Speaker 1: Welcome to Votes and Verdicts, hosted by the Litigation and
Speaker 1: Policy team at Bloomberg Intelligence, the investment research arm of
Speaker 1: Bloomberg LP. This podcast series examines the intersection of business
Speaker 1: policy and the law. I'm justinterreesa antitrust litigation and policy
Speaker 1: analyst here at BI, and I'm.
Speaker 2: Holly Frome, VI litigation analyst.
Speaker 1: Before we jump into today's episode, just a quick word
Speaker 1: about Bloomberg Intelligence. As I said, we're the investment research
Speaker 1: platform on the Bloomberg terminal, with five hundred analysts and
Speaker 1: strategists working across the globe and focused on all major markets.
Speaker 1: Our coverage includes over two thousand equities and credits, and
Speaker 1: we have outlooks on more than ninety industries and one
Speaker 1: hundred market indices, currencies and commodities. So in many circles
Speaker 1: our guests today really needs no introduction, and that's increasingly
Speaker 1: increasingly the case nationwide, well beyond the borders of her
Speaker 1: home state Arizona. Arizona Attorney General Chris Mays took office
Speaker 1: in January twenty twenty three, and as we'll talk about today,
Speaker 1: has been on the front and center on every corner
Speaker 1: of the law affecting the public interests, since this follows
Speaker 1: a long career both in journalism and prior public service
Speaker 1: as a commissioner at the Arizona Corporation Commission, also making headlines.
Speaker 1: May's left the Republican Party in twenty nineteen and became
Speaker 1: a Democrat. But there's probably nobody better to tell the
Speaker 1: AG story than the AG herself. So without further ado,
Speaker 1: I'm so glad to introduce today's guests at Arizona Attorney
Speaker 1: General Chris Mays AG. May's welcome to Votes and Verdicts.
Speaker 3: Good morning.
Speaker 1: It's great to be with you, justin absolutely so. It
Speaker 1: is so excited to have you today. I have to
Speaker 1: tell you, at the top of a little bit starstruck,
Speaker 1: my parents actually live in Tucson, so you're a bit
Speaker 1: of a celebrity in their house. Whenever I go out there,
Speaker 1: they're very political. Love they're MSNBC, and I have to say,
Speaker 1: every time I set foot in the house, they're gushing
Speaker 1: about all of the different things that you're evolved with
Speaker 1: right now in your office. So just to frame the
Speaker 1: conversation with that at the start.
Speaker 3: Tell them thank you and hope to see them sometime
Speaker 3: down at p mccunny.
Speaker 1: Absolutely absolutely, So kind of a threshold question, we ask
Speaker 1: all of our guests what brought you to where you
Speaker 1: are today, What really I think motivated you to become
Speaker 1: the AG in Arizona, and what's the path you kind
Speaker 1: of took to get there.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, as you mentioned, I've had a windy,
Speaker 3: interesting and sometimes weird paths to public service, and in
Speaker 3: public service, it's been a fascinating life. I started in journalism,
Speaker 3: ended up working as ben governor of Politano's press secretary.
Speaker 3: She pointed me to Arizona's Public Utilities Commission, where I
Speaker 3: spent seven and a half years regulating our monopoly utilities
Speaker 3: are right utilities, and that's kind of where my interest
Speaker 3: at protecting consumers and in antitrust law started in regulating monopolies.
Speaker 3: Then went on to become a professor of energy lot
Speaker 3: a ISSU and in you know, twenty twenty one ish,
Speaker 3: and in twenty twenty two, I decided to run for
Speaker 3: Attorney general. We obviously had seen the January sixth insurrection happened.
Speaker 3: I was really worried about our democracy, so I decided
Speaker 3: to leave the private sector and go back into politics,
Speaker 3: and ended up winning my AG race by two hundred
Speaker 3: and eighty votes. It was the closest statewide race in
Speaker 3: Arizona history.
Speaker 1: So yeah, yes, so close. It really a side at
Speaker 1: the times I feel like about where we are politically too,
Speaker 1: not just because I don't know a nationwide yeah exactly.
Speaker 1: So I think, you know, kind of kind of piggybacking
Speaker 1: what you said there about January sixth and the motivations
Speaker 1: there from Bronning. It seems like with the change of
Speaker 1: presidential administrations this month, you know, we've seen kind of
Speaker 1: a political shift in priorities in DC and just generally speaking,
Speaker 1: how do you see those changes? They are changing your
Speaker 1: role as AG in Arizona or or I guess the
Speaker 1: roles of ags nationwide.
