WEBVTT - Google Pays Up for Location-Tracking Practices

0:00:03.160 --> 0:00:07.960
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloombird Law with June Brusso from Bloombird Radio.

0:00:09.200 --> 0:00:11.319
<v Speaker 1>We acknowledge that we have made mistakes in the past,

0:00:11.400 --> 0:00:15.400
<v Speaker 1>from which we've learned and improved our privacy program. We

0:00:15.480 --> 0:00:19.000
<v Speaker 1>must clearly explain how our products use personal information and

0:00:19.040 --> 0:00:22.440
<v Speaker 1>provide easy to find, user friendly controls to manage privacy.

0:00:22.920 --> 0:00:27.440
<v Speaker 1>Google's chief privacy officer, Keith Enwright, testified on Capitol Hill

0:00:27.560 --> 0:00:31.240
<v Speaker 1>four years ago over concerns about how his company tracks

0:00:31.320 --> 0:00:34.559
<v Speaker 1>consumer data. Now, Google has agreed to pay up for

0:00:34.640 --> 0:00:39.320
<v Speaker 1>its controversial location tracking practices in the largest multi state

0:00:39.360 --> 0:00:43.159
<v Speaker 1>privacy settlement in US history. Google will pay nearly three

0:00:43.720 --> 0:00:46.920
<v Speaker 1>nine two million dollars in a settlement with forty states

0:00:46.960 --> 0:00:51.440
<v Speaker 1>over allegations that the company secretly tracked users movements and

0:00:51.520 --> 0:00:55.680
<v Speaker 1>provided the data to advertisers for years, even after consumers

0:00:55.720 --> 0:00:59.600
<v Speaker 1>had turned off the location tracking feature. Location history has

0:00:59.640 --> 0:01:04.800
<v Speaker 1>become particularly sensitive topic following the Supreme Court decision overturning

0:01:04.840 --> 0:01:08.560
<v Speaker 1>the right to abortion, amid fears that prosecutors could use

0:01:08.600 --> 0:01:13.280
<v Speaker 1>such data to track women's movements to enforce state abortion bands.

0:01:13.760 --> 0:01:16.520
<v Speaker 1>Joining me is Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara

0:01:16.600 --> 0:01:19.560
<v Speaker 1>University Law School and co director of the High Tech

0:01:19.640 --> 0:01:23.360
<v Speaker 1>Law Institute. How big a deal is this settlement? I mean,

0:01:23.480 --> 0:01:27.840
<v Speaker 1>it's basically ten million dollars for each of forty states.

0:01:28.280 --> 0:01:33.360
<v Speaker 1>The settlement itself is important in showing how the attorney

0:01:33.400 --> 0:01:39.280
<v Speaker 1>generals are actively looking to redress privacy invasions the grand

0:01:39.319 --> 0:01:41.800
<v Speaker 1>scheme of things. However, it's probably not as big of

0:01:41.800 --> 0:01:44.880
<v Speaker 1>a deal as people might expect. Both the dollar amount

0:01:45.000 --> 0:01:48.200
<v Speaker 1>is not a huge deal for Google, but also the

0:01:48.240 --> 0:01:50.760
<v Speaker 1>way in which it's likely the changing the lives is

0:01:50.840 --> 0:01:54.040
<v Speaker 1>going to be actually quite muted tell us what Google

0:01:54.320 --> 0:01:58.240
<v Speaker 1>was accused of in this lawsuit. Google was accused of

0:01:58.640 --> 0:02:03.640
<v Speaker 1>mishandling location information. This is about where people are at

0:02:03.680 --> 0:02:07.000
<v Speaker 1>a specific period of time, and Google was accused of

0:02:07.400 --> 0:02:12.360
<v Speaker 1>continuing to record location information even when people asked them

0:02:12.360 --> 0:02:15.079
<v Speaker 1>not to, and in general the way it worked. There

0:02:15.080 --> 0:02:19.280
<v Speaker 1>were various details, but the main aspect is that Google

0:02:19.320 --> 0:02:22.880
<v Speaker 1>had several different ways of configuring the options, and so

0:02:23.000 --> 0:02:26.280
<v Speaker 1>even if people turned off location information in one option,

0:02:26.560 --> 0:02:28.840
<v Speaker 1>there might have been other options that the awesomey to

0:02:28.880 --> 0:02:31.040
<v Speaker 1>turn off. And then Google was also alleged to be

0:02:31.120 --> 0:02:33.720
<v Speaker 1>tracking and even if people were told they would never

0:02:34.000 --> 0:02:38.440
<v Speaker 1>be tracking location information, so Google was effectively alleged to

0:02:38.480 --> 0:02:42.800
<v Speaker 1>be lying to consumers about when it was collecting location information.

0:02:43.040 --> 0:02:46.200
<v Speaker 1>Google says that it's stopped that practice. Is there any

0:02:46.400 --> 0:02:49.200
<v Speaker 1>question that they've stopped that practice. I have no reason

0:02:49.240 --> 0:02:52.520
<v Speaker 1>to believe that they continue to practice they were alleged

0:02:52.600 --> 0:02:55.720
<v Speaker 1>to be engaged in. But we really don't understand all

0:02:55.800 --> 0:02:58.120
<v Speaker 1>the different things Google is doing, so they might be

0:02:58.160 --> 0:03:00.680
<v Speaker 1>doing something else nefarious that we don't don't really know.

