Stock Markets February 17, 2026

Which? Withdraws U.K. Lawsuit Alleging Qualcomm Overcharged Smartphone Makers

Consumer group ends case on behalf of some 29 million device buyers after agreeing Qualcomm will make no payment to claimants

By Ajmal Hussain QCOM AAPL
Which? Withdraws U.K. Lawsuit Alleging Qualcomm Overcharged Smartphone Makers
QCOM AAPL

A U.K. consumer group has applied to withdraw a class-action suit accusing Qualcomm of abusing market dominance to extract inflated royalties from Apple and Samsung. Which? represented about 29 million purchasers and had sought up to 480 million pounds in compensation, but says it will pull the case after reaching an agreement under which Qualcomm will not pay the claimant class and concluding the company did not breach competition law.

Key Points

  • Which? brought the lawsuit on behalf of about 29 million people who purchased iPhones or Samsung devices since 2015, seeking up to 480 million pounds in compensation - impacts consumer protection and mobile markets.
  • Which? has applied to withdraw the claim after reaching an agreement under which Qualcomm will not make any payment to the claimant class - affects potential consumer restitution and class-action outcomes.
  • Which? stated it concluded Qualcomm’s practices did not breach competition law or inflate royalties, and Qualcomm framed the outcome as consistent with U.S. court findings - relevant to semiconductor licensing and intellectual property enforcement.

LONDON, Feb 17 - Which? has moved to withdraw a high-profile competition lawsuit in London that had alleged Qualcomm improperly used its market position to force Apple and Samsung to accept inflated royalty payments. The British consumer association brought the claim on behalf of roughly 29 million people who bought iPhones or Samsung handsets since 2015.

The group had sought what it said could amount to as much as 480 million pounds in compensation. At a trial held last year, Which? argued Qualcomm pursued a worldwide "no licence, no chips" policy that required Apple and Samsung to pay royalties even when Qualcomm chips were not used in particular devices.

Qualcomm disputed that characterisation, saying its long-standing policy requires manufacturers to obtain licences for its standard essential patents in advance of purchasing chipsets. The company said the lawsuit misrepresented that requirement.

Before the Competition Appeal Tribunal issued any ruling following the trial, Which? said it would apply to withdraw the claim after reaching an arrangement under which Qualcomm will make no payment to the claimant class. In announcing the withdrawal, Which? said it had concluded Qualcomm’s conduct "did not infringe competition laws, did not result in inflated royalties, and did not lead to an increase in prices consumers paid for their mobile phones."

A Qualcomm spokesperson commented: "This recognition by the class representative, following a trial on the merits, reaffirms what the courts in the United States have repeatedly held: Qualcomm’s licensing practices are lawful and do not harm competition."

The move ends the U.K. civil action brought on behalf of millions of handset buyers without any award to the claimant class and without a final tribunal ruling on the substantive merits of the case. Which? and Qualcomm reached terms that lead to withdrawal rather than payment or a tribunal decision.

Currency conversion cited in related reporting showed $1 = 0.7362 pounds.

Risks

  • Claimants will not receive compensation despite an earlier estimate of up to 480 million pounds - impact on consumer restitution and retail handset buyers.
  • Withdrawal prevents the Competition Appeal Tribunal from issuing a final ruling on the substantive legal questions raised at trial - impact on legal clarity for the semiconductor and mobile device sectors.
  • Dispute centered on interpretation of Qualcomm’s licensing requirement, leaving disagreements about characterisation unresolved even though Which? concluded there was no infringement - impact on licensing practices and manufacturers that rely on standard essential patents.

More from Stock Markets

Indigenous Occupation Halts Operations at Cargill’s Santarem Terminal Feb 21, 2026 Market Turbulence Reinforces Case for Broader Diversification Feb 21, 2026 NYSE Holdings UK Ltd launches unified trading platform to streamline market access Feb 21, 2026 Earnings Drive Weekly Winners and Losers as Buyout Headlines Lift Masimo Feb 21, 2026 Barclays Sees 'Physical AI' Scaling to Hundreds of Billions by 2035 Feb 21, 2026