WEBVTT - Trump Administration Flouting Judges' Orders & Meta Trial 0:00:02.880 --> 0:00:07.120 This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosse from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:10.600 --> 0:00:15.600 The Trump administration is not following all court orders, and 0:00:15.640 --> 0:00:19.439 that's according to federal judges. The judges are fielding more 0:00:19.480 --> 0:00:23.400 requests to force the administration to comply with their rulings 0:00:23.440 --> 0:00:27.960 against the federal government than in any other administration, including 0:00:28.000 --> 0:00:32.519 the first Trump administration. One of the earliest cases was 0:00:32.560 --> 0:00:36.000 when the Chief DC Judge in March of twenty twenty 0:00:36.040 --> 0:00:40.839 five ordered the administration to turn back planes flying Venezuelan 0:00:40.960 --> 0:00:44.720 migrants to a prison in El Salvador, and the administration 0:00:44.880 --> 0:00:48.120 failed to do so. Now, a study by Bloomberg Lawn 0:00:48.280 --> 0:00:52.000 shows that judges have found the administration has failed to 0:00:52.080 --> 0:00:55.320 comply with their orders in more than half of the 0:00:55.400 --> 0:01:01.400 twenty five cases identified regarding preliminary injunction. Joining me is 0:01:01.400 --> 0:01:05.560 Bloomberg Law reporter Suzanne Monnac, who's done the research and 0:01:05.760 --> 0:01:09.920 crunched the numbers. Normally, a judge issues and order and 0:01:09.959 --> 0:01:13.560 the parties comply with the order. What's been happening in 0:01:13.640 --> 0:01:18.640 several cases with orders issued against the federal government. 0:01:19.280 --> 0:01:22.320 We've seen some recent examples where the Trump administration has 0:01:22.400 --> 0:01:25.040 been at least accused of and in some cases found 0:01:25.040 --> 0:01:28.640 of not fully complying with these court orders. Attract two 0:01:28.760 --> 0:01:32.560 dozen examples at least of times when initial preliminary injunction 0:01:32.720 --> 0:01:35.880 orders issued early in a case were not fully followed, 0:01:35.920 --> 0:01:38.240 or at least the challengers alleged that they were not 0:01:38.280 --> 0:01:39.680 being fully followed by the government. 0:01:39.920 --> 0:01:41.880 Under this administration alone. 0:01:41.600 --> 0:01:43.880 What kind of cases are we talking about? 0:01:44.400 --> 0:01:46.480 All different types of cases against the government. 0:01:46.520 --> 0:01:49.880 We've seen them in big cases of our usaid funding cuts, 0:01:50.200 --> 0:01:54.360 the dismantling of international broadcaster Voice of America, other big 0:01:54.400 --> 0:01:58.040 cases across the country where there were early preliminary injunction 0:01:58.240 --> 0:02:01.960 orders granted against the administration telling them to stop doing something, 0:02:02.400 --> 0:02:04.480 and then we saw the challengers come back into court 0:02:04.520 --> 0:02:07.520 and claim the administration wasn't fully following that order. And 0:02:07.560 --> 0:02:10.160 in about half of those twenty five instances, the judge agreed, 0:02:10.240 --> 0:02:10.960 at least in part. 0:02:11.560 --> 0:02:14.480 There was a scathing opinion by a Reagan appointee in 0:02:14.520 --> 0:02:18.200 the Voice of America case, and in another case, a 0:02:18.280 --> 0:02:22.880 senior DC federal judge said that the Defense Department's actions 0:02:23.280 --> 0:02:28.000 flout the court's explicit directives. So these federal judges are 0:02:28.040 --> 0:02:31.480 not beating around the bush. How upset are the judges 0:02:31.520 --> 0:02:35.120 about this failure to comply with their explicit. 0:02:34.720 --> 0:02:37.760 Orders in some cases pretty upset And obviously when it 0:02:37.840 --> 0:02:40.720 comes to judges, sometimes they're upset and they still write 0:02:40.760 --> 0:02:43.440 a pretty boring opinion, So it's hard to always know. 0:02:43.919 --> 0:02:45.880 But yes, as you mentioned in a couple of examples, 0:02:45.960 --> 0:02:48.200 the judges did in fact let us know that they 0:02:48.240 --> 0:02:51.120 weren't happy with the government's conduct. In that one instance 0:02:51.160 --> 0:02:54.400 you mentioned, Judge Lambert or Reagan appointee in DC, when 0:02:54.400 --> 0:02:56.880 he was handling the Voice of America case, said that 0:02:56.919 --> 0:02:59.200 he thought the government was quote in violation of even 0:02:59.200 --> 0:03:01.760 the most meager reading end quote of his court order. 