WEBVTT - Big Tech Is on Trial. What That Means for the Future of the Internet

0:00:00.240 --> 0:00:09.720
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. Right now, in one

0:00:09.880 --> 0:00:13.200
<v Speaker 1>federal courthouse in DC, two of the world's biggest tech

0:00:13.240 --> 0:00:17.520
<v Speaker 1>companies are facing reckoning. On the second floor, Meta, the

0:00:17.560 --> 0:00:21.720
<v Speaker 1>company behind Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, is up against monopoly

0:00:21.800 --> 0:00:25.400
<v Speaker 1>charges filed by the Federal Trade Commission. And two floors

0:00:25.480 --> 0:00:29.120
<v Speaker 1>up is Google, which recently lost to anti trust cases

0:00:29.400 --> 0:00:31.680
<v Speaker 1>and is now awaiting a judgment that could lead to

0:00:31.720 --> 0:00:35.320
<v Speaker 1>a breakup of the company. Both cases are part of

0:00:35.320 --> 0:00:39.279
<v Speaker 1>the US government's growing anti trust enforcement push that's been

0:00:39.280 --> 0:00:41.800
<v Speaker 1>putting increasing pressure on big tech.

0:00:42.200 --> 0:00:45.320
<v Speaker 2>It's kind of stunning that this is the one issue,

0:00:46.000 --> 0:00:49.599
<v Speaker 2>this anti tech sentiment. We know they're powerful, we need

0:00:49.640 --> 0:00:52.160
<v Speaker 2>to do something about it. That is like the most

0:00:52.200 --> 0:00:56.480
<v Speaker 2>bipartisan topic now and in the past ten years.

0:00:56.520 --> 0:00:59.960
<v Speaker 1>I want to say that's Sarah Fryer, a Bloomberg technology

0:01:00.080 --> 0:01:02.040
<v Speaker 1>editor who's been following these cases.

0:01:02.840 --> 0:01:08.400
<v Speaker 2>This is really driven a strange thread of collaboration between

0:01:08.520 --> 0:01:12.080
<v Speaker 2>Republicans and Democrats over the years, from the first Trump

0:01:12.120 --> 0:01:15.080
<v Speaker 2>administration to the Biden administration and now in the second

0:01:15.120 --> 0:01:18.080
<v Speaker 2>Trump administration. Trying to tie it all up with a bow.

0:01:22.080 --> 0:01:25.480
<v Speaker 1>Today on the show Big Tech Is on Trial, how

0:01:25.520 --> 0:01:28.760
<v Speaker 1>the monopoly claims against Google and Meta could reshape the

0:01:28.800 --> 0:01:32.040
<v Speaker 1>industry and the way we use the Internet for decades

0:01:32.040 --> 0:01:34.839
<v Speaker 1>to come. I'm Sarah Holder, and this is the big

0:01:34.880 --> 0:01:43.600
<v Speaker 1>take from Bloomberg News. I am thrilled to be sitting

0:01:43.640 --> 0:01:48.080
<v Speaker 1>down with two of Bloomberg's eminent Sarah's. We have Sarah Fryer.

0:01:48.240 --> 0:01:50.920
<v Speaker 1>She's a technology editor for Bloomberg and the author of

0:01:51.000 --> 0:01:55.000
<v Speaker 1>No Filter, The Inside Story of Instagram. Welcome Sarah, Thanks

0:01:55.040 --> 0:01:58.720
<v Speaker 1>for having me and Sarah Forden our second Sarah or

0:01:58.760 --> 0:02:02.560
<v Speaker 1>our third, depending on how you're counting. She oversees legal

0:02:02.600 --> 0:02:05.200
<v Speaker 1>news at Bloomberg, and she's been covering Google and its

0:02:05.280 --> 0:02:08.520
<v Speaker 1>court battles since twenty ten. Thank you for being here.

0:02:08.639 --> 0:02:09.639
<v Speaker 3>Thank you for having me.

0:02:10.000 --> 0:02:10.520
<v Speaker 2>Sarah Fryer.

0:02:10.639 --> 0:02:12.480
<v Speaker 1>You've been on the tech beat for a while, and

0:02:12.520 --> 0:02:15.960
<v Speaker 1>you've traced how big tech companies have been under increasing

0:02:16.000 --> 0:02:19.079
<v Speaker 1>scrutiny in recent years, including in the anti trust space.

0:02:20.160 --> 0:02:22.880
<v Speaker 1>What led us to this moment? Why are Google and

0:02:22.960 --> 0:02:27.080
<v Speaker 1>Meta in court facing monopoly lawsuits at roughly the same time.

0:02:27.440 --> 0:02:31.160
<v Speaker 2>I think it's a combination of a few really important things.

