1
00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:11,840
Speaker 1: This is Bloombird Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. Greetings,

2
00:00:11,880 --> 00:00:15,800
Speaker 1: Bill Ni, here today, I'm made of plastic, recycled plastic.

3
00:00:16,160 --> 00:00:19,400
Speaker 1: Bill Ny the Science Guy, teamed up with Coca Cola

4
00:00:19,480 --> 00:00:23,080
Speaker 1: to promote the company's World Without Waste campaign and it's

5
00:00:23,160 --> 00:00:26,440
Speaker 1: recycling efforts. So the good people at the Coca Cola

6
00:00:26,480 --> 00:00:31,040
Speaker 1: company are dedicating themselves to addressing our global plastic waste problem.

7
00:00:31,200 --> 00:00:34,200
Speaker 1: They know they have a responsibility to help solve this issue,

8
00:00:34,440 --> 00:00:38,800
Speaker 1: and their goal create a world without waste. They want

9
00:00:38,840 --> 00:00:42,280
Speaker 1: to turn every single plastic bottle of whatever you wanted

10
00:00:42,320 --> 00:00:45,560
Speaker 1: before into a new bottle of whatever you want now.

11
00:00:46,159 --> 00:00:50,320
Speaker 1: Some call foul because Coke has been consistently recognized as

12
00:00:50,360 --> 00:00:53,880
Speaker 1: one of the world's worst plastic polluters. But Coke is

13
00:00:53,920 --> 00:00:57,680
Speaker 1: just one of the companies accused of greenwashing or making

14
00:00:57,720 --> 00:01:01,600
Speaker 1: their products sound more environmental friendly than they really are.

15
00:01:02,080 --> 00:01:05,399
Speaker 1: And it's uncharted waters for the food and beverage industry

16
00:01:05,640 --> 00:01:08,760
Speaker 1: as it grapples with a flood of lawsuits over what

17
00:01:09,000 --> 00:01:12,920
Speaker 1: can and can't be said about their products. Climate impact

18
00:01:13,240 --> 00:01:17,240
Speaker 1: and mixed judicial opinions make the waters even murkier. Just

19
00:01:17,480 --> 00:01:21,919
Speaker 1: what does sustainable or recyclable mean joining me to answer

20
00:01:21,959 --> 00:01:26,200
Speaker 1: that question is environmental law expert Pat Parento, a professor

21
00:01:26,240 --> 00:01:29,320
Speaker 1: at the Vermont Law and Graduate School. Pat Coca Cola

22
00:01:29,360 --> 00:01:33,000
Speaker 1: has had courtroom wins in two cases, one in d

23
00:01:33,200 --> 00:01:37,400
Speaker 1: C and one in California, where judges found that Coke's

24
00:01:37,520 --> 00:01:42,800
Speaker 1: environmental statements weren't misleading to consumers. In the DC case,

25
00:01:42,920 --> 00:01:45,880
Speaker 1: the issue was with a tweet that said business and

26
00:01:45,959 --> 00:01:50,080
Speaker 1: sustainability are not separate stories for the Coca Cola company,

27
00:01:50,360 --> 00:01:53,560
Speaker 1: but different facets of the same story. How can you

28
00:01:53,600 --> 00:01:58,760
Speaker 1: sue on a statement like that which sounds so ambiguous. Yeah,

29
00:01:58,920 --> 00:02:02,920
Speaker 1: that's the aspiration sational argument, right, that we aspired to

30
00:02:03,040 --> 00:02:06,880
Speaker 1: be a company that is sustainable. But because we don't

31
00:02:06,920 --> 00:02:11,480
Speaker 1: have a definition in law of sustainability, it's really difficult

32
00:02:11,520 --> 00:02:15,079
Speaker 1: to win a lawsuit like that. The FTC guides are

33
00:02:15,160 --> 00:02:20,600
Speaker 1: the major source of definitions of green labeling, but they're

34
00:02:20,680 --> 00:02:23,720
Speaker 1: vague and they keep getting updated, and the Federal Trade

35
00:02:23,760 --> 00:02:27,799
Speaker 1: Commission is once again asking for public comments to upgrade

36
00:02:28,080 --> 00:02:31,800
Speaker 1: and update the guides once more and try to put

37
00:02:31,919 --> 00:02:38,160
Speaker 1: some definition to terms like sustainability and recyclability and recycled

38
00:02:38,240 --> 00:02:41,800
Speaker 1: content and carbon neutral and all the rest. Of the

39
00:02:42,440 --> 00:02:45,919
Speaker 1: advertising that's out there. But we in this country do

40
00:02:46,080 --> 00:02:50,440
Speaker 1: not have a standard that of rules that would be

41
00:02:50,560 --> 00:02:55,400
Speaker 1: enforceable in a court that really gives definition to these terms.

42
00:02:55,440 --> 00:02:58,720
Speaker 1: That's the basic problem. Yeah, And in the California suit,

43
00:02:58,919 --> 00:03:02,040
Speaker 1: the issue was claims on coke bottles. That's say the

44
00:03:02,080 --> 00:03:06,680
Speaker 1: product is recyclable when most bottles the plane disclaim en

45
00:03:06,680 --> 00:03:10,440
Speaker 1: didn't landfills or incinerators. But that doesn't mean it's not

46
00:03:10,440 --> 00:03:14,919
Speaker 1: a recyclable if you do recycle it, right, And that's

47
00:03:14,960 --> 00:03:18,600
Speaker 1: one thing the FTC can actually address if they're willing to,

48
00:03:19,000 --> 00:03:21,959
Speaker 1: and that is to say, if you're going to say

49
00:03:22,040 --> 00:03:26,399
Speaker 1: that your product is recyclable, you're gonna have to somehow

50
00:03:26,440 --> 00:03:28,880
Speaker 1: and this starts to get crowded on the label, right,

51
00:03:29,120 --> 00:03:32,320
Speaker 1: but you're gonna also have to say something about it

