In a courtroom in London, a high-stakes legal battle is unfolding that could reshape the tech industry’s relationship with consumers—and put millions of pounds back in the pockets of ordinary smartphone users. The Competition Appeal Tribunal is hearing a landmark class action lawsuit against Qualcomm, the American semiconductor giant, in what may become one of Britain’s largest-ever technology sector class actions. The case, spearheaded by consumer advocacy group Which?, alleges that Qualcomm abused its dominant market position to force up the cost of Apple and Samsung smartphones sold in the UK between October 2015 and January 2024.
For nearly 29 million UK consumers who purchased Apple or Samsung smartphones during this period, the stakes are real and tangible. If Which? prevails, each eligible consumer could receive compensation averaging £17 (about US$22) per device—a total that could reach as much as £480 million to £620 million in damages, depending on the court’s assessment of the harm caused. The trial, which began on October 6, 2025, is scheduled to run for five weeks, focusing first on whether Qualcomm held a dominant market position and, crucially, whether it abused that power through its licensing arrangements.
The case is notable not just for the potential payouts, but for its broader implications. Which? alleges that Qualcomm, as a dominant supplier of smartphone chips and patent licenses, imposed excessive licensing fees on manufacturers like Apple and Samsung. These costs, the group contends, were passed directly to consumers through higher retail prices or, in some instances, through lower-quality smartphones. According to The Independent, "Which? alleges Qualcomm breached UK competition law by taking advantage of its dominance in the patent-licensing and chipset markets."
Lisa Webb, Senior Lawyer at Which?, acknowledged the long and arduous road to trial. Speaking to the BBC, she explained, "We filed this claim back in 2021, so this first trial being now in 2025 – it's obviously a bit of a slog." Webb emphasized that the current proceedings represent only the liability phase of the case. Should Which? succeed in convincing the tribunal that Qualcomm abused its market power, a second stage will follow to determine the precise amount of compensation owed to affected consumers.
One aspect that sets this case apart is its opt-out structure. Eligible smartphone purchasers are automatically included in the claim and need take no action to participate. "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," Webb added. For millions who might otherwise have little recourse against a multinational corporation, this collective approach offers a rare shot at redress.
Qualcomm, for its part, has not responded to recent requests for comment on the ongoing proceedings. When Which? first filed the claim in 2021, the company dismissed it as having "no basis." This isn’t the first time Qualcomm’s business practices have drawn regulatory scrutiny. The European Union has fined the company for antitrust violations, and a parallel class action is currently progressing through Canadian courts. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission brought suit against Qualcomm in 2017 over what it described as unfair technology licensing practices, though that case was ultimately dismissed in 2020. These varied outcomes highlight the complexity of proving anti-competitive conduct in the fast-evolving technology sector.
At the heart of the UK case is the question of whether Qualcomm’s pricing models for technology licenses and chipsets were fair or exploitative. Which? contends that the company’s dominance allowed it to set inflated fees, which manufacturers then passed on to consumers. As stated by The Independent, "Which? claims that this resulted in Qualcomm being able to charge manufacturers such as Apple and Samsung inflated fees for technology licences, which have then been passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices or lower-quality smartphones."
The claim covers all Apple and Samsung smartphones purchased in the UK between October 1, 2015, and January 9, 2024. If successful, the compensation could average around £17 per phone, a sum that might not seem huge per device but adds up quickly given the sheer number of affected consumers. According to BizClik, "Nearly 29 million UK consumers who purchased smartphones from either manufacturer during this period stand to receive compensation averaging £17 (US$22) per device if Which? prevails in its claim for US$620m in damages."
Which? CEO Anabel Hoult has framed the proceedings as a pivotal test of collective consumer power. "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. She added, "Without Which? bringing this claim on behalf of millions of affected UK consumers, 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 outcome of the trial could reverberate far beyond the UK smartphone market. If the tribunal finds that Qualcomm did abuse its market position, it may set a precedent for how competition law is applied to licensing arrangements in the tech supply chain. Other major technology companies—many of which operate complex, opaque licensing models—will be watching closely. The case also raises questions about how costs are passed through from manufacturers to consumers, and whether regulatory frameworks are keeping pace with the realities of the digital economy.
It’s not just about the money. For many observers, the case represents a broader push to hold powerful technology firms accountable for their influence over everyday products. As Webb noted, "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." That simplicity—and the potential for real-world impact—makes this trial one to watch.
With the trial only in its first phase, it remains to be seen whether Which? can persuade the tribunal that Qualcomm’s practices crossed the line from aggressive business strategy to unlawful market abuse. But whatever the outcome, the case has already shone a spotlight on the hidden mechanics of the smartphone market, and on the power of collective action in the face of corporate giants.
As the five-week proceedings continue, millions of UK consumers—and the global tech industry—are waiting to see whether this David-versus-Goliath battle will end with a historic payout, or simply another chapter in the ongoing debate over competition and fairness in the digital age.