0:03:01.000 --> 0:03:04.440
<v Speaker 1>But the attorney generals have identified eight specific things they

0:03:04.440 --> 0:03:06.320
<v Speaker 1>wanted to Google to fix. I'm going to assume that

0:03:06.360 --> 0:03:09.080
<v Speaker 1>Google either fixed it or stopped it. As part of

0:03:09.120 --> 0:03:12.960
<v Speaker 1>the deal, Google also agreed to significantly improve its location

0:03:13.040 --> 0:03:18.240
<v Speaker 1>tracking disclosures and user control starting next year. I have

0:03:18.360 --> 0:03:21.959
<v Speaker 1>to tell you that I find all these location tracking

0:03:22.280 --> 0:03:27.000
<v Speaker 1>devices and confusing to try to turn off because if

0:03:27.040 --> 0:03:30.200
<v Speaker 1>you turn off one thing, oh, then you can't have this. Yes,

0:03:30.560 --> 0:03:33.960
<v Speaker 1>And to be fair, there are many times that actually

0:03:34.040 --> 0:03:39.280
<v Speaker 1>we benefit from services tracking our location and information. And

0:03:39.320 --> 0:03:43.320
<v Speaker 1>I'll just give you one quick example with hiking on

0:03:43.400 --> 0:03:46.600
<v Speaker 1>my mostrsification and I had trail maps that I had

0:03:46.600 --> 0:03:49.280
<v Speaker 1>downloaded where I was able to track whether I was

0:03:49.320 --> 0:03:52.520
<v Speaker 1>on the trail or not. And that's actually kept me safe.

0:03:52.760 --> 0:03:56.360
<v Speaker 1>It saved my time, saved war, and tear on my knees.

0:03:56.960 --> 0:03:59.920
<v Speaker 1>So the fact that the services use location from men

0:04:00.560 --> 0:04:04.480
<v Speaker 1>can be and that positive. The point of the AGES

0:04:04.880 --> 0:04:07.760
<v Speaker 1>enforcement is that we should be in charge of when

0:04:08.160 --> 0:04:11.160
<v Speaker 1>location information about us is used. We should have that choice.

0:04:11.280 --> 0:04:13.720
<v Speaker 1>It shouldn't be taken away from us. I know that

0:04:13.760 --> 0:04:19.320
<v Speaker 1>Arizona sued Google and secured million dollars because of the

0:04:19.360 --> 0:04:23.880
<v Speaker 1>state's consumer fraud Act. So do other states have similar

0:04:23.920 --> 0:04:27.839
<v Speaker 1>consumer acts that Google has to be careful with. Yeah,

0:04:27.920 --> 0:04:33.280
<v Speaker 1>the AGES used generally their standards consumer protection laws to

0:04:33.920 --> 0:04:37.719
<v Speaker 1>crack down on Google, basically saying that Google applied to

0:04:37.760 --> 0:04:42.160
<v Speaker 1>consumers um and that's standard issues for the attorney generals

0:04:42.200 --> 0:04:45.040
<v Speaker 1>to deal with. However, there's a new class of laws

0:04:45.040 --> 0:04:47.760
<v Speaker 1>have been coming out in the last five years essentially

0:04:47.800 --> 0:04:50.920
<v Speaker 1>since Google is alleged to be violating these laws that

0:04:51.160 --> 0:04:56.600
<v Speaker 1>provide extra protection for location information. And it's really those

0:04:56.680 --> 0:05:00.200
<v Speaker 1>laws are become the centerpiece of any future action to

0:05:00.240 --> 0:05:04.200
<v Speaker 1>control location information, and it's those laws that are likely

0:05:04.279 --> 0:05:08.279
<v Speaker 1>to really dominate how we as consumers interact with services

0:05:08.360 --> 0:05:11.960
<v Speaker 1>like Google, whether such our location information. In other words,

0:05:12.200 --> 0:05:16.839
<v Speaker 1>the AGES enforcement dealt with old law and old practices.

0:05:17.279 --> 0:05:20.080
<v Speaker 1>The new law will come into a fact that will

0:05:20.160 --> 0:05:24.719
<v Speaker 1>significantly impact location information across the board. Do most states

0:05:24.760 --> 0:05:29.400
<v Speaker 1>have those laws? No, let's call them consumer privacy laws.

0:05:29.720 --> 0:05:32.720
<v Speaker 1>California act at the first, starting into that in eighteen.

0:05:33.120 --> 0:05:35.920
<v Speaker 1>It has since replaced that law with a new law

0:05:36.000 --> 0:05:39.680
<v Speaker 1>coming into effect in January called the California Privacy Rights Act.

0:05:39.839 --> 0:05:43.920
<v Speaker 1>And less than half dozen states have enacted some variation

0:05:44.080 --> 0:05:48.120
<v Speaker 1>of the two California laws, but they're growing rapidly. Other

0:05:48.160 --> 0:05:52.080
<v Speaker 1>states will enact them shortly, and most importantly, because Google

0:05:52.520 --> 0:05:55.480
<v Speaker 1>is located in California, they're likely to comply with that

0:05:55.640 --> 0:05:59.440
<v Speaker 1>law across the board, not just in California. So when

0:05:59.520 --> 0:06:03.479
<v Speaker 1>californ Onias law comes into effect, it's likely to set

0:06:03.520 --> 0:06:06.520
<v Speaker 1>a national standard, at least through sectors services like Google.