52
00:03:32,360 --> 00:03:38,360
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that this product will be recycled, okay, And

53
00:03:38,360 --> 00:03:40,760
Speaker 1: of course that kind of defeats the whole point of

54
00:03:40,800 --> 00:03:44,320
Speaker 1: the green advertising. If you have to disclaim what you've

55
00:03:44,400 --> 00:03:47,760
Speaker 1: just said, then you're not really gaining much in terms

56
00:03:47,800 --> 00:03:52,480
Speaker 1: of consumer approval. So it's the tricky, tricky issue to

57
00:03:52,600 --> 00:03:57,640
Speaker 1: figure out how much information can you communicate on the

58
00:03:57,760 --> 00:04:01,760
Speaker 1: label of your product. Or in the advertise before consumers

59
00:04:01,800 --> 00:04:05,480
Speaker 1: just get more confused, right, So it's tricky. Of course,

60
00:04:05,520 --> 00:04:07,640
Speaker 1: there are lots of cases where the judges have not

61
00:04:07,760 --> 00:04:12,400
Speaker 1: been so sympathetic to the companies. For example, Nestle's lost

62
00:04:12,400 --> 00:04:16,520
Speaker 1: emotion to dismiss a case about allegedly deceptive social and

63
00:04:16,680 --> 00:04:21,080
Speaker 1: environmental benefits on its hot Coco packaging. Do these decisions

64
00:04:21,160 --> 00:04:24,960
Speaker 1: depend on the consumer laws in each state? They do. Now,

65
00:04:25,320 --> 00:04:29,760
Speaker 1: if we had, you know, enforceable federal standards that were national,

66
00:04:30,120 --> 00:04:32,800
Speaker 1: that would change that. But right now, that's why you

67
00:04:32,839 --> 00:04:35,760
Speaker 1: see these cases being filed all over the country, every state.

68
00:04:36,080 --> 00:04:38,240
Speaker 1: Many of them are in the District of Columbia, which

69
00:04:38,279 --> 00:04:41,719
Speaker 1: is interesting, or California, which is not so surprising because

70
00:04:41,800 --> 00:04:45,880
Speaker 1: California has a reputation of being plaintive friendly in cases

71
00:04:45,920 --> 00:04:48,680
Speaker 1: like this. But yeah, it's state by state and that

72
00:04:48,800 --> 00:04:53,279
Speaker 1: gives rise to a patchwork of regulation and definition and

73
00:04:53,360 --> 00:04:56,240
Speaker 1: the companies you have to be aware that when they're

74
00:04:56,279 --> 00:04:59,120
Speaker 1: marketing their products in these different states, they've got to

75
00:04:59,160 --> 00:05:01,760
Speaker 1: know what the law as of those states are, and

76
00:05:01,760 --> 00:05:03,599
Speaker 1: of course they have to be worried about being sued

77
00:05:03,640 --> 00:05:07,400
Speaker 1: by the states themselves. All told, there's over twenty lawsuits

78
00:05:07,440 --> 00:05:11,800
Speaker 1: brought by attorneys general, mostly against the fossil fuel industry,

79
00:05:11,800 --> 00:05:14,720
Speaker 1: oil companies and so forth, but more and more they're

80
00:05:14,720 --> 00:05:18,560
Speaker 1: branching out to the plastics manufacturers, for example. So as

81
00:05:18,560 --> 00:05:21,520
Speaker 1: a manufacturer and a marketer, you have to be worried

82
00:05:21,560 --> 00:05:27,240
Speaker 1: about being sued by class action by consumers or shareholders,

83
00:05:27,279 --> 00:05:31,719
Speaker 1: being sued by attorneys general or eventually by the Federal

84
00:05:31,720 --> 00:05:35,360
Speaker 1: Trade Commission itself, and maybe even the Securities and Exchange Commission,

85
00:05:35,400 --> 00:05:38,880
Speaker 1: which is also developing its own set of rules, which

86
00:05:38,880 --> 00:05:41,279
Speaker 1: have been delayed and delayed and delayed. We're still waiting

87
00:05:41,320 --> 00:05:44,240
Speaker 1: for those, and those are trying to flesh out this

88
00:05:44,320 --> 00:05:47,960
Speaker 1: whole concept of e s g. Right environment, social governance,

89
00:05:48,360 --> 00:05:51,360
Speaker 1: and what kinds of claims that you're making on each

90
00:05:51,400 --> 00:05:55,640
Speaker 1: one of those elements that are either misleading or exaggerated

91
00:05:55,960 --> 00:05:58,960
Speaker 1: and so on. So we are really in an incredibly

92
00:05:59,120 --> 00:06:04,279
Speaker 1: dynamic area of combination of environmental law and consumer law.

93
00:06:04,839 --> 00:06:07,880
Speaker 1: What kind of standards are the judges using? Are they

94
00:06:07,960 --> 00:06:11,400
Speaker 1: different in each state? They do look to the FTC.

95
00:06:11,760 --> 00:06:15,160
Speaker 1: Green Guides. Some of the judges anyway, do look to those,

96
00:06:15,200 --> 00:06:17,760
Speaker 1: but as I said, they don't answer all the questions.

