Apple rejects DOJ charge of e-book price collusion
Apple is vehemently denying that it colluded with other publishers over the price of e-books, as the Department of Justice (DOJ) claims.
April 13, 2012 at 07:16 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Apple is vehemently denying that it colluded with other publishers over the price of e-books, as the Department of Justice (DOJ) claims. The DOJ filed suit against Apple and five other publishers on Wednesday, saying the companies partook in an “illegal conspiracy” to fix the prices of e-books–a violation of antitrust laws.
“The DOJ's accusation of collusion against Apple is simply not true,” Apple said in a statement, which it first issued to online publication All Things D yesterday.
Apple and two of the other named defendants–MacMillan and Penguin–plan to fight the claims. The other three publishers charged–Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster–have agreed to a proposed settlement.
In 2009, when publishing executives began meeting with Apple to discuss competition issues, Amazon's e-book pricing was part of the talks. According to Attorney General Eric Holder that amounted to “part of a conspiracty to raise, fix and stabilize retail prices.”
Apple denies those allegations. “The launch of the iBookstore in 2010 fostered innovation and competition, breaking Amazon's monopolistic grip on the publishing industry,” the company said in its statement.
Australia may be next in line to file suit against Apple over e-book pricing. Although the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) wouldn't confirm it planned to pursue the collusion charge against Apple when it talked to the country's consumer watchdog, The Australian Financial Review, it did tell the group, “Competition concerns may arise where traders seek to restrict the discounting of products by way of restrictive arrangements with suppliers.”
Last month, Apple settled a suit with the ACCC over claims the company made about its iPads.
“The DOJ's accusation of collusion against
In 2009, when publishing executives began meeting with
Australia may be next in line to file suit against
Last month,
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1'Erroneous Assumption'?: Apple Challenges DOJ Antitrust Remedy in Google Search Monopoly Case
- 2A Jury to Determine Whether Stairs Were Defectively Designed in Injury Case, State Appellate Court Rules
- 3Baker & Hostetler Names 24 New Partners
- 4Test
- 5Am Law 200 Firm Steps In to Defend Boston Transportation Company in Trademark Dispute
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250