Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
It is about preserving distribution channels.
However, it is not about "removing competition." There are no allegations that the publishers illegally coordinated prices, or tried to price smaller publishers out of the market, or tried to shut down Amazon.
If anything, agency pricing actually facilitates competition between retailers. Every retailer gets the same cut, the same availability, at the same time as every other retailer.
More to the point, if the DoJ is saying there is nothing wrong with agency pricing, then restricting agency pricing doesn't seem to be the appropriate punishment for alleged collusion. Fines and industry supervision are much more appropriate, not barring companies from using legally acceptable pricing structures.
|
Price is the primary form of competition for e-commerce sites so removing retailer price competition is definitely removing competition.
This is a settlement and not a punishment. After all the publishers haven't admitted to doing anything wrong.
The DOJ made their position clear. The publishers would not have been able to impose agency pricing if they didn't collude. An individual publisher would have put themselves at a price disadvantage. It's a perfectly reasonable settlement to reset the clock and have them try again without colluding.