0:06:06.800 --> 0:06:11.960
<v Speaker 1>As far as possible criminal prosecutions under abortion bands, there

0:06:12.000 --> 0:06:16.320
<v Speaker 1>are fears that some state prosecutors could use location data

0:06:16.600 --> 0:06:20.039
<v Speaker 1>to track women's movements and prosecute them. Google has said

0:06:20.040 --> 0:06:23.799
<v Speaker 1>it would automatically delete records of users visits to sensitive

0:06:23.839 --> 0:06:27.560
<v Speaker 1>locations like abortion clinics, But can we trust that they're

0:06:27.560 --> 0:06:30.480
<v Speaker 1>going to do that and also that their method will

0:06:30.520 --> 0:06:34.239
<v Speaker 1>be effective? Obviously, the Google will define what it means

0:06:34.240 --> 0:06:37.040
<v Speaker 1>by sense of locations. It might be that it won't

0:06:37.080 --> 0:06:40.559
<v Speaker 1>be comprehensive from our perspective as consumers, But the point

0:06:40.640 --> 0:06:42.880
<v Speaker 1>is that they're trying to come up with ways of

0:06:42.960 --> 0:06:47.200
<v Speaker 1>controlling location information that are more pro consumer. Because of

0:06:47.240 --> 0:06:50.880
<v Speaker 1>the fact that location information is so sensitive, placing a

0:06:51.000 --> 0:06:54.760
<v Speaker 1>person in a particular spot in time creates all kinds

0:06:54.760 --> 0:06:59.120
<v Speaker 1>of potential safety and legal risk. And so that's why

0:06:59.160 --> 0:07:01.480
<v Speaker 1>I think that the e G settlement is really dealing

0:07:01.520 --> 0:07:04.000
<v Speaker 1>with a legacy issue because of the fact that we

0:07:04.080 --> 0:07:06.680
<v Speaker 1>know so much more today than we didn't do that

0:07:06.760 --> 0:07:10.000
<v Speaker 1>in eighteen about how important is to protect location information. Eric,

0:07:10.080 --> 0:07:13.920
<v Speaker 1>has there been a lawsuit where something terrible happened to

0:07:14.000 --> 0:07:17.720
<v Speaker 1>someone because of location tracking? I don't attract the cases

0:07:17.800 --> 0:07:20.760
<v Speaker 1>that way, but a classic example of ways that things

0:07:20.800 --> 0:07:26.120
<v Speaker 1>can go wrong is with tracker devices that a x

0:07:26.720 --> 0:07:31.760
<v Speaker 1>UH significant other will place onto a victim's car. By

0:07:31.800 --> 0:07:34.840
<v Speaker 1>doing that, they can then track where that person is,

0:07:35.120 --> 0:07:38.640
<v Speaker 1>and in some cases that's led to physical attacks on

0:07:38.680 --> 0:07:42.280
<v Speaker 1>the victim because the criminal knew where to find a person.

0:07:42.680 --> 0:07:44.480
<v Speaker 1>I was reading all these articles about how to turn

0:07:44.560 --> 0:07:46.280
<v Speaker 1>things off, and I went to my iPhone. Now I

0:07:46.320 --> 0:07:48.600
<v Speaker 1>realized I can't turn it off completely because then I

0:07:48.640 --> 0:07:51.520
<v Speaker 1>can't use the iPhone funds and I can't use Google

0:07:51.520 --> 0:07:54.360
<v Speaker 1>Maps and all this stuff. That gets the point the

0:07:54.400 --> 0:07:56.760
<v Speaker 1>doesn't June. That really hits the name on the head

0:07:56.840 --> 0:08:02.000
<v Speaker 1>that location information is vye able resource that we want

0:08:02.160 --> 0:08:05.480
<v Speaker 1>some services to use in certain circumstances because it literally

0:08:05.520 --> 0:08:08.680
<v Speaker 1>makes our lives better and helps keep us safe and

0:08:09.000 --> 0:08:12.280
<v Speaker 1>gives us information that we want on the spot. So

0:08:12.440 --> 0:08:15.720
<v Speaker 1>we don't want to categorically turn off location information. That

0:08:15.760 --> 0:08:18.960
<v Speaker 1>would be a misstep. But we do want services to

0:08:19.000 --> 0:08:22.040
<v Speaker 1>listen to us. If we say don't check us now,

0:08:22.920 --> 0:08:24.920
<v Speaker 1>we need them to honor that. And that really was

0:08:24.960 --> 0:08:27.280
<v Speaker 1>the point of the agis enforcement. And you think that

0:08:27.480 --> 0:08:31.640
<v Speaker 1>at least Google and perhaps Facebook, that they've learned a lesson.

