Amazon Using Monopolistic Muscle To Ensure Most Favored Pricing In eBook Market

Written by

If You Purchased eBooks From a Retailer Other Than Amazon You May Have Paid Too Much

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee recently concluded Amazon uses its dominant position in e-commerce as leverage to require “Most-Favored-Nation” clauses in its contracts with the Big Five publishing houses –

  • Hachette Book Group
  • Harper Collins Publishers LLC
  • Macmillan Publishing Group LLC
  • Penquin Random House LLC
  • Simon & Schuster Inc.

This clause is meant to prevent the Big Five publishing houses from partnering with competing retail sites (e.g. Apple Books, The Nook Store) and offering eBooks at prices lower than the pricing offered by Amazon. If not for these agreements, the Big Five could sell eBooks at lower prices on their own websites or through other online retailers that offer lower fees and commissions.

Amazon has a history of using MFN clauses to ensure that none of its suppliers or third-party sellers can collaborate with an existing or potential competitor to make lower-priced or innovative product offerings available to consumers. As a result of these contracts with the Big Five, Amazon may have monopolized the eBook market and forced consumers who purchased eBooks through online retail platforms other than Amazon to pay higher prices.

Emersonfirm Launches Investigation To Assess Legal And Economic Impact To Consumers

If you purchased an eBook published by any of the Big Five publishers from any retail e-commerce vendor other than Amazon from January 14, 2017 through to the present, we are interested in speaking with you.

Call Us Toll Free at 1-800-551-8649

Our team of attorneys, economists, and other professionals are dedicated to giving our clients a voice against companies that violate antitrust laws. Emersonfirm has a national reputation for tirelessly fighting for justice for our clients. There is no charge for this consultation.

    Emersonfirm Launches Investigation into Recreational Telescope Price Fixing

    Written by

    Emersonfirm Launches Investigation into Recreational Telescope Price Fixing

    Attention: Celestron or Meade Telescope Owners:

    A jury recently found Defendants Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co. Ltd., Sunny Optics Inc., and Meade Instruments Corp. liable for nearly $17 million in damages for suppressing competition and conspiring to fix the prices of recreational telescopes. According to several follow-on class action complaints, Defendants allegedly agreed to divide the market for manufacturing recreational telescopes by sharing information about pricing and credit terms, acquisition plans, shared employees, and customer orders.  The complaints also allege that the Defendants systemically acquired distributors and brands to create a vertically integrated manufacturing, distribution, and sales conglomerate, which was not properly disclosed to the Federal Trade Commission.  As a result of the alleged conspiracy, Defendants charged artificially inflated prices for recreational telescopes.

    If you know any individual or entity that purchased a telescope directly from Meade or Celestron, including from websites such as www.celestron.com or www.meade.com, from July 1, 2013 to the present, we are interested in speaking with you and/or your contacts.  Direct purchasers of telescopes include individual consumers, educational institutions, non-profit organizations, and observatories, among others.

    IMPORTANT: Please contact us using the form below or call us at 800-551-8649, or via e-mail to Tanya Autry (tautry@emersonfirm.com) or John G. Emerson (jemerson@emersonfirm.com) and we will promptly get back to you to discuss your situation.