Speaker 1: When you go to find something online, do you say
Speaker 1: I will now conduct an Internet search? Of course not,
Speaker 1: you say I'll just google it. Google's verb level status
Speaker 1: in our lives is a measure of its enormous success.
Speaker 1: It's also at the center of a case the US
Speaker 1: government has brought against the company. For years, regulators in
Speaker 1: Washington have accused tech giants of stifling competition, and in
Speaker 1: recent months, the US Justice Department and the Federal Trade
Speaker 1: Commission have launched high profile cases not just against Google
Speaker 1: but Amazon too.
Speaker 2: You know, in a.
Speaker 3: Competitive world, if you have a company that's both hiking
Speaker 3: prices and worsening services for customers, that's the type of
Speaker 3: situation that should create an opening for rivals to come
Speaker 3: in to attract business to grow. But it's really Amazon's
Speaker 3: exclusionary scheme that is keeping that from happening, and what's
Speaker 3: enabling Amazon to effectively be exploiting its monopoly power with impunity.
Speaker 1: Lena Khan, the chair of the FTC. Bloomberg's Leah Nyland
Speaker 1: is covering both of these cases, and she's here to
Speaker 1: explain what's at stake for the companies and consumers and
Speaker 1: why the government is pursuing these antitrust lawsuits.
Speaker 4: Now under US LAB you are allowed to be a
Speaker 4: monopoly and it's considered a good thing, right because you
Speaker 4: tend to become a monopoly because you have a great product.
Speaker 4: But under the law you're not allowed to take steps
Speaker 4: to try and maintain the monopoly.
Speaker 1: I'm west Kasova today on the Big Take. I'll just bring.
Speaker 2: It Leah, welcome back, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: So I want to talk to you more about why
Speaker 1: the Biden administration is taking such a big forward stance
Speaker 1: against some of the big tech companies. But first, why
Speaker 1: don't we just jump into the cases themselves, and let's
Speaker 1: start with Amazon. What exactly is the administration's complaint against Amazon?
Speaker 4: Earlier this month, the Federal Trade Commission sued Amazon for
Speaker 4: anti trust violations. They allege that Amazon is a monopoly
Speaker 4: and that they have two separate monopolies, one over what
Speaker 4: they call online marketplace services, which is websites that allow
Speaker 4: third party sellers to sell goods to the public. And
Speaker 4: they also alleged that Amazon is a monopolist in online superstores,
Speaker 4: which is the retailers who have one stops shopping for
Speaker 4: all sorts of different goods so you could buy you know,
Speaker 4: things like electronics, also groceries and books and all sorts
Speaker 4: of things within there. That is, companies like Amazon, companies
Speaker 4: like eBay, at sea, things along those sides.
Speaker 1: And what exactly is the complaint? What are they saying
Speaker 1: that Amazon is doing that's wrong?
Speaker 4: Yeah, so they allege that Amazon has engaged in a
Speaker 4: course of conduct that has raised prices. Is for both
Speaker 4: third party sellers who sell on the website and then
Speaker 4: also for consumers who are buying products through Amazon's website.
Speaker 1: And here's Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan again, she
Speaker 1: spoke recently to Bloomberg News.
Speaker 3: Ultimately, Amazon has pursued them to deprive actual and potential
Speaker 3: competitors of the ability to gain the scale and momentum
Speaker 3: needed to effectively compete online. And having achieved and protected
Speaker 3: its monopoly power, are complaint details how Amazon is now
Speaker 3: exploiting that monopoly power in ways that harm customers.
Speaker 4: There are a number of allegations about various policies that
Speaker 4: Amazon has imposed on sellers. The two biggest ones are
Speaker 4: one that Amazon has tied access to its marketplace with
Speaker 4: the use of its logistics service, which is called fulfilled
Speaker 4: by Amazon.
Speaker 5: So third party sellers.
Speaker 4: Instead of keeping the products themselves and then shipping them
Speaker 4: via the post officer FedEx, they pay Amazon to keep
Speaker 4: theirs and then ship them out the same as Amazon
Speaker 4: does with its own and the FTC alleges that Amazon
Speaker 4: has been giving priority on its website to the sellers
Speaker 4: who use this logistics service. The other thing that they
Speaker 4: allege is that Amazon has what is sort of known
Speaker 4: as a price parity clause. Essentially, it requires sellers to
Speaker 4: always sell their products the cheapest on Amazon, and the
Speaker 4: FTC alleges that that causes prices to rise not only
Speaker 4: on Amazon, but across the entire web.
