Judge denies Apple motion to dismiss states' e-books suit
A federal judge on Tuesday denied Apple's motion to dismiss a lawsuit leveled by state attorneys general over e-book price fixing, allowing a trial that could cost the company up to $840 million to move forward.
Apple's closing slide in its e-book antitrust case. | Source: U.S. District Court
In an opinion and order, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote disagreed with Apple's contention that 33 states and territories lack standing to pursue the company for damages relating to e-book price fixing.
As part of her decision, the jurist cited legal precedent, as well as her own ruling in March that granted class status to consumers suing Apple in the same case. With Apple's roadblock motion out of the way, 33 states and territories can now join the suit seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages as a result of Apple's e-book price fixing, reports Reuters.
Referring to her prior class status ruling, Judge Cote said the following:
The upcoming damages trial, to be heard on July 14, will come almost exactly one year after Judge Cote ruled Apple as liable in conspiring with five major book publishers to falsely inflate the price of e-books sold through the iBookstore.
Following the guilty verdict, the court applied an injunction against Apple requiring the company not enter offending agreements with publishers or other business entities. In addition, Judge Cote installed external antitrust compliance monitor Michael Bromwich to ensure Apple's continued adherence to the law.
It was revealed in February that state attorneys general are seeking $280 million in damages, an amount that could be trebled to $840 million.
Apple's closing slide in its e-book antitrust case. | Source: U.S. District Court
In an opinion and order, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote disagreed with Apple's contention that 33 states and territories lack standing to pursue the company for damages relating to e-book price fixing.
As part of her decision, the jurist cited legal precedent, as well as her own ruling in March that granted class status to consumers suing Apple in the same case. With Apple's roadblock motion out of the way, 33 states and territories can now join the suit seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages as a result of Apple's e-book price fixing, reports Reuters.
Referring to her prior class status ruling, Judge Cote said the following:
Apple argued that due process was being usurped by allowing the states' parens patriae actions, under which state attorneys general represent citizens, without first moving for class certification. The decision to deny is in line with the jurist's prior rulings in the case, including those handed down during the Department of Justice's antitrust suit which acts as a base for subsequent court actions.Finally, in the related class action this Court certified a class on March 28, 2014. In doing so, the Court carefully examined and rejected each of the challenges brought by Apple against certification. None of those challenges gave cause for any concern that Apple's due process rights are at stake from an effort to obtain damages for its violation of the federal antitrust laws.
The upcoming damages trial, to be heard on July 14, will come almost exactly one year after Judge Cote ruled Apple as liable in conspiring with five major book publishers to falsely inflate the price of e-books sold through the iBookstore.
Following the guilty verdict, the court applied an injunction against Apple requiring the company not enter offending agreements with publishers or other business entities. In addition, Judge Cote installed external antitrust compliance monitor Michael Bromwich to ensure Apple's continued adherence to the law.
It was revealed in February that state attorneys general are seeking $280 million in damages, an amount that could be trebled to $840 million.
Comments
AI, can you please change the headline -- and future such headlines -- from '(Federal) Judge Denies.....' (which makes it sound legitimate) to 'Denise Cote, Bromwich Pal, Denies....' (which says it all)? Thanks.
also. "Digitimes rumor say..."
$840 million!! How in the world do they come up with this figure? When the iPad came out in 2010, the total industry revenues for the entire year in 2010, was $838 million. To be clear, this is not profits for so called price hikes. This is total gross receipts (revenue) for every single ebook sold over the entire year. The states and US government wants Apple to pay a fine equal to every single ebook sold over the course of a year? This is just plain abuse of the US justice system. Assuming they can get away with proving that Apple needs to be fined, the punishment does not fit the crime. With these kinds of fines, it is not Apple who will be commiting a crime.
So what does it take to get this appeal heard before an impartial Judge?
So what does it take to get this appeal heard before an impartial Judge?
paying more taxes or spending more to lobby congress. seriously, this is what this is about.
paying more taxes or spending more to lobby congress. seriously, this is what this is about.
Sadly, I agree with you 100%. It has nothing whatsoever to do with justice.A federal judge on Tuesday denied Apple's motion to dismiss a lawsuit leveled by state attorneys general over e-book price fixing, allowing a trial that could cost the company up to $840 million to move forward.
Why you stupid judge why! how much did amazon paid u to look the other way and ignore the fact that amazon blatantly copies Apple
But nooooooooo for u is important who raises prices...well gues what everyone who works in bussiness inclunding AMazon did it first
Who the hecjk is amazon did they invented books?
No news here. When Apple gets to the appeal, that's when things will count. Of course Cote isn't going to dismiss the case, and Apple knew this. But they have to file the paperwork anyway.
Who says she won’t just rule with prejudice and prevent Apple from appealing?
This sounds like such a scam.
How can a judge appoint their friend to monitor Apple? The whole thing sounds corrupt. Isn't there something called conflict of interest?
Sue the judge!
Quote:
This sounds like such a scam.
How can a judge appoint their friend to monitor Apple? The whole thing sounds corrupt. Isn't there something called conflict of interest?
I kind of pictured her like this:
The wicked witch of the East and her faithful sidekick, strike again.
But all this pales in comparison to "Noted analyst (you know who)...."
I think the entire "friends" claim is based on a letter she sent to the Senate endorsing him as Pres. Clinton's next Inspector General for the Justice Dept in 1994.
Anyway, stumbled on a detailed description of why the Bromwich monitoring started out so shaky. He did seem overly anxious to get things underway. I can see why the two sides almost immediately started butting heads based on this report.
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/12/02/apple-ebook-court-monitor/?iid=HP_River