Case 1:20-cv-00102-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/22/20 Page 1 of 102 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. __________________
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CAMPUS BOOK COMPANY, INC.;
`BJJ CORPORATION; CBSKY, INC.;
`CBSNM, INC.; and
`RENTTEXT.COM, INC.
`
`each individually and as representatives
`of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`MCGRAW-HILL GLOBAL
`EDUCATION HOLDINGS, LLC;
`PEARSON EDUCATION, INC.; ,
`CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.;
`BARNES & NOBLE EDUCATION,
`INC.; BARNES & NOBLE COLLEGE
`BOOKSELLERS, LLC; FOLLETT
`HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP,
`INC.; and EDUCATIONAL
`PUBLISHERS ENFORCEMENT
`GROUP,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Campus Book Company, Inc., BJJ Corporation, CBSKY, Inc., CBSNM, Inc.,
`
`and Renttext.com, Inc. (collectively, the “Plaintiff Retailers”), who on their own behalf and on
`
`behalf of others similarly situated (the “Independent Collegiate Retailers”) file this Class Action
`
`Complaint against defendants Cengage Learning, Inc., McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings,
`
`LLC, and Pearson Education, Inc. (collectively, the “Publishers”), Barnes & Noble Education,
`
`Inc., Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, LLC (collectively, “Barnes & Noble”), and Follett
`
`Higher Education Group, Inc. (“Follett”) (Barnes & Noble and Follett are collectively referred to
`
`herein as the “Defendant Retailers”), and Educational Publishers Enforcement Group (“EPEG”
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00102-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 102 PageID #: 2
`
`or the “Trade Association”) (the Publishers, the Defendant Retailers, and EPEG are collectively
`
`referred to herein as the “Defendants”), and respectfully allege the following:
`
`I.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ALLEGATIONS
`
`1.
`
`This antitrust case is about the Publishers and the Defendant Retailers lining their
`
`pockets at the expense of financially-vulnerable college students and the Plaintiff Retailers. And,
`
`what’s more, the Publishers and the Defendant Retailers eliminated from the marketplace those
`
`who could prevent them from doing so, including the Plaintiff Retailers and other Independent
`
`Collegiate Retailers like them. Amidst trends of market-shifting and revenue decline in the higher
`
`education course materials industry, the Publishers and the Defendant Retailers conspired to
`
`protect their historical price increases and stranglehold on the market. The Publishers collectively
`
`devised and agreed on a plan to force upon the market a product that must be purchased anew from
`
`the Publishers by every single college student every single semester and those purchases can be
`
`made only from the Defendant Retailers, thereby eliminating all substitute products and retail
`
`competitors, including the significant secondary market for course materials. The product at issue
`
`is ironically called “Inclusive Access” (“Inclusive Access” or “Inclusive Access Materials”). In
`
`reality, it should be called “Exclusive Access” as there is nothing inclusive about it. Designed by
`
`collusion and agreement, the product specifically limits access to higher education course materials
`
`and is exclusive to the conspiracy’s members, resulting in the elimination of competition, the
`
`elimination of access to materials, universities, and students, and higher prices, among other
`
`anticompetitive effects.
`
`2.
`
`This case challenges the Defendants’ conspiracy and their improper acquisition and
`
`use of monopoly power to irreparably harm the higher education course materials market by
`
`eliminating competition and thereby eliminating any consumer choice. They disguised their anti-
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00102-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/22/20 Page 3 of 102 PageID #: 3
`
`competitive actions as technological advancements, but that was not their true purpose or effect.
`
`The Defendants’ anticompetitive behavior has and will continue to destroy any competitive market
`
`for course materials in higher education. The Defendants’ anticompetitive behavior harms the
`
`entire market—it results in a complete lack of choice for students, exponentially higher prices for
`
`students, and reduction in quality and variety of products and services offered to students. It further
`
`has stifled innovation in the marketplace and eliminated and otherwise harmed through improper
`
`means the Defendants’ competitors and any secondary product markets, including those of the
`
`Plaintiff Retailers and other Independent Collegiate Retailers.