0:02:31.919 --> 0:02:34.800
<v Speaker 2>The government has gotten a lot smarter about the level

0:02:34.880 --> 0:02:37.680
<v Speaker 2>of power that these companies have and how they're wielding it.

0:02:38.160 --> 0:02:42.640
<v Speaker 2>A lot of the first awakening of these companies and

0:02:42.680 --> 0:02:45.920
<v Speaker 2>what they've done was centered around the consumer experience. It

0:02:45.960 --> 0:02:49.880
<v Speaker 2>was stuff around privacy, content moderation. You know, did they

0:02:49.960 --> 0:02:54.080
<v Speaker 2>let Russia manipulate the twenty sixteen presidential election? But these

0:02:54.120 --> 0:02:57.440
<v Speaker 2>anti trust trials over the years, the government's gotten really

0:02:57.480 --> 0:03:01.519
<v Speaker 2>smart about exactly what makes these companies tech. For Meta,

0:03:01.600 --> 0:03:06.120
<v Speaker 2>the trial centers around how Mark Zuckerberg built his empire,

0:03:06.320 --> 0:03:09.960
<v Speaker 2>literally the secret sauce of like why his company got

0:03:10.000 --> 0:03:14.120
<v Speaker 2>so big and powerful. The Google trial is centered around search,

0:03:14.240 --> 0:03:16.400
<v Speaker 2>their power and search and what they can do to

0:03:17.080 --> 0:03:20.400
<v Speaker 2>remedy what they've now declared to be an illegal monopoly power,

0:03:20.919 --> 0:03:23.840
<v Speaker 2>as well as attech, which is how they make most

0:03:23.840 --> 0:03:24.680
<v Speaker 2>of their revenues.

0:03:25.040 --> 0:03:27.080
<v Speaker 3>Just just take a step back and follow on what

0:03:27.200 --> 0:03:30.120
<v Speaker 3>Sarah Fryer said. Another reason it took a long time

0:03:30.160 --> 0:03:33.359
<v Speaker 3>to get here was that these companies are primarily offering

0:03:33.440 --> 0:03:37.840
<v Speaker 3>free services, and typically anti trust law had looked at

0:03:37.840 --> 0:03:41.080
<v Speaker 3>price and are things getting more expensive for consumers? So

0:03:41.120 --> 0:03:44.320
<v Speaker 3>they had to really revisit how they're looking at these companies.

0:03:44.760 --> 0:03:48.880
<v Speaker 3>And so what you have now are you two behemoth

0:03:48.960 --> 0:03:54.200
<v Speaker 3>tech platforms they're making goodzillions of dollars every year on

0:03:54.880 --> 0:03:58.520
<v Speaker 3>people's data and information, and so that sort of became

0:03:58.560 --> 0:04:01.880
<v Speaker 3>the new currency in these cases. And the government and

0:04:01.920 --> 0:04:04.400
<v Speaker 3>a trust of forcers have taken a long time to

0:04:04.440 --> 0:04:08.240
<v Speaker 3>study these markets, so both the search market and how

0:04:08.280 --> 0:04:12.280
<v Speaker 3>advertising works in search, and the social networking market, and

0:04:12.320 --> 0:04:17.800
<v Speaker 3>so it represents a longer term building of appreciating how

0:04:17.839 --> 0:04:21.719
<v Speaker 3>big and powerful these companies came and how unfettered they were.

0:04:22.240 --> 0:04:24.400
<v Speaker 1>Sarah Fordon, I want to take a closer look at

0:04:24.400 --> 0:04:27.600
<v Speaker 1>the Google trial. Judges have already ruled in two separate

0:04:27.640 --> 0:04:31.719
<v Speaker 1>cases that Google is a monopoly. One case involves Google Search,

0:04:32.120 --> 0:04:34.640
<v Speaker 1>the other is tied to the company's ad technology. As

0:04:34.640 --> 0:04:37.520
<v Speaker 1>you mentioned, we're now in the remedy stage of the

0:04:37.560 --> 0:04:41.040
<v Speaker 1>first trial, the one that involved Google search monopoly. So

0:04:41.080 --> 0:04:43.240
<v Speaker 1>what are the proposed remedies here?

0:04:43.640 --> 0:04:46.720
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, so that trial is now in its final week.

