The G.Skill RAM class action (Hurd et al. v. G.Skill International, No. 2:22-cv-00685, C.D. Cal.) centers on how desktop DDR4 and DDR5 memory speeds are marketed to consumers. RAM kits are commonly sold with prominent “rated” speeds (for example, 3200 MHz for DDR4 or 6000 MHz for DDR5), but most modern platforms will run new memory at an industry baseline “safe” default—often 2133 MHz for DDR4 or 4800 MHz for DDR5—unless the user enters the system BIOS and enables an overclocking profile such as Intel XMP or AMD EXPO. The lawsuit alleges that this technical reality wasn’t made clear enough in G.Skill’s labeling and advertising, leading average buyers to believe they would automatically get the advertised speeds immediately after installation. Plaintiffs filed the case claiming G.Skill’s speed claims were misleading because the advertised performance allegedly required extra steps and compatible components to achieve, and many consumers either wouldn’t know to change BIOS settings or might be unable to reach the rated speeds depending on their motherboard/CPU. G.Skill denies wrongdoing, but agreed to a $2.4 million settlement fund for eligible U.S. purchasers (generally those who bought qualifying desktop DDR4 over 2133 MHz or DDR5 over 4800 MHz during the covered period), with payments calculated on a pro rata basis; notably, claims for up to five products can be submitted without proof of purchase. Beyond cash payments, a key significance of the settlement is the prospective advertising change: listing speeds as “up to” and adding clearer disclosures that achieving maximum speeds requires overclocking/BIOS adjustments and depends on system components. The broader implications extend past G.Skill because “rated speed” marketing is widespread across the PC memory industry, and the line between a product specification and an overclocking result can be confusing for non-experts. Similar consumer cases in tech hardware often hinge on state consumer-protection and false-advertising laws (frequently modeled on FTC principles requiring that advertising be truthful and not misleading, with material limitations clearly disclosed), especially when performance depends on conditions not obvious at purchase. If other manufacturers follow the same “up to + requires XMP/EXPO” disclosure approach, it could nudge the market toward more standardized, plain-language performance labeling that better distinguishes default JEDEC speeds from optional overclocked profiles consumers must enable themselves