Three months after a federal appeals court upheld a 2013 decision that found Apple liable for conspiring with publisher to raise the price of e-books, the company is taking the fight to clear its name to the country’s highest legal authority: the Supreme Court. [More]
As we’ve previously reported, there’s a legal war going on — with optometrists and manufacturers on one side, and discount and online retailers on the other — over how much you should have to pay for your contact lenses. Both sides of this battle have recently released surveys they hope will help win over public opinion. [More]
Though Apple’s alleged co-conspirators have long since settled and gone about the process of making good for the price-fixing they did not legally admit to committing, the elecronics company had held out in its fight to clear its name, taking the case to a federal appeals court late last year. It seems the electronics company will have to give up that battle, after the court upheld a 2013 decision that found Apple liable for conspiring with publishers to raise the price of e-books.
Contact lens companies have been working together to create price floors for their products, prohibiting retailers from offering competitive discounts and removing consumers’ ability to shop around for savings. Legislators in Utah recently passed a bill that would outlaw this practice but in May a federal appeals court temporarily blocked it from being enacted. But on Friday, the court vacated that injunction, allowing the new law to move forward. [More]
When you think of cartels and price fixing, what’s the first thing to come to mind? Probably drugs, oil, or electronics that fall off the back of a truck, but definitely not yogurt. Still, it was that very product that led to the bust of a French dairy product cartel after a U.S.-based company apparently crashed the colluding. [More]
While all of its alleged co-conspirators have settled and begun the process of atoning for the price-fixing sins they have not legally admitted to committing, and even though it was found guilty of its part in the arrangement in 2013, Apple is still fighting to clear its name. Today, the electronics company once again squared off against federal prosecutors, trying to make the claim that Apple was actually trying to help break up Amazon’s monopoly on e-book pricing. [More]
A year after a federal court ruled against Apple in the e-book price-fixing lawsuit brought by the Justice Dept., court documents reveal the terms of a second settlement that would close the books on state and civil claims tied to the price-fixing issue. But since the deal is contingent on Apple’s pending appeal of the DOJ case, the company could pay out as much as $400 million in refunds or as little as zilch. [More]
So you want to know how your sausage is made? Over in Germany, customers are finding out a bit more about their sausage — but instead of what ingredients go into their salami, liverwurst and knockwurst, the country’s regulatory office says more than 20 sausage makers were working together to fix prices for their meaty wares. [More]
The saga surrounding Apple’s purported e-book price-fixing collusion ring seems to be entering its final chapter –– but not without keeping things shrouded in mystery for a little while longer. [More]
The largest criminal antitrust investigation in the history of the Justice Department just got larger. It has nothing to do with telecommunications or giant mergers or any exotic items, though; it’s all about auto parts. A worldwide price-fixing and bid-rigging conspiracy related to those auto parts has resulted in 27 guilty pleas and over $2.3 billion in fines — and the investigation is still underway.
While Apple is still fighting the court’s ruling that it was involved in e-book price-fixing with America’s largest book publishing companies, those publishers have all reached settlements with the various regulators, attorneys general, and others over the same allegations that they colluded to set an inflated price on e-books. Today, Amazon began issuing credit to its customers who paid too much because of the publishers’ actions. [More]
For years, some have accused America’s largest hotel chains of colluding with travel booking sites like Travelocity, Expedia, Orbitz, and Priceline to make sure that the room rates offered to consumers on these sites are the same. This practice, claimed plaintiffs in various lawsuits, effectively allowed the hotel chains to determine their own prices and kept the booking sites from competing against each other; meaning consumers could be paying more than they should. But a U.S. District Court judge feels differently. [More]
Ever heard of price-fixing chocolate? How about fish or rubber shoes? Those are just a few of the price-fixing schemes found by competition authorities in a record-breaking year of anti-trust abuse. [More]
Did you file a claim in the recent class action settlement with EA that claimed they took advantage of an unfair marketplace for officially licensed football games? Watch your mailbox: tipsters report receiving their settlement checks in the mail.
Last week, the Justice Dept. offered its first proposal of how Apple should be punished now that it’s been found to have colluded with publishers to fix e-book prices. Among those suggestions is that Apple cancel its existing pricing arrangement with the publishers in question and that it not enter into similar arrangements for another five years. But publishers claim that this ultimately hurts the content providers and not the retailer. [More]
It’s been an up and down sort of day for Apple — while it managed to make peace with its rival Amazon in the App Store vs. Appstore debate, it also suffered a pretty big hit by way of a guilty verdict in the antitrust civil trial over e-book price-fixing. A U.S. District judge ruled today that Apple broke antitrust laws and conspired with publishers to hike up the prices of e-books. [More]
Apple Exec: I Protected Consumers From High E-Book Prices By Letting Publishers Set High E-Book Prices
Earlier today, Apple executive Eddy Cue — the architect of the company’s iTunes and e-book business — took the stand in court to face questions about his company’s role in alleged price-fixing of the e-book market, where he admitted that Apple had actually mulled over an even worse idea than mere price-fixing. [More]