No more qualms for Qualcomm as CAT approves ‘drop hands’ settlement

12/06/26

On 10 June 2026, the Competition Appeal Tribunal published its judgment approving the first-ever ‘drop hands’ settlement of opt-out collective proceedings, in Consumers' Association v Qualcomm [2026] CAT 50.

In February 2021, the Consumers' Association, commonly known as ‘Which?’, brought ‘opt-out’ collective proceedings against Qualcomm on behalf of an estimated 29 million consumers who had purchased Apple or Samsung 4G smartphones in the UK. The claim was estimated to be worth around £480 million. Which? alleged that Qualcomm had leveraged its dominance in the supply of chipsets to smartphone manufacturers into the licensing of its patents, so as to charge inflated royalties for the use of Qualcomm’s patents. In turn, so Which? alleged, those inflated royalties were passed on to consumers of 4G iPhones and Galaxy smartphones in the UK. Following a five-week trial in October and November 2025, Which? and Qualcomm jointly applied to the Tribunal in February 2026 for approval of a 'drop hands' settlement, in which the proceedings would end with no admission of liability or fault, Qualcomm would make no payment, and each party would bear its own costs. The parties revised the proposed settlement agreement to address the Tribunal's concerns about the breadth of certain terms.

Having considered the parties' pleadings, extracts from the expert evidence adduced at trial and the parties' written submissions from trial, the Tribunal concluded that Which?’s claim “no longer had a realistic prospect of success” following trial. The Tribunal estimated those prospects of success (including on appeal) at “between 10-15%”. The limited prospects of success were a central factor in the Tribunal’s determination that the proposed settlement was just and reasonable.

The Tribunal was satisfied that Qualcomm’s 'drop hands' settlement offer was a fair one, and that it was reasonable for the CR to accept it in the interests of the class members and other stakeholders, including the ATE insurers, who appeared to benefit from the proposed settlement. The Tribunal recognised that class members would receive no monetary recovery, but the Tribunal’s assessment was that, had the case proceeded to judgment, the outcome would have been no better.

The Tribunal’s judgment is available here.