Speaker 3: So this case is ultimately about competition and competition that
Speaker 3: has been foregone because of Amazon's unlawful tactics. As the
Speaker 3: complaint lays out, as a result of that, people are
Speaker 3: paying higher prices right Consumers are paying more than they
Speaker 3: otherwise would, small businesses are having to pay a fifty
Speaker 3: percent Amazon tax right now, and so ultimately the complaint
Speaker 3: is seeking to restore the lost promise of competition.
Speaker 4: You know, Amazon is imposing these other fees on sellers
Speaker 4: for advertising for this fulfillment service, so they in essence
Speaker 4: end up raising the price to cover these costs that
Speaker 4: they have to pay for Amazon.
Speaker 1: And so is the government saying that Amazon is a monopoly?
Speaker 4: Yes, they say very clearly on the first page, Amazon
Speaker 4: is a monopolist.
Speaker 1: And what is the definition of a monopoly according to
Speaker 1: the FTC in this case.
Speaker 4: Under the US law, there's not like a strict definition
Speaker 4: of what is a monopoly. You can't say, like, okay,
Speaker 4: if a company has more than fifty percent market share,
Speaker 4: they are a monopoly. But they are alleging that they're
Speaker 4: a monopolist in both this marketplace services category and they
Speaker 4: also allege that they are a monopolist in this online
Speaker 4: superstore category.
Speaker 1: And it's not just the FTC that is going after them,
Speaker 1: is that right?
Speaker 4: Yes, this complaint there were seventeen state attorneys general who
Speaker 4: joined on to it, both Democrats and Republicans.
Speaker 1: The FDC has been kind of poking around Amazon for
Speaker 1: several years.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 1: Why did it decide that this was the thing to
Speaker 1: go after Because Amazon is huge. They have so many
Speaker 1: different kinds of businesses that people could accuse them of,
Speaker 1: you know, like changing the market.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Amazon has been under investigation by the FTC now
Speaker 4: for four years. This investigation started back in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 4: and the FTC's investigation delved into a lot of aspects
Speaker 4: of their business, the marketplace. They looked at cloud aws
Speaker 4: or Amazon Web Services. They also looked at some of
Speaker 4: the previous acquisitions that Amazon has done in a number
Speaker 4: of areas. They looked very deeply also at the Prime
Speaker 4: subscription service, which is partially in this case, but not
Speaker 4: as much as people ended up expecting. And they ended
Speaker 4: up focusing on the marketplace because that I think is
Speaker 4: you know, it's Amazon's longest running business and it is
Speaker 4: sort of the center of their dominance if you think
Speaker 4: about it.
Speaker 1: And that's interesting because I think a lot of people
Speaker 1: would be surprised to think about how important third party
Speaker 1: sellers are to Amazon because you think, you go to Amazon,
Speaker 1: you think they're selling you all this stuff. But it
Speaker 1: really is this collection of thousands and thousands of small
Speaker 1: businesses that have kind of yoked themselves to Amazon's massive engine.
Speaker 4: Yeah, there are millions of sellers on Amazon's marketplace, and
Speaker 4: over time, Amazon has been gaining more and more revenue
Speaker 4: from those third party sellers as opposed to selling its
Speaker 4: own products. The FTC's complaint allegeds that sellers now pay
Speaker 4: one out of every two dollars they make on Amazon
Speaker 4: to the company itself for the commission and ads and
Speaker 4: fulfillment or other types of fees that the company imposes
Speaker 4: on them, so.
Speaker 1: That even though the official Amazon fees are lower, they
Speaker 1: say that once they all stack up, it adds up
Speaker 1: to fifty percent of.
Speaker 5: That's what the FTC alleges, and I.
Speaker 1: Guess sellers themselves would say, Well, sure I could go
Speaker 1: sell offline or sell someplace else, but if you're not
Speaker 1: on Amazon, then you're kind of out of the game.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's what a lot of sellers tell us. You know,
Speaker 4: Amazon is the most important channel, they call it for
Speaker 4: sales because it's a place that people go when they
Speaker 4: want to buy something.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about another term that comes
Speaker 1: up that is, I guess related to monopoly, and that's
Speaker 1: this anti competitive conduct. How is that different from being
Speaker 1: a monopoly?
