Nearly 30 million people in the UK who purchased an Apple or Samsung smartphone between 2015 and 2024 could each receive about £17 if the consumer advocacy group Which? wins its lawsuit against US tech giant Qualcomm.
The trial opened on Monday at the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London and is expected to run for five weeks. Which? accuses Qualcomm of anti-competitive practices, alleging that the company forced Apple and Samsung to pay inflated prices and licensing fees for key smartphone components costs that were then passed on to consumers.
The BBC has reached out to Qualcomm for comment.
The first phase of the trial will examine whether Qualcomm held significant market power and whether it abused its dominant position. If Which? prevails, the case will move to a second stage seeking £480 million in damages to be distributed among an estimated 29 million UK smartphone owners. However, this second phase could take several years to conclude.
“We filed this claim back in 2021, so this first trial beginning now in 2025 has been a bit of a slog,” said Lisa Webb, a senior lawyer for Which?, speaking to the Today programme.
“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 claim covers all Apple and Samsung smartphones purchased between 1 October 2015 and 9 January 2024, with compensation expected to average £17 per handset. Qualcomm has previously dismissed the lawsuit as having “no basis.”
Similar legal action against Qualcomm is ongoing in Canada, and the company has previously been fined by the EU for antitrust violations.
Anabel Hoult, chief executive of Which?, described the UK trial as a landmark moment:
“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.”
Qualcomm, one of the world’s leading producers of smartphone chips, has faced scrutiny before. In 2017, the US Federal Trade Commission sued the company over alleged unfair licensing practices, but the case was dismissed in 2020.
