Quinn Emanuel Secures Resounding Victory for Qualcomm as Consumers’ Association Which? Withdraws £480 Million ($650 Million) Class Action Post-Trial

Quinn Emanuel secured a decisive victory for long-time client Qualcomm after the Class Representative moved to withdraw in its entirety a £480 million ($650 million) class action before the United Kingdom (“UK”) Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) following trial.  In accordance with the agreement for withdrawal concluded by the parties, Qualcomm will make no payment to the Class Representative or the proposed class, and approval of the withdrawal application will terminate the claim against Qualcomm.

On 25 February 2021, the UK Consumers’ Association Which?, acting as the Class Representative for an estimated 29 million UK consumers who had purchased certain Apple and Samsung mobile phones supporting the Long-Term Evolution (“LTE”) 4G wireless standard, filed an opt-out collective action in the form of a standalone damages claim under section 47B of the UK Competition Act 1998.

The claim contained wide-ranging allegations that morphed several times during the proceedings—including during the trial—and targeted the very heart of Qualcomm’s business, in particular its long-standing chipset supply and licensing practices, as well as the level of royalties paid by mobile phone makers for practising Qualcomm’s cellular patents.  In essence, Which? alleged that Qualcomm’s chipset supply and licensing practices enabled Qualcomm to leverage a purported dominant position in the supply of certain types of baseband chipsets to extract supra-competitive royalties in relation to the sale of certain Apple and Samsung LTE-enabled mobile phones in the UK, which in turn were passed on to consumers, thereby infringing Section 18 of the UK Competition Act 1998 and, until 31 December 2020, Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Following a protracted battle spanning five years, including a gargantuan five-week trial in autumn 2025, on 17 February 2026, the Class Representative announced its decision to abandon the proceedings in their entirety, pending approval by the Tribunal.  The Class Representative also issued a public statement asserting that, “based on the evidence and the arguments at trial, the Tribunal will find that: (a) Qualcomm did not coerce Apple, Apple’s Chipset Manufacturers (“CMs”), or Samsung to sign any patent licences or chipset agreements; (b) Qualcomm did not leverage its position as a chipset supplier to coerce Apple, Apple’s CMs, or Samsung to agree to any licensing terms; and (c) Qualcomm’s licensing and chipset practices 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.”

Quinn Emanuel has been advising Qualcomm since the inception of the case, guiding the strategy and shaping the substance of Qualcomm’s defence throughout, including during the five-week trial.