0:03:02.080 --> 0:03:03.440 So definitely not pleased. 0:03:03.639 --> 0:03:05.799 We've also seen plenty of orders where the judge is 0:03:05.880 --> 0:03:07.519 kind of very matter of factuty as like, I don't 0:03:07.520 --> 0:03:09.800 see the government as having fully complied with this order. 0:03:10.120 --> 0:03:11.119 These are inconsistent. 0:03:11.480 --> 0:03:13.480 You know, you need to do this differently if you 0:03:13.520 --> 0:03:15.080 want to be in compliance with my order. 0:03:15.320 --> 0:03:18.000 A few judges wanted to take things further or did 0:03:18.040 --> 0:03:22.359 take things further. So in Minnesota you had the chief 0:03:22.480 --> 0:03:26.720 judge finding that Ice violated court orders in dozens of 0:03:26.720 --> 0:03:30.040 immigration cases. And then there was a federal judge who 0:03:30.120 --> 0:03:34.000 held a government lawyer in civil contempt, though that didn't 0:03:34.040 --> 0:03:35.760 last long. Tell us about that. 0:03:36.520 --> 0:03:38.800 Yes, in this story, I was tracking motions to enforce 0:03:38.840 --> 0:03:40.960 preliminary injunctions, but there have been a lot of different 0:03:40.960 --> 0:03:44.400 types of motions filed to force compliance with court orders 0:03:44.560 --> 0:03:47.520 against this administration. And in that one example you mentioned, 0:03:47.520 --> 0:03:50.480 we saw a Minnesota federal judge actually held a government 0:03:50.560 --> 0:03:54.600 lawyer briefly in civil contempt of court for not correctly 0:03:54.640 --> 0:03:58.080 facilitating the release of a detained immigrant. He was released 0:03:58.360 --> 0:04:00.400 in the wrong state without his property, and it came 0:04:00.440 --> 0:04:03.520 out that the lawyer hadn't forwarded the court's order to 0:04:03.720 --> 0:04:06.400 ICE on time, so there was just a full breakdown 0:04:06.400 --> 0:04:10.360 in communication. The lawyer actually did apologize and said, I've 0:04:10.400 --> 0:04:13.320 just been really overwhelmed. But the judge had ordered essentially 0:04:13.320 --> 0:04:16.839 a financial penalty for every day that the detained immigrant, 0:04:16.920 --> 0:04:19.600 you know, was not with his property, and the government 0:04:19.600 --> 0:04:22.400 did remedy it very quickly. I don't believe the government lawyer, 0:04:22.400 --> 0:04:25.080 who was acting in the capacity of representing ICE, did 0:04:25.120 --> 0:04:27.400 actually end up having to pay anything personally, but it 0:04:27.440 --> 0:04:30.440 was a pretty significant sanction to see against the government. 0:04:31.160 --> 0:04:36.360 So in these cases, the government is giving instructions about 0:04:36.440 --> 0:04:40.520 what the court said and what the agency supposed to do. 0:04:40.520 --> 0:04:42.359 Do you know, is it a lot of times that 0:04:42.440 --> 0:04:45.839 the government lawyers are screwing up or that the agency 0:04:46.160 --> 0:04:47.600 is just not complying. 0:04:48.440 --> 0:04:49.359 I think it's a mix. 0:04:49.760 --> 0:04:52.839 In the case I just mentioned in Minnesota, that was 0:04:52.839 --> 0:04:54.479 a case where there was definitely seemed to be an 0:04:54.520 --> 0:04:57.440 overwhelmed lawyer for the government who was dealing with a 0:04:57.480 --> 0:05:01.880 lot of these immigration detention challenges as cases. But certainly 0:05:02.040 --> 0:05:05.960 I think there may be instances where it is, you know, 0:05:06.040 --> 0:05:09.600 the agency, and we've seen the government actually, like in 0:05:09.640 --> 0:05:12.479 that Minnesota case, say like, look, we can't always be 0:05:12.560 --> 0:05:15.320 responsible for what the agency does. The Justice Department, of course, 0:05:15.360 --> 0:05:18.360 represents federal agencies in court, and so you know, that's 0:05:18.600 --> 0:05:20.919 really kind of an interesting question as we see some 0:05:20.960 --> 0:05:23.440 of these compliances issues come up in cases to what 0:05:23.520 --> 0:05:26.800 extent is the Justice Department responsible for a federal agency 0:05:26.920 --> 0:05:30.200 not fully following a court order or interpreting it too 0:05:30.279 --> 0:05:33.279 narrowly and you know, not fully complying in the full 0:05:33.320 --> 0:05:35.720 spirit of the order. I think that's an interesting question 0:05:35.760 --> 0:05:37.520 and one that we've seen come up already. 