Millions of Apple iPhone and Samsung Galaxy owners could be owed a payout, thanks to a new class action legal claim. Leading the charge on this front is consumer champions Which?, who said millions of people who purchased an iPhone or Samsung Galaxy devices since 2015 could have been overcharged for their phones. Depending on the number and type of phones consumers bought during this period they could be due a payout of between £5 and £30.
The legal action claims leading chip maker Qualcomm used its market position to charge smartphone makers “inflated fees to use its technology”, which then led to higher prices for phones.
If the legal action is successful, Qualcomm could have to pay compensation in total of around £480million.
And anyone that is affected will automatically be included in the claim unless they notify Which? that they don’t want to be part of it.
If you want to get all the latest details on the claim you can head to a dedicated Which? website on it, click here to be directed to the page.
This week a judgement by the Competition Appeal Tribunal meant Which? could move forward with its collective legal action against Qualcomm.
Speaking in the aftermath of this, Anabel Hoult, the Which? chief executive said: “We’re delighted to have secured this great result for consumers, bringing them a step closer to the nearly £500 million that we believe they are owed by Qualcomm.
“If Qualcomm has abused its market power it must be held to account. This judgment ensures that it can be. Which? brought this claim on behalf of millions of affected UK consumers, as it would not have been realistic for people to seek damages from the company on an individual basis. That’s why it’s so important that consumers can come together and claim the redress they are entitled to.
“We now urge everyone who thinks they may be affected to visit www.smartphoneclaim.co.uk to find out more about the claim and sign up for campaign updates.”
While in a statement Qualcomm added: “We disagree with today’s ruling, though it is strictly procedural and in no way supportive of the plaintiff’s meritless assertions. The claims here recycle allegations in an old case brought by the Federal Trade Commission in the U.S., which Qualcomm won. The theories seen here were discredited two years ago by a unanimous panel of judges at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the U.S.”
if(typeof utag_data.ads.fb_pixel!==”undefined”&&utag_data.ads.fb_pixel==!0){!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window,document,’script’,’https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’);fbq(‘init’,’568781449942811′);fbq(‘track’,’PageView’)}
