OFT Investigates Possible RPM in Relation to E-books
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.02.11
The OFT has confirmed that it is investigating the pricing of e-books in the UK following "a significant number of complaints". Targets of the investigation appear to include Pearson and Lagadère.
The issue under investigation is apparently an "agency pricing" model adopted by certain publishers under which the publisher sets the retail price (rather than the on-line retailer). On its face the issue under investigation therefore appears to be resale price maintenance ("RPM").
This would be unusual as the OFT has traditionally senior management have historically been skeptical of the value of pursuing standard RPM cases. One possible explanation is that, at least in the US where a similar investigation by attorney generals in Connecticut and Texas is underway, Apple appears to have played a coordinating role in persuading publishers to adopt the agency model. In other words, there may be some suggestion of hub-and-spoke cartel type conduct. Certainly there have been allegations of horizontal coordination between competitors in the other recent on-line RPM investigation by the OFT, which relates to on-line hotel bookings.
A second possible explanation is that the publication by the European Commission of its revised Guidelines on Vertical Restraints – which include an extended section on RPM – has led to a renewed interest in RPM issues among antitrust enforcers in Europe. That would be consistent with rumors that the Commission is itself considering pursuing investigations in this area.
Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 06.30.25
AI Companies Prevail in Path-Breaking Decisions on Fair Use
Last week, artificial intelligence companies won two significant copyright infringement lawsuits brought by copyright holders, marking an important milestone in the development of the law around AI. These decisions – Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta (decided on June 23 and 25, 2025, respectively), along with a February 2025 decision in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence – suggest that AI companies have plausible defenses to the intellectual property claims that have dogged them since generative AI technologies became widely available several years ago. Whether AI companies can, in all cases, successfully assert that their use of copyrighted content is “fair” will depend on their circumstances and further development of the law by the courts and Congress.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.30.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.26.25
FDA Targets Gene Editing Clinical Trials in China and other “Hostile Countries”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.26.25
