Tuesday News: HarperCollins abandons agency pricing; California federal court rules BNs’ Terms of Service not enforceable; Google Docs now editable on mobile platforms

Image via Big Stock Photo

Thanks to our sharp eyed commenter, Rosie, we led the scoop on HarperCollins’ abandonment of agency pricing yesterday. From there, Laura Hazard Owens, worked her contacts and got a confirmation from Amazon that it was indeed going crazy with the discounting of HarperCollins books.  Followed close on the heels of this was a Books on Board email that said “BooksOnBoard welcomes back Discounts for Harper Collins eBook titles! This week only! 24% Off all HarperCollins eBooks!”  All Romance eBooks confirmed for me that HarperCollins books could now count toward buy club purchases and future promotional programs. (This also means that HC books can be part of Smart Bitches’ Sizzling Book Club).

Despite some industry experts’ suggestions that the industry would remain in stasis until well into the holiday buying season, it’s likely the settling publishers are anxious to put these lawsuits behind them and ensure no interruption in book selling during one of the most important times of retailing during the year.

Most of the discounts appear to be in the 10-20% range, but all appear to have some kind of discount.  How do you know?  Look at the lines underneath the price.  If it says “price set by publisher”, it’s still agency pricing.  As you can see by the HarperCollins published book, however, it says only “Sold by HarperCollins.”

HarperCollins discounts

My take from all this? Dear Author has some of the best commenters on the internet.

The court held: “We disagree with the proposition that a reasonably prudent offeree in plaintiffs’ position would necessarily have known or learned of the existence of the . . . license agreement prior to acting, so that plaintiffs may be held to have assented to that agreement with constructive notice of its terms.” (Id. at 30.) The court concluded that “plaintiffs’ bare act of downloading the software did not unambiguously manifest assent to the arbitration provision contained in the license terms.” (Id. at 20.) The same is true here. Defendant did not position any notice even of the existence of its “Terms of Use” in a location where website users would necessarily see it, and certainly did not give notice that those Terms of Use applied, except within the Terms of Use.

This could have far reaching effects including determining whether a product is a sale (it does say “buy” not “rent”) versus lease.

Send to Kindle