Qualcomm’s Legal Battle with Apple Concludes in UK: Double-Dipping iPhone Lawsuit Resolved

In a Seinfeld episode titled “The Implant” (February 5, 1993), George Costanza faced accusations of double-dipping his chip, sparking a debate over chip-dipping etiquette. Similarly, chipmaker Qualcomm found itself embroiled in a legal battle over its licensing practices, mirroring the chip-dipping controversy.

The lawsuit, which spanned several years in UK courts, centered on Qualcomm’s pricing of modems supplied to Apple for use in iPhones. The consumer group that initiated the case, “Which?”, sought damages for artificially inflated prices on iPhone modems, ultimately deciding to end the legal proceedings.

“Which?” had initially sought over 480 million pounds in damages to compensate 29 million UK customers who had purchased Apple or Samsung devices. The crux of the issue was Qualcomm’s alleged practice of charging Apple twice for each chip: once for the physical chips and again for a patent license granting the right to use the chip technology, leading to the “double-dipping” accusation.

Furthermore, Qualcomm was accused of charging companies irrespective of whether the chips were actually utilized in the devices. The lawsuit contended that Qualcomm’s actions resulted in increased costs for consumers purchasing Apple and Samsung smartphones.

The legal battle, initiated in 2021, alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully inflated prices for 4G modems through its double-dipping methods. “Which?” sought damages of £17 for each affected device, claiming that consumers bore the brunt of Qualcomm’s pricing practices.

Qualcomm refuted the allegations, asserting that the lawsuit mischaracterized the standard requirement for manufacturers to obtain licenses for essential patents alongside purchasing chipsets.

Following a trial in October and November 2025, the Competition Appeal Tribunal had yet to issue a ruling. However, “Which?” recently announced the withdrawal of the lawsuit after reaching an agreement with Qualcomm. While the specific terms of the agreement remain undisclosed, Qualcomm will not be obligated to make any payments to the claimant class.

The consumer group stated that Qualcomm was not found to have coerced Apple or Samsung into binding agreements, and the tribunal determined that Qualcomm’s practices did not violate competition laws or lead to inflated royalties or consumer prices.

A Qualcomm spokesperson emphasized that the recognition by the class representative reaffirmed the lawfulness of Qualcomm’s licensing practices, as upheld by US courts. With the emergence of Apple’s in-house designed C-series modem chips, the disputes over licensing agreements are gradually subsiding, marking a shift towards more balanced deals and reduced dependence on external suppliers like Qualcomm.