Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Amazon and Other Book Retailers Issuing Refunds in E-Book Publisher Settlement

samcraig said:
And in hindsight - I see how Amazon does benefit. Not sure I would say more than consumers. I think both Amazon and customers are getting a nice "windfall." Customers had already spent that money - so this is "free" money coming back to them. Amazon benefits by any purchases that exceed the credit. Since Amazon sells many books below cost, it's not like they are making a ton off of the credits. Especially since these credits are for books only. The publishers are actually making out decently because of increased sales.
Click to expand...

The difference is that customers are getting money they were owed. And many of them won't claim it.

Amazon is getting additional money on top of the profits that they earned during agency pricing. They basically get paid twice.

For the best sellers in question, instead of losing $2.50, Amazon made 30% ($4-$5), and now they get the refund money from the publishers and the additional sales generated as a byproduct of customers spending more than their refund amount.

Pretty good deal considering they weren't a part of the lawsuit.

Now - interestingly enough - these credits expire 1 year from now. So does Amazon keep the money that was given to them? Are they only able to collect on credits that were spent. I would think that via auditing, Amazon is only going to receive a check from the publishers equal to the credit that was spent.
Click to expand...

Good question.
 
BaldiMac said:
The difference is that customers are getting money they were owed. And many of them won't claim it.

Amazon is getting additional money on top of the profits that they earned during agency pricing. They basically get paid twice.

For the best sellers in question, instead of losing $2.50, Amazon made 30% ($4-$5), and now they get the refund money from the publishers and the additional sales generated as a byproduct of customers spending more than their refund amount.

Pretty good deal considering they weren't a part of the lawsuit.



Good question.
Click to expand...

Well we don't really know all the details of how amazon is getting paid so it's hard to determine if they are really making out as good as you suggest. And not defending amazon but they also incur additional labor and shipping costs on physical books anyway. Not that those things are huge costs in this equation.
 
samcraig said:
Well we don't really know all the details of how amazon is getting paid so it's hard to determine if they are really making out as good as you suggest.
Click to expand...

Which numbers do you question? I thought they were all pretty straightforward from numbers presented by the DOJ. :)
 
Why is Amazon allowed to issue credit that can only be used towards the purchase of books? That's essentially the judgment amount afforded to Amazon customers going straight into Amazon's pocket. If I felt swindled in this case, as a consumer I certainly would want the option of cold, hard, cash, not some stupid in-store credit. And since the credit can only be used towards the purchase of books, it ends up back in the publisher's hands anyway. What a strange case.
 
samcraig said:
Well we don't really know all the details of how amazon is getting paid so it's hard to determine if they are really making out as good as you suggest. And not defending amazon but they also incur additional labor and shipping costs on physical books anyway. Not that those things are huge costs in this equation.
Click to expand...
I'd like to read the details myself: Amazon's FAQ states that the credits are valid only for book's purchases (physical or electronic), which is a pretty strict and specific limitation. My guess is that this was defined in the settlement and actually requested by the publishers since it gives them more chances of getting some of the money back with future purchases. Too bad the info site of the attorney general seems down.
 
NightFox said:
Are Amazon only obliged to do this for US customers, or will it apply world-wide?
Click to expand...
This is a case where the original article was very poorly written.
As far as I am aware, this is only for US customers.

Furthermore, it only applies to people who purchased eBooks published by certain publishers (who were convicted of wrongdoing) during certain dates. If you purchased outside those dates, the publishers allegedly did nothing wrong of the statute of limitations applies.

Amazon is not the party that is paying for the refunds, instead it is the publishers who are paying for the refunds, as they colluded with Apple to force Amazon to raise prices. Now on could say that Amazon should have stuck to it's guns, but had it done so, there would have been a lot of publishers that refused to sell on Amazon, which would have made them have a much weaker position now that the playing field is being leveled again.

Now, a few months back Amazon sent an email stating that they would be issuing these credits and that you had the option to receive a check instead. As I recall though, they offered to add additional credit to what you were entitled to if you chose to receive it as a credit. I don't remember how much extra it was, but I would think it was some percentage based number. So, unless you confirmed that you wanted a check, you agreed to receiving the credit. This is why they are allowed to issue the credit that is only valid for books.

Also, keep in mind Amazon was not one of the companies that was in on the collusion, they are simply facilitating the refunds. They actually could be considered a victim in this whole mess as well, considering Apple and the publishers colluded to change the entire eBook business model that Amazon had long established and they did this because eBooks were cutting into physical book sales, which is why the prices for eBooks are now about (or higher) than what the physical books are.
 
iBooks too?

Wait a minute. I received the email this morning but it was for an iTunes credit I can only use for e-books. It does say Apple is not a party in the settlement, but why am I getting an iTunes credit? I'm not sure if it's legit or phishing. Haven't clicked on anything yet.

EDIT: cmwade77's coherent description of the situation was posted as I was typing. Looks like I'm getting an iBooks credit because the publisher is issuing refund, not Amazon/Apple. I must have bought their book via iBooks so I'm getting a credit via same.
 
GrumpyDave said:
Wait a minute. I received the email this morning but it was for an iTunes credit I can only use for e-books. It does say Apple is not a party in the settlement, but why am I getting an iTunes credit? I'm not sure if it's legit or phishing. Haven't clicked on anything yet.

