iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Apple, Hachette Hit With Antitrust Lawsuit Over eBook Pricing

PETE YOST   04/11/12 07:22 PM ET  AP

WASHINGTON — The government says avid best-seller readers who use electronic books have been getting ripped off. Tina Fey's "Bossy Pants," Tim Tebow's "Through My Eyes" and Keith Richards' `"Life" – maybe they should have cost less.

The Justice Department and 15 states sued Apple Inc. and major book publishers Wednesday, alleging a conspiracy that raised the price of electronic books. They said the scheme cost consumers more than $100 million in the past two years by adding $2 or $3, sometimes as much as $5, to the price of each e-book.

If there was price fixing, even the e-book version of the hot-selling Walter Isaacson biography of Steve Jobs, the late genius behind Apple computers, may have cost too much.

Attorney General Eric Holder said executives at the highest levels of the companies conspired to eliminate competition among e-book sellers. Justice's antitrust chief, Sharis Pozen, said the executives were desperate to get Amazon.com – the marketer of Kindle e-book readers – to raise the $9.99 price point it had set for the most popular e-book titles, because that was substantially below their hardcover prices.

The federal government reached a settlement with three of the publishers, Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Shuster. But it will proceed with its lawsuit in federal court in New York City against Apple and Holtzbrinck Publishers, doing business as Macmillan, and The Penguin Publishing Co. Ltd., doing business as Penguin Group.

Connecticut and Texas, two of the 15 states filing a separate lawsuit, reached agreements with Hachette and HarperCollins to provide $52 million in restitution to consumers, using a formula based on the number of states participating and the number of e-books sold in each state. Other states in the case may sign onto the agreement, and other companies might be persuaded to join.

Susan E. Kinsman of the Connecticut attorney general's office said it's too early to say how consumers can go about getting refunds. But there could be millions of people applying. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 21 percent of adults said they had read an e-book in the last year.

Since Amazon introduced the Kindle in 2007, e-book sales have surged. They represented just 2 percent of all titles sold in the United States that year, but soared to 25 percent last year. In 2010, about 114 million e-books were sold at a total cost of $441.3 million.

Holder told a Justice Department news conference that "we believe that consumers paid millions of dollars more for some of the most popular titles" as a result of the alleged conspiracy. Pozen said the scheme added an average of $2 to $3 to the prices of individual e-books.

Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen said the individual book markups went as high as $5 and the total cost to consumers was more than $100 million since April 2010, when the scheme allegedly took effect.

The government lawsuits did not disclose individual titles whose prices were allegedly jacked up. The Fey, Tebow, Richards and Isaacson books all came out in electronic versions from the named publishers after April 2010.

According to Pozen, Apple's Steve Jobs told publishers involved in the alleged conspiracy that "the customer pays a little more, but that's what you want anyway."

The lawsuit said the effort to get e-book prices increased by Amazon.com came as Apple was preparing to launch the iPad. The government said the conspirators agreed that instead of selling books to retailers and letting them decide what retail price to charge, the publishers would convert the retailers into "agents" who could sell their books but not alter the publisher-set retail price. The scheme called for Apple to be guaranteed a 30 percent commission on each e-book it sold, the lawsuit said.

"To effectuate their conspiracy, the publisher defendants teamed up with defendant Apple, which shared the same goal of restraining retail price competition in the sale of e-books," the lawsuit said.

The European Union conducted an investigation that paralleled the U.S. probe. The Union's Joaquín Almunia, vice president of the commission in charge of competition policy, said in Brussels that he welcomes the fact that the five companies are making proposals to reach an early resolution of the EU case. "We are currently engaged in fruitful discussions with them," said Almunia.

Hachette denied it was involved in any conspiracy to illegally fix the price of e-books and said it changed its pricing structure – the central government allegation – to facilitate entry by a new retail competitor, Apple.

"Two years ago, Amazon effectively had a monopoly on the sale of e-books and e-readers, and was selling products below cost in an effort to exclude competitors," said Hachette.

Amazon called the settlement "a big win for Kindle owners, and we look forward to being allowed to lower prices on more Kindle books."

After reading the federal complaint, the Consumer Federation of America called it "a `slam-dunk' case of collusive, anti-competitive behavior."

At Apple, spokesman Tom Neumayr declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Macmillan CEO John Sargent said in a letter to authors, illustrators and agents that the company has not settled because it is "hard to settle a lawsuit when you know you have done no wrong."

