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

[MacRumors]

Starting 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.

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

 

[Z400Racer37]

Oh Jesus. How do I send the free credits back, and maintain a clean conscience? "No really, I actually bought the book voluntarily because I identified the book as being a higher value in my life, than the money which I spent to obtain it."

Is that a thing? Or do I just have to passively accept the pillaging of my Lords?

 

[Morod]

Looking forward to this refund. Collusion is never a good thing.

 

[samcraig]

Irony - getting credit for the Steve Jobs book bought though iTunes...

 

[Scottsoapbox]

Wow that's a real credit.

Usually these are like 7 cents a person.

 

[CarlJ]

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.

 

[samcraig]

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.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

I think several years ago I requested this as a check... I really don't need more itunes credits... I have like, $40 right now. It's been years since I actually bought anything using it.

Oh well. It's less than $2. Don't really care how I receive it, or even if I receive it.

 

[itr81]

I bought two books during this time, so I'll just buy another.

I stopped buying books from Amazon after they killed most of book stores around here and now I hear they'll be opening up their own brick and mortars stores. I guess that'll kill off Barnes and Noble.

 

[Mascots]

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.

 

[samcraig]

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.

 

[Yumbo]

Got my $10 credit 2 weeks ago.
Late news.

 

[LizKat]

I have to say it's the first time membership in a class action has landed me more than a few bucks. I had bought a truckload of books from Apple in that timeframe so my credit is substantial and now I'm looking forward to shopping it out. Weird my credit has showed up before the email about it. I had an ancient email in my inbox from way back when Apple was appealing the settlement or something, so that did jog my memory when I was puzzled over seeing the credit in my store account today. I had bought a movie and the receipt noted billing to "store credit". Huh? I thought. Then I went looking for info and realized it was the ebook settlement that supposedly hits accounts tomorrow. Mine hit early and now I hear others have done so as well. No complaint here!

 

[mw360]

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.

 

[samcraig]

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.

Prior to Apple entering the market, publishers got paid whatever they set their price at for Amazon. Meaning - they sold their books to Amazon. Amazon was then free to sell those books for whatever price they wanted. At no time, during this period did publishers lose money. In fact, many publishers (like the ones also found guilty) actually testified that under the original model, they often made more money. Publishers were free to set their own prices for what they sold to Amazon for. They couldn't dictate what Amazon sold their books for. One reason that was noted for why publishers decided to 'sign' with Apple is because they thought Amazon was devaluing the cost of ebooks - but more importantly by reducing the price of eBook, they were also devaluing the price of print books.

 

[samcraig]

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."

 

[S.B.G]

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!

 

[Jessica Lares]

I didn't even know I was entitled to one and Amazon just sent me an email saying I got a credit.

 

[Weaselboy]

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.

 

[AllergyDoc]

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!

Same here. $1.57. Must have bought the same book.

 

[Morod]

$23.93 here, but I usually shop in Amazon's bargain bin.
Thanks, Apple!