Qualcomm Slapped With $272M Antitrust Fine by European Commission
The ruling marks the second time European regulators have fined Qualcomm: Last year the company was ordered to pay $1.1 billion for illegally attempting to thwart rivals.
July 18, 2019 at 02:55 PM
3 minute read
Qualcomm was fined €242 million ($272 million) on Thursday by European Union antitrust regulators, for predatory pricing in the chipset market. The European Commission found that the company sold its products below cost in order to drive a competitor out of the market.
The ruling marks the second time European regulators have fined Qualcomm. Last year, the company was ordered to pay €997 million ($1.1 billion) for paying Apple to use only its chips in iPhones – a tactic aimed at thwarting rivals.
Thursday's fine was 1.27% of Qualcomm's revenue last year and "aimed at deterring market players" from trying the same thing, the EU said.
Margrethe Vestager, the EU's antitrust chief, said in a statement that Qualcomm sold chipsets, which are key components that enable mobile devices to connect to the internet, below cost to key customers, with the intention of eliminating a competitor.
"Qualcomm's strategic behaviour prevented competition and innovation in this market, and limited the choice available to consumers in a sector with huge demand and potential for innovative technologies," she said.
Qualcomm said it would appeal the Commission's decision. "On appeal, we will expose the meritless nature of this decision," Qualcomm executive vice-president and general counsel Don Rosenberg said in a statement.
The Commission found that Qualcomm abused its dominant position in the market for 3G baseband chipsets, by selling some of its products below the cost of production to handset makers Huawei and ZTE. Qualcomm did this in order to eliminate Icera, its main rival in that market segment, the Commission said.
The investigation found that Qualcomm's market share of the baseband chipset market was approximately 60% – almost three times that of its biggest competitor.
Based on a price-cost test and a range of evidence about the state of the market, the Commission concluded that Qualcomm's action had been targeted to maximise the impact on Icera's business while minimising the effect on its own revenues.
This prevented Icera from competing in the market, stifled innovation and ultimately reduced choice for consumers, the Commission said.
In May 2011, Icera was acquired by U.S. tech company Nvidia, which decided to wind down its baseband chipset business line in 2015.
Qualcomm's Rosenberg said in the company's statement that the Commission's decision was "unsupported by the law, economic principles or market facts". He said the company expects the decision to be reversed on appeal.
The two customers the Commission investigated said they favoured Qualcomm's chips "not because of price but because rival chipsets were technologically inferior", he said, adding that the decision was based on a "novel theory of alleged below-cost pricing over a very short time period and for a very small volume of chips".
"There is no precedent for this theory, which is inconsistent with well-developed economic analysis of cost recovery, as well as Commission practice," Rosenberg said.
In 2009, the Commission also fined chipmaker Intel for anti-competitive practices in the chipset market. The biggest ever antitrust fine imposed by the Commission was a €2.4 billion ($2.7 billion) sanction levied on Google in 2017 for favouring its Google Shopping service in online search results.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJones Day, BCLP & Other Major Firms Boost European Teams with Key Partner Hires
4 minute read$13.8 Billion Magomedov Claim Thrown Out by UK High Court
Trending Stories
- 1South Florida Attorney Charged With Aggravated Battery After Incident in Prime Rib Line
- 2'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 3Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 4‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 5State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250