Connect with us

Business

Stephen King testified against publishing’s biggest merger. What you need to know about the antitrust trial

Published

on

Stephen King testified against publishing’s biggest merger. What you need to know about the antitrust trial

The largest antitrust trial to hit the publishing business in current reminiscence kicked off this week, and right this moment the King of horror had his day in court docket.

On Monday, Penguin Random Home, the biggest writer within the nation, entered a federal courthouse in Washington to defend its deal to amass Simon & Schuster, the fourth largest, in opposition to a Division of Justice emboldened beneath President Biden to implement antitrust legal guidelines aggressively.

If Decide Florence Y. Pan guidelines within the writer’s favor, the merger would drastically change the publishing world, whittling down the variety of main publishing homes, often called the Huge 5, to 4. The query Pan is deciding is whether or not, because the DOJ argues, this may curtail competitors and suppress e book advances for high-earning authors.

Testifying for the federal government on Tuesday was Stephen King, some of the profitable and outstanding novelists on the planet. Creator of bestsellers together with “The Shining’’ and “The Stand,” King has been publicly important of the deal and overtly objected to the involvement of his longtime writer, Simon & Schuster.

How did it come to this move? All of it started in November 2020, when Paramount World (previously often called ViacomCBS) introduced it had agreed to promote Simon & Schuster to Bertelsmann’s Penguin Random Home for $2.18 billion. Final fall, the Division of Justice sued to dam the deal on the grounds that an excessive amount of consolidation was unhealthy for authors and, in the end, for readers.

Advertisement

Different witnesses within the trial, anticipated to final roughly three weeks and be determined in November, embody Simon & Schuster’s Chief Govt Jonathan Karp, Penguin Random Home Chief Govt Markus Dohle and different authors, brokers and executives from different publishing homes.

Right here’s what King stated right this moment and what it’s essential to learn about publishing’s unprecedented antitrust lawsuit.

What did Stephen King need to say?

“I got here as a result of I believe that consolidation is unhealthy for competitors,” King stated Tuesday in entrance of a full courtroom (and an overflow room close by). “That’s my understanding of the e book enterprise. The extra corporations there are, the higher it’s.”

Throughout 45 minutes of testimony, King laid out the modifications he’s witnessed over a half-century profession in collaboration with quite a lot of completely different publishers. He described impartial publishers changing into more and more “squeezed” by conglomerates. “The explanation they’re being squeezed is as a result of they don’t get the shelf house that they used to as a result of the majors take a number of that shelf house.”

Advertisement

He described his early years with indie publishers because the glory days, recalling his telephone ringing nonstop throughout auctions as his agent fielded provides from smaller publishers. However he finally migrated to what’s now turn into the Huge 5 due to their wider distribution networks and deeper pockets.

Bertelsmann’s Penguin Random Home desires to purchase Simon & Schuster, however the Division of Justice is attempting to dam the deal.

(Michael Sohn/ Related Press)

“I used to be in a position to pay the mortgage and I used to be in a position to put cash away for the children’ schooling,” stated King. “I didn’t need to finance the automotive. So far as I used to be involved, I used to be dwelling the dream: I used to be writing full time. I loved what I used to be doing. That was an enormous deal…. There comes some extent the place when you’re very, very lucky, you’re in a position to cease following your checking account and begin following your coronary heart. And that’s what I did. It was fantastic and it was nice.”

Advertisement

However most writers right this moment aren’t so lucky. The typical writer solely makes round $20,300, which is under the poverty line, stated King, citing a 2018 Authors Guild survey. He put the blame for shrinking advances squarely on business consolidation.

“There have been actually a whole lot of imprints and a few of them had been run by individuals who had extraordinarily idiosyncratic tastes,” he added. “These companies, one after the other, had been both subsumed by different publishers or they went out of enterprise.”

The dynamics, he argued, have reversed; massive enterprise isn’t serving to the subsequent era of Stephen Kings. “I believe that it turns into more durable and more durable for writers to seek out sufficient cash to stay on.”

Why is the merger such an enormous deal?

The New York-based Simon & Schuster and Penguin Random Home are among the many largest publishing homes within the nation, recognized within the publishing world because the Huge 5. (The opposite three are Hachette, HarperCollins and Macmillan).