97
00:06:17,800 --> 00:06:21,880
Speaker 1: They for example, they don't define sustainability. Nobody has really

98
00:06:22,279 --> 00:06:26,680
Speaker 1: come up with a durable, sort of measurable definition of

99
00:06:26,800 --> 00:06:30,719
Speaker 1: what does that mean? What metrics do you use to

100
00:06:30,839 --> 00:06:36,000
Speaker 1: measure whether what your business plan is, whether it's sustainable

101
00:06:36,120 --> 00:06:38,600
Speaker 1: or not sustainable in terms of what in terms of

102
00:06:38,640 --> 00:06:43,960
Speaker 1: protecting biodiversity, in terms of protecting the climate, both of those,

103
00:06:44,120 --> 00:06:48,000
Speaker 1: and even more in terms of not containing any toxic

104
00:06:48,080 --> 00:06:52,640
Speaker 1: chemicals anywhere in the life cycle of the product, either

105
00:06:52,720 --> 00:06:57,120
Speaker 1: it's production, it's transportation as disposal. It really is a

106
00:06:57,400 --> 00:07:02,400
Speaker 1: fiendishly complicated matter to try to put definition that you

107
00:07:02,440 --> 00:07:05,360
Speaker 1: can take to court and say to the judge, this

108
00:07:05,440 --> 00:07:08,240
Speaker 1: is the line they crossed, your honor. Here's the bright

109
00:07:08,320 --> 00:07:12,240
Speaker 1: line that they crossed. And that's why these judges, I think,

110
00:07:12,280 --> 00:07:15,360
Speaker 1: are struggling to come up with that kind of yardstick,

111
00:07:15,440 --> 00:07:19,080
Speaker 1: that kind of measuring device. Is it worth it to

112
00:07:19,160 --> 00:07:24,120
Speaker 1: these companies to put these claims on their cans and bottles.

113
00:07:24,160 --> 00:07:27,400
Speaker 1: Probably not in some cases. I mean, they're seeking to

114
00:07:27,440 --> 00:07:30,600
Speaker 1: gain market advantage, obviously. And by the way, there's another

115
00:07:30,720 --> 00:07:34,400
Speaker 1: law that their competitors can use to sue them if

116
00:07:34,400 --> 00:07:37,560
Speaker 1: they're claiming that their product is cleaner or better or

117
00:07:37,600 --> 00:07:41,680
Speaker 1: more sustainable than somebody else's. So that's yet another aspect

118
00:07:41,680 --> 00:07:44,720
Speaker 1: of this issue, and that leads to litigation. But yeah,

119
00:07:44,800 --> 00:07:48,600
Speaker 1: I think in some cases in house lawyers probably need

120
00:07:48,680 --> 00:07:54,000
Speaker 1: to be more involved with the kinds of marketing claims

121
00:07:54,080 --> 00:07:59,120
Speaker 1: that companies are making and weighing is it worth the

122
00:07:59,240 --> 00:08:01,400
Speaker 1: risk of being sued, because as I have just said,

123
00:08:01,480 --> 00:08:03,880
Speaker 1: you can get suped from many different angles, and even

124
00:08:03,920 --> 00:08:06,600
Speaker 1: if you end up winning the case, you know, there's

125
00:08:06,640 --> 00:08:10,080
Speaker 1: some impact on companies just by the virtue of being sued,

126
00:08:10,320 --> 00:08:12,840
Speaker 1: let alone if they actually get a verdict against them.

127
00:08:13,040 --> 00:08:17,880
Speaker 1: So yeah, I think companies have to weigh the reputational

128
00:08:18,080 --> 00:08:21,160
Speaker 1: risk of stretching the truth, so to speak. Or but

129
00:08:21,200 --> 00:08:24,600
Speaker 1: we used to call this kind of activity puffery. You know,

130
00:08:24,880 --> 00:08:28,320
Speaker 1: companies were entitled to puff their product, best cup of

131
00:08:28,360 --> 00:08:31,480
Speaker 1: coffee in the world, kind of statements like that, right,

132
00:08:31,800 --> 00:08:35,559
Speaker 1: But nowadays you know you can't get away with making

133
00:08:35,679 --> 00:08:39,679
Speaker 1: bold claims like that and feel like there's no recourse

134
00:08:39,720 --> 00:08:42,880
Speaker 1: for anyone. Because there is recourse. They may not win

135
00:08:42,920 --> 00:08:45,800
Speaker 1: their lawsuit, but they can do damage to your brand

136
00:08:46,160 --> 00:08:50,720
Speaker 1: in the process. I also wonder someone who goes into

137
00:08:50,760 --> 00:08:54,439
Speaker 1: buy PEPSI, let's say they know what they want, are

138
00:08:54,480 --> 00:08:57,080
Speaker 1: they going to change their mind and buy coke because

139
00:08:57,080 --> 00:09:02,760
Speaker 1: it's bottle says it's recycle. The data suggest that gen

140
00:09:02,920 --> 00:09:09,160
Speaker 1: Z generation is more discerning when it comes to buying

141
00:09:09,559 --> 00:09:12,000
Speaker 1: eco friendly products, if we want to call them that

142
00:09:12,040 --> 00:09:15,439
Speaker 1: our services. I do think this generation, you know, I mean,

143
00:09:15,559 --> 00:09:18,079
Speaker 1: they can pick up all kinds of information off of

144
00:09:18,200 --> 00:09:20,679
Speaker 1: social media and regular media, right. I think there are

145
00:09:20,679 --> 00:09:23,000
Speaker 1: more alert to this, you know, these kinds of claims,

146
00:09:23,000 --> 00:09:27,760
Speaker 1: and they are looking for environmentally friendly products and services.

147
00:09:27,800 --> 00:09:31,200
Speaker 1: So that market, you know, is one that companies I think,

148
00:09:31,200 --> 00:09:34,559
Speaker 1: do have to pay attention to. Certainly in the fashion industry,

149
00:09:34,559 --> 00:09:37,760
Speaker 1: clothing industry and so forth, they do have to not

150
00:09:37,880 --> 00:09:42,520
Speaker 1: only market themselves appropriately, but actually be changing their methods

151
00:09:42,520 --> 00:09:45,720
Speaker 1: of production, their supply chains, if you will, to try

152
00:09:45,720 --> 00:09:48,959
Speaker 1: to green them up, try to become more environmentally responsible.

153
00:09:49,280 --> 00:09:52,120
Speaker 1: But in the end, if you're just thinking that you

154
00:09:52,160 --> 00:09:54,800
Speaker 1: can say whatever you want to say about your product

155
00:09:54,920 --> 00:09:57,959
Speaker 1: and not suffer any consequences, I think that day is over.