0:05:37.720 --> 0:05:40.919 One of the first and probably still most famous case 0:05:41.080 --> 0:05:46.200 is is where the chief judge in DC, Judge Boseburg, 0:05:46.560 --> 0:05:51.000 ordered the government when they were sending venezuel and immigrants 0:05:51.040 --> 0:05:54.680 to prisons in El Salvador, to turn the planes around, 0:05:54.960 --> 0:05:58.280 and they didn't, and he wanted to have a criminal 0:05:58.320 --> 0:05:59.640 contempt investigation. 0:06:00.080 --> 0:06:03.839 But what happened the DC Circuit ruled against him on 0:06:03.880 --> 0:06:08.040 that issue and blocked a hearing from being held. Proceedings 0:06:08.080 --> 0:06:10.240 are still pending on that issue. But yes, that was 0:06:10.240 --> 0:06:12.920 probably one of the most famous issues of court compliance 0:06:13.279 --> 0:06:15.640 that have happened in this administration, and happened so early 0:06:16.000 --> 0:06:18.560 kind of set the tone perhaps for some of the 0:06:18.600 --> 0:06:21.360 issues to come. And in that case, we were talking about 0:06:21.360 --> 0:06:23.960 criminal contempt, which is a different form of content than 0:06:24.000 --> 0:06:25.919 we were discussing with the Minnesota lawyer. 0:06:25.960 --> 0:06:28.239 That was civil contempt, so quite a bit more serious. 0:06:28.960 --> 0:06:32.440 I mean, particularly it's noticeable in the immigration cases to me. 0:06:32.920 --> 0:06:35.840 But is it a reflection of the Trump administration sort 0:06:35.839 --> 0:06:40.400 of flexing or trying to flex its executive power or 0:06:40.920 --> 0:06:41.880 is it something else? 0:06:42.880 --> 0:06:44.280 Certainly it depends who you ask. 0:06:45.360 --> 0:06:47.520 I think that it is fair to say that when 0:06:47.520 --> 0:06:51.720 we're seeing this many motions to force compliance of court orders, 0:06:52.000 --> 0:06:54.520 more motions to enforce preliminary orders, but also some of 0:06:54.520 --> 0:06:57.320 the other ones you've talked about, to compel compliance, to 0:06:57.760 --> 0:07:00.919 consider contempt. That does probably show that we're dealing with 0:07:00.960 --> 0:07:04.000 an executive branch that is, you know, maybe interpreting court 0:07:04.080 --> 0:07:06.880 orders in a new way or really you know, drawing 0:07:06.920 --> 0:07:09.440 more this litigation as well. It's also partly, you know, 0:07:09.480 --> 0:07:11.560 a bit of a numbers game. To be clear, the 0:07:11.600 --> 0:07:14.120 majority of cases we're not seeing these compliance orders. It 0:07:14.200 --> 0:07:15.800 is still a small share of them. It's just a 0:07:15.840 --> 0:07:19.120 significantly higher share than we've seen involving the government in 0:07:19.720 --> 0:07:23.200 administrations past. The Department of Justice did respond to our 0:07:23.240 --> 0:07:26.320 reporting and they blamed really more the planeffs, you know, 0:07:26.360 --> 0:07:28.720 they said, this is not a pattern of non compliance 0:07:28.720 --> 0:07:31.760 in our part, like our DOJ lawyers work closely with 0:07:31.800 --> 0:07:34.640 the agencies to make sure they're complying, and said that 0:07:34.720 --> 0:07:37.200 it's actually the plain IFFs, the court challengers who are 0:07:37.440 --> 0:07:40.520 trying to test or expand the scope of injunctions. So 0:07:40.560 --> 0:07:42.080 I think what we're also kind of seeing and not 0:07:42.160 --> 0:07:45.080 only is sort of this flexing of executive power, but 0:07:45.080 --> 0:07:48.400 it's also the tension between executive power and judicial power, 0:07:48.840 --> 0:07:52.600 and the administration saying, you know, what can we do 0:07:53.200 --> 0:07:56.000 with the courts ruling as they are, and plainniffs are saying, 0:07:56.040 --> 0:07:58.200 what can the courts do to keep the administration from 0:07:58.200 --> 0:07:59.040 doing what it's doing? 