Amazon must face authors' lawsuit over audiobook distribution, US judge rules
June 11 (Reuters) - Amazon.com (AMZN.O), opens new tab must face a lawsuit by independent authors accusing the e-commerce giant of monopolizing the retail market for audiobooks and causing them to overpay for the distribution of their works, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon in the federal court in Manhattan rejected, opens new tab for now Amazon's bid to dismiss the proposed class action by author Christine DeMaio, who publishes under the name CD Reiss.
Reiss sued last year, alleging Amazon's audiobooks unit Audible violated antitrust law by charging higher distribution fees for independent and self-published writers who decline to participate in a program that makes Amazon the exclusive distributor for books on Audible for 90 days.
The program offers self-published authors 40% royalties for book distribution, compared with 25% for authors who chose non-exclusive, competitive distribution.
Amazon and Audible did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Amazon has denied any wrongdoing, saying the audiobook market is 'healthy and competitive.'
Steve Berman, a lead attorney for Reiss, on Wednesday said they welcomed Rochon's order and looked forward to the next phase of the litigation.
Audible is the world's largest audiobook retailer, accounting for more than 60% of domestic purchasing compared with about 20% for Apple, according to the lawsuit.
Amazon, in seeking dismissal of the lawsuit, said Reiss had shown no evidence that Audible's program had induced any authors to sign an exclusive deal.
Amazon also told Rochon that it was lawful for the company to spend more resources promoting its exclusive content than on other titles.
The lawsuit seeks more than $5 million in damages and class action status for thousands of authors.
The case is CD Reiss v. Amazon.com, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, No. 2:24-cv-00851.
For plaintiff: Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro; and Phil Cramer of Sperling Kenny Nachwalter
For defendant: Carrie Mahan, Ben Mundel and Randi Singer of Sidley Austin
Read more:
Amazon must face part of online retailer's pricing lawsuit, US judge rules
Amazon slams authors' class action over audiobook distribution
Amazon accused of audiobook monopoly in author class action
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
12 minutes ago
- Reuters
ADM sets off 'frenzy' in US soybean market ahead of new biofuel blend rule
CHICAGO, June 12 (Reuters) - Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM.N), opens new tab, a major U.S. soybean crusher and biofuel producer, slashed its bids to buy the oilseed this week ahead of an expected Trump administration announcement on biofuel blending requirements, a primary driver of demand for soybean oil. Processors such as Chicago-based ADM have been waiting for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's decision on blending requirements for months as they grapple with slumping crush margins and abundant soybean stocks. Reuters reported on Thursday that the EPA is expected to propose blending requirements below industry recommendations on Friday, leading to lower-than-expected demand for soyoil to be used in biofuels. ADM said in an emailed statement to Reuters on Thursday that it does not have insight around the pending blending announcement beyond publicly available information and that it independently sets its basis bids, which is the difference between futures and a local cash price to take possession of the grain immediately. The company on Wednesday rolled its cash basis bid at its flagship Decatur, Illinois, facility to 20 cents below the Chicago Board of Trade November soybean futures price from 22 cents over July futures . The roll to November futures, which closed at a 15-cent discount to July on Thursday, lowered the local cash price by about 60 cents a bushel, representing an unusually sharp 6.5% drop in the price offered to farmers. ADM also rolled basis bids at its other crushing facilities, and some rival processors, including Cargill, followed ADM on Thursday. Other processors kept their basis bids against the July futures contract, but lowered basis values by up to 15 cents. "ADM Decatur put the bean market in a frenzy," agriculture trading company John Stewart and Associates said in a note. Falling basis values reflect expectations for a large autumn harvest and weak demand that has eroded processing margins for companies that crush beans into soymeal livestock feed and soyoil used for cooking and producing biofuels. Crush margins have struggled as a recent jump in U.S. processing capacity has swelled available supplies of meal and oil and pressured prices for the soy products. Tariff worries and unclear U.S. biofuels policies have stoked further unease among crushers and biofuel makers, and some biodiesel producers have scaled back or idled plants. ADM said in April it would permanently close a South Carolina soybean processing plant to cut costs. "Cash crush margins stink, and there is a bunch of downtime scheduled for July," said Charlie Sernatinger, executive vice president for Marex Capital Markets. Diana Klemme, vice president of Grain Service Corp in Atlanta, which serves agricultural hedgers in the futures markets, sent an alert to customers after seeing ADM's bid adjustments. She said that she had never seen a move to new-crop basis levels in June in more than 50 years in the grain business. "I said check your markets carefully because ADM just dropped all their bids 40-75 cents a bushel and went to new-crop values," Klemme said. The November futures contract represents the autumn harvest price, or the new crop. Farmers have been reluctant to sell crops to processors because they want higher prices, while processors avoided raising bids to protect their thin margins.
