In the case Barroqueiro v Qualcomm Incorporated dated September 25, 2023, plaintiffs David Barroqueiro et. al alleged that the defendants, Qualcomm Incorporated and its subsidiaries, had engaged in anticompetitive practices related to their cellular technology and modem chips business. They claimed that these practices had resulted in inflated prices for cellular devices, causing harm to Canadian consumers. The defendants, on the other hand, had argued that their actions were pro-competitive and that the plaintiffs' claims lacked merit. The plaintiffs' application had sought to certify the matter as a class proceeding, representing consumers who had purchased cellular devices containing modem chips during a specified class period. They had asserted that Qualcomm's conduct had violated various sections of the Competition Act and had led to unjust enrichment. The defendants, had denied acting as a joint enterprise or agents of each other. They had maintained that the plaintiffs had not met the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, as they had failed to establish a basis in fact for each criterion. Additionally, they had sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims, arguing that there was no legal basis for the alleged breaches of the Competition Act and that no genuine issues for trial had existed. Ultimately, the court had allowed the plaintiffs' certification application but had dismissed the defendants' summary judgment application. No specific information regarding a financial award had been provided in the case.