You are viewing your 1 free article this month. Login to read more articles.
A US district judge has denied a motion to dismiss the civil suits filed against five publishers and Apple over e-book price-fixing allegations, saying the claim that the publisher defendants had colluded to end the wholesale model was "plausible".
While the judge's decision was not unexpected—the decisions means the case can continue, not that collusion has been proved—the strong words used by US District Judge Denise Cote have raised concern over the arguments. Judge Cote said the complaint “plausibly alleges that Apple and the publisher defendants took part in a conspiracy in restraint of trade, that an object of this conspiracy was to raise prices for e-books".
Judge Cote will also preside over the state suits against the publishers and Apple, the DoJ's pending settlement with HarperCollins, Hachette USA, and Simon & Schuster, and the DoJ's case against Apple, Macmillan and Penguin. Writing on her blog Dear Author, the lawyer and author Jane Litte, who has tracked the suits, wrote of the judge's words: "That is doom, in my opinion, for the publishers and Apple. In fact, reading Judge Cote’s decision, my first thought was that she might reject the settlement because it doesn’t go far enough to protect consumers and punish the conspiring parties."
Last month the US government department alleged that publishers Simon & Schuster, Hachette, HarperCollins, Penguin, Macmillan and Apple had made a "collective effort to end retail price competition by coordinating their transition to an agency model across all retailers". S&S, Hachette and HarperCollins settled out of court but Penguin and Macmillan are contesting the case. The civil suit is now proceeding against all five publishers. Separately a further 17 states including Texas and New York joined the DOJ in suing the publishers and Apple, bringing the total to 31.