Speaker 3: Well, and you know, it is interesting. It's it has
Speaker 3: added a layer onto uh, you know, our jobs and
Speaker 3: and you know, I think, you know, protecting and upholding
Speaker 3: the constitution and the rule of law is has always
Speaker 3: been important to attorneys general, but that has just gotten
Speaker 3: even more important now as we see these multiple efforts
Speaker 3: already by the Trump administration to shred constitution, ignore do process.
Speaker 3: We're going to fight back against that. We can talk
Speaker 3: more about that, but you know, our role in my
Speaker 3: role as AG is generally the same. It's holding federal
Speaker 3: government in addition to large corporations and other institutions, accountable
Speaker 3: for following the law and upholding the US, the US
Speaker 3: and Arizona constitution, you know, enforcing antitrust law, which I
Speaker 3: think we're going to talk about, Yeah, making sure that
Speaker 3: we protect consumers. I guess what I see is a
Speaker 3: growing and in some ways menacing consolidation of corporate power
Speaker 3: that definitely forms consumers in Arizona, whether it's renters or
Speaker 3: folks going to the grocery store. That is a huge
Speaker 3: focus of my efforts here as AG and Arizona.
Speaker 1: Right, right, And I think you touched a little bit
Speaker 1: about on this already, but you know, if you could
Speaker 1: talk a little bit more about just antitrust generally and
Speaker 1: how you see a state AG kind of playing a
Speaker 1: role in using those laws to benefit the public interest.
Speaker 1: You know that when something might not be you know,
Speaker 1: happening that you think needs to at the federal level.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So, you know, it's really interesting not not not
Speaker 3: everybody knows that that most states have their own antitrust laws.
Speaker 3: I think not every state does, but right or it
Speaker 3: certainly does have what's called the uniform antitrust law or
Speaker 3: Anti Trust Act. We also have consumer fraud laws that
Speaker 3: allow us to attack, uh, you know, the consolidation of
Speaker 3: corporate power when it harms consumers and when it becomes
Speaker 3: deceptive or unfair. So our consumer law consumer fraud laws
Speaker 3: prevent unfair practices. And so we've been using those anti
Speaker 3: trust laws, sometimes on our own, but also sometimes in
Speaker 3: tandem and in partnership with the FTC, especially under Lena Khan. Sure,
Speaker 3: and you know, we can we talk about those cases,
Speaker 3: the Real Page cases of a real time example of that,
Speaker 3: where we sued a company called real Page which was
Speaker 3: using an algorithm to collude with nine major landlords in
Speaker 3: Arizona and to you know, to set prices for rent
Speaker 3: artificially high. They were using this algorithm to invite these
Speaker 3: corporate landlords to input which should have been proprietary competitive
Speaker 3: data into their algorithm, and the algorithm spat out a
Speaker 3: price for all of them to set in you know,
Speaker 3: at their apartment complexes in Arizona. And what result, what
Speaker 3: was the result was that they all set the same price,
Speaker 3: which was artificially high. And I called it the old
Speaker 3: fashioned price fixing using new technology. So we sued them.
Speaker 3: We were the first state ag other than the District
Speaker 3: of Columbia to sue Real Page for that collusion. And
Speaker 3: and that you know, that collusion we allege has had
Speaker 3: a tremendously deleterious impact, tremendously you know, a really awful
Speaker 3: impact on renters in Arizona. The price rent is skyrocketed
Speaker 3: seventy six percent. It's twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: Right, Wow, Wow, that's a sounding. Yeah. Absolutely, it's really bad.
Speaker 3: And you know, more than seventy percent of the apartment
Speaker 3: complexes in that Phoenix are controlled by Real Page and
Speaker 3: more than fifty percent in Tucson are controlled by Real
Speaker 3: Page or one of Real Page as colluders. And that
Speaker 3: means that you know a majority of renters in each
Speaker 3: of those major cities in Arizona have been the victims
Speaker 3: of corporate collusion. And that's not okay, We're going to
Speaker 3: fight it. It has been one of the most that
Speaker 3: is I think the lawsuit that I that I filed
Speaker 3: as aging that it's resonated the most with Arizona's I
Speaker 3: hear about it everywhere I know people talk I do.