0:04:47.080 --> 0:04:50.359
<v Speaker 3>The judge's been hearing arguments from both sides, and the

0:04:50.440 --> 0:04:54.960
<v Speaker 3>DOJ wants Google to sell off its Chrome browser. That

0:04:55.080 --> 0:04:59.880
<v Speaker 3>is probably the most dramatic remedy proposal. And while Google

0:05:00.120 --> 0:05:03.520
<v Speaker 3>argues that has nothing to do with the harms in

0:05:03.640 --> 0:05:07.120
<v Speaker 3>this case and the monopoly over search, the government says

0:05:07.120 --> 0:05:09.640
<v Speaker 3>that the browser is really the gateway to the Internet,

0:05:09.720 --> 0:05:12.279
<v Speaker 3>and so that's vital for that to be opened up

0:05:12.600 --> 0:05:16.120
<v Speaker 3>to competition. The other thing that the government wants is

0:05:16.160 --> 0:05:19.760
<v Speaker 3>for Google to share data related to search queries. And

0:05:19.800 --> 0:05:23.119
<v Speaker 3>then the third area is the government wants a judge

0:05:23.200 --> 0:05:26.839
<v Speaker 3>to ban Google from doing any kind of exclusive search

0:05:26.880 --> 0:05:29.839
<v Speaker 3>agreements the way it had with Apple and with Samsung,

0:05:29.920 --> 0:05:33.320
<v Speaker 3>so that Google was the default browser and search engine

0:05:33.360 --> 0:05:35.160
<v Speaker 3>on people's smartphones.

0:05:35.720 --> 0:05:38.160
<v Speaker 1>So that's the search monopoly case, which is in its

0:05:38.200 --> 0:05:41.240
<v Speaker 1>final week. Can you explain big picture why the DOJ

0:05:41.480 --> 0:05:44.880
<v Speaker 1>believes Google has been anti competitive in its ad sales.

0:05:45.120 --> 0:05:47.839
<v Speaker 3>Yeah. So this was a separate, a totally separate case

0:05:48.080 --> 0:05:51.400
<v Speaker 3>that was brought under the Biden administration. And this case

0:05:51.480 --> 0:05:56.680
<v Speaker 3>looks at the pipeline of technology that Google controls and

0:05:56.800 --> 0:06:00.640
<v Speaker 3>underpins its ability to serve ads on the web. And

0:06:00.920 --> 0:06:04.520
<v Speaker 3>over the years, it acquired a number of companies, including

0:06:04.680 --> 0:06:08.440
<v Speaker 3>one called double Click and one called ad Mold, which

0:06:08.560 --> 0:06:12.880
<v Speaker 3>allows it to control the whole transaction. And the issue

0:06:12.960 --> 0:06:16.000
<v Speaker 3>there is that it's not transparent at all. It's a

0:06:16.120 --> 0:06:19.640
<v Speaker 3>very opaque process, so nobody can actually see how the

0:06:19.680 --> 0:06:23.039
<v Speaker 3>prices are formed and how the decisions about the cost

0:06:23.080 --> 0:06:26.680
<v Speaker 3>of ads are made. It allows Google to collect what

0:06:26.720 --> 0:06:30.000
<v Speaker 3>the government calls in a monopoly rents, and that means

0:06:30.040 --> 0:06:33.400
<v Speaker 3>that publishers are making less money, and it means that

0:06:33.480 --> 0:06:37.159
<v Speaker 3>advertisers are spending more money, and those costs ultimately get

0:06:37.200 --> 0:06:40.960
<v Speaker 3>passed on to consumers. So the government is alleging that

0:06:41.040 --> 0:06:45.400
<v Speaker 3>this system, because it's so powerfully controlled by Google, really

0:06:45.560 --> 0:06:47.680
<v Speaker 3>is operating to the detriment of consumers.

0:06:47.800 --> 0:06:51.880
<v Speaker 1>Very broadly, and Sarah fryar, these cases are ostensibly at

0:06:51.880 --> 0:06:55.279
<v Speaker 1>their core about search and ad sales products and functions

0:06:55.279 --> 0:06:58.719
<v Speaker 1>that have been Google's core offerings for years, but AI

0:06:58.800 --> 0:07:01.880
<v Speaker 1>has also become a signific can factor here in these

0:07:01.920 --> 0:07:04.880
<v Speaker 1>cases too. Can you talk about how this case has

0:07:04.920 --> 0:07:09.520
<v Speaker 1>been looking at Google's investments in AI and how the

0:07:09.600 --> 0:07:13.280
<v Speaker 1>company might have to shift its strategy in the AI

0:07:13.360 --> 0:07:15.680
<v Speaker 1>space in the wake of these anti trust rulings.

0:07:15.920 --> 0:07:18.840
<v Speaker 2>That's so key here, I mean in terms of AI.

0:07:19.000 --> 0:07:22.760
<v Speaker 2>The judge in this search case says he wants to

0:07:22.800 --> 0:07:26.560
<v Speaker 2>consider that in his remedy for this problem. And a

0:07:26.560 --> 0:07:29.080
<v Speaker 2>couple of things have come up in the case that

0:07:29.160 --> 0:07:32.960
<v Speaker 2>make Google look pretty bad. One is that they have

0:07:33.200 --> 0:07:37.760
<v Speaker 2>these very expensive deals with Samsung. Google said this on

0:07:37.760 --> 0:07:39.600
<v Speaker 2>the stand, they have these deals with Samsung to have

0:07:40.040 --> 0:07:44.600
<v Speaker 2>their Gemini AAI pre installed on phones. Now judges have

0:07:44.680 --> 0:07:49.040
<v Speaker 2>twice ruled those kinds of exclusive pre installed deals illegal.

