ILNews

Judge finds Apple conspired to raise e-book prices

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled Wednesday that Apple Inc. colluded with major U.S. publishers to artificially raise the retail prices of e-books.

The lawsuit, in which Indiana joined in May 2012, alleged that Apple, MacMillan and Penguin Group planned to raise the prices of e-books, violating state and federal antitrust laws. Once Apple joined the e-book market in 2010, the suit claims that the two publishers conspired with Apple to shift their distribution model from retailer outlets like Amazon to a model that would allow publishers to set their prices and sell the books directly to customers. This allowed the publishers to charge more for the e-books, which forced other e-book retail outlets to increase their prices.

The plaintiffs – the U.S. Department of Justice and 32 other states –  sought damages, restitution, civil penalties and injunctive relief.

“Federal and state laws are designed to ensure the market remains competitive and fair,” Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said. “This ruling emphasizes the importance of accountability in the E-book marketplace and highlights how the states and the federal government can work together to protect consumers.”

A separate trial on damages will be held at a later date.

The plaintiffs have already settled with five major U.S. publishers regarding allegations relating to the same conduct. Zoeller said together those settlements will result in Indiana residents receiving $2.7 million in refunds.

More information about the refund process can be found at www.ebooksagsettlements.com or by calling the Indiana attorney general’s office at 1-800-382-5516.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. For many years this young man was "family" being my cousin's son. Then he decided to ignore my existence and that of my daughter who was very hurt by his actions after growing up admiring, Jason. Glad he is doing well, as for his opinion, if you care so much you wouldn't ignore the feelings of those who cared so much about you for years, Jason.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT