On Monday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the U.S. Department of Justice in its civil antitrust lawsuit to block book publisher Penguin Random House’s proposed $2.2 billion acquisition of Simon & Schuster. The court found that the effect of the proposed merger would be to substantially lessen competition in the market for the U.S. publishing rights to anticipated top-selling books.
“Today’s decision protects vital competition for books and is a victory for authors, readers, and the free exchange of ideas,” said Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “The proposed merger would have reduced competition, decreased author compensation, diminished the breadth, depth, and diversity of our stories and ideas, and ultimately impoverished our democracy.”
“The decision is also a victory for workers more broadly,” said Kanter. “It reaffirms that the antitrust laws protect competition for the acquisition of goods and services from workers. I would like to thank the talented, hardworking staff of the Antitrust Division for their steadfast efforts to safeguard competition in this important case.”
The court’s decision follows a thirteen-day trial in August this year. In November 2021, the Justice Department sued to stop the merger under Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The district court’s opinion is temporarily under seal to allow the parties to review for confidentiality.
- Posted November 02, 2022
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Justice Dept. obtains permanent injunction blocking Penguin Random House's proposed acquisition of Simon & Schuster
headlines Oakland County
- Historical: Circuit Court judge has made indelible mark
- New ABA/Krill Strategies lawyer mental health study shows escalating burnout, risky alcohol use
- Nessel challenges administration’s rollbacks of Endangered Species Act regulations
- Time to renew license for 2026-2027 bar year
- Judge sentences man to 22 to 37 years for murder, felony firearm
headlines National
- Lindsay Clancy trial shows how hard it is to prove intent retroactively
- Is there a religious right to abortion? State supreme court will weigh in
- Harvey raises $550M in latest round of funding
- Vanderbilt law students will gain access to AI-powered deposition simulations
- Federal judges’ interns may accept stipends from law firms, ethics panel says
- Former lawyer who pulled gun on ex-wife in restaurant convicted of attempted murder