156
00:09:58,480 --> 00:10:02,760
Speaker 1: I mean, when does the ft see bring enforcement actions.

157
00:10:02,800 --> 00:10:06,800
Speaker 1: I read about the allegation that Walmart and Cole's falsely

158
00:10:06,920 --> 00:10:10,800
Speaker 1: marketed sheets, towels, and other textile products as being made

159
00:10:10,800 --> 00:10:14,000
Speaker 1: of eco friendly bamboo when they were actually made of rayon.

160
00:10:14,400 --> 00:10:16,600
Speaker 1: And then there was a two and a half million

161
00:10:16,640 --> 00:10:19,520
Speaker 1: dollar and three million dollars civil penalty. What does it

162
00:10:19,559 --> 00:10:22,840
Speaker 1: take to for the FTC to come in? Yeah, that's

163
00:10:22,840 --> 00:10:26,400
Speaker 1: that's their enforcement discretion. So they picked the cases obviously

164
00:10:26,760 --> 00:10:30,920
Speaker 1: they were they have the strongest facts and and uh,

165
00:10:31,160 --> 00:10:35,000
Speaker 1: you know the high probability of success they keep They

166
00:10:35,000 --> 00:10:38,360
Speaker 1: tracked on the FTC website, they track all their cases,

167
00:10:38,400 --> 00:10:40,400
Speaker 1: so you can go there and look at I'm looking

168
00:10:40,440 --> 00:10:42,360
Speaker 1: at it right now, and there's at least fifty I'm

169
00:10:42,400 --> 00:10:46,319
Speaker 1: looking at right here going back to two thousand, and

170
00:10:46,360 --> 00:10:52,320
Speaker 1: they're against big companies, Yeah, Benjamin Moore, Volkswagen, uh, Bed,

171
00:10:52,400 --> 00:10:57,240
Speaker 1: Bath and beyond, Nordstrom, j C. Penney, Cole's, Walmart. So

172
00:10:57,840 --> 00:11:00,720
Speaker 1: you know they're they're taken on some of the big

173
00:11:00,760 --> 00:11:04,880
Speaker 1: players in the marketplace and they are recovering million dollar

174
00:11:05,000 --> 00:11:10,320
Speaker 1: plus penalties. Um. But you know that that may represent

175
00:11:11,040 --> 00:11:13,280
Speaker 1: at the tip of the proverbial tip of the iceberg,

176
00:11:13,400 --> 00:11:16,400
Speaker 1: right in terms of how many cases can these f

177
00:11:16,840 --> 00:11:19,439
Speaker 1: can FTC actually bring. That's a function of how much

178
00:11:19,480 --> 00:11:23,120
Speaker 1: staff they have and how much you know, time and

179
00:11:23,160 --> 00:11:25,960
Speaker 1: money they can spend. It's kind of the same thing

180
00:11:26,000 --> 00:11:27,839
Speaker 1: with the I R s. You know, they have to

181
00:11:28,480 --> 00:11:32,240
Speaker 1: you know, target uh some cases to try to make

182
00:11:32,280 --> 00:11:35,520
Speaker 1: a point and send a message to the marketplace. But

183
00:11:35,559 --> 00:11:40,599
Speaker 1: they can't police every single instance where there might be misrepresentation.

184
00:11:40,720 --> 00:11:45,559
Speaker 1: But they can certainly beef up the number of enforcement

185
00:11:45,559 --> 00:11:49,679
Speaker 1: actions they take and the penalties that they see the laws. Uh.

186
00:11:49,679 --> 00:11:54,160
Speaker 1: You know, the Federal Trade Commission Act, it does include

187
00:11:54,679 --> 00:11:58,080
Speaker 1: you know, the potential force some significant penalties that can

188
00:11:58,120 --> 00:12:02,640
Speaker 1: even include unjust in Richmond, and profits you'll gotten gains,

189
00:12:02,760 --> 00:12:06,040
Speaker 1: I guess would be the term to use for that. Um.

190
00:12:06,080 --> 00:12:09,280
Speaker 1: So yeah, I mean, the federal government, if it wants

191
00:12:09,320 --> 00:12:12,480
Speaker 1: to take a stronger rule in these enforcement cases, can

192
00:12:12,559 --> 00:12:17,720
Speaker 1: probably begin to send the message to the marketplace louder

193
00:12:18,160 --> 00:12:21,960
Speaker 1: than these random class action cases. I mean, those always

194
00:12:22,000 --> 00:12:26,439
Speaker 1: depend on the quality of the evidence, um, the quality

195
00:12:26,440 --> 00:12:29,160
Speaker 1: of the lawyers, frankly, and how familiar they are with

196
00:12:29,360 --> 00:12:33,000
Speaker 1: mitigating these kinds of cases. UM. The judges that you

197
00:12:33,120 --> 00:12:38,319
Speaker 1: draw that are may be disposed towards uh one side

198
00:12:38,360 --> 00:12:40,120
Speaker 1: or the other in the case. You know, they may

199
00:12:40,160 --> 00:12:44,120
Speaker 1: be business friendly UH judges as opposed to consumer friend

200
00:12:44,160 --> 00:12:47,839
Speaker 1: There's there's so many variables. As we say, litigation is

201
00:12:47,880 --> 00:12:51,520
Speaker 1: a crapshoot, right, There's so many things that have to

202
00:12:51,559 --> 00:12:54,240
Speaker 1: go right in a case for you to win it

203
00:12:54,760 --> 00:12:57,959
Speaker 1: that you know you're going to see different results across

204
00:12:58,000 --> 00:13:01,160
Speaker 1: the country. For sure, is the are most of the

205
00:13:01,280 --> 00:13:08,559
Speaker 1: FTC cases not litigated at trial but settled? Yes, yeah,

206
00:13:08,600 --> 00:13:11,280
Speaker 1: that is clear. From the lineup of cases that I'm

207
00:13:11,360 --> 00:13:14,720
Speaker 1: looking at, almost every single one of these have resulted

208
00:13:14,760 --> 00:13:18,640
Speaker 1: in settlements. Um. And again, you know, companies don't want

209
00:13:18,679 --> 00:13:21,080
Speaker 1: to be in the news and they don't want to

210
00:13:21,120 --> 00:13:24,679
Speaker 1: be on somebody's you know, most wanted list or hit list.

