Global chipmaker Qualcomm is facing a major legal challenge in the United Kingdom as it defends against a £480 million ($647 million) collective lawsuit accusing the company of overcharging smartphone manufacturers and, by extension, consumers. The case, led by the consumer group which could affect roughly 29 million British smartphone users who purchased Apple or Samsung devices since 2015.
The lawsuit, currently being heard before the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal, alleges that Qualcomm engaged in anticompetitive conduct by exploiting its dominance in the smartphone chip market. The claims center on Qualcomm’s licensing practices and its alleged “no license, no chips” policy, which critics say unfairly inflated royalties paid by manufacturers and artificially raised retail prices for consumers.
Allegations of Market Abuse
According to Which Qualcomm effectively imposed a “private tax” on the entire smartphone industry by requiring manufacturers like Apple and Samsung to pay excessive licensing fees for access to its standard-essential patents (SEPs). These patents are crucial for the production of smartphones that comply with global communication standards such as 4G and 5G.
The consumer group claims that Qualcomm’s royalty demands applied not only to devices containing Qualcomm chips but also to those using chips from rival manufacturers. which argues that this practice gave Qualcomm an unfair advantage and stifled competition within the mobile chip sector.
Anabel Hoult, Chief Executive of which said the group launched the case to hold Qualcomm accountable for years of inflated pricing:
“Consumers should not have to pay more for their smartphones because of anti-competitive behavior in the supply chain. Qualcomm’s practices have effectively forced up the cost of devices for millions of people across the UK.”
Qualcomm’s Defense: Licensing Rights Are Lawful
Qualcomm has strongly denied all allegations of wrongdoing. The San Diego-based company insists that its licensing model has been lawful, industry-standard, and essential to its ability to invest in cutting-edge technologies that underpin global mobile communications.
In court filings, Qualcomm emphasized that requiring manufacturers to obtain patent licenses before purchasing chipsets — the so-called “no license, no chips” policy — is a standard business practice within the technology sector. The company also rejected the notion that it holds unfair leverage over massive buyers like Apple and Samsung, both of whom possess immense bargaining power in supplier negotiations.
A Qualcomm spokesperson stated:
“Our licensing program has been recognized around the world as fair and reasonable. We are confident that the claims brought against us in the UK have no merit and will be dismissed.”
Broader Legal and Regulatory Context
The case comes amid a global wave of scrutiny over Qualcomm’s licensing business model, which has faced repeated legal challenges in multiple jurisdictions over the past decade.
In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust case against Qualcomm in 2017, alleging that its licensing terms stifled competition. Although a lower court initially ruled against the company in 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision in 2020, siding with Qualcomm and affirming that its practices did not violate antitrust law.
In Europe, the European Commission previously fined Qualcomm for abusing its dominant position in two separate cases involving Apple and LTE baseband chipsets. However, one of those fines was overturned by the EU’s General Court in 2022, and the other remains under appeal.
Which’s collective action in the UK seeks to apply British competition law principles to similar conduct. The outcome could set a significant precedent for how global technology firms are held accountable under the UK’s post-Brexit competition regime, especially in the area of digital markets and intellectual property licensing.
What’s at Stake for Consumers
If the lawsuit succeeds, Qualcomm could be forced to pay out hundreds of millions in damages to British consumers. The collective claim, estimated at £480 million, would potentially compensate individuals who purchased Apple or Samsung smartphones between 2015 and the present.
Which? argues that consumers indirectly bore the costs of Qualcomm’s inflated royalty rates, as manufacturers passed on the additional expenses in the form of higher device prices. Under the UK’s collective proceedings system — similar to class actions in the U.S. — affected consumers are automatically included in the claim unless they opt out.
Legal experts note that the case could redefine how intellectual property rights are balanced against consumer protection and competition law. It could also influence how technology companies structure licensing agreements for patents that are essential to industry standards.
Qualcomm’s Past Legal Wins Offer Hope
Despite the growing attention around this case, Qualcomm has a strong track record of defending its business model in global courts. The company has successfully overturned or reduced several major fines and judgments in recent years, reinforcing its position that its licensing practices are both fair and necessary for ongoing innovation.
Analysts suggest that Qualcomm’s consistent legal victories could give it an advantage in this new UK battle. However, the tribunal’s final decision may depend on how it interprets Qualcomm’s obligations under UK competition law, which has diverged somewhat from EU precedent since Brexit.
The Road Ahead
The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal will first determine whether Qualcomm is liable for competition law breaches. If the panel finds in favor of the claimants, a separate hearing will be held to calculate potential damages. The legal process is expected to take several months — and could stretch well into 2026 if appeals follow.
As technology, antitrust, and consumer protection laws continue to evolve, the demand for skilled attorneys in these fields is on the rise. If you’re an attorney seeking new opportunities in antitrust law, intellectual property, or technology regulation, visit LawCrossing— the leading job site for legal professionals. Explore thousands of exclusive listings and stay ahead in a rapidly changing legal landscape.
