YES! Weekly wins court case

Womack Newspapers, Inc, (WNI) publishers of YES! Weekly today saw a case brought against them by the Triad Publishers Association (TPA) dropped. The TPA made allegations that delivery people of YES! Weekly were purposely putting issues of YES! Weekly in their racks and were in violation. TPA billed WNI $860 for alledged placement of YES! Weekly papers in their racks.

WNI President Charles Womack testified that YES! Weekly had wanted to join the TPA for some time, but could never get any solid contract or benefit package explaining reasons for joining. While Womack was debating on whether to join the TPA or not, he was told in an e-mail from TPA representative Day Atkins that "...it's a safe assumption that if you join [TPA] then the outstanding invoice goes away." Womack said that after he decided to not join the group, that TPA sought legal action. The judge found in favor of WNI.

"This is the cost of doing business in today's publishing world," said  Womack. "We have to battle with stolen and damaged YES! Weekly boxes and racks every week. Our drivers also tell me they find papers from other companies in our racks on a weekly basis. I would never imagine taking someone to court when I know a publisher has no control over his product once it hits the streets. The only way to guarantee no other papers get in the wrong rack would be to post someone at every location to monitor them 24 hours a day. That's absurd. As the largest circulated and best read weekly in the market, we have no reason or benefit for using TPA racks."

According to TPA president Steven Davis, TPA has 54 racks. YES! Weekly has more than 2,000.

Davis testified that WNI was using their racks to save some money.

"This is untrue!" womack said. "We have a parking lot filled with 14 boxes and surplus of 20-plus wire racks ready to go to a new place at a moment's notice. We have our own racks and we use them."

Womack also praised the judges decision as a victory for publishers all over the country.

"If this would have gone through, the courts would be filled with nuisance law suits from other publishers all over the country. It's a common-sense decision because a publisher can NOT be responsible for what happens to a few of their papers once they get into the open market."