Judge voices concern over Apple's $450M e-book settlement, says may hurt consumers
U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote on Thursday said she is concerned about the terms of Apple's settlement with a class of consumers due hundreds of millions of dollars over e-book price fixing, claiming certain provisions could greatly reduce the damages payout.
According to in-court reports from Reuters, Judge Cote takes issue with a particular settlement clause that would require Apple to only pay $70 million if her earlier decision is overturned by an appeals court and sent back down for reevaluation. Alternatively, if the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ultimately exonerates Apple, the company pays nothing.
The jurist went on to question the fairness of such a decrease in monetary damages, noting an appellate court could feasibly send the case back on a minor issue. That Apple would not be forced to pay interest on said damages during appeals proceedings was also a bone of contention.
"We thought given that unlikely scenario and the legal risk we would face it would be a good outcome for consumers," said Steve Berman, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs. After the session, Berman told the publication that his team would now reconsider the settlement after hearing Judge Cote's concerns.
In a July 2013 ruling, Judge Cote found Apple guilty of colluding with five major book publishers to inflate the prices of e-books sold through the iBookstore. The U.S. Department of Justice presented the antitrust case against Apple that ultimately brought an injunction barring the company from entering any similar arrangement with other parties.
Apple settled the case with 33 U.S. states and territories last week for a maximum of $450 million, with $400 million going directly to consumers affected by the iBookstore's e-book pricing. Plaintiffs were expected to seek up to $840 million if the case went to trial.
The settlement has not yet been ratified by Judge Cote, meaning its terms can be modified before being accepted by the court.
According to in-court reports from Reuters, Judge Cote takes issue with a particular settlement clause that would require Apple to only pay $70 million if her earlier decision is overturned by an appeals court and sent back down for reevaluation. Alternatively, if the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ultimately exonerates Apple, the company pays nothing.
The jurist went on to question the fairness of such a decrease in monetary damages, noting an appellate court could feasibly send the case back on a minor issue. That Apple would not be forced to pay interest on said damages during appeals proceedings was also a bone of contention.
"We thought given that unlikely scenario and the legal risk we would face it would be a good outcome for consumers," said Steve Berman, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs. After the session, Berman told the publication that his team would now reconsider the settlement after hearing Judge Cote's concerns.
In a July 2013 ruling, Judge Cote found Apple guilty of colluding with five major book publishers to inflate the prices of e-books sold through the iBookstore. The U.S. Department of Justice presented the antitrust case against Apple that ultimately brought an injunction barring the company from entering any similar arrangement with other parties.
Apple settled the case with 33 U.S. states and territories last week for a maximum of $450 million, with $400 million going directly to consumers affected by the iBookstore's e-book pricing. Plaintiffs were expected to seek up to $840 million if the case went to trial.
The settlement has not yet been ratified by Judge Cote, meaning its terms can be modified before being accepted by the court.
Comments
So according to the proposed settlement - Apple would only have to settle if they were ultimately found guilty of price fixing; that seems fair. The Judge wants them to pay even if a later court finds them not guilty of price-fixing???
I don't understand how they were found guilty in the first place - can someone enlighten me without jokes, puns, etc...
Google is paying 75$ per hour! Just work for few hours & spend more time with friends and family. On Sunday I bought themselves a Alfa Romeo from having made $5637 this month. Useful site..................
WWW.ZAKJOB.COM
Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour.
I work through this link
go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,
?????????????? http://www.zakjob.com
The insanity of that headline immediately told me it was Judge Cote. LOL!
She should be bounced from the bench like a Superball.
U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote on Thursday said she is concerned about the terms of Apple's settlement with a class of consumers due hundreds of millions of dollars over e-book price fixing, claiming certain provisions could greatly reduce the damages payout.
According to in-court reports from Reuters, Judge Cote takes issue with a particular settlement clause that would require Apple to only pay $70 million if her earlier decision is overturned by an appeals court and sent back down for reevaluation. Alternatively, if the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ultimately exonerates Apple, the company pays nothing.
So she's complaining that if her decision is appealed and Apple wins, Apple won't have to pay as much or pay at all?
So if they get found not guilty or guilty to a lesser degree, they should still have to pay the full amount they agreed to (which they only agreed to because they were found guilty)?
Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour.
I work through this link
go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,
?????????????? http://www.zakjob.com
This is the judge who said there were unusual mitigating circumstances but would not let those moderate her verdict because, well, (and I paraphrase) not willing to suggest existing law needs to be further qualified.
She is certainly turning the screws here.
Earlier tonight I decided unsubscribe from all Democratic emails due to all the political games beng played in Washington, DC. Now reading yet another asinine game continuing to be played has me feeling even more disgusted about the USA legal system. And, to think THE Obama ADMINISTRATION is writing guidelines for drone surveillance in the USA.
Okay, I moved off topic, but it all is crashing in on the same day.
Think of the lawyers, people. For God's sake. Think of the lawyers! They have to eat too. On Gulfstream jets...
Innocent people in prison, background deals between judges and lawyers, guilty without evidence etc. it's time WE STAND UP FOR THE PEOPLE... US!!!
I hope the whole thing gets reversed. I think there should be a law that states publicly where every single dollar of the settlement ends up. Public disclosure.
You mean like deciding Apple was guilty before the trial even started?
You would be remiss if you think what you're "seeing" was not intentionally put there for you to see. In this day and age.