0:08:32.040 --> 0:08:33.760
<v Speaker 1>I don't know if they've learned a lesson. I think

0:08:33.760 --> 0:08:36.959
<v Speaker 1>that the new consumer privacy laws that are rolling out

0:08:37.160 --> 0:08:40.360
<v Speaker 1>will force them to change their behavior, even if they

0:08:40.360 --> 0:08:43.599
<v Speaker 1>would prefer not to. So I don't think this particular

0:08:43.640 --> 0:08:46.160
<v Speaker 1>settlement is going to teach them that lesson. I think

0:08:46.200 --> 0:08:49.040
<v Speaker 1>the other laws will cause them to take it seriously.

0:08:49.480 --> 0:08:52.959
<v Speaker 1>The bottom line is that I think services like dog

0:08:53.000 --> 0:08:57.240
<v Speaker 1>on Facebook now realize just how sensitive location information is,

0:08:57.559 --> 0:09:01.319
<v Speaker 1>and they're being forced to do better. Zarek always a pleasure,

0:09:01.679 --> 0:09:05.040
<v Speaker 1>that's Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University Law

0:09:05.080 --> 0:09:07.760
<v Speaker 1>School and co director of the High Tech Law Institute.

0:09:09.440 --> 0:09:13.040
<v Speaker 1>President Joe Biden's planned to cancel billions of dollars in

0:09:13.160 --> 0:09:17.199
<v Speaker 1>student loans is in jeopardy because of legal challenges that

0:09:17.240 --> 0:09:20.280
<v Speaker 1>could mean no one receives a dollar of debt relief.

0:09:20.920 --> 0:09:24.680
<v Speaker 1>The White House insists it will ultimately prevail, even though

0:09:24.720 --> 0:09:28.920
<v Speaker 1>two federal courts blocked the program from taking effect. The

0:09:29.040 --> 0:09:32.320
<v Speaker 1>setbacks have rattled supporters, who fear that more than forty

0:09:32.360 --> 0:09:37.000
<v Speaker 1>million Americans who expected relief will instead start getting billed

0:09:37.040 --> 0:09:40.439
<v Speaker 1>for their student debt in January, when a pandemic Ara

0:09:40.559 --> 0:09:44.680
<v Speaker 1>moratorium on payments is slated to expire. Joining me is

0:09:44.720 --> 0:09:50.280
<v Speaker 1>elliott Stein Bloomberg Intelligence Senior litigation analyst. So has the

0:09:50.320 --> 0:09:55.080
<v Speaker 1>problem in these lawsuits been having a plaintiff that has

0:09:55.440 --> 0:09:59.719
<v Speaker 1>standing to sue? Yeah, that was definitely a hurdle u

0:10:00.040 --> 0:10:03.359
<v Speaker 1>in some of the early lawsuits, and a couple of them,

0:10:03.880 --> 0:10:07.640
<v Speaker 1>a couple of the lawsuits were dismissed because of standing. Right,

0:10:08.200 --> 0:10:11.200
<v Speaker 1>you know, it's a basic tenet of litigation in the

0:10:11.280 --> 0:10:14.000
<v Speaker 1>US that in order to sue, you have to have

0:10:14.120 --> 0:10:17.920
<v Speaker 1>some sort of concrete and direct injury, otherwise our courts

0:10:18.200 --> 0:10:22.079
<v Speaker 1>will just be flooded with you know, fabulous litigation. So

0:10:22.480 --> 0:10:25.760
<v Speaker 1>we had several lawsuits filed challenging the student loan plan.

0:10:26.080 --> 0:10:28.240
<v Speaker 1>Like I said, the first couple were tossed because the

0:10:28.240 --> 0:10:31.559
<v Speaker 1>plaintiffs couldn't show that they were you know, injured by

0:10:31.600 --> 0:10:34.040
<v Speaker 1>the plan in a concrete or direct way. But more

0:10:34.040 --> 0:10:38.480
<v Speaker 1>recently we've had a couple lawsuits, including one where according

0:10:38.559 --> 0:10:43.120
<v Speaker 1>Texas essentially throughout the plan inside it was unconstitutional, and

0:10:43.160 --> 0:10:46.640
<v Speaker 1>it found that the plaintiffs in that case were properly

0:10:47.240 --> 0:10:51.280
<v Speaker 1>injured sufficiently to bring a lawsuit that case, the Texas case,

0:10:52.120 --> 0:10:54.520
<v Speaker 1>is that the only case where the judge got to

0:10:54.600 --> 0:10:59.720
<v Speaker 1>the merits of the Biden administration's loan forgiveness plan. It

0:10:59.840 --> 0:11:04.640
<v Speaker 1>is is it is, and it's interesting because it's interesting

0:11:04.679 --> 0:11:07.880
<v Speaker 1>how he got to the merits. The borrowers in that

0:11:07.920 --> 0:11:11.320
<v Speaker 1>case said that they were injured because they couldn't provide

0:11:11.480 --> 0:11:15.319
<v Speaker 1>notice and comment on the plan, and the government responded

0:11:15.320 --> 0:11:18.120
<v Speaker 1>and said, well, you know the Heroes Act that we

0:11:18.200 --> 0:11:20.559
<v Speaker 1>think authorizes the plan doesn't say that we have to

0:11:20.559 --> 0:11:23.120
<v Speaker 1>give a notice in comment period um for this kind

0:11:23.160 --> 0:11:25.640
<v Speaker 1>of plan. And the judge said, well, you know, I'm

0:11:25.640 --> 0:11:28.480
<v Speaker 1>going to jump to the merits, and on the merits,

0:11:28.600 --> 0:11:32.080
<v Speaker 1>I don't think the plan is authorized under this statute.

