DRAM Manufacturers

DEFENDANT NAME: DRAM Manufacturers
STOCK SYMBOL:
CASE NUMBER: 02-CV-01486
CASE NAME:
COURT: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
PRACTICE AREA: Antitrust Litigation
STATUS: Settled
CLASS PERIOD:
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE:
DATE FILED: 07/11/02
COURT LOCATION:

Case Settled

The case settled for $300 million in 2006. Download the settlement document.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a proposed class-action suit against the leading DRAM (Dynamic Random Access Memory) manufacturers, claiming the companies secretly agreed to reduce the supply of DRAM in order to artificially raise prices. 

DRAM is a necessary component in a wide variety of electronics including personal computers, cellular telephones, digital cameras and many other devices. DRAM allows for the storage and retrieval of electronic data. 

According to the complaint, DRAM is estimated to be a $20 billion a year business and the top six manufacturers control a vast majority of the market. 

According to the complaint, beginning in 1999 the price for DRAM began falling dramatically, dipping below the cost of production. Then, in September 2001, DRAM prices spiked and by February 2002 reached as high as $4.50, the complaint states. 

Plaintiffs include equipment manufacturers, franchise distributors, and smaller-volume customers who purchased DRAM through any of the named defendants from April 1, 1999 through June 30, 2002, as well as consumers who purchased DRAM from the defendants.


Hagens Berman purchases advertisements on search engines, social media sites and other websites. Transmission of the information contained or available through this website is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you seek legal advice or representation by Hagens Berman, you must first enter a formal agreement. All information contained in any transmission is confidential and Hagens Berman agrees to protect information against unauthorized use, publication or disclosure. This site is regulated by the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct.

Back to all cases

Case videos

Case Gallery

Case Timeline

02/24/06: Case Settled

The case settled for $300 million in 2006. Download the settlement document.