Sargent said there were months of discussions with the Justice Department over a possible settlement, but the government's proposed terms "were too onerous" and "could have allowed Amazon to recover the monopoly position it had been building before our switch to the agency (pricing) model."

"We also felt the settlement the DOJ wanted to impose would have a very negative and long-term impact on those who sell books for a living, from the largest chain stores to the smallest independents." he said.

Sargent denied he colluded with competitors to change Macmillan's pricing. "After days of thought and worry, I made the decision on January 22nd, 2010, a little after 4:00 AM, on an exercise bike in my basement. It remains the loneliest decision I have ever made, and I see no reason to go back on it now," he wrote.

"We have done nothing wrong," said Penguin Group's chairman and CEO, John Makinson. "The decisions that we took, many them of them costly and difficult, were taken by Penguin alone."

At the heart of the e-book pricing debate is the industry's ongoing concern about Amazon. Publishers see the "agency model" as their best, short-term hope against preventing the online retailer from dominating the e-book market and driving down the price of books to a level unsustainable for publishers and booksellers.

What the agency model achieved was to shift the power for setting retail prices on e-books from the retailer – in this case primarily Amazon – to the alleged conspirator publishers, who then exerted pressure on Amazon to comply with the higher prices. The alleged scheme applied to New York Times bestselling titles, all titles that have gone on sale in the current year and mass market paperback titles.

Amazon's $9.99 price for best-sellers was such a deep discount from list prices of $20 and more that it was widely believed Amazon was selling the e-books at a loss to attract more customers and force competitors to lower their prices. Amazon also has been demanding higher discounts from publishers and stopped offering e-books from the Independent Publishers Group, a Chicago-based distributor, after they couldn't agree to terms.

When Apple launched its tablet computer two years ago, publishers saw two ways to balance Amazon's power: Enough readers would prefer Apple's shiny tablet over the Kindle to cut into Amazon's sales, and the agency model would stabilize prices.

Apple's iBookstore has yet to become a major force, but publishers believe the new price model has reduced Amazon's market share from around 90 percent to around 60 percent, with Barnes & Noble's Nook in second at 25 percent. The iBookstore is believed to have 10 percent to 15 percent.

Macmillan's Sargent has been at the heart of the dispute. In early 2010, as publishers were trying to get Amazon to agree to Apple's pricing system, Amazon pulled all the listings for Macmillan books, including titles like Jonathan Franzen's "The Corrections" and Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickle and Dimed." Sargent refused to back down and Amazon eventually gave in.

New e-books from Macmillan and the other publishers investigated by the Justice Department often are priced initially between $12.99 and $14.99, with Amazon making a point of noting that the price was set by the publisher. Ironically, publishers usually make less money off the agency model than the traditional one because they receive a smaller percentage of the proceeds.

Random House Inc. was the only "Big Six" publisher not to agree to the agency model in 2010 and was not part of the lawsuit. But it did agree to terms with Apple last year. Spokesman Stuart Applebaum said Random House would have no comment Wednesday.

According to federal court papers, the settlement agreement with three publishers said that for two years they will not restrict, limit or impede an e-book retailer's ability to set, alter or reduce the retail price of any electronic book. It said the retailers will be able to offer price discounts and other forms or promotions to encourage consumers to buy one or more electronic books.

The 15 states in the state complaint are Texas, Connecticut, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont and West Virginia. Puerto Rico also joined that lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Austin, Texas.

___

Associated Press writers Larry Neumeister and Hillel Italie in New York contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

Filed by Bianca Bosker  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 880
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (17 total)
10:55 AM on 04/16/2012
Interesting legal conundrum. One of the DOJ's main arguments is that Apple demanded that publishers not offer lower prices through other e-book providers. That, apparently, is illegal. If so, the US Government is the greatest violator of that principle ... namely in the medical sector by demanding that all Medicare providers not be allowed to offer their services for less that the amount CMS reimburses for any covered service or procedure. Another example of "do as I say and not as I do". Not exactly the same, but close enough.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Leadsled
Love-child of the ghosts of FDR and Napoleon
03:43 PM on 04/17/2012
Not remotely the same. The Sherman antitrust act doesn't apply to state action. It never has nor was it ever supposed to.
12:03 AM on 04/13/2012
Oh, the horror! Businesses setting prices! Aaaah!