0:11:32.280 --> 0:11:35.079
<v Speaker 1>And as a result, you know, the language and the

0:11:35.120 --> 0:11:37.360
<v Speaker 1>statute saying that you don't need death notice and comment

0:11:37.600 --> 0:11:39.760
<v Speaker 1>doesn't even apply. And so that's how we got the standing.

0:11:39.760 --> 0:11:42.880
<v Speaker 1>It was sort of mixing both the standing issue and

0:11:42.960 --> 0:11:44.680
<v Speaker 1>the merits issue, and that's how he got to it.

0:11:44.880 --> 0:11:46.400
<v Speaker 1>I mean, he did it back, which you're supposed to

0:11:46.440 --> 0:11:49.880
<v Speaker 1>find do the plaintiffs have standing first, that's before you

0:11:49.920 --> 0:11:52.840
<v Speaker 1>even get to the merits. Yeah, it was a little

0:11:52.840 --> 0:11:56.160
<v Speaker 1>bit unusual, you know, a little bit maybe creative or clever.

0:11:56.640 --> 0:11:59.440
<v Speaker 1>I'm not sure he's actually going to get reversed on that. Um.

0:11:59.480 --> 0:12:00.880
<v Speaker 1>You know, it's going to go to the Fifth Circuit

0:12:00.960 --> 0:12:02.680
<v Speaker 1>from there. But I agree he's sort of he sort

0:12:02.720 --> 0:12:04.760
<v Speaker 1>of conflated the two, you know, the standing issue and

0:12:04.800 --> 0:12:06.800
<v Speaker 1>the merritie issue. But at the end of the day,

0:12:06.800 --> 0:12:07.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, from there it's going to go to the

0:12:07.880 --> 0:12:11.280
<v Speaker 1>fifth Circuit. And I don't see this judge getting reversed there.

0:12:11.360 --> 0:12:13.480
<v Speaker 1>The Tift Circuit is one of the most conservatives in

0:12:13.480 --> 0:12:15.840
<v Speaker 1>the country, and I don't think it's I don't think

0:12:16.040 --> 0:12:18.880
<v Speaker 1>he's gonna get reverse at the Supreme Court either. In

0:12:18.920 --> 0:12:23.560
<v Speaker 1>that case, it was two borrowers who were partially or

0:12:23.600 --> 0:12:27.680
<v Speaker 1>fully ineligible for the loan forgiveness. So they're saying we

0:12:27.800 --> 0:12:32.360
<v Speaker 1>have standing because we're not getting what other people got.

0:12:32.880 --> 0:12:36.800
<v Speaker 1>Exactly one one of the borrower's loans were commercially held

0:12:36.840 --> 0:12:39.680
<v Speaker 1>in the plan. You know, the Bitdom administration had tweeked

0:12:39.720 --> 0:12:43.280
<v Speaker 1>its plans so that it would only apply to loans

0:12:43.280 --> 0:12:46.040
<v Speaker 1>held by the Department of Education and not privately held

0:12:46.080 --> 0:12:49.200
<v Speaker 1>loans um. And so that person said, well, I can't

0:12:49.320 --> 0:12:52.240
<v Speaker 1>participate in the plan because my loans are commercially held.

0:12:52.600 --> 0:12:55.679
<v Speaker 1>And then the other borrower in that case was eligible

0:12:55.679 --> 0:12:58.800
<v Speaker 1>for the ten thousand dollar forgiveness but not eligible for

0:12:58.880 --> 0:13:03.640
<v Speaker 1>the higher amount of forgiveness UM that PELL grant recipients

0:13:03.640 --> 0:13:06.080
<v Speaker 1>are eligible for. And so they said, you know, we

0:13:06.160 --> 0:13:09.080
<v Speaker 1>can't participate in this plan. And you know, have there

0:13:09.120 --> 0:13:10.760
<v Speaker 1>been a notice in common period, we could have at

0:13:10.840 --> 0:13:14.080
<v Speaker 1>least given our thoughts, but we were protruded from doing

0:13:14.080 --> 0:13:16.160
<v Speaker 1>that as well. So that that's the injuries that they

0:13:16.200 --> 0:13:19.079
<v Speaker 1>pointed to. It sounds a little tenuous to me. Yeah,

0:13:19.120 --> 0:13:20.960
<v Speaker 1>I mean, you know, I was surprised by two. I

0:13:20.960 --> 0:13:23.840
<v Speaker 1>didn't think those kinds of injuries would be you know,

0:13:23.920 --> 0:13:26.920
<v Speaker 1>concrete and direct enough you know, to get standing. But

0:13:27.600 --> 0:13:29.480
<v Speaker 1>the studs, you know, like we talked about, he sort

0:13:29.520 --> 0:13:33.000
<v Speaker 1>of got around that by jumping to the merits finding,

0:13:33.200 --> 0:13:36.320
<v Speaker 1>you know, that that the plan was not authorized under

0:13:36.360 --> 0:13:39.839
<v Speaker 1>the statute that the administration pointed to, and so then

0:13:39.840 --> 0:13:43.040
<v Speaker 1>he sort of backed into standing in that way. But

0:13:43.160 --> 0:13:45.600
<v Speaker 1>I'm not confident he's gonna get reversed. Why do you

0:13:45.600 --> 0:13:48.360
<v Speaker 1>think the Supreme Court wouldn't reverse him? You know, I

0:13:48.440 --> 0:13:51.080
<v Speaker 1>think they're certainly on the merits they're going to agree

0:13:51.120 --> 0:13:55.000
<v Speaker 1>with him. And you know, I'm not sure that what

0:13:55.080 --> 0:14:00.800
<v Speaker 1>he did is entirely um not allowed, uh you know,

0:14:00.920 --> 0:14:04.199
<v Speaker 1>and in some sense, I um, you know, I think

0:14:04.200 --> 0:14:07.320
<v Speaker 1>they'll probably find a way to agree with that judge

0:14:07.640 --> 0:14:11.199
<v Speaker 1>in order to buy the plans from from being implemented.

0:14:11.679 --> 0:14:15.600
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has refused twice though,

0:14:16.200 --> 0:14:21.120
<v Speaker 1>to block Biden's student loan relief plan without comment. So

0:14:21.880 --> 0:14:24.840
<v Speaker 1>it could just be because she's waiting for appeals to

0:14:25.400 --> 0:14:28.520
<v Speaker 1>play out. Yeah, I think that's exactly right. The two

0:14:28.640 --> 0:14:33.920
<v Speaker 1>cases were really like even bigger stretchers in terms of standing. Right.

0:14:34.200 --> 0:14:37.320
<v Speaker 1>In one of those cases, it was a borrower in

0:14:37.320 --> 0:14:41.040
<v Speaker 1>Indiana who said his state income taxes would go up

0:14:41.200 --> 0:14:43.680
<v Speaker 1>if she was automatically enrolled in the plan. But the

0:14:43.680 --> 0:14:47.040
<v Speaker 1>administration has already changed the plan to say that borrowers

0:14:47.040 --> 0:14:49.400
<v Speaker 1>would not be automatically enrolled and they could opt out

0:14:49.440 --> 0:14:51.600
<v Speaker 1>if they wanted to. And then the other case was

0:14:51.680 --> 0:14:54.960
<v Speaker 1>just a general taxpayer grievance saying that, you know, public

0:14:54.960 --> 0:14:57.120
<v Speaker 1>funds should not be used for this, and and that

0:14:57.200 --> 0:15:00.400
<v Speaker 1>kind of standing has almost always been precluded by the

0:15:00.440 --> 0:15:04.400
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court. Those cases were much weaker in terms of standing. Well,

0:15:04.680 --> 0:15:06.960
<v Speaker 1>let's talk about the lawsuit that went up to the

0:15:07.040 --> 0:15:11.440
<v Speaker 1>Eighth Circuit. Six Republicans states brought the lawsuit. What was

0:15:11.480 --> 0:15:15.360
<v Speaker 1>their argument. There were arguing a few things, but sort

0:15:15.400 --> 0:15:20.000
<v Speaker 1>of broadly speaking, you know, the overarching theory of their

0:15:20.040 --> 0:15:25.440
<v Speaker 1>case was that services that were instrumentalities of those states

0:15:26.080 --> 0:15:31.120
<v Speaker 1>would be injured because if the loan balances were reduced,

0:15:31.360 --> 0:15:35.480
<v Speaker 1>they were earned less income in terms of servicing those loans.

0:15:36.280 --> 0:15:41.680
<v Speaker 1>What's interesting is um a lot of those services primarily

0:15:41.760 --> 0:15:46.120
<v Speaker 1>service commercially held loans privately held loans, and so in

0:15:46.160 --> 0:15:49.400
<v Speaker 1>response that I lawsuit, originally the administration tweaked its plan

0:15:49.600 --> 0:15:51.760
<v Speaker 1>and narrowed it so that it would only apply to

0:15:51.880 --> 0:15:55.440
<v Speaker 1>federally held loans and not privately held loans. But one

0:15:55.480 --> 0:15:58.760
<v Speaker 1>of their services in that case, in the state of Missouri,

0:15:59.160 --> 0:16:04.400
<v Speaker 1>also service federally held loans, and so the trial court

0:16:04.480 --> 0:16:07.480
<v Speaker 1>judge in that case said, well, actually, you know, Missouri

0:16:07.560 --> 0:16:11.320
<v Speaker 1>can't Missouri and the state services are actually separate entities.

0:16:11.360 --> 0:16:14.640
<v Speaker 1>Missouri shouldn't be able to sue on behalf of the servicers.

0:16:14.840 --> 0:16:17.120
<v Speaker 1>The servicer thinks it's injured, it should see on its own.

0:16:17.640 --> 0:16:20.240
<v Speaker 1>So the trial court dismissed that lawsuit. But the Eighth

0:16:20.240 --> 0:16:25.080
<v Speaker 1>Circuit said, well, actually, you know, the servicer could be

0:16:25.160 --> 0:16:27.000
<v Speaker 1>an arm of the state. It looks like it likely

0:16:27.120 --> 0:16:28.840
<v Speaker 1>is an army of the state. So we're gonna put

0:16:28.880 --> 0:16:33.640
<v Speaker 1>there the administration's plan on hold while this appeal praised out,

0:16:33.640 --> 0:16:37.120
<v Speaker 1>So they didn't reach the marriage. They didn't fully decide

0:16:37.200 --> 0:16:40.200
<v Speaker 1>standing yet even but you know, it looks like they're

0:16:40.280 --> 0:16:44.200
<v Speaker 1>leaning towards finding standard, and then once once they find standard,

0:16:44.240 --> 0:16:47.760
<v Speaker 1>I'm I'm quite sure they'll also um reject the plan

0:16:47.880 --> 0:16:50.600
<v Speaker 1>on the merits. The Eighth Circuit is dominated by judges

0:16:50.720 --> 0:16:54.640
<v Speaker 1>named by Republican presidents, and on the panel were three

0:16:54.720 --> 0:17:00.000
<v Speaker 1>judges appointed by Republican presidents. Yeah, Eighth Circuit an acests,

0:17:00.440 --> 0:17:04.280
<v Speaker 1>you know, dominated by judges is appointed by Republican presidents.

0:17:04.320 --> 0:17:07.920
<v Speaker 1>But you know, I always say, you know, judges appointed

0:17:07.920 --> 0:17:11.960
<v Speaker 1>by Republicans are less likely to defer to agency action.

0:17:12.080 --> 0:17:15.040
<v Speaker 1>But you know that's that's a generalization. It doesn't always hold.

0:17:15.040 --> 0:17:17.840
<v Speaker 1>The trial court judge in that case was a George W.

0:17:17.960 --> 0:17:20.480
<v Speaker 1>Bush appoint due, and he dismissed the lawsuit. And you

0:17:20.520 --> 0:17:23.080
<v Speaker 1>know it's turned out different on appeal. Is the Biden

0:17:23.080 --> 0:17:26.600
<v Speaker 1>administration appealing this Eighth Circuit decision to the Supreme Court.

0:17:27.119 --> 0:17:30.000
<v Speaker 1>So the Eighth Circuit decision, you know, that appeal is

0:17:30.040 --> 0:17:32.640
<v Speaker 1>still playing out, right, All all the Eight Circuit said

0:17:32.800 --> 0:17:35.439
<v Speaker 1>was that they're putting the plan on hold while the

0:17:35.440 --> 0:17:39.560
<v Speaker 1>appeal plays out. Now, the administration could um asked the

0:17:39.600 --> 0:17:44.439
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court, uh, you know, to undo the stay of

0:17:44.520 --> 0:17:47.879
<v Speaker 1>the plan. I think that's highly unlikely to succeeded, because

0:17:48.200 --> 0:17:50.439
<v Speaker 1>you know, it makes sense to sort of keep the

0:17:50.440 --> 0:17:54.639
<v Speaker 1>status quo while litigation plays out. But they have already

0:17:54.680 --> 0:17:58.920
<v Speaker 1>appealed their Texas judges decisions to the Drift Circuit so

0:17:59.119 --> 0:18:02.840
<v Speaker 1>that that one will proceed. And in the meantime, what's

0:18:02.880 --> 0:18:07.480
<v Speaker 1>happening to the people who are applying or were applying

0:18:07.720 --> 0:18:11.560
<v Speaker 1>for student loans forgiveness? So applications that were already made

0:18:11.920 --> 0:18:16.919
<v Speaker 1>before these decisions are you know, just held in limbo.

0:18:17.200 --> 0:18:19.960
<v Speaker 1>And since these decisions have come out in the last

0:18:19.960 --> 0:18:23.520
<v Speaker 1>couple of weeks, the administration has basically suspended the application process,

0:18:23.600 --> 0:18:25.960
<v Speaker 1>so you can't even apply for forgiveness at this point.

0:18:26.160 --> 0:18:31.399
<v Speaker 1>This help services for privately owned loans. Yeah, so you know,

0:18:31.600 --> 0:18:34.639
<v Speaker 1>in in that UM in the Eighth Circuit case, in

0:18:34.680 --> 0:18:37.080
<v Speaker 1>the in the trial Corps when when those when that

0:18:37.200 --> 0:18:41.960
<v Speaker 1>when that lawsuit was first filed, the admitted the administration's

0:18:42.000 --> 0:18:46.960
<v Speaker 1>plan originally would have allowed forgiveness for both loans held

0:18:47.000 --> 0:18:51.280
<v Speaker 1>by the Department of Education, but also federal loans that

0:18:51.359 --> 0:18:59.199
<v Speaker 1>were held by private uh entities, commercial entities. UM. What

0:19:00.160 --> 0:19:03.600
<v Speaker 1>fear was that a lot of the services like you know,

0:19:03.680 --> 0:19:09.199
<v Speaker 1>maybe like Navy and UM or Discover uh, you know,

0:19:09.280 --> 0:19:15.080
<v Speaker 1>companies that that service commercially held loans would sue. They

0:19:15.160 --> 0:19:19.120
<v Speaker 1>never did, but but that's but some of the services

