1
00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio

2
00:00:10,280 --> 00:00:13,480
Speaker 1: to reflect who we are and what we hope to build.

3
00:00:14,200 --> 00:00:18,000
Speaker 1: I am proud to announce that starting today our company

4
00:00:18,040 --> 00:00:23,560
Speaker 1: is now Meta. Our mission remains the same. It's still

5
00:00:23,600 --> 00:00:27,680
Speaker 1: about bringing people together our apps and their brands. They're

6
00:00:27,720 --> 00:00:31,120
Speaker 1: not changing either, and we are still the company the

7
00:00:31,200 --> 00:00:36,080
Speaker 1: designs technology around people. Facebook may have changed its name,

8
00:00:36,280 --> 00:00:39,320
Speaker 1: but the Federal Trade Commission says it's still up to

9
00:00:39,360 --> 00:00:43,480
Speaker 1: the same game, not designing its own technology, but buying

10
00:00:43,560 --> 00:00:46,960
Speaker 1: up a smaller company with the technology it needs and

11
00:00:47,000 --> 00:00:51,960
Speaker 1: eliminating any competition. Meta announced its deal to buy Within Unlimited,

12
00:00:52,040 --> 00:00:55,640
Speaker 1: a virtual reality fitness app, just one day after Mark

13
00:00:55,720 --> 00:01:00,080
Speaker 1: Zuckerberg announced its name change. The FTC is suing to

14
00:01:00,240 --> 00:01:03,000
Speaker 1: stop the deal, saying Meta is trying to create a

15
00:01:03,040 --> 00:01:06,959
Speaker 1: monopoly in virtual reality in the same way that Facebook

16
00:01:07,000 --> 00:01:10,560
Speaker 1: brought up Instagram and WhatsApp to extend its dominance in

17
00:01:10,680 --> 00:01:15,080
Speaker 1: social networking. Joining me is Bloomberg Intelligence Senior litigation analyst

18
00:01:15,200 --> 00:01:19,800
Speaker 1: Jennifer Ree. Why is the FTC trying to stop Meta

19
00:01:20,040 --> 00:01:23,240
Speaker 1: from buying Within? What they're trying to do, I think

20
00:01:23,480 --> 00:01:25,760
Speaker 1: is not make the same mistake that they believe they

21
00:01:25,800 --> 00:01:29,000
Speaker 1: made in the past when they cleared FTCs acquisitions of

22
00:01:29,200 --> 00:01:32,960
Speaker 1: Instagram and WhatsApp. They're looking at Meta as a company

23
00:01:33,000 --> 00:01:36,240
Speaker 1: that's trying to sort of take over this burgeoning virtual

24
00:01:36,280 --> 00:01:39,640
Speaker 1: reality space, and they see this acquisition as part of that.

25
00:01:40,040 --> 00:01:43,600
Speaker 1: Within makes virtual reality apps. It has a very popular

26
00:01:43,640 --> 00:01:47,040
Speaker 1: one for fitness called Supernatural. And what the FTC claims

27
00:01:47,120 --> 00:01:50,080
Speaker 1: is that if Meta didn't buy Within, they would be

28
00:01:50,120 --> 00:01:53,000
Speaker 1: competing on their own because they have the resources, and

29
00:01:53,040 --> 00:01:55,960
Speaker 1: they have the wherewithal and the interest in developing their

30
00:01:56,000 --> 00:01:58,120
Speaker 1: own fitness app that would compete, and it would be

31
00:01:58,120 --> 00:02:00,960
Speaker 1: better for them to compete than to buy Within and

32
00:02:01,000 --> 00:02:04,040
Speaker 1: go forward in virtual reality fitness that way. So the

33
00:02:04,080 --> 00:02:07,680
Speaker 1: allegations here is of potential competition that if it didn't

34
00:02:07,720 --> 00:02:10,440
Speaker 1: buy Within, Meta would compete with them in the future,

35
00:02:10,520 --> 00:02:13,799
Speaker 1: even though it doesn't today. Has that theory of potential

36
00:02:13,880 --> 00:02:18,360
Speaker 1: competition been used frequently. It hasn't been used frequently. It

37
00:02:18,440 --> 00:02:21,240
Speaker 1: has been used before. Most of the cases that the

38
00:02:21,280 --> 00:02:24,520
Speaker 1: FTC is relying on here are from the nineteen seventies,

39
00:02:24,800 --> 00:02:28,440
Speaker 1: because the more recent limited use in court hasn't been successful.

40
00:02:28,560 --> 00:02:30,880
Speaker 1: I mean, one of the mergers that was challenged on

41
00:02:30,919 --> 00:02:34,160
Speaker 1: this basis was between two companies called Steris and Synergy,

42
00:02:34,240 --> 00:02:37,200
Speaker 1: and the etc failed to succeed in that challenge in

43
00:02:37,240 --> 00:02:39,880
Speaker 1: court because it's very very difficult to prove, you know,

44
00:02:39,919 --> 00:02:42,040
Speaker 1: you have to show that the company actually had a

45
00:02:42,120 --> 00:02:45,200
Speaker 1: serious interest in entering the market and was well on

46
00:02:45,280 --> 00:02:47,520
Speaker 1: its way to do so and probably would have been

47
00:02:47,520 --> 00:02:50,360
Speaker 1: able to do so and been successful. So MENA has

48
00:02:50,400 --> 00:02:55,560
Speaker 1: bought more than a hundred smaller companies, including nine virtual

49
00:02:55,639 --> 00:02:59,600
Speaker 1: reality apps studios, over the last three years. This is

50
00:02:59,600 --> 00:03:03,600
Speaker 1: the first time the FTC has challenged a deal before

51
00:03:04,000 --> 00:03:07,280
Speaker 1: it takes place. Why now, is it the timing when

52
00:03:07,320 --> 00:03:10,360
Speaker 1: the FTC is on this aggressive path, or is it

53
00:03:10,440 --> 00:03:13,000
Speaker 1: the deal in particular? You know, I think it's a

54
00:03:13,000 --> 00:03:15,760
Speaker 1: combination of things. It's certainly the timing, but also some

55
00:03:15,880 --> 00:03:18,600
Speaker 1: of those past acquisitions may have been too small to

56
00:03:18,680 --> 00:03:20,920
Speaker 1: have to be filed under the heart Scot Rodino Act,

57
00:03:21,120 --> 00:03:23,360
Speaker 1: and they just may have fallen under the radar, you know,

58
00:03:23,440 --> 00:03:26,919
Speaker 1: not been noticed, gone ahead, enclosed without the FTC having

59
00:03:26,960 --> 00:03:28,920
Speaker 1: a chance to take a look at them. But the

60
00:03:28,960 --> 00:03:32,680
Speaker 1: FTC in particular, as I said, I think regrets some

61
00:03:32,840 --> 00:03:36,800
Speaker 1: of the past acquisition activity of big tech platforms in general,

62
00:03:36,840 --> 00:03:39,480
Speaker 1: and particularly Meta that have allowed them to kind of

63
00:03:39,520 --> 00:03:42,480
Speaker 1: take over full spaces, and they see that Meta has

64
00:03:42,520 --> 00:03:44,960
Speaker 1: this goal to move forward and to try to become

65
00:03:44,960 --> 00:03:47,800
Speaker 1: dominant in virtual reality, and what they're trying to do

66
00:03:47,880 --> 00:03:49,560
Speaker 1: is just nip it in the button. They see this

67
00:03:49,640 --> 00:03:52,880
Speaker 1: as one step towards that goal. You know, Meta already

68
00:03:52,960 --> 00:03:56,720
Speaker 1: has through its acquisition of Oculus, the hardware that people

69
00:03:56,840 --> 00:03:59,920
Speaker 1: use for virtual reality gaming and virtual reality apps, and

70
00:04:00,040 --> 00:04:02,760
Speaker 1: it has a content store where it's creating some of

71
00:04:02,800 --> 00:04:05,120
Speaker 1: its own virtual reality apps, and now it's trying to

72
00:04:05,160 --> 00:04:08,040
Speaker 1: buy up more content. So the FTC bus this is

73
00:04:08,080 --> 00:04:11,360
Speaker 1: just one more step towards Meta taking over that space,

74
00:04:11,480 --> 00:04:14,280
Speaker 1: kind of becoming the Apple of that space. You know,

75
00:04:14,400 --> 00:04:16,680
Speaker 1: these are all the allegations with Apple and its app

76
00:04:16,720 --> 00:04:19,560
Speaker 1: store and how it controls access to apps on iOS

77
00:04:19,640 --> 00:04:21,720
Speaker 1: mobile devices, and I think what they're doing here is

78
00:04:21,760 --> 00:04:24,960
Speaker 1: trying to prevent Meta from getting to that place. What

79
00:04:25,120 --> 00:04:28,640
Speaker 1: is Meta's defense here? What is its response? Well, first

80
00:04:28,640 --> 00:04:30,760
Speaker 1: of all, that it doesn't compete with this company, and

81
00:04:30,760 --> 00:04:33,320
Speaker 1: that it's a very small company and buying you know,

82
00:04:33,720 --> 00:04:36,800
Speaker 1: a small virtual reality app company in this very burgeoning

83
00:04:36,960 --> 00:04:40,320
Speaker 1: new nascent industry. You know, nobody really knows what's going

84
00:04:40,360 --> 00:04:43,599
Speaker 1: to happen with it. It's really it's very beginning stages

85
00:04:43,800 --> 00:04:45,440
Speaker 1: that this is a very small app and it's a

86
00:04:45,480 --> 00:04:49,320
Speaker 1: small fitness app and really can't have an impact on competition.

