A PRH/S&S merger would be good for the industry, attorneys claim.
Catching up with PW's Andrew Albanese
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Email | Download
In a Washington, DC courtroom on Wednesday, the US Department of Justice and Penguin Random House – parties to a landmark antitrust lawsuit seeking to block PRH’s purchase of Simon & Schuster– agreed to an expedited schedule for proceedings, including an August 1, 2022 trial date.
Earlier, PRH offered answers to the government’s charges, especially DOJ’s claim that the purchase would “likely result in substantial harm to authors of anticipated top-selling books and ultimately, consumers.”
Attorneys for the publisher “took aim at the government’s theory that the deal will chill the advances of ‘anticipated top-selling books,’ calling that a fictional category that the government hasn’t even bothered to define,” says Andrew Albanese, Publishers Weekly senior writer.
“They argue that the government’s market share data is wrong, and that the data they will present will show that the deal would actually be good for the industry,” he tells CCC’s Chris Kenneally.
Every Friday, CCC’s “Velocity of Content” speaks with the editors and reporters of “Publishers Weekly” for an early look at the news that publishers, editors, authors, agents and librarians will be talking about when they return to work on Monday.
Antitrust laws have long been regarded as protecting both purchasers and sellers of goods and services, including, as relevant in this case, authors who rely on competition between large publishers to ensure they are fairly compensated for their work. As the complaint makes apparent, this merger will harm American employees, including authors, by causing buyer consolidation – a reality pattern known as “monopsony.”