China’s Yangtze Memory Technologies Co. (YMTC) has filed a lawsuit against US-based Micron Technology in federal court in Washington.

The June 9 lawsuit alleges that Micron and public affairs firm DCI Group spread false claims that YMTC’s products contain spyware linked to espionage.

YMTC says these allegations, which suggest ties to military espionage and criminal activity, have caused serious reputational and financial harm.

YMTC denies any connection to the Chinese military or government espionage, stating its products are standard commercial memory chips.

The company also claims Micron financed a website titled “China Tech Threat,” operated by DCI, which YMTC argues went beyond legal advocacy.

.source-ref{font-size:0.85em;color:#666;display:block;margin-top:1em;}a.ask-tia-citation-link:hover{color:#11628d !important;background:#e9f6f5 !important;border-color:#11628d !important;text-decoration:none !important;}@media only screen and (min-width:768px){a.ask-tia-citation-link{font-size:11px !important;}}

🔗 Source: Reuters

🧠 Food for thought

1️⃣ False advertising claims carry heavy financial and reputational penalties

YMTC’s lawsuit against Micron reflects a scenario where companies challenge perceived false claims through courts, seeking both monetary compensation and reputational recovery.

False advertising penalties can be substantial, as seen in high-profile cases. For example, Dannon paid $45 million for unsubstantiated health claims about Activia yogurt, while Volkswagen faced a $15 billion settlement for its “clean diesel” misrepresentations1.

The FTC regularly imposes multi-million dollar penalties for deceptive advertising. For instance, Lumos Labs paid $2 million for unsupported claims about its brain training program’s ability to delay cognitive decline2.

Courts take a particularly stern view of materially misleading claims that influence consumer decisions, as established in the FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive case, where the Supreme Court ruled that simulated demonstrations that appear to provide actual proof constitute material deception3.

YMTC’s specific allegation that Micron’s claims about “spyware” in their chips caused “loss of millions of dollars in sales to leading computer and consumer electronics manufacturers” aligns with the trend of quantifying direct business damage from competitors’ allegedly false statements.

2️⃣ Tech rivalries increasingly play out through multiple legal channels

The current lawsuit represents an escalation in the ongoing legal battle between YMTC and Micron, adding false advertising claims to their existing patent dispute from 2023.

Companies often pursue simultaneous legal strategies against competitors—challenging patents, advertising claims, and trade practices. YMTC’s approach of filing both patent infringement claims and now false advertising allegations against Micron reflects this strategy.

This multi-pronged legal approach is also evident in other tech rivalries, such as the litigation between Apple and Samsung that included patent, design, and advertising disputes across multiple jurisdictions1.

The use of prominent U.S. law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan by YMTC demonstrates how international companies increasingly leverage American legal expertise and courts to challenge competitors, regardless of their home country.

YMTC’s request for “corrective” advertising alongside monetary damages highlights a strategic effort to recover financially and formally rehabilitate its market reputation after alleged damage from Micron’s claims.

Recent Micron developments

……