Speaker 1: To you from my parents.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, it's definitely hit home as they say, actually where
Speaker 3: home is an apartment complex.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, it's it's interesting you see that. And
Speaker 1: you know, obviously the statistics you're throwing around too with
Speaker 1: regard to the market share in Phoenix and Tucson where
Speaker 1: where the algorithm is being deployed. You it certainly isn't
Speaker 1: this kind of pie in the sky kind of concept.
Speaker 1: It does sound like it's having this resonation with everyday Arizona.
Speaker 1: And so, you know, can you talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about what the reception has been from folks on the
Speaker 1: campaign trail or constituents or whenever you're you're talking with folks,
Speaker 1: you know, what's the reaction you've kind of gotten from
Speaker 1: folks in recent months over the suit. You know, the.
Speaker 3: Reaction has been really strong and and people are grateful.
Speaker 3: Everywhere I go, this is this is the thing they
Speaker 3: bring up with me, and they thank me in our
Speaker 3: office for for bringing this lawsuit. I am told that
Speaker 3: during the last election cycle, when volunteers would go to
Speaker 3: doors and knock on doors, people would voluntarily bring up
Speaker 3: this lawsuit and say to the to the folks who
Speaker 3: are knocking on doors campaigning, oh do you do you
Speaker 3: know about Chris Mases. Are you here to campaign for
Speaker 3: Chris Mays because you really like that lawsuit that she
Speaker 3: and I'm not once en up on the on the
Speaker 3: ballot in four, but it's resonated so much that you know,
Speaker 3: it's the thing people are bringing up.
Speaker 1: And you might have found something we could all agree on.
Speaker 1: It seems like from the historia telling for sure.
Speaker 3: And that's Republicans and Democrats and independ it's because we're
Speaker 3: all they're all renters, I mean renters, you know, span
Speaker 3: the political landscape right and the economic landscape. I will say,
Speaker 3: I think it's you know, young people are probably hit
Speaker 3: really hard by this because oftentimes it's young people are
Speaker 3: living in apartment complexes. And we certainly see that people
Speaker 3: in their twenties and people in their thirties who here
Speaker 3: in Arizona can't afford to buy a house because it's
Speaker 3: so hard to buy a house anymore. And so that
Speaker 3: this is just I think exacerbated and already difficult housing
Speaker 3: landscape and made affordability in housing even worse. And so
Speaker 3: we're going to continue to prosecute this case, and we're
Speaker 3: going to do other cases like it.
Speaker 1: Got it, got it, and you interestingly too, the way
Speaker 1: you brought this case. You know, we saw the DOJ
Speaker 1: they added some landlords to their against real page earlier
Speaker 1: on this in January. But you know, I know landlords,
Speaker 1: they've been included in your lawsuit from the very start.
Speaker 1: And I'm just wondering if you view your litigation in
Speaker 1: Arizona as different from DOJ's, And you know, why do
Speaker 1: you think it's important for Arizona to have its own
Speaker 1: case when there's this federal action that's out there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and we filed before the DOJ did, and absolutely
Speaker 3: we included those nine major landlords because they were they
Speaker 3: were colluders, they were to the scheme, and so we
Speaker 3: felt like it was important to hold them accountable. They
Speaker 3: knew what they were doing, they knew what the software
Speaker 3: package was doing. They were being told, and the people
Speaker 3: who who rented apartments in those buildings were being told,
Speaker 3: do not deviate from this price, don't go down on
Speaker 3: the price. You know, it got so bad that, you know,
Speaker 3: here in Phoenix, when you look around the landscape and
Speaker 3: I'm looking around at the buildings here around mind, you
Speaker 3: look in some of the buildings, some of them are
Speaker 3: half empty. But these landlords don't care because as long
Speaker 3: as they can keep ratcheting up the price on the
Speaker 3: people who are in the buildings, they still keep increasing
Speaker 3: their profits, which is just outrageous when you also have
Speaker 3: a housing problem.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, definitely wide.
