FTC Abandons Antitrust Lawsuit Against Qualcomm - MacRumors
Skip to Content

FTC Abandons Antitrust Lawsuit Against Qualcomm

The United States Federal Trade Commission is abandoning its antitrust lawsuit against Qualcomm, reports Bloomberg. The FTC will not seek a Supreme Court review of a 2020 federal appeals court decision that determined that Qualcomm's licensing practices are fair and not anticompetitive.

qualcomm iphone xs
In a statement, FTC chairwoman Rebecca Kelly Slaughter said that the FTC's conclusion that Qualcomm violated antitrust laws was correct, but the agency is facing "significant headwinds" attempting to get the appeals court ruling overturned.

"Given the significant headwinds facing the Commission in this matter, the FTC will not petition the Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in FTC v. Qualcomm. The FTC's staff did an exceptional job presenting the case, and I continue to believe that the district court's conclusion that Qualcomm violated the antitrust laws was entirely correct and that the court of appeals erred in concluding otherwise. Now more than ever, the FTC and other law enforcement agencies need to boldly enforce the antitrust laws to guard against abusive behavior by dominant firms, including in high-technology markets and those that involve intellectual property. I am particularly concerned about the potential for anticompetitive or unfair behavior in the context of standard setting and the FTC will closely monitor conduct in this arena."

The FTC originally sued Qualcomm in 2017, accusing the company of using anticompetitive tactics to remain the main supplier for baseband processors for smartphones.

In May 2019, the FTC initially won its lawsuit against Qualcomm, with Judge Lucy Koh ordering Qualcomm to renegotiate all licensing terms with its customers and make patent licenses available to rival cellular modem suppliers on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory or "FRAND" terms. Qualcomm was also told not to enter exclusive agreements for the supply of modem chips.

Qualcomm appealed the ruling and in 2020, scored a major victory. The appeals court overturned Judge Koh's decision, and vacated the order mandating that Qualcomm re-establish all of its licensing deals.

The appeals court said that Koh's ruling went "beyond the scope" of antitrust law and that Qualcomm's licensing practices were not anticompetitive because Qualcomm is "under no antitrust duty to license rival chip suppliers."

With the FTC not planning to further pursue the case after the appeals court ruling, the four-year antitrust legal battle that Qualcomm has been facing is effectively over.

The FTC's lawsuit ran concurrent with the now-resolved legal dispute between Apple and Qualcomm. Apple accused Qualcomm of unfair licensing deals and overcharging for the iPhone components that it supplied to Apple, but Apple dropped the case and reached a settlement with Qualcomm in 2019 after it became clear there were no other options for 5G modems for use in 2020 iPhones.

Apple had planned to use Intel chips, but Intel was not able to produce the chips that Apple needed and ultimately sold its modem business to Apple for $1 billion. Apple plans to use Qualcomm chips for the next few iPhones, but the company is working on manufacturing its own modem chips in house for future devices.

Popular Stories

AirPods Max 2 Feature

Apple Announces AirPods Max 2 With H2 Chip and More

Monday March 16, 2026 6:12 am PDT by
Apple today unveiled AirPods Max 2, with key upgrades including the H2 chip, increased active noise cancellation, improved sound quality, and features such as Adaptive Audio, Conversation Awareness, Voice Isolation, and Live Translation. The new AirPods Max have the same overall design as the previous generation, with most of the new features coming from the upgrade to the H2 chip:- Adaptive ...
iPhone 18 Pro Deep Red Feature

iPhone 18 Pro Launching Later This Year With These 12 New Features

Wednesday March 18, 2026 7:39 am PDT by
While the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max are not expected to launch for another six months or so, there are already plenty of rumors about the devices. It was initially reported that the iPhone 18 Pro models would have fully under-screen Face ID, with only a front camera visible in the top-left corner of the screen. However, the latest rumors indicate that only one Face ID component...
Apple Logo Sketch Feature

Apple Unveiled a Surprise New Product Today

Monday March 16, 2026 10:50 am PDT by
Surprise! Apple today unveiled the AirPods Max 2, despite no rumors suggesting that a new version of Apple's over-ear headphones were imminent. Key upgrades compared to the previous AirPods Max include Apple's H2 chip, increased active noise cancellation, improved sound quality, and features such as Adaptive Audio, Conversation Awareness, Voice Isolation, and Live Translation. AirPods Max ...

Top Rated Comments

GeoStructural Avatar
65 months ago
Remember when Apple pulled an Epic on Qualcomm and deliberately broke their licensing agreement unilaterally for considering it unfair... something for you to think about. At the end it was the user who lost by having to settle for lower quality modems.
Score: 13 Votes (Like | Disagree)
PinkyMacGodess Avatar
65 months ago
This is disappointing... Is the FTC in need of some teeth?
Score: 10 Votes (Like | Disagree)
65 months ago
I think the reason apple removed the headphones and charging adapter from the box is to make more money. They know the vast majority of us will buy the iPhone anyway, and pay extra for the accessories.
Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
hot-gril Avatar
65 months ago

I know it’s cynical, but I think the reason apple removed the headphones and charging adapter from the box is to offset their settlement with Qualcomm. Yeah, I know correlation doesn’t equal causation but Qualcomm chips show back up in iPhones and the accessories diminish to just a cable.
Qualcomm settlement or not, Apple will want to make more money if there's a way.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
65 months ago

I think the reason apple removed the headphones and charging adapter from the box is to make more money. They know the vast majority of us will buy the iPhone anyway, and pay extra for the accessories.
There's a difference between making more money and saving more money. Apple could be losing customers by not including conveniences that were once included in the box. But they are definitely saving money by not including them and hopefully putting that money towards tech that most customers care more about. I have a drawer full of chargers and EarPods so I'm happy to pay the same price for my next iPhone in exchange for something other than that junk.
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
65 months ago
My opinion, but Qualcomm should’ve gotten tagged with a Sherman act violation. The FTC would’ve won at least a portion of their argument before the Supreme Court. I can only imagine the amount of political lobbying involved and death threats heaped upon the FTC.

The problem isn’t that Qualcomm is smart or successful or even the best at what they do. I wholeheartedly agree that they are super-smart and entitled to the profit of their labor. However, they are using their patents and market position to squeeze every last dollar out of their licensees. They also charge based on the final sale price of the device, so the same modem or license for a $1300 phone costs more money than a $700 phone. The customer is being taxed additional money by Qualcomm, with no additional features, simply because the end-user can afford it. This is not a Qualcomm/Apple spat - Qualcomm is doing this to everyone.

Someone joked about chargers disappearing because the modem costs went up, but that’s exactly what happened. Apple will only absorb so much cost before it gets passed to the consumer. The result: Apple’s elimination of the charging blocks was spun as some kind of tree-hugging gesture and Qualcomm recorded record profits after the launch of 5G iPhones. ('https://www.marketwatch.com/story/qualcomm-stock-surges-as-results-outlook-top-street-on-5g-strength-11604525351')
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)