DRAM Price Surge of 700%: Memory Chip Titans Hit with Price-Fixing Lawsuit

Three companies — Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron — collectively control roughly 90% of the global DRAM market. Now they face a fresh federal lawsuit accusing them of deliberately engineering a memory chip shortage to drive prices up by as much as 700% over four years.

The case was filed in a California federal court by 14 individual buyers and three small computer retailers. One of the law firms representing the plaintiffs, Hagens Berman, is no stranger to this fight — it secured a landmark payout in a nearly identical case back in 2005, when Samsung admitted to price-fixing and paid a $300 million fine, the second-largest penalty of its kind in US history at the time. Several executives were imprisoned. The new lawsuit alleges that some of those same individuals were later reinstated at their companies.

At the heart of the current case is a straightforward claim: the three manufacturers quietly redirected their factory capacity toward high-margin AI memory chips, allowing standard consumer-grade DRAM supplies to dwindle. As everyday memory grew scarce, prices spiked — climbing an estimated 500% to 700% depending on the product segment. Because these three firms account for approximately 90% of all DRAM produced globally, consumers have nowhere else to turn. Building a competing facility requires upwards of $15 billion and several years of construction.

The timing of events has drawn particular scrutiny. Just days after the lawsuit became public, Samsung Group announced a sweeping $650 billion, ten-year investment plan. SK Group followed with its own large-scale semiconductor spending commitment. Both Samsung and SK Hynix plan to construct two new factories each, collectively covering about 80% of the specialized memory that powers AI systems. The companies argue the scale of these investments demonstrates that demand is genuine — not manufactured.

Micron offered a similar defense, though its actions have raised eyebrows in the analyst community. In December, the company quietly shuttered its well-known Crucial consumer memory brand after 29 years in operation — right as prices were hitting their peak. Micron's Chief Business Officer Sumit Sadana framed the decision as a strategic pivot: "Micron has made the difficult decision to exit the Crucial consumer business in order to improve supply and support for our larger, strategic customers in faster-growing segments." Plaintiffs counter that abandoning a profitable consumer brand at the height of its earnings cycle makes little sense unless the underlying goal was to keep supply artificially constrained.

Market reaction to the lawsuit was swift. Samsung shares dropped 5.3% and SK Hynix fell 3.4%. Meanwhile, Apple has already adjusted some of its product prices to account for rising chip costs — a signal that the squeeze is beginning to flow through to end consumers.

Analysts at Jefferies project memory prices will climb another 50% in the current quarter and approximately 40% in the quarter that follows, with no meaningful price relief expected before 2028.

The plaintiffs face an uphill battle. Two previous attempts to bring similar lawsuits failed, with courts ruling that price increases alone do not constitute evidence of coordinated collusion. This time, however, the plaintiffs argue they bring more to the table — the same companies, the same product category, and in some cases the same individuals who previously served prison time for precisely this kind of conduct.