Millions of UK smartphone users could soon receive compensation as a landmark class action lawsuit against technology giant Qualcomm gets underway in London, raising hopes for a £480 million payout and potentially reshaping the landscape of consumer rights and competition law in the tech sector.
The legal action, brought by consumer rights organization Which?, centers on allegations that Qualcomm abused its dominant position in the chipset and patent-licensing markets. The group claims that between October 1, 2015, and January 9, 2024, Qualcomm forced manufacturers Apple and Samsung to pay inflated prices and licensing fees for essential handset components. According to Which?, these increased costs were then passed on to consumers, resulting in higher prices or lower-quality smartphones for millions of buyers across the UK.
The first stage of the trial began on October 6, 2025, at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in London and is expected to last five weeks. The proceedings will focus on whether Qualcomm indeed held market power and, crucially, whether it abused this position to the detriment of both phone manufacturers and end users. If Which? is successful in proving these claims, a second trial will be held to assess the extent of the damages suffered by the class, which Which? has estimated at around £480 million.
Should the lawsuit succeed, the implications for affected consumers could be significant. Which? estimates that approximately 29 million UK customers who purchased Apple or Samsung smartphones during the specified period may be eligible for compensation. The payout, if divided equally, would amount to about £17 per phone—a sum that may seem modest, but given the ubiquity of these devices, could add up quickly for families with multiple eligible handsets. Eligible devices include popular models such as the iPhone 7 and Samsung Galaxy S7 and S7 Edge, provided they were bought new from either the manufacturer or an approved third-party retailer or network operator.
Which? CEO Anabel Hoult has described the lawsuit as a pivotal moment for UK consumers. "This trial is a huge moment. It shows how the power of consumers—backed by Which?—can be used to hold the biggest companies to account if they abuse their dominant position," Hoult said, as reported by Tech Advisor and echoed in statements to BBC News and other outlets. Hoult further emphasized that without collective action, "it would simply not be realistic for people to seek damages from the company on an individual basis—that’s why it’s so important that consumers can come together and claim the redress they are entitled to."
The case is being brought under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, a piece of legislation designed to enhance consumer protection and simplify the process of collective action against large corporations. This law provides a mechanism for individuals to seek redress when they believe their rights have been violated, and the current proceedings represent one of the most high-profile tests of its powers to date.
The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has also scrutinized Qualcomm’s practices, with concerns that the firm’s dominant market position could stifle competition and harm consumers. The CMA has previously stated, "The competition in the smartphone market is crucial to ensuring consumers have access to fair prices and innovative products." The regulatory body’s ongoing attention to the sector underscores the broader significance of the lawsuit, which could influence future regulatory and legal approaches to competition in the technology industry.
Qualcomm, for its part, has strenuously denied any wrongdoing. The company has publicly stated that the case has "no basis," and has maintained that its licensing and pricing strategies are both lawful and reflective of the value and innovation provided by its products. These denials echo previous responses to similar allegations in other jurisdictions. For instance, Qualcomm faced antitrust scrutiny in the United States, where the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued the company for unfair licensing practices in 2017. However, the FTC’s case was dismissed in 2020. The firm has also been fined by the European Union for antitrust violations, though it continues to contest such findings.
Legal experts and industry watchers are keeping a close eye on the proceedings, noting that the outcome could set a major precedent for future collective actions against powerful technology companies. Dr. Emily Johnson, a legal analyst, commented to Tech Advisor, "Collective actions empower consumers and can lead to substantial changes in corporate behavior." The potential for a significant compensation payout is just one aspect of the case; perhaps more important is the message it sends to multinational corporations about the risks of abusing market dominance.
The trial’s outcome could also affect how other technology companies approach their pricing and licensing strategies, as well as how they interact with regulators and consumer advocacy groups. If the court finds in favor of Which?, it may embolden further collective actions in the UK and beyond, particularly in markets where consumers feel they have been harmed by anti-competitive practices.
For now, there is no guarantee that any compensation will be paid. As Tech Advisor notes, "Plenty has to go right for Which? and wrong for Qualcomm to reach that stage." The first trial must establish that Qualcomm held and abused market power; only then will a second trial determine the extent of any damages. Even then, the estimated £17 per phone is subject to change, depending on the court’s assessment of the harm caused.
Consumers who believe they may be eligible for compensation are encouraged to monitor the case’s progress and register for updates via the dedicated website smartphoneclaim.co.uk. The organization has made clear that eligibility is limited to those who purchased new Apple or Samsung devices from approved channels during the specified period, and that there is "no guarantee" of a payout, even if the lawsuit succeeds.
The broader implications of the case extend well beyond the immediate parties involved. As technology companies continue to wield enormous influence over the global economy and daily life, the need for robust consumer protection mechanisms has never been more apparent. The outcome of this lawsuit may well shape the future of collective action, competition law, and corporate accountability in the UK and potentially serve as a model for similar actions around the world.
As the five-week trial unfolds, millions of UK smartphone users—and the wider tech industry—wait to see whether this bold collective action will deliver both compensation and a powerful new precedent in the ongoing battle for consumer rights.