0:07:49.320 --> 0:07:52.160
<v Speaker 2>Google's doing it anyway for the next big market. The

0:07:52.240 --> 0:07:56.840
<v Speaker 2>other thing that's really become clear in this remedies trial

0:07:57.080 --> 0:08:03.600
<v Speaker 2>is how Google already has such extreme step ahead in

0:08:03.720 --> 0:08:07.360
<v Speaker 2>the AI realm because of the data it has on

0:08:07.400 --> 0:08:10.760
<v Speaker 2>the search. If you are a website that has your

0:08:10.800 --> 0:08:14.960
<v Speaker 2>content index by Google Search, you are opting into being

0:08:15.240 --> 0:08:18.640
<v Speaker 2>used in Google's AI training. There's no way to opt

0:08:18.680 --> 0:08:22.040
<v Speaker 2>out of that, besides opting out of being discoverable on

0:08:22.080 --> 0:08:24.600
<v Speaker 2>Google Search, which is the government argue is basically equivalent

0:08:24.600 --> 0:08:25.760
<v Speaker 2>with the Internet, right.

0:08:25.760 --> 0:08:27.520
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, And if I can just jump in here, I mean,

0:08:27.560 --> 0:08:31.640
<v Speaker 3>the dj is extremely concerned that the advent of AI

0:08:31.800 --> 0:08:35.840
<v Speaker 3>could quickly allow Google to further entrench its monopoly. On

0:08:35.880 --> 0:08:38.560
<v Speaker 3>the other hand, they're trying to walk a very fine line.

0:08:38.760 --> 0:08:43.000
<v Speaker 3>They don't want to hold back like emerging technology either,

0:08:43.440 --> 0:08:46.840
<v Speaker 3>and so for example, they decided not to ban Google

0:08:46.920 --> 0:08:51.280
<v Speaker 3>from acting as an investor in new AI enterprises. So

0:08:51.880 --> 0:08:55.400
<v Speaker 3>Google as a VC investor to help start up new

0:08:55.440 --> 0:08:58.560
<v Speaker 3>AI ventures. They're going to let that go ahead because

0:08:58.600 --> 0:09:02.360
<v Speaker 3>they want Google to compete with Microsoft and Apple and

0:09:02.400 --> 0:09:04.480
<v Speaker 3>the others who are quickly developing.

0:09:05.440 --> 0:09:09.040
<v Speaker 1>Well, Sarah, I want to switch gears to talk about Meta.

0:09:09.720 --> 0:09:13.120
<v Speaker 1>While the US government has already won twice against Google,

0:09:13.400 --> 0:09:15.839
<v Speaker 1>the case against Meta is still ongoing right now, we're

0:09:15.880 --> 0:09:18.720
<v Speaker 1>about halfway through. Can you just help us understand what

0:09:18.920 --> 0:09:22.200
<v Speaker 1>landed Meta in court and what's been litigated so far.

0:09:22.800 --> 0:09:27.440
<v Speaker 2>There is a strategy that the FTC is highlighting here

0:09:27.480 --> 0:09:30.560
<v Speaker 2>from Mark Zuckerberg and his way of growing companies. They're

0:09:30.600 --> 0:09:35.120
<v Speaker 2>concerned that he is seeing a competitor to his business

0:09:35.200 --> 0:09:39.960
<v Speaker 2>crop up, get traction, build their network effect, and out

0:09:40.000 --> 0:09:45.040
<v Speaker 2>of fear that his company will get overtaken by them

0:09:45.240 --> 0:09:48.920
<v Speaker 2>or lose some users to them, he just acquires them

0:09:49.000 --> 0:09:51.440
<v Speaker 2>or tries to copy them. And he's done this over

0:09:51.480 --> 0:09:54.360
<v Speaker 2>and over and over. So the two acquisitions that are

0:09:54.720 --> 0:09:58.600
<v Speaker 2>most in focus in this trial or the Instagram acquisition

0:09:58.640 --> 0:10:02.199
<v Speaker 2>in twenty twelve and then What's acquisition in twenty fourteen,

0:10:02.240 --> 0:10:05.080
<v Speaker 2>which was pretty much inspired by the success of the

0:10:05.120 --> 0:10:10.520
<v Speaker 2>Instagram acquisition. This is complicated for the FTC because at

0:10:10.559 --> 0:10:14.640
<v Speaker 2>the time, the FTC was given an opportunity to give

0:10:14.679 --> 0:10:17.280
<v Speaker 2>a stamp of approval on these acquisitions, and they said,

0:10:17.320 --> 0:10:19.679
<v Speaker 2>go forth, we you know, we're not going to challenge this,

0:10:20.480 --> 0:10:23.040
<v Speaker 2>And so Meta's trying to say, you know, you're trying

0:10:23.080 --> 0:10:24.120
<v Speaker 2>to speak has passed?