211
00:13:24,840 --> 00:13:29,120
Speaker 1: So the inclination I think for companies when they certainly

212
00:13:29,120 --> 00:13:32,680
Speaker 1: when they're sued by the Federal Trade Commission, they're instinct

213
00:13:32,720 --> 00:13:35,880
Speaker 1: their lawyers are gonna say, let's get this over with

214
00:13:36,720 --> 00:13:40,920
Speaker 1: um sooner rather than later. Even even if we have defenses,

215
00:13:41,160 --> 00:13:44,760
Speaker 1: even if we have arguments. In the end, it's probably

216
00:13:44,800 --> 00:13:47,400
Speaker 1: better to get this thing behind us than it is

217
00:13:47,440 --> 00:13:50,560
Speaker 1: to keep fighting over it. Not every company's like that.

218
00:13:50,600 --> 00:13:53,120
Speaker 1: Excen is not like that. Excen is going to fight

219
00:13:53,200 --> 00:13:57,040
Speaker 1: to the death. But my Volkswagen, come on, they don't.

220
00:13:57,080 --> 00:14:00,520
Speaker 1: They don't want to be you know, written up as

221
00:14:00,559 --> 00:14:05,240
Speaker 1: a company that's dishonest they've already got enough problems with that.

222
00:14:05,520 --> 00:14:09,400
Speaker 1: Has the FTC updated the rules and they're out for

223
00:14:09,640 --> 00:14:14,480
Speaker 1: now for comment? Uh, they're they're they're in the process

224
00:14:14,640 --> 00:14:19,960
Speaker 1: of requesting comment to make yet another update. I think

225
00:14:20,000 --> 00:14:23,880
Speaker 1: they've had they started in and I know they've had

226
00:14:23,920 --> 00:14:28,400
Speaker 1: at least four different versions since then. So we're talking

227
00:14:28,400 --> 00:14:32,480
Speaker 1: about something like the fifth iteration um of these guides.

228
00:14:32,520 --> 00:14:35,320
Speaker 1: And and by the way, these are not rules. Okay,

229
00:14:35,360 --> 00:14:38,240
Speaker 1: so the FTC can use these if it wants to

230
00:14:38,320 --> 00:14:42,880
Speaker 1: bring an enforcement action, but it still has to prove um,

231
00:14:42,920 --> 00:14:46,840
Speaker 1: you know, the merits of the false advertising. Let's say

232
00:14:47,400 --> 00:14:50,360
Speaker 1: that's that's an issue. So the guides are not like

233
00:14:50,880 --> 00:14:54,200
Speaker 1: they don't have the force of law by themselves. Um,

234
00:14:54,240 --> 00:14:58,160
Speaker 1: you could turn those guides into rules. You could even

235
00:14:58,240 --> 00:15:02,840
Speaker 1: give citizens the right to enforce those rules. Um. And

236
00:15:02,840 --> 00:15:05,360
Speaker 1: and that would be taking it up yet another level

237
00:15:05,920 --> 00:15:12,360
Speaker 1: of enforcement. Do they do those rules define sustainability compost ability,

238
00:15:12,680 --> 00:15:17,480
Speaker 1: Know that they've asked for comments on both of those items, yeah,

239
00:15:17,600 --> 00:15:22,640
Speaker 1: and recyclable what more? Uh? You know, should we say

240
00:15:22,760 --> 00:15:27,440
Speaker 1: in the guides that companies must disclose and explain? And

241
00:15:27,640 --> 00:15:31,080
Speaker 1: you know it gets down to things like, don't put

242
00:15:31,120 --> 00:15:34,480
Speaker 1: all these disclaimers in the fine print on the back

243
00:15:34,520 --> 00:15:36,760
Speaker 1: of the label or the back of the bottle, right,

244
00:15:37,000 --> 00:15:40,360
Speaker 1: don't stay on the front of the bible of bottle. Um.

245
00:15:40,400 --> 00:15:43,160
Speaker 1: You know this is uh, you know, pure ingredients, and

246
00:15:43,240 --> 00:15:45,360
Speaker 1: then on the back say ah, well we didn't really

247
00:15:45,400 --> 00:15:48,960
Speaker 1: mean that, not purely, you know pure. So there you

248
00:15:49,000 --> 00:15:52,280
Speaker 1: know that's what I mean. You you're talking about the design,

249
00:15:53,120 --> 00:15:58,240
Speaker 1: the front sive of of what you're putting on your labels,

250
00:15:58,360 --> 00:16:00,600
Speaker 1: and at some point you just run out of space.

251
00:16:01,200 --> 00:16:03,800
Speaker 1: Um and in any case, you run out of people's patients.

