Considerations of monopsony in merger analysis: The <i>Penguin Random House</i> case

Abstract In 2020, Bertelsmann SE &amp; Co., the owner of Penguin Random House (PRH), offered to acquire Simon &amp; Schuster for $2.175 billion. If the merger had been consummated, the newly merged firm would have had a 49 per cent share of the market for publishing rights to anticipated top-selling books. Concerned by the proposed merger, the Department of Justice alleged that a more concentrated sector for publishing would result in lower advances to authors of highly anticipated books. The antitrust concern, therefore, centred on the exercise of monopsony power rather than monopoly power. The District Court was persuaded by the evidence presented at trial and blocked the merger on that ground. Having lost at trial, PRH decided to forgo an appeal. This article provides a brief analysis and critique of the District Court’s ruling.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Antitrust Enforcement
Published
2024-08-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnae041
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Merger and Competition Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.26
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Considerations of monopsony in merger analysis: The Penguin Random House case

Brianna L. Alderman, Roger D. Blair
2 citations
Journal of Antitrust Enforcement
Merger and Competition Analysis
2.26
article

Considerations of monopsony in merger analysis: The Penguin Random House case

Brianna L. Alderman, Roger D. Blair
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract In 2020, Bertelsmann SE &amp; Co., the owner of Penguin Random House (PRH), offered to acquire Simon &amp; Schuster for $2.175 billion. If the merger had been consummated, the newly merged firm would have had a 49 per cent share of the market for publishing rights to anticipated top-selling books. Concerned by the proposed merger, the Department of Justice alleged that a more concentrated sector for publishing would result in lower advances to authors of highly anticipated books. The antitrust concern, therefore, centred on the exercise of monopsony power rather than monopoly power. The District Court was persuaded by the evidence presented at trial and blocked the merger on that ground. Having lost at trial, PRH decided to forgo an appeal. This article provides a brief analysis and critique of the District Court’s ruling.

Journal of Antitrust EnforcementVol. 13(2)
Harvard University (US), Harvard University Press (US), University of Florida (US), Florida College (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Merger and Competition Analysis
2.26
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Considerations of monopsony in merger analysis: The <i>Penguin Random House</i> case — Brianna L. Alderman, Roger D. Blair · Journal of Antitrust Enforcement (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS