Qualcomm Faces UK Consumer Case

UK Consumers Take on Tech Giant Qualcomm in £480m Smartphone Payout Battle

A landmark legal case has commenced in London, pitting the consumer advocacy group Which? against the US technology corporation Qualcomm. The outcome of this trial could see roughly 30 million people in the United Kingdom become eligible for a share of a potential £480 million payout. The case centres on allegations that Qualcomm engaged in anti-competitive practices, ultimately pushing up the cost of smartphones for millions of customers.

The legal proceedings, which began on 6 October 2025 before the Competition Appeal Tribunal, are projected to continue for five weeks. Which? accuses the chip manufacturer of abusing its powerful market standing to overcharge major smartphone makers like Samsung and Apple for its technology. These alleged overcharges were then passed on to customers, resulting in higher prices for handsets acquired between 1 October 2015 and 9 January 2024.

Should the advocacy group succeed, the approximately 29 million affected individuals could each receive a payout of around £17 per device. The case represents one of the most significant collective legal actions undertaken within the United Kingdom under its revised competition laws, which have empowered consumer organisations to bring mass claims. Qualcomm has consistently denied the allegations, stating that the legal action is without merit.

The trial will unfold in two stages. The first phase will determine if Qualcomm possessed a position of strength in the market and if it improperly exploited that power. Should Which? prove its case, a second trial will then focus on the specifics of Qualcomm's conduct and calculate the precise damages owed to consumers.

The Heart of the Dispute: Licensing and Market Dominance

The core of the claim brought by Which? revolves around Qualcomm's lucrative patent licensing practices. The advocacy organisation alleges that Qualcomm has breached UK competition law by leveraging its influence in the markets for both patent licensing and chipsets. This has enabled the company to charge manufacturers like Samsung and Apple overcharged fees for technology licences.

Qualcomm is a world leader in the making of chips for smartphones, which are essential components that allow devices to connect to 4G and 5G networks. The company holds a vast portfolio of patents that are critical to wireless communication standards. Which? contends that Qualcomm's global "no licence, no chips" policy has forced manufacturers to pay these allegedly excessive fees.

Lawyers for the advocacy body have described this practice in court filings as an "industry-wide private tax" that serves to boost Qualcomm's profits while raising the price of devices for ordinary people. The lawsuit argues that these higher costs were ultimately borne by customers, either through increased handset prices or potentially lower-quality devices.

Qualcomm, however, refutes these claims, arguing that the lawsuit mischaracterises its long-standing and lawful business model. The company maintains that its requirement for manufacturers to obtain a licence for its standard essential patents before purchasing chipsets is a legitimate practice. Qualcomm's legal team has also suggested that companies with the stature of Samsung and Apple hold considerable negotiating power, challenging the idea that they could be forced into unfair agreements.

A Global Pattern of Scrutiny

The legal proceedings within the UK are not an isolated incident for Qualcomm. The San Diego-based chipmaker has faced similar allegations of anti-competitive behaviour in multiple jurisdictions around the world. This history of regulatory scrutiny forms a crucial backdrop to the current proceedings in London.

In the European Union, authorities have in the past imposed fines on Qualcomm for antitrust violations. A comparable lawsuit is also currently making its way through the Canadian courts. These international cases, like the British one, question the fairness of Qualcomm's patent licensing practices and their impact on the broader technology market.

In America, the Federal Trade Commission pursued legal action against the company in 2017, citing inequitable practices related to its technology licensing. The FTC's case alleged that Qualcomm's policies harmed competition in the modem chip market. However, after a lengthy legal battle, a court threw out that lawsuit in 2020, finding that Qualcomm's actions did not violate competition law. Qualcomm has pointed to this victory in the US as evidence that the claims against it are without merit.

Despite the dismissal of the FTC case, the ongoing legal challenges in Britain, Canada, and the prior penalties in the EU demonstrate a persistent global concern over Qualcomm's business model. The outcomes of these various legal battles are being closely watched by regulators and technology companies worldwide, as they could have significant implications for how intellectual property is licensed in the technology sector.