252
00:16:04,360 --> 00:16:06,880
Speaker 1: You know in reading it. Now you can use bar codes,

253
00:16:07,440 --> 00:16:10,120
Speaker 1: I guess you know. That's another device that at least

254
00:16:10,160 --> 00:16:13,440
Speaker 1: I've read about where you know, and I've even talked

255
00:16:13,440 --> 00:16:15,680
Speaker 1: to some of my students who do this. You know,

256
00:16:15,760 --> 00:16:19,240
Speaker 1: you can turn if you have the right QR code,

257
00:16:19,880 --> 00:16:22,960
Speaker 1: you can you can you can scan a bar code

258
00:16:23,040 --> 00:16:26,480
Speaker 1: on a product you're looking at and find out it's

259
00:16:26,520 --> 00:16:29,240
Speaker 1: it's a sort of genealogy, if you will, where did

260
00:16:29,280 --> 00:16:33,120
Speaker 1: it come from? If they say that it's responsibly sourced

261
00:16:33,400 --> 00:16:39,640
Speaker 1: palm oil, well there's there's apparently there's devices and programs

262
00:16:39,680 --> 00:16:42,320
Speaker 1: out there that can double check that. Or if they

263
00:16:42,320 --> 00:16:46,880
Speaker 1: say it's been certified by you know, some independent uh

264
00:16:47,000 --> 00:16:51,560
Speaker 1: certifier of products. You can go to that certific certification

265
00:16:52,040 --> 00:16:55,240
Speaker 1: source and find out whether that's true. Now, how many

266
00:16:55,360 --> 00:16:57,480
Speaker 1: consumers are going to be willing to go to that

267
00:16:57,600 --> 00:17:02,000
Speaker 1: much trouble, I don't know, but I know that with

268
00:17:02,120 --> 00:17:05,320
Speaker 1: our technology, we're getting to the point where you can

269
00:17:05,359 --> 00:17:07,720
Speaker 1: find out a whole lot more about products than we

270
00:17:07,800 --> 00:17:10,960
Speaker 1: ever used to if you want to. Yeah to Lena Khn.

271
00:17:11,240 --> 00:17:13,840
Speaker 1: It struck me that the head of the FDC, Lena Khn,

272
00:17:13,920 --> 00:17:17,160
Speaker 1: said that consumers have almost no way of knowing if

273
00:17:17,200 --> 00:17:21,720
Speaker 1: they're being fed misleading climate assertions. For consumers, she said,

274
00:17:21,840 --> 00:17:26,239
Speaker 1: it's really impossible to be verifying these claims. Yes, so

275
00:17:26,320 --> 00:17:29,600
Speaker 1: you do have to rely on these third party verification.

276
00:17:30,119 --> 00:17:32,639
Speaker 1: And this is really true for carbon off sets. You know,

277
00:17:32,960 --> 00:17:36,680
Speaker 1: there's all kinds of different now protocols and standards for

278
00:17:37,080 --> 00:17:40,879
Speaker 1: if you're going to claim carbon zero, net zero carbon

279
00:17:40,920 --> 00:17:45,119
Speaker 1: and so forth, carbon neutrality, um, and you're doing that

280
00:17:45,240 --> 00:17:48,919
Speaker 1: because you're buying offsets, then the question is who's certifying

281
00:17:49,240 --> 00:17:53,880
Speaker 1: certifying that those offsets are legitimate? And there's a bunch

282
00:17:53,880 --> 00:17:58,240
Speaker 1: of different entities out there claiming to be doing this

283
00:17:58,320 --> 00:18:00,560
Speaker 1: certification but then you have to ask, well, who are

284
00:18:00,560 --> 00:18:03,720
Speaker 1: they right and where are they getting their money uh

285
00:18:03,720 --> 00:18:07,480
Speaker 1: to do this certification? And is it valid? So consumers

286
00:18:07,520 --> 00:18:11,280
Speaker 1: can't independently certify this stuff, we are going to be

287
00:18:11,359 --> 00:18:18,159
Speaker 1: increasingly relying on third party certification. But who's certifying the certifier?

288
00:18:18,280 --> 00:18:21,280
Speaker 1: That's that's what that becomes. Yeah, well, I'm sure we're

289
00:18:21,280 --> 00:18:23,959
Speaker 1: going to see a lot more of these types of

290
00:18:24,080 --> 00:18:27,480
Speaker 1: lawsuits going forward. Thanks so much, Pat, I always appreciate

291
00:18:27,520 --> 00:18:31,000
Speaker 1: your coming on the show. Thanks Pat. That's Pat Parento,

292
00:18:31,119 --> 00:18:39,119
Speaker 1: a professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School. Some

293
00:18:39,280 --> 00:18:43,359
Speaker 1: hacker are I sitting off financial markets, four major banks,

294
00:18:43,800 --> 00:18:47,000
Speaker 1: and that's just what we know about. If we want

295
00:18:47,000 --> 00:18:49,960
Speaker 1: clues to the hacker's identity, we need men named Hathaway.

296
00:18:50,880 --> 00:18:53,960
Speaker 1: Let me know about this guy. He's convicting hacker serving

297
00:18:54,000 --> 00:18:57,760
Speaker 1: fifteen years genius coda. There are so many movies like

298
00:18:57,840 --> 00:19:01,800
Speaker 1: Black Cat where a genius hacker breaks into computer systems

299
00:19:01,840 --> 00:19:05,560
Speaker 1: that everyone thought were absolutely secure. But in real life,

300
00:19:05,920 --> 00:19:10,200
Speaker 1: sometimes it doesn't even take a hacker to steal sensitive information.

301
00:19:10,600 --> 00:19:14,639
Speaker 1: Case in point, the international law firm Proscauer Rose is

302
00:19:14,680 --> 00:19:18,360
Speaker 1: suing its former chief operating officer for swiping more than

303
00:19:18,440 --> 00:19:22,879
Speaker 1: thirty four gigabytes of sensitive information. In the lawsuit, Prostcauer

304
00:19:23,000 --> 00:19:28,000
Speaker 1: alleges that Jonathan O'Brien downloaded confidential documents onto a thumb

305
00:19:28,119 --> 00:19:32,399
Speaker 1: drive after tricking a tech employee into letting him bypass

306
00:19:32,520 --> 00:19:37,520
Speaker 1: the firm's internal security controls. O'Brien denied the charges through

307
00:19:37,560 --> 00:19:41,240
Speaker 1: his attorney joining me. His attorney, Jeff Lewis of Jeff

308
00:19:41,320 --> 00:19:44,840
Speaker 1: Lewis Law. Proscauer, which is nearing it's a hundred and

309
00:19:44,840 --> 00:19:49,560
Speaker 1: fifty anniversary, said the firm is unaware of any employee,