Speaker 4: So under US law, being a monopoly is actually not
Speaker 4: against the law. You are allowed to be a monopoly,
Speaker 4: and it's considered a good thing, right because you tend
Speaker 4: to become a monopoly because you have a great product.
Speaker 4: But under the law you're not allowed to take steps
Speaker 4: to try and maintain that monopoly. So what the FTC
Speaker 4: is saying is, you know, maybe Amazon became a monopoly
Speaker 4: because it offers great services to consumers, but what it
Speaker 4: shouldn't have done, and what the FTC alleges it did,
Speaker 4: is take all these steps to sort of lock in
Speaker 4: consumers and make sure that nobody else could sort of
Speaker 4: lure them away with lower prices or different services and
Speaker 4: things like that. The case itself just lays out a
Speaker 4: number of alleged anti competitive conduct that Amazon has engaged
Speaker 4: in in order to maintain these monopolies.
Speaker 1: What is Amazon's say about the FTC cases?
Speaker 4: Amazon says that the FTC's case would lead to higher
Speaker 4: prices for consumers, and they reject the idea that they
Speaker 4: should be required to show higher prices on their own website.
Speaker 4: So Amazon says, the way that it decides who wins
Speaker 4: the bybox, as it's known, so who is the featured
Speaker 4: seller for a particular product is a complex algorithm, but
Speaker 4: it takes into account like the price of the product
Speaker 4: and how quickly it's going to go to a consumer.
Speaker 4: Amazon argues that if it's not allowed to show the
Speaker 4: lowest price, consumers are going to go elsewhere to search
Speaker 4: for low prices, so they intend.
Speaker 5: To vigorously contest the FTC's case.
Speaker 4: Antitrust cases take a really long time, so we're probably
Speaker 4: not looking at a trial until around twenty twenty five
Speaker 4: or twenty twenty six, but Amazon is definitely gearing up
Speaker 4: for one already.
Speaker 1: After the break. The government's case against Google.
Speaker 6: Well, the biggest US antitrust trial gets underway today as
Speaker 6: the Justice Department takes on tech giant Google.
Speaker 7: The government argues that Google, which controls ninety percent of
Speaker 7: the search market, illegally paid billions of dollars a year
Speaker 7: to smartphonemakers like Apple to be the default search engine
Speaker 7: on their devices.
Speaker 1: As of last month, Google had a global market share
Speaker 1: of about ninety two percent, It's nearest competitor being held
Speaker 1: about three percent.
Speaker 2: The only question is is this a serious threat to
Speaker 2: Google as a whole entity?
Speaker 1: Leah. Amazon is only one of the US government's targets
Speaker 1: against the big tech companies. Also, they're taking a hard
Speaker 1: look at Google. What exactly is happening with those cases?
Speaker 4: Yes, So, the Justice Department and a group of state
Speaker 4: attorneys general sued Google back in twenty twenty over its
Speaker 4: conduct related to its search business, and this case went
Speaker 4: to trial in mid September. It is a ten week
Speaker 4: trial that is expected to last through mid November. So
Speaker 4: the main allegations in that case is that Google has
Speaker 4: illegally maintained its monopoly over the search market by entering
Speaker 4: into a variety of contracts with other companies, including Apple
Speaker 4: and smartphone manufacturers like Samsung, to ensure that it is
Speaker 4: always placed as the pre selected option or default whenever
Speaker 4: you access a computer or a mobile phone.
Speaker 1: So that Google Search Engine is just the way you
Speaker 1: search the web automatically.
Speaker 4: Yes, so in pretty much every browser except the one
Speaker 4: owned by Microsoft, and on every smartphone, Google Search Engine
Speaker 4: is the one that you would automatically search. If you
Speaker 4: just go to a browser or unless you make some
Speaker 4: kind of a change, you are always going to be
Speaker 4: searching via Google. We don't know exactly how much money
Speaker 4: Google pays for these contracts. The Justice Department said the
Speaker 4: number is north of ten billion dollars. But for the past,
Speaker 4: you know, fifteen years, they have been paying people to
Speaker 4: ensure that every time you access the web and do
Speaker 4: a soar, it's through Google.
Speaker 1: And the government's case is getting sort of a boost
Speaker 1: from one of Google's big competitors, Microsoft.
