Quinn, NRF land win as consumer group drops £480m Qualcomm class action

A high-profile £480 million collective action against US chipmaker Qualcomm is set to be withdrawn, marking a notable win for Quinn Emanuel and Norton Rose Fulbright, and a significant moment in the UK’s maturing competition class action regime.

The UK proceedings sought damages on behalf of millions of consumers on the basis that alleged overcharging at the manufacturer level translated into higher retail prices for mobile phones.

Popular consumer group Which?, represented by claimant firm Hausfeld, has agreed to withdraw the proceedings in their entirety, following an agreement with Qualcomm, subject to tribunal approval.

No payment

Under the agreement, Qualcomm will not make any payment to the class representative or to the proposed class. If approved by the tribunal, the decision will conclude the claim.

The case, filed in 2021 under the UK’s collective proceedings framework, was one of the earlier large-scale consumer competition claims to test the regime, backed by litigation funder Augusta Ventures.

The decision by a major consumer organisation to withdraw a claim of this scale, without any payment, highlights both the difficulty of proving complex competition cases at trial and the risks facing class representatives.

Post-trial rethink

Quinn Emanuel, which has acted for Qualcomm throughout the proceedings, said in a statement that the class representative reassessed its position after hearing the evidence and arguments at trial. 

It concluded that the tribunal was unlikely to find that Qualcomm had coerced Apple, its chipset manufacturers or Samsung into accepting patent licences, or that it had used its position as a supplier to impose unfair terms.

On that basis, the representative accepted that the tribunal would not find that Qualcomm’s licensing and chipset practices breached competition law or led to inflated smartphone prices.

Regime reality check

In recent years, the collective proceedings regime has attracted a series of high-profile opt-out competition claims, including Merricks v Mastercard, abuse of dominance claims against Apple and Google, and pricing cases against BT and rail operators.

Many of these claims are backed by litigation funders and brought by approved class representatives on behalf of millions of consumers. While several cases have overcome early hurdles before the Competition Appeal Tribunal, relatively few have yet reached a full trial on the merits.

The Merricks v Mastercard claim, originally valued at more than £14 billion, later resulted in a £200 million settlement, which litigation funder Innsworth Capital unsuccessfully challenged.

Litigation funding model

The litigation funding model has faced uncertainty since the Supreme Court’s 2023 PACCAR ruling, which held that certain litigation funding agreements could be unenforceable. The government has since committed to legislate to reverse the effects of PACCAR, in a move widely seen as aimed at stabilising the class action market.

Advising

Quinn Emanuel and Norton Rose Fulbright acted for Qualcomm. The Quinn team was led by partners Miguel Rato and Marixenia Davilla. The NRF team included UK partners Caroline Thomas, Helen Fairhead and Nuala Canavan, as well as US partner Rich Zembek.

Hausfeld acted for Which? led by managing partner Nicola Boyle, and was supported by a counsel team at Monckton Chambers including Jon Turner, Anneli Howard, Michael Armitage and Ciar McAndrew. 

Update: This article was updated to include the NRF team members that advised on the case.