Editing Net Book Agreement (section)

== Dissolution of the NBA ==
[[The Publishers Association]] applied the NBA in the Republic of Ireland until 1992, after the Competition Act 1991 came into force. In June 1994 Ireland's [[Competition Authority (Ireland)|Competition Authority]] refused to license the NBA, on the grounds that UK publishers' market share was high enough for the NPA to distort competition in Ireland.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail1996020600159|title=Written Answers - NET Book Agreement|date=6 February 1996|work=Dáil Éireann Debates|publisher=Oireachtas|pages=Vol.461 No.1 p. 159 cc193–195|access-date=27 February 2018|location=Dublin}}</ref>

In the UK in August 1994 the Director General of the [[Office of Fair Trading]] decided that the Restrictive Practices Court should review the agreement. In September 1995 several major publishers (including [[HarperCollins]] and [[Random House]]) withdrew, and in September 1996 the [[Booksellers Association]] decided to take no part in the case. In March 1997 the Restrictive Practices Court ruled that the Net Book Agreement was against the public interest and therefore illegal.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Daniel|first=McCarthy|date=2010-02-09|title=Politics and the NBA|url=http://www.amconmag.com/mccarthy/2010/02/09/politics-and-the-nba/|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100420102531/http://amconmag.com/mccarthy/2010/02/09/politics-and-the-nba/|archive-date=2010-04-20|access-date=2021-02-26|website=[[The American Conservative]]}}</ref> The adoption of this new procurement discipline by academic libraries
since the demise of the NBA is the focus of "Managing suppliers for collection development: the UK higher education perspective."<ref>Ball, D., 2012. "Managing suppliers for collection development: the UK higher education perspective." In: Fieldhouse, M. and Marshall, A., eds. ''Collection Development in the Digital Age.'' London: Facet, 111-124.</ref>
The collapse of the Agreement strengthened large bookstore chains and reduced book prices. It also paved the way for the large [[supermarket]] chains to take a chunk of the book business, typically offering a small number of best-selling titles at deeply discounted prices. As of 2009, 500 [[independent bookstore|independent bookshops]] had closed since the demise of the agreement.<ref>[[BBC]] - [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7886420.stm The Money Programme], 12 February 2009
</ref> An early example of the changes in the book publishing markets following the termination of the agreement was the entry of the US-owned booksellers [[Borders (retailer)|Borders]] into the British high street, following their purchase of [[Books Etc]], but the failure of the changes was demonstrated by the rapid bankruptcy of Borders, as the supermarkets rapidly dominated the market with loss-leading price discounting, wiping out the competition.

However, market concentration and a demise of independent bookshops also took place in economies such as Germany and France where a fixed book price agreement is still in place.<ref>Kaufmann, [http://ec.europa.eu/competition/speeches/text/sp1998_013_de.html Problems of a Fixed Book Price Agreement under European Competition Law], 1998.</ref> The loss in business was smaller than predicted by many commentators. The number of titles published in the UK briefly increased when the NBA was dissolved in 1997;<ref>Davies/Wilson, [http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file13299.pdf The Benefits from Competition: some illustrative UK cases] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110829145216/http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file13299.pdf |date=29 August 2011 }}, 43 f.</ref> the volume of books sold in the UK increased temporarily by about 30% compared to 1995, but the retail prices collapsed.<ref>[[Office of Fair Trading]], [http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/economic_research/oft981.pdf An evaluation of the impact upon productivity of ending resale price maintenance on books] {{webarchive|url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402142426/http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/economic_research/oft981.pdf |date=2 April 2014 }}, 42.</ref>