The government and "consumer advocates" need to get off their high horse on this one and admit that they are simply coercing business into charging less, the same as any mafioso. Brute force; nothing more, nothing less.

Not only does such persecution not represent the moral high road, it is the opposite: it represents a violation of businesses inalienable moral right to contract. If you don't like it, don't buy the e-book.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dallas Dunlap
10:17 AM on 04/16/2012
mtnrunner2 - Just wow! Have you ever taken an economics course? No, what was happening was that Amazon was buying books e-books at whatever price and reselling them at $9.99. On some books, $9.99 was below Amazon's cost.
Apple came along and told publishers that if they wanted to play at the Apple store, they had to mark up the prices and give the retailer a 30% cut. Apple and the publishers agreed and forced Amazon to do the same, thus artificially driving up e-book prices.
The settlement means that retailers can price books at any price they like, but that they can't sell below cost.
The "mafioso" behavior happened when Apple and the publishers hijacked the free market to force up prices. The settlement restores a free market.

http://www.amazon.com/Eater-Souls-The-Food-ebook/dp/B006GT3CT0/ref=
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Leadsled
Love-child of the ghosts of FDR and Napoleon
03:46 PM on 04/17/2012
Its not setting prices is collusively setting prices. Its something which has been illegal for 122 years.
03:40 PM on 04/12/2012
I stopped buying e-books for my Kindle when Amazon raised their prices. Even though they were "forced" to raise prices because of the publishers' collusion they colluded all the way to the bank too.
Actually went back to buying books at Costco. Don't even go to the bookstores.
03:56 PM on 04/12/2012
However, Amazon has been consistent in their policies. They allow the publishers/writers to set prices but they also give a smaller royalty to those who price above $9.99. At a price point between $2.99 and $9.99 you get a 70% royalty. Below $2.99 and above $9.99 you get a 30% royalty.

There would be an issue of price fixing if they prevented the publishers and us independent writers from setting the prices at what we want. They just encourage publishing in what they believe to be the "sweet spot" by offering a bigger %.
05:23 PM on 04/12/2012
Thank you for the explanation. Sad that reporters don't bother with this detail anymore. You should read the Kindle readers forum dating back to when Amazon jacked up the prices. Furious is an understatement.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dallas Dunlap
10:20 AM on 04/16/2012
RoberttheWriter - But that isn't price fixing because it only affects Amazon. What Apple and the publishers did was fix prices throughout the industry.
03:09 PM on 04/12/2012
I wish the Obama administration would go after the REAL price fixers in this country which is gasoline prices at the pump. That's where consumers need the help.
03:36 PM on 04/12/2012
That means Wall St speculators in collusion with big oil both of which have both parties in their pockets. Good luck on that!
01:45 PM on 04/12/2012
Sounds to me like price fixing. But I dont buy ebooks. I suppose if your someone who buys a lot of ebooks it might matter to you to get a refund but really whats it going to be, a few dollars.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnTheMac
Now, why don't you go home and get your shine box?
01:21 PM on 04/12/2012
The strange thing is that usually the DOJ would go after a monopoly, like Amazon owning 90% of the EBook market. They used predatory pricing to get that 90%, and while you might say that's good for consumers, it also is only good for mainstream consumers with higher incomes to afford the reader to begin with.
Best Sellers for $9.99 kills the bread and butter of some of the few independent bookstores left. If it's a rare book you're looking for, or some special interest book, just forget it. This is the company that sent shoppers out to brick and mortar stores with apps to check prices and give you a discount for being a good reporter.
After these companies did what they did, it resulted in the breakup of Amazon's near monopoly of the market.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Leadsled
Love-child of the ghosts of FDR and Napoleon
03:49 PM on 04/17/2012
Which is almost certainly Apple's chief defense against the case. However, you cannot collude to set prices though. Apple essentially raised Amazon's prices, harming consumers. The brick and mortar argument is nonsensical in an antitrust context, if they cannot offer better prices for consumers than the other competitors, them being harmed is the market working as it should, nothing else.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
garyd63
11:13 AM on 04/12/2012
And the race to the bottom (in literary excellence and author remuneration for their creativity) picks up speed. It's No Mediocrity Left Behind in our sorry book culture.
10:56 AM on 04/12/2012
Amazon's behavior has been despicable for ages. I have not bought anything from them for three years because the way they have treated publishers is an outrage. I'm completely disgusted that the DOJ is going after Apple and not Amazon. Amazon has repeatedly removed publishers' entire collections from their store to bully them into agreeing to rates that hurt publishers and authors. Amazon has destroyed many other retailers, and is seriously a danger to the marketplace. Now, Amazon is launching their own "publishing" imprints and refusing to pay authors fair compensation for their work. If any company is in danger of becoming a monopoly, and causing serious detriment to the state of books and reading, it's Amazon.