Speaker 4: Yes, there have been a number of Microsoft executives who've
Speaker 4: testified at the trial, including CEO Satynadella, who testified at
Speaker 4: the beginning of October. He is very interesting because, in
Speaker 4: addition to being the CEO for a long time, he
Speaker 4: actually ran Microsoft search business, the bing search engine, so
Speaker 4: he has a lot of knowledge and deep understanding of
Speaker 4: Microsoft's ambitions in the search space and how it relates
Speaker 4: to the rest of their business. Satunadella, as well as
Speaker 4: some of the other executives who are at rival search engines,
Speaker 4: have alleged that these contracts that Google has entered into
Speaker 4: just block their access from being able to get users
Speaker 4: because it's very, very difficult to get a user to
Speaker 4: switch the default search engine. Most people on their phone
Speaker 4: don't actually realize that there is a default don't know
Speaker 4: how to change it. So one of Google's defenses is
Speaker 4: that you can change it. It's easy. It's a debate
Speaker 4: whether it's four or five clicks to change it. But
Speaker 4: what the Justice Department is saying, and what some of
Speaker 4: the rivals also say, is most people don't even know
Speaker 4: that that option to change it exists.
Speaker 1: And Microsoft is also arguing that they tried to attract
Speaker 1: business for their search engine called Bing, but they got
Speaker 1: turned down.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: That was what was the most interesting and exciting fact
Speaker 4: about the Microsoft testimony is we've gotten a look inside
Speaker 4: a lot of their negotiations with other companies, including Apple.
Speaker 4: So for years, Microsoft has tried to persuade Apple to
Speaker 4: change the default on the Safari search engine, which is
Speaker 4: the search engine on iPhones, mac computers, and iPads, from
Speaker 4: Google to Bing. Apple has always used Google since two
Speaker 4: thousand and three, and they get paid money by Google
Speaker 4: a share of all of the advertising revenue for that contract.
Speaker 4: Microsoft has said time and time and again that they
Speaker 4: should use Being as the search engine in Safari. They
Speaker 4: even offered to sell Bing to Apple so that Apple
Speaker 4: could develop its own search engine and search technology. They
Speaker 4: didn't say exactly how much money they were offering, but
Speaker 4: they said it was billions of dollars, and Microsoft was
Speaker 4: willing to take a multi billion dollar loss in order
Speaker 4: to make this switch happen because they believe that once
Speaker 4: they had the number of users that Safari would bring them,
Speaker 4: they could rapidly improve their search engine Bing and become
Speaker 4: more of a competitor to Google than they are today.
Speaker 4: Apple turned them down repeatedly.
Speaker 1: It was a pretty big splashing moment when Microsoft CEO
Speaker 1: took the stand. What did he say?
Speaker 4: Yeah, that was a really interesting part of the trial
Speaker 4: because he made a couple of interesting points. One of
Speaker 4: them he was talking about how integrated into the average
Speaker 4: person's life Google has become. He had a quote that said,
Speaker 4: you wake up in the morning, you brush your teeth,
Speaker 4: then you go and you search on Google. And the
Speaker 4: point he was making is it's become a habit that
Speaker 4: people don't even really think about. It's something incorporated into
Speaker 4: your day. The other thing he testified about was their
Speaker 4: negotiations with Apple and how they have tried very hard
Speaker 4: to persuade Apple to switch the default in the Safari
Speaker 4: browser from Google to Bing and have so far not
Speaker 4: been very successful.
Speaker 1: I should add here that Apple has said it chooses
Speaker 1: to work with Google because Google provides the best search results.
Speaker 4: Another Microsoft executive pretty senior at the company, Jonathan Tinter,
Speaker 4: he's their deal maker, and he testified about how when
Speaker 4: Microsoft built the Surface duo phone, this was Microsoft's attempt
Speaker 4: to re enter sort of the smartphone market. They decided
Speaker 4: to license the Android operating system from Google. And even
Speaker 4: though Microsoft wanted to feature its own search engine being
Speaker 4: on the phone, Google required them to set Google as
Speaker 4: the default and put a lot of search entry points
Speaker 4: to Google right there on their own phone.
Speaker 1: So what does Google say about all these different allegations
Speaker 1: coming in them.
