Qualcomm now facing EU anti-trust charges as well

by: Andrew GrushDecember 8, 2015


Over the years, more than one American based company (and plenty of European ones, too) have come under fire in the EU for violation of antitrust law with famous examples including Microsoft and, more recently, Google. Now Qualcomm is facing a few problems of its own as European regulators have accused the chip giant of bribery and other anti-competitive practices.

According to the European Commission, they have reason to believe that Qualcomm is guilty of illegally paying a large sum of cash to an unnamed “major customer” in order to convince them to exclusively use Qualcomm chip. In addition, Qualcomm is said to have purposely sold many of its chips at under cost with the sole aim of forcing smaller European competitor Icera out of business – a company that has since been purchased by NVIDIA.

Bottom-line, the EU says that Qualcomm’s practices gave them an unfair advantage over their competition. If found guilty, Qualcomm could be facing some hefty fines, though the exact sum is hard to guess at this point. Qualcomm has until April to respond to the charges.

What do you think, regardless of the EU’s antitrust laws that are in place, how do you feel about a competitor using exclusivity deals and below-cost pricing in order to create problems for less financially solid competitors? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

  • Tom Bennett

    it shows a distinct lack of confidence in their own device when any company resorts to these kind of practices.

    • Like Antonio responded I am taken by
      surprise that a stay at home mom able to make $5849 in a few weeks on the
      internet. have a peek at this website on my profIle



  • Luka Mlinar

    I find it strange that they need to do this. They are the only open source chip maker out there and based on that alone they will always hold a monopoly over the market.

  • 1213 1213

    Exclusivity is normal in contracts isn’t it? But I guess the word bribe implies that individuals were bribed? Doesn’t make sense to me otherwise.

    Quite a shame this only happens to QC after they are starting to be threatened by companies like Samsung and Huawei. Sounds like they were doing what they could to retain their monopoly, which isn’t good for competition and wouldn’t be good for consumers either.

  • andrewhahalee

    How about companies paying for ads? Does it give well off companies an unfair advantage in reaching consumers, as compared to companies with lower capital?


    In term of business it’s called monopoly