The James complaint, of course, is not entirely complete; it can't be. For one thing, it has to limit itself to the specific causes of action for which the plaintiffs have standing. That means that, for example, this set of plaintiffs can't point out the appearance of collusion in setting authors' share of e-book royalties as a standard, essentially nonnegotiable 25% of net.
But...
Presuming the truthfulness of the complaint (and I've got plenty of documentation indicating that it is, if anything, an understatement), the James complaint does have implications for the settlement in the e-book antitrust matter that the corporate parent signed. Given the immense market share of Author Solutions (and, hence, of its corporate parent) in the egregiously misnamed "self-publishing service bureau" market, anything that Author Solutions does that restricts price competition or availability of goods — that is, implicates the Sherman or Clayton Antitrust Acts — may breach Penguin's settlement agreement with the United States. That settlement agreement requires the settling publishers to refrain from antitrust violations. The allegations in the James complaint at least raise the question, and are probably sufficiently detailed to survive a motion to dismiss even without further investigation.
No physically deformed orphans were harmed in the writing of this post.