Corsair Class Action Lawsuit: $5.5M RAM Settlement and Payouts

The Corsair class action lawsuit ended in a $5.5 million settlement over how the company advertised the speeds of its DDR4 and DDR5 desktop memory. A federal judge granted final approval on January 8, 2026. If you were hoping to file a claim, the window has closed: the deadline was October 28, 2025.¹²

What the Lawsuit Claimed

The case, McKinney et al. v. Corsair Gaming, Inc., took aim at how Corsair labeled its Vengeance and Dominator memory kits. Packaging and product pages advertised DDR4 sticks at speeds like 3200 MHz and DDR5 sticks at speeds like 6400 MHz. Plug them in, though, and DDR4 defaults to 2133 MHz and DDR5 to 4800 MHz, the baseline standards set by the industry group JEDEC.³

To reach the advertised speed, you have to enter your motherboard’s BIOS and turn on an Intel XMP or AMD EXPO overclocking profile. Corsair’s own support pages confirm this, explaining that RAM ships at a slower default to keep it compatible across different motherboards and processors.⁴ The plaintiffs argued a typical buyer would expect the memory to run at the number on the box without having to change firmware settings, and that Corsair never disclosed the overclocking requirement.⁵

The complaint also called successful overclocking something of a “lottery,” dependent on the specific CPU, motherboard, and silicon quality of the RAM. Plaintiffs said overclocking carries risks including instability, crashes, overheating, and faster component wear, and that none of that appeared on Corsair’s packaging.⁵ Corsair denied any wrongdoing and stood by its labels.⁶

Who the Settlement Covered

The class included all U.S. residents who bought Corsair DDR4 desktop (non-laptop) memory rated above 2133 MHz, or Corsair DDR5 desktop memory rated above 4800 MHz, between January 14, 2018, and July 2, 2025. That sweeps in most of Corsair’s enthusiast desktop RAM sold during those seven years, including kits in the Vengeance and Dominator lines.²³

Claims for up to five products per household required no proof of purchase. Anyone claiming more than five items could be asked for receipts. The claims deadline was October 28, 2025, and new claims are no longer being accepted.¹

What the Settlement Provides

Corsair funded a $5.5 million non-reversionary common fund, meaning nothing goes back to the company if it isn’t claimed. The fund covers class member payments, administration costs, attorneys’ fees, and incentive awards.²

Each valid claimant receives a pro rata share tied to the number of qualifying products purchased. The settlement did not set a fixed dollar amount per claim; per-person payouts depend on how many people filed.⁷ The court approved $1,375,000 in attorneys’ fees (with 10% held back until a post-distribution accounting is filed), $285,703.02 in litigation costs, $5,000 incentive awards to each of the three named plaintiffs, and $450,000 in administration costs paid to The Angeion Group.²

Changes to Corsair Packaging

The settlement also requires Corsair to make “commercially reasonable efforts” to update its packaging, website product pages, and the specifications it sends to resellers. Rated speeds must now appear as “up to” figures alongside a disclaimer: “Requires overclocking/PC BIOS adjustments. Maximum speed and performance depend on system components, including motherboard and CPU.”⁷ New packaging began rolling out in early January 2026, with “Up To” language folded into product names and descriptions across the Vengeance DDR5 lineup.⁸

When Payments Are Going Out

As of the final approval order, checks had not yet been distributed. Judge Jon S. Tigar scheduled a case management conference for July 28, 2026, and required class counsel to file a post-distribution accounting within 21 days after funds go out. That conference can be vacated if distribution finishes and the court releases the held-back 10% of attorneys’ fees first.² No appeals had been filed as of the final approval date, so the timeline is not at risk of being disrupted.⁹

Only one class member, Allen Kenda, objected, arguing that claimants who submitted proof of purchase should get a larger share. The court overruled the objection, finding the settlement struck a reasonable balance between accessibility and fraud prevention, and noted that Kenda himself had bought only one item and was not held to a higher standard.²

Similar Cases Against Other RAM Brands

If you bought memory from another enthusiast brand, the Corsair settlement does not cover you, but similar cases have targeted the same advertising practice. The same plaintiffs’ firms, Dovel & Luner LLP and Kneupper & Covey PC, filed parallel lawsuits against other manufacturers over XMP and EXPO speed labeling. G.Skill settled Hurd et al. v. G.Skill International Enterprise Co., Ltd. for $2.4 million in the Central District of California, with a settlement agreement filed in October 2025.¹⁰ TeamGroup settled a comparable case for $1.1 million.³

The labeling approach at issue, quoting XMP or EXPO profile speeds rather than JEDEC baselines, is common across the enthusiast memory market. As Tom’s Hardware put it, “pretty much every enthusiast memory seller marks its kits the same way.”³

1
ClassAction.org. $5.5M Corsair Gaming Settlement Ends Class Action Over Advertising of Desktop RAM Products Speed
2
Justia. McKinney v. Corsair Gaming, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-00312-JST
3
Tom’s Hardware. Corsair Lost a Lawsuit Over Advertising Overclocked Memory Speeds
4
Corsair. RAM – Run DRAM at Its Rated Speed (OC Profile)
5
Dovel & Luner LLP. Class Action Lawsuit Against Corsair Gaming
6
Angeion Group. McKinney et al. v. Corsair Gaming, Inc., Long Form Notice
7
ClassAction.org. McKinney et al. v. Corsair Gaming, Inc., Settlement Notice
8
Corsair. Corsair Memory Packaging Update
9
PacerMonitor. McKinney v. Corsair Gaming, Inc.
10
ClassAction.org. Hurd et al. v. G.Skill International Enterprise Co., Ltd., Settlement Agreement