
The case is harder to ignore because of the bigger picture. The prices of consoles have gone up a lot. Apple raised the prices of all MacBooks and iPads. It is said that Valve’s Steam Machine came out with a higher price tag than planned. Analysts at Jefferies think that the price of memory could go up by another 40 to 50 percent next quarter. Prices probably won’t return to normal until 2028. If you walk into Best Buy right now, almost every shelf will shock you with how much things cost. This lawsuit is trying to find out if that’s because of real lack of supplies or because of something more planned.
But doubters have good reason to be careful. In 2018, a similar lawsuit was brought in the same court against the same three defendants. It was thrown out because the judge didn’t find enough proof of a real agreement between the companies. That decision was upheld in court. In an oligopoly, where only three players control the market, parallel behavior—that is, all three making the same strategic decisions in response to the same market conditions—doesn’t always mean conspiracy. The legal bar for proving collusion is still very high, and the new plaintiffs will need more than just price data to prove their case.
The lawsuit uses both the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and California’s Cartwright Act. The latter is unique because it lets people who bought something indirectly file antitrust claims. The plaintiffs want triple damages and a permanent injunction that would force these companies to get back to making enough conventional DRAM to compete. You should pay attention to that injunction request because it shows that the case isn’t just about money; it’s also about changing how these companies use their manufacturing capacity.
People have been reacting online with a common mix of anger and dark humor. A lot of jokes are already going around on Reddit about getting a $2.37 settlement check in 2033. Some people say that the fines from past DRAM cases were just a normal part of doing business. Seeing the same cycle play out over and over with the same players and denials makes you feel tired. Only time and the courts will tell if this lawsuit breaks that cycle or just adds another chapter to the long and troubled history of memory prices.