0:07:59.320 --> 0:08:00.720 So we're kind of seeing a lot of that push 0:08:00.720 --> 0:08:02.440 them fullyly. 0:08:02.480 --> 0:08:06.400 In how many cases did the judges actually find that 0:08:06.440 --> 0:08:07.960 there hadn't been compliance? 0:08:08.880 --> 0:08:11.000 We looked at a small slice of court compliance motions, 0:08:11.000 --> 0:08:13.600 which for motions to enforce preliminary injunctions. But I think 0:08:13.640 --> 0:08:16.040 it's an interesting example to look at because it shows 0:08:16.320 --> 0:08:19.400 a compliance issue really early in a case. A preliminary 0:08:19.400 --> 0:08:22.120 injunction would come down pretty soon after a lawsuit, showing 0:08:22.160 --> 0:08:24.720 that the challenger was likely to win its case, and 0:08:24.760 --> 0:08:27.320 so then we're seeing the government, you know, immediately potentially 0:08:27.320 --> 0:08:28.200 not following that order. 0:08:28.200 --> 0:08:30.680 I think it's an interesting place to look in that case. 0:08:30.720 --> 0:08:33.840 Of the twenty five motions we identified in certain types 0:08:33.840 --> 0:08:36.680 of cases against the government, fourteen of them had a 0:08:36.800 --> 0:08:40.640 judge either grant fully or partially that ruling. In a 0:08:40.679 --> 0:08:43.000 few other cases it was either denied, sometimes it was 0:08:43.040 --> 0:08:47.000 resolved otherwise, or even mooted sometimes because the case just 0:08:47.040 --> 0:08:49.920 progressed past that stage. But a fourteen out of twenty 0:08:50.000 --> 0:08:52.640 five was still somewhat of a striking number for comparison. 0:08:53.160 --> 0:08:55.880 Under the Biden administration, there were only two motions to 0:08:56.000 --> 0:08:59.080 enforce preliminary injunctions crouled against the government, and one of 0:08:59.120 --> 0:09:02.280 them was partially grand and a medicaid involved case led 0:09:02.280 --> 0:09:05.520 by Texas. And during the first Trumpet administration, we saw 0:09:05.640 --> 0:09:09.240 eleven motions to enforced preliminary injunctions, about half of those 0:09:09.360 --> 0:09:12.440 partially or fully granted, so somewhat of a similar statistic, 0:09:12.480 --> 0:09:14.880 But I mean, that was eleven over four years. We're 0:09:15.080 --> 0:09:16.839 looking at twenty five and a year and a half. 0:09:17.320 --> 0:09:19.400 So I think we can expect potentially this number to 0:09:19.440 --> 0:09:22.840 grow as the number of court challenges grow and you know, 0:09:23.120 --> 0:09:26.840 as we see the administration kind of see what you know, 0:09:26.920 --> 0:09:28.960 they're able to do with these court orders. 0:09:29.080 --> 0:09:32.880 So I've talked with, you know, many former federal prosecutors 0:09:32.920 --> 0:09:37.840 who talk about how the presumption of regularity is being 0:09:38.160 --> 0:09:42.400 eroded in the Trump administration, in the second Trump administration, 0:09:42.880 --> 0:09:47.319 because the judges are not trusting what the government lawyers 0:09:47.320 --> 0:09:47.880 are saying. 0:09:48.800 --> 0:09:52.679 That's certainly a consequence when we're talking about court compliance issues, 0:09:52.760 --> 0:09:56.000 if we're seeing examples where the government is making I mean, 0:09:56.000 --> 0:09:58.040 in addition to court compliance issues. There have also been 0:09:58.040 --> 0:10:00.680 notable examples where government lawyers have made stakes in court, 0:10:00.760 --> 0:10:03.040 said things that they've had to go back and later correct, 0:10:03.440 --> 0:10:05.199 and even if they are still correcting it, which is 0:10:05.240 --> 0:10:07.000 what you're supposed to do, if you notice an error, 0:10:07.000 --> 0:10:10.520 you're supposed to correct it, that still does work to 0:10:10.600 --> 0:10:13.240 chip away at that presumption of regularity or you know, 0:10:13.320 --> 0:10:16.240 the assumption judges make that the government's acting and good 0:10:16.240 --> 0:10:18.400 faith in court. Some of the lawyers I spoke to, 0:10:19.000 --> 0:10:20.880 you know, one of them told me that she didn't 0:10:20.880 --> 0:10:23.720 see the presumption of regularity as being in full crisis 0:10:23.760 --> 0:10:26.280 at this point yet, but that it's certainly being tested. 