Skip to main content

Supreme Court won’t hear appeal on Apple’s $450 million e-book price-fixing case

ibooks

Apple will be on the hook for $450 million after losing its appeal in the e-book price-fixing case, Bloomberg reports. The United States Supreme Court released the decision after Apple appealed the prior ruling. The high-profile case dates back to a 2012 lawsuit from the United States, which Apple appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, but the justices declined to hear the case which leaves the prior ruling intact.

The justices turned away an appeal by Apple, leaving intact a federal appeals court ruling favoring the U.S. Justice Department and more than 30 states that sued.

The rebuff means Apple must comply with a settlement it reached with the states in 2014. The accord calls for Apple to pay $400 million to e-book consumers, $20 million to the states, and $30 million in legal fees.

Last June we learned that a federal court would uphold the ruling that Apple must pay the $450 million settlement in the case brought against it by the United States over price-fixing accusations regarding publishers and Apple’s iBooks store.

With the Supreme Court of the United States rejecting Apple’s appeal, that ruling stays in place. Apple has previously described the ruling as a ‘radical departure’ from modern antitrust law although it did send out iTunes credits for some customers affected.

Back in early 2014, Apple first formally appealed the e-books price-fixing decision and challenged the court-appointed monitor that was overseeing Apple’s ongoing iBooks activity. The Department of Justice has since removed the monitor after finding Apple’s activity was satisfactory.

Apple initially called the antitrust lawsuit ‘fundamentally flawed’ four years ago. The case comes down to Apple’s agreements with publishers to use an agency model over pricing e-books on the iBooks store, which wouldn’t allow digital books to be sold at higher prices on competing stores.

Evidence surfaced during the trials includes Steve Jobs emails, Eddy Cue interviews, and more. Note that it was Apple’s decision to take the case to trial back in 2012 rather than avoiding the lengthy, public process with a settlement.

Update: Amazon has issued the following statement regarding today’s development:

We are ready to distribute the court-mandated settlement funds to Kindle customers as soon as we’re instructed to move forward.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Comments

  1. AeronPeryton - 8 years ago

    Why does it feel like Apple’s sudden run of bad luck in the courts is coinciding with something else?

    • iSRS - 8 years ago

      as in “Apple won’t repatriate the billions it has offshore at current rates, so let’s find another way to cash in on their success”??

  2. iSRS - 8 years ago

    Hmm…. Maybe this refusal to hear the case is because they know they will have a far more important case to decide involving Apple in the future?

    • Jon C (@JonCBK) - 8 years ago

      The Supreme Court turns down the vast majority of the cases that are appealed to it. There has to be an interesting question of law and usually also contradictory rulings at two or more appellate levels for the Supreme Court to take a case. So let’s not read too much into this.

  3. calisurfboy - 8 years ago

    The only winners, no matter how this case turned out, were the lawyers involved.

  4. b9bot - 8 years ago

    They here copycats like Samdung yet won’t let an american company like Apple get there say. DOJ conspiracy and government corruption is what I say.

  5. André Hedegaard - 8 years ago

    No-one is above the law. Good to see this.

    • rahhbriley - 8 years ago

      Man, I always felt Apple has been in the right on this one. I studied it very closely at the beginning and was sure once a sane judge came along, things would get worked out…

      Any course of legal action left or is this REALLY the end of the line on this one?

      Bummer.

    • rahhbriley - 8 years ago

      Sorry André, I didn’t mean to reply to you. Thought i was using the new comment box.

      I do respectfully disagree with your implication that Apple broke laws. But I imagine this case has too many details at this point to try hashing out. Above the law, no they are not. Innocent in this case…I really truly believe so. I digress.

      • André Hedegaard - 8 years ago

        Thats ok Rahhbriley, thanks for your comments anyway.
        Although we disagree on this, I have a question to ask:
        Do you really think that lawyers and judges, working in the field of law for countless years combined, really don’t know what they’re doing?
        If Apple is found quilty and then refused for an appeal, that means that the case is BEYOND A DOUBT handled correctly.

        Look, we both like Apple, I like their products and services, but sometimes in some corporations there are things that are “bent” with regards to business practices.
        The only problem is, that the law dosen’t bend, it breaks.

        I for one don’t believe for a split second that Apple is “innocent”, not at all. They knew perfectly well what they were doing. Having a team of bright people working for Apple, you can’t tell me this was just a “mistake” on their part.

Author

Avatar for Zac Hall Zac Hall

Zac covers Apple news, hosts the 9to5Mac Happy Hour podcast, and created SpaceExplored.com.