0:10:24.559 --> 0:10:27.280
<v Speaker 1>Does Meta still seem like it's going to win this case?

0:10:27.320 --> 0:10:28.600
<v Speaker 1>Have the dynamic shifted?

0:10:28.960 --> 0:10:29.120
<v Speaker 3>Well?

0:10:29.200 --> 0:10:32.760
<v Speaker 2>Meta would would say they're pretty confident. But I think

0:10:32.840 --> 0:10:37.760
<v Speaker 2>that the emails that have surfaced, it is true that

0:10:38.160 --> 0:10:43.160
<v Speaker 2>Zuckerberg and his leaders were constantly looking behind their shoulders

0:10:43.160 --> 0:10:44.719
<v Speaker 2>to see if anyone was catching up with them in

0:10:44.760 --> 0:10:47.600
<v Speaker 2>the race, and constantly trying to think, how can we

0:10:48.360 --> 0:10:51.839
<v Speaker 2>either crush them, buy them, build our own version of this.

0:10:52.880 --> 0:10:55.920
<v Speaker 2>So the FTC has been very good at showing that

0:10:56.000 --> 0:11:01.040
<v Speaker 2>the problem is their market definition for what they consider

0:11:01.160 --> 0:11:04.199
<v Speaker 2>to be metas monopoly. It's this kind of made up

0:11:04.240 --> 0:11:10.319
<v Speaker 2>category personal social networking. They say that in their market definition,

0:11:11.640 --> 0:11:15.079
<v Speaker 2>the social networks that Meta owns only compete with snap,

0:11:15.559 --> 0:11:18.400
<v Speaker 2>which makes Snapchat in MIUI, which is I don't even

0:11:18.520 --> 0:11:20.480
<v Speaker 2>I don't even know, I haven't heard of that one.

0:11:20.679 --> 0:11:25.600
<v Speaker 2>And if you're a modern user of social media, that's

0:11:25.640 --> 0:11:26.400
<v Speaker 2>kind of ridiculous.

0:11:26.679 --> 0:11:28.120
<v Speaker 1>Sarah Forden, what's your take?

0:11:28.640 --> 0:11:31.360
<v Speaker 3>So the case all of these anti trust cases will

0:11:31.440 --> 0:11:35.920
<v Speaker 3>ultimately turn on what the judge accepts as the market definition,

0:11:36.120 --> 0:11:40.800
<v Speaker 3>and so here the FTC is arguing that meta occupies

0:11:41.000 --> 0:11:45.720
<v Speaker 3>dominates the space for personal social networking that's basically sharing

0:11:45.760 --> 0:11:47.839
<v Speaker 3>with friends and family. So when you want to share

0:11:47.880 --> 0:11:51.160
<v Speaker 3>something with friends and family, you'll go to Facebook. And

0:11:51.200 --> 0:11:54.400
<v Speaker 3>the key thing is going to be also what the competitors,

0:11:54.400 --> 0:11:57.280
<v Speaker 3>so medicaying, well, we compete with TikTok, we compete with

0:11:57.480 --> 0:12:00.280
<v Speaker 3>all these other platforms. The key thing is and be

0:12:00.320 --> 0:12:04.000
<v Speaker 3>what those competitors say about who they perceive as competition.

0:12:04.160 --> 0:12:06.280
<v Speaker 3>So are they competing with Facebook or are they just

0:12:06.360 --> 0:12:08.760
<v Speaker 3>doing their own thing?

0:12:11.040 --> 0:12:14.320
<v Speaker 1>After the break the political jockeying behind the scenes of

0:12:14.360 --> 0:12:17.400
<v Speaker 1>these anti trust trials and what the case's outcomes could

0:12:17.480 --> 0:12:30.760
<v Speaker 1>mean for social media and search, I want to talk

0:12:30.800 --> 0:12:32.480
<v Speaker 1>about the politics and I want to talk about the

0:12:32.480 --> 0:12:36.280
<v Speaker 1>implications of these trials, Sarah Fordan anti trust enforcement of

0:12:36.280 --> 0:12:38.280
<v Speaker 1>big tech, as you both talked about, has been a

0:12:38.360 --> 0:12:43.439
<v Speaker 1>rare example of continuity across both the Biden and Trump administrations.

0:12:43.880 --> 0:12:46.120
<v Speaker 1>Can you explain the politics at play here?

