Summary of Key Points
American consumers and sellers have filed lawsuits against three major memory manufacturers—Micron, Samsung, and Hynix—alleging market monopolization. They accuse these companies of colluding to reduce production of traditional memory types (such as DDR4) and driving up prices by 700% over the past four years. Behind this monopoly are not only the concerted actions of the three giants but also U.S. sanctions against Chinese memory companies (such as ChangXin Memory and Fujian Jinhua), which have created a lack of new competitors in the market. Micron is even pushing for more stringent sanctions to solidify its monopolistic position. Chinese users and businesses can protect their interests under China’s Anti-Monopoly Law, and U.S. sanctions against Micron can be countered using China’s Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law.
I. The Core of the U.S. Litigation: How Did the Three Giants Collude to Raise Prices?
These three companies control 90% of the global memory market and are accused of forming a “price cartel.” They used the pretext of AI’s demand for high-bandwidth memory (HBM) to simultaneously reduce production of traditional memory types (DDR3, DDR4, etc.). However, HBM is actually less profitable than traditional memory. Under normal circumstances, companies would not abandon higher-profiting businesses unless all three agreed to cut production, artificially creating a shortage. As a result, prices for traditional memory have increased by 700% over four years (with contract prices nearly tripling and retail prices doubling).
More importantly, these companies have a history of monopolistic behavior: In early 2000, they were sued by the U.S. Department of Justice for manipulating memory prices, with Samsung fined $300 million and Hynix fined $185 million; Micron was exempted from punishment due to reporting its competitors. This time, their actions were even more concealed: they coordinated production cuts, shifted capacity to HBM, locked in production for the “Star Gate” project, and managed orders together, even publicly showing a consensus during financial conference calls to prioritize profit distribution over expansion, gradually driving up prices.
II. The Invisible Force Behind the Price Increases: U.S. Sanctions Preventing New Competitors
The memory industry is inherently difficult to enter; building factories requires investments of $15-20 billion, and reaching competitive scale demands another $300-500 billion. Core equipment (such as ASML’s EUV lithography machines) is reserved by the giants for long periods, with new companies waiting in line for years. Technological development takes 5-10 years, and supply chain certification takes more than a year.
ChangXin Memory of China had the potential to become the fourth-largest supplier, but U.S. sanctions in 2022-2023 prevented it from obtaining essential equipment like EUV lithography machines and EDA software, disrupting its advanced memory production plans. Without new competitors entering the market, the three giants felt confident in raising prices, knowing no one could challenge their dominance.
III. Micron’s Strategic Moves: Pushing for Stricter Sanctions to Consolidate Monopoly
Micron not only benefits from U.S. sanctions against China but is also actively contributing to them by advocating for the passage of the Hardware Technology Control Multilateral Coordination Act (MATCH Act). This act expands the scope of sanctions to include DUV lithography machines (produced by ASML, which contain U.S. technology), even preventing ASML from repairing equipment for Chinese customers.
This move reflects Micron’s personal grudges: In 2017, Micron accused Fujian Jinhua of stealing technology, leading to Jinhua being added to the U.S. Entity List and disrupting its production lines. Now, Micron aims to use stricter sanctions to completely suppress Chinese memory companies and further strengthen its monopolistic position.
IV. Can Chinese Users and Businesses Protect Their Rights? — The Anti-Monopoly Law Applies to Overseas Monopolies
Absolutely! China’s Anti-Monopoly Law stipulates that overseas monopolistic practices affecting the Chinese market are subject to this law. With these three companies controlling 90% of the market, they clearly hold a dominant position. Their coordinated production cuts and price hikes constitute “horizontal monopoly agreements” (collaborative efforts to limit output) and “abuse of market dominance” (charging high prices and refusing to supply). Chinese computer manufacturers, smartphone manufacturers, cloud service providers, and even individual consumers can file complaints with anti-monopoly authorities or directly seek legal action for compensation.
V. Countering Micron’s Influence: How to Use the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law?
If the MATCH Act passes, it will indirectly involve Micron in discriminatory sanctions against China. Under China’s Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, China can add Micron to a list of targeted entities and prohibit domestic companies from doing business with it.
Micron has already seen its sales in China plummet due to cybersecurity regulations; if it faces further sanctions, it could lose this massive market, which would be a significant blow to the company.
In summary, Chinese businesses and users are not at the mercy of these monopolists. Using China’s Anti-Monopoly Law and Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law is the strongest response to their actions.