0:10:26.720 --> 0:10:28.199 So I think that's another thing that we're going to 0:10:28.240 --> 0:10:31.200 watch and both during this administration and an administrations to 0:10:31.200 --> 0:10:33.520 come to what extent will the government will be able 0:10:33.559 --> 0:10:34.440 to recover from this. 0:10:34.880 --> 0:10:38.400 It's also true that a lot of these lawyers who 0:10:38.440 --> 0:10:41.440 were being thrown into court, particularly in the immigration cases, 0:10:41.480 --> 0:10:45.400 they have people who are not experts in immigration appearing 0:10:45.440 --> 0:10:50.160 in court, and they have a lot of inexperienced prosecutors 0:10:50.200 --> 0:10:53.559 because so many prosecutors left the Justice Department. 0:10:54.280 --> 0:10:56.880 Yes, the brain drain and the Justice Department is certainly 0:10:57.320 --> 0:11:00.400 a significant factor when it comes to these issues. Anytime 0:11:00.440 --> 0:11:02.360 you see a lawyer make a mistake in court who's 0:11:02.400 --> 0:11:04.520 really new to the department, I mean you have to 0:11:04.559 --> 0:11:07.199 wonder if perhaps having had more of those career people 0:11:07.200 --> 0:11:10.560 who had years of experience being there might have helped. 0:11:10.880 --> 0:11:13.480 And certainly again in that Minnesota case we were discussing, 0:11:13.520 --> 0:11:16.679 the attorney who was briefly held in civil contempt was 0:11:16.760 --> 0:11:20.800 a military lawyer who'd been dispatched apparently to help out 0:11:21.200 --> 0:11:23.760 with the surge of immigration cases happening in Minnesota at 0:11:23.760 --> 0:11:26.880 the time, because there wasn't the staffing to handle it. 0:11:27.320 --> 0:11:28.920 So, I mean, those are the things that happen. 0:11:29.000 --> 0:11:31.600 Things do slip through, and you end up with mistakes 0:11:31.600 --> 0:11:34.679 being made even under the best intentions when there isn't 0:11:34.760 --> 0:11:37.560 you know, full staffing or or full level of experience. 0:11:38.000 --> 0:11:40.480 Susanne, you put a lot of research into this. Thanks 0:11:40.480 --> 0:11:44.319 so much for sharing your findings with us. That's Bloomberg 0:11:44.400 --> 0:11:49.360 Law reporter Susanne Monnac. It's the biggest legal fight yet 0:11:49.559 --> 0:11:53.319 over harm to youth from social media and a pivotal 0:11:53.360 --> 0:11:56.880 moment for Meta, which is facing a possibility of a 0:11:56.920 --> 0:12:01.920 one point four trillion dollar DAMAGEES verdict and structural changes 0:12:02.040 --> 0:12:05.960 to its platform. Meta is once again on trial over 0:12:06.160 --> 0:12:11.040 dangers its platforms allegedly posed to children, and it's arguing 0:12:11.280 --> 0:12:14.760 once again that it works hard to make its platform 0:12:14.920 --> 0:12:19.840 safe for children. State attorneys general accuse Meta of contributing 0:12:19.880 --> 0:12:23.960 to the youth mental health crisis by knowingly and deliberately 0:12:24.080 --> 0:12:28.600 designing features that addict children to its platforms and hiding 0:12:28.640 --> 0:12:32.160 these harms from the public. It also argues that Meta 0:12:32.280 --> 0:12:37.440 routinely collects data on children under thirteen without their parents' consent, 0:12:37.880 --> 0:12:41.640 in violation of federal law. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal 0:12:41.679 --> 0:12:46.120 reporter Madeleine Meckelberg, who's covering the trial. Madeline tell us 0:12:46.160 --> 0:12:50.320 about this sort of new strategy the plaintiffs are using 0:12:50.800 --> 0:12:55.400 where they're arguing that it's the products themselves, their design 0:12:55.600 --> 0:13:00.640 and functionality, that have created harms, rather than talk about 0:13:01.240 --> 0:13:01.920 the content. 0:13:02.920 --> 0:13:03.440 That's right. 0:13:03.559 --> 0:13:07.240 So this case is like thousands of others that have 0:13:07.360 --> 0:13:10.840 been filed in that it's an attempt by litigants to 0:13:11.480 --> 0:13:15.080 get around Section two thirty, which gives pretty broad protections 0:13:15.120 --> 0:13:19.560 to technology companies from liability for content that's posted on 0:13:19.600 --> 0:13:23.000 their website. And so there are different baskets of cases 0:13:23.040 --> 0:13:25.800 that we can talk about, but essentially, all of them 0:13:25.920 --> 0:13:32.120 are seeking to hold companies like Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, Google's YouTube. 0:13:32.440 --> 0:13:35.200 They're trying to hold them accountable for the design of 0:13:35.280 --> 0:13:39.040 their platforms and features that they say are designed to 0:13:39.080 --> 0:13:41.520 be addictive and harmful to kids. 0:13:41.880 --> 0:13:44.440 So it's the public nuisance theory that was used in 0:13:44.480 --> 0:13:45.800 the New Mexico case. 0:13:46.360 --> 0:13:48.760 So the case that's go at trial right now with 0:13:48.800 --> 0:13:51.679 the state attorneys general is not a public nuisance case. 0:13:51.960 --> 0:13:54.959 That's a legal theory that's being put forward in cases 0:13:54.960 --> 0:13:57.920 that have been filed by groups of school districts and 0:13:57.960 --> 0:14:01.320 by some individual attorneys general. There are a ton of cases, 0:14:01.360 --> 0:14:03.760 so it's pretty confusing and it's hard to keep track 0:14:03.800 --> 0:14:04.400 of all of them. 0:14:04.720 --> 0:14:05.880 But the case that's at. 0:14:05.760 --> 0:14:09.720 Trial right now involves twenty nine state ags and they've 0:14:09.720 --> 0:14:13.480 brought their case under two kind of baskets of legal claims. 0:14:14.000 --> 0:14:17.600 The first one is consumer protection laws, and this is 0:14:17.600 --> 0:14:20.400 where it gets slightly more confusing. Only four of the 0:14:20.400 --> 0:14:23.720 twenty nine states have brought consumer protection claims, but they're 0:14:23.760 --> 0:14:26.480 all being tried together at this trial, and those are 0:14:26.520 --> 0:14:30.000 claims about the design of the platform. They say that 0:14:30.080 --> 0:14:33.120 they knowingly designed it to hook kids, and importantly that 0:14:33.200 --> 0:14:37.000 they misled the public and parents about risks that the 0:14:37.040 --> 0:14:39.800 companies should have known about its products. 0:14:40.200 --> 0:14:41.600 And that's one basket. 0:14:41.680 --> 0:14:44.640 And then there's also privacy claims during this lawsuit, and 0:14:44.680 --> 0:14:47.200 so the rest of the states are alleging that Meta 0:14:47.360 --> 0:14:50.360 knew that there were users under thirteen on its platform 0:14:50.640 --> 0:14:53.400 and it was collecting data from those kids in violation 0:14:53.480 --> 0:14:56.800 of federal law. So it's two different kind of baskets, 0:14:56.800 --> 0:14:59.880 but it's being discussed as part of this broader landscape 0:14:59.880 --> 0:15:02.440 of the cases against social media, and they're all kind 0:15:02.440 --> 0:15:06.840 of trying slightly different novel legal theories as different ways 0:15:06.840 --> 0:15:09.200 of getting at these companies. And I want to clarify 0:15:09.240 --> 0:15:11.720 that the case that's happening right now, Meta is. 0:15:11.640 --> 0:15:14.040 The only defendant in this day age case. 0:15:14.160 --> 0:15:17.320 Some of the other cases include other social media companies, 0:15:17.400 --> 0:15:18.760 but this one is just Meta. 0:15:19.080 --> 0:15:23.440 In the opening statement, the plaintiff's attorney said the business 0:15:23.480 --> 0:15:25.840 model is hook the user, hook them for as long 0:15:25.920 --> 0:15:28.800 as you can harvest their data, and then hide the truth. 0:15:29.000 --> 0:15:31.320 Did she say how she was going to prove. 0:15:31.120 --> 0:15:32.280 That that's right? 