The G.Skill class action settlement is a $2.4 million agreement resolving claims that G.Skill deceptively marketed the speeds of its DDR4 and DDR5 desktop memory. A federal judge in California granted final approval on June 9, 2026. The deadline to file a claim was April 7, 2026, and has passed, so new claims are no longer being accepted.
What the Lawsuit Alleged
Plaintiffs Tristan Hurd and Ken DiMicco sued G.Skill over how the company advertised its high-performance RAM. Kits sold at headline speeds like 3600 MHz or 6000 MT/s did not actually run at those speeds out of the box. Instead, the memory defaulted to slower JEDEC baseline speeds on installation, and reaching the advertised number required entering the BIOS and manually enabling an overclocking profile — XMP on Intel systems or EXPO on AMD.
The complaint argued this was false advertising and a breach of express warranty. Buyers paid a premium for speed they could not access without extra configuration, and even after enabling XMP or EXPO, the advertised speed was not guaranteed because it depends on the motherboard and CPU. Plaintiffs also alleged that running memory at overclocked speeds could cause crashes, overheating, and faster component degradation.
The suit invoked California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, along with New York’s General Business Law sections 349 and 350. On March 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Sunshine S. Sykes certified damages classes for California and New York consumers and a multi-state injunction class.
G.Skill denied the allegations. The court did not rule on the merits.
Who Was Covered
The settlement class included U.S. residents who bought qualifying G.Skill DDR4 or DDR5 desktop memory between January 31, 2018, and January 7, 2026. Not every product counted. Only kits with rated speeds above certain thresholds were included:
- DDR4 products rated over 2133 MHz
- DDR5 products rated over 4800 MHz
Laptop memory (SODIMM modules) was excluded. Also excluded were the judge and family, G.Skill’s corporate defendants and their officers and employees, class counsel and their firms, and anyone who filed a timely request for exclusion.
What Claimants Receive
G.Skill agreed to pay $2.4 million into a non-reversionary settlement fund. After attorneys’ fees of $800,000 plus $116,277.66 in costs, $295,000 in administration costs to Angeion Group, and $5,000 incentive awards to each of the two class representatives, roughly $1.3 million remains for consumer payouts.
That money is being distributed on a per-product basis among class members who filed valid claims by the April 7, 2026, deadline. No fixed dollar amount per product was set in advance because the per-claimant share depends on total valid claims. Each household could claim up to five qualifying products without proof of purchase; households claiming more than five had to provide proof if requested.
Payments are expected to be issued about 45 days after the settlement becomes fully effective, meaning after any appeals from the June 9, 2026, final approval are resolved. Checks will become void 180 days after they are issued. The court noted that no objections to the settlement were filed.
Changes to G.Skill’s Marketing
The settlement also required G.Skill to change how it lists memory speeds. On packaging, website product pages, and specifications sent to retailers, rated speeds must now be described as “up to” figures and carry this disclaimer: “Requires overclocking/BIOS adjustments. Maximum speed and performance depend on system components, including motherboard and CPU.” G.Skill was given 90 days from final approval to make the changes.
Case Information
The case is Hurd et al. v. G.Skill International et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00685-SSS-MAR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, before Judge Sunshine S. Sykes. The named defendants were G.Skill International Enterprise Co., Ltd., G.Skill USA, Inc., Neuteck, Inc., and Racerspeed, Inc. Class counsel came from Dovel & Luner, LLP and Kneupper & Covey, PC. The settlement was filed on October 31, 2025, preliminarily approved on January 7, 2026, and finally approved on June 9, 2026.