E-Book Buyers to Start Receiving Credits on Tuesday as Part of Apple Price Fixing Settlement

ibooks-iconStarting on Tuesday, June 21, U.S. customers who purchased e-books from Apple and other retailers like Amazon and Barnes & Noble will begin receiving payouts from the $450 million settlement Apple agreed to pay after being found guilty of conspiring to fix the prices of e-books.

Customers will be receiving a $6.93 credit for each book that was a New York Times bestseller, and a $1.57 credit for other e-books. Customers eligible for credits include those who purchased e-books between April 1, 2010 and May 21, 2012.
Attorneys say the process is uniquely simple for consumers -- credits will be automatically sent directly into the accounts of consumers at major book retailers, including Amazon.com Inc., Barnes & Noble Inc., Kobo Inc. and Apple. Retailers will issue emails and put the credits in the accounts simultaneously.

If e-book purchasers requested a check in lieu of a credit, they will receive a check. If purchasers received a credit during the first round of distribution of publisher settlements, and they did not opt out, they will automatically receive a credit.
The U.S. Department of Justice first accused Apple and five other publishers -- HarperCollins, Simon and Schuster, Hachette Book Group, Macmillan, and Penguin -- of colluding to fix the prices of e-books in 2010, suggesting they had worked to raise prices of e-books to weaken Amazon's dominant position in the market and restructure the business model of the industry.

While all of the publishers settled early on, Apple fought the accusation for years and maintained its innocence, but ultimately, a ruling in 2013 found the company guilty of price fixing. A series of appeals were unsuccessful, and after the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, Apple was forced to pay a $450 million settlement.

$400 million of that $450 million is earmarked for customers who purchased e-books, with $30 million going towards legal fees and $20 million going to states who were also involved in the lawsuit.


Top Rated Comments

(View all)
Avatar
32 months ago

Sigh. Apple "colluded" to let publishers choose their own prices in an environment where Amazon had monopolistic dictatorial control over e-book pricing. And the government decided that Apple was the bad guy in this? I like Amazon a lot, but this was an absurd ruling.


Amazon doesn't have a monopolistic dictatorship as they don't dictate what price the publishers have to sell their books for. Maybe you're confusing this dictatorship issue with how Apple's model was going to work. Also - regardless of your opinions of Amazon - Amazon isn't guilty of colluding. Apple was. Apple entered the market and could have created whatever pricing strategy they wanted. They chose to embark on the wrong one. And they got caught.
Rating: 6 Votes
Avatar
32 months ago
Just got my email... I was shocked at how much I got back. "You now have a credit of $57.55 in your Amazon account."
Rating: 3 Votes
Avatar
32 months ago
Irony - getting credit for the Steve Jobs book bought though iTunes...
Rating: 3 Votes
Avatar
32 months ago

Just got my email... I was shocked at how much I got back. "You now have a credit of $57.55 in your Amazon account."

Same here... just got an Amazon credit for $69.57. I was surprised it was that much. :D
Rating: 3 Votes
Avatar
32 months ago
I received my $1.57 from Amazon just a little while ago. I have a year to use that credit before it goes away according the court I guess. Considering how much I buy from Amazon, that credit will be lucky if it stays there past the end of the week!
Rating: 3 Votes
Avatar
32 months ago
Sigh. Apple "colluded" to let publishers choose their own prices in an environment where Amazon had monopolistic dictatorial control over e-book pricing. And the government decided that Apple was the bad guy in this? I like Amazon a lot, but this was an absurd ruling.
Rating: 2 Votes
Avatar
32 months ago
Looking forward to this refund. Collusion is never a good thing.
Rating: 2 Votes
Avatar
32 months ago

While I think this stance is dignified, I think it's a little ridiculous to claim that Amazon was not a stone throw away from a monopoly. They claimed 90% of the e-book market by undercutting the book's value (and unfortunately heavily damaging the print market by setting that expectation).

Don't get me wrong - Jobs and Cue were being bad little boys by running around connecting dots for the Publishers in order to push their model in while restraining Amazon - but the books do were artificially underpriced to begin with only because of Amazon's model and dominance. Their goal was to level the playing field and let the superior experience dominate.

Though they could have totally not done illegal things to get to that path, there were several flags fired on the other side that gave Amazon bias for their initial complaint with the FTC and their heavy hand on the market needed to be looked deeper into and considered. Apple did bad, but they weren't the bigger issue IMO.


Apple's goal was to enter an established market and make it profitable for them. I defintely respect your opinion. But want to add that Apple could have easily match Amazon's pricing and/or took less of a % than 30 (arbitrary, by the way) and make it up in volume. Nothing "new" here, I know.

I never said anything about Amazon and a monopoly. I was responding more to the idea that they were dictators. They weren't. Especially TO publishers when it came to pricing.
Rating: 2 Votes
Avatar
32 months ago

Amazon doesn't have a monopolistic dictatorship as they don't dictate what price the publishers have to sell their books for. Maybe you're confusing this dictatorship issue with how Apple's model was going to work. Also - regardless of your opinions of Amazon - Amazon isn't guilty of colluding. Apple was. Apple entered the market and could have created whatever pricing strategy they wanted. They chose to embark on the wrong one. And they got caught.


While I think this stance is dignified, I think it's a little ridiculous to claim that Amazon was not a stone throw away from a monopoly. They claimed 90% of the e-book market by undercutting the book's value (and unfortunately heavily damaging the print market by setting that expectation).

Don't get me wrong - Jobs and Cue were being bad little boys by running around connecting dots for the Publishers in order to push their model in while restraining Amazon - but the books were artificially underpriced to begin with only because of Amazon's model and dominance. Their goal was to level the playing field and let the superior experience dominate.

Though they could have totally not done illegal things to get to that path, there were several flags fired on the other side that gave Amazon bias for their initial complaint with the FTC and their heavy hand on the market needed to be looked deeper into and considered. Apple did bad, but they weren't the bigger issue IMO.
Rating: 2 Votes
Avatar
32 months ago

Apple's goal was to enter an established market and make it profitable for them. I defintely respect your opinion. But want to add that Apple could have easily match Amazon's pricing and/or took less of a % than 30 (arbitrary, by the way) and make it up in volume. Nothing "new" here, I know.

I never said anything about Amazon and a monopoly. I was responding more to the idea that they were dictators. They weren't. Especially TO publishers when it came to pricing.


I don't understand, isn't Amazon's $9.99 maximum ebook price quite notorious? And didn't Apple's agency pricing give publishers freedom to set their own prices?

I'm trying not to be argumentative, but what you're saying seems to be the exact opposite of all the articles covering the dispute between Amazon and the publishers. The publishers hated Amazon's low pricing, but if they pushed back Amazon pulled their books from the biggest bookstore in the world. That seems quite dictatorial.

And incidentally, the publishers have since forced Amazon into some kind of agency pricing model too. It's difficult to understand why they would do that if Amazon's original model was better for them than the agency model.
Rating: 1 Votes
[ Read All Comments ]