0:15:32.360 --> 0:15:35.200 She was talking about her four h's and kind of 0:15:35.240 --> 0:15:37.840 giving a jurors a roadmap of what we can expect 0:15:37.880 --> 0:15:40.640 to hear, and I think for folks that were following 0:15:40.680 --> 0:15:43.400 some of the developments in the personal injury case that 0:15:43.480 --> 0:15:45.920 happened earlier this year, we're going to see a lot 0:15:45.960 --> 0:15:50.240 of similar arguments and similar witnesses come forward. They're planning 0:15:50.280 --> 0:15:54.120 to call folks like Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Musserri, who's 0:15:54.520 --> 0:15:57.560 the CEO of Meta and the head of Instagram, respectively. 0:15:58.040 --> 0:16:01.240 They're going to call current and form employees to talk 0:16:01.280 --> 0:16:04.280 about the design and to talk about internal studies at 0:16:04.320 --> 0:16:08.000 Meta that they conducted about teen users and harms that 0:16:08.040 --> 0:16:12.800 they experiencing on the platforms. And they also are going 0:16:12.840 --> 0:16:15.440 to call in folks like Artu Obahar, who was the 0:16:15.440 --> 0:16:19.080 first witness. He's a former employee turned whistleblower who's spoken 0:16:19.280 --> 0:16:22.920 very publicly about his safety concerns with the platform. So 0:16:22.960 --> 0:16:25.840 it's going to be a lot of witness testimony and 0:16:26.040 --> 0:16:30.200 internal documents showing what Meta knew when, and then juxtaposing 0:16:30.240 --> 0:16:32.600 that with what messaging they were putting out to. 0:16:32.520 --> 0:16:35.560 The public, because that's a kind of important component in 0:16:35.600 --> 0:16:36.200 this case. 0:16:36.480 --> 0:16:40.840 Is this idea that they misled or otherwise hit information 0:16:41.000 --> 0:16:44.040 that the attorneys are arguing should have been made available. 0:16:44.560 --> 0:16:48.200 A lot of the witnesses have already testified in other cases, 0:16:48.800 --> 0:16:51.880 and so both sides should pretty much know what they're 0:16:51.920 --> 0:16:52.520 going to say. 0:16:53.120 --> 0:16:56.000 I think that's definitely one way to look at it. 0:16:56.080 --> 0:16:59.520 I don't think at this moment we're expecting any major 0:16:59.680 --> 0:17:03.360 bombs to be revealed about things going on at Meta 0:17:03.440 --> 0:17:06.040 that we didn't know about. And I think that's kind 0:17:06.080 --> 0:17:09.600 of the point of these cases is it's not about 0:17:09.800 --> 0:17:14.240 unearthing previously unknown information, which sometimes is what happens when 0:17:14.280 --> 0:17:15.280 cases go to trial. 0:17:15.800 --> 0:17:18.800 This is an issue that we are well aware of 0:17:18.960 --> 0:17:19.639 as the public. 0:17:19.720 --> 0:17:23.000 It's something that's been discussed at congressional hearings in other 0:17:23.119 --> 0:17:26.680 cases and by the companies themselves as they've repeatedly rolled 0:17:26.720 --> 0:17:29.639 out their attempts at safety features, and you know, you 0:17:29.680 --> 0:17:32.720 might hear about teen accounts on different platforms, and so 0:17:33.200 --> 0:17:38.359 this is about finding an avenue or accountability for certain 0:17:38.400 --> 0:17:40.760 groups of litigants for this company. And so yeah, I 0:17:40.760 --> 0:17:42.480 think a lot of the testimony is going to be 0:17:42.520 --> 0:17:45.159 familiar to folks that really care about this issue and 0:17:45.240 --> 0:17:48.159 follow it. That doesn't make it any less important, because 0:17:48.160 --> 0:17:49.960 at the end of the day, doesn't. 0:17:49.640 --> 0:17:51.679 Really matter what we know about it. 0:17:51.720 --> 0:17:54.840 What matters is that this is potentially the first time 0:17:54.880 --> 0:17:57.640 that those jurors sitting in the room are hearing about 0:17:57.640 --> 0:18:01.160 some of this stuff, hearing the testimony, seeing the internal emails. 0:18:01.720 --> 0:18:04.199 Let me ask you about the jury because it's an 0:18:04.240 --> 0:18:08.879 advisory jury. This judge has used that kind of advisory 0:18:08.960 --> 0:18:09.800 jury before. 