Speaker 3: Yeah yeah, I mean so many people moving to Arizona
Speaker 3: who need housing, and yet these landlords have figured out
Speaker 3: through this algorithm that they can just keep making a profit,
Speaker 3: not by competing, which is how it used to be done. Right,
Speaker 3: if you were a landlord in one building, and you
Speaker 3: had one building and the guy next door to you
Speaker 3: was also renting, you would compete with that person on price, right,
Speaker 3: you would lower your price so that you could attract
Speaker 3: renters into your building. Well, now that when you've got
Speaker 3: real page and you've got this algorithm, that doesn't matter anymore.
Speaker 3: You can just you know, keep colluding with your fellow
Speaker 3: landlords to raise the rent. And that that's uh what
Speaker 3: why we thought it was so important to include those landlords.
Speaker 3: And then with regard to d o J, I would
Speaker 3: just say this, I I definitely hope that Attorney General
Speaker 3: Bondi continues the lawsuit, right, and uh, you know, we
Speaker 3: we we urge her to not drop this loss and
Speaker 3: we think it's important. There are other states that that
Speaker 3: did join the do o JA. We obviously filed our
Speaker 3: lawsuit in state court out here in Arizona, but there
Speaker 3: this is a bipartisan group of states UH that have
Speaker 3: joined the Attorney General and d o j UH in
Speaker 3: that lawsuit.
Speaker 1: So yeah, of states there, yeah, yeah, I mean.
Speaker 3: Obviously ours will go forward. We're not going to stop
Speaker 3: out here in Arizona. But I think it's important for
Speaker 3: DJ to to really keep planting that flag and move
Speaker 3: forward with that case with that bipartisan group of states.
Speaker 1: Makes sense, And you know, I think it's interesting too.
Speaker 1: I think, you know, the the proposition of the algorithmics software.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of folks who've been looking at
Speaker 1: the litigation that kind of take this view of it's saying, hey,
Speaker 1: is this a situation where the law needs to catch
Speaker 1: up with technology or really does the law as it
Speaker 1: exists in compass actually what's happening already? Right, So you know,
Speaker 1: it sounds like your view and that of DJ really
Speaker 1: has been that you know, this is this is price fixing.
Speaker 1: It is a conspiracy, even though it might be happening
Speaker 1: a bit differently than we're used to you know, with
Speaker 1: a smoke filled room or or you know, a handshake,
Speaker 1: you know, outside of a convention or something like that. Right,
Speaker 1: but exactly it is, it is.
Speaker 3: It is really textbook price fixing. It's just using new technology.
Speaker 3: It's you know, it's precisely what these laws. Interestingly enough,
Speaker 3: it's precisely what these anti trust laws were written to prevent.
Speaker 1: Right right. Well, I think kind of switching gears a
Speaker 1: little bit here too. I think going back a bit
Speaker 1: too to what you would express when we were kind
Speaker 1: of kind of coming in about the consolidation of corporate power.
Speaker 1: You know. Another other big example of things your office
Speaker 1: has been involved with lately was your recent work around
Speaker 1: blocking that Kroeger Albertson's mega merger in the grocery space. First, congratulations,
Speaker 1: this is a huge antitrust way on the merger side.
Speaker 1: But if you could talk a little bit about why
Speaker 1: you wanted to be involved in that particular case and
Speaker 1: your work around stopping that deal, I think that'd be
Speaker 1: really really interesting for our listeners as well.
Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you so much. It was a huge win
Speaker 3: for consumers all throughout this country and and in Arizona,
Speaker 3: and we we blocked the Kroger Albertson's murder from moving forward,
Speaker 3: we had we had joined the f TC. That was
Speaker 3: another one where the FDC played a really pivotal role
Speaker 3: and I hope they will continue to do that even
Speaker 3: though they don't have Lena Kahn anymore. But they need
Speaker 3: to continue that role. And we sued and stopped the merger.
Speaker 3: The guy traveled all over Arizona, through out Arizona, especially
Speaker 3: rural Arizona places like Kingman, Sholo, Sierra Vista, and almost uniformally,
Speaker 3: Arizonans were opposed to this merger because they knew that
Speaker 3: the price of groceries is already too high. We've experienced
Speaker 3: really severe inflation, just like every other state. And Arizonans
Speaker 3: are really smart people, and we know that when you
Speaker 3: allow this level of consolidation in the grocery industry, and
Speaker 3: you allow yet another mega entity to dominate the grocery space,
Speaker 3: prices are likely to go up. All certainly would go up.
