Last month, a New York federal judge ruled that Apple conspired to raise the retail price of e-books in violation of U.S. anti-trust laws.
“Apple seized the moment and brilliantly played its hand,” said Judge Denise Cote. “It provided the Publisher Defendants with the vision, the format, the timetable, and the coordination they needed to raise e-book prices.”
While all of the publishers named in the U.S. Department of Justice’s anti-trust lawsuit settled, Apple brought the case to trial in June. The company vehemently disputed allegations that its e-book contracts with the publishers should be characterized as anti-competitive.
Meanwhile, the DOJ argued that Apple was aware that the CEOs of Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan, The Penguin Group, and Simon & Schuster were frustrated with Amazon’s discounted e-book pricing structure. Apple approached the five publishers with an arrangement that increased the price of many best-selling e-books to $12.99 or $14.99 by moving from traditional wholesale pricing—where retailers set the price of both digital and physical books—to an agency model under which publishers establish e-book prices and retailers receive a commission.
As highlighted in court documents, the publishers then worked together to pressure Amazon and other e-book retailers to accept the new model. They also agreed to pay Apple a 30 percent commission for each e-book purchased through Apple’s iBookstore and promised, through a retail price-matching most favored nation (MFN) provision, that no other e-book retailer would sell an e-book title at a lower price than Apple.
Judge Cote ultimately concluded that the plan ran afoul of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. As detailed in her opinion:
“The Plaintiffs have shown through compelling evidence that Apple violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring with the Publisher Defendants to eliminate retail price competition and to raise e-book prices. There is overwhelming evidence that the Publisher Defendants joined with each other in a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy. Through that conspiracy, the Publisher Defendants raised the prices of many of their New Releases and NYT Bestsellers above the $9.99 price at which they had previously been sold through Amazon. They also raised the prices of many of their backlist e-books. The Plaintiffs have also shown that Apple was a knowing and active member of that conspiracy. Apple not only willingly joined the conspiracy, but also forcefully facilitated it.”
The court has not yet ruled on injunctive relief or damages. Nonetheless, Apple has already vowed to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Apple Loses First Round of E-Book Lawsuit
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Last month, a New York federal judge ruled that Apple conspired to raise the retail price of e-books in violation of U.S. anti-trust laws.
“Apple seized the moment and brilliantly played its hand,” said Judge Denise Cote. “It provided the Publisher Defendants with the vision, the format, the timetable, and the coordination they needed to raise e-book prices.”
While all of the publishers named in the U.S. Department of Justice’s anti-trust lawsuit settled, Apple brought the case to trial in June. The company vehemently disputed allegations that its e-book contracts with the publishers should be characterized as anti-competitive.
Meanwhile, the DOJ argued that Apple was aware that the CEOs of Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan, The Penguin Group, and Simon & Schuster were frustrated with Amazon’s discounted e-book pricing structure. Apple approached the five publishers with an arrangement that increased the price of many best-selling e-books to $12.99 or $14.99 by moving from traditional wholesale pricing—where retailers set the price of both digital and physical books—to an agency model under which publishers establish e-book prices and retailers receive a commission.
As highlighted in court documents, the publishers then worked together to pressure Amazon and other e-book retailers to accept the new model. They also agreed to pay Apple a 30 percent commission for each e-book purchased through Apple’s iBookstore and promised, through a retail price-matching most favored nation (MFN) provision, that no other e-book retailer would sell an e-book title at a lower price than Apple.
Judge Cote ultimately concluded that the plan ran afoul of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. As detailed in her opinion:
“The Plaintiffs have shown through compelling evidence that Apple violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring with the Publisher Defendants to eliminate retail price competition and to raise e-book prices. There is overwhelming evidence that the Publisher Defendants joined with each other in a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy. Through that conspiracy, the Publisher Defendants raised the prices of many of their New Releases and NYT Bestsellers above the $9.99 price at which they had previously been sold through Amazon. They also raised the prices of many of their backlist e-books. The Plaintiffs have also shown that Apple was a knowing and active member of that conspiracy. Apple not only willingly joined the conspiracy, but also forcefully facilitated it.”
The court has not yet ruled on injunctive relief or damages. Nonetheless, Apple has already vowed to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
