A major legal challenge to Qualcomm’s business practices in the United Kingdom has faltered, with consumer advocacy group Which? set to withdraw its claim that the chipmaker abused its market position to inflate smartphone prices. The move comes after the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal indicated it would likely find in favor of Qualcomm, potentially ending a case that sought up to £480 million ($650 million) in compensation for an estimated 29 million UK consumers.
Which? alleged that Qualcomm leveraged its dominance in the production of processors and radio chips to force manufacturers like Apple and Samsung to pay inflated prices, costs that were then passed on to consumers purchasing smartphones between October 2015 and January 2024. The group estimated that individuals could have been due an average of £17 ($23) per device. The case hinged on the argument that Qualcomm’s licensing terms and chipset agreements were anti-competitive.
The five-week trial, held in October and November 2025, featured testimony from senior Qualcomm executives and expert economists, as both sides presented their arguments before the Tribunal. However, Which? has now concluded that the Tribunal will find Qualcomm did not coerce Apple, Apple’s chipset manufacturers, or Samsung into unfavorable agreements.
Tribunal Findings Anticipate Qualcomm Victory
According to a statement released by Which?, the Tribunal is expected to make three key findings. First, Qualcomm did not force Apple, Apple’s chipset manufacturers, or Samsung to sign any patent licenses or chipset agreements. Second, the company did not leverage its position as a chipset supplier to dictate licensing terms. And crucially, the Tribunal is anticipated to find that Qualcomm’s practices did not violate competition laws, lead to inflated royalties, or increase prices for consumers.
As a result of this anticipated outcome, Which? and Qualcomm have reached an agreement to withdraw the case, with Qualcomm not required to make any payment. Which? announced the decision on its website, signaling the end of the legal battle.
A Classy Retreat for Qualcomm’s Legal Team
Qualcomm’s legal team, from the firm Brick Court, has been praised for its handling of the case. In a statement announcing the planned agreement to withdraw the case, the firm notably refrained from celebrating victory, opting for a more measured tone. This approach underscores a professional handling of a complex legal matter.
The outcome of this case arrives as both Apple and Samsung are signaling a shift away from reliance on Qualcomm’s technology. Apple has begun incorporating its own modems into the iPhone Air and other lower-end handsets, while Samsung has publicly stated its intention to improve the performance of its Exynos SoCs to power its flagship smartphones – a market currently dominated by Qualcomm’s Snapdragon silicon.
Implications for the Smartphone Market
The decision in the UK case doesn’t necessarily resolve broader questions about Qualcomm’s market power globally. However, it represents a significant win for the company, which has faced scrutiny from regulators in multiple countries over its licensing practices. The case highlights the complexities of patent law and competition regulation in the technology sector, where intellectual property rights and market dominance often intersect.
While consumers hoping for refunds on their smartphones will be disappointed, the outcome could have implications for future legal challenges to Qualcomm’s business model. The Tribunal’s anticipated findings could set a precedent for similar cases, potentially making it more difficult for plaintiffs to successfully challenge Qualcomm’s licensing practices in the future.
The next step in this process is formal approval of the withdrawal by the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Once approved, the case will be officially closed, marking the end of a lengthy legal battle and a victory for Qualcomm.
What do you think about the outcome of this case? Share your thoughts in the comments below, and be sure to share this article with your network.
