Editing Intel (section)

===Antitrust allegations and litigation (2005–2023)===
{{Main|High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation}}
{{See also|AMD v. Intel}}

In September 2005, Intel filed a response to an AMD lawsuit,<ref name="Intel response September 1, 2005">{{cite news|title=Intel Files Response To AMD Complaint |date=September 1, 2005 |url=http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050901corp.htm |publisher=Intel Corporation (Press release) |access-date=July 28, 2007 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060624004033/http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050901corp.htm |archive-date=June 24, 2006}}</ref> disputing AMD's claims, and claiming that Intel's business practices are fair and lawful. In a rebuttal, Intel deconstructed AMD's offensive strategy and argued that AMD struggled largely as a result of its own bad business decisions, including underinvestment in essential manufacturing capacity and excessive reliance on contracting out chip foundries.<ref name="Forbes September 2, 2005">{{cite news|first=David |last=Whelan |title=Intel's Legal Strategy Takes Shape |date=September 2, 2005 |url=https://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/09/02/intel-amd-antitrust-cz_dw_0902intel.html |work=Forbes |access-date=July 28, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051001170040/http://forbes.com/technology/2005/09/02/intel-amd-antitrust-cz_dw_0902intel.html |archive-date=October 1, 2005 }}</ref> Legal analysts predicted the lawsuit would drag on for a number of years, since Intel's initial response indicated its unwillingness to settle with AMD.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/AMD_Intel_Battle.pdf |title=AMD, Intel Battle Wages On As EU Decision Nears |access-date=January 7, 2008 |date=March 20, 2006 |work=AMD |publisher=Portfolio Media, Inc |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080216022410/http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/AMD_Intel_Battle.pdf |archive-date=February 16, 2008}}</ref><ref name="InfoWorld September 1, 2005">{{cite news|first=Tom |last=Krazit |title=Update: Intel issues formal response to AMD's antitrust lawsuit |date=September 1, 2005 |publisher=IDG News Service |url=http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/09/01/HNintelresponse_1.html |work=infoworld.com |access-date=January 7, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080201175017/http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/09/01/HNintelresponse_1.html |archive-date=February 1, 2008 }}</ref> In 2008, a court date was finally set.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Intel, AMD Lawsuit Pushed Off to 2010|url=http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Desktops-and-Notebooks/Intel-AMD-Lawsuit-Pushed-Off-to-2010/|magazine=[[eWeek]]|access-date=June 12, 2008}}</ref><ref name="settled">{{cite web |last=Shankland |first=Stephen |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10396798-38.html |title=What Intel just bought for $1.25&nbsp;billion: Less risk |publisher=CNET News |date=November 12, 2009 |access-date=July 29, 2010 |archive-date=August 15, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120815170319/http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10396798-38.html |url-status=dead }}</ref>

On November 4, 2009, New York's attorney general filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel Corp, claiming the company used "illegal threats and collusion" to dominate the market for computer microprocessors.

On November 12, 2009, AMD agreed to drop the antitrust lawsuit against Intel in exchange for $1.25&nbsp;billion.<ref name="settled" /> A joint press release published by the two chip makers stated "While the relationship between the two companies has been difficult in the past, this agreement ends the legal disputes and enables the companies to focus all of our efforts on product innovation and development."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/2009/20091112corp_a.htm?cid=rss-90004-c1-245235 |title=AMD and Intel Announce Settlement of All Antitrust and IP Disputes |publisher=Intel Corporation |access-date=July 29, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/amd-press-release-2009nov12.aspx |title=AMD and Intel Announce Settlement of All Antitrust and IP Disputes |publisher=Amd.com |access-date=July 29, 2010}}</ref>

An antitrust lawsuit<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/billsinger/2012/11/19/after-apple-google-adobe-pixar-google-and-intuit-antitrust-employment-charges-hit-ebay/|title=After Apple, Google, Adobe, Intel, Pixar, And Intuit, Antitrust Employment Charges Hit eBay|author=Bill Singer|date=November 19, 2012|work=Forbes}}</ref> and a class-action suit relating to [[cold calling]] employees of other companies has been settled.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/apple-google-agree-to-settle-lawsuit-alleging-hiring-salary-conspiracy/2014/04/24/56f1bb32-cbff-11e3-95f7-7ecdde72d2ea_story.html?tid=hpModule_a2e19bf4-86a3-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394|title=Apple, Google agree to settle lawsuit alleging hiring, salary conspiracy|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | first=Dan|last=Levine|date=April 24, 2014}}</ref>

