Skip to Content

FTC Wins Antitrust Lawsuit Against Qualcomm [Updated]

The FTC today won its antitrust lawsuit against Qualcomm over the chipmaker's anticompetitive business practices.

qualcommx55
As first reported by legal expert Florian Mueller on his blog FOSS Patents, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh has ruled that Qualcomm's so-called "no license, no chips" model, under which the chipmaker has refused to provide chips to companies without a patent license, violates federal antitrust laws.

The ruling has significant implications for Apple, as Koh ordered that Qualcomm must negotiate or renegotiate license terms with its customers in good faith without threatening to cut off access to its cellular modem chips or related software and technical support, according to Mueller.

Qualcomm also must make patent licenses available to rival cellular modem suppliers on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory or "FRAND" terms, and may not enter exclusive agreements for the supply of modem chips.

Apple sued Qualcomm in early 2017 over these anticompetitive business practices, and unpaid royalty rebates, but the two companies announced an agreement to end all ongoing litigation worldwide last month. The settlement includes a six-year licensing agreement and a multiyear chipset supply agreement.

It's unclear if Apple had any hint that the FTC was likely to win its antitrust case and if that had any implications on its settlement with Qualcomm.

While it appears that Intel will remain the sole supplier of LTE modems in 2019 iPhones, Qualcomm is expected to supply Apple with its industry-leading 5G modems for 2020 iPhones now that the companies have settled, so Koh's ruling could lead to a fairer agreement between Apple and Qualcomm moving forward.

Farther down the road, multiple reports have indicated that Apple is designing its own cellular modems that would allow it to drop Qualcomm for good, although they might not appear in iPhones until as late as 2025.

Qualcomm will likely appeal the ruling, but Mueller believes the chipmaker faces an uphill battle given "such a rich and powerful body of evidence" regarding its anticompetitive business practices. Mueller has excellent, in-depth coverage of Koh's ruling on his blog FOSS Patents that is well worth a read.


Update: Qualcomm has announced that it will immediately seek a stay of the ruling and an expedited appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

"We strongly disagree with the judge's conclusions, her interpretation of the facts and her application of the law," said Don Rosenberg, general counsel of Qualcomm, in a statement shared by the Washington Post's Hamza Shaban.

Update 2: The ruling will not affect last month's settlement between Apple and Qualcomm, according to Bloomberg. "There are no provisions in the deal between Apple and Qualcomm that allowed for a reversal or change in the event the FTC won its case against the chipmaker," the report claims, citing a source.

Koh's complete ruling is embedded ahead.

Popular Stories

MacBook Neo Feature Pastel 1

First MacBook Neo Benchmarks Are In: Here's How It Compares to the M1 MacBook Air

Thursday March 5, 2026 4:07 pm PST by
Benchmarks for the new MacBook Neo surfaced today, and unsurprisingly, CPU performance is almost identical to the iPhone 16 Pro. The MacBook Neo uses the same 6-core A18 Pro chip that was first introduced in the iPhone 16 Pro, but it has one fewer GPU core. The MacBook Neo earned a single-core score of 3461 and a multi-core score of 8668, along with a Metal score of 31286. Here's how the...
HomePod mini and Apple TV Sage

New Apple TV and HomePod Mini Are Still Missing, Here's Why

Thursday March 5, 2026 6:11 am PST by
Apple this week unveiled seven products, ranging from the iPhone 17e to the MacBook Neo, but new Apple TV and HomePod mini models were not among them. Given that there have been rumors about the next-generation Apple TV and HomePod mini since all the way back in late 2024, some customers are wondering why the devices have yet to launch, and the answer likely relates to Siri. In September, ...
imac video apple feature

Apple Unveils Seven New Products

Friday March 6, 2026 11:48 am PST by
Apple this week unveiled seven products, including an iPhone 17e, an iPad Air with the M4 chip, updated MacBook Air and MacBook Pro models, a new Studio Display, a higher-end Studio Display XDR, and an all-new MacBook Neo that starts at just $599. iPhone 17e features the same overall design as the iPhone 16e, but it gains Apple's A19 chip, MagSafe for magnetic wireless charging and magnetic...

Top Rated Comments

cmaier Avatar
89 months ago
How many times have I explained on here that this was the correct result under the law? And how many times was I called an apple fanboy by armchair lawyers merely for pointing out the Supreme Court precedent that required this result?
Score: 33 Votes (Like | Disagree)
macduke Avatar
89 months ago
I’ve been arguing the FRAND angle for some time. When your patents are necessary for standards, you have to follow FRAND guidelines.

The license angle was murkier, but always seemed unreasonable to not only sell your product to a user, but to also charge them again just to use it.

Then why did Apple settle so soon...?
So they could get a good deal, and then Qualcomm would be forced to give them an even better deal? Apple is pretty good at stuff like this so I wouldn’t put it past them.
[doublepost=1558528971][/doublepost]
How was it a smart move? Wouldn't the terms that Apple and Qualcomm settled with disqualify any renegotiating of licensing or royalties for the next 6 years?
I think you completely missed this part of the article:

The ruling has significant implications for Apple, as Koh ordered that Qualcomm must negotiate or renegotiate license terms with its customers in good faith without threatening to cut off access to its cellular modem chips or related software and technical support, according to Mueller.
Score: 16 Votes (Like | Disagree)
89 months ago
Then why did Apple settle so soon...?
Because Apple got terms they liked. Likely far better than people here speculated they got when so many claimed Apple “lost.”
Score: 9 Votes (Like | Disagree)
realtuner Avatar
89 months ago
How many times have I explained on here that this was the correct result under the law? And how many times was I called an apple fanboy by armchair lawyers merely for pointing out the Supreme Court precedent that required this result?
If I had a nickel....

Of course this was the correct result. I don’t know how people could support Qualcomms position in this. They literally lost every single antitrust case brought against them (5 before the FTC case) regarding their modem licensing practices. And people thought maybe they’d finally win one?
Score: 9 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Hazmat401 Avatar
89 months ago
Looks like Apple had the inside scoop on how the FTC was going to rule

Apple wanting the best components for the 2020 iPhone didn’t want to sue Qualcomm into oblivion without having a viable alternative to 5G chips

This was a smart chess move
Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Gutwrench Avatar
89 months ago
Hey, everybody - should I tell him?
I just burned another 50 calories rolling my eyes. Two more posts about your awesomeness and I can have a soda.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)