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
- Whitmer signs gun violence prevention legislation
- Department of Attorney General conducts statewide warrant sweep, arrests 9
- Adoptive families across Michigan recognized during Adoption Day and Month
- Reproductive Health Act signed into law
- Case study: Documentary highlights history of courts in the Eastern District
headlines National
- Oscar vs. Jeff: Trial lawyers and appellate counsel do different jobs, and it may show in their writing
- ‘Can a killer look like a granny?’ Prosecutor poses questions as mother-in-law of slain law prof goes on trial
- ILTACON 2025: The Wild, Wild West of legal tech
- After striking deal with Trump, this BigLaw firm worked with liberal groups to secure pro bono wins in 2 cases
- ‘Early decision conspiracy’ among top colleges is an antitrust violation, suit alleges
- Striking the Balance: How to make alternative fee arrangements work for everyone