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
It might be tempting to put 401(k) contributions on hold, but sticking with it is a better strategy
Amid this year's market turmoil, I've heard investors wonder if they should hit pause on 401(k) contributions until things settle down. Though this approach sounds tempting, it's better to stick with your investment strategy instead of waiting for conditions to improve. Running the numbers To test how a 'wait and see' approach would have fared compared with continuing to invest, I looked at four different market downturns of the 21st century. In each case, I looked at results under two different scenarios: an investor who started saving $500 per month and continued to do so throughout downturns, and another investor who stopped saving until the market started to improve. I assumed all contributions were invested in stocks. (In the first four cases below, I assumed that contributions were only paused during the bear market in question and then resumed for all the periods that followed.) Case 1: March 2000–October 2002 Stocks suffered cumulative losses of about 33% from early 2000 through October 2002. But an investor who started investing $500 per month in March 2000 and kept doing that even throughout the turmoil would have about $700,000 as of March 31, 2025. The 'wait and see' investor, on the other hand, would have about $573,000. Case 2: October 2007–February 2009 The market downturn in 2008 was the second-worst calendar year for equity investors in recent market history. An investor who started investing $500 per month in October 2007 and continued making monthly investments would have about $360,000 as of March 31, 2025. An investor who paused contributions until March 2009 would have about $307,000 as of the same date. Case 3: February and March 2020 The covid-19-driven market downturn led broad stock market indexes to shed about 34% of their value from Feb. 19, 2020. But after this sharp downturn, the rebound was even more impressive, with stocks posting gains of 28.7% during 2021. As a result, the 'keep buying' investor would have still ended slightly ahead by March 2025, even after suffering through market downturns in 2022 and early 2025. Case 4: January 2022–October 2022 The 2022 market reversal was a sharp reaction to 2021's unexpected spike in inflation, followed by a series of aggressive interest-rate hikes. As a result, the Morningstar US Market Index lost about 19% from January through October of that year. But thanks to the market's dramatic rebound, the 'keep buying' investor would have ended about $7,000 ahead by March 2025. Case 5: January 2000–March 2025 The differences are even more dramatic over a longer period. For this analysis, I assumed that an investor started contributions of $500 per month in January 2000, paused during each of the four above downturns, and then resumed contributions after the market had bottomed out. But even in this seemingly ideal scenario, consistent contributions won out. The consistent 401(k) contributor ended up nearly $200,000 ahead of the stop-and-start investor. The reason? Consistent contributions meant there were more dollars around to benefit when the market rebounded, while hitting pause on contributions meant the opposite. And the impact compounds over time. The 'wait and see' investor would have skipped out on 61 months' worth of contributions for a total of $30,500 but ended with a balance about $184,000 lower than the 'keep buying' approach. Why retirement savers shouldn't give up These examples make a strong case for sticking with the plan, even during a bear market. But this analysis probably overstates the results for 'wait and see' investors because it assumes that investors somehow knew when the market would start recovering. Not only is it tough to get the timing right for a market recovery, but keeping money on the sidelines means betting against the odds. Statistically speaking, the market goes up more than it goes down. Watching a 401(k) lose money isn't fun to live through, but things eventually turn around.
Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump: I'm surprised Elon ever endorsed me
Donald Trump said he was 'amazed' that Elon Musk ever endorsed him because of his long-held commitment to demolishing the 'electric vehicle mandate'. The world's most powerful men entered a war of words trading insults from their respective social media platforms in an explosive row over Mr Trump's flagship spending bill. Mr Musk, who has since apologised for his insults, called for the president to be impeached and accused the president of being in the Epstein files. 'We're going to abolish the EV mandate, and Elon still endorsed me. Because, honestly, he never, ever spoke to me about that,' Mr Trump said as he signed a measure blocking California's first-in-the-nation rule banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035. 'And I used to say, 'I'm amazed that he's endorsing me, because that can't be good for him.' 'I once asked him about it. 'You never talked to me about that'. He said, 'Well, as long as it's happening to everybody, I'll be able to compete'. It's a very interesting answer.' 'Now we know why Elon doesn't like me so much,' Mr Trump joked. 'Which he does, actually, he does. And he never had a problem.' The bill signed by Mr Trump which Congress approved last month, aims to quash the country's most aggressive attempt to phase out gas-powered cars. It will also kill rules that phase out the sale of medium and heavy-duty diesel vehicles and cut tailpipe emissions from trucks. It is the latest in an ongoing battle between the Trump administration and Gavin Newsom, California's Governor, over everything from tariffs to the rights of LGBTQ+ youth and funding for electric vehicle chargers. The president and Mr Newsom have clashed over Mr Trump's move to deploy troops to Los Angeles in response to immigration protests. California, which has some of the nation's worst air pollution, has been able to seek waivers for decades from the Environmental Protection Agency, allowing it to adopt stricter emissions standards than the federal government. In his first term, Trump revoked California's ability to enforce its standards, but Joe Biden reinstated it in 2022. Mr Trump has not yet sought to revoke it again. 'He [Musk] said; 'as long as I'm on the same plan as everybody else, we're going to do good. We make a better product',' Mr Trump added. 'I said, 'That's very cool. That's very good'. That was my answer. After that, he got a little bit strange, but I don't know why.' Mr Musk apologised to Mr Trump after a phone call with JD Vance, the US vice-president, following their explosive fallout. The details of the truce between the two men emerged after Mr Musk said publicly on Wednesday that he 'regretted' writing inflammatory posts about the president on social media. In a podcast episode released the day after the feud erupted, Mr Vance said: 'I hope that eventually Elon comes back into the fold. Maybe that's not possible now because he's gone so nuclear – but I hope it is.'