87
00:04:49,360 --> 00:04:51,760
Speaker 1: I mean, a merger has to have an anti competitive

88
00:04:51,800 --> 00:04:54,480
Speaker 1: impact on competition to violate the antitrust laws. And so

89
00:04:54,600 --> 00:04:56,880
Speaker 1: Meta would say, well, this just doesn't. And secondly, it

90
00:04:56,920 --> 00:04:59,520
Speaker 1: would say, look, we didn't have plans to develop our

91
00:04:59,520 --> 00:05:01,640
Speaker 1: own fitness SAP, even if we talked about it or

92
00:05:01,680 --> 00:05:04,000
Speaker 1: thought about it. You know, we talk about and think

93
00:05:04,040 --> 00:05:06,080
Speaker 1: about a lot of things, and then we end up

94
00:05:06,160 --> 00:05:08,400
Speaker 1: nixing those plans and we didn't have any plan to

95
00:05:08,440 --> 00:05:11,159
Speaker 1: go forward with this, so we wouldn't have been a

96
00:05:11,200 --> 00:05:14,560
Speaker 1: potential competitor, and we aren't buying this company so that

97
00:05:14,600 --> 00:05:17,919
Speaker 1: we can buy up a potential competitor. Meta seems to

98
00:05:17,960 --> 00:05:22,480
Speaker 1: have this growth by acquisition strategy. Is there anything wrong

99
00:05:22,480 --> 00:05:25,880
Speaker 1: with that from an antitrust point of view, Well, there

100
00:05:25,880 --> 00:05:28,120
Speaker 1: are two ways that there could be something wrong with that.

101
00:05:28,360 --> 00:05:31,120
Speaker 1: The first way is if you have your own products

102
00:05:31,400 --> 00:05:34,400
Speaker 1: and you see this new up and coming nascent competitor

103
00:05:34,640 --> 00:05:37,120
Speaker 1: and you have concerns about that company, you think it

104
00:05:37,200 --> 00:05:40,600
Speaker 1: actually could really get big and th threaten your position

105
00:05:40,920 --> 00:05:42,880
Speaker 1: with the product that you already have in the market.

106
00:05:42,920 --> 00:05:45,040
Speaker 1: I mean, this is what the allegations are today with

107
00:05:45,120 --> 00:05:49,600
Speaker 1: respect why Facebook but Instagram. So instead of trying to compete, Hey,

108
00:05:49,680 --> 00:05:52,599
Speaker 1: let's do better, let's lower our prices, let's innovate more

109
00:05:52,880 --> 00:05:55,440
Speaker 1: so consumers stick with our product. Even if we face

110
00:05:55,480 --> 00:05:59,400
Speaker 1: competition from this nascent entity. Let's buy it instead, because

111
00:05:59,400 --> 00:06:02,760
Speaker 1: buying it just vanquished that threat, so that can be

112
00:06:02,839 --> 00:06:05,599
Speaker 1: anti competitive. Then the second way could be the way

113
00:06:05,640 --> 00:06:09,919
Speaker 1: the FTC leads that Meta is harming competition with the

114
00:06:09,960 --> 00:06:13,880
Speaker 1: Within acquisition. It's they don't compete today and Meta doesn't

115
00:06:13,880 --> 00:06:17,080
Speaker 1: necessarily view Within as a nascent competitor that threatens it

116
00:06:17,120 --> 00:06:19,960
Speaker 1: down the road. But the concept is that Meta would

117
00:06:19,960 --> 00:06:22,640
Speaker 1: have enter this market and competed if it didn't buy

118
00:06:22,800 --> 00:06:25,799
Speaker 1: the entity, and it's better to have two competitors than one.

119
00:06:26,120 --> 00:06:29,159
Speaker 1: What will the judge be looking at here? I think

120
00:06:29,160 --> 00:06:31,080
Speaker 1: that the judge will be looking at a couple of things.

121
00:06:31,200 --> 00:06:35,000
Speaker 1: The first thing is if the FTC has defined what

122
00:06:35,040 --> 00:06:38,440
Speaker 1: we call a relevant antitrust market correctly. So, what the

123
00:06:38,520 --> 00:06:42,560
Speaker 1: FTC has said is that a virtual reality fitness apps,

124
00:06:42,560 --> 00:06:45,680
Speaker 1: dedicated fitness apps sit in their own relevant market that

125
00:06:45,800 --> 00:06:49,480
Speaker 1: they don't compete against anything else other than other virtual

126
00:06:49,520 --> 00:06:52,159
Speaker 1: reality fitness apps, So they don't compete, let's say, with

127
00:06:52,279 --> 00:06:56,200
Speaker 1: other in home fitness potentials out there, like Peloton or

128
00:06:56,400 --> 00:06:59,040
Speaker 1: Apple Fitness, you know, or any other kind of at

129
00:06:59,080 --> 00:07:02,560
Speaker 1: home guided fitness experienced that a consumer can have. So

130
00:07:02,880 --> 00:07:06,000
Speaker 1: they've defined this narrow market, and the judge will be asking, well,

131
00:07:06,000 --> 00:07:09,920
Speaker 1: should that market really be broader? Do consumers actually view

132
00:07:10,440 --> 00:07:13,560
Speaker 1: let's say Peloton as a substitute for this virtual reality

133
00:07:13,640 --> 00:07:16,920
Speaker 1: fitness Do they price constrained against each other? Is one

134
00:07:17,000 --> 00:07:20,880
Speaker 1: constraining against the other? Do they compete? So that's one issue,

135
00:07:21,360 --> 00:07:23,600
Speaker 1: and I think the second issue is this whole concept

136
00:07:23,600 --> 00:07:26,280
Speaker 1: of whether Meta actually would have been a potential competitor.

137
00:07:26,520 --> 00:07:29,400
Speaker 1: They'll look at what metas plans, say, had the company

138
00:07:29,400 --> 00:07:33,120
Speaker 1: devoted capital toward developing its own virtual reality fitness app,

139
00:07:33,200 --> 00:07:35,680
Speaker 1: you know, were there approved plans to go forward with

140
00:07:35,760 --> 00:07:38,320
Speaker 1: something like that that then got mixed when the company

141
00:07:38,360 --> 00:07:40,720
Speaker 1: decided to buy Within instead. I mean, the proof of

142
00:07:40,760 --> 00:07:43,240
Speaker 1: that will be in their documents and what their documents say,

143
00:07:43,640 --> 00:07:45,000
Speaker 1: and the judge is going to have to look at

144
00:07:45,000 --> 00:07:47,400
Speaker 1: that as well. And you think it's an uphill battle

145
00:07:47,440 --> 00:07:50,120
Speaker 1: for the FTC. I think it's difficult because I think

146
00:07:50,120 --> 00:07:53,679
Speaker 1: it's very speculative. Again, if the documents show that there

147
00:07:53,720 --> 00:07:57,040
Speaker 1: were no plans to develop a virtual reality fitness app,

148
00:07:57,200 --> 00:07:59,360
Speaker 1: or there might have been plans that were nixed, but

149
00:07:59,520 --> 00:08:01,880
Speaker 1: nixed not because of the purchase of within, but for

150
00:08:01,920 --> 00:08:05,520
Speaker 1: other reasons, you know, that kind of neutralizes this argument

151
00:08:05,520 --> 00:08:07,600
Speaker 1: that they would have been a potential competitor. And I

152
00:08:07,600 --> 00:08:10,320
Speaker 1: think that it's really hard to say, Hey, this company

153
00:08:10,480 --> 00:08:12,520
Speaker 1: was going to enter and you know what, if they had,

154
00:08:12,600 --> 00:08:15,840
Speaker 1: they would have been a vibrant competitor within very popular

155
00:08:15,880 --> 00:08:18,239
Speaker 1: fitness app. I think that's difficult to prove in court.