Speaker 4: They have a couple different defenses. They are expected to
Speaker 4: be the last several weeks of the trial. They're going
Speaker 4: to bring a lot of their own executives, including Sandar Pashai,
Speaker 4: to the stand to testify on behalf of Google. One
Speaker 4: of their defenses is that it's not that hard to switch, Like,
Speaker 4: if you don't want to use Google, there are other
Speaker 4: options consumers can get them with just a few clicks.
Speaker 4: On a desktop browser, you can actually go in and
Speaker 4: switch to any other search engine.
Speaker 5: On a phone, you can go and you.
Speaker 4: Have your choice of five, so you can choose between Google, Yahoo, Bing, Duck,
Speaker 4: Dot Go, or a German company called Ecosia.
Speaker 1: And so Google says all you have to do is
Speaker 1: go into the settings and you can choose any search
Speaker 1: engine you want, not theirs.
Speaker 5: They say it's really easy to switch if you want to.
Speaker 4: They have an oft repeated slogan, competition is just a
Speaker 4: click away. The other thing they've said is some of
Speaker 4: these search engines aren't as good as Google's because they
Speaker 4: haven't invested as much money as Google has.
Speaker 1: Is ongoing, Like you say, where do you think it
Speaker 1: goes from here?
Speaker 4: So this is just part one of the trial. This
Speaker 4: is a judge trial. He is a judge Ami Meta.
Speaker 4: He will make a decision, probably sometime next year about
Speaker 4: whether Google violated the law. Then from there we expect
Speaker 4: that there might be a second trial or a second
Speaker 4: proceeding of some sort in which he decides what to
Speaker 4: do about this. So we don't know yet what the
Speaker 4: Justice Department intends to ask for as the remedy if
Speaker 4: they win, but they've sort of laid out a couple
Speaker 4: of possibilities. One is that they could seek to break
Speaker 4: up Google. They could seek to require Google to sell
Speaker 4: off either it's Chrome browser or maybe the Android operating
Speaker 4: system itself, and keep separate the search business from some
Speaker 4: of the other businesses that it has. The other option
Speaker 4: is what we would call in the antitrust world, a
Speaker 4: behavior remedy, so forcing Google to change some of the
Speaker 4: conduct that it has undertaken, and one of the main
Speaker 4: allegations in this case is that by ensuring that it
Speaker 4: gets all of the traffic, the billions of searches at day,
Speaker 4: Google has deprived the other search engines of the oxygen
Speaker 4: of all of the user queries that they need to
Speaker 4: improve their own search engines and succeed. So one thing
Speaker 4: that the Justice Department could seek is to force Google
Speaker 4: to share some of that data, share a lot of
Speaker 4: the it's called click and query data of what users
Speaker 4: are searching for and what they click on, so that
Speaker 4: these other search engines could improve their products.
Speaker 1: When we come back, why the Biden administration is pushing
Speaker 1: so hard against big tech Leah, Here we have the
Speaker 1: Federal Trade Commission and the US Justice Department going after
Speaker 1: big tech companies generation to go. When the US government
Speaker 1: went after Microsoft, have pulled down so many resources, and
Speaker 1: now we have the government going after too at the
Speaker 1: same time, Why is the Biden administration taking such aim
Speaker 1: at both of these companies now? And simultaneously.
Speaker 4: The Biden administration has made competition and anti trust a
Speaker 4: key feature of their economic policy. Biden signed in an
Speaker 4: executive order focused on competition and has really empowered the
Speaker 4: FTC and the Justice Department, the to anti trust agencies
Speaker 4: to go after anti competitive conduct that might be hampering
Speaker 4: the US economy. Both agencies argue that these are tech giants.
Speaker 4: They're large companies that while they had great products when
Speaker 4: they originally were unveiled, they have sort of slowed down
Speaker 4: their innovations. And also because they are so large, other
Speaker 4: companies have not really challenged them or moved in to
Speaker 4: compete against them. So the idea behind these cases is
Speaker 4: to sort of take on some of the really big
Speaker 4: players in the market and open up space for smaller
Speaker 4: companies to come in and maybe create some new innovations.
Speaker 1: We mentioned Lena Khan, the head of the FDC, earlier,
Speaker 1: and so much of this i've at least in the
Speaker 1: Amazon case, really does seem to be coming from herself.