310
00:19:49,880 --> 00:19:53,879
Speaker 1: much less an officer ever acting in such a corrupt, debased,

311
00:19:53,960 --> 00:19:57,600
Speaker 1: and illegal manner. Have you heard of anything like this

312
00:19:57,840 --> 00:20:01,720
Speaker 1: at any other law firm. Oh, I've handled trade secrets

313
00:20:01,800 --> 00:20:05,159
Speaker 1: litigation cases, not in the law firm context where this

314
00:20:05,280 --> 00:20:08,320
Speaker 1: kind of thing happened to scruntled employee goes to work

315
00:20:08,359 --> 00:20:11,400
Speaker 1: for a competitor. But I've never read such a high

316
00:20:11,520 --> 00:20:14,800
Speaker 1: level employee of a big law offer doing this. In

317
00:20:14,960 --> 00:20:20,480
Speaker 1: the complaint, Proscauer calls him a crafty plotter. O'Brien allegedly

318
00:20:20,560 --> 00:20:26,080
Speaker 1: pilford electronic files relating to Proscauer financials, practice information and

319
00:20:26,280 --> 00:20:30,240
Speaker 1: billing rates. From your look at it has he allegedly

320
00:20:30,320 --> 00:20:34,480
Speaker 1: taken information that's very important to the firm. That would

321
00:20:34,520 --> 00:20:39,000
Speaker 1: be something considered like trade secrets. Absolutely, it's one thing

322
00:20:39,080 --> 00:20:41,800
Speaker 1: for an employee to leave one firm and work for another.

323
00:20:42,320 --> 00:20:45,840
Speaker 1: Things that reside in an employee's head stay in his head,

324
00:20:46,119 --> 00:20:48,720
Speaker 1: and that's not a protectable trade secret. But when you

325
00:20:48,760 --> 00:20:52,119
Speaker 1: take a thumb drive and you bypass security and you

326
00:20:52,280 --> 00:20:58,120
Speaker 1: download compensation of various partners or how various practice areas

327
00:20:58,320 --> 00:21:02,119
Speaker 1: are doing within a firm, you're giving a playbook to

328
00:21:02,200 --> 00:21:06,040
Speaker 1: a competitor who could use that to strategize how to

329
00:21:06,119 --> 00:21:10,600
Speaker 1: pick off or take practice areas clients or partners or

330
00:21:10,640 --> 00:21:13,280
Speaker 1: associates from a competing law offer. The firm said that

331
00:21:13,320 --> 00:21:17,760
Speaker 1: its computer systems are program to prevent copying information onto

332
00:21:17,760 --> 00:21:22,159
Speaker 1: removable drives like the USB drive that allegedly O'Brien used,

333
00:21:22,640 --> 00:21:27,200
Speaker 1: and that O'Brien allegedly trick to technology employee into letting

334
00:21:27,240 --> 00:21:29,879
Speaker 1: him copy the data by saying it had been requested

335
00:21:29,920 --> 00:21:33,600
Speaker 1: by an outside consultant, and in an affidavit at one

336
00:21:33,680 --> 00:21:36,959
Speaker 1: from the director of technical support, he said, because of

337
00:21:37,240 --> 00:21:41,880
Speaker 1: O'Brien's status as the firm CEO, we treated his request

338
00:21:41,960 --> 00:21:45,520
Speaker 1: to copy files to a USB drive as fully authorized.

339
00:21:45,560 --> 00:21:49,040
Speaker 1: It didn't require a review by anyone else. I can

340
00:21:49,080 --> 00:21:51,199
Speaker 1: tell you this much. From this point forward, I imagine

341
00:21:51,200 --> 00:21:53,800
Speaker 1: big law firms and other big companies that are outside

342
00:21:53,800 --> 00:21:57,119
Speaker 1: the law firm context will not allow I T officials

343
00:21:57,240 --> 00:22:00,920
Speaker 1: to accept one person, even an officer, his word that

344
00:22:01,000 --> 00:22:04,639
Speaker 1: a security measures got the over ridden. One thing that

345
00:22:04,680 --> 00:22:07,879
Speaker 1: I found interesting there's a suggestion there are an accusation

346
00:22:08,200 --> 00:22:11,840
Speaker 1: that he lifted a litigation hold and caused thousands of

347
00:22:11,840 --> 00:22:15,240
Speaker 1: his emails to be deleted, and if true, there may

348
00:22:15,240 --> 00:22:20,040
Speaker 1: be some loss there of client related data. So forgetting

349
00:22:20,080 --> 00:22:21,960
Speaker 1: what he put in his pocket in terms of what

350
00:22:22,119 --> 00:22:25,240
Speaker 1: the firm lost access to, there's a lot of the

351
00:22:25,280 --> 00:22:28,960
Speaker 1: emails with pending litigation that will never see the light

352
00:22:29,000 --> 00:22:31,800
Speaker 1: of day because of what this guy did. He denied

353
00:22:31,840 --> 00:22:35,600
Speaker 1: the allegations through his attorney. His lawyer said, as you

354
00:22:35,640 --> 00:22:39,159
Speaker 1: can imagine, Mr O'Brien has a very different perspective on

355
00:22:39,200 --> 00:22:42,120
Speaker 1: the case and is eager to tell his story, which

356
00:22:42,160 --> 00:22:46,680
Speaker 1: will provide the truth of what actually happened. And I'm wondering,

357
00:22:47,160 --> 00:22:50,280
Speaker 1: you know, if someone has that information, what kind of

358
00:22:50,320 --> 00:22:55,200
Speaker 1: excuse could there be. Yeah, that's a great question. So

359
00:22:55,320 --> 00:22:58,600
Speaker 1: if the allegations are to be believed that he not

360
00:22:58,680 --> 00:23:03,399
Speaker 1: only took data, but took a proprietary software that the

361
00:23:03,440 --> 00:23:07,080
Speaker 1: firm has spent money developing. I can't imagine any spin

362
00:23:07,280 --> 00:23:11,800
Speaker 1: or explanation that would authorize an employee to take firm

363
00:23:11,880 --> 00:23:15,639
Speaker 1: software with them. The data, you know, he might claim

364
00:23:15,680 --> 00:23:18,080
Speaker 1: that some of it was his work product, that's it's

365
00:23:18,520 --> 00:23:21,520
Speaker 1: documents that he created and he was entitled to take,

366
00:23:21,880 --> 00:23:23,800
Speaker 1: you know, there's a way to spin that. But the

367
00:23:23,920 --> 00:23:27,040
Speaker 1: software and the data, and as I indicate earlier, the

368
00:23:27,160 --> 00:23:31,200
Speaker 1: deletion of thousands of emails, there's no explanation that will

369
00:23:31,240 --> 00:23:34,399
Speaker 1: be good enough to explain that away. So if someone

370
00:23:34,480 --> 00:23:37,480
Speaker 1: has information like that, let's not talk about this case,

371
00:23:37,520 --> 00:23:40,840
Speaker 1: but just in general, if someone has information like that,

372
00:23:40,840 --> 00:23:43,600
Speaker 1: that would be helpful to work at a competing firm

373
00:23:43,920 --> 00:23:46,760
Speaker 1: to give them that information. Yeah, if you think you

374
00:23:46,800 --> 00:23:49,800
Speaker 1: know right now, it's a tough time to hire associate lawyers,

375
00:23:49,800 --> 00:23:53,159
Speaker 1: all right, is the employees market, in my opinion, And

376
00:23:53,200 --> 00:23:57,840
Speaker 1: if employers want to make enticing um offers to employees

377
00:23:58,119 --> 00:23:59,800
Speaker 1: and they already know whether they're going to be paid

378
00:23:59,880 --> 00:24:02,120
Speaker 1: or what the bonus structure is at a competing firm,

379
00:24:02,480 --> 00:24:05,240
Speaker 1: they can tailor, who they're going to make offers to,

380
00:24:05,359 --> 00:24:07,240
Speaker 1: and what those offers will be in higher away the

381
00:24:07,280 --> 00:24:11,320
Speaker 1: best talent in the complaint, proscower allegence O'Brien's conduct was

382
00:24:11,400 --> 00:24:15,679
Speaker 1: so brazen and malicious that it rises to criminal law violation.

383
00:24:16,080 --> 00:24:18,480
Speaker 1: Let's say someone is guilty of doing what he did.

384
00:24:18,680 --> 00:24:21,840
Speaker 1: Is that a criminal violation as well would be you know,

385
00:24:22,040 --> 00:24:27,720
Speaker 1: misasing your authority to take valuable InformATE and uh, there's

386
00:24:27,760 --> 00:24:31,960
Speaker 1: computer hacking laws that this vale this violates. And in addition,

387
00:24:32,800 --> 00:24:36,680
Speaker 1: it's marceny or embezzlement. Takes such valuable things that could

388
00:24:36,680 --> 00:24:39,920
Speaker 1: be taken and given to a competitor. There there's a

389
00:24:40,000 --> 00:24:43,080
Speaker 1: number of crimes that could be charged here. Jeff would

390
00:24:43,119 --> 00:24:47,280
Speaker 1: have taken independent investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney's office

391
00:24:47,359 --> 00:24:50,399
Speaker 1: to bring any criminal charges in this case. Yeah, And in

392
00:24:50,359 --> 00:24:52,800
Speaker 1: in my experience, most of the time, when the d

393
00:24:52,840 --> 00:24:57,080
Speaker 1: A sees that a civil lawsuit has already been filed,

394
00:24:57,440 --> 00:25:01,600
Speaker 1: they're not likely to jump in and also see criminal charges.

395
00:25:02,000 --> 00:25:05,000
Speaker 1: It's not a high priority for d a's offices in

396
00:25:05,359 --> 00:25:10,280
Speaker 1: my experience. Prostcauer is this billion dollar law firm, and

397
00:25:10,720 --> 00:25:12,640
Speaker 1: you know, it's got a great name and what kind

398
00:25:12,640 --> 00:25:15,200
Speaker 1: of a hit could it take to its reputation from

399
00:25:15,240 --> 00:25:18,320
Speaker 1: something like this. Well, think about this. If you're a

400
00:25:18,400 --> 00:25:21,760
Speaker 1: client in your rely on this law firm to protect

401
00:25:21,800 --> 00:25:24,199
Speaker 1: your secrets. If they can't keep their own house in

402
00:25:24,320 --> 00:25:27,760
Speaker 1: order and keep their own secret secret and one major

403
00:25:27,880 --> 00:25:32,000
Speaker 1: security measure can be overturned with one person directive to

404
00:25:32,040 --> 00:25:35,760
Speaker 1: an I T person, clients might become doubtful that firm's

405
00:25:35,760 --> 00:25:39,879
Speaker 1: ability to safeguard client data, and employees and partners of

406
00:25:39,920 --> 00:25:44,320
Speaker 1: that firm may have concerns about the leadership and security

407
00:25:44,359 --> 00:25:46,640
Speaker 1: of their files and whether or not their houses being

408
00:25:46,720 --> 00:25:51,119
Speaker 1: on an appropriate fashion. Thanks Jeff. That's Jeff Lewis, and

409
00:25:51,160 --> 00:25:53,280
Speaker 1: that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

410
00:25:53,640 --> 00:25:56,120
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news, honor

411
00:25:56,160 --> 00:25:59,680
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts

412
00:25:59,760 --> 00:26:03,520
Speaker 1: by f I and at www dot Bloomberg dot com,

413
00:26:03,600 --> 00:26:06,960
Speaker 1: slash podcast, Slash Law, and remember to tune into The

414
00:26:06,960 --> 00:26:10,320
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show every week night at ten pm Wall

415
00:26:10,359 --> 00:26:14,240
Speaker 1: Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg