Skip to main content

FTC Sues Intel for Antitrust Violations

Intel Core i5 processor package
Image used with permission by copyright holder

Chipmakers AMD and Intel may come to a private agreement last month to end litigation between them, but that doesn’t mean Intel is off the hook with the Feds: today the United States Federal Trade Commission announced it is suing Intel for abusing its position in the marketplace engage in anticompetitive behavior and stifle competition.

Recommended Videos

“Intel has engaged in a deliberate campaign to hamstring competitive threats to its monopoly,” said FTC Competition Bureau Director Richard A. Feinstein, in a statement. “It’s been running roughshod over the principles of fair play and the laws protecting competition on the merits. The Commission’s action today seeks to remedy the damage that Intel has done to competition, innovation, and, ultimately, the American consumer.”

The FTC alleges that Intel used a carrot-and-stick approach with computer makers to ensure its chips were in the vast majority of computers they made, and leveraged its position in the market to force computer maker to agree to restrictive and exclusive deals that ensured rival chips never gained a significant foothold in the CPU market. According to the FTC, one result is that consumers were denied the benefits of true marketplace competition, including lower prices and CPUs that were potentially superior to Intel’s offerings.

In addition to alleging Intel forced computer makers to exclusively or predominantly use Intel CPUs, the FTC also alleges Intel redesigned compilers to inhibit software performance on competitors’ chips, then told its customers the performance differences were due to the superiority of its chip designs. The FTC is also alleging that Intel is abusing its position in the CPU marketplace to stifle competition in the graphics market: Intel and graphics developer Nvidia are currently engaged in a bitter war of words—and intellectual property lawsuits—regarding licenses necessary for Nvidia to developer third-party graphics systems for the latest generation of Intel processors. The FTC warns that there is a “dangerous probability” Intel’s methods will enable it to extend its CPU monopoly into the graphics market.

The FTC seeks to have Intel barred from using threats, bundled prices, and exclusive deals to hamper competition or manipulate CPU and CPU prices. The agency may also seek an order barring Intel from “unreasonably excluding or inhibiting” sales of competitors’ CPU and GPU products, or distributing software or other products that impair (or appear to impair) the performance of competitors’ chips.

Many of the FTC’s allegations against Intel are eerily similar to complaints pursued for years by rival chipmaker AMD, which sued Intel for anticompetitive practices in the U.S., the European Union, Japan, and South Korea—until Intel agreed to pay AMD $1.25 billion to drop all the cases. However, the FTC’s action is considerably broader as well, extending both into compilers and the GPU market.

For its part, Intel maintains that it has not engaged in any anticompetitive behavior, and characterizes the FTC’s case as “misguided.”

“Intel has competed fairly and lawfully,” the company wrote in a statement. “Its actions have benefitted consumers. The highly competitive microprocessor industry, of which Intel is a key part, has kept innovation robust and prices declining at a faster rate than any other industry.”

Intel also accuses the FTC of trying to create new rules and regulations with the case, rather than enforcing existing law. The company maintains the FTC’s new rules would ultimately harm consumers through higher prices and reduced microprocessor innovation.

Geoff Duncan
Former Digital Trends Contributor
Geoff Duncan writes, programs, edits, plays music, and delights in making software misbehave. He's probably the only member…
3 GPUs you should buy instead of the Intel Arc B580
The back of the Intel Arc B580 graphics card.

There's no doubt that that Intel's new Arc B580 is one of the best graphics cards you can buy. Clocking in at just $250, it's a powerhouse GPU that delivers performance we normally only see out of GPUs north of $300. As you can read in my Intel Arc B580 review, it's a fantastic option at 1080p and it scales up surprisingly well to 1440p. There's just one problem -- the Arc B580 is sold out everywhere.

Intel clearly didn't anticipate the demand, but you don't have to succumb to scalpers or patiently wait while the Arc B580 comes back in stock. There are some excellent alternatives available around the same price that you can pick up right now.
Intel Arc B570

Read more
Intel’s Arc B570 puts up an impressive fight against the RTX 4060
Fans on the Intel Arc B570.

Intel just released one of the best graphics cards you can buy -- the Arc B570. As you can read in my Intel Arc B570 review, it delivers solid gaming performance at 1080p, and at a price we haven't seen in years. But it faces some stiff competition from Nvidia in the form of the RTX 4060.

I put the two budget GPUs on the test bench to see how they hold up in a variety of games, and I'll walk you through the results I gathered. Although both cards are excellent options under $300, Intel's new Arc B570 is hard to argue with considering how much less expensive it is than the Nvidia competition.
Specs and pricing

Read more
AMD may still wait for Nvidia before unleashing RDNA 4
Various AMD RX 9000 series graphics cards.

AMD's future best graphics cards should be right around the corner, but with no specifics, it's hard to say when exactly we'll reach that particular corner. However, a new leak from the Chiphell forum implies that whatever release date AMD may have had in mind for its RX 9000 series GPUs may have changed. The most interesting part is that the leaker implies Nvidia may have played a part in this decision.

Before we dive in, remember that all of this is speculation. During its CES 2025 keynote, AMD barely spoke about RDNA 4, so the release dates are a mystery. Some leakers repeated a rumored release date of January 23 in the past few days, though, and according to Napoleon on the Chiphell forums, that may no longer be true.

Read more