Amazon’s dominance in the e-book market, according to litigation, has enabled the e-retailer to “coerce” publishers into anticompetitive deals.
Catching up with PW's Andrew Albanese
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Email | Download
On Monday in New York, U.S. District Judge Gregory Woods formally accepted a magistrate’s recommendation that lawyers for a consumer class action against Amazon have enough facts to plausibly allege that the e-retailer’s conduct has led to “reduced competition” in the e-book marketplace and “higher e-book prices for consumers.”
“While several core claims in the suit were rejected, the litigation can now move forward on two claims of ‘monopolization’ and ‘attempted monopolization’ against Amazon,” reports Andrew Albanese, Publishers Weekly executive editor.
Filed in 2021, the suit initially alleged that the Big Five publishers—Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin Random House, and Simon & Schuster—were co-conspirators in a scheme with Amazon to suppress retail price competition and keep e-book prices artificially high.
In September 2022, however, a magistrate judge recommended the case be rejected for lack of evidence. When the U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York ruled accordingly, he allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.
In a 125-page Second Consolidated Amended complaint filed in November 2022, lawyers for Hagens Berman returned to argue that Amazon’s dominance in the e-book market has enabled the company to “coerce” publishers into anticompetitive deals, specifically, contractual provisions that foreclose competition on price or product availability.
In its defense, Amazon insists that its contract terms are “not inherently anticompetitive,” and that there is no evidence the company’s conduct “had the effect of raising agency commissions to anticompetitive levels.”
“But those questions don’t need to be resolved at the pleading stage,” Albanese tells CCC’s Chris Kenneally.
“The court held that the plaintiffs had enough to keep the case from being dismissed. However, publishers have been officially dismissed from the case—there was simply no evidence of any conspiracy to fix prices, which the publishers have always called absurd.”
Every Friday, CCC’s “Velocity of Content” features the editors and reporters of Publishers Weekly for an early look at what news publishers, editors, authors, agents, and librarians will be talking about when they return to work on Monday.
