Judge Cote Calls Apple Ebook Settlement Unfair to Consumers

| News

Judge Denise Cote, the Federal Judge who ruled Apple orchestrated a conspiracy with publishers to drive up the price of books, is concerned that the settlement the iPhone and iPad maker agreed to in a related class action lawsuit will be unfair to consumers. Apple agreed to pay US$400 million in the settlement, but that number drops to $50 million plus attorney fees if the Appeals Court sends the case back for further proceedings.

Judge Cote says Apple's Ebook price fixing settlement isn't fair to consumersJudge Cote says Apple's Ebook price fixing settlement isn't fair to consumers

Apple and the top book publishers were all accused of conspiring to artificially raise book prices by the Department of Justice, leading to a Federal trial before Judge Cote. The publishers all settled out of court to avoid potentially crippling fines, although Apple stayed the course and went to trial. Judge Cote sided with the DOJ and ruled Apple was the ring leader in the conspiracy.

Apple denied any wrong doing and has since filed an to appeal Judge Cote's ruling.

The DOJ case was followed by a class action lawsuit from 33 states. Apple agreed to a settlement earlier this month, but the payout is contingent on the outcome of the appeals process in the DOJ case.

"I'm concerned about the terms of the settlement," Judge Cote said, according to Reuters. Her concerns are focused on the possibility that Apple's payout would drop to $50 million for consumers plus $20 million for attorneys should the Appeals Court send the DOJ case back to her for further proceedings. She also took issue with the fact that Apple won't have to pay interest on the settlement amount during the appeals process.

Judge Cote is calling the huge gap between $400 million and $70 million "most troubling," and fears the end result could undercut consumers and the claims in the class action lawsuit.

On first glance, Judge Cote's comments could seem like more anti-Apple sentiment, although in this case her concerns may be at least partially justified. The huge difference between dollar amounts in the various settlement tiers leave consumers will little -- or nothing at all -- is reasonable because both sides agreed to the terms, but the idea that Apple won't have to pay interest while the appeals process plays out isn't typical.

For Apple, it's a gamble that the Appeals Court will rule in its favor, which means no pay out, or partially in its favor which drops its payout by more than 75 percent. Either way, Apple minimizes its expenses in the law suit.

For the states, the deal minimizes costs, too, while assuring they'll get at least $50 million without having to dig even deeper into tax payer funds. The states are also gambling that the Appeals Court wont completely overturn Judge Cote's ruling.

Apple hasn't commented on Judge Cote's statements, and attorneys representing the states said they would take what she said under advisement.

The Mac Observer Spin The Mac Observer Spin is how we show you what our authors think about a news story at quick glance. Read More →

Both Apple and the states found the settlement terms reasonable, so maybe Judge Cote is being a little over critical there. The stipulation that Apple doesn't have to pay interest during the Appeals process seems like something she's justified in complaining about.

Popular TMO Stories



Perhaps her contract with Amazon stipulates commenting on any settlement?

Warren Shaw

Well, if Apple wins on appeal then the original judgement was incorrect.  So, why should the company still be on the hook for monetary damages?  The judge seems to be worried that Apple might just prevail and escape punishment?  That consumers might not receive an award to which they are not entitled?  With respect to interest, it is surprising the the States did not insist on it.  But you cannot claim that they did not have representation when they are all lawyers.


This just sounds as if Cote is incapable of impartiality.

What’s next?  Cote saying that Apple is overcharging consumers for iPhone 6?

Dorkus Maximus

The judge should show more confidence in her original ruling. Why is she concerned it might even in part be overturned on appeal? Doesn’t she trust the soundness of her reasoning and the competence of her own judicial behavior?


Judge Denise Cote, you have it all wrong.  You’ve helped to maintain Amazon’s monopolistic status against all of us consumers. They were price-cutting below market to drive competitors out of the industry.  You’ve actually hurt consumers, not helped them.
Go home and shut up!  You’re causing more harm, than good!

Log in to comment (TMO, Twitter or Facebook) or Register for a TMO account