0:12:46.360 --> 0:12:48.800
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, what we're seeing is really a sea change in

0:12:48.840 --> 0:12:52.600
<v Speaker 3>antitrust enforcement that's built up over at least the last

0:12:52.640 --> 0:12:57.560
<v Speaker 3>ten plus years, and it's a shift whereby both Republicans

0:12:57.559 --> 0:13:02.000
<v Speaker 3>and Democrats have started to see corporate solidation broadly and

0:13:02.200 --> 0:13:06.160
<v Speaker 3>corporate power in the tech sector specifically really grow to

0:13:06.200 --> 0:13:10.760
<v Speaker 3>be very powerful. So the Democrats will look at consumer harm,

0:13:11.080 --> 0:13:14.280
<v Speaker 3>whereas the Republican started to see that these companies were

0:13:14.320 --> 0:13:17.880
<v Speaker 3>so powerful they felt they were a suppressing conservative speech.

0:13:18.240 --> 0:13:20.960
<v Speaker 3>And yet, even though they're coming from very different perspectives,

0:13:21.120 --> 0:13:23.120
<v Speaker 3>the one thing they agree on is that these companies

0:13:23.120 --> 0:13:25.439
<v Speaker 3>have gotten too big and too powerful, and it's time

0:13:25.520 --> 0:13:28.680
<v Speaker 3>to put some guardrails in place.

0:13:29.160 --> 0:13:33.080
<v Speaker 1>Sarah Friar, You've been tracking Mark Zuckerberg's relationship with Trump

0:13:33.200 --> 0:13:37.559
<v Speaker 1>and his lobbying efforts. Can you talk about whether they've failed.

0:13:38.120 --> 0:13:41.080
<v Speaker 2>Well. I think a lot of the big tech leaders

0:13:41.120 --> 0:13:45.960
<v Speaker 2>thought of Trump as a transactional president. They have been

0:13:46.160 --> 0:13:49.440
<v Speaker 2>to dinner with Trump, They've been to his inauguration, They've

0:13:49.520 --> 0:13:53.160
<v Speaker 2>donated to initiatives he cares about, and so that is

0:13:53.600 --> 0:13:57.800
<v Speaker 2>something that they hoped, especially Mark Zuckerberg, HOTE would help

0:13:58.200 --> 0:14:02.760
<v Speaker 2>them have an audience. Zuckerberg has had some luck in

0:14:02.880 --> 0:14:07.760
<v Speaker 2>getting Trump and JD Vance to talk about what Europe's

0:14:07.800 --> 0:14:10.920
<v Speaker 2>doing and saying that Europe shouldn't be holding back our

0:14:10.960 --> 0:14:14.760
<v Speaker 2>American tech companies. They have had some success in getting

0:14:14.800 --> 0:14:19.400
<v Speaker 2>the administration to agree that big tech in America should

0:14:19.400 --> 0:14:23.720
<v Speaker 2>be the winner of the global AI race, not those

0:14:23.720 --> 0:14:27.240
<v Speaker 2>companies in China, right, But it really hasn't worked on

0:14:27.280 --> 0:14:33.080
<v Speaker 2>anti trusts Google, Meta, Apple, Amazon, like, they're still all

0:14:33.120 --> 0:14:38.400
<v Speaker 2>completely in the crosshairs on that topic. And Zuckerberg personally

0:14:38.440 --> 0:14:42.120
<v Speaker 2>tried to get Trump to let Meta settle this case

0:14:42.560 --> 0:14:46.480
<v Speaker 2>and the FTC and Trump weren't willing to go for it.

0:14:47.320 --> 0:14:49.080
<v Speaker 1>Well, I want to talk about what the outcomes of

0:14:49.120 --> 0:14:52.480
<v Speaker 1>these trials could mean for people who use the Internet

0:14:52.560 --> 0:14:57.720
<v Speaker 1>or use these social media and tech platforms. If Google

0:14:57.960 --> 0:15:00.840
<v Speaker 1>had to sell off Chrome, for example, or if the

0:15:00.880 --> 0:15:03.840
<v Speaker 1>metatrial doesn't go its way, what would that mean for

0:15:04.040 --> 0:15:06.720
<v Speaker 1>someone trying to make a search going on Instagram.

0:15:07.280 --> 0:15:10.360
<v Speaker 2>I think that first of all, whatever happens is going

0:15:10.400 --> 0:15:13.800
<v Speaker 2>to take a long time to happen, because the resolution

0:15:13.880 --> 0:15:15.760
<v Speaker 2>of the trial will come and then Google will likely

0:15:15.840 --> 0:15:18.120
<v Speaker 2>appeal it, and then there's going to be some back

0:15:18.120 --> 0:15:22.920
<v Speaker 2>and forth. But Apple last week was forced to allow

0:15:23.720 --> 0:15:28.720
<v Speaker 2>app creators in its app store to receive payments in

0:15:28.840 --> 0:15:35.080
<v Speaker 2>other ways than through iPhones, and notoriously Apple takes a

0:15:35.200 --> 0:15:39.600
<v Speaker 2>large cut of the payments that go through the app store,

0:15:40.160 --> 0:15:43.440
<v Speaker 2>So this is going to hit them in terms of

0:15:43.480 --> 0:15:46.120
<v Speaker 2>their revenue. So I think we might see more things

0:15:46.200 --> 0:15:51.240
<v Speaker 2>like that, like little parts of their operations that seem

0:15:51.360 --> 0:15:54.080
<v Speaker 2>kind of, Oh, this is just the way it's always worked.

