Broadcom Exclusivity (EU)

Set-top boxes and broadband modems need system-on-a-chip components where Broadcom held strong share. Device makers like Apple and Samsung depend on multiple suppliers to negotiate price and innovation.

The Commission alleged Broadcom used exclusive supply agreements, single-source clauses, and incentives that made customers buy front-end chips only from Broadcom—even when rivals offered alternatives.

EU abuse probes usually take years. Here regulators deployed interim measures—a temporary 'halt' order—because they feared irreversible foreclosure while the investigation continued.

Interim measures in dominance cases are rare and legally demanding. The Commission's willingness to use them signaled tougher enforcement against chip bottlenecks.

Broadcom negotiated commitments: stop exclusivity, offer non-discriminatory terms, and allow competitors fair access during the remedy period.

By 2020 the formal probe closed with commitments rather than a fine—speedy relief prioritized over punitive payment.

The case previews ongoing global scrutiny of semiconductor supply concentration and customer lock-in.

Chip exclusivity affects broadband gear and streaming device costs.

Interim measures can change market behavior before final decisions.

Semiconductor dominance is a top enforcement priority.

Broadcom dominated certain front-end chipset niches.

Exclusive deals foreclosed MediaTek and others.

Immediate harm justified interim relief.

Broadcom said its contracts reflected efficient bundling.

It cooperated to resolve concerns via commitments.

Router and TV box prices indirectly reflect chipset competition.

OEMs benefit when exclusivity clauses are banned early.