The third of the three litigating defendants to file, Macmillan advances one argument similar to Penguin’s: That the government has not provided “a single economic study or analysis showing why its mandated pricing scheme is necessary to undo the effects of the alleged collusion, or why it is in ‘the public interest.” More broadly, “Other than to explain the government’s intention in requiring such substantial limitations on price restrictions, the CIS offers no precedential or evidentiary support for why those limitations would be in the public interest, no analysis of the market effect of such a prohibition and no analysis […]
