Amazon Pleads US Court To Dismiss Lawsuit By Authors Over Audiobook Distribution
Amazon Pleads US Court To Dismiss Lawsuit By Authors Over Audiobook Distribution
States the market was competitive, with Apple and Google offering rival platforms
Amazon.com has filed a plea before the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss a "far-fetched" lawsuit by independent authors accusing it of monopolizing audiobooks’ retail market, compelling them to overpay for distribution of their works.
The e-commerce giant defended the 90-day exclusivity provision that its digital audiobook subsidiary Audible (which it bought for about $300 million in 2008) offers to self-published authors. It stated that the market for audiobooks was competitive, with Apple and Google offering rival platforms.
In June, author Christine DeMaio, who publishes under the name CD Reiss, alleged in her lawsuit that Amazon violated the US antitrust law by charging higher fees for writers who declined to participate in Audible's exclusivity program. She sought class-action status for thousands of authors and rights holders.
The lawsuit called Audible the world's largest audiobook retailer, accounting for over 60 percent of domestic purchasing compared with 20 percent for Apple.
In recent years, industry-wide sales of audiobooks have steadily risen, reaching nearly $2 billion in 2022.
Amazon's exclusivity program offers self-published authors 40 percent royalties for the distribution of their work, compared with 25 percent for those choosing non-exclusive, competitive sharing.
Amazon added that its optional exclusivity provisions, not applicable to top sellers from major publishers, were "limited in duration and share of affected audiobook sales." The program's 90-day window was shorter than the 1-to-3-year range courts use to determine competitive harm from an exclusivity arrangement.
The complaint alleged, “No facts show that Audible has hobbled Google or any other identified rival by inducing self-published authors to sign exclusive deals.”
On the other hand, Reiss stated that switching from exclusive to general distribution was permanent. “Audible's policy is designed to prevent experimentation, innovation, and a test of competition by discouraging authors from distributing on a competitive basis."
Amazon defended that it was lawful for the company to spend more resources promoting its exclusive content than on other titles.