0:19:19.160 --> 0:19:22.600
<v Speaker 1>that were state instrumentalities are there are six GOP states

0:19:22.600 --> 0:19:25.520
<v Speaker 1>at SUD did service commercially held loans. So what the

0:19:25.560 --> 0:19:31.320
<v Speaker 1>administration did to try to essentially undercut those lawsuits was

0:19:31.400 --> 0:19:34.520
<v Speaker 1>that they narrowed the plan and they said only federally

0:19:34.600 --> 0:19:37.960
<v Speaker 1>held loan loans will be eligible for forgiveness and not

0:19:38.000 --> 0:19:40.840
<v Speaker 1>commercially held loans. And so that basically took away the

0:19:40.880 --> 0:19:47.040
<v Speaker 1>possibility of lawsuits by servicers um that service commercially held loans,

0:19:47.080 --> 0:19:52.000
<v Speaker 1>Like I said that the Missouri servicer also services federally

0:19:52.000 --> 0:19:54.680
<v Speaker 1>held loans, and so they they're still in the case.

0:19:55.119 --> 0:19:58.760
<v Speaker 1>But companies like you know, like Navy and Salary may

0:19:58.880 --> 0:20:02.600
<v Speaker 1>discover the they're essentially already helped by the administration narrowing

0:20:02.600 --> 0:20:05.160
<v Speaker 1>the plan only to federally held loans, which they don't

0:20:05.160 --> 0:20:09.399
<v Speaker 1>even service. So in your opinion, the merits of the

0:20:09.440 --> 0:20:13.520
<v Speaker 1>case are weak for the administration because it based it

0:20:13.520 --> 0:20:17.560
<v Speaker 1>on the Heroes Act. Yeah, I mean, the way I

0:20:17.560 --> 0:20:20.840
<v Speaker 1>would say it is that you know it um. You know,

0:20:20.920 --> 0:20:24.840
<v Speaker 1>judges who have subscribed to the philosophy of the major

0:20:24.920 --> 0:20:28.199
<v Speaker 1>questions dock in um and who want to sort of

0:20:28.640 --> 0:20:34.480
<v Speaker 1>cretail the administrative state certainly are gonna find the Administration's

0:20:34.520 --> 0:20:37.600
<v Speaker 1>justification for us in the Heroes Act is weak um.

0:20:37.640 --> 0:20:40.560
<v Speaker 1>And we've already seen that, you know, with the judge

0:20:40.560 --> 0:20:46.760
<v Speaker 1>in Texas with the Eighth Circuit to some extent um.

0:20:46.840 --> 0:20:49.000
<v Speaker 1>And you know, we we've seen it previously with the

0:20:49.040 --> 0:20:55.320
<v Speaker 1>administration trying to use covid um to get certain things done,

0:20:55.359 --> 0:20:59.719
<v Speaker 1>like the eviction moratorium. You know, they tried to uh

0:20:59.800 --> 0:21:03.679
<v Speaker 1>you the court said that CDC couldn't use um, that

0:21:03.720 --> 0:21:07.520
<v Speaker 1>they didn't have statutory authority to enact in eviction moratory.

0:21:07.600 --> 0:21:11.880
<v Speaker 1>And same with start trying to get an employee vaccine mandate.

0:21:12.280 --> 0:21:17.000
<v Speaker 1>So you know, we're sort of in this state where um,

0:21:17.040 --> 0:21:20.320
<v Speaker 1>you know, Conservatives certainly dominates the Suppreme Court and the

0:21:20.320 --> 0:21:22.600
<v Speaker 1>Fifth Circuit and the Eighth Circuit and some other circuit courts,

0:21:22.600 --> 0:21:25.280
<v Speaker 1>and that they subscribe to the Major Questions doctrine. And

0:21:25.359 --> 0:21:30.560
<v Speaker 1>unless you have a statute that really specifically authorizes um,

0:21:30.960 --> 0:21:35.879
<v Speaker 1>you know, action that has you know, national and economic importance,

0:21:36.440 --> 0:21:40.439
<v Speaker 1>you know they're they're going to reject agency action unless

0:21:40.440 --> 0:21:44.680
<v Speaker 1>you can really point the specific statutory authority. Thanks so much, Elliott.

0:21:44.920 --> 0:21:49.440
<v Speaker 1>That's Bloomberg Intelligence, Senior Litigation analyst, Elliot Stein. For more

0:21:49.480 --> 0:21:51.720
<v Speaker 1>of elliotts analysis, you can go to b I go

0:21:52.080 --> 0:21:54.640
<v Speaker 1>on the Bloomberg Terminal. And that's it for this edition

0:21:54.680 --> 0:21:57.360
<v Speaker 1>of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get

0:21:57.359 --> 0:22:00.399
<v Speaker 1>the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast as

0:22:00.440 --> 0:22:03.480
<v Speaker 1>you can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

0:22:03.600 --> 0:22:08.639
<v Speaker 1>www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast slash Law, And

0:22:08.680 --> 0:22:11.440
<v Speaker 1>remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every week

0:22:11.560 --> 0:22:15.160
<v Speaker 1>night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grossow,

0:22:15.240 --> 0:22:16.840
<v Speaker 1>and you're listening to Bloomberg