`
`3.
`
`The long-running conspiracy between and among the Defendants intends to and
`
`does artificially limit capacity and reduce supply, eliminate access, and eliminate secondary
`
`markets and competitors in the market for course materials at colleges and universities. The
`
`conspiracy’s end goal and result is eliminating competitors and raising prices. The Defendants
`
`have accomplished the conspiracy through agreements in restraint of trade, concerted refusals to
`
`deal and group boycotts, exclusive dealing, targeted misinformation and coercion campaigns, and
`
`other exclusionary and anticompetitive conduct. The Defendants also have separately and
`
`collectively acquired, enhanced, and maintained monopoly power through exclusionary and other
`
`anticompetitive conduct.
`
`4.
`
`The Defendants’ illegal actions have and will ultimately result in a total monopoly
`
`and foreclosure of the market for the sale of course materials at every college and university, as
`
`well as the complete elimination of any competition for the sale of course materials. Under the
`
`Defendants’ currently-enacted plan, each semester, every student enrolled at each college or
`
`university must purchase course materials in a single format—Inclusive Access—from a single
`
`source—the Defendant Retailers—dictated by a single group—the Publishers (or, for colleges or
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00102-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/22/20 Page 4 of 102 PageID #: 4
`
`universities without a Defendant Retailer, by the Publishers themselves or at another exclusive
`
`publisher partner as dictated by the Publisher). The Defendants’ plan eliminates consumer
`
`(student) choice for course material type or place of purchase at any college or university. And
`
`for these forced Inclusive Access course materials, prices will rise while quality, service, and
`
`innovation will decline, unchecked by any competitive market forces.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`5.
`
`The Plaintiff Retailers and members of the Class are retailers who sell and rent
`
`course materials to students at independent collegiate retail stores located around colleges and
`
`universities (the “Universities”) throughout the United States and also online. The Plaintiff
`
`Retailers’ and the Class members’ success and profitability depend on their ability to compete
`
`fairly for student purchases of course materials, which also helps ensure that students receive the
`
`lowest, most competitive prices and terms in the marketplace.
`
`6.
`
`Higher education course materials consist of traditional printed textbooks and other
`
`materials, as well as digital textbooks and e-textbooks, which have been used as an alternative to
`
`traditional, hard copy materials. Students historically obtain e-textbooks by purchasing access
`
`codes (or unique serial numbers) that are used to unlock digital textbooks that sometimes also
`
`include homework, assignments, quizzes, tests, and/or other learning software online (collectively,
`
`these higher education course materials are referred to as “Course Materials”).
`
`7.
`
`The Publishers manufacture and sell and/or rent Course Materials and control at
`
`least 80%, and reportedly closer to 90%, of the market nationwide. They have been the dominant
`
`firms in the market for the last 30 years. The Association of American Publishers estimates the
`
`new Course Materials market in the United States is over $3 billion. The market for Course
`
`Materials is captive; although students are the Course Materials’ end consumers, the Universities
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00102-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/22/20 Page 5 of 102 PageID #: 5
`
`(and their faculty) select which Course Materials the students must purchase. Thus, the Publishers
`
`market Course Materials to the Universities, not their students, and the Publishers generally do not
`
`market the Course Materials on price or other aspects important to students. In a properly
`
`functioning market, the Publishers would compete with each other to publish Course Materials for
`
`each University’s classes and that competition would include the type, content, quality, service,
`
`and price of Course Materials.
`
`8.
`
`The Publishers have always made available for sale and sold Course Materials to
`
`both Defendant Retailers and Plaintiff Retailers. The Defendant Retailers contract with the
`
`Universities for an “on-campus” location that sells and rents Course Materials. The Plaintiff
`
`Retailers and Independent Collegiate Retailers, which include both brick-and-mortar locations as
`
`well as online sellers and platforms, compete with the Defendant Retailers to sell and rent Course
`
`Materials to students (including bids to become the “on-campus” location).
