1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,480 --> 00:00:14,560
Speaker 1: Florida's very conservative Supreme Court upheld the state's fifteen week

3
00:00:14,600 --> 00:00:18,599
Speaker 1: abortion ban, which now allows one of the nation's strictest

4
00:00:18,600 --> 00:00:22,040
Speaker 1: abortion bans to take effect on May first. In the state.

5
00:00:22,400 --> 00:00:26,720
Speaker 1: It makes abortion illegal after six weeks, before most women

6
00:00:26,800 --> 00:00:30,240
Speaker 1: know they're pregnant. But in a sort of split decision,

7
00:00:30,640 --> 00:00:33,440
Speaker 1: the court allowed a referendum that will let the state's

8
00:00:33,560 --> 00:00:37,120
Speaker 1: voters decide in Florida whether they want an amendment to

9
00:00:37,159 --> 00:00:42,080
Speaker 1: the state constitution allowing abortion until viability. With abortion now

10
00:00:42,080 --> 00:00:45,320
Speaker 1: on the ballot in Florida, Democrats are seeing a chance

11
00:00:45,360 --> 00:00:48,680
Speaker 1: to flip the state in the presidential election. The future

12
00:00:48,760 --> 00:00:53,720
Speaker 1: Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who often boasts about appointing

13
00:00:53,800 --> 00:00:57,360
Speaker 1: three of the justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade,

14
00:00:57,680 --> 00:01:00,560
Speaker 1: didn't want to talk to reporters about the Florida to ruling,

15
00:01:03,880 --> 00:01:07,800
Speaker 1: while President Joe Biden denounced the Florida ruling, calling it

16
00:01:07,840 --> 00:01:10,679
Speaker 1: outrageous and promising to codify Roe v.

17
00:01:10,800 --> 00:01:13,760
Speaker 2: Wade and as mag officials are calling on and not

18
00:01:13,880 --> 00:01:15,640
Speaker 2: for a national ban on the right to choose in

19
00:01:15,680 --> 00:01:19,800
Speaker 2: every state I promise you for the Democratic Congress, Tom

20
00:01:19,840 --> 00:01:21,800
Speaker 2: and I will make Rovy Wade the law of the

21
00:01:21,880 --> 00:01:22,560
Speaker 2: land again.

22
00:01:22,680 --> 00:01:23,240
Speaker 3: I promise.

23
00:01:24,600 --> 00:01:27,959
Speaker 1: Joining me is healthcare attorney Harry Nelson of Nelson Hardiman

24
00:01:28,520 --> 00:01:33,000
Speaker 1: Harry tell us about the Florida Supreme Court's decisions on Monday.

25
00:01:32,920 --> 00:01:36,039
Speaker 4: Then the repeal of Roe v. Wade in the DABS case.

26
00:01:36,360 --> 00:01:39,920
Speaker 4: Florida had had in place a fifteen week ban on

27
00:01:40,000 --> 00:01:44,959
Speaker 4: abortion that Governor Discentis proposed while the Supreme Court decision

28
00:01:45,160 --> 00:01:49,160
Speaker 4: was pending. In twenty twenty three, a much more restrictive

29
00:01:49,280 --> 00:01:53,440
Speaker 4: six week ban was passed by the Florida legislature, but

30
00:01:53,560 --> 00:01:58,120
Speaker 4: the Florida Supreme Court had briefly delayed its going into

31
00:01:58,120 --> 00:02:00,840
Speaker 4: effect while looked at the question of whether there was

32
00:02:00,880 --> 00:02:04,480
Speaker 4: a constitutional right to privacy that included a right to

33
00:02:04,520 --> 00:02:07,600
Speaker 4: abortion in Florida. And so what happened this week is

34
00:02:07,640 --> 00:02:10,519
Speaker 4: that the Florida Supreme Court essentially ruled by a four

35
00:02:10,560 --> 00:02:14,880
Speaker 4: to three vote that a proposed constitutional amendment that would

36
00:02:15,040 --> 00:02:18,480
Speaker 4: guarantee the right to abortion that it could go to

37
00:02:18,520 --> 00:02:22,280
Speaker 4: the ballot. But at the same time, it essentially did

38
00:02:22,280 --> 00:02:26,720
Speaker 4: not find that the existing state constitution included a protection

39
00:02:27,040 --> 00:02:29,799
Speaker 4: of the rights to abortion as part of the privacy right.

40
00:02:29,919 --> 00:02:33,280
Speaker 4: So in other words, the Florida Supreme Court basically allowed

41
00:02:33,639 --> 00:02:36,280
Speaker 4: the new six week band to go into effects, but

42
00:02:36,520 --> 00:02:40,480
Speaker 4: it also decided to allow the voters of Florida to

43
00:02:40,560 --> 00:02:43,400
Speaker 4: decide whether to amend the constitution. So we have these

44
00:02:43,520 --> 00:02:47,040
Speaker 4: kind of parallel decisions that are extremely confusing about how

45
00:02:47,080 --> 00:02:49,200
Speaker 4: Florida is grappling with abortion.

