5 Comments

Summary:

There’s no end in sight for Apple’s legal misery over an alleged ebook conspiracy. New court reports scold the company, and clear the way for a damages trial to start on July 14.

apple-scales

New court reports this week suggest Apple is sinking ever deeper into legal quicksand, as the company fights a court judgment over ebook price-fixing that could ultimately cost it close to $1 billion dollars.

In the latest bit of bad news for Apple, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote on Tuesday confirmed that 33 state attorneys general can proceed with a lawsuit to seek triple damages for “injury inflicted on their economies and their citizens.” (Consumers in the other 17 states who overpaid for ebooks will be represented by class action lawyers, who obtained class certification last month.)

Cote’s opinion this week, which came in response to a motion by Apple to block the states’ claims on standing grounds, clears the way for the damages phase of the trial to get underway on July 14 – even as Apple asks an appeals court to reverse Cote’s decision last year that it brokered a price-fixing conspiracy over ebooks.

The ultimate price-tag for Apple in all this is anyone’s guess. The book publishers that were sued alongside Apple agreed to pay about $160 million (check your Kindle account), but that came as part of a settlement. For Apple, if it loses, the bill will be much higher since the company decided to fight rather than settle, and because antitrust law includes a nasty penalty clause that triples actual damages.

Consumers could see a judgment of between $750 to $850 million,” Steve Berman, who is leading the class action, said last month. And that doesn’t even include Apple’s mounting legal bills.

Meanwhile, Apple had to endure a further dose of legal misery this week in the form of a long scolding from the court-appointed antitrust monitor that the company tried to remove in January.

In a 77-page report, the monitor Michael Bromwich bemoans Apple’s earlier lack of cooperation, and describes his affronts over Apple’s failure to immediately grant his requests to interview senior executives like Johnny Ive and board member Al Gore (neither of whom have anything to do with Apple’s ebook policies).

Bromwich’s behavior has been the subject of acerbic editorials in the Wall Street Journal, which have pointed out that he is a personal friend of Judge Cote’s and has no background in antitrust law.

Bromwich’s report is “the first in a series,” for which Apple must foot every penny. It notes the company’s “promising start to enhancing its Antitrust Compliance Program, but that Apple still has much work to do” — and carries on in that vein for many more pages (it’s embedded below, with some key parts underlined, if you want to take a look for yourself).

As I’ve said in the past, this case jumped the shark a long time ago. Apple is now a bit player in an ebooks market dominated more than ever by Amazon. And unlike, say, the Comcast-TimeWarnerCable merger, there are no pressing antitrust issues here — but that’s unlikely to stop Cote, Bromwich and the merry band of lawyers from trying to torment Apple a little longer.

Monitor Report

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. Alleged?

    That word says a lot about the writer agenda.

    “As I’ve said in the past, this case jumped the shark a long time ago”

    And this show how much the writer knows about the US legal system. Are you saying that Apple has to drop its appealing?

  2. nikatomuirhead Wednesday, April 16, 2014

    Apple developed a means of selling books which forced Amazon to play fair. Oh No.Darn apple to heck.

    1. “Apple developed a means of selling books which forced Amazon to play fair.”

      Mmmm, no?

  3. Personally I think it’s great seeing this large companies like Apple being brought to task.

    For too long several of the large “online players” that have sought to bully and monopolise their markets simply because firstly their arrogance leads them to believe they are above the law, and secondly because in the past they have relied upon the fact that regulators lacking the technical savy have not been aware of what they were doing for a lengthy period, and then it takes even longer to walk them into a court room.

    This behaviour simply promotes the belief that wrong-doing only becomes wrong once you’ve been caught and found guilty. And that sends all the wrong messages. I have absolutely no sympathy for the likes of Apple, MS and the big G when they eventually get caught and penalised because their actions fall under the heading Unscrupulous.

    1. Amazon is also a large company that controls a large portion of online hosting marketshare and almost the entire ebook market.

Comments have been disabled for this post