0:15:54.440 --> 0:15:57.640
<v Speaker 2>I'm used to this as a consumer, realizing that it

0:15:57.680 --> 0:16:01.400
<v Speaker 2>doesn't have to be that way. We don't have to

0:16:01.560 --> 0:16:06.040
<v Speaker 2>have our Chrome browser following us around the entire Internet

0:16:06.080 --> 0:16:08.120
<v Speaker 2>and tracking everything we do in every other website to

0:16:08.160 --> 0:16:11.440
<v Speaker 2>personalize our results. And with the FTC case, the most

0:16:11.520 --> 0:16:17.240
<v Speaker 2>dramatic possible outcome is a spin off of Instagram and

0:16:17.280 --> 0:16:21.880
<v Speaker 2>WhatsApp from Meta. That would be like, absolutely unheard of

0:16:22.240 --> 0:16:25.600
<v Speaker 2>in the history of the Internet that a deal that's

0:16:25.640 --> 0:16:28.600
<v Speaker 2>more than ten years old gets undone. I just can't

0:16:28.600 --> 0:16:31.840
<v Speaker 2>even imagine, because they have done so much on the

0:16:31.880 --> 0:16:35.760
<v Speaker 2>back end to integrate those products. Certainly they could disentangle them,

0:16:36.160 --> 0:16:37.480
<v Speaker 2>but they'd both fight very hard.

0:16:37.600 --> 0:16:39.920
<v Speaker 1>But I guess the government's argument in all of these

0:16:39.920 --> 0:16:42.560
<v Speaker 1>cases is that it's better for consumers if there's more competition,

0:16:42.600 --> 0:16:45.680
<v Speaker 1>if there's less monopoly activity. That's kind of the core

0:16:45.760 --> 0:16:47.560
<v Speaker 1>of these arguments, right, Yeah, the.

0:16:47.560 --> 0:16:50.240
<v Speaker 3>Goal of these remedies exactly as Sarah said, is to

0:16:50.280 --> 0:16:53.600
<v Speaker 3>make a better experience for consumers. So imagine if you

0:16:53.640 --> 0:16:57.600
<v Speaker 3>could choose from four or five browsers, and maybe there's

0:16:58.040 --> 0:17:01.120
<v Speaker 3>one that really protects your data, maybe there's one that

0:17:01.560 --> 0:17:04.120
<v Speaker 3>gives you a better experience. If they're competing, then there

0:17:04.440 --> 0:17:07.480
<v Speaker 3>they've got more incentive to try to get your eyeballs

0:17:07.520 --> 0:17:09.320
<v Speaker 3>and get you to use them. So they're going to

0:17:09.320 --> 0:17:11.480
<v Speaker 3>be more creative and more innovative.

0:17:11.720 --> 0:17:13.680
<v Speaker 1>Right, Well, we're already kind of getting a sense of

0:17:13.720 --> 0:17:18.480
<v Speaker 1>how the search landscape could be changing. On Wednesday, Apple's

0:17:18.480 --> 0:17:21.840
<v Speaker 1>senior vice president of Services testified at the Google trial

0:17:22.200 --> 0:17:25.359
<v Speaker 1>and he said that while he believes Google should remain

0:17:25.560 --> 0:17:29.040
<v Speaker 1>the default in their browser Safari, he also said that

0:17:29.080 --> 0:17:32.239
<v Speaker 1>the company is looking at revamping Safari to focus on

0:17:32.400 --> 0:17:36.400
<v Speaker 1>AI powered search engines. So for what did you make

0:17:36.440 --> 0:17:39.560
<v Speaker 1>of that? What does it say about Google's future as

0:17:39.680 --> 0:17:41.479
<v Speaker 1>sort of this dominant search player.

0:17:41.960 --> 0:17:44.920
<v Speaker 2>Well, it was concerning enough to send Google stock down.

0:17:45.040 --> 0:17:48.680
<v Speaker 2>The market is recognizing that if Apple thinks that there's

0:17:48.720 --> 0:17:52.040
<v Speaker 2>a threat to Google's dominance, then there probably is one.