The Path to Compensation: A Two-Stage Process

The legal battle before London's Competition Appeal Tribunal is structured to first establish liability before addressing the matter of financial damages. This initial five-week trial will concentrate on the fundamental question of if Qualcomm possessed and then misused a powerful market standing. It is a critical first hurdle that the advocacy organisation Which? has to clear to proceed with its claim for compensation.

If the tribunal rules in favour of Which? during this first phase, the case will proceed to a secondary phase. This subsequent trial will delve deeper into Qualcomm's specific actions and their direct financial impact on customers. It is at this point that the court would determine the precise amount of damages, with Which? currently estimating the total at £480 million.

However, consumers have been advised that this process could be lengthy. Lisa Webb, a senior lawyer for Which?, acknowledged the protracted nature of such litigation, noting that the claim was first filed in 2021. Despite the long road ahead, Webb emphasised the advantage of the British system of collective action for ordinary people.

The case is being brought on an "opt-out" basis, a key feature of the Consumer Rights Act of 2015. This means that all affected UK customers who purchased a qualifying smartphone from Samsung or Apple within the specified timeframe are automatically included in the claim. They do not need to take any individual action to be part of the legal proceedings or to receive their share of any potential payout. Webb stated that should the group prevail, the organisation will manage the process of distributing the money to those affected.

What This Means for UK Consumers

For the close to 30 million British customers who acquired a smartphone from either Apple or Samsung between late 2015 and early 2024, the outcome of this case could result in a modest financial reimbursement. The estimated payout is an approximate figure of £17 for each handset, a symbolic sum representing the alleged overcharge passed on by manufacturers. While the individual amount may seem small, the collective total of £480 million underscores the potential scale of the alleged overcharging.

A key advantage for customers is the automatic inclusion in the class action lawsuit. There is no need for individuals to sign up or actively join the case; they are already part of the represented group unless they choose to opt out. This mechanism, established by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, makes it easier for large groups of people to seek redress for breaches of competition law.

Which? has created a website, smartphoneclaim.co.uk, where individuals can find more information about the case and register for updates. The organisation encourages anyone who believes they may have been affected to visit the site. Officials at the Competition Appeal Tribunal have noted that even a relatively small payout per person can have a substantial impact, especially given the current cost-of-living challenges faced by many.

Ultimately, the case is about more than just a £17 payment. Anabel Hoult, who is the chief executive at Which?, has described the trial as a significant event for consumer rights. She stated that it demonstrates the strength of collective consumer action in holding major corporations accountable for their business practices. A victory for Which? could set a significant precedent for future consumer claims against global technology companies.

The Broader Implications for the Tech Industry

The British legal action targeting Qualcomm could have ripple effects throughout the global technology sector, regardless of the final verdict. The case highlights the increasing scrutiny of the business practices of companies that hold powerful positions in critical technology markets. At the heart of the matter is the complex and often contentious issue of licensing for standard-essential patents (SEPs).

SEPs are patents that are essential for implementing a specific industry standard, such as 4G or 5G connectivity. Companies that own these patents are typically required to license them on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. The lawsuit brought by Which? essentially argues that Qualcomm's licensing fees were not FRAND and that its "no licence, no chips" policy constituted an improper use of its market power.

A ruling against Qualcomm could embolden other consumer groups and regulators to launch similar challenges against dominant tech firms. It could also force a re-evaluation of how SEPs are licensed across the industry, potentially leading to greater transparency and fairer terms for manufacturers. This could, in turn, lower costs for device makers and ultimately benefit consumers through more competitive pricing.

Conversely, a victory for Qualcomm would reinforce its current business model and could make it more difficult for such collective actions to succeed in the future. The company has argued that its licensing practices are a legitimate way to recoup its significant investment in research and development and that they have been upheld in other legal forums, such as the case against the FTC in the US. The outcome of this trial will be a key data point in the ongoing global debate about the balance between intellectual property rights and competition law in the fast-moving technology sector.