Speaker 4: The actual case against Amazon started back in twenty nineteen
Speaker 4: during the Trump administration, but when Lena Khan came in
Speaker 4: in twenty twenty one, she and her staff completely revamped
Speaker 4: the investigation, focused it more on specific things, including the
Speaker 4: marketplace and the role of prime And you know, she
Speaker 4: has spent much of her career thinking about how the
Speaker 4: digital tech giants have impacted the economy and how the
Speaker 4: anti trust laws could be reframed to sort of challenge
Speaker 4: some of their conduct. So she is really like the
Speaker 4: vanguard of this movement to take on the tech giants.
Speaker 4: Lena Khan started thinking about Amazon and some of the
Speaker 4: anti trust issues inherent in digital technologies when she was
Speaker 4: a law student at Yale. She wrote this famous paper
Speaker 4: called Amazon's Anti Trust Paradox that you know for the
Speaker 4: anti trust world.
Speaker 5: It was a blackbuster law.
Speaker 4: Student paper because it really rethought how we should think
Speaker 4: about anti trust in the context of digital markets.
Speaker 1: And this is also the first really big case or
Speaker 1: cases about online activities as opposed to just kind of
Speaker 1: big tech companies.
Speaker 4: Yes, the Microsoft case twenty five years ago focused a
Speaker 4: little bit on the Internet because it involved the creation
Speaker 4: of browsers.
Speaker 5: But these are the really big cases.
Speaker 4: About the online world, and they are likely to set
Speaker 4: precedence and have important impacts on future cases that the
Speaker 4: agencies are going to bring related to digital markets.
Speaker 1: Leah, as you said, these are hard cases to bring,
Speaker 1: They take a long time. How do you think they
Speaker 1: end up.
Speaker 4: It's a little hard to say at this point that
Speaker 4: Justice Department's Google case is the furthest along. We're expecting
Speaker 4: sort of an initial decision from the judge next year.
Speaker 4: But you know, because these are really important cases that
Speaker 4: could lead to breakups of the company, you can bet
Speaker 4: that the company is going to plan on appealing. So
Speaker 4: we're not going to see the end of this anytime soon.
Speaker 4: The best estimates I've heard about Amazon is we're probably
Speaker 4: looking at a trial in late twenty twenty five or
Speaker 4: early twenty twenty six. So we're not going to have
Speaker 4: a resolution there either in the near term future.
Speaker 1: And I suppose if we have a different administration, a
Speaker 1: different party in the White House, that could also change
Speaker 1: priorities too.
Speaker 4: That is what happened with the Microsoft case. The Bush
Speaker 4: administration came in in two thousand and one and decided
Speaker 4: that instead of continuing to seek a breakup of Microsoft,
Speaker 4: they were going to accept a settlement. And so yes,
Speaker 4: when there is a change in administration, it can completely
Speaker 4: change what happens with a case.
Speaker 1: Do you think that these two big cases, the government's
Speaker 1: willingness to go after these companies opens the door to
Speaker 1: other cases.
Speaker 5: That's probably the case.
Speaker 4: I mean, there is another one pending against Metaplatforms, Inc.
Speaker 5: I e.
Speaker 4: The former company formerly known as Facebook. The FTC filed
Speaker 4: that one in twenty twenty it's still ongoing. We don't
Speaker 4: have a trial date on that one yet, But the
Speaker 4: Justice Department has also been looking at conduct by Apple
Speaker 4: since twenty nineteen, and we haven't gotten a complaint or
Speaker 4: a resolution to that one as well, So it's entirely
Speaker 4: possible that what happens in these cases could impact that
Speaker 4: one as well.
Speaker 1: Leah, it's amazing to me you're able to hold all
Speaker 1: this in your head at the same time. Thanks so
Speaker 1: much for sharing your reporting.
Speaker 5: Thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to us here at The Big Take.
Speaker 1: It's a daily podcast from Bloomberg and iHeartRadio. For more
Speaker 1: shows from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
Speaker 1: wherever you listen, and we'd love to hear from you.
Speaker 1: Email us questions or comments to Big Take at Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot net. This episode was produced by our supervising producer,
Speaker 1: Vicky Bergalina. Our senior producer is Catherine Fink. Raphael m
Speaker 1: Celia is our engineer. Our original music was composed by
Speaker 1: Leo Sidron. I'm west Kasova. We'll be back tomorrow with
Speaker 1: another Big Take.