0:17:52.200 --> 0:17:54.399
<v Speaker 2>You know, the Apple is looking at other options including

0:17:54.440 --> 0:17:59.159
<v Speaker 2>they said Perplexity, Open Ai, these other chatbots that if

0:17:59.160 --> 0:18:01.560
<v Speaker 2>people have turned to you as their gateweight information on

0:18:01.600 --> 0:18:04.959
<v Speaker 2>the web. That said, we have to consider that Apple

0:18:05.119 --> 0:18:08.159
<v Speaker 2>has skin in the game here. They get twenty billion

0:18:08.200 --> 0:18:11.399
<v Speaker 2>dollars a year from Google to have Google be the

0:18:11.440 --> 0:18:17.719
<v Speaker 2>default on its search and on iPhones. And by framing

0:18:17.840 --> 0:18:22.120
<v Speaker 2>this Google deal as part of this very competitive landscape

0:18:22.200 --> 0:18:24.800
<v Speaker 2>where you know, it makes sense for Google to pay

0:18:24.880 --> 0:18:29.399
<v Speaker 2>Apple twenty billion dollars to be the default search on iPhones,

0:18:30.640 --> 0:18:33.680
<v Speaker 2>they're preserving that twenty billion in their balance sheet.

0:18:34.119 --> 0:18:36.720
<v Speaker 1>What about the government, what are they taking away from

0:18:36.760 --> 0:18:39.200
<v Speaker 1>how these trials are going so far, and how might

0:18:39.200 --> 0:18:42.000
<v Speaker 1>it influence the future cases they might bring.

0:18:42.640 --> 0:18:46.400
<v Speaker 3>I mean, we've already seen these two landmark decisions against Google,

0:18:46.480 --> 0:18:49.560
<v Speaker 3>so that's already on precedent. We haven't seen this level

0:18:49.800 --> 0:18:52.880
<v Speaker 3>of a case since they tried to break up Microsoft.

0:18:53.240 --> 0:18:55.600
<v Speaker 3>What we have here potentially is a real game changer.

0:18:55.680 --> 0:18:59.000
<v Speaker 3>So if the government wins, they're going to be emboldened

0:18:59.359 --> 0:19:02.000
<v Speaker 3>and they're going to, you know, feel more confident about

0:19:02.000 --> 0:19:05.399
<v Speaker 3>pursuing other complex cases. And they have a ticket Master

0:19:05.520 --> 0:19:08.600
<v Speaker 3>case out there, they have the Apple case that's in progress,

0:19:08.600 --> 0:19:11.080
<v Speaker 3>they have an Amazon case, and they're also looking at

0:19:11.080 --> 0:19:15.399
<v Speaker 3>other sectors like healthcare, So there potentially could really be

0:19:15.840 --> 0:19:20.040
<v Speaker 3>a wave of more antitrust enforcement. If they lose, that

0:19:20.080 --> 0:19:23.440
<v Speaker 3>could probably have a chilling effect because these cases are long,

0:19:23.520 --> 0:19:27.240
<v Speaker 3>they're difficult, they're complex, they're costly, so we could really

0:19:27.240 --> 0:19:29.880
<v Speaker 3>see a sea change in either direction depending how these

0:19:29.920 --> 0:19:31.760
<v Speaker 3>cases go. Well.

0:19:31.800 --> 0:19:34.520
<v Speaker 1>Sarah, Sarah, thank you so much for being.

0:19:34.400 --> 0:19:36.400
<v Speaker 3>Here, Thanks for having me, Thanks for having us.

0:19:40.640 --> 0:19:43.840
<v Speaker 1>This is the Big Take from Bloomberg News. I'm Sarah Holder.

0:19:44.320 --> 0:19:47.200
<v Speaker 1>This episode was produced by Alex tie. It was edited

0:19:47.200 --> 0:19:50.680
<v Speaker 1>by Tracy Samuelson and Joshua Brustein. It was fact checked

0:19:50.680 --> 0:19:53.360
<v Speaker 1>by Rachel Lewis Chrisky and mixed and sound designed by

0:19:53.400 --> 0:19:57.240
<v Speaker 1>Alex Sugia. Our senior producer is Naomi Shaven. Our senior

0:19:57.359 --> 0:20:01.399
<v Speaker 1>editor is Elizabeth Conso. Our deputy executive producer is Julia Weaver.

0:20:01.960 --> 0:20:05.959
<v Speaker 1>Our executive producer is Nicole beemsterbor Sage Bauman is Bloomberg's

0:20:06.000 --> 0:20:09.080
<v Speaker 1>head of Podcasts. If you liked this episode, make sure

0:20:09.160 --> 0:20:11.960
<v Speaker 1>to subscribe and review The Big Take wherever you listen

0:20:11.960 --> 0:20:16.240
<v Speaker 1>to podcasts. It helps people find the show. Thanks for listening.

0:20:16.560 --> 0:20:17.720
<v Speaker 1>We'll be back tomorrow.