38.6c New Delhi, India, Sunday, February 15, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Business

Apple faces nearly $ 1 billion penalty for ordering too few OLED screens from Samsung

By Manthan Pandit      18 July, 2020 04:15 PM      0 Comments
Apple faces nearly $ 1 billion penalty for ordering too few OLED screens from Samsung

Apple has reportedly charged Samsung a penalty of nearly $1 billion for failing to buy OLED displays as requested. Samsung Display is the main OLED supplier to Apple for its iPhones. 

It was claimed earlier that Apple had paid Samsung about $745 million for failing to meet the purchasing demand for the OLED display. Yet a recent Display Supply Chain study says the liability was only around $950million.

This payment also allegedly boosted Samsung's Q2 revenue with the company estimated to have received a "one-time gain associated with its display business"

Samsung hasn't disclosed the number, but Apple's penalty is estimated to close in at $1 billion. This payment also helped to reverse the loss to a profit for Samsung Display.

Anything like this is not the first time it has happened. Apple too faced a cost last year for not purchasing Samsung's OLED panels as agreed. Apple reportedly charged Samsung some $684 million last year as a penalty.

Weak demand and sales due to Covid-19 are expected to result in Apple not meeting the requirement for OLED panels.

Apple is also expected to move from Samsung Display to China's BOE Tech as its largest iPhone 12 series OLED supplier. Its expected that Apple will launch four iPhone 12 models with 5 G support this year. OLED displays are officially available on all four 5 G iPhones.



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

resignation-on-medical-grounds-attracts-forfeiture-of-pension-service-madras-hc-full-bench
Trending Judiciary
Resignation on Medical Grounds Attracts Forfeiture of Pension Service: Madras HC Full Bench [Read Order]

Madras High Court Full Bench rules resignation on medical grounds leads to forfeiture of past service under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

09 February, 2026 12:16 PM
madras-hc-clarifies-section-37-of-ndps-act-not-applicable-to-acceptance-of-bond-for-appearance
Trending Judiciary
Madras HC Clarifies: Section 37 of NDPS Act Not Applicable to Acceptance of Bond for Appearance [Read Order]

Madras High Court says Section 37 NDPS Act doesn’t apply to acceptance of bond for appearance on summons, as it is distinct from grant of bail.

09 February, 2026 12:20 PM
sc-refers-matter-to-larger-bench-to-resolve-conflicting-judgments-on-third-partys-right-under-under-order-ix-rule-13-cpc
Trending Judiciary
SC Refers Matter To Larger Bench To Resolve Conflicting Judgments On Third Party’s Right Under Under Order IX Rule 13 CPC [Read Order]

Supreme Court refers the issue of third party rights under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to a larger bench to resolve conflicting judgments on ex parte decrees.

09 February, 2026 12:35 PM
bombay-sessions-court-grants-bail-in-193-crore-cyber-fraud-case-reaffirms-bail-is-rule-jail-is-exception
Trending Judiciary
Bombay Sessions Court Grants Bail in ₹1.93 Crore Cyber Fraud Case, Reaffirms ‘Bail Is Rule, Jail Is Exception’ [Read Order]

Bombay Sessions Court grants bail in ₹1.93 crore cyber fraud case, citing right to liberty as investigation is complete and accused not direct beneficiary.

09 February, 2026 04:17 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email