Speaker 3: Layoffs would happen. You know, these were two Kroger and
Speaker 3: Albertson's which out here, Safeway and Fries.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, absolutely, but my parents love fries. I hear you.
Speaker 3: They shop at Fries. I shop a Safeway. So you know,
Speaker 3: these are these two companies were two of the largest
Speaker 3: seven of the two of the seven largest companies employers
Speaker 3: in Arizona, right right. And so what we heard, especially
Speaker 3: in rural communities is and in our cities like Tucson,
Speaker 3: was we're really worried they we're gonna this is gonna
Speaker 3: they're gonna lay people off. In rural Arizona, sometimes these
Speaker 3: grocery stores are literally the economic engine of the town.
Speaker 3: They are the anchors of a shopping center, and they
Speaker 3: employ people, and they're the economic center town people. We
Speaker 3: heard from military members who were worried because they believed
Speaker 3: one of the companies was not going to honor their
Speaker 3: health insurance and their prescription drug insurance service and or
Speaker 3: cards prescription drug cards. And then we also heard concerns
Speaker 3: about the creation of additional not only food deserts, but
Speaker 3: also pharmacy deserts and errors.
Speaker 1: Interesting.
Speaker 3: Interesting, as these corporate conglomerations have have happened, we see
Speaker 3: fewer and fewer independent pharmacies in rural Arizona as well.
Speaker 1: And absolutely another huge added trust issue, right half with
Speaker 1: you with action by the FTC. That's right, that's right. Yeah, yes,
Speaker 1: So so so much more than groceries obviously, which with
Speaker 1: that particular merger there too, and you know, so kind
Speaker 1: of turning the page, look turning the wheel a little
Speaker 1: bit here, you know, speaking of state ags bringing cases,
Speaker 1: you know, you know, we recently saw a suit by
Speaker 1: Texas Attorney General Ken packs In against investment firms like
Speaker 1: Black Rock and State Street, alleging that there was a
Speaker 1: legal anti trust collusion between the banks because they participate
Speaker 1: in climate climate change accords like the net zero initiative.
Speaker 1: What do you think about that? And what do you
Speaker 1: think what do you think might be in store here
Speaker 1: for an era where we see anti trust perhaps use
Speaker 1: you know, in kind of a way that that that's
Speaker 1: akin to weaponization looking at an environmental or ESG policies
Speaker 1: that some corporate actors might have entered into.
Speaker 3: Well, I must say, justin as a former Republican, I
Speaker 3: don't know what has happened to my former party, because
Speaker 3: it used to be that Republicans believed the government didn't
Speaker 3: have any place telling corporations how they should run their businesses.
Speaker 1: Especially That's what I was always told too.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's necessary with regard to corporate governance.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was the one on one back in American
Speaker 1: government many many many years ago for me. But anyway,
Speaker 1: go on.
Speaker 3: No, I feel like I feel like we're in this
Speaker 3: you know, the the the upside down and the stranger things.
Speaker 3: You know, It's like, what side down world are we in? Here?
Speaker 3: Wherever Bolicans think that it's okay to dictate to businesses
Speaker 3: how they should you know, run their their businesses. You know,
Speaker 3: if you know, if if Walmart wants to put solar
Speaker 3: panels on their rooftops and save money for them and
Speaker 3: their consumers, I don't have a problem with that. What
Speaker 3: I do have a problem with that would be an
Speaker 3: ESG policy.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: What I do have a problem with is government telling businesses,
Speaker 3: whether small or large, that they can't do ESG, that
Speaker 3: they can't improve their governance policies. And so that's why
Speaker 3: I one of the first things that I did when
Speaker 3: I took office as Attorney General of Arizona is I
Speaker 3: got us out. I withdrew us from a highly politicized
Speaker 3: investigation that my predecessor had had plunged Arizona into against
Speaker 3: you know, banks that you know and mate firms that
Speaker 3: were you know, and they were alleging or you know,
Speaker 3: participating in this kind of collision. Yes, it's totally an
Speaker 3: improper use of antitrust law and it's not something we're
Speaker 3: going to do out here.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, definitely, So obviously, so much happening at the
Speaker 1: States right now, maybe both good and bad from an
Speaker 1: anti trust perspective, but you know, I think certainly things
Speaker 1: will be keeping our eye on, you know, for the
Speaker 1: next four years and beyond. But you know, I'll head
Speaker 1: it over and now to my colleague Holly from who's
Speaker 1: really been knee deep in these Forever Chemicals litigations, and
Speaker 1: I know your office has also been super busy with those,
Speaker 1: So Hollie, if you want to jump in here and
Speaker 1: Forever chemicals.
Speaker 2: Thanks, justin yep. So, we've been hearing a lot about
Speaker 2: Forever Chemicals or peep Pass chemicals, and it's an issue
Speaker 2: of that affects most Americans. Pep as A chemicals linked
Speaker 2: to certain adverse health effects that have been found in
Speaker 2: the drinking water of tens of millions of Americans, and
Speaker 2: litigation against historic manufacturers and other manufacturers is whining. It's
Speaker 2: tough the courts. I know your office has been at
Speaker 2: the forefront of this litigation. Arizona file the lawsuit against
Speaker 2: various firefighting foam or a triple F manufacturers, alleging peak
Speaker 2: Fast causes caused contamination across the state. Over twenty states
Speaker 2: at filed blows suaits, but a lot have not. What's
Speaker 2: this lawsuit about? And why did Arizona decided file? Yeah?
Speaker 3: Thanks? So this is we think this is one of
Speaker 3: our most important lawsuits, certainly in the environmental sphere. But
Speaker 3: you know, as you mentioned, we have joined the group
Speaker 3: of states that have filed lawsuits against the manufacturers of
Speaker 3: of you know, products that contained p fast and the
Speaker 3: chemical companies that make the chemical, the p fast chemical.
Speaker 3: Those defendants include three M and DuPont, among others, you know.
Speaker 3: And our our allegation is that these companies have known
Speaker 3: for decades that these so called forever chemicals, which is
Speaker 3: pete bass would contaminate water supplies. They did here in
Speaker 3: Arizona and in elsewhere and elsewhere for generations to come,
Speaker 3: but they chose to sell those products anyway, and they
Speaker 3: didn't tell anybody that they knew these these things that
Speaker 3: were dangerous, and they uh the failure by the pullugeters
Speaker 3: to inform state regulators about those risks associated with the
Speaker 3: chemicals has harmed our environment and the health of Arizonas
Speaker 3: and we think they have to be held accountable. I mean,
Speaker 3: these these compounds have been used in various industrial and
Speaker 3: consumer products. They contamorated the environment. You know when you
Speaker 3: they also have harmed firefighters. I will say, when you
Speaker 3: talk to any firefighter in Arizona, they will talk to
Speaker 3: you about the elevated levels of cancer that they have experienced,
Speaker 3: including testicular cancer, because they're the ones who are around
Speaker 3: this firefighting foam the most. But it's also made its
Speaker 3: way near airports and near fire stations and elsewhere into
Speaker 3: our drinking water supplies. So we joined those other states
Speaker 3: and hundreds of cities across the United States that have
Speaker 3: filed similar lawsuits seeking basically damages to pay for the
Speaker 3: costs of removing pfasts from our drinking water supplies and
Speaker 3: otherwise remediate p fast contamination. Otherwise, if we didn't file
Speaker 3: this lawsuit, and I don't know why other states, any
Speaker 3: other states have it filed, but otherwise it's going to
Speaker 3: be up to the cities or individuals, and obviously individuals
Speaker 3: aren't going to have the money to pay for this remediation,
Speaker 3: and we think it's these companies who should be held accountable.
Speaker 2: That's such a good point. I mean, the manuitude, the
Speaker 2: scale of impact is sort of hard to believe. We've
Speaker 2: heard a lot about p fass contamination at Datas month
Speaker 2: And Air Force Base in Tucson. Two. What are your
Speaker 2: thoughts on how that the state might handle raminiation there?
Speaker 2: It might that be a roadmap for cleanup across Arizona,
Speaker 2: maybe even nationwide.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, it's an interesting situation at Davis Montham
Speaker 3: as well. And you know, as far back as the
Speaker 3: nineteen seventies, the DoD studies showed that the firefighting foam
Speaker 3: used there containing Pefast was toxic, and Tucson officials and
Speaker 3: had said that the contamination has for you know, near
Speaker 3: the base or from the base, has forced the closure
Speaker 3: of almost thirty wells. The city of Tucson, justin you know,
Speaker 3: where your folks live, has spent more than seventy one
Speaker 3: million dollars already on remediation costs.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, you know, it's it's really staggering and and
Speaker 3: and in my mind, and that's just one area of
Speaker 3: peed Fast contamination. And in my mind, the the Department
Speaker 3: of Defense and the federal government really need to step
Speaker 3: up and pay the city back for what they've already
Speaker 3: spent on this, and you know, they continue to pay
Speaker 3: whatever it costs or fully remediate the problems. So you know,
Speaker 3: I just encouraged the federal government to really step up
Speaker 3: and help the city.
Speaker 2: So we know on the trials, some pee fasts or
Speaker 2: a triple f manufacturers, the ones that you mentioned like
Speaker 2: three Aunt deepiment Camors, the historic manufacturers settled in class
Speaker 2: action deals with water authorities, Title and BASS also settled
Speaker 2: with what are authorities is and and the water authorities
Speaker 2: just by way of background, haads suit or costs to
Speaker 2: remediate their water that was contaminated. Is there anything that
Speaker 2: can be taken away from these settlements? Yeah?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think the biggest takeaway from those initial settlements
Speaker 3: in this sort of cluster of lawsuits is that lawsuits work.
Speaker 3: When states and communities push back on these companies that
Speaker 3: have done harm to our communities, we can hold them
Speaker 3: accountable and the courts are responsive. We are holding them
Speaker 3: accountable under the law, and our office is going to
Speaker 3: continue fighting to make sure that Arizonas aren't left paying
Speaker 3: the price for corporate pollution, and that's really what the
Speaker 3: pfast lawsuit is all about. And I think it's particular
Speaker 3: this case is one of those cases that it's just
Speaker 3: particularly egregious and particularly important for state ags to go
Speaker 3: after because of the knowledge that these companies has had
Speaker 3: about the toxicity and the carcinogenic nature of what they
Speaker 3: were putting out there and how much money they made
Speaker 3: on these products without telling the American people that they
Speaker 3: were going to end up killing us in some cases
Speaker 3: and so or or or are giving us, uh, you know,
Speaker 3: cancer and forcing us to deal with that. And and
Speaker 3: so it's just incredibly important to make sure that we
Speaker 3: hold these companies accountable and make them paid for the remediation.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: So that brings me to my next question. Because the
Speaker 2: EPA passed rules in April last year designating and piklas
Speaker 2: hazardous under circlar or the Super Fun Law. It's also
Speaker 2: called the known as the Federal Super Fun Law and
Speaker 2: setting maximum containment levels and drinking water. The rules have
Speaker 2: been challenged in court and somehow suggested the Trump administration
Speaker 2: may not defend them or may scale them back. If
Speaker 2: EPA rules our skilled back, do you anticipate Arizona may
Speaker 2: set its own PEA FAST standards for drinking water and groundwater.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and that's really scary to us.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 3: I think Donald Trump has already taken steps to undermine
Speaker 3: them proposed limits on p P fast and and uh,
Speaker 3: you know, the EPA and her President Biden had proposed
Speaker 3: limits on p FAST discharges, for instance, in industrial wastewater.
Speaker 3: The Trump administration rescinded that proposal as part of a
Speaker 3: freeze on federal regulation pass and his flurry of executive orders,
Speaker 3: and that left the states to address p FAST and
Speaker 3: pfo A in position individually, you know. And I think
Speaker 3: that it's really not clear yet with the new EPA
Speaker 3: director is going to do overall Lee Zelden. But I
Speaker 3: would say to Lee Zelden, the last thing that you
Speaker 3: need to do or you should be doing, is making
Speaker 3: it harder to keep these pollutants out of our groundwater
Speaker 3: supplies and harder to protect Arizonans and Americans from from
Speaker 3: this kind of pollution. So I would just hope that
Speaker 3: he doesn't pull back on that to rule making, and
Speaker 3: we will continue to push him to keep going. And
Speaker 3: certainly we will work with our governor here in Arizona
Speaker 3: and our ADEQ, our Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to
Speaker 3: hopefully step into the breach if we if.
Speaker 2: We have to, right, it would be interesting to see
Speaker 2: what happens.
Speaker 1: Yeah, just wow, so much going on on these two
Speaker 1: separate areas here, we're looking at that trust and the
Speaker 1: Forever Chemicals lidication and even then just scratching the surface.
Speaker 1: I know I could talk to you all day long,
Speaker 1: age you may, but I know you don't have all days,
Speaker 1: So no worries there. Just want to give you an opportunity,
Speaker 1: you know, if there's anything more you want to add
Speaker 1: before we wrap up, you know, anything you might you
Speaker 1: might have to say about your role evolving the next
Speaker 1: few years, or emerging issues we should watch out for Arizona,
Speaker 1: or you know, anything else you might be working on
Speaker 1: it you want to highlight while we talk.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I appreciate that, you know. I look, I would
Speaker 3: just urge the incoming Trump administration to continue the DOJ's
Speaker 3: lawsuits against monopolies like Amazon or their own the lawsuit
Speaker 3: against Real Page. You know, we didn't get a chance
Speaker 3: to talk about Amazon, but there are real concerns with
Speaker 3: that company as well. We have our own lawsuit the Amazon.
Speaker 3: You know again, I think protecting renters from exploitation should
Speaker 3: be a bipartisan priority. Doesn't matter whether you're a Republican
Speaker 3: or a Democrat in office, all of your constituents are
Speaker 3: affected by that exploitation. And I just really get the
Speaker 3: sense out there that that Republicans in this is one
Speaker 3: area that we all can agree on.
Speaker 1: There's gotta be something.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think antitrust is the thing that might bring
Speaker 3: us together as a country. Let's focus and because it's
Speaker 3: certainly something that I find Republicans and Democrats all agree on,
Speaker 3: and so I want that I want Donald Trump to
Speaker 3: to to maintain that focus. You actually, you know, UH
Speaker 3: did have some focus on on anti trust when he
Speaker 3: was president the first time around. I certainly hope to
Speaker 3: see that continue. And as Attorney General here I can
Speaker 3: say we are going to really really focus on algorithmic
Speaker 3: price fixing schemes wherever they occur in our economy. So
Speaker 3: I will tell you that we're looking in other areas
Speaker 3: where these algorithms may be used against consumers. And then
Speaker 3: and then we're also looking at consolidation and very concerned
Speaker 3: about the roll ups being done by private equity firms
Speaker 3: and hedge funds in various industries that are that are
Speaker 3: definitely impacting consumers in a negative way by creating too
Speaker 3: much consolidation in our marketplaces.
Speaker 1: Fascinating. Yeah, and it's interesting you say that too about
Speaker 1: these algorithms and their application and other sectors too. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know there's stuff in those cases with with hotel
Speaker 1: rooms that are out there right now, but I have
Speaker 1: to imagine that this really goes so far beyond just
Speaker 1: apartments and hotel rooms and all of those particular markets too.
Speaker 1: So I think you're you're you're spot on. I think
Speaker 1: I'm calling an emerging issue here that we're going to
Speaker 1: see roll out in the coming years as well. So
Speaker 1: it's super interesting there there, for sure.
Speaker 3: For sure, absolutely watch this space. It's definitely an area
Speaker 3: that deserves to be focused on by regulators and by ags.
Speaker 3: And you know, at the end of the day, it's
Speaker 3: about protecting consumers and making sure that this is any
Speaker 3: that our marketplaces are fair, that we number one, we
Speaker 3: have free markets and number two that consumers get a
Speaker 3: fair deal and it's a fair fight.
Speaker 1: Great. Great, And yeah, if you would have told me
Speaker 1: twenty years ago that anti trust would have been the
Speaker 1: thing to unite the nation. I probably would have said,
Speaker 1: you're crazy that we might be headed headed in that
Speaker 1: direction right now? Exactly? All right? Well, such a facting conversation,
Speaker 1: and without question, I know we'll be seeing a lot
Speaker 1: of activity coming out of your office on these issues
Speaker 1: and so many more as time goes on. We really
Speaker 1: appreciate you taking the time to discuss them with us
Speaker 1: here today. Thanks again for joining.
Speaker 3: Us, Thank you justin, thank you Holly, and always.
Speaker 1: Thank you to you the listener for tuning in. As
Speaker 1: a reminder, you can read all of our Bloomberg intelligence
Speaker 1: research on the Bloomberg terminal at bi go. And with that,
Speaker 1: I'm justin thereesy. And this was votes and Verdicts