Advertisement

Penguin Random Home is the results of one other megamerger, between Random Home and Penguin, in 2013 (at which level the Huge Six grew to become the Huge 5). Penguin’s roster of blockbuster authors, who generate monumental gross sales of “backlist” titles, consists of John Grisham, Toni Morrison, Dan Brown and former White Home occupants Invoice Clinton and Barack and Michelle Obama — all of whom have offered hundreds of thousands of copies worldwide.

Simon & Schuster has leaned in recent times towards massive nonfiction, publishing heavyweight writers akin to Bob Woodward and Hillary Clinton. If the merger goes by, the Huge 5 would shrink to the Huge 4 — one in every of them considerably bigger than the remaining.

Why is the Biden administration combating it?

The federal government argues that the merger would cut back market competitors and in the end hurt writers. If the deal goes by, the merged firm would management practically 50% of the bestseller market, which might in the end consequence, the DOJ contends, in authors receiving smaller advances and worse contract offers. “[F]ewer authors will have the ability to earn a dwelling from writing,” the DOJ argued in a pretrial temporary.

Collectively, the Huge 5 make up 90% of the marketplace for bestselling books within the U.S., in accordance with the federal government’s court docket submitting.

Advertisement

“The proposed merger would additional improve consolidation on this concentrated business, make the most important participant even larger, and certain improve coordination in an business with a historical past of coordination among the many main publishers,” the submitting stated.

The DOJ additionally argues that readers will inevitably be harmed. “[B]y lowering writer compensation, the amount and number of books revealed will fall as effectively… lowering writer compensation will doubtless cut back the output of books revealed and restrict shopper selection by limiting what tales readers hear.”

How are the publishers defending the deal?

Penguin and Simon & Schuster say, on the contrary, that the merger would bolster competitors within the publishing business and permit them to pay authors extra. “[B]y making the mixed entity a stronger bookselling competitor, the merger will incentivize different publishers to compete even tougher for shopper consideration,” the publishers stated of their pretrial briefing.

This argument depends on a typical piece of logic in publishing — that the rising dominance of Amazon in bookselling makes it much more crucial for publishers to consolidate, the higher to set phrases with the web retail behemoth from a place of power.

Advertisement

In addition they contend {that a} bigger, extra environment friendly firm would cut back e book costs, in the end benefiting readers, booksellers and authors.

The publishers criticized the federal government’s deal with anticipated bestselling books — the 1,200 or so books bought yearly for writer advances of a minimum of $250,000. At 2%, they make up a tiny piece of all of the books revealed by industrial corporations.

Furthermore, the publishers say they may proceed to function independently and be allowed to bid in opposition to one another for books, sustaining competitors among the many imprints throughout the conglomerate.

On Tuesday, Karp, Simon & Schuster’s CEO, pushed again in opposition to the federal government’s emphasis on auctions between his firm and Penguin Random Home that had raised advances, noting the various auctions he’d misplaced to different publishers as effectively.

Requested whether or not the Huge 5 had an insurmountable advertising and marketing benefit, Karp stated, “I believe that that could be a prevailing piece of typical knowledge and I’m not going to disagree,” earlier than including, “I do assume that a number of us consider {that a} good editor, a great publicist, and a gross sales rep is sufficient.”

Advertisement
Jonathan Karp, President and CEO of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Jonathan Karp, President and CEO of Simon & Schuster, Inc., testified Tuesday in protection of the merger between his firm and Penguin Random Home.

(Michael Benabib / Simon & Schuster / AP)

What’s at stake, in accordance with a lawyer

Many market-watchers are taking a look at this trial as a take a look at of the Biden administration’s resolve in opposition to company consolidation.

“There was a number of criticism through the years concerning the authorities being too prepared to take settlements in merger instances and never stopping mergers absolutely,” stated Harry First, a legislation professor at New York College.

Advertisement

“It’s one factor to provide speeches about insurance policies, it’s one other factor to enter court docket and really litigate and win instances,” he added.

The federal government’s focus right here on the labor market slightly than customers can be an fascinating one, he stated — one which’s in step with the Biden administration’s emphasis on enhancing situations for staff.

“[A]ntitrust enforcement is one facet of that,” stated First. “This isn’t fairly the primary take a look at of this, nevertheless it’s the primary take a look at of this in a merger setting for this administration, in order that additionally makes this an essential case to look at.”