156
00:08:18,520 --> 00:08:20,480
Speaker 1: And I also think there could be some problems with

157
00:08:20,680 --> 00:08:23,880
Speaker 1: the defined relevant market here um limiting it to just

158
00:08:24,040 --> 00:08:27,760
Speaker 1: these virtual reality fitness apps. Is this a test case

159
00:08:28,120 --> 00:08:33,239
Speaker 1: for the FTC for its more aggressive strategy on mergers,

160
00:08:33,400 --> 00:08:36,520
Speaker 1: especially by the Silicon Valley giants. I think it can

161
00:08:36,559 --> 00:08:38,920
Speaker 1: be thought of that way, absolutely, not just the test

162
00:08:38,960 --> 00:08:42,520
Speaker 1: case to try to expand the boundaries of antitrust law

163
00:08:42,559 --> 00:08:45,240
Speaker 1: and try to push some of these novel theories and

164
00:08:45,320 --> 00:08:48,000
Speaker 1: have some success in court with novel theories that might

165
00:08:48,320 --> 00:08:51,280
Speaker 1: open the way, open the road in the future to

166
00:08:51,400 --> 00:08:53,959
Speaker 1: more easily challenge other deals. And I think it's also

167
00:08:54,080 --> 00:08:57,719
Speaker 1: part of trying to prevent big tech platforms from continually

168
00:08:57,800 --> 00:09:01,360
Speaker 1: growing through acquisition. You know, there's nothing on with growing organically,

169
00:09:01,559 --> 00:09:04,200
Speaker 1: but just trying to prevent this growth that's happened over

170
00:09:04,240 --> 00:09:07,800
Speaker 1: the last ten years through acquisition. So it's sort of twofold.

171
00:09:08,200 --> 00:09:11,320
Speaker 1: Meta has said that if the judge rules against them,

172
00:09:11,360 --> 00:09:14,360
Speaker 1: it will abandon the deal. If the judge rules against

173
00:09:14,400 --> 00:09:18,840
Speaker 1: the FTC might have taken appeal, absolutely it could. So

174
00:09:18,880 --> 00:09:21,719
Speaker 1: what happens there is if the judge rules against the FTC,

175
00:09:22,120 --> 00:09:24,720
Speaker 1: technically the companies are free to go ahead and close

176
00:09:24,800 --> 00:09:28,400
Speaker 1: their deal and integrate. What the FTC would do if

177
00:09:28,480 --> 00:09:31,600
Speaker 1: they chose to appeal, if they'd likely seek an emergency

178
00:09:31,720 --> 00:09:34,560
Speaker 1: order from the court to prevent the companies from closing

179
00:09:34,679 --> 00:09:37,920
Speaker 1: just pending that appeal, and sometimes they win those. More

180
00:09:37,960 --> 00:09:40,319
Speaker 1: recently in the last couple of years, they haven't been

181
00:09:40,320 --> 00:09:42,599
Speaker 1: winning those orders, and then it makes more difficult for

182
00:09:42,640 --> 00:09:44,760
Speaker 1: them to go through with the appeal because the companies

183
00:09:44,800 --> 00:09:47,640
Speaker 1: at that point would probably go ahead and close and integrate.

184
00:09:47,720 --> 00:09:50,360
Speaker 1: And now it's more difficult even if they wanted court

185
00:09:50,440 --> 00:09:53,640
Speaker 1: to get a judge to require the companies to unwind

186
00:09:53,640 --> 00:09:57,640
Speaker 1: the deal. Is the FTC still trying to unwind the

187
00:09:57,880 --> 00:10:02,280
Speaker 1: Instagram and What'sapp purchase? Yes, there's still that litigation is

188
00:10:02,280 --> 00:10:04,840
Speaker 1: still ongoing. I believe it is set to go to

189
00:10:04,920 --> 00:10:08,880
Speaker 1: trial next year, either unwind or get some other kind

190
00:10:08,960 --> 00:10:13,360
Speaker 1: of injunctive remedy like required interoperability or something like that

191
00:10:13,360 --> 00:10:17,479
Speaker 1: that's short of unwinding the deals, but does require Facebook

192
00:10:17,520 --> 00:10:21,160
Speaker 1: to allow for you know, better interoperability with other rivals

193
00:10:21,200 --> 00:10:24,760
Speaker 1: and allowing users to migrate their history and their content

194
00:10:24,880 --> 00:10:28,120
Speaker 1: to other platforms. So the FTC is very busy with

195
00:10:28,400 --> 00:10:34,600
Speaker 1: Silicon values platforms. The Commission has voted to block Microsoft's

196
00:10:34,600 --> 00:10:38,240
Speaker 1: sixty nine billion dollar acquisition of Activision, which is I

197
00:10:38,280 --> 00:10:41,520
Speaker 1: was surprised at this one of the thirty biggest acquisitions

198
00:10:41,520 --> 00:10:44,880
Speaker 1: of all time. What's the reason they're so that's a

199
00:10:44,880 --> 00:10:48,760
Speaker 1: little bit different than the challenge to Meta and within

200
00:10:49,440 --> 00:10:53,160
Speaker 1: this deal is called a vertical theory deal. So what

201
00:10:53,320 --> 00:10:56,960
Speaker 1: they're objecting to here is the vertical integration between Microsoft

202
00:10:57,040 --> 00:10:59,920
Speaker 1: and Activision. So in other words, Microsoft has consoles and

203
00:11:00,120 --> 00:11:03,800
Speaker 1: PCs on which people can play mobile games, and Activision

204
00:11:03,840 --> 00:11:07,280
Speaker 1: creates that mobile content. So there are at different levels

205
00:11:07,280 --> 00:11:10,920
Speaker 1: of distribution for an entire industry of mobile game playing.

206
00:11:11,240 --> 00:11:14,600
Speaker 1: And what the FTC is saying is, look, once Microsoft

207
00:11:14,679 --> 00:11:18,080
Speaker 1: controls this activision content, it's going to have an increased

208
00:11:18,120 --> 00:11:22,240
Speaker 1: incentive and the ability to withhold or degrade that content,

209
00:11:22,360 --> 00:11:24,559
Speaker 1: and weighs that less in competition. In other words, that

210
00:11:24,720 --> 00:11:28,400
Speaker 1: hurt its competitors, primarily it's competitors and consoles, which is

211
00:11:28,440 --> 00:11:33,479
Speaker 1: really mostly just Sony. Sony, which is a competitor for Microsoft,

212
00:11:33,840 --> 00:11:38,520
Speaker 1: is objecting because it's concerned that Microsoft could make games

213
00:11:38,559 --> 00:11:43,280
Speaker 1: like Call of Duty exclusive. And apparently Microsoft has something

214
00:11:43,280 --> 00:11:45,840
Speaker 1: of a history here. Well, you know, yes and no.

215
00:11:46,280 --> 00:11:49,320
Speaker 1: I'll start by saying it has actually been fairly typical

216
00:11:49,760 --> 00:11:53,319
Speaker 1: for console companies to have exclusive games. Sony itself, which

217
00:11:53,360 --> 00:11:57,120
Speaker 1: has the PlayStation console, has games that are exclusive to PlayStation.

218
00:11:57,360 --> 00:12:00,240
Speaker 1: It does that, and Microsoft has some exclusive games as well.

219
00:12:00,520 --> 00:12:03,800
Speaker 1: So Microsoft a couple of years ago acquired Zenemax, and

220
00:12:04,120 --> 00:12:06,920
Speaker 1: when they did, they were cleared by the European Commission

221
00:12:06,960 --> 00:12:08,920
Speaker 1: which took a look at the deal, and the European

222
00:12:08,920 --> 00:12:12,079
Speaker 1: Commission cleared it without any commitments. So Microsoft didn't make

223
00:12:12,120 --> 00:12:15,800
Speaker 1: any commitments to the Commission that it would not make

224
00:12:15,880 --> 00:12:19,160
Speaker 1: certain games exclusive. Now, we did tell the Commission, we

225
00:12:19,240 --> 00:12:22,520
Speaker 1: don't have an incentive to take these games as exclusives,

226
00:12:22,679 --> 00:12:25,160
Speaker 1: but it later did do so. And this is what

227
00:12:25,240 --> 00:12:27,679
Speaker 1: the FTC has mentioned in its complaints, saying that, well,

228
00:12:27,720 --> 00:12:30,400
Speaker 1: even if Microsoft says we have no incentive to go

229
00:12:30,480 --> 00:12:32,880
Speaker 1: exclusive with these games, hey, that's what it said that

230
00:12:32,920 --> 00:12:35,719
Speaker 1: the European Commission when it acquired Dnomax. But it went

231
00:12:35,720 --> 00:12:38,480
Speaker 1: ahead and did that. But the European Commission is actually saying,

232
00:12:38,520 --> 00:12:41,320
Speaker 1: you know, it's not exactly right. You know, we cleared

233
00:12:41,320 --> 00:12:44,040
Speaker 1: it because we actually just didn't think the deal was problematic,

234
00:12:44,320 --> 00:12:47,120
Speaker 1: and even if they took the games exclusive, we didn't

235
00:12:47,120 --> 00:12:50,240
Speaker 1: think that was problematic or could harm competition. So it

236
00:12:50,320 --> 00:12:52,720
Speaker 1: really wasn't an issue, and we weren't telling them you

237
00:12:52,720 --> 00:12:55,440
Speaker 1: shouldn't or can't take these games exclusive. And it only

238
00:12:55,480 --> 00:12:58,160
Speaker 1: took some of the Zenmax games exclusive, not all of them.

239
00:12:58,200 --> 00:13:03,000
Speaker 1: So you know, it's maybe lightly disingenuous to rely on

240
00:13:03,160 --> 00:13:06,720
Speaker 1: that conduct and compare that conduct to what might happen here,

241
00:13:07,080 --> 00:13:11,080
Speaker 1: particularly because Microsoft has been very open about the fact

242
00:13:11,160 --> 00:13:13,720
Speaker 1: that it's willing to extend a ten year license to

243
00:13:13,760 --> 00:13:16,400
Speaker 1: Sony for the Call of Duty games. Now, I think

244
00:13:16,440 --> 00:13:18,120
Speaker 1: it might have to do a little bit better than that.

245
00:13:18,160 --> 00:13:21,040
Speaker 1: It might have to include other activision games within that

246
00:13:21,120 --> 00:13:23,400
Speaker 1: license and not just Call of Duty. But it's been

247
00:13:23,440 --> 00:13:27,320
Speaker 1: fairly open about willing to enter into a legally binding contract,

248
00:13:27,400 --> 00:13:31,200
Speaker 1: you know, a license to you know, not foreclosed Sony

249
00:13:31,280 --> 00:13:34,040
Speaker 1: and to provide Call of Duty to Sony for PlayStation

250
00:13:34,040 --> 00:13:36,920
Speaker 1: players to go ahead and play. So I think that again,

251
00:13:36,960 --> 00:13:39,360
Speaker 1: this deal might be a little bit difficult also in

252
00:13:39,440 --> 00:13:42,280
Speaker 1: court for the FTC, because you know, you have that

253
00:13:42,360 --> 00:13:45,319
Speaker 1: promise out there by Microsoft which is more than just work.

254
00:13:45,480 --> 00:13:47,560
Speaker 1: You know, it would be legally binding if it entered

255
00:13:47,559 --> 00:13:51,760
Speaker 1: a license. Clarify, what is Microsoft's defense, Well, I mean

256
00:13:51,760 --> 00:13:54,440
Speaker 1: it is saying that it doesn't have the incentive or

257
00:13:54,480 --> 00:13:57,240
Speaker 1: the ability to take these games exclusive. And and the

258
00:13:57,280 --> 00:14:01,040
Speaker 1: reasoning behind this, the theory, let's behind this that the

259
00:14:01,120 --> 00:14:04,319
Speaker 1: FDC would have to prove in court is that Microsoft

260
00:14:04,320 --> 00:14:07,480
Speaker 1: would take these games exclusive or particularly Call of Duty,

261
00:14:07,760 --> 00:14:11,319
Speaker 1: and by doing so, it would not get the licensing fees,

262
00:14:11,360 --> 00:14:14,000
Speaker 1: the licensing that would have been paid to it, you know,

263
00:14:14,040 --> 00:14:16,480
Speaker 1: the revenue it would have achieved from licensing fees from

264
00:14:16,520 --> 00:14:19,720
Speaker 1: other companies because it's now taken the game exclusive. But

265
00:14:19,840 --> 00:14:23,360
Speaker 1: that ultimately it will be more profitable from Microsoft to

266
00:14:23,400 --> 00:14:26,160
Speaker 1: forgo those fees because down the road, it would drive

267
00:14:26,240 --> 00:14:30,520
Speaker 1: more consumers to its console, It's Xbox over the PlayStation,

268
00:14:30,760 --> 00:14:34,880
Speaker 1: and it would recoup revenues by selling the Xbox to consumers.

269
00:14:34,920 --> 00:14:37,400
Speaker 1: And Microsoft saying no, that's just not really the case,

270
00:14:37,680 --> 00:14:39,920
Speaker 1: that the math doesn't work out that way for us.

271
00:14:39,920 --> 00:14:43,040
Speaker 1: It's actually more profitable for us to make these games

272
00:14:43,080 --> 00:14:46,720
Speaker 1: widely available, to collect these licensing fees, and to continue

273
00:14:46,720 --> 00:14:49,560
Speaker 1: to sell our console, which I believe they sell at

274
00:14:49,600 --> 00:14:52,320
Speaker 1: a very low margin. So the proof is going to

275
00:14:52,400 --> 00:14:54,640
Speaker 1: be in the math. I mean, there will be complicated

276
00:14:54,680 --> 00:14:59,120
Speaker 1: analytics that are presented to the judge by economic experts

277
00:14:59,160 --> 00:15:02,560
Speaker 1: on both sides showing whether or not a strategy like

278
00:15:02,640 --> 00:15:05,920
Speaker 1: that would be profitable to Microsoft down the road or wouldn't.

279
00:15:06,120 --> 00:15:09,880
Speaker 1: And that's really very difficult to show, June Um. This

280
00:15:09,960 --> 00:15:13,840
Speaker 1: is very similar to what the Department of Justice tried

281
00:15:13,880 --> 00:15:15,840
Speaker 1: to do when it suits to block a T and

282
00:15:15,880 --> 00:15:20,680
Speaker 1: T from acquiring Time Warner. Very similar concept and and

283
00:15:20,800 --> 00:15:23,480
Speaker 1: similar analytics. And you know, you had to go in

284
00:15:23,480 --> 00:15:26,320
Speaker 1: there and prove that this kind of strategy would be

285
00:15:26,600 --> 00:15:29,400
Speaker 1: profitable for the company, and it just didn't work. You know,

286
00:15:29,520 --> 00:15:32,360
Speaker 1: the model that the economists presented had a lot of

287
00:15:32,400 --> 00:15:34,800
Speaker 1: problems with it, had a lot of weaknesses in it

288
00:15:34,840 --> 00:15:37,200
Speaker 1: that the judge pointed out, and he had some issues

289
00:15:37,240 --> 00:15:39,080
Speaker 1: with it, and he just simply didn't feel that they

290
00:15:39,160 --> 00:15:41,480
Speaker 1: proved that it would have been profitable for the companies

291
00:15:41,520 --> 00:15:43,680
Speaker 1: to engage in that kind of strategy. And so there

292
00:15:43,720 --> 00:15:46,520
Speaker 1: could be the same kind of challenge here, and Microsoft,

293
00:15:46,520 --> 00:15:49,600
Speaker 1: of course will have their own experts showing how it's

294
00:15:49,640 --> 00:15:52,840
Speaker 1: not profitable and wouldn't make sense for Microsoft to take

295
00:15:52,880 --> 00:15:56,080
Speaker 1: these games exclusive. This is an in house trial with

296
00:15:56,160 --> 00:16:01,600
Speaker 1: an administrative law judge. Oftentimes defended say that in those

297
00:16:01,680 --> 00:16:05,920
Speaker 1: cases the in house law judge, the administrative law judge,

298
00:16:05,960 --> 00:16:09,520
Speaker 1: favors the agency. So I have a couple of theories

299
00:16:09,560 --> 00:16:11,600
Speaker 1: about this. I think, first of all, there has been

300
00:16:11,640 --> 00:16:14,400
Speaker 1: a pattern if you look at the last ten fifteen

301
00:16:14,480 --> 00:16:18,840
Speaker 1: years of the FDC winning those few we call it

302
00:16:18,880 --> 00:16:22,200
Speaker 1: apart three when you go through these proceedings internally, very

303
00:16:22,240 --> 00:16:24,480
Speaker 1: few actually go through to the finish. But for the

304
00:16:24,560 --> 00:16:26,640
Speaker 1: few that have gone through the finish, we have seen

305
00:16:26,720 --> 00:16:28,840
Speaker 1: that the FTC is a good track record. But I

306
00:16:28,920 --> 00:16:31,200
Speaker 1: tend to think that that could be because at least

307
00:16:31,240 --> 00:16:34,880
Speaker 1: in the past until this administration, the FTC would bring

308
00:16:34,920 --> 00:16:37,960
Speaker 1: cases that were easier to win, that they had better

309
00:16:38,000 --> 00:16:42,440
Speaker 1: evidence on their side, They had stronger, more traditional antitrust theories,

310
00:16:42,600 --> 00:16:44,440
Speaker 1: so it was more likely they were going to win.

311
00:16:45,000 --> 00:16:48,600
Speaker 1: This judge, in fact, has recently ruled against the FTC

312
00:16:48,720 --> 00:16:52,920
Speaker 1: in two recent Part three proceedings. One was the merger

313
00:16:52,960 --> 00:16:56,000
Speaker 1: of Alumina and Grail that challenge and the other one

314
00:16:56,160 --> 00:16:58,960
Speaker 1: was a challenge to all Trea's investment in Jewel. These

315
00:16:58,960 --> 00:17:01,920
Speaker 1: were both in the last couple years. Same administrative law

316
00:17:02,000 --> 00:17:04,600
Speaker 1: judge that would oversee this hearing, and he ruled against

317
00:17:04,640 --> 00:17:07,520
Speaker 1: the FTC. I tend to believe he actually is quite

318
00:17:07,600 --> 00:17:12,440
Speaker 1: independent and doesn't really essentially favor the FTC going in now.

319
00:17:12,480 --> 00:17:16,000
Speaker 1: I'm a little confused about the timing because the trial

320
00:17:16,080 --> 00:17:20,680
Speaker 1: is set for August two, but the deal is set

321
00:17:20,720 --> 00:17:25,800
Speaker 1: to close by June. That's a problem for the company. Yeah,

322
00:17:26,200 --> 00:17:29,280
Speaker 1: So the timing is very complicated here because right now

323
00:17:29,320 --> 00:17:33,440
Speaker 1: the companies cannot close because there are anti trust investigations

324
00:17:33,480 --> 00:17:36,880
Speaker 1: that are still outstanding in the UK and in Europe

325
00:17:36,920 --> 00:17:41,560
Speaker 1: before the European Commission, and those reviews keep the companies

326
00:17:41,920 --> 00:17:44,879
Speaker 1: from being able to close their deal. Now both of

327
00:17:44,920 --> 00:17:48,200
Speaker 1: those right now have decision dates in the first quarter,

328
00:17:48,280 --> 00:17:50,000
Speaker 1: one of them in March and one of them in

329
00:17:50,040 --> 00:17:55,199
Speaker 1: April if they clear. If the both the UK and

330
00:17:55,359 --> 00:17:59,679
Speaker 1: Europe clear Microsoft in activision to close their deal, technically

331
00:17:59,720 --> 00:18:03,360
Speaker 1: they can even though this Part three procedure is pending.

332
00:18:03,680 --> 00:18:07,560
Speaker 1: So what will have to happen is the FTC, in

333
00:18:07,640 --> 00:18:10,680
Speaker 1: communication with Europe and with the UK, will know if

334
00:18:10,720 --> 00:18:13,840
Speaker 1: that's coming, and they'll have to actually sue the companies

335
00:18:14,119 --> 00:18:17,159
Speaker 1: for a preliminary injunction in federal court in the United

336
00:18:17,200 --> 00:18:20,520
Speaker 1: States to get a temporary block not permanent, but just

337
00:18:20,600 --> 00:18:24,040
Speaker 1: a temporary block on the closing pending their Part three. Otherwise,

338
00:18:24,160 --> 00:18:26,760
Speaker 1: even though the Part three is ongoing, the companies would

339
00:18:26,800 --> 00:18:29,360
Speaker 1: still be able to close. So I think that that's

340
00:18:29,400 --> 00:18:32,439
Speaker 1: what they will do if those approvals are forthcoming. So

341
00:18:32,520 --> 00:18:35,240
Speaker 1: we might see a filing in federal court sometime in

342
00:18:35,320 --> 00:18:38,439
Speaker 1: February or maybe in March by the FTC, and that

343
00:18:38,520 --> 00:18:41,880
Speaker 1: process will finish up if it happens more quickly than

344
00:18:41,920 --> 00:18:45,080
Speaker 1: the Part three. Now, if there aren't approvals in the

345
00:18:45,160 --> 00:18:48,159
Speaker 1: UK and Europe and Microsoft has to fight those as well,

346
00:18:48,440 --> 00:18:50,720
Speaker 1: they're either going to have to abandon the deal or

347
00:18:50,760 --> 00:18:52,679
Speaker 1: the companies are going to have to agree to extend

348
00:18:52,680 --> 00:18:57,600
Speaker 1: that ending. What's FTC Chair Lena Kahn's records so far, Yeah,

349
00:18:57,640 --> 00:18:59,840
Speaker 1: you know, it's a little bit mixed. Yeah. She she

350
00:19:00,080 --> 00:19:02,879
Speaker 1: was really kind of hobbled for quite a long time

351
00:19:03,080 --> 00:19:06,600
Speaker 1: when she first took on the chairpersonship because it was

352
00:19:06,640 --> 00:19:10,960
Speaker 1: a split FTC. There were two Republican commissioners and two

353
00:19:11,000 --> 00:19:14,000
Speaker 1: Democratic commissioners. One of them was Lena Khan. You know,

354
00:19:14,040 --> 00:19:16,879
Speaker 1: there was some trouble because there were some split vote

355
00:19:16,960 --> 00:19:19,680
Speaker 1: two to two and when the commission ties they can't

356
00:19:19,720 --> 00:19:22,640
Speaker 1: take action, it would mean no lawsuit against the deal,

357
00:19:22,680 --> 00:19:24,639
Speaker 1: and and that kind of stopped her for a while.

358
00:19:24,960 --> 00:19:28,840
Speaker 1: But once the final commissioner was appointed and confirmed that

359
00:19:28,920 --> 00:19:31,239
Speaker 1: was al Vero Badoya, she's been able to do a

360
00:19:31,240 --> 00:19:34,280
Speaker 1: little bit more. And I say it's mixed because she's

361
00:19:34,320 --> 00:19:37,600
Speaker 1: been able to get some abandonments of deals with which

362
00:19:37,600 --> 00:19:40,040
Speaker 1: the FTC would look at as a success when they

363
00:19:40,119 --> 00:19:42,800
Speaker 1: sue and instead of having to go through litigation and

364
00:19:42,840 --> 00:19:45,000
Speaker 1: when in court, the companies too, you know, just to

365
00:19:45,040 --> 00:19:48,120
Speaker 1: walk away. So they did manage that with Lockheed Arrow Jet,

366
00:19:48,160 --> 00:19:50,600
Speaker 1: and they also managed that within Video Arm and there

367
00:19:50,640 --> 00:19:53,520
Speaker 1: were several hospital deal three of them in fact, in

368
00:19:53,600 --> 00:19:56,080
Speaker 1: two thousand and twenty two that all abandoned their deal.

369
00:19:56,200 --> 00:19:58,959
Speaker 1: And and those are successes, even though it's not necessarily

370
00:19:59,000 --> 00:20:01,520
Speaker 1: a court success. But there were the two losses in

371
00:20:01,560 --> 00:20:04,280
Speaker 1: their own internal court. I just mentioned the Illuminate Grail

372
00:20:04,440 --> 00:20:07,600
Speaker 1: and the Ultria Jewel losses. So those weren't great. And

373
00:20:07,640 --> 00:20:10,240
Speaker 1: now we'll see what happens. You've got to outstanding right

374
00:20:10,280 --> 00:20:14,480
Speaker 1: now with Microsoft Activision and with Meta Within. And it's

375
00:20:14,560 --> 00:20:17,320
Speaker 1: unclear whether Microsoft Activision will get all the way to

376
00:20:17,359 --> 00:20:20,239
Speaker 1: a court decision, but clearly Meta Within will that. We

377
00:20:20,280 --> 00:20:22,480
Speaker 1: expect the decision in that one in December, So we'll

378
00:20:22,520 --> 00:20:25,160
Speaker 1: see what happens there because that'll show us at the

379
00:20:25,200 --> 00:20:27,920
Speaker 1: beginning of her record and actually in federal court. Thanks

380
00:20:27,920 --> 00:20:32,400
Speaker 1: so much, Jan, that's Bloomberg Intelligence Senior litigation analyst Jennifer Ree.

381
00:20:33,640 --> 00:20:37,399
Speaker 1: A New York law temporarily lifts the statute of limitations

382
00:20:37,440 --> 00:20:41,439
Speaker 1: on civil sexual abuse and harassment claims and is expected

383
00:20:41,440 --> 00:20:45,119
Speaker 1: to lead to a flood of lawsuits. In fact, lawsuits

384
00:20:45,119 --> 00:20:49,040
Speaker 1: have already been filed against former President Donald Trump, comedian

385
00:20:49,119 --> 00:20:53,879
Speaker 1: Bill Cosby, and billionaire Leon Black over allegations they assaulted

386
00:20:53,920 --> 00:20:57,879
Speaker 1: women decades ago. Which their lawyers deny joining me is

387
00:20:57,880 --> 00:21:02,040
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson tell us more about this law.

388
00:21:02,600 --> 00:21:05,760
Speaker 1: So the law called the New York Adult Survivor's apt

389
00:21:06,000 --> 00:21:08,680
Speaker 1: It was signed into law in May and it took

390
00:21:08,720 --> 00:21:12,600
Speaker 1: effect last month on Thanksgiving Day. And what it does

391
00:21:13,040 --> 00:21:17,119
Speaker 1: is it lists temporarily for one year, lists the statute

392
00:21:17,160 --> 00:21:21,840
Speaker 1: of limitations on civil claims over sexual offenses like sexual

393
00:21:21,880 --> 00:21:25,400
Speaker 1: abuse and harassments. So it's a fairly new type of law.

394
00:21:25,880 --> 00:21:29,280
Speaker 1: It just took effects. So what we're expecting is that

395
00:21:29,480 --> 00:21:31,679
Speaker 1: is quite a few lawsuits to be filed in the

396
00:21:31,720 --> 00:21:36,440
Speaker 1: next year. Was this in response to the me too movement?

397
00:21:37,280 --> 00:21:41,320
Speaker 1: It was definitely related to that. In two thousand nineteen,

398
00:21:41,840 --> 00:21:45,640
Speaker 1: the New York State legislature actually changed to the statute

399
00:21:45,680 --> 00:21:50,600
Speaker 1: of limitations for sexual offenses from one year to twenty years,

400
00:21:50,640 --> 00:21:55,199
Speaker 1: so really acknowledging that, you know, there's a unique circumstances

401
00:21:55,200 --> 00:21:58,199
Speaker 1: here where victims they're not necessarily able to process what

402
00:21:58,280 --> 00:22:01,080
Speaker 1: has happened and seek the help that they need that quickly,

403
00:22:01,440 --> 00:22:03,919
Speaker 1: just because of the nature of the ascent. And so

404
00:22:04,000 --> 00:22:07,840
Speaker 1: this change acknowledged that gave victims twenty years of statutes

405
00:22:07,840 --> 00:22:11,719
Speaker 1: of limitations to file claims, but it wasn't retroactive. So

406
00:22:11,760 --> 00:22:14,359
Speaker 1: if you look back at the decade of alleged abuse

407
00:22:14,480 --> 00:22:17,680
Speaker 1: out there, there was still no way to do UM

408
00:22:17,680 --> 00:22:21,280
Speaker 1: over that conduct. So what they did was passed this

409
00:22:21,400 --> 00:22:23,960
Speaker 1: law to sort of fill in that gap and say, Okay,

410
00:22:24,160 --> 00:22:27,720
Speaker 1: you've got a year to file these civil claims now.

411
00:22:28,080 --> 00:22:31,080
Speaker 1: And it's also should be noted that it's similar law

412
00:22:31,240 --> 00:22:34,960
Speaker 1: was passed for child's victims of abuse, that that window

413
00:22:35,000 --> 00:22:37,800
Speaker 1: already had passed. That law was passed earlier and it

414
00:22:37,880 --> 00:22:40,440
Speaker 1: was seen as very successful. So now this new law

415
00:22:40,880 --> 00:22:43,520
Speaker 1: is to allow adults, and I actually mentioned that it's

416
00:22:43,600 --> 00:22:46,359
Speaker 1: victims who were adults at the time that they were abused.

417
00:22:46,600 --> 00:22:48,960
Speaker 1: That's what this law is geared toward, and that's what

418
00:22:49,040 --> 00:22:51,840
Speaker 1: it's just taken affect. Are there any challenges expected to

419
00:22:51,880 --> 00:22:54,600
Speaker 1: this law? You can expect there will definitely be challenged

420
00:22:54,760 --> 00:22:59,359
Speaker 1: to these lawsuits and they're going to be very strongly defended,

421
00:22:59,520 --> 00:23:02,600
Speaker 1: you know, both with lawyers on both sides here. I

422
00:23:02,680 --> 00:23:05,320
Speaker 1: spoke with played this lawyers who are out there looking

423
00:23:05,359 --> 00:23:09,040
Speaker 1: for clients or who have already filed these lawsuits. And

424
00:23:09,080 --> 00:23:12,560
Speaker 1: I spoke with lawyers who are representing companies UM that

425
00:23:12,920 --> 00:23:15,359
Speaker 1: are looking into this who expects that they might be

426
00:23:15,480 --> 00:23:18,880
Speaker 1: sued or have been sued already, And so there are

427
00:23:19,119 --> 00:23:22,800
Speaker 1: plenty of defenses that are going to be deployed here

428
00:23:23,200 --> 00:23:26,640
Speaker 1: very strongly. But when it came to the law actually

429
00:23:26,680 --> 00:23:32,080
Speaker 1: being debated, there wasn't quite the outpouring of lobbying against

430
00:23:32,119 --> 00:23:34,840
Speaker 1: the law publicly. You know, I spoke with some people

431
00:23:34,880 --> 00:23:37,119
Speaker 1: involved in the passage of the laws. They really couldn't

432
00:23:37,160 --> 00:23:40,600
Speaker 1: say who is publicly coming out against it. When that

433
00:23:40,840 --> 00:23:44,560
Speaker 1: Child Victims Act passed, By comparison, there were groups coming

434
00:23:44,560 --> 00:23:47,240
Speaker 1: out publicly against it related to the Catholic Church and

435
00:23:47,280 --> 00:23:50,399
Speaker 1: Boy Scout to America and organizations that were worried about

436
00:23:50,520 --> 00:23:53,359
Speaker 1: getting hit with lots of lawsuits. They've lobbied against it.

437
00:23:53,440 --> 00:23:56,639
Speaker 1: But there wasn't that same lobbying against this law publicly.

438
00:23:56,840 --> 00:23:59,000
Speaker 1: But what you can expect to see is that these

439
00:23:59,320 --> 00:24:02,880
Speaker 1: individual lawsuits will be challenged in court and also out

440
00:24:02,880 --> 00:24:04,920
Speaker 1: of court before they're filed. But I think there will

441
00:24:04,920 --> 00:24:06,720
Speaker 1: be a lot of settlements that are reached that we

442
00:24:06,800 --> 00:24:11,240
Speaker 1: never hear about. What big names have already been sued. Well,

443
00:24:11,440 --> 00:24:14,200
Speaker 1: Former President Donald Trump was one of the first people

444
00:24:14,240 --> 00:24:17,000
Speaker 1: to be sued under this law, eating Carol and New

445
00:24:17,080 --> 00:24:21,520
Speaker 1: York writer who had previously accused Trump of raping her

446
00:24:21,920 --> 00:24:24,520
Speaker 1: over two decades ago, and then in two thousand nineteen

447
00:24:24,600 --> 00:24:27,760
Speaker 1: sued him for defamation when he denied it and said

448
00:24:27,800 --> 00:24:30,440
Speaker 1: she was lying. She would have had filed a claim

449
00:24:30,520 --> 00:24:33,800
Speaker 1: the first day of this lawsop effect, she sued Trump

450
00:24:33,840 --> 00:24:37,119
Speaker 1: for battery. You know, five women have come forward and

451
00:24:37,200 --> 00:24:41,360
Speaker 1: sued Bill Cosby last week. You know, victims who had

452
00:24:41,400 --> 00:24:45,680
Speaker 1: already accused him of wrongdoing previously, but now sued under

453
00:24:45,720 --> 00:24:48,280
Speaker 1: this law, now that it has taken an effect, billing

454
00:24:48,520 --> 00:24:52,560
Speaker 1: Leon Black, He was also sued over allegedly assaulting women

455
00:24:52,680 --> 00:24:56,280
Speaker 1: decades ago. All of these men have denied these allegations

456
00:24:56,320 --> 00:24:58,760
Speaker 1: when the lawyers said that they planned to fight these cases.

457
00:24:58,800 --> 00:25:02,560
Speaker 1: So clearly there's all already some high profile lawsuits being filed.

458
00:25:02,960 --> 00:25:06,240
Speaker 1: Canna plaintive sue a company to hold them accountable for

459
00:25:06,280 --> 00:25:10,720
Speaker 1: alleged abuse, even if the alleged abuser is deceased. Yes,

460
00:25:10,800 --> 00:25:13,320
Speaker 1: in fact, that has already happened. In the case of

461
00:25:13,680 --> 00:25:18,600
Speaker 1: Atlantic Records, part of Warner Music group. Warner Music is

462
00:25:18,680 --> 00:25:24,000
Speaker 1: being sued because the Atlantic Records founder allegedly decades ago,

463
00:25:24,080 --> 00:25:27,760
Speaker 1: more than forty years ago, sexually abused women. So now

464
00:25:27,880 --> 00:25:30,560
Speaker 1: the company and you know, saying that they're looking into

465
00:25:30,600 --> 00:25:33,840
Speaker 1: these allegations, interviewing people who may have been around back then,

466
00:25:34,080 --> 00:25:36,280
Speaker 1: saying that many of the individuals who would have been

467
00:25:36,280 --> 00:25:39,480
Speaker 1: witnessing are deceased or in their eighties or nineties. So

468
00:25:39,600 --> 00:25:42,840
Speaker 1: clearly that this case against the Warner Music Group is

469
00:25:42,880 --> 00:25:46,080
Speaker 1: a good illustration of how difficult it might be for

470
00:25:46,240 --> 00:25:50,720
Speaker 1: some of these defendants to defend themselves. Notably the suit

471
00:25:50,840 --> 00:25:54,560
Speaker 1: against Bill Cosby, you know, it also named NBC Universal

472
00:25:54,600 --> 00:25:57,600
Speaker 1: Media as a defendant because it aired the Cosby Show

473
00:25:57,680 --> 00:26:00,080
Speaker 1: in a Different World, you know, to which was a

474
00:26:00,240 --> 00:26:03,720
Speaker 1: the starting that allegedly, uh he used these shows in

475
00:26:03,840 --> 00:26:07,000
Speaker 1: his popularity around these shows to lure women onto the

476
00:26:07,000 --> 00:26:10,200
Speaker 1: sets of the shows in his circles and then abuse them,

477
00:26:10,520 --> 00:26:13,080
Speaker 1: you know, allegedly drugging and raping them in some cases.

478
00:26:13,359 --> 00:26:17,000
Speaker 1: So NBC Universal is accused of essentially turning a blind

479
00:26:17,080 --> 00:26:20,320
Speaker 1: eye to cause these conducts for years, a similar claim

480
00:26:20,359 --> 00:26:24,200
Speaker 1: made against Warner Music Groups. Of course, both companies are

481
00:26:24,200 --> 00:26:27,640
Speaker 1: expected to fit those very strongly in court. This law,

482
00:26:27,880 --> 00:26:31,359
Speaker 1: you know, the the effect it seems like fundamental unfairness

483
00:26:31,400 --> 00:26:33,879
Speaker 1: to the companies. How do you defend against a suit

484
00:26:34,080 --> 00:26:37,360
Speaker 1: when the person accused is dead, I mean, you're you're

485
00:26:37,400 --> 00:26:39,520
Speaker 1: You're definitely going to hear arguments like this in court,

486
00:26:39,600 --> 00:26:42,360
Speaker 1: and I'm personally very curious to see how these arguments

487
00:26:42,359 --> 00:26:45,600
Speaker 1: are made because it is very unusual set of circumstances here.

488
00:26:45,640 --> 00:26:49,160
Speaker 1: That is a pretty unique law. So any companies even

489
00:26:49,200 --> 00:26:52,080
Speaker 1: now can be accused of turning a blind eye to

490
00:26:52,160 --> 00:26:55,680
Speaker 1: conduct that end sued for negligence. So the civil fact

491
00:26:55,760 --> 00:26:58,320
Speaker 1: is that this law has a raised the statute of limitations.

492
00:26:58,359 --> 00:27:00,920
Speaker 1: So even if you know the allegation, since they're very old,

493
00:27:01,200 --> 00:27:04,119
Speaker 1: anyone can can bring these claims in court. But that

494
00:27:04,200 --> 00:27:07,159
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that they're automatically going to win, right, So

495
00:27:07,840 --> 00:27:11,040
Speaker 1: if you have a victim coming in and they're only

496
00:27:11,080 --> 00:27:15,640
Speaker 1: evidence is essentially their testimony and their statement of what happens,

497
00:27:16,000 --> 00:27:18,240
Speaker 1: it may seem like it's unfair to the company that

498
00:27:18,320 --> 00:27:20,520
Speaker 1: has been too but it also may make it fairly

499
00:27:20,560 --> 00:27:22,679
Speaker 1: easy for that company to win the case and just

500
00:27:22,720 --> 00:27:25,240
Speaker 1: say I'm sorry, but you don't have any evidence here.

501
00:27:25,560 --> 00:27:27,000
Speaker 1: But I think what we'll see is a lot of

502
00:27:27,000 --> 00:27:31,160
Speaker 1: these cases do have some additional evidence where you might

503
00:27:31,240 --> 00:27:34,560
Speaker 1: have witnesses who have victims confided in at the time,

504
00:27:34,840 --> 00:27:37,320
Speaker 1: who could testify about what they were told at the time,

505
00:27:37,480 --> 00:27:42,000
Speaker 1: could have a document um internal corporate documents or employment

506
00:27:42,040 --> 00:27:45,520
Speaker 1: records that placed the plaintiffs and they accused of user

507
00:27:45,560 --> 00:27:47,560
Speaker 1: in the same place at the same time. And you

508
00:27:47,600 --> 00:27:49,879
Speaker 1: may also be able to show a pattern of conduct

509
00:27:50,080 --> 00:27:53,560
Speaker 1: by interviewing other victims. So there's a lot of different

510
00:27:53,560 --> 00:27:55,720
Speaker 1: ways that the planets are going to make their case here.

511
00:27:55,760 --> 00:27:57,520
Speaker 1: But as you say that, some of these claims are

512
00:27:57,520 --> 00:27:59,960
Speaker 1: going to be very old, and it doesn't automatically mean

513
00:28:00,040 --> 00:28:02,240
Speaker 1: the jury is going to accept them. As you said,

514
00:28:02,240 --> 00:28:04,960
Speaker 1: you talked to a lot of lawyers, and one told

515
00:28:04,960 --> 00:28:08,760
Speaker 1: you that plaintiff lawyers best chance is before they even

516
00:28:08,840 --> 00:28:11,760
Speaker 1: file the suit. That's right. That's why I see as

517
00:28:11,760 --> 00:28:14,119
Speaker 1: the lawyers I suppose to said that what we end

518
00:28:14,200 --> 00:28:16,840
Speaker 1: up seeing in court, actual lawsuits that are filed are

519
00:28:16,880 --> 00:28:18,680
Speaker 1: really just going to be the tip of the iceberg,

520
00:28:19,240 --> 00:28:21,280
Speaker 1: and that a lot of these claims are and are

521
00:28:21,320 --> 00:28:24,760
Speaker 1: going to be resolved before anything becomes public, and that

522
00:28:25,359 --> 00:28:27,760
Speaker 1: as these plaintiff lawyers know, you know, some of these

523
00:28:27,800 --> 00:28:30,720
Speaker 1: claims may be so serious that a company will simply

524
00:28:30,760 --> 00:28:33,680
Speaker 1: want to settle them just to keep them from becoming

525
00:28:33,680 --> 00:28:36,240
Speaker 1: public that they can use that as part of their

526
00:28:36,359 --> 00:28:40,480
Speaker 1: settlement strategy. So I'm not sure if that increases the

527
00:28:40,480 --> 00:28:42,760
Speaker 1: amount of money that they get paid or whatnot. I'm

528
00:28:42,760 --> 00:28:44,800
Speaker 1: sure that every settlement is going to be handled a

529
00:28:44,840 --> 00:28:48,880
Speaker 1: little bit differently, but clearly the reputational damage is potentially

530
00:28:48,920 --> 00:28:51,400
Speaker 1: significant for some of these employers, as you can imagine.

531
00:28:51,720 --> 00:28:55,800
Speaker 1: Are there any estimates of how many lawsuits might be filed?

532
00:28:56,440 --> 00:28:59,600
Speaker 1: You know, nobody really knows for sure, and because so

533
00:28:59,600 --> 00:29:02,640
Speaker 1: many of the claims could be out of court, we

534
00:29:02,720 --> 00:29:05,280
Speaker 1: might not hear about. But one lawyer at least pointed

535
00:29:05,360 --> 00:29:08,960
Speaker 1: to the child victims ask that I mentioned earlier and

536
00:29:09,040 --> 00:29:11,840
Speaker 1: said that in their estimation, there has been tens of

537
00:29:11,880 --> 00:29:15,680
Speaker 1: thousands of lawsuits resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars

538
00:29:15,680 --> 00:29:19,520
Speaker 1: in settlements and damages awards. So you could easily see

539
00:29:19,560 --> 00:29:21,760
Speaker 1: something like that happening here. I mean, as we know

540
00:29:21,960 --> 00:29:25,200
Speaker 1: this conduct is real, and you can't say in specific

541
00:29:25,200 --> 00:29:27,760
Speaker 1: case whether it's real or not because we haven't seen

542
00:29:27,800 --> 00:29:29,640
Speaker 1: them all yet, but we do know that this conduct

543
00:29:29,680 --> 00:29:31,640
Speaker 1: did occur, and we do know I think it's pretty

544
00:29:31,640 --> 00:29:34,520
Speaker 1: well established that a lot of employers and industries did

545
00:29:34,560 --> 00:29:37,520
Speaker 1: turn a blind eye to the conduct for a long time,

546
00:29:37,720 --> 00:29:40,440
Speaker 1: which is exactly why the these two movements was such

547
00:29:40,480 --> 00:29:44,200
Speaker 1: a watershed moment. So it is more likely now, as

548
00:29:44,240 --> 00:29:47,200
Speaker 1: some of these lawyers said, that juries are going to

549
00:29:47,280 --> 00:29:50,680
Speaker 1: take these claims more seriously, just because people seem to

550
00:29:50,680 --> 00:29:53,000
Speaker 1: be looking at these allegations in a different way now.

551
00:29:53,280 --> 00:29:57,360
Speaker 1: So that's another potential benefit here for plainest lawyers. And

552
00:29:57,400 --> 00:29:59,720
Speaker 1: I should also point out that yes, their lawyers and

553
00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:01,760
Speaker 1: and they do stand to make quite a bit of

554
00:30:01,960 --> 00:30:05,600
Speaker 1: money from these claims, but they also some of these lawyers,

555
00:30:05,600 --> 00:30:07,800
Speaker 1: they've been working on these types of cases for years,

556
00:30:07,800 --> 00:30:10,520
Speaker 1: since long before this law was around. So this is

557
00:30:10,560 --> 00:30:12,320
Speaker 1: also something that a lot of some of these lawyers

558
00:30:12,400 --> 00:30:15,520
Speaker 1: really deeply believe in and have a sense of justice around.

559
00:30:15,720 --> 00:30:18,040
Speaker 1: So that's another element to it too. There's a very

560
00:30:18,120 --> 00:30:20,560
Speaker 1: human element to this, and it it isn't just all

561
00:30:20,600 --> 00:30:23,640
Speaker 1: about the money. You spoke to a former prosecute who

562
00:30:23,760 --> 00:30:28,560
Speaker 1: said that Wall Street employers are especially at risk. Yeah,

563
00:30:28,800 --> 00:30:31,760
Speaker 1: you know, and I wasn't too surprised to hear that,

564
00:30:31,960 --> 00:30:34,920
Speaker 1: because as all the lawyers point out, and as you noted,

565
00:30:35,480 --> 00:30:38,600
Speaker 1: there is a lot of money involved here, and not

566
00:30:38,720 --> 00:30:40,920
Speaker 1: all of these claims are going to be taken on

567
00:30:41,000 --> 00:30:44,240
Speaker 1: by plainest lawyers simply because there may not be a

568
00:30:44,280 --> 00:30:46,840
Speaker 1: big enough financial payout at the end to make it

569
00:30:46,840 --> 00:30:50,800
Speaker 1: worth anyone's time and energy. So when you're looking at

570
00:30:50,840 --> 00:30:53,560
Speaker 1: companies with the deep pockets that are based in New York,

571
00:30:53,680 --> 00:30:56,560
Speaker 1: you know, financial institutions just to do come to mind.

572
00:30:57,000 --> 00:30:59,920
Speaker 1: And uh, you know, we know from past litigation and

573
00:31:00,240 --> 00:31:03,560
Speaker 1: testimonials that this kind of conduct was rampant in the

574
00:31:03,600 --> 00:31:06,720
Speaker 1: industry for a long time. And we're talking about something

575
00:31:06,760 --> 00:31:08,800
Speaker 1: that might have happened to a woman in you know,

576
00:31:08,840 --> 00:31:12,240
Speaker 1: the eighties or early nineties, something that you know, all

577
00:31:12,320 --> 00:31:14,600
Speaker 1: of that sort of ancient history. But then they now

578
00:31:14,640 --> 00:31:17,240
Speaker 1: have a chance to bring it up here in a lawsuit,

579
00:31:17,800 --> 00:31:20,120
Speaker 1: and they might and they might see it as a

580
00:31:20,120 --> 00:31:22,600
Speaker 1: way to get some financial conversation to make up for

581
00:31:22,680 --> 00:31:26,120
Speaker 1: whatever was that allegedly happened. So the word deep pockets

582
00:31:26,120 --> 00:31:29,240
Speaker 1: did come up a lot in these interviews, and I

583
00:31:29,280 --> 00:31:32,080
Speaker 1: think that they do spect to see lawsuits against Wall

584
00:31:32,080 --> 00:31:36,040
Speaker 1: Street fans speak of deep pockets. I understand suits have

585
00:31:36,080 --> 00:31:40,960
Speaker 1: already been filed against the New York prison system. Yeah,

586
00:31:41,080 --> 00:31:44,160
Speaker 1: you know, that was a really interesting element to its

587
00:31:44,200 --> 00:31:47,520
Speaker 1: whole issue here. When I spoke with a lawyer who

588
00:31:47,600 --> 00:31:51,720
Speaker 1: noted that she had already received hundreds of inquiries from

589
00:31:51,720 --> 00:31:53,480
Speaker 1: clients that you know that she and she was taking

590
00:31:53,520 --> 00:31:56,600
Speaker 1: their cases and had already filed ten suits by the

591
00:31:56,600 --> 00:31:58,400
Speaker 1: time I talked to her, But so that she already

592
00:31:58,480 --> 00:32:01,640
Speaker 1: she had hundreds more kind And the reason that the

593
00:32:01,640 --> 00:32:04,720
Speaker 1: New York prison system or or any prison system is

594
00:32:04,760 --> 00:32:07,360
Speaker 1: so unique of courses you have, for example, you know,

595
00:32:07,520 --> 00:32:10,959
Speaker 1: these women's prisons where according to this lawyer, there's been

596
00:32:10,960 --> 00:32:14,760
Speaker 1: a long history of sexual abuse and rape in the

597
00:32:14,800 --> 00:32:19,600
Speaker 1: prison system, involving the correctional officers and other you know,

598
00:32:19,640 --> 00:32:22,960
Speaker 1: employees at the prison who have this complete control over

599
00:32:23,080 --> 00:32:27,160
Speaker 1: this female population. So according to this lawyer, um, when

600
00:32:27,160 --> 00:32:31,840
Speaker 1: it's similar law like this pass in California recently, it

601
00:32:31,880 --> 00:32:34,800
Speaker 1: didn't totally lift the statute of limitations, that it only

602
00:32:34,840 --> 00:32:37,880
Speaker 1: went back to two thousand nine temporarily. But even in

603
00:32:37,920 --> 00:32:40,280
Speaker 1: that case, she said that she had foilved hundreds you know,

604
00:32:40,320 --> 00:32:43,320
Speaker 1: there were hundreds of claimants for involving the prison systems,

605
00:32:43,640 --> 00:32:46,480
Speaker 1: and so she's expecting that here in New York. And

606
00:32:46,640 --> 00:32:48,160
Speaker 1: you know, she told me some of the stories and

607
00:32:48,160 --> 00:32:50,239
Speaker 1: they were they were pretty awful, some of them, and

608
00:32:50,320 --> 00:32:53,120
Speaker 1: some of the alleged conducts that occurred. So I think

609
00:32:53,160 --> 00:32:56,400
Speaker 1: that's something that will probably see some big lawsuits and

610
00:32:56,520 --> 00:32:59,760
Speaker 1: some big potential damage awards, maybe a trial come out

611
00:32:59,760 --> 00:33:03,200
Speaker 1: of that. And you mentioned a gene Carol. Her case

612
00:33:03,240 --> 00:33:06,440
Speaker 1: has been going on it seems like forever. So now

613
00:33:06,480 --> 00:33:09,440
Speaker 1: she suited under this law. But tell us what's happening

614
00:33:09,800 --> 00:33:12,200
Speaker 1: with the rest of her case. I mean part of

615
00:33:12,240 --> 00:33:15,600
Speaker 1: it is now in d C. Yeah, that's right. This

616
00:33:15,880 --> 00:33:18,920
Speaker 1: law really, you know, I guess the simple way of

617
00:33:18,960 --> 00:33:22,200
Speaker 1: looking at it is this, if she loses her defamation

618
00:33:22,360 --> 00:33:25,680
Speaker 1: case for whatever reason, if it gets dismissed, she will

619
00:33:25,720 --> 00:33:29,280
Speaker 1: still have this case now to go forward on because

620
00:33:29,560 --> 00:33:33,120
Speaker 1: her new lawsuit alleged battery. So the specific facts are

621
00:33:33,160 --> 00:33:36,480
Speaker 1: around the alleged rate, whereas the earlier case that we've

622
00:33:36,520 --> 00:33:38,920
Speaker 1: been talking about for so long is the defamation suit

623
00:33:39,000 --> 00:33:42,000
Speaker 1: related to the best same alleged rates. So you know,

624
00:33:42,120 --> 00:33:44,920
Speaker 1: right now next month in the DC Court of Appeals

625
00:33:45,000 --> 00:33:48,040
Speaker 1: is going to hear arguments. The DC local courts or

626
00:33:48,080 --> 00:33:51,560
Speaker 1: highest appeals court is going to determine whether or not

627
00:33:51,680 --> 00:33:56,000
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's alleged defamation the words that he said about

628
00:33:56,040 --> 00:33:59,000
Speaker 1: eating Carroll back and she dousand nineteen qualified as an

629
00:33:59,040 --> 00:34:02,240
Speaker 1: employment do Essentially, it's come down to a matter of

630
00:34:02,320 --> 00:34:07,280
Speaker 1: DC employment law. So if Eging Carroll prevails improved that

631
00:34:07,640 --> 00:34:10,720
Speaker 1: his comments about her did not qualify as an official duty,

632
00:34:11,320 --> 00:34:14,399
Speaker 1: then the case will get kicked back to federal court

633
00:34:14,440 --> 00:34:17,279
Speaker 1: in New York where it's been for a while, and

634
00:34:17,320 --> 00:34:22,040
Speaker 1: it will go to trial in April. And despite this

635
00:34:22,360 --> 00:34:26,840
Speaker 1: litigation over the litigation, Donald Trump did give a deposition

636
00:34:26,840 --> 00:34:29,560
Speaker 1: in that case. He did, He did fit for a

637
00:34:29,640 --> 00:34:33,360
Speaker 1: deposition and according to his lawyer, answered all the questions

638
00:34:33,440 --> 00:34:35,480
Speaker 1: of her asked of him. As she put it, he

639
00:34:35,560 --> 00:34:38,160
Speaker 1: set the record straight. You know, a lot of people

640
00:34:38,200 --> 00:34:42,759
Speaker 1: were deposed in that case, including Eging Carroll, and so

641
00:34:43,360 --> 00:34:46,000
Speaker 1: we don't know what exactly was asked or said in

642
00:34:46,040 --> 00:34:48,879
Speaker 1: those but that's potentially some of those details could come

643
00:34:48,880 --> 00:34:52,360
Speaker 1: out at trial. Thanks so much, Eric. That's Eric Lawson,

644
00:34:52,400 --> 00:34:55,160
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Legal Reporter, and that's it for this edition of

645
00:34:55,200 --> 00:34:57,880
Speaker 1: The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the

646
00:34:57,920 --> 00:35:01,399
Speaker 1: latest legal news honor Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find

647
00:35:01,400 --> 00:35:06,000
Speaker 1: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg

648
00:35:06,040 --> 00:35:09,839
Speaker 1: dot com, Slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune

649
00:35:09,840 --> 00:35:12,640
Speaker 1: into the Bloomberg Law Show every week night at ten

650
00:35:12,760 --> 00:35:16,520
Speaker 1: BM Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening

651
00:35:16,600 --> 00:35:17,279
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg