WEBVTT - Lawmakers Propose New Legislation for Online Ads (Audio)

0:00:00.160 --> 0:00:03.760
<v Speaker 1>Facebook, Twitter, and Google have become increasingly important vehicles for

0:00:03.840 --> 0:00:06.680
<v Speaker 1>political advertising, and all three are now at the center

0:00:06.720 --> 0:00:09.960
<v Speaker 1>of concerns about Russian interference in last year's presidential election.

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.000
<v Speaker 1>Executives from all three companies are scheduled to testify in

0:00:13.039 --> 0:00:16.320
<v Speaker 1>Congress about how Russia used their networks during the campaign,

0:00:16.760 --> 0:00:19.640
<v Speaker 1>and in advance of that testimony, Senator John McCain is

0:00:19.680 --> 0:00:23.320
<v Speaker 1>announced he will support legislation introduced by Democratic Senators Amy

0:00:23.360 --> 0:00:27.040
<v Speaker 1>Klabachar and Mark Warner to impose new disclosure requirements for

0:00:27.120 --> 0:00:30.880
<v Speaker 1>online political ads. Here to talk with us about online

0:00:30.880 --> 0:00:33.760
<v Speaker 1>political advertising and how the Russians used it and what

0:00:33.840 --> 0:00:36.839
<v Speaker 1>this legislation would do are Bradley Smith, a professor at

0:00:36.880 --> 0:00:39.280
<v Speaker 1>Kappel University Law School who is the former chairman of

0:00:39.280 --> 0:00:42.879
<v Speaker 1>the Federal Election Commission, and Bradley Moss, a partner at

0:00:42.880 --> 0:00:47.960
<v Speaker 1>mark z PLC. Bradley Moss explained to us what we

0:00:48.040 --> 0:00:54.800
<v Speaker 1>know so far about how Russian affiliated UH people, had

0:00:54.840 --> 0:00:58.760
<v Speaker 1>you used the used the networks like Facebook, Google and

0:00:58.760 --> 0:01:02.880
<v Speaker 1>Twitter to try to influence the election last year? Sure,

0:01:02.880 --> 0:01:05.200
<v Speaker 1>absolutely so what we know and this is largely just

0:01:05.240 --> 0:01:08.120
<v Speaker 1>from the media reports. There hasn't been a whole lot

0:01:08.160 --> 0:01:10.440
<v Speaker 1>of public hearings yet on it that will happen at

0:01:10.440 --> 0:01:14.600
<v Speaker 1>the beginning of next month. Is that Russian based spots

0:01:14.680 --> 0:01:18.800
<v Speaker 1>or trolls everyone to identify them, used social media platforms

0:01:18.800 --> 0:01:22.160
<v Speaker 1>like Twitter and LinkedIn, h even finding out we have

0:01:22.280 --> 0:01:25.880
<v Speaker 1>even Tinder and Grinder and all these different different platforms

0:01:25.880 --> 0:01:28.680
<v Speaker 1>by which people in the modern age communicate had used

0:01:28.720 --> 0:01:32.800
<v Speaker 1>them to spread various aspects of disinformation. Um. A lot

0:01:32.840 --> 0:01:35.840
<v Speaker 1>of it came through what's called the i RA or

0:01:35.840 --> 0:01:39.080
<v Speaker 1>the Internet Research Agency, which was this troll farm one

0:01:39.600 --> 0:01:42.880
<v Speaker 1>by the Russian government, a Russian Russian government and affiliated

0:01:42.959 --> 0:01:46.120
<v Speaker 1>organizations to more or less flood the zone and just

0:01:46.160 --> 0:01:50.400
<v Speaker 1>spread in such an immense amount of disinformation to particular

0:01:50.440 --> 0:01:54.280
<v Speaker 1>demographics so as to confuse the populace and to the

0:01:54.320 --> 0:01:58.200
<v Speaker 1>extent they could to try to either discourage people from

0:01:58.240 --> 0:02:02.360
<v Speaker 1>voting or to try to place inaccurate information with those

0:02:02.360 --> 0:02:06.200
<v Speaker 1>photos in the context of their voting decisions. Professor, Why

0:02:06.840 --> 0:02:11.560
<v Speaker 1>have online political ads been exempt from the regulations that

0:02:11.680 --> 0:02:15.280
<v Speaker 1>paid TV, radio and print ads have been subjected to

0:02:15.520 --> 0:02:19.600
<v Speaker 1>for years? Well, this is a misconception. They're not actually

0:02:19.639 --> 0:02:23.680
<v Speaker 1>exempt from those requirements. Rather, there has always been in

0:02:23.680 --> 0:02:27.359
<v Speaker 1>the Federal Ution Campaign Act and exemption where disclaimers are

0:02:27.400 --> 0:02:30.480
<v Speaker 1>impractical or the items are too small, for example, applies

0:02:30.480 --> 0:02:34.239
<v Speaker 1>to bumper stickers, pens, buttons, all kinds of things like that,

0:02:34.800 --> 0:02:38.880
<v Speaker 1>and for many uh Internet ads, for many small tweets

0:02:38.960 --> 0:02:42.679
<v Speaker 1>and and Facebook type ads, it is simply not practically

0:02:42.760 --> 0:02:45.080
<v Speaker 1>put that disclaimer there. So that is the basis on

0:02:45.120 --> 0:02:47.720
<v Speaker 1>which these ads did not carry a disclaimer. Let me

0:02:47.760 --> 0:02:51.639
<v Speaker 1>ask you this. Facebook did not get an exemption from

0:02:51.639 --> 0:02:57.040
<v Speaker 1>the disclaimer requirement inn as Google did, so why hasn't

0:02:57.080 --> 0:03:00.639
<v Speaker 1>Facebook been forced to comply or face some kind of penalties?

0:03:01.560 --> 0:03:03.840
<v Speaker 1>Well at the time, one of the questions has been

0:03:04.040 --> 0:03:07.080
<v Speaker 1>whether or not this exemption for what's often called the

0:03:07.080 --> 0:03:12.080
<v Speaker 1>small items exemption should apply to various Internet type advertising

0:03:12.120 --> 0:03:15.200
<v Speaker 1>and digital platforms, and that has varied with the question

0:03:15.360 --> 0:03:17.760
<v Speaker 1>of you know, what is the cost how practical is

0:03:17.800 --> 0:03:20.840
<v Speaker 1>it to do? So what you had was a series

0:03:20.880 --> 0:03:24.000
<v Speaker 1>of Advisor opinion request where companies were asking, you know,

0:03:24.040 --> 0:03:27.560
<v Speaker 1>in specific situations, do we need a disclaimer on this,

0:03:27.680 --> 0:03:30.840
<v Speaker 1>that or the other? So there are different situations each time.

0:03:31.240 --> 0:03:34.880
<v Speaker 1>In Google's case, the Commission voted that no disclaimer was necessary.

0:03:34.920 --> 0:03:38.160
<v Speaker 1>In the Facebook case, the Commission ended up splitting three

0:03:38.200 --> 0:03:40.880
<v Speaker 1>to three which means essentially they didn't give Facebook and

0:03:40.960 --> 0:03:43.960
<v Speaker 1>opinion one way or the other. But as a practical matter,

0:03:44.080 --> 0:03:46.880
<v Speaker 1>since you need uh four commissioners to vote for an

0:03:46.960 --> 0:03:50.360
<v Speaker 1>enforcement action, uh, and you have three commissioners say no,

0:03:50.400 --> 0:03:53.840
<v Speaker 1>you don't need a disclaimer, it was logical for Facebook

0:03:53.840 --> 0:03:56.240
<v Speaker 1>to assume that they weren't going to have to go

0:03:56.320 --> 0:03:59.040
<v Speaker 1>through that. Putting a disclaimer on all those ads are

0:03:59.040 --> 0:04:02.280
<v Speaker 1>turning away as at was not, in their estimation practical

0:04:03.040 --> 0:04:06.400
<v Speaker 1>Fred Moss, what exactly you know if they apply these

0:04:06.400 --> 0:04:10.040
<v Speaker 1>standards under this bill to online advertising on a place

0:04:10.040 --> 0:04:13.800
<v Speaker 1>like Facebook, what exactly will this bill do? It will,

0:04:13.960 --> 0:04:16.400
<v Speaker 1>more or less to the extent that they're not already

0:04:16.560 --> 0:04:19.320
<v Speaker 1>consistent with what you see on TV. It'll bring those

0:04:19.400 --> 0:04:23.640
<v Speaker 1>ads in some fashion, some manner in line with what

0:04:23.800 --> 0:04:27.120
<v Speaker 1>we've all typically seen all the various type of radio

0:04:27.160 --> 0:04:28.880
<v Speaker 1>and television ads we've seen over the years. You know,

0:04:28.920 --> 0:04:30.960
<v Speaker 1>at the end there's some type of disclaimer paid for

0:04:31.160 --> 0:04:35.000
<v Speaker 1>by Hillary Clinton for president, down it's not the president, etcetera, etcetera.

0:04:35.360 --> 0:04:38.599
<v Speaker 1>It's more or less trying to provide the public with

0:04:38.680 --> 0:04:42.920
<v Speaker 1>at least a semblance of transparency and understating of who

0:04:43.000 --> 0:04:45.039
<v Speaker 1>pays for it. The question, of course, and this is

0:04:45.040 --> 0:04:48.120
<v Speaker 1>what no one truly knows right now, is will it matter?

0:04:48.360 --> 0:04:50.960
<v Speaker 1>You know? Is there's the obvious part of if if

0:04:50.960 --> 0:04:54.839
<v Speaker 1>the disclosure requirements are imposed, that the most egregious violations

0:04:54.920 --> 0:04:57.800
<v Speaker 1>of using foreign money to pay for ads will come

0:04:57.839 --> 0:05:00.120
<v Speaker 1>down a bit just because it will be too obvious.

0:05:00.120 --> 0:05:02.760
<v Speaker 1>But the more subtle and nuanced ways in which I'm

0:05:02.760 --> 0:05:06.000
<v Speaker 1>sure countries such as Russia could use through shell corporations

0:05:06.000 --> 0:05:07.920
<v Speaker 1>to try to pay for it, it's not clear that

0:05:07.920 --> 0:05:10.960
<v Speaker 1>that will ever be made really obvious enough to allow

0:05:11.000 --> 0:05:13.080
<v Speaker 1>for criminal enforcement. It's not clear to what extent the

0:05:13.080 --> 0:05:16.440
<v Speaker 1>public whatever died deep enough into it to see if

0:05:16.440 --> 0:05:19.320
<v Speaker 1>they to find out who's paying for a particular advocy

0:05:19.360 --> 0:05:22.760
<v Speaker 1>on Facebook. We're talking with Professor Bradley Smith of Capital

0:05:22.839 --> 0:05:25.040
<v Speaker 1>University Law School, who is the former chairman of the

0:05:25.080 --> 0:05:28.159
<v Speaker 1>Federal Election Commission, and Bradley Moss, a partner at Mark

0:05:28.240 --> 0:05:32.120
<v Speaker 1>Zad about a new bill to require disclosure of who

0:05:32.160 --> 0:05:35.960
<v Speaker 1>paid for online political ads in places like Facebook, Twitter,

0:05:36.080 --> 0:05:41.320
<v Speaker 1>and Google. Apparently Russian Russian trolls put a lot of

0:05:41.440 --> 0:05:44.960
<v Speaker 1>ads onto um these sites over the course of the

0:05:45.000 --> 0:05:47.200
<v Speaker 1>election last year, and Congress is now looking at the

0:05:47.200 --> 0:05:50.880
<v Speaker 1>impact and what to do about it. Currently, disclosure is

0:05:50.920 --> 0:05:53.080
<v Speaker 1>not required as it is for print, radio, and TV,

0:05:53.400 --> 0:05:55.839
<v Speaker 1>but Congress is knew. But if this bill were adopted

0:05:55.839 --> 0:05:58.680
<v Speaker 1>by Congress and signed by the President, the similar disclosure

0:05:58.680 --> 0:06:03.320
<v Speaker 1>would be required online. Professor Smith, we were talking a

0:06:03.360 --> 0:06:06.080
<v Speaker 1>little bit before the break about whether or not this

0:06:06.160 --> 0:06:08.840
<v Speaker 1>kind of disclosure can actually be effective. I mean, given

0:06:08.880 --> 0:06:12.920
<v Speaker 1>the fact that people online are very good at hiding

0:06:13.400 --> 0:06:15.800
<v Speaker 1>not just who they are and using fake names, but

0:06:15.880 --> 0:06:19.239
<v Speaker 1>also even where their servers are located or which server

0:06:19.480 --> 0:06:23.320
<v Speaker 1>is actually putting out messages to various places, can this

0:06:23.400 --> 0:06:26.440
<v Speaker 1>kind of disclosure actually work online to combat the problem

0:06:26.520 --> 0:06:29.240
<v Speaker 1>that Congress is looking at now. Well, I do think

0:06:29.279 --> 0:06:31.279
<v Speaker 1>it's problematic in a number of ways. One of the

0:06:31.279 --> 0:06:33.880
<v Speaker 1>first things, for example, is that the press conference introducing

0:06:33.920 --> 0:06:38.120
<v Speaker 1>the legislation yesterday, Senators Warner and Colbukar mentioned again that,

0:06:38.160 --> 0:06:40.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, voters needed to know who was paying for

0:06:40.440 --> 0:06:42.960
<v Speaker 1>the ads they were seeing. But in fact, in many

0:06:42.960 --> 0:06:45.400
<v Speaker 1>of these cases, voters still won't know who's paying for

0:06:45.440 --> 0:06:47.160
<v Speaker 1>the ads they're seeing. They won't know unless they go

0:06:47.240 --> 0:06:49.840
<v Speaker 1>to this registry that the platforms need to keep, and

0:06:49.920 --> 0:06:51.800
<v Speaker 1>voters typically aren't going to do that. And by the

0:06:51.800 --> 0:06:53.760
<v Speaker 1>time they do, they won't remember what ad they saw

0:06:53.800 --> 0:06:56.040
<v Speaker 1>from where, and what was paid and what wasn't. So

0:06:56.040 --> 0:06:57.960
<v Speaker 1>you've got some problem there is whether you can even

0:06:57.960 --> 0:07:01.760
<v Speaker 1>accomplish that basic objective of giving information that's useful to

0:07:01.800 --> 0:07:05.000
<v Speaker 1>voters at a time what's useful to them. But there's

0:07:05.160 --> 0:07:07.920
<v Speaker 1>are other issues here. I mean, the amounts engaged were

0:07:07.960 --> 0:07:11.760
<v Speaker 1>really quite small. Mark Penn, the former Clinton strategist, has

0:07:11.880 --> 0:07:14.960
<v Speaker 1>estimated that the actual amounts it was campaign related was

0:07:15.000 --> 0:07:17.920
<v Speaker 1>as little as sixty dollars in the Wall Street Journal

0:07:18.080 --> 0:07:20.560
<v Speaker 1>just uh this past week. But even if it was

0:07:20.640 --> 0:07:23.520
<v Speaker 1>more than that, it's a small amount compared to the total.

0:07:23.600 --> 0:07:26.280
<v Speaker 1>And it would be fairly easy. Although you lose some

0:07:26.400 --> 0:07:28.880
<v Speaker 1>ability to target as much as we want, it would

0:07:28.880 --> 0:07:31.400
<v Speaker 1>be pretty easy to just set up free accounts and

0:07:31.400 --> 0:07:33.760
<v Speaker 1>just keep pumping out news through bots that are not

0:07:33.800 --> 0:07:36.720
<v Speaker 1>doing paid advertising, but again are just setting up vac

0:07:36.760 --> 0:07:39.080
<v Speaker 1>accounts that can be taken down. But there's kind of

0:07:39.360 --> 0:07:43.000
<v Speaker 1>race going on and on again. We're talking about the

0:07:43.080 --> 0:07:46.760
<v Speaker 1>Russian government interfering in our campaigns, and when you're talking

0:07:46.760 --> 0:07:48.440
<v Speaker 1>about that, I don't think they're going to be easily

0:07:48.480 --> 0:07:51.560
<v Speaker 1>deterred by a requirement that ads have some kind of

0:07:51.600 --> 0:07:53.840
<v Speaker 1>minimal disclaimer on them. And I do want to emphasize

0:07:53.880 --> 0:07:56.360
<v Speaker 1>one of the things again, David, just from the instance. Again,

0:07:56.400 --> 0:07:59.080
<v Speaker 1>it's not that that Internet is treated differently than other

0:07:59.680 --> 0:08:05.120
<v Speaker 1>uh uh. Media. It's just that the small exemptions uh uh.

0:08:05.480 --> 0:08:07.680
<v Speaker 1>There are a small items exemption that is in the law.

0:08:08.120 --> 0:08:10.520
<v Speaker 1>Seems to be something that pops up more in the

0:08:10.560 --> 0:08:13.480
<v Speaker 1>case of Internet, but that small exemptions does apply to

0:08:13.560 --> 0:08:16.640
<v Speaker 1>all kinds of media as well. So it's not again

0:08:16.680 --> 0:08:20.920
<v Speaker 1>like the Internet has the specifically different regime, It's that

0:08:21.400 --> 0:08:25.880
<v Speaker 1>it has the same regime. Brad Moss, do you agree,

0:08:26.120 --> 0:08:29.520
<v Speaker 1>even if there is a chance of being able to

0:08:29.560 --> 0:08:34.960
<v Speaker 1>stop some foreign interference with these online ads, shouldn't we

0:08:35.000 --> 0:08:39.960
<v Speaker 1>go forward with this kinds of this kind of legislation. Yeah,

0:08:39.960 --> 0:08:42.240
<v Speaker 1>I mean an actor largely agree with the professor. I

0:08:42.240 --> 0:08:44.960
<v Speaker 1>don't only have any disagree with anything he said, just

0:08:45.000 --> 0:08:46.680
<v Speaker 1>that I mean the part of the problems here. Even

0:08:46.679 --> 0:08:48.760
<v Speaker 1>I mean the legislation I have no problem with. It

0:08:48.760 --> 0:08:52.680
<v Speaker 1>will be good from a general transparency and accountability standpoint,

0:08:53.160 --> 0:08:56.560
<v Speaker 1>so it doesn't hurt anything as far as I'm concerned. Uh,

0:08:56.720 --> 0:08:59.360
<v Speaker 1>the larger problem, but I don't think this legislation can

0:08:59.400 --> 0:09:03.559
<v Speaker 1>truly end asks anymore so than past legislation that required

0:09:03.559 --> 0:09:06.920
<v Speaker 1>disclosure for any number of different types of organizations that

0:09:07.040 --> 0:09:10.160
<v Speaker 1>place political ads in print or news media or on TV.

0:09:10.800 --> 0:09:12.840
<v Speaker 1>Is that as a question of does the public care

0:09:12.920 --> 0:09:15.960
<v Speaker 1>to dig into the details to find out who paid

0:09:16.000 --> 0:09:17.760
<v Speaker 1>for it? And do they care even if it is

0:09:17.800 --> 0:09:21.280
<v Speaker 1>paid for by some you know, possibly mischievous entity. You

0:09:21.280 --> 0:09:22.880
<v Speaker 1>know when you said always say people are entitled with

0:09:22.920 --> 0:09:25.920
<v Speaker 1>their own opinions. These days, especially in the Internet era,

0:09:26.000 --> 0:09:27.640
<v Speaker 1>it seems to be the people are entitled to their

0:09:27.640 --> 0:09:32.760
<v Speaker 1>own sacks. And that's part of what was certainly exacerbated

0:09:32.960 --> 0:09:36.040
<v Speaker 1>during the election with the Russian bots with this information,

0:09:36.360 --> 0:09:39.040
<v Speaker 1>But it only works if if the public was willing

0:09:39.120 --> 0:09:41.959
<v Speaker 1>to incorporate it into their thought process. And I think

0:09:42.000 --> 0:09:45.160
<v Speaker 1>that speaks to a larger societal problem we have that

0:09:45.280 --> 0:09:47.920
<v Speaker 1>no legislation can truly address so much as it's a

0:09:48.040 --> 0:09:50.400
<v Speaker 1>matter of how we, as you know, as a marathon

0:09:50.480 --> 0:09:53.920
<v Speaker 1>public address this various various different types of information that

0:09:54.040 --> 0:09:58.640
<v Speaker 1>exists in various mediums and social platforms. Well, Professor Smith,

0:09:58.920 --> 0:10:02.160
<v Speaker 1>given what you pointed out, that is the seriousness of

0:10:02.160 --> 0:10:05.120
<v Speaker 1>the fact that the Russian government was attempting to um

0:10:05.320 --> 0:10:09.640
<v Speaker 1>influence an American election. Is there something legislatively that could

0:10:09.640 --> 0:10:13.000
<v Speaker 1>be done that would be more effective than the bill

0:10:13.040 --> 0:10:17.360
<v Speaker 1>that's currently pending, Well, I don't know, off the off

0:10:17.440 --> 0:10:19.600
<v Speaker 1>the top of my head. I mean I I am

0:10:19.640 --> 0:10:22.839
<v Speaker 1>of the persuasion that generally know there's probably not much

