Qualcomm set to triumph in UK smartphone ‘patent tax’ case

Qualcomm defeats major UK consumer lawsuit

Qualcomm won a massive legal battle after the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal indicated it would find the chipmaker did not abuse its market power. The consumer advocacy group Which? officially withdrew its legal claim following the tribunal’s preliminary findings. The group previously sought £480 million ($650 million) in damages on behalf of nearly 29 million UK smartphone users.

Which? argued that Qualcomm used its dominance in the processor and radio chip markets to charge inflated licensing fees. The group claimed these costs were passed directly to consumers who purchased smartphones between October 2015 and January 2024. The withdrawal ends years of litigation without Qualcomm paying any compensation or admitting to wrongdoing.

The legal team for Which? agreed to drop the case after reviewing evidence presented during a five-week trial in late 2025. Qualcomm executives and economic experts testified that the company’s business practices did not harm competition or inflate retail prices. The tribunal’s signal that it would rule for Qualcomm left the consumer group with no viable path to victory.

The core of the overcharging allegations

The lawsuit centered on Qualcomm’s "no license, no chips" policy for smartphone manufacturers. Which? alleged that Qualcomm forced companies like Apple and Samsung to pay excessive royalties for standard-essential patents. The group claimed these manufacturers had no choice but to accept the terms to secure a supply of Snapdragon processors and 5G modems.

According to the original claim, this "tax" resulted in UK residents overpaying by roughly £17 ($23) per device. The affected group included anyone who purchased an LTE or 5G-enabled smartphone during the nine-year period. Which? estimated that the total overcharge across the UK market reached nearly half a billion pounds.

The tribunal ultimately disagreed with the premise that Qualcomm’s licensing fees dictated retail smartphone pricing. Evidence showed that Apple and Samsung maintained significant bargaining power during contract negotiations. The court indicated it would find that Qualcomm did not leverage its patent portfolio to extract unfair prices from these tech giants.

Tribunal rejects claims of market abuse

The Competition Appeal Tribunal focused on three primary findings that undermined the case for Which?. First, the tribunal found that Qualcomm did not engage in anti-competitive behavior regarding its patent licensing. Second, the court determined that Samsung and Apple were not forced into unfavorable deals that harmed the end consumer.

The third finding suggested that even if Qualcomm had overcharged manufacturers, those costs were not necessarily passed to buyers. Pricing strategies for flagship phones like the iPhone and Galaxy S series involve complex market factors beyond component costs. Qualcomm argued that its technology added more value to the devices than the cost of the royalties themselves.

Which? acknowledged the tribunal's stance in a public statement and filed documents to terminate the proceedings. Qualcomm did not pay any settlement fees or legal costs to the advocacy group as part of the agreement. The chipmaker’s legal strategy focused on the efficiency and innovation its chips provided to the global mobile infrastructure.

Key figures from the litigation include:

• 29 million: The number of UK residents Which? claimed were affected by the pricing.
• £480 million: The total damages sought by the consumer advocacy group.
• October 2015 to January 2024: The specific timeframe covered by the lawsuit.
• £17: The estimated overcharge per individual handset.
• Five weeks: The duration of the trial held in October and November 2025.

Apple and Samsung shift chip strategies

While Qualcomm secured a legal win, its two largest customers are actively working to reduce their reliance on its hardware. Apple has accelerated development of its in-house modem technology to replace Qualcomm’s X-series chips. Recent reports indicate Apple plans to debut its proprietary modem in a new iPhone Air model and other mid-range handsets.

Samsung is pursuing a similar strategy by improving its Exynos System-on-Chip (SoC) lineup. The South Korean company currently uses Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 chips for many of its premium devices. Samsung executives recently confirmed plans to boost Exynos performance to a level that can power future Galaxy S flagships globally.

These shifts suggest that market competition is naturally eroding Qualcomm’s leverage over the industry. The tribunal likely viewed this evolving landscape as evidence that Qualcomm does not hold an unbreakable monopoly. Manufacturers are increasingly capable of designing their own silicon or sourcing components from rivals like MediaTek.

Implications for future consumer litigation

The collapse of the Which? case marks a significant setback for collective action lawsuits against Big Tech in the UK. The "opt-out" collective proceedings regime was designed to make it easier for consumers to hold large corporations accountable. This failure demonstrates the high burden of proof required to link corporate licensing deals to specific retail price increases.

Qualcomm has successfully defended its business model in multiple jurisdictions over the last decade. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission previously lost a similar antitrust case against the company in 2020. Courts consistently find that Qualcomm’s patent licensing practices, while aggressive, do not violate competition laws or harm the public interest.

The UK tribunal’s decision provides a clear precedent for how it will handle complex economic evidence in the future. It emphasizes that dominant market share does not automatically equate to market abuse. For now, Qualcomm retains its position as the primary supplier of high-end mobile connectivity, even as its customers build their own alternatives.

The following factors contributed to the dismissal of the case:

• Negotiation evidence: Internal documents showed Apple and Samsung successfully negotiated lower rates.
• Market evolution: The rise of 5G competitors and in-house silicon reduced Qualcomm's perceived dominance.
• Economic modeling: Which? failed to prove a direct 1:1 pass-through of licensing costs to consumers.
• Patent validity: Qualcomm demonstrated that its 4G and 5G patents are essential to modern mobile standards.

Qualcomm’s victory ensures its current licensing revenue streams remain protected in one of its most important European markets. The company continues to invest billions in R&D for 6G technology and AI-integrated processors. As the mobile industry moves toward the next generation of connectivity, Qualcomm appears to have cleared its largest remaining legal hurdle in the UK.