Millions of UK smartphone users could soon see a windfall on the horizon, as a landmark class action lawsuit against US technology giant Qualcomm opened this week in London. The case, brought by consumer advocacy group Which?, seeks to recover an estimated £480 million for nearly 29 million Apple and Samsung smartphone owners across the country. If successful, each eligible consumer could receive about £17 per handset purchased between October 1, 2015, and January 9, 2024—a sum that, while modest, would represent a significant victory for collective consumer rights in the UK.
The legal proceedings began on October 6, 2025, at the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London and are expected to span five weeks. At the heart of the matter is the accusation that Qualcomm, one of the world’s largest producers of smartphone chips, abused its dominant market position by charging Apple and Samsung inflated prices and licensing fees for essential handset components. Which? contends that these extra costs were ultimately passed on to consumers, inflating the price of smartphones over nearly a decade.
“We filed this claim back in 2021, so this first trial being now in 2025—it’s obviously a bit of a slog,” said Lisa Webb, a senior lawyer at Which?, during an interview with BBC’s Today programme. Yet, Webb emphasized the simplicity for consumers: “But the real benefit of this system is that as a consumer, you don’t need to do anything... if we win, we will get you your money.”
The first phase of the trial, which is currently underway, will focus on whether Qualcomm held substantial market power in the patent-licensing and chipset markets, and crucially, whether it exploited this position in violation of UK competition law. Should the tribunal find in favor of Which?, a second phase will follow to determine Qualcomm’s specific conduct and the size and distribution of damages. The consumer group estimates the total payout at around £480 million, to be divided among those affected.
Which? alleges that Qualcomm’s practices forced Apple and Samsung to agree to inflated terms for chips—components essential to the operation of their devices. This, the group claims, not only stifled competition but also led to higher costs for consumers who purchased those handsets. The lawsuit covers almost a decade of smartphone purchases, encompassing nearly every Apple and Samsung device sold in the UK during that period.
Qualcomm, for its part, has strongly denied the allegations. The company has labeled the case as “baseless,” maintaining its innocence and pointing to previous legal victories. According to BBC, Qualcomm has faced similar scrutiny elsewhere, including an ongoing class action in Canada and a significant fine from the European Union for antitrust violations. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission sued Qualcomm in 2017 over unfair licensing practices, but the case was ultimately dismissed in 2020.
For many observers, the case is about more than just potential payouts. Anabel Hoult, Chief Executive of Which?, described the trial as “a huge moment” for consumers. “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 Eastern Eye. The proceedings, she argued, could serve as a warning to tech giants about the real costs of market dominance and anti-competitive behavior.
The case is also notable for its scale. Nearly 30 million UK consumers could be eligible for compensation, making it one of the largest collective actions of its kind in the country. The claim includes all Apple and Samsung smartphones purchased within the specified dates, and the estimated £17 per device could add up quickly for households with multiple handsets. However, as Webb cautioned, “it could be years until this second stage concludes,” meaning consumers may need to exercise patience before seeing any funds.
According to BBC’s technology editor Zoe Kleinman and reporter Charlotte Edwards, the claim is rooted in the assertion that Qualcomm’s dominance in the market allowed it to dictate terms to manufacturers, who in turn had little choice but to comply. The resulting higher costs, they argue, were then incorporated into the retail prices paid by millions of British consumers. Qualcomm’s rebuttal remains firm: the company insists its licensing practices are lawful and necessary for continued innovation in mobile technology.
The outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications, not just for Qualcomm but for the entire technology sector. If Which? prevails, it may embolden other consumer groups to pursue similar actions against large corporations accused of abusing their market power. It could also prompt manufacturers and suppliers to re-examine their pricing and licensing strategies, wary of future legal challenges and the risk of significant financial penalties.
Legal experts point out that the case highlights the growing importance of collective redress mechanisms in the UK. In recent years, there has been a push to make it easier for consumers to band together and seek compensation from powerful corporations. The Which? lawsuit is seen as a test case for these new legal frameworks, and its progress will be closely watched by regulators, businesses, and advocacy groups alike.
For now, the focus remains on the tribunal in London, where lawyers for Which? and Qualcomm are presenting their arguments. The proceedings will delve into complex questions of market power, competition law, and the fine print of licensing agreements. Yet, at its core, the dispute centers on a simple question: should consumers pay the price when corporations leverage their dominance to maximize profits?
While the legal wrangling continues, millions of UK smartphone users wait in the wings, hoping for a favorable outcome. As Hoult put it, the trial is not just about recouping money—it’s about sending a message to the world’s biggest companies that consumer interests cannot be ignored. If the tribunal rules in favor of Which?, it could mark a turning point in the balance of power between tech giants and the people who buy their products.
With the trial set to last five weeks and the possibility of appeals and further legal challenges, the road to a final resolution may be long. Still, the case has already shone a spotlight on the often-invisible costs embedded in the devices we use every day—and on the potential for collective action to hold even the most powerful companies to account.
As the first phase of the trial unfolds, all eyes are on London’s Competition Appeal Tribunal. Whether or not the case results in a payout for millions, it has already sparked a vital conversation about fairness, competition, and the rights of ordinary consumers in an increasingly digital world.