So what’s at stake for the publishers? Some huge cash. When the deal was introduced in 2020, Simon & Schuster proprietor ViacomCBS advised The Occasions that German conglomerate Bertelsmann, which owns Penguin, agreed to pay a termination price if the deal was blocked, however wouldn’t disclose its measurement. If the merger doesn’t undergo, Simon & Schuster should discover an alternate purchaser.

How uncommon is the lawsuit?

Advertisement

Though the publishing business has steadily consolidated through the years, the pattern has accelerated in recent times. There was the Penguin-Random Home merger in 2013, and simply final 12 months, two publishing homes made main acquisitions: HarperCollins bought Houghton Mifflin Harcourt’s commerce e book department for $349 million, and Hachette Ebook Group purchased Workman Publishing for $240 million, in accordance with a court docket submitting.

Earlier main mergers have sailed previous regulators with comparatively little resistance. A change within the climate on the DOJ portends a panorama during which consolidation could not all the time be a given.

Dorany Pineda reported from Los Angeles. Freddy Brewster from Washington D.C.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Albertsons to pay $3.9 million over allegations it overcharged, lied about weight of groceries

Published

on

Albertsons to pay .9 million over allegations it overcharged, lied about weight of groceries

Grocery titan Albertsons will pay $3.9 million to resolve a civil law enforcement complaint alleging that it ripped off customers at hundreds of its Vons, Safeway and Albertsons stores in California, authorities said Thursday.

According to the complaint, groceries sold by Albertsons Cos. — including produce, meats, baked goods and other items — had less product in the package than indicated on the label. The company also is accused of charging customers prices higher than its lowest advertised price.

“False advertising preys on consumers, who are already facing rising costs, and unfairly disadvantages companies that play by the rules,” L.A. County Dist. Atty. George Gascón said. “This kind of corporate conduct is especially egregious when it comes to essential groceries, as Californians rely on accurate advertised prices to budget food for their families.”

The case was filed in Marin County Superior Court in partnership with the consumer protection units of the district attorney’s offices of Los Angeles, Marin, Alameda, Sonoma, Riverside, San Diego and Ventura counties.

Advertisement

The settlement will be divided among the seven counties and used to support future enforcement of consumer protection laws, according to the Marin County district attorney’s office. None of the money will be paid back to consumers.

The fine comes just over a year after the same company was ordered to pay $3.5 million for selling expired over-the-counter drug products. The company is also currently fighting a federal antitrust lawsuit that seeks to block its planned merger with grocery giant Kroger Inc.

Albertsons Cos. operates 589 Albertsons, Safeway and Vons stores in California. The company did not admit wrongdoing. It cooperated with the investigation and has taken steps to correct the violations, according to the L.A. County district atttorney’s office.

In a statement on the settlement, the company said it takes the matter seriously and is committed to ensuring its customers can shop with confidence.

“We have taken steps to ensure our price accuracy guarantee is more visible to customers by posting signage at multiple locations at the front of our stores,” the company stated. “We have conducted additional comprehensive training for associates to reinforce the importance of price accuracy and customer transparency. Additionally, we have enhanced price tracking systems to better ensure real-time accuracy at stores.”

Advertisement

Prosecutors in the lawsuit alleged that the company failed to implement a price accuracy policy ordered by a court in 2014.

The policy requires that customers who are overcharged for an item either receive the item for free or receive a $5 gift card, depending on which option is worth more. It is designed to encourage customers to immediately report false advertising.

Under the judgment reached Thursday, the grocery giant must implement this policy and ensure staff are properly trained to place accurate weight labels on products.

The serial overcharging was discovered through inspections by Marin County’s Department of Agriculture, Division of Weights and Measures and its counterparts across the state.

“We could not have achieved this result without the outstanding work of our Weights and Measures inspectors as well as vigilant consumers,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. Andres Perez, who prosecuted the case for Marin County.

Advertisement

For the next three years, Albertsons Cos. is required to hire an independent auditor to ensure it is complying with the terms of the judgment.

Continue Reading

Business

Disney faces class action lawsuit over employee data breach

Published

on

Disney faces class action lawsuit over employee data breach

Walt Disney Co. has been hit with a class action lawsuit accusing the Burbank-based entertainment giant of negligence, breach of implied contract and other misconduct in connection with a massive data breach that occurred earlier this year.

Plaintiff Scott Margel submitted the complaint on Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Disney and Disney California Adventure. The 32-page document also accuses the company of violating privacy laws by not doing enough to prevent or notify victims of the extent of the leak.

The class members, estimated to number in the thousands, are described in the complaint as individuals who gave “highly sensitive personal information” to Disney in connection with their employment at the company — information that was allegedly compromised in the breach.

Representatives of Disney did not immediately respond Friday to The Times’ request for comment.

Advertisement

The lawsuit cites an article published in September by the Wall Street Journal, which reported that a hacking group known as NullBulge publicly released data spanning more than 18,800 spreadsheets, 13,000 PDFs and 44 million internal messages sent via the workplace communication platform Slack.

According to the Journal, the compromised Slack messages contained sensitive information belonging to Disney cruise employees, including passport numbers, visa details, birthplaces and physical addresses; at least one spreadsheet listed the names, addresses and phone numbers of some Disney Cruise Line passengers. The publication later reported that Disney planned to stop using Slack after the breach.

The plaintiff and class members “remain, even today, in the dark regarding which particular data was stolen, the particular malware used, and what steps are being taken, if any, to secure their [personal information] going forward,” the complaint reads.

The plaintiff and class members “are, thus, left to speculate as to where their [data] ended up, who has used it and for what potentially nefarious purposes.”

In July, NullBulge said that it had leaked roughly 1.2 terabytes of Disney data in rebuke of the company’s treatment of artists, “approach to AI” and “pretty blatant disregard for the consumer.” The self-proclaimed hacktivists told CNN that they were able to penetrate Disney’s system thanks to “a man with Slack access who had cookies.”

Advertisement

A Disney spokesperson said in a statement at the time that the company was “investigating this matter.”

Margel is demanding that Disney take steps to reinforce its security system and educate class members about the risks associated with the breach. The plaintiff is also seeking unspecified damages and a jury trial.

Continue Reading

Business

Rivian cuts production forecast, citing supply chain issue; its stock dips

Published

on

Rivian cuts production forecast, citing supply chain issue; its stock dips

Electric vehicle maker Rivian saw its shares dip Friday after the Irvine-based company cut its production targets amid ongoing supply issues.

Citing a shortage of a component used to build its electric pickups, sport utility vehicles and vans, Rivian said production could drop as much as 18% this year at its lone U.S. assembly plant.

Rivian did not specify the part that is in low supply but noted that the shortage has become more acute in recent weeks.

The company now forecasts its full-year production will be between 47,000 and 49,000 vehicles, down from an earlier estimate of 57,000. During the most recent quarter, Rivian produced 13,157 vehicles and delivered 10,018, falling short of analysts’ expectations.

Shares of Rivian ended the day at $10.44, down 3.2%. The company’s stock has been battered since the start of the year, falling by more than 50% amid underwhelming financial reports. In the second quarter this year, Rivian posted a net loss of $1.46 billion compared with a loss of about $1.12 billion during the same period a year earlier. The company is scheduled to announce its third-quarter earnings next month.

Advertisement

Rivian received a lifeline in June when Volkswagen agreed to a massive investment in the company that is expected to total $5 billion. Rivan has nonetheless continued to struggle in the face of dropping demand for electric vehicles and other supply chain issues that forced the company to pause its production of commercial vans for Amazon.com in August.

Early this year, the automaker announced a 10% cut in its workforce that sent stocks plummeting 25% in one day. The pool of interested wealthy buyers who don’t already own an electric vehicle is shrinking, analysts said, while the broader market weighs the advantages and feasibility of switching to electric.

The average car buyer is not likely to be able to afford a Rivian vehicle, and concerns remain about charging infrastructure and the distance vehicles can drive on a single charge. Rivian’s R1T electric pickup truck starts at around $70,000; its R1S SUV starts at nearly $75,000.

With sleek design and outdoorsy features, Rivian’s vehicles garnered much attention from analysts and attracted investors such as Amazon and Volkswagen. The company exceeded expectations during its initial public offering of stock in 2021, ending its first day of trading valued at nearly $88 billion.

The production issues announced this week could get in the way of Rivian’s goal of achieving positive gross profits by the fourth quarter of this year. According to analysts, the company’s gross margins are expected to remain in negative territory in the final three months of 2024.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending