FTC says Broadcom violated antitrust law with TV set-top box deals


The US Federal Trade Commission has sued chip maker Broadcom for allegedly abusing a monopoly on semiconductor components. A newly issued complaint accuses Broadcom of threatening to charge higher prices, refuse technical support, or cut off chip sales if its customers bought other products from competing companies.
Starting in 2016, Broadcom allegedly struck “exclusive or near-exclusive” deals with at least 10 companies manufacturing video set-top boxes and broadband devices like modems. It allegedly required these “strategic” partners to use a variety of Broadcom components even if they weren’t the best or cheapest option for a given device. Nonexclusive “tactical” partners were charged higher prices for slower product delivery and customer support.
When manufacturers bid to have cable and internet providers like AT&T and Verizon buy their products, the complaint says Broadcom “actively monitored” whether any of those products included components from Broadcom competitors. “Broadcom communicated to customers that disloyalty as to even a single bid involving a single relevant product could mean loss of strategic partner terms,” the FTC claims.
In one case, Broadcom allegedly retaliated against a company that hadn’t yet agreed to exclusivity, cutting off “all supply and support” when it submitted a bid that included a non-Broadcom component. The company allegedly withdrew the bid and signed the exclusivity deal.
The FTC wants Broadcom to sign a consent order agreeing to back off its restrictive exclusivity agreements. In a statement to The Verge, Broadcom indicated it was willing to cooperate. “We are pleased to move toward resolving this broadband matter with the FTC on terms that are substantially similar to our previous settlement with the EC involving the same products,” said a spokesperson, referring to a 2020 agreement with the European Commission. The EC agreement included a commitment to suspend all exclusive or quasi-exclusive deals and refrain from signing new deals with similar terms for seven years.
The spokesperson said Broadcom was “equally pleased” that the FTC had not proceeded with an investigation into other parts of its business; the agency had reportedly been looking at potential anti-competitive practices in areas like Wi-Fi chip sales. “While we disagree that our actions violated the law and disagree with the FTC’s characterizations of our business, we look forward to putting this matter behind us and continuing to focus on supporting our customers through an environment of accelerated digital transformation.”
In its suit, the FTC claims Broadcom wanted to lock out potential competitors at a turning point for the set-top box industry. The complaint says Broadcom had particular dominance in the market for traditional broadcast TV set-top box components and faced more potential competition for streaming box components, a category that’s grown rapidly thanks to TV cord-cutting.
Broadcom allegedly recognized that “as many consumers cut the cord, there are many other consumers who will continue using broadcast [set-top boxes] for some time to come,” and companies will need support for those boxes for years. “Broadcom recognized these threats and opportunities,” the complaint says, and it used its power to make sure potential rivals’ sales opportunities were “severely restricted.”
The US Federal Trade Commission has sued chip maker Broadcom for allegedly abusing a monopoly on semiconductor components. A newly issued complaint accuses Broadcom of threatening to charge higher prices, refuse technical support, or cut off chip sales if its customers bought other products from competing companies. Starting in 2016,…
Recent Posts
- ChatGPT is a terrible, fascinating, and thrilling to-do list app
- Satya Nadella says AI is yet to have its Excel moment
- I have good news and bad news about Windows 11 24H2’s new update: it introduces nifty features and fixes… but also includes another ad
- Where to Stream 2025’s Best Picture Oscar Nominees
- The hidden costs of data subject access requests (DSARs) on privacy
Archives
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- September 2018
- October 2017
- December 2011
- August 2010