EDIT: cmwade77's coherent description of the situation was posted as I was typing. Looks like I'm getting an iBooks credit because the publisher is issuing refund, not Amazon/Apple. I must have bought their book via iBooks so I'm getting a credit via same.
Click to expand...

I got the same email that I had to click a link to redeem my iTunes credit. How do I determine if this is phishing or legitimate? the link starts with https://buy.itunes.apple.com/...
 
I got an eMail with Apple Store Credit …

Hello,

yesterday, I got an email telling me that I was " eligible for a credit in your Apple iTunes account" (The email also explicitly said "Apple Inc. is not a party in these settlements.")

Is that the Amazon Credit? I did not click the links in the eMail, but I did enter the code in iTunes and — whoohoo, I am rich! —*got $3.19 credited.

This is the eMail everybody is talking about?

Alex
 
giantfan1224 said:
Why is Amazon allowed to issue credit that can only be used towards the purchase of books? That's essentially the judgment amount afforded to Amazon customers going straight into Amazon's pocket. If I felt swindled in this case, as a consumer I certainly would want the option of cold, hard, cash, not some stupid in-store credit. And since the credit can only be used towards the purchase of books, it ends up back in the publisher's hands anyway. What a strange case.
Click to expand...
All retailers (so not only Amazon, also Apple, B&N, Kobo ecc...) will issue account credits unless a check request was sent before the 21 October 2013 deadline. The only exception is Sony which for some reason will automatically send checks without the need for a check request. https://ebooksagsettlements.com/CheckRequestOption.aspx

----------
samcraig said:
Now - interestingly enough - these credits expire 1 year from now. So does Amazon keep the money that was given to them? Are they only able to collect on credits that were spent. I would think that via auditing, Amazon is only going to receive a check from the publishers equal to the credit that was spent.
Click to expand...
The info site provides an answer: https://ebooksagsettlements.com/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx
23. What happens to any funds remaining after the distribution to consumers?

ANSWER:
If consumer funds remain after the initial distribution, the Settlement Agreements state that these funds should be saved for any future consumer distribution resulting from a settlement or judgment. Any funds left over from that distribution will be given to one or more charitable organization(s) whose purposes relate to reading, literacy or access by the public to electronic books or as otherwise directed by the Court. This is called a cy pres distribution. If a cy pres distribution is made, the percentage of any funds that can be attributed to purchases made by class consumers may be given to Reading is Fundamental, a non-profit organization dedicated to motivating children to become lifelong readers, or to another literacy group acceptable to the Court.
Click to expand...
 
bsolar said:
All retailers (so not only Amazon, also Apple, B&N, Kobo ecc...) will issue account credits unless a check request was sent before the 21 October 2013 deadline. The only exception is Sony which for some reason will automatically send checks without the need for a check request. https://ebooksagsettlements.com/CheckRequestOption.aspx
Click to expand...

Like I said, this is a strange deal. If I was a consumer that felt strongly about being ripped off here, I wouldn't want some credit. It's backwards, in my opinion. The check should be the default and the in-store credit the opt-in alternative. So the publishers pay a settlement fee that's going to come back to them anyway?
 
Z400Racer37 said:
Is there an argument with that somewhere or is it just a meaningless statement?




That's fair and voluntary for ya.




Hmm... Let's see. Did Apple force anyone to buy those books? Did they in any way coerce anyone, at any point to purchase something that they were offering? And by what measure did they overpay? You would have only paid $10 but they paid $12 so they overpaid? I'm a little confused over where the evil swindling happened.
Click to expand...

Yep, you pretty much didn't get it. Like, 0% comprehension. Your comments indicate you didn't understand who was complaining, how the compensation cash flows, why it flows that way, etc. It's hard to tell whether you are being willfully obstinate or just lack basic knowledge. I suggest you put the time in to understand the case, and basic principles of jurisprudence, if you want to know more. Or read the other comments; most of the people in the thread do at least understand the basics, even if they disagree.
 
No, you missed the part where dismissing your own analogy somehow keeps anyone else from commenting. I am glad you figured out how dumb it was.
 
senseless said:
I got the same email that I had to click a link to redeem my iTunes credit. How do I determine if this is phishing or legitimate? the link starts with https://buy.itunes.apple.com/...
Click to expand...

It's legit. But you don't have to click the link in the email. Just copy the "iTunes Store Credit Activation Code" in the message and paste that code into the "Redeem" section of the iTunes Store itself.
 
samcraig said:
You're right. We're talking about collusion. And I should have picked a 1:1 scenario and am now guilty of having a terrible analogy on here like so many ;)

A different scenario. That being said - I think it's completely legitimate, as a consumer, to be given a refund on books that were purchased where it has been determined that the price would have been different had collusion not taken place.

And I say collusion because that's what was legally found. I am not commenting on whether or not they actually colluded.
Click to expand...

kcamfork said:
When they pay higher prices because of illegal activity, yes.
Click to expand...

And what I am saying is that whether or not there was collusion is morally irrelevant. Who cares about whether or not it was legal, I'm arguing that the government has no right telling other people what they can or can't do with their book businesses. If you don't like the price, don't buy the book. When enough people stop buying the book then the price will come down, but don't tell me about how you're entitled to anything if you willingly decided to purchase something at a given price, and now want to leverage a morally reprehensible law to get some money back. There is ZERO moral justification for that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back