0:10:22.840 --> 0:10:25.040
<v Speaker 1>that can be done. And moreover, it's not apparent that

0:10:25.120 --> 0:10:28.200
<v Speaker 1>this is a major problem. Again, you know, spending a

0:10:28.240 --> 0:10:32.080
<v Speaker 1>few thousand dollars um is not necessarily have hot Remember,

0:10:32.240 --> 0:10:34.360
<v Speaker 1>Russia runs a twenty four hour news station in the

0:10:34.480 --> 0:10:38.199
<v Speaker 1>United States to influence American elections. Uh, and we let

0:10:38.240 --> 0:10:40.400
<v Speaker 1>them do that. And that's the important thing to remember

0:10:40.520 --> 0:10:43.000
<v Speaker 1>is that whatever burdens were putting here and here, this

0:10:43.040 --> 0:10:46.160
<v Speaker 1>bill is talking about requiring grassroots groups that spend as

0:10:46.160 --> 0:10:48.680
<v Speaker 1>little as five hundred dollars in the aggregate over a

0:10:48.679 --> 0:10:52.719
<v Speaker 1>two year period to start having various reports and filings

0:10:52.720 --> 0:10:55.000
<v Speaker 1>and so on. And it's going to suppress some of

0:10:55.040 --> 0:10:57.839
<v Speaker 1>that activity. And we need to say, you realize that

0:10:57.880 --> 0:11:01.000
<v Speaker 1>while the target maybe Russian interference, main people that are

0:11:01.040 --> 0:11:03.479
<v Speaker 1>going to be hit are going to be American citizens

0:11:03.760 --> 0:11:06.079
<v Speaker 1>who have to do more. And it's going to be

0:11:06.360 --> 0:11:08.520
<v Speaker 1>you know, these very little thresholds aimed at the most

0:11:08.600 --> 0:11:11.760
<v Speaker 1>grassroots of political activity that are using the net to

0:11:11.800 --> 0:11:14.840
<v Speaker 1>reach folks where they never could before in traditional broadcasting.

0:11:14.840 --> 0:11:17.679
<v Speaker 1>You know, you couldn't do anything for five So I

0:11:17.720 --> 0:11:19.840
<v Speaker 1>think that's it's just a real cautionary note that we

0:11:19.880 --> 0:11:23.440
<v Speaker 1>need to keep in mind. Well, this is obviously an

0:11:23.480 --> 0:11:25.760
<v Speaker 1>issue that we're gonna be talking about for some time

0:11:25.840 --> 0:11:28.000
<v Speaker 1>to come, as we have midterm elections coming up and

0:11:28.000 --> 0:11:30.920
<v Speaker 1>then another presidential election actually only a few years away.

0:11:30.960 --> 0:11:35.559
<v Speaker 1>So our thanks to Professor Bradley Smith of Capital University

0:11:35.640 --> 0:11:38.840
<v Speaker 1>Law School and Bradley Moss of Mark's Aid for being

0:11:38.880 --> 0:11:42.760
<v Speaker 1>here on Bloomberg. Later talk about legislation pending to create

0:11:42.840 --> 0:11:47.960
<v Speaker 1>online advertisement political disclosure. Uh. Coming up on Bloomberg Law,

0:11:47.960 --> 0:11:50.679
<v Speaker 1>we're going to be talking about Johnny Depp, the actor.

0:11:50.760 --> 0:11:53.319
<v Speaker 1>Johnny Depp has lost a fortune of money, and he

0:11:53.400 --> 0:11:55.280
<v Speaker 1>say he's been very profligant in the way he has

0:11:55.280 --> 0:11:58.240
<v Speaker 1>spent his money, but he has had claims that his

0:11:58.480 --> 0:12:02.200
<v Speaker 1>financial managers have mismanaged it to his detriment and took

0:12:02.200 --> 0:12:04.559
<v Speaker 1>money that should have gone to him. He's now claiming

0:12:04.800 --> 0:12:07.520
<v Speaker 1>that his lawyer did the same thing and colluded with

0:12:07.679 --> 0:12:11.040
<v Speaker 1>his managers. He's brought a lawsuit for thirty million dollars

0:12:11.040 --> 0:12:13.440
<v Speaker 1>in fees, and we'll be talking about that coming up

0:12:13.480 --> 0:12:17.520
<v Speaker 1>straight ahead on Bloomberg Law. This is Bloomberg