`
`9.
`
`For Universities that lease or subcontract their collegiate retail operations (rather
`
`than having them run by the institution itself), each such University has one lease-operated
`
`collegiate retailer, who has generally paid the University for the right to operate the on-campus
`
`store. The Defendant Retailers operate over 50% of the on-campus stores nationwide, and they
`
`normally compete with each other to operate each University’s on-campus store.
`
`10.
`
`Historically, the higher education Course Materials market included full and open
`
`competition between retailers. Universities and faculty members selected Course Materials;
`
`publishers made available and sold such Course Materials to all retailers at the same price; and the
`
`students searched for competitive pricing and terms on those Course Materials—ultimately making
`
`purchases either from the Defendant Retailers (or, if not lease-operated, the institution’s own on-
`
`campus store) or from the Plaintiff Retailers or other Independent Collegiate Retailers (in physical
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00102-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/22/20 Page 6 of 102 PageID #: 6
`
`locations and online). Competition between retailers acted as at least some check on the captive
`
`Course Materials market—multiple opportunities existed for students to seek lower prices and
`
`preferred sales terms, such as on Amazon or Chegg. For a majority of students, the Plaintiff
`
`Retailers were a much-needed source of more affordable or accessible Course Materials.
`
`11.
`
`The Plaintiff Retailers are sophisticated retailers of Course Materials capable of
`
`offering the same technology, platform, and delivery of Course Materials as the Defendant
`
`Retailers. The Plaintiff Retailers have participated in the Course Materials market for over
`
`20 years, during which time they served as at least some check on exorbitant Course Materials
`
`prices and relentless Course Materials price increases by offering lower-cost alternatives in
`
`formats and delivery methods to fit student demands. The Plaintiff Retailers’ participation
`
`benefited consumers and competition through price competition, personalized service, and
`
`innovative programs, such as offering rentals and robust e-commerce solutions. Throughout their
`
`decades of operation, the Plaintiff Retailers have grown with and adapted their business to the
`
`market, including as e-textbooks and other digital offerings became available. The Plaintiff
`
`Retailers were some of the first sellers on Amazon’s Marketplace, a significant amount of their
`
`sales are online, and they have developed proprietary digital tools that enable them to thrive in the
`
`new technological environments.
`
`*
`
`*
`
` *
`
`12.
`
`As the sale of Course Materials (over the Internet, by Amazon, and through rentals)
`
`increased competition and finally began lowering the price and increasing the availability of
`
`Course Materials, the Publishers looked for ways to reduce or eliminate competition and increase
`
`their revenues. As an example, the Publishers moved to custom packaging and/or custom delivery
`
`of Course Materials with one-time digital access codes, “custom books” (i.e., offering the same
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00102-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/22/20 Page 7 of 102 PageID #: 7
`
`book with minimal alterations as an entirely new product), or other offerings that created a unique
`
`International Standard Book Number (“ISBN”) and hindered or made it impossible to acquire the
`
`Course Materials in a used or second-hand format. But even for these “new” Course Materials
`
`without a secondary market, the Plaintiff Retailers remained a much needed source of more
`
`affordable Course Materials for many students. Because the Plaintiff Retailers could still obtain
`
`access to the Course Materials from the Publishers at the same cost as other retailers, they adapted
`
`and continued offering lower prices, preferred sales terms, or rental selections, remaining
`
`competitive and maintaining choices for students in the Course Materials market.
`
`13.
`
`This competitive market changed with Inclusive Access (sometimes also referred
`
`to as “Direct Access” or “Direct Bill”). For Inclusive Access, students are not purchasing any
`
`physical course materials and there is no choice of format or delivery method. Instead, students
`
`are automatically enrolled in time-limited access (usually one semester) to the Publishers’ online
`
`resources which can be “turned on” for the student’s account only directly by the Defendant
`
`Retailers.
`
`14.
`
`For Inclusive Access, the Publishers contractually deliver Course Materials only
`
`through the Defendant Retailers (or, if not lease-operated, the institution’s own on-campus store)
`
`by using either (a) a combination of exclusive dealing arrangements between
`
`the
`
`Defendant Retailers and the Universities and so-called license agreements (that operate as
`
`exclusive dealing arrangements) between the Publishers, the Universities, and the Defendant
`
`Retailers, or (b) a combination of exclusive dealing arrangements between the Defendant Retailers
`
`and the Universities and, upon information and belief, master exclusivity agreements between the
`
`Defendant Retailers and the Publishers. The Publishers refuse to sell any Inclusive Access
`
`Materials to any other retailers, including the Plaintiff Retailers and the Class members, which is
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00102-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/22/20 Page 8 of 102 PageID #: 8
`
`also an agreed change in the terms and conditions of sale of Course Materials and Inclusive Access
`
`Materials. This agreement in restraint of trade and concerted refusal to deal and group boycott of
`
`the Independent Collegiate Retailers as to Inclusive Access Materials was agreed upon by the
`
`Publishers and also encouraged and agreed upon by the Defendant Retailers who compete with the
`
`Independent Collegiate Retailers.
`
`15.
`
`Contrary to representations by the Publishers and the Defendant Retailers to justify
`
`or defend their anticompetitive actions, Inclusive Access Materials do not represent innovation or
`
`any technological advancement. The Inclusive Access Materials provide students with exactly the
`
`same Course Materials the Publishers were selling before and that were available in multiple
`
`formats from multiple retailers across the globe competing on price and other student
`
`considerations. The Defendants have merely added an access limitation element that eliminates
`
`competition in the market. Instead of selling students (through any retailer) the access code or
`
`unique serial number to access the product, the Publishers and the Defendant Retailers have
`
`coordinated, conspired, and agreed that the students will be granted access to Inclusive Access
`
`Materials solely through the Defendant Retailers. Thus, Inclusive Access is an artificial construct
`
`no different from the digital access codes or “custom books” described above, except that the
`
`Publishers and the Defendant Retailers have coordinated, conspired, and agreed to prevent
`
`acquisition of Inclusive Access Materials by anyone except
`
`the Publishers and
`
`the
`
`Defendant Retailers—often through direct billing or automatic deductions from a student’s
`
`account with the University—thereby eliminating all student choice and price and term
`
`competition in the market.
`
`16.
`
`It has been stated that there is a way for students to “opt out” of Inclusive Access.
`
`But the Publishers and the Defendant Retailers have purposefully blocked the “opt out” process
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00102-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/22/20 Page 9 of 102 PageID #: 9
`
`by failing to provide or enable any such process and engaging in disinformation or confusion
`
`campaigns. In reality and as a practical matter, there is either no way or no meaningful way to
`
`“opt out” of Inclusive Access once it has been designated the material for a class. Upon enrollment
`
`in a class that is subject to Inclusive Access and these exclusive dealing arrangements, the students
`
`are automatically subscribed to Inclusive Access Materials and charged for those materials by the
`
`Defendant Retailers. The “opt out” process, when there is one at all, is opaque, confusing, and
`
`difficult if not impossible to execute. Students, including those who have specifically inquired
`
`about the “opt-out” options, receive misinformation, primarily from the Defendant Retailers,
`
`regarding the ability to opt-out, whether the Inclusive Access Materials differ from other materials
`
`available, and how and what they are being charged for the Inclusive Access Materials. For
`
`example, students have been told there is no opt-out available, that they cannot take a class or will
`
`be de-enrolled from a class if they opt out and seek substitute materials, or that substitute materials
`
`available from other retailers like the Plaintiff Retailers are not sufficient or not allowed. The
`
`procedures students must follow are difficult or impossible to discover, navigate, or follow.
`
`Therefore, even in cases where the Plaintiff Retailers have been able to obtain and sell Course
`
`Materials, such as access codes or e-textbooks, that provided the same substantive material as the
`
`Inclusive Access Materials (albeit with a different ISBN assigned by the Publishers, and for which
`
`the Publishers purposefully charge a higher price than they have set for the same Inclusive Access
`
`Materials), they are still unable to compete because students are practically unable to opt-out. This
`
`inability of students to opt-out is a purposeful result of the Publishers’ and the Defendant Retailers’
`
`behavior intended to capture 100% of the market.
`
`17.
`
`If anything, Inclusive Access Materials are a step backwards in innovation and
`
`service to the consumer students. As noted by the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00102-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/22/20 Page 10 of 102 PageID #: 10
`
`Coalition in their published opposition to a proposed merger between two Publishers—Cengage
`
`and McGraw-Hill—digital subscriptions like Inclusive Access offer inferior quality and variety to
`
`the status quo. Examples of these inferiorities include requiring that all students access materials
`
`in the same way at the same price; applying expiration dates to access that prevent materials from
`
`being retained for future reference, shared with others, or resold; quality that depends substantially
`
`on access to technology and internet connections; technical issues requiring class time to explain
`
`or address; ignoring student preferences for some print material over exclusively digital; and
`
`studies showing digital formats may not be better for students. Inclusive Access Materials also
`
`are not usually a better deal for students, even prior to the upward price effects that will result from
`
`the elimination of the competitive market for Course Materials. To the extent that they appear to
`
`be a better deal in any instance, the “better deal” is an artificial image created by the Publishers,
`
`who have complete control over pricing for both the Inclusive Access Materials and the potential
`
`substitute Course Materials.
`
`18.
`
`The exclusive dealing agreements effectuating the conspiracy, concerted refusal to
`
`deal, group boycott, and anticompetitive monopolistic behavior have similar, and in some
`
`instances, the same language, as well as the same terms and conditions. Upon information and
`
`belief, the master exclusivity agreements between the Publishers and the Defendant Retailers
`
`extend the same type of exclusivity as the combination of the exclusive dealing agreements and
`
`so-called license agreements. The Plaintiff Retailers have discussed with the Publishers the ability
`
`to purchase the Inclusive Access materials from each of them, and each has refused while
`
`supplying the same pre-textual explanations, including that Inclusive Access Materials do not and
`
`cannot exist in a format available for sale to the Plaintiff Retailers, blaming the Universities and
`
`the Defendant Retailers.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00102-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/22/20 Page 11 of 102 PageID #: 11
`
`19.
`
`The exclusive dealing arrangements foreclose a substantial portion of the
`
`Course Materials market, due to the approximately 90% of the Course Materials market controlled
`
`by the Publishers and the over 50% of the lease-operated retail stores nationwide controlled by the
`
`Defendant Retailers. Further, as to each University served by the Publishers and the Defendant
`
`Retailers, 100% of the Inclusive Access Materials market is foreclosed. Because students are
`
`required to purchase the Inclusive Access Materials and the Defendants have limited that access
`
`to themselves, there is no other opportunity for the student-consumers to purchase the Inclusive
`
`Access Materials elsewhere, either from the Plaintiff Retailers or anyone else. There is no
`
`alternative distribution channel for the Plaintiff Retailers (or anyone else) to obtain or sell the
`
`Inclusive Access Materials. And there is no meaningful alternative distribution channel for the
`
`Plaintiff Retailers (or anyone else) to sell other Course Materials that could substitute for the
`
`Inclusive Access Materials.
`
`20.
`
`Inclusive Access is an unprecedented change in both the product and the access
`
`offered by the Publishers for Course Materials, and this change was implemented at nearly
`
`identically the same time by multiple competing Publishers who had ample opportunities to, and
`
`did, conspire and collude on this issue. The Publishers have each ramped up their efforts to convert
`
`all Universities with which they are associated to primarily use Inclusive Access Materials, or at
`
`least to primarily use Inclusive Access Materials for the core and lower-level classes that have the
`
`highest student enrollment, and therefore have the largest economic impact on both the Publishers
`
`and the Defendant Retailers. Defendants seek to convert every class they can to Inclusive Access.
`
`Many of the exclusive dealing arrangements have annual quotas that guarantee additional classes
`
`and student enrollment each year required to use solely Inclusive Access Materials—e.g., in year
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00102-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/22/20 Page 12 of 102 PageID #: 12
`
`three of some arrangements, 10,000-plus students at a single University are forced into Inclusive
`
`Access.
`
`21.
`
`Inclusive Access has not arisen from consumer demand, innovation, or other proper
`
`economic and competitive incentives. As described above and herein, Inclusive Access is the
`
`opposite of innovation and not what students want or need. Instead, the idea and implementation
`
`of Inclusive Access arose from the Defendants’ conspiracy and improper use of monopoly power.
`
`The Publishers collectively devised and agreed on a plan to force upon the market a product that
`
`must be purchased anew from the Publishers by every single student every single semester, thereby
`
`eliminating all substitute products,
`
`including
`
`the significant secondary market
`
`for
`
`Course Materials.
`
`22.
`
`Among other ways, the Defendants have used the trade association EPEG to
`
`conspire and implement their anticompetitive behavior. EPEG was formed in 2016, and all the
`
`Publishers are members. EPEG was formed ostensibly to engage in anti-counterfeiting efforts, but
`
`it has provided the Publishers with the opportunity, means, and motive to conspire, and has
`
`implemented standards designed to reduce supply and access, limit consumer choice, and raise
`
`prices of Course Materials. The Publishers and the Defendant Retailers also had the opportunity
`
`to conspire at events for the National Association of Collegiate Stores, during coordinated
`
`activities in relation to rule-making for the Higher Education Opportunity Act, during coordinated
`
`pilot programs of Inclusive Access, and during merger discussions between at least McGraw-Hill
`
`and Cengage.
`
`23.
`
`The Publishers and the Defendant Retailers then collectively devised and agreed on
`
`a plan whereby the Defendant Retailers would assist the Publishers with the implementation of
`
`their collusive scheme and, in return, would be made the exclusive source of the Publishers’
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00102-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/22/20 Page 13 of 102 PageID #: 13
`
`Inclusive Access product, thereby eliminating all substitute sources (including the Independent
`
`Collegiate Retailers and the significant online market) and any potential competition on price,
`
`terms, or other benefits to the student-consumers. In instances where any related materials are
`
`available to other retailers, the Publishers and the Defendant Retailers collectively agreed that the
`
`Defendant Retailers would receive favorable terms and conditions including price.
`
`24.
`
`The Publishers acknowledge that Course Materials have become so expensive that
`
`some students simply cannot afford them. However, the Publishers are to blame for the fact that
`
`Course Materials costs have significantly outpaced inflation; according to industry publications,
`
`Course Materials costs have risen 184% since 1998 and more than 1,000% since the 1970s. The
`
`Publishers and the Defendant Retailers claim (and have in some cases convinced the Universities)
`
`that Inclusive Access will make Course Materials more affordable for all. But in fact,
`
`Inclusive Access has and will continue to raise prices and limit supply and access. The Defendants
`
`are actually implementing a collusive scheme to maintain their stranglehold on the industry while
`
`disguising it as reform. If the Defendants are not stopped soon, there will be no players left in the
`
`industry to reverse the damage they have caused.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`25.
`
`The Publishers win with Inclusive Access because they secure 100% of the business
`
`of “new” Course Materials each semester from each converted course, resulting in more frequent,
`
`guaranteed purchases as well as increased prices. With all the Publishers pushing Inclusive Access
`
`and not offering competing products (that are actually better quality, better value, and more
`
`desirable and effective for student-consumers and University faculty), there will soon be no
`
`substitute to which the Universities can switch. In a coordinated manner, the Defendants have
`
`instituted a stranglehold on Course Materials with Inclusive Access.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00102-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/22/20 Page 14 of 102 PageID #: 14
`
`26.
`
`Although it should not and has not mattered to the Publishers—under normal
`
`economic conditions and motives—who sells their Course Materials to students, the
`
`Defendant Retailers also win with Inclusive Access. Because the Publishers have agreed to sell
`
`Inclusive Access at each University only to and through the Defendant Retailers, the
`
`Defendant Retailers now automatically receive 100% of sell-through to consumers on any course
`
`that is subject to Inclusive Access, in most cases through direct or automatic charges. Historically,
`
`the Defendant Retailers received approximately 35% or less sell-through per course due to
`
`competition from Plaintiff Retailers and the Class members.
`
`27.
`
`The losers in the Inclusive Access equation are the student-consumers and the
`
`Plaintiff Retailers and Class members. The students are deprived of all choice and competition on
`
`price, terms, quality, and innovation. They are now given a take-it-or-leave-it product at a take-it-
`
`or-leave-it price, and in many instances, “leave it” does not mean choosing not to have the
`
`Course Materials—it means being de-enrolled and unable to take a class due to Defendants’
`
`misinformation and coercion campaigns, and the elimination of any meaningful opportunity to
`
`“opt out” of Inclusive Access. The Plaintiff Retailers and the Class members also suffer severely
`
`as a result of the Defendants’ illegal actions, as they cannot compete where the Publishers (the
`
`creator of the content, itself) will not sell them the Inclusive Access Materials and the Defendants
`
`block student opt-outs.
`
`28.
`
`As shown below in detail, the Defendants have taken the following illegal and
`
`anticompetitive actions:
`
`a. The Publishers entered into horizontal conspiracies to unreasonably restrain
`
`trade by raising prices, artificially limiting capacity and reducing supply,
`
`eliminating necessary
`
`access
`
`including
`
`through
`
`exclusive dealing
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00102-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/22/20 Page 15 of 102 PageID #: 15
`
`arrangements, using trade associations to set pre-textual standards, and
`
`implementing concerted refusals to deal with and group boycotts of the
`
`Plaintiff Retailers and Class members;
`
`b. The Defendant Retailers entered into horizontal conspiracies to unreasonably
`
`restrain trade by raising prices, artificially limiting capacity and reducing
`
`supply, and eliminating necessary access including through exclusive dealing
`
`arrangements;
`
`c. The Publishers and the Defendant Retailers entered into a hub-and-spoke
`
`conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade by raising prices, artificially limiting
`
`capacity and reducing supply, eliminating necessary access including through
`
`exclusive dealing arrangements, and concerted refusals to deal with and group
`
`boycotts of the Plaintiff Retailers and Class members;
`
`d. The Publishers and the Defendant Retailers have acquired, enhanced, and
`
`maintained monopoly power through exclusionary conduct and other
`
`anticompetitive conduct, including combining, conspiring, or attempting to
`
`monopolize the market for Course Materials at Universities; and
`
`e. The Publishers and the Defendant Retailers unfairly and deceptively restrained
`
`competition in the market for Course Materials at Universities.
`
`29.
`
`The Plaintiff Retailers and the Class members seek a finding that the Defendants’
`
`actions violate federal and state antitrust and/or unfair competition laws; a permanent injunction
`
`preventing the Defendants from continuing their illegal conduct and rectifying ongoing
`
`anticompetitive effects caused by their illegal conduct; and damages on behalf of the Plaintiff
`
`Retailers and the Class members.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`PAGE 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00102-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/22/20 Page 16 of 102 PageID #: 16
`
`A.
`
`The Plaintiff Retailers
`
`II.
`
`PARTIES
`
`30.
`
`Named Plaintiff (and Putative Class Representative) Campus Book Company, Inc.
`
`is a New Mexico corporation, and may be served with pleadings and process in this proceeding
`
`through the undersigned counsel. Campus Book Company, Inc. operates or operated Independent
`
`Collegiate Retailers serving students at University of Texas Arlington, University of New Mexico,
`
`and online.
`
`31.
`
`Named Plaintiff (