The class action against G.Skill centers on how performance is advertised for desktop DDR4 and DDR5 DRAM kits—products that are commonly marketed with “rated” speeds above baseline JEDEC specifications. In practice, many memory kits reach their advertised speeds only when users enable overclocking profiles (such as XMP/EXPO) and when the rest of the system—CPU memory controller, motherboard firmware, and stability settings—can support those speeds. The settlement applies to purchasers of non-laptop G.Skill DDR4 memory rated over 2133 MHz and DDR5 memory rated over 4800 MHz bought between January 31, 2018 and January 7, 2026, with a claims deadline of April 7, 2026, and it states that proof of purchase is not required. The lawsuit was filed because plaintiffs allege G.Skill misstated or misleadingly represented achievable memory speeds, potentially implying plug-and-play performance that some systems could not reliably deliver without additional configuration or compatible hardware. Its significance is twofold: it underscores how fine-print qualifiers about “OC” operation and system-dependent results can become the crux of consumer-protection disputes, and it highlights that performance claims in enthusiast PC components can trigger liability when advertising outpaces typical user experience. The broader implication—seen in similar disputes over “up to” performance claims across GPUs, storage, and networking gear—is increasing pressure on component makers and retailers to align marketing with standardized baselines (JEDEC), clearly disclose when speeds are overclocked rather than guaranteed defaults, and avoid ambiguity in labeling that could conflict with state consumer-fraud and false-advertising laws even in a highly technical, configuration-dependent market.