http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f285300/285315.pdf
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
When Apple launched its iBookstore in April of 2010, virtually overnight the retail prices of many bestselling and newly released e-books published in this country jumped 30 to 50 percent—affecting millions of consumers. The United States conducted a lengthy investigation into this steep price increase and uncovered significant evidence that the
seismic shift in e-book prices was not the result of market forces, but rather came about
through the collusive efforts of Apple and five of the six largest publishers in the country.
That conduct, which is detailed in the United States’ Complaint against those entities, is per
se illegal under the federal antitrust laws
Three of the publishers named in the Complaint as defendants—Hachette Book
Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C., and Simon & Schuster, Inc.—have entered into
settlement agreements with the United States. As it is required to do under the Tunney Act,
the United States solicited comments from the public regarding the settlements. The United
States received 868 comments from individuals, publishers, booksellers, and even from
Apple, a key conspirator in the underlying price-fixing scheme.
Comments were submitted both in support of, and in opposition to, the proposed
settlements. Those in support largely commented favorably on the government’s efforts to
end the conspiracy that cost e-book purchasers millions of dollars, and restore competition to
the e-book market. Critical comments generally were submitted by those who have an
interest in seeing consumers pay more for e-books, and hobbling retailers that might want to
sell e-books at lower prices. Many such comments expressed a general frustration with
conditions that arise not from the settlements or even the United States’ Complaint, but fromthe evolving nature of the publishing industry—in which the growing popularity of e-books
is placing pressure on the prevailing model that is built on physical supply chains and brickand-mortar stores. Many critics of the settlements view the consequences of the
conspiracy—higher prices—as serving their own self-interests, and they prefer that
unfettered competition be replaced by industry collusion that places the welfare of certain
firms over that of the public. That position is wholly at odds with the purposes of the federal
antitrust laws—which were enacted to protect competition, not competitors. See, e.g., Brown
Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 320 (1962).