0:18:10.240 --> 0:18:14.879 Yes, Judge von Gonzalez Rogers is probably well known to 0:18:14.920 --> 0:18:17.520 folks following any kind of the social media cases, but 0:18:17.600 --> 0:18:20.879 also just kind of tech and Silicon Valley cases in general. 0:18:20.960 --> 0:18:23.680 She's seated in Oakland, and we saw her do the 0:18:23.760 --> 0:18:26.919 similar strategy at a recent high profile case, which was 0:18:26.920 --> 0:18:30.080 the Elon Musk lawsuit against Sam Altman in Open Ai, 0:18:30.520 --> 0:18:34.159 where she essentially is having a jury seated for the trial. 0:18:34.320 --> 0:18:36.520 They're hearing all the evidence and they're going to issue 0:18:36.520 --> 0:18:38.800 a verdict. They don't know that their opinion is going 0:18:38.840 --> 0:18:41.720 to be advisory. But then at the end of the day, 0:18:42.040 --> 0:18:44.680 Judge Rogers can decide whether she wants to adopt their 0:18:44.720 --> 0:18:47.600 findings or whether she feels like the evidence is pointing 0:18:47.600 --> 0:18:48.639 her in a different direction. 0:18:49.480 --> 0:18:52.720 They'll be disappointed when they find they sad for all 0:18:52.760 --> 0:18:55.600 these weeks and their their verdict is not binding. 0:18:56.040 --> 0:18:58.320 It doesn't mean it's not you know, they're not doing 0:18:58.359 --> 0:18:59.400 a valuable service. 0:18:59.440 --> 0:18:59.960 Like there's a. 0:19:00.000 --> 0:19:02.320 Reason that she's doing that, and it's that these cases 0:19:02.359 --> 0:19:06.160 are incredibly complicated, and while this one is not a bellwether, 0:19:06.400 --> 0:19:10.000 it's still part of this massive multi district litigation. 0:19:10.320 --> 0:19:13.359 And the outcome here, again, it won't. 0:19:13.320 --> 0:19:17.040 Necessarily set a precedent until there's appeals and kind of 0:19:17.040 --> 0:19:19.800 gets decided at the circuit level in some respects. But 0:19:20.359 --> 0:19:22.760 what happens here will have sway in other cases. So 0:19:22.800 --> 0:19:25.320 I think what we're seeing is a judge who's really 0:19:25.359 --> 0:19:27.680 trying to dot all the i's, cross all the t's 0:19:27.800 --> 0:19:30.399 and make sure that she's really giving it fair consideration. 0:19:30.760 --> 0:19:33.679 Do you know if she followed the jury's suggestions in 0:19:33.760 --> 0:19:37.040 the open AI case with Altman and Elon Musk. 0:19:37.200 --> 0:19:37.720 She did. 0:19:38.200 --> 0:19:41.080 She did follow their suggestions there, and that was because 0:19:41.200 --> 0:19:43.600 she kind of said from the outset in that case 0:19:43.840 --> 0:19:46.800 there was a question of timing and whether Musk waited 0:19:46.840 --> 0:19:49.880 too long to file his claims and the statute of limitations, 0:19:49.920 --> 0:19:52.399 and she said that if the jury made a finding 0:19:52.440 --> 0:19:55.199 on the statute of limitations question, she would adopt that 0:19:55.320 --> 0:19:58.640 without question because that's a key. You know, they didn't 0:19:58.680 --> 0:20:01.359 weigh in on the merits of this actually, just whether 0:20:01.440 --> 0:20:03.320 he took too long to file them. 0:20:03.680 --> 0:20:08.200 So you heard from the defense attorney as well opening statements, 0:20:08.320 --> 0:20:10.080 what was his position. 0:20:10.720 --> 0:20:11.160 That's right. 0:20:11.280 --> 0:20:13.879 So Meta has maintained, you know, they deny all of 0:20:13.920 --> 0:20:16.440 the allegations that have been brought forward in this lawsuit, 0:20:16.560 --> 0:20:20.399 and he talked a lot about safety features that Meta 0:20:20.440 --> 0:20:23.440 has rolled out and said that they've made real efforts 0:20:23.480 --> 0:20:28.400 to try to reduce reported harms to teenagers. Another thing 0:20:28.440 --> 0:20:30.680 that we've heard Meta talk about and their legal team 0:20:30.720 --> 0:20:34.240 talk about is this idea of thirteen year olds on 0:20:34.280 --> 0:20:37.040 the platform and kids under the age of thirteen. They've 0:20:37.040 --> 0:20:40.040 talked about how this is an industry wide issue, is 0:20:40.240 --> 0:20:43.000 kids signing up when they're not supposed to have accounts, 0:20:43.040 --> 0:20:46.120