====Allegations by Japan Fair Trade Commission (2005)====
In 2005, the local [[Fair Trade Commission (Japan)|Fair Trade Commission]] found that Intel violated the [[Antimonopoly Act (Japan)|Japanese Antimonopoly Act]]. The commission ordered Intel to eliminate discounts that had discriminated against AMD. To avoid a trial, Intel agreed to comply with the order.<ref>{{cite news|title=EU files new competition charges against Intel |url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUKL1730607220080718?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0 |work=Reuters |date=July 17, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216122419/http://uk.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUKL1730607220080718?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0 |archive-date=December 16, 2008}}</ref><ref>[http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/europe-files-more-antitrust-complaints/story.aspx?guid={6B204911-970B-468B-9E40-09787DDB4345}&dist=msr_4 Europe files more antitrust complaints against Intel – MarketWatch]. Marketwatch (July 17, 2008). Retrieved July 8, 2011.</ref><ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/20/business/wbjoe21.php Predatory pricing or old-fashioned competition? –]. International Herald Tribune (March 29, 2009). Retrieved July 8, 2011.</ref><ref>[http://news.cnet.com/Intel-to-abide-by-Japan-FTC-recommendations/2100-1014_3-5649589.html "Intel to abide by Japan FTC recommendations"]. CNET News. Retrieved July 8, 2011.</ref>

====Allegations by regulators in South Korea (2007)====
In September 2007, South Korean regulators accused Intel of breaking antitrust law. The investigation began in February 2006, when officials raided Intel's South Korean offices. The company risked a penalty of up to 3% of its annual sales if found guilty.<ref name="iht September 11, 2007">{{cite news|title=Intel facing antitrust complaint in Korea |date=September 11, 2007 |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/business/worldbusiness/11iht-chip.4.7467980.html?_r=0 |access-date=November 21, 2015}}</ref> In June 2008, the Fair Trade Commission ordered Intel to pay a fine of US$25.5&nbsp;million for taking advantage of its dominant position to offer incentives to major Korean PC manufacturers on the condition of not buying products from AMD.<ref name="MarketWatch June 5, 2008">{{cite news|first=Benjamin |last=Pimentel|title=Intel fined $25.5&nbsp;million by South Korea |date=June 5, 2008 |publisher=[[MarketWatch]] |url=http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/intel-fined-255-million-south/story.aspx?guid={5E548C55-0A59-47BA-8910-96F61A8C23E0}&dist=msr_2 |work=marketwatch.com |access-date=July 5, 2008}}</ref>

====Allegations by regulators in the United States (2008–2010)====
New York started an investigation of Intel in January 2008 on whether the company violated antitrust laws in pricing and sales of its microprocessors.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/technology/10cnd-chip.html|work=[[The New York Times]]|title=Intel Gets New York Subpoena in Antitrust Inquiry|first=Nicholas|last=Confessore|date=January 10, 2008|access-date=May 5, 2010}}</ref> In June 2008, the [[Federal Trade Commission]] also began an antitrust investigation of the case.<ref>{{Cite news|title=In Turnabout, Antitrust Unit Looks at Intel|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/technology/07chip.html|work=The New York Times|date=June 7, 2008|access-date=December 31, 2008 | first=Stephen | last=Labaton}}</ref> In December 2009, the FTC announced it would initiate an administrative proceeding against Intel in September 2010.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ftc.gov/opa/2009/12/intel.shtm |title=FTC Challenges Intel's Dominance of Worldwide Microprocessor Markets |publisher=Ftc.gov |date=December 16, 2009 |access-date=July 29, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091217-712217.html|date=December 17, 2009 |title=FTC's Intel Lawsuit To Test Scope Of Agency's Antitrust Power |website=WSJ.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100118015722/http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091217-712217.html|archive-date=January 18, 2010|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9341/091216intelcmpt.pdf |title=United States of America Before The Federal Trade Commission |publisher=FTC |access-date=January 8, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=King |first=Ian |url=http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2009/tc20091216_885383.htm |title=FTC Wants Intel to Repent, Not Pay Up |work=BusinessWeek |date=December 16, 2009 |access-date=July 29, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100125122437/http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2009/tc20091216_885383.htm |archive-date=January 25, 2010 }}</ref>

In November 2009, following a two-year investigation, [[New York Attorney General]] [[Andrew Cuomo]] sued Intel, accusing them of bribery and coercion, claiming that Intel bribed computer makers to buy more of their chips than those of their rivals and threatened to withdraw these payments if the computer makers were perceived as working too closely with its competitors. Intel has denied these claims.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Intel in threats and bribery suit|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8343179.stm|work=BBC News |date=November 4, 2009|access-date=December 18, 2009}}</ref>

On July 22, 2010, [[Dell]] agreed to a settlement with the [[U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission]] (SEC) to pay $100 million in penalties resulting from charges that Dell did not accurately [[Corporation#Financial disclosure|disclose]] accounting information to investors. In particular, the SEC charged that from 2002 to 2006, Dell had an agreement with Intel to receive rebates in exchange for not using chips manufactured by AMD. These substantial rebates were not disclosed to investors, but were used to help meet investor expectations regarding the company's financial performance; "These exclusivity payments grew from 10% of Dell's operating income in FY 2003 to 38% in FY 2006, and peaked at 76% in the first quarter of FY 2007."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-131.htm|title=SEC Charges Dell and Senior Executives with Disclosure and Accounting Fraud (Press Release No. 2010-131; July 22, 2010|website=www.sec.gov}}</ref> Dell eventually did adopt AMD as a secondary supplier in 2006, and Intel subsequently stopped their rebates, causing Dell's financial performance to fall.<ref>
{{Cite news
  | last = Gibb
  | first = Gordon
  | title = Dell Agrees to $100 in Penalties to Settle SEC Accounting Fraud Charges
  | publisher=LawyersandSettlements.com
  | date = July 24, 2010
| df = mdy-all
  | url = http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/14615/business-fraud-unfair-accounting-dell.html
  | access-date =July 25, 2010}}</ref><ref>
{{Cite news
  | last = Krantz
  | first = Matt
  | author2=Swartz, Jon
  | title = Dell settles SEC charges of fraudulent accounting
  | newspaper=[[USA Today]]
  | date = July 24, 2010
| url = https://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2010-07-22-dell-sec-settlement_N.htm
  | access-date =July 25, 2010}}
</ref><ref>
{{Cite news
 |first=Kevin
 |last=Reed
 |title=Dell pays $100m penalty to settle accounting fraud charges
 |url=http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2266948/dell-pays-100m-penalty-settle
 |work=[[Accountancy Age]]
 |date=July 23, 2010
|access-date=July 25, 2010
|url-status=dead
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100725104512/http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2266948/dell-pays-100m-penalty-settle
 |archive-date=July 25, 2010

}}
</ref>

====Allegations by the European Union (2007–2023)====
In July 2007, the [[European Commission]] accused Intel of [[anti-competitive practices]], mostly against [[Advanced Micro Devices|AMD]].<ref name="Europa Memo July 27, 2007">{{cite news|title=Competition: Commission confirms sending of Statement of Objections to Intel |date=July 27, 2007 |url=http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/314& |work=Europa (web portal) |access-date=July 28, 2007}}</ref> The allegations, going back to 2003, include giving preferential prices to computer makers buying most or all of their [[microprocessor|chips]] from Intel, paying computer makers to delay or cancel the launch of products using AMD chips, and providing chips at below standard cost to governments and educational institutions.<ref name="Reuters July 27, 2007">{{cite news|first=David |last=Lawsky |title=UPDATE 4-EU says Intel tried to squeeze out Advanced Micro Devices |date=July 27, 2007 |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSL2783620520070727?sp=true |access-date=July 28, 2007}}</ref> Intel responded that the allegations were unfounded and instead qualified its market behavior as consumer-friendly.<ref name="Reuters July 27, 2007"/> General counsel [[Bruce Sewell]] responded that the commission had misunderstood some factual assumptions regarding pricing and manufacturing costs.<ref name="Reuters July 27, 2007 (2)">{{cite news|first=David |last=Lawsky |title=Intel says EU made errors in antitrust charges |date=July 27, 2007 |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/technology-media-telco-SP/idUSL2788098920070727?sp=true |work=Reuters |access-date=July 28, 2007}}</ref>

In February 2008, Intel announced that its office in Munich had been raided by [[European Union]] regulators. Intel reported that it was cooperating with investigators.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7241022.stm |date=February 12, 2008 |access-date=February 12, 2008 |work=BBC News |title=EU regulator raids Intel offices}}</ref> Intel faced a fine of up to 10% of its annual revenue if found guilty of stifling competition.<ref name="BBC Intel 2007-07-27">{{cite news|title=EU outlines Intel 'market abuse' |date=July 27, 2007 |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6918975.stm |work=BBC News |access-date=July 28, 2007}}</ref> AMD subsequently launched a website promoting these allegations.<ref>{{Cite news |first=Peter |last=Clarke |title=AMD sets up website to tell "the truth about Intel" |date=August 8, 2007 |publisher=CMP Media LLC |url=http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201303681 |work=eetimes.com |access-date=August 9, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070926220601/http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201303681 |archive-date=September 26, 2007 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://breakfree.amd.com/en-us/default.aspx |title=AMD Break Free |access-date=August 9, 2007 |date=July 31, 2007 |work=breakfree.amd.com |publisher=Advanced Micro Devices, Inc |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070731232711/http://breakfree.amd.com/en-us/default.aspx |archive-date=July 31, 2007}}</ref> In June 2008, the EU filed new charges against Intel.<ref>{{cite news|title=EU files new competition charges against Intel|url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUKL1730607220080718 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081204062439/http://uk.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUKL1730607220080718 |url-status=dead |archive-date=December 4, 2008 |work=Reuters |date=July 17, 2008|access-date=September 10, 2008 | first=Pete | last=Harrison}}</ref> In May 2009, the EU found that Intel had engaged in anti-competitive practices and subsequently fined Intel €1.06&nbsp;billion (US$1.44&nbsp;billion), a record amount. Intel was found to have paid companies, including [[Acer Inc.|Acer]], [[Dell]], [[Hewlett-Packard|HP]], [[Lenovo]] and [[NEC]],<ref name="fine">{{Cite news|url=http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1897913,00.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090516170330/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1897913,00.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=May 16, 2009|title=The Chips Are Down: Intel's $1.45&nbsp;billion Fine|date=May 13, 2009|magazine=TIME|access-date=May 13, 2009}}</ref> to exclusively use Intel chips in their products, and therefore harmed other, less successful companies including AMD.<ref name="fine" /><ref>[http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/745&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en "Antitrust: Commission imposes fine of €1.06 bn on Intel for abuse of dominant position; orders Intel to cease illegal practices", reference: IP/09/745, date: May 13, 2009]. Europa.eu (May 13, 2009). Retrieved July 8, 2011.</ref><ref>[[Neelie Kroes]], [http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/09/241&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en "Commission takes antitrust action against Intel", introductory remarks at press conference, Brussels, May 13, 2009]</ref> The European Commission said that Intel had deliberately acted to keep competitors out of the computer chip market and in doing so had made a "serious and sustained violation of the EU's antitrust rules".<ref name="fine" /> In addition to the fine, Intel was ordered by the commission to immediately cease all illegal practices.<ref name="fine" /> Intel has said that they will appeal against the commission's verdict. In June 2014, the General Court, which sits below the European Court of Justice, rejected the appeal.<ref name="fine" />

In 2022 the €1.06 billion fine was dropped, but was successively re-imposed in September 2023 as a €376.36 million fine.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_4570|title=Antitrust: Commission re-imposes €376.36 million fine on Intel for anticompetitive practices in the market for computer chips|website=ec.europa.eu|date=September 23, 2023|access-date=October 30, 2023|archive-date=October 24, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231024140302/https://Europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_4570|url-status=live}}</ref>