Apple ‘conspired’ to raise prices on e-books

Tech giant accused of colluding with five publishers to raise prices from 2009 onwards

A Barnes & Noble Nook e-book reader, right, and the Amazon Kindle. A federal judge has ruled that Apple conspired to raise the retail prices of e-books in violation of antitrust law, and called for a trial on damages. Photograph: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg.

A Barnes & Noble Nook e-book reader, right, and the Amazon Kindle. A federal judge has ruled that Apple conspired to raise the retail prices of e-books in violation of antitrust law, and called for a trial on damages. Photograph: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg.

 

A federal judge has ruled that Apple conspired to raise the retail prices of e-books in violation of antitrust law, and called for a trial on damages.

The decision by US District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan, which could reshape how books are sold on the internet, is a victory for the US government and various states, which the judge said are entitled to injunctive relief.

Apple had been accused of colluding with five publishers to boost e-book prices beginning in late 2009, as the Silicon Valley giant was preparing to launch its popular iPad tablet.

The US department of justice said this conspiracy was designed to undercut online retailer Amazon’s dominance of the fast-growing e-books market.

Only Apple went to trial, while the publishers - Lagardere SCA’s Hachette Book Group and Macmillan, News Corp’s HarperCollins Publishers, Pearson’s Penguin Group (USA) and CBS’s Simon & Schuster Inc - settled with the US government and the states.

Judge Cote said the conspiracy resulted in prices for some e-books rising to $12.99 or $14.99, when Amazon had sold for $9.99.

“The plaintiffs have shown that the publisher defendants conspired with each other to eliminate retail price competition in order to raise e-book prices, and that Apple played a central role in facilitating and executing that conspiracy,” Judge Cote said.

“Without Apple’s orchestration of this conspiracy, it would not have succeeded as it did in the spring of 2010,” she added.

Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment.