1 00:00:02,800 --> 00:00:10,080 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. At the start of 2 00:00:10,080 --> 00:00:14,360 Speaker 1: the year, things were not looking great for Google. Last August, 3 00:00:14,680 --> 00:00:16,720 Speaker 1: a federal judge had made a big ruling. 4 00:00:17,560 --> 00:00:20,680 Speaker 2: A federal judge in Washington rule that Google's search engine 5 00:00:20,720 --> 00:00:24,799 Speaker 2: has been illegally exploiting its dominance to squash competition and 6 00:00:24,880 --> 00:00:25,880 Speaker 2: stifle innovation. 7 00:00:26,560 --> 00:00:29,600 Speaker 1: The question remaining was what to do about it. The 8 00:00:29,720 --> 00:00:33,479 Speaker 1: judge is going to decide what kind of changes must 9 00:00:33,520 --> 00:00:37,760 Speaker 1: be imposed to make a more competitive landscape. The Justice Department, 10 00:00:37,840 --> 00:00:40,440 Speaker 1: which brought that lawsuit in the first place, propose some 11 00:00:40,479 --> 00:00:43,720 Speaker 1: remedies for the judge to consider. Google could break up 12 00:00:43,760 --> 00:00:46,640 Speaker 1: its search business and sell off Chrome. It could stop 13 00:00:46,640 --> 00:00:51,080 Speaker 1: paying companies like Apple for preferential treatment. On Tuesday, the 14 00:00:51,200 --> 00:00:55,000 Speaker 1: judge reached his decision, but instead of the big sweeping 15 00:00:55,040 --> 00:00:58,200 Speaker 1: rebuke of Google's business that some were expecting. 16 00:00:58,040 --> 00:01:01,320 Speaker 2: Google gets to kind of just continue with business as usual. 17 00:01:02,000 --> 00:01:05,080 Speaker 1: Sarah fryar at its technology coverage for Bloomberg and has 18 00:01:05,120 --> 00:01:09,040 Speaker 1: been covering Google's antitrust trial, and she says the outcome 19 00:01:09,160 --> 00:01:11,960 Speaker 1: in this case speaks to the new challenges that come 20 00:01:12,000 --> 00:01:15,120 Speaker 1: with regulating big tech in the age of AI. 21 00:01:15,760 --> 00:01:19,160 Speaker 2: We should be reading this as a huge win for 22 00:01:19,319 --> 00:01:21,840 Speaker 2: Google and a huge loss for the DOJ. 23 00:01:25,440 --> 00:01:27,720 Speaker 1: I'm Sarah Holder, and this is the big take from 24 00:01:27,760 --> 00:01:31,440 Speaker 1: Bloomberg News Today on the show, what this week's landmark 25 00:01:31,480 --> 00:01:34,840 Speaker 1: Google ruling means for the company, its competitors, and for 26 00:01:35,000 --> 00:01:44,720 Speaker 1: future attempts to break up big tech. The Department of 27 00:01:44,840 --> 00:01:48,080 Speaker 1: Justice first launched its case against Google back in twenty twenty, 28 00:01:48,560 --> 00:01:52,160 Speaker 1: arguing that through exclusive contracts with device makers like Apple 29 00:01:52,240 --> 00:01:55,600 Speaker 1: and Samsung, the company held a monopoly in the online 30 00:01:55,640 --> 00:01:59,760 Speaker 1: search space, and Bloomberg Big Tech editor Sarah Fryer says 31 00:02:00,120 --> 00:02:02,920 Speaker 1: their case was widely agreed to be a strong one. Well, 32 00:02:02,920 --> 00:02:03,320 Speaker 1: they were. 33 00:02:03,200 --> 00:02:06,880 Speaker 2: Making the case that Google has so much power over 34 00:02:07,400 --> 00:02:11,480 Speaker 2: how we consume information online, and that they've built that 35 00:02:11,600 --> 00:02:16,560 Speaker 2: power through anti competitive means. In Google's case, Google catted 36 00:02:16,600 --> 00:02:18,280 Speaker 2: that by saying we are the best. We have the 37 00:02:18,280 --> 00:02:21,280 Speaker 2: best search engine. That's why people want to use it. It's 38 00:02:21,200 --> 00:02:22,280 Speaker 2: not that we're a monopoly. 39 00:02:22,960 --> 00:02:26,480 Speaker 1: The US district judge hearing the case, judge on a Meta, 40 00:02:26,639 --> 00:02:30,080 Speaker 1: didn't buy Google's argument. Last year, he ruled in the 41 00:02:30,120 --> 00:02:35,080 Speaker 1: government's favor, saying Google was indeed a monopolist. The judge 42 00:02:35,120 --> 00:02:37,320 Speaker 1: then had to rule on the best way to address 43 00:02:37,320 --> 00:02:41,639 Speaker 1: Google's anti competitive behavior. The trial was set for the spring, 44 00:02:42,360 --> 00:02:45,359 Speaker 1: and on Tuesday, the judge announced his decision. 45 00:02:46,919 --> 00:02:51,280 Speaker 2: Judge on Meta ruled that Google will have to give 46 00:02:51,480 --> 00:02:56,400 Speaker 2: some of its data from search to quote unquote qualified competitors, 47 00:02:56,480 --> 00:02:58,760 Speaker 2: and that's kind of the only thing that Google has 48 00:02:58,840 --> 00:03:02,640 Speaker 2: to do. Metta was guy who really came out and 49 00:03:02,680 --> 00:03:07,120 Speaker 2: called Google a monopoly first, and people were expecting him 50 00:03:07,120 --> 00:03:11,480 Speaker 2: to come down hard. It just completely blew us away. 51 00:03:11,600 --> 00:03:16,560 Speaker 2: How this ruling was very gentle. It was very very 52 00:03:16,680 --> 00:03:19,600 Speaker 2: much a bullet dodge by Google. 53 00:03:20,240 --> 00:03:23,080 Speaker 1: The DOJ had suggested that the judge break up the 54 00:03:23,120 --> 00:03:26,880 Speaker 1: company forced Google to spin off its Chrome browser. The 55 00:03:27,000 --> 00:03:30,720 Speaker 1: judge didn't ultimately go that far. The DOJ also wanted 56 00:03:30,760 --> 00:03:34,280 Speaker 1: Google to end its partnership with Apple. Google's been paying 57 00:03:34,320 --> 00:03:37,080 Speaker 1: the company roughly twenty billion dollars a year to keep 58 00:03:37,120 --> 00:03:40,880 Speaker 1: Google Search is the default on iPhones. The judge decided 59 00:03:40,920 --> 00:03:45,280 Speaker 1: to let them keep that contract. So what made Judge Meta, 60 00:03:45,320 --> 00:03:48,080 Speaker 1: the same judge that just last year ruled Google was 61 00:03:48,120 --> 00:03:52,560 Speaker 1: a monopoly, stopped short of breaking Google up. Well, he 62 00:03:52,720 --> 00:03:55,040 Speaker 1: says it has to do with the rise of another 63 00:03:55,120 --> 00:03:58,160 Speaker 1: technology that can compete with the company on search. 64 00:03:58,960 --> 00:04:02,480 Speaker 2: AI Meta was trying to come up with a solution 65 00:04:03,560 --> 00:04:08,839 Speaker 2: for Google's monopoly status that took into account the AI era, 66 00:04:09,320 --> 00:04:12,160 Speaker 2: Because the government when they bring these cases and they 67 00:04:12,160 --> 00:04:14,800 Speaker 2: want to solve these problems, it take so long to 68 00:04:14,800 --> 00:04:16,680 Speaker 2: build this case. They're basically dealing with the Google of 69 00:04:16,720 --> 00:04:20,480 Speaker 2: a few years ago in their initial argument, and then 70 00:04:20,600 --> 00:04:23,400 Speaker 2: technology changes in the world moves ahead, and it has 71 00:04:23,520 --> 00:04:27,680 Speaker 2: been in the past couple of years the most transformative 72 00:04:27,720 --> 00:04:31,560 Speaker 2: time for Google since the mobile boom, since the mobile 73 00:04:31,560 --> 00:04:34,760 Speaker 2: phone era, this AI era, but for Google itself, like 74 00:04:35,160 --> 00:04:38,120 Speaker 2: this is I think even more transformative because it really 75 00:04:38,400 --> 00:04:41,120 Speaker 2: the AI era really gets at the core of what 76 00:04:41,200 --> 00:04:44,240 Speaker 2: Google does, which is providing answers to people who have 77 00:04:44,320 --> 00:04:45,279 Speaker 2: questions on the Internet. 78 00:04:45,480 --> 00:04:50,920 Speaker 1: How exactly did the changing AI race factor into Judge 79 00:04:50,920 --> 00:04:54,600 Speaker 1: Meta's decision to reject the government's push to break up Google. 80 00:04:54,600 --> 00:04:56,039 Speaker 1: What did he write in his judgment? 81 00:04:57,440 --> 00:05:00,400 Speaker 2: He wrote that he was swayed by the arguments that 82 00:05:00,760 --> 00:05:06,000 Speaker 2: Google is in this transition right now, that the mounting 83 00:05:06,040 --> 00:05:12,040 Speaker 2: competition for wanting answers on the intranet, the market could 84 00:05:12,160 --> 00:05:16,440 Speaker 2: kind of correct this monopoly given time to correct it, 85 00:05:17,040 --> 00:05:21,040 Speaker 2: just through sheer better options than classic Google search, and 86 00:05:21,080 --> 00:05:24,400 Speaker 2: you're already seeing that somewhat in consumer behavior. One of 87 00:05:24,440 --> 00:05:27,600 Speaker 2: the things that Apple said during the trial, Atiq said 88 00:05:27,680 --> 00:05:31,240 Speaker 2: was that there has been some reduction in Google searches 89 00:05:31,320 --> 00:05:34,760 Speaker 2: on Apple in favor of some AI related searches. So 90 00:05:35,279 --> 00:05:40,800 Speaker 2: when you're looking at the biggest antitrust ruling in decades, 91 00:05:41,440 --> 00:05:44,960 Speaker 2: this is like really a landmark case. You can break 92 00:05:45,000 --> 00:05:48,400 Speaker 2: a lot if you decide to come down too hard. 93 00:05:49,200 --> 00:05:52,640 Speaker 2: And it really seems that Meta was trying to take 94 00:05:52,680 --> 00:05:57,760 Speaker 2: an approach where he didn't want to shape the new 95 00:05:57,800 --> 00:06:02,000 Speaker 2: market that was budding and growing and building itself too much. 96 00:06:02,720 --> 00:06:05,640 Speaker 1: Because I'm curious also if you can put this into 97 00:06:05,640 --> 00:06:11,160 Speaker 1: context of how fast this AI fueled search transition happened, Like, 98 00:06:11,360 --> 00:06:13,000 Speaker 1: do you think the judge could have come to a 99 00:06:13,040 --> 00:06:16,400 Speaker 1: different conclusion a year ago, six months ago, two years ago. 100 00:06:16,760 --> 00:06:19,760 Speaker 2: I think if the same trial was happening even a 101 00:06:19,800 --> 00:06:23,200 Speaker 2: few months ago, the outcome would be different. Google might 102 00:06:23,279 --> 00:06:25,440 Speaker 2: have had to spin off Chrome, they might have had 103 00:06:25,480 --> 00:06:31,039 Speaker 2: to adjust it's data sharing more more severely. We all 104 00:06:31,080 --> 00:06:33,719 Speaker 2: sort of expected that they would have to stop paying 105 00:06:33,800 --> 00:06:40,000 Speaker 2: Apple for preference. It has become so clear that there 106 00:06:40,040 --> 00:06:43,719 Speaker 2: are now other ways that people want to search on 107 00:06:43,760 --> 00:06:49,039 Speaker 2: the Internet, and that the market is maybe a more 108 00:06:49,080 --> 00:06:55,480 Speaker 2: influential force in Google's future than the government or the 109 00:06:55,839 --> 00:06:56,479 Speaker 2: courts will be. 110 00:06:58,600 --> 00:07:01,599 Speaker 1: Google avoided the harshest outcome and its anti trust ruling, 111 00:07:01,800 --> 00:07:05,479 Speaker 1: but the company was ordered to make some concessions. After 112 00:07:05,520 --> 00:07:07,920 Speaker 1: the break, we dig into what that ruling could mean 113 00:07:08,120 --> 00:07:12,160 Speaker 1: for users, companies, and the future of government regulation on 114 00:07:12,240 --> 00:07:24,200 Speaker 1: big tech. Google dodged a bullet this week when Judge 115 00:07:24,200 --> 00:07:26,400 Speaker 1: am At Meta ruled that it didn't have to sell 116 00:07:26,440 --> 00:07:29,680 Speaker 1: off its browser Chrome as part of the government's antitrust 117 00:07:29,720 --> 00:07:33,400 Speaker 1: suit against the company, But the judge did say Google 118 00:07:33,440 --> 00:07:36,240 Speaker 1: needs to make a few key changes to its business. 119 00:07:36,880 --> 00:07:39,680 Speaker 1: While Google was able to keep its existing twenty billion 120 00:07:39,720 --> 00:07:43,000 Speaker 1: dollar plus contract with Apple, it can no longer make 121 00:07:43,080 --> 00:07:46,760 Speaker 1: exclusive deals with companies like it. Google will also have 122 00:07:46,840 --> 00:07:51,080 Speaker 1: to share online search data with its competitors. Here's Bloomberg 123 00:07:51,080 --> 00:07:52,520 Speaker 1: Tech editor Sarah Fryer. 124 00:07:53,360 --> 00:07:56,880 Speaker 2: This was a subject that came up a lot during 125 00:07:56,920 --> 00:07:59,840 Speaker 2: the trial that Google one of the reasons that it 126 00:08:00,080 --> 00:08:04,080 Speaker 2: this monopoly is so powerful and so entrenched in the 127 00:08:04,120 --> 00:08:06,800 Speaker 2: way we use the internet is because they're the place 128 00:08:06,840 --> 00:08:10,040 Speaker 2: where everyone lists their websites. If you're not on Google, 129 00:08:10,080 --> 00:08:14,560 Speaker 2: you're essentially not on the searchable Internet and the websites 130 00:08:14,840 --> 00:08:16,720 Speaker 2: you know, they all give their data to Google. Google 131 00:08:16,960 --> 00:08:20,000 Speaker 2: has this repository of information their index, and that that 132 00:08:20,080 --> 00:08:24,080 Speaker 2: has helped them into the AI era because they have 133 00:08:24,120 --> 00:08:26,920 Speaker 2: all this information that they can train on. They can 134 00:08:26,960 --> 00:08:31,280 Speaker 2: make their models better given this omnission view they have 135 00:08:31,600 --> 00:08:35,800 Speaker 2: of the Internet. And so one thing that the government 136 00:08:35,880 --> 00:08:39,760 Speaker 2: proposed is that Google could share some of that data 137 00:08:39,840 --> 00:08:42,679 Speaker 2: with qualified competitors. Now he didn't stay specifically who those 138 00:08:42,720 --> 00:08:46,920 Speaker 2: competitors would be, but you can imagine like open AI, Perplexity, 139 00:08:47,040 --> 00:08:50,520 Speaker 2: duc dot Go, some of those other browser companies and 140 00:08:50,600 --> 00:08:55,000 Speaker 2: other AI search companies, so that there would be more 141 00:08:55,000 --> 00:08:57,600 Speaker 2: of a level playing field going forward. 142 00:08:58,040 --> 00:09:00,360 Speaker 1: How would they use that data? They would do that. 143 00:09:00,360 --> 00:09:02,680 Speaker 2: Data to train their models, especially if it was like 144 00:09:03,120 --> 00:09:07,559 Speaker 2: data about what users were searching for, what people were 145 00:09:07,600 --> 00:09:11,000 Speaker 2: interested in. I mean, that could all help people's AI 146 00:09:11,120 --> 00:09:14,840 Speaker 2: models get better and smarter about how to serve their users. 147 00:09:15,760 --> 00:09:19,520 Speaker 1: So how does that ruling around data affect users? Are 148 00:09:19,559 --> 00:09:22,360 Speaker 1: their privacy concerns? Here? Will the average Googler kind of 149 00:09:22,400 --> 00:09:27,400 Speaker 1: like feel the effects of that data being shared in 150 00:09:27,440 --> 00:09:28,040 Speaker 1: more places? 151 00:09:28,240 --> 00:09:31,840 Speaker 2: Well. In its initial statement about the ruling, Google said 152 00:09:31,840 --> 00:09:34,920 Speaker 2: that it did have privacy concerns. But if you look 153 00:09:34,920 --> 00:09:38,000 Speaker 2: at the ruling, what they actually will have to share 154 00:09:38,160 --> 00:09:41,960 Speaker 2: is like a limited snapshot of basically the bones of 155 00:09:42,240 --> 00:09:45,920 Speaker 2: what makes up search. I don't think that that's going 156 00:09:45,960 --> 00:09:49,120 Speaker 2: to be very helpful to these competitors at all. Like 157 00:09:49,160 --> 00:09:51,360 Speaker 2: it might be interesting to them, but I don't think 158 00:09:51,360 --> 00:09:55,480 Speaker 2: that that's really going to serve the purpose of helping 159 00:09:55,520 --> 00:09:59,640 Speaker 2: them better their models or their products in the way 160 00:09:59,800 --> 00:10:02,199 Speaker 2: that they had hoped. Which is why you're seeing a 161 00:10:02,200 --> 00:10:07,400 Speaker 2: lot of third parties and watchdogs come out today and say, 162 00:10:08,040 --> 00:10:12,760 Speaker 2: you know, this ruling is so so mild that it 163 00:10:12,760 --> 00:10:15,319 Speaker 2: doesn't change anything. It doesn't help us at all get 164 00:10:15,400 --> 00:10:18,720 Speaker 2: into a place where big tech is held accountable. Right. 165 00:10:18,920 --> 00:10:22,400 Speaker 1: One of Google's competitors, Gabriel Weinberg, the CEO of DOUC 166 00:10:22,480 --> 00:10:26,760 Speaker 1: dot Go, called the ruling a nothing burger. Yeah. 167 00:10:26,840 --> 00:10:28,240 Speaker 2: Well, a lot of the responses on the side is 168 00:10:28,240 --> 00:10:30,439 Speaker 2: like what was all this for, you know, like there 169 00:10:30,480 --> 00:10:33,640 Speaker 2: was a lot of excitement around, like this is a 170 00:10:33,679 --> 00:10:37,920 Speaker 2: company that has become so powerful, it's become part of 171 00:10:37,960 --> 00:10:42,640 Speaker 2: the infrastructure of society. We've been through years of Congress 172 00:10:43,240 --> 00:10:46,520 Speaker 2: having caring for these companies and actually not making many 173 00:10:46,640 --> 00:10:49,640 Speaker 2: laws or any laws to hold them accountable. We've been 174 00:10:49,640 --> 00:10:52,840 Speaker 2: through years of politicians saying that something would happen. Finally 175 00:10:52,880 --> 00:10:55,559 Speaker 2: the DJ takes it on, They take it seriously, they 176 00:10:55,600 --> 00:10:59,800 Speaker 2: bring it to this conclusion where a judge declarism and monopoly. 177 00:11:00,040 --> 00:11:02,679 Speaker 2: There's finally remedies trial. I mean, you can imagine how 178 00:11:02,720 --> 00:11:08,000 Speaker 2: excited all of these these competitors and you know, entities 179 00:11:08,000 --> 00:11:12,160 Speaker 2: who really want tech accountability, how excited they got. And 180 00:11:12,200 --> 00:11:15,079 Speaker 2: there was a lot of hope that something would change. 181 00:11:15,679 --> 00:11:21,480 Speaker 2: And so the disappointment that the anti tech power, anti 182 00:11:21,520 --> 00:11:25,480 Speaker 2: monopoly crowd is feeling is very palpable. But it's also like, 183 00:11:25,559 --> 00:11:27,839 Speaker 2: you know, in the context of this this AI boom, 184 00:11:27,840 --> 00:11:32,200 Speaker 2: which is I think the first thing to really threaten 185 00:11:32,280 --> 00:11:37,040 Speaker 2: Google's dominance since it became so powerful, Well. 186 00:11:36,920 --> 00:11:39,040 Speaker 1: What kind of precedent could this set for how the 187 00:11:39,040 --> 00:11:42,080 Speaker 1: government goes after other tech companies. Obviously there's the sense 188 00:11:42,120 --> 00:11:44,880 Speaker 1: of disappointment, maybe a fear that it takes the wind 189 00:11:44,880 --> 00:11:46,480 Speaker 1: out of its sales a little bit. But but what 190 00:11:46,520 --> 00:11:48,360 Speaker 1: do you see coming down the line when it comes 191 00:11:48,400 --> 00:11:50,000 Speaker 1: to future anti trust cases. 192 00:11:51,840 --> 00:11:56,560 Speaker 2: Well, there's a lot of future anti trust cases coming around. 193 00:11:56,600 --> 00:11:59,040 Speaker 2: You know, even for Google. There's a trial on their 194 00:11:59,080 --> 00:12:02,960 Speaker 2: ad tech monopol Another remedies trial for the ad tech 195 00:12:03,040 --> 00:12:05,360 Speaker 2: ruling that says that they have a knopoly and ad 196 00:12:05,400 --> 00:12:09,000 Speaker 2: technology that's going to be in late September early October. 197 00:12:09,120 --> 00:12:12,080 Speaker 2: It's a different judge, so it really will be up 198 00:12:12,120 --> 00:12:14,520 Speaker 2: to that judge to decide whether they want to go 199 00:12:14,559 --> 00:12:17,360 Speaker 2: harsher or less harsh. Meta just went through its own 200 00:12:18,440 --> 00:12:23,640 Speaker 2: antitrust trial that is maybe an even wilder outcome that 201 00:12:23,679 --> 00:12:28,920 Speaker 2: the government is pursuing. The government wants a breakup of Meta, 202 00:12:29,000 --> 00:12:33,480 Speaker 2: so they spin off Instagram and WhatsApp undoing acquisitions that 203 00:12:33,520 --> 00:12:35,160 Speaker 2: were done more than a decade ago. 204 00:12:36,000 --> 00:12:39,760 Speaker 1: That's Meta, the company that owns Facebook. Not I'm at Meta, 205 00:12:39,880 --> 00:12:41,600 Speaker 1: the judge overseeing the Google trial. 206 00:12:42,440 --> 00:12:45,760 Speaker 2: I don't imagine a future where Instagram, at WhatsApp or 207 00:12:46,040 --> 00:12:49,640 Speaker 2: are forced to break off from Meta. It just it 208 00:12:49,800 --> 00:12:52,760 Speaker 2: seems like that it would have a chilling effect on 209 00:12:53,000 --> 00:12:56,040 Speaker 2: all of m and a activity in tech, which could 210 00:12:56,120 --> 00:13:02,760 Speaker 2: be bad for younger companies. If companies knew that their 211 00:13:02,840 --> 00:13:06,839 Speaker 2: acquisitions could just be undone, ten or thirteen years later, 212 00:13:07,440 --> 00:13:10,800 Speaker 2: we may not get breakups of big tech companies. Like 213 00:13:10,840 --> 00:13:13,320 Speaker 2: if this is how this judge is ruling, it's really 214 00:13:13,440 --> 00:13:16,800 Speaker 2: kind of a tricky time because AI is changing so 215 00:13:16,880 --> 00:13:19,240 Speaker 2: much so even the kinds of things that the government 216 00:13:19,320 --> 00:13:22,240 Speaker 2: was arguing about, like what makes these products so sticky 217 00:13:22,240 --> 00:13:26,040 Speaker 2: and so entrenched and therefore part of a monopoly. The 218 00:13:26,080 --> 00:13:28,440 Speaker 2: reality today is that the industry has moved in a 219 00:13:28,480 --> 00:13:32,640 Speaker 2: direction where these products are not as the government described 220 00:13:32,640 --> 00:13:37,000 Speaker 2: them anymore, like twenty eighteen meta, right, right, twenty eighteen 221 00:13:37,040 --> 00:13:39,480 Speaker 2: META is not twenty twenty five META. And that's when 222 00:13:39,520 --> 00:13:42,240 Speaker 2: the case started, right. The companies have to evolve or 223 00:13:42,280 --> 00:13:45,880 Speaker 2: they die. And so to come out and say like 224 00:13:46,280 --> 00:13:50,080 Speaker 2: this is the way the industry works and this is 225 00:13:50,080 --> 00:13:54,560 Speaker 2: how it's going to continue to work, that is just wrong. 226 00:13:55,080 --> 00:13:57,360 Speaker 1: Well, I want to talk about the political calculus here, 227 00:13:57,400 --> 00:14:00,480 Speaker 1: because we've spoken before about how antitrust enforcement has been 228 00:14:00,520 --> 00:14:02,839 Speaker 1: one of the few things both Republicans and Democrats in 229 00:14:02,880 --> 00:14:06,760 Speaker 1: recent years have seen as a priority. Why exactly is 230 00:14:06,800 --> 00:14:10,920 Speaker 1: that And do you think that bipartisan energy around breaking 231 00:14:11,000 --> 00:14:15,280 Speaker 1: up big tech will continue as Trump's term progresses. 232 00:14:15,679 --> 00:14:20,040 Speaker 2: I mean, I think we have seen a massive change 233 00:14:20,640 --> 00:14:26,400 Speaker 2: from Trump's first administration to his second. Now, we cannot 234 00:14:26,440 --> 00:14:31,680 Speaker 2: forget that the tech lash, the big tech blowback, the 235 00:14:31,720 --> 00:14:35,840 Speaker 2: push to hold these companies accountable, really started during the 236 00:14:35,880 --> 00:14:39,440 Speaker 2: Trump administration. Everyone agreed that these companies needed to be 237 00:14:39,480 --> 00:14:42,280 Speaker 2: held accountable, but they didn't agree on why and what 238 00:14:42,320 --> 00:14:45,120 Speaker 2: to do about it. And so we went through these 239 00:14:45,400 --> 00:14:51,040 Speaker 2: years of extreme enthusiasm for getting CEOs to give Congressional 240 00:14:51,080 --> 00:14:56,080 Speaker 2: testimony building the beginnings of these anti trust cases. These 241 00:14:56,080 --> 00:15:00,000 Speaker 2: probes started during the first Trump administration and nothing really happened. 242 00:15:00,320 --> 00:15:04,720 Speaker 2: But it is one of the rare components of Trump's 243 00:15:04,760 --> 00:15:09,000 Speaker 2: administration that carried over throughout the entire Biden administration, and 244 00:15:09,040 --> 00:15:14,200 Speaker 2: the Biden DOJ and FTC were very enthusiastic about these 245 00:15:14,240 --> 00:15:18,240 Speaker 2: anti trust cases, and Congress continued to be enthusiastic about 246 00:15:18,240 --> 00:15:22,520 Speaker 2: holding tech companies accountable. Still nothing changed. So here we 247 00:15:22,560 --> 00:15:25,960 Speaker 2: are in the second Trump administration and the mood is different. 248 00:15:26,160 --> 00:15:29,440 Speaker 2: The mood is different for two reasons. One reason is 249 00:15:29,760 --> 00:15:34,600 Speaker 2: the companies now understand what it takes to get on 250 00:15:34,760 --> 00:15:37,240 Speaker 2: Trump's good side, and what it takes again on Trump's 251 00:15:37,240 --> 00:15:40,880 Speaker 2: good side is playing by his rules, going and meeting 252 00:15:40,920 --> 00:15:44,480 Speaker 2: with him face to FaceTime. For instance, Tim Cook, the 253 00:15:44,480 --> 00:15:49,440 Speaker 2: CEO of Apple, making an announcement with Trump on investments. Whereas, 254 00:15:49,640 --> 00:15:52,840 Speaker 2: like in the first Trump administration, executives didn't really want 255 00:15:52,880 --> 00:15:55,400 Speaker 2: to be so cozy with the Trump administration because they 256 00:15:55,440 --> 00:15:58,520 Speaker 2: knew their employees for the most part, who were protesting 257 00:15:59,000 --> 00:16:02,560 Speaker 2: a lot of the policy. So that's factor one. Factor 258 00:16:02,560 --> 00:16:06,480 Speaker 2: two is AI. I think that the executives all have 259 00:16:06,720 --> 00:16:11,880 Speaker 2: an incentive to show Trump that it's the US versus 260 00:16:11,960 --> 00:16:16,120 Speaker 2: China for the future of this new technology, and if 261 00:16:16,640 --> 00:16:19,320 Speaker 2: the US is going to win, they need a lot 262 00:16:19,360 --> 00:16:24,520 Speaker 2: of government help, data center build outs and import export rules. 263 00:16:24,600 --> 00:16:28,640 Speaker 2: So I think that's that's the other factors, like regulation 264 00:16:29,000 --> 00:16:31,800 Speaker 2: on AI. They're trying to say, we can't do that 265 00:16:31,880 --> 00:16:35,600 Speaker 2: right now. The industry is booming. We need to see 266 00:16:35,600 --> 00:16:37,560 Speaker 2: how this shakes out, and we need to do as 267 00:16:37,640 --> 00:16:40,400 Speaker 2: much as we can to win it before somebody else does. 268 00:16:41,000 --> 00:16:44,920 Speaker 2: As for next steps, Google said it will appeal the 269 00:16:44,960 --> 00:16:48,560 Speaker 2: initial ruling that said that they're monopoly. They're going to 270 00:16:49,080 --> 00:16:52,000 Speaker 2: get together with the government side and the judge and 271 00:16:52,040 --> 00:16:55,080 Speaker 2: they're all going to talk about the outcomes that the 272 00:16:55,160 --> 00:16:57,200 Speaker 2: judges asked for, and then there's going to be a 273 00:16:57,320 --> 00:17:00,920 Speaker 2: final ruling where we get like much more more granular 274 00:17:00,960 --> 00:17:04,919 Speaker 2: clarity on what from the judge's memo turns into the 275 00:17:05,040 --> 00:17:05,960 Speaker 2: ultimate ruling. 276 00:17:08,720 --> 00:17:11,679 Speaker 1: This is the big take from Bloomberg News. I'm Sarah Holder. 277 00:17:12,080 --> 00:17:14,920 Speaker 1: The show is hosted by Me, David gera Wan Ha 278 00:17:15,240 --> 00:17:18,560 Speaker 1: and Seleiah Mosen. The show is made by Aaron Edwards, 279 00:17:18,680 --> 00:17:23,080 Speaker 1: David Fox, Eleanor Harrison Dengate, Patti hirsh Rachel Lewis, Chrisky, 280 00:17:23,320 --> 00:17:28,480 Speaker 1: Naomi In, Julia Press, Tracy Samuelson, Naomi Shaven, Alex Suguiera, 281 00:17:28,960 --> 00:17:32,679 Speaker 1: Julia Weaver and Taka Yasuzawa. To get more from the 282 00:17:32,680 --> 00:17:35,960 Speaker 1: Big Take and unlimited access to all of Bloomberg dot com, 283 00:17:36,000 --> 00:17:40,800 Speaker 1: subscribe today at Bloomberg dot com Slash Podcast offer. Thanks 284 00:17:40,800 --> 00:17:42,560 Speaker 1: for listening. We'll be back on Monday.