I don't like everything Apple does, but in this case, Apple is not the bad guy. I breathed a sigh of relief when Apple's iPad was released, because it signaled real pressure for Amazon to improve (they haven't). I want the DOJ to go after the real bad guys, here.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnTheMac
Now, why don't you go home and get your shine box?
01:25 PM on 04/12/2012
Remember the project they had where shoppers would report back prices in brick and mortar stores?
Also, you can enjoy not paying sales tax from Amazon, but don't complain when your state has to raise the gas taxes to make up for it.
I just read a Forbes article about the ironies of this case, and how the actions of the publishers and apple at least helped break up the monopoly Amazon had of 90% of the market:
I'm not a Forbes fan, but it's an interesting read
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbobelian/2012/04/12/the-irony-of-the-governments-antitrust-case-against-apple-and-five-publishers/?partner=yahootix
12:45 AM on 04/13/2012
I hate Amazon too. I avoid buying from their main site but they own so much these days I doubt I've managed to avoid them entirely. I buy most of my books from Barnes & Noble's online site since I don't always have time to go to the bookstore, but prefer to support a company that has physical bookstores. I loved the bookstore as a child and I want my future kids if they love reading to be able to have that experience too.
07:30 AM on 04/12/2012
More evidence that deregulation is awesome and companys are run by saints who should fly free and be unfettered to the nasty ol' D.O.J
A "Kochtopus" doll for everyone!! Huzzaah!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:27 AM on 04/12/2012
Don't you mean a "Kochthulu" doll?
11:20 AM on 04/12/2012
Hah, i've never heard that one before and yet it seems so obvious. nice.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
luckycur
07:06 AM on 04/12/2012
Whats wrong with this picture, Amazon can somehow offer books at $9.99 and no investigation, yet Apple is being hounded for $12.99 pricing. Sounds as if Amazon is the company working with publishers to set pricing at a level to eliminate competition. It's all about the huge cash reserves of Apple, the government wants a piece of the pie.
10:42 AM on 04/12/2012
Actually, all reports I've heard are that Amazon bullies publishers through completely horrible business practices into agreeing to Amazon's low prices that end up hurting publishers and authors. I know so many authors who have been harmed by Amazon, it's ridiculous. I actually get upset when I see people using Kindles. I love technology, but Amazon is hurting people who love books every day.
03:58 PM on 04/12/2012
I disagree completely. I won't repeat my comments from above, but I've self published through them and found them to be pretty reasonable and they have a lot of good ebooks at reasonable pricing whereas the publishers charge nearly as much, and sometimes more, for an ebook as they do for a printed copy.
06:01 AM on 04/12/2012
Yeah - lets focus on apple and maybe we can all forget about FAST and FURIOUS and Obama's school records and nasty stuff like that - where is holder on this Florida bounty fiasco???
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:00 AM on 04/12/2012
Gee, Apple overcharging for things? Who would have thought.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
auramac
03:53 AM on 04/12/2012
Incompetence. An embarrassment to left and right alike.
02:48 AM on 04/12/2012
What is wrong with a company setting there prices,,,,you can always look for another source,,,like walmart price or a target price for the same item, Do they have a monopoly or something I do not konw from this artical?
wildwesth
Loving my misguided Republican friends
04:53 AM on 04/12/2012
Yes, the publisher sets the final sales price and won't allow anyone to resell at anything but the fixed price. It's called "agency" pricing. That is different from wholesale pricing, where a retailer buys in bulk and sells at a discount. So, this is price fixing and it's restraint of trade, which is a Federal offense and unconstitutional. But it wasn't a problem for Steve Jobs, just like moving 30,000 jobs from America to China wasn't a problem for him either.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
abliss2379
09:50 AM on 04/12/2012
Bravo. Well put.
03:59 PM on 04/12/2012
You nailed it.
02:47 AM on 04/12/2012
Well in such a closed system like that of Apple's it is only natural that price fixing will occur.
Even if they did not want to fix prices, it is a close system where Apple has the final saying and rules on everything. So what you expect
You here that Android!