46
00:02:49,639 --> 00:02:52,800
Speaker 1: Yeah, because they didn't have to issue the decisions on

47
00:02:52,880 --> 00:02:54,760
Speaker 1: the same day. Do you think that they were trying

48
00:02:54,800 --> 00:03:00,440
Speaker 1: to placate the supporters of abortion or just that they

49
00:03:00,440 --> 00:03:01,400
Speaker 1: were even handed.

50
00:03:01,680 --> 00:03:05,040
Speaker 4: I mean, I do think they're wrestling with both their

51
00:03:05,120 --> 00:03:08,880
Speaker 4: personal beliefs about, you know, how far the right of

52
00:03:08,919 --> 00:03:11,160
Speaker 4: privacy extends. And we can see that it's a very

53
00:03:11,160 --> 00:03:14,320
Speaker 4: conservative court, you know, that was six to one in

54
00:03:14,440 --> 00:03:18,000
Speaker 4: finding that there was this right to ban abortion, but

55
00:03:18,040 --> 00:03:21,520
Speaker 4: at the same time recognizing that the ultimately, you know,

56
00:03:21,639 --> 00:03:24,840
Speaker 4: the constitutional process of Florida allows for the voters to

57
00:03:25,520 --> 00:03:28,520
Speaker 4: change the constitution. So I think they were trying to

58
00:03:28,560 --> 00:03:32,600
Speaker 4: sort of find a pass through that both expressed their

59
00:03:32,639 --> 00:03:37,040
Speaker 4: personal beliefs about how far abortion rights and privacy rights

60
00:03:37,160 --> 00:03:40,280
Speaker 4: go and also acknowledged, you know that there is a

61
00:03:40,320 --> 00:03:44,520
Speaker 4: process in place for their personal judgments being overridden by

62
00:03:44,520 --> 00:03:45,040
Speaker 4: the voters.

63
00:03:45,280 --> 00:03:49,160
Speaker 1: So the privacy clause in the Florida Constitution states, quote,

64
00:03:49,360 --> 00:03:52,160
Speaker 1: every natural person has the right to be let alone

65
00:03:52,200 --> 00:03:56,000
Speaker 1: and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life.

66
00:03:56,560 --> 00:04:01,680
Speaker 1: How is that not protective of abortion rights? Right?

67
00:04:01,720 --> 00:04:04,640
Speaker 4: Obviously, we've had a number of state supreme courts that

68
00:04:04,800 --> 00:04:08,440
Speaker 4: have found that part of the right to privacy right,

69
00:04:08,480 --> 00:04:11,600
Speaker 4: which is really something that was not recognized until the

70
00:04:11,680 --> 00:04:14,120
Speaker 4: last sort of one hundred and twenty one hundred and

71
00:04:14,120 --> 00:04:16,280
Speaker 4: forty years, but did the right to privacy includes the

72
00:04:16,360 --> 00:04:18,359
Speaker 4: right to be left alone from the government and to

73
00:04:18,400 --> 00:04:23,440
Speaker 4: have personal autonomy over all kinds of choices, including healthcare choices,

74
00:04:23,520 --> 00:04:26,800
Speaker 4: including the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy.

75
00:04:27,200 --> 00:04:31,440
Speaker 4: So we definitely have seen many many supreme courts, state

76
00:04:31,440 --> 00:04:34,760
Speaker 4: supreme courts take this issue on and find that implied rights.

77
00:04:34,800 --> 00:04:37,400
Speaker 4: And of course we also have a number of state

78
00:04:37,400 --> 00:04:41,640
Speaker 4: supreme courts that have either explicitly said so California did that,

79
00:04:41,720 --> 00:04:44,760
Speaker 4: Michigan did that, and a handful of restrictive states that

80
00:04:44,800 --> 00:04:48,160
Speaker 4: said our constitution absolutely does not include it. I mean,

81
00:04:48,200 --> 00:04:51,520
Speaker 4: I think this question of the right to privacy has

82
00:04:51,600 --> 00:04:54,240
Speaker 4: been a kind of a question that hasn't been fully

83
00:04:54,320 --> 00:04:57,359
Speaker 4: resolved globally. Right there still are seemed to be tensions

84
00:04:57,360 --> 00:05:00,200
Speaker 4: on both sides about how far how far go than

85
00:05:00,240 --> 00:05:02,880
Speaker 4: about the competing right of the unborn child on one

86
00:05:02,920 --> 00:05:05,640
Speaker 4: side and the rights of a pregnant woman on the

87
00:05:05,680 --> 00:05:06,480
Speaker 4: other side.

88
00:05:06,920 --> 00:05:10,919
Speaker 1: My favorite part of this that is facetious. A majority

89
00:05:10,920 --> 00:05:14,159
Speaker 1: of the justices said the voters didn't understand that the

90
00:05:14,200 --> 00:05:18,520
Speaker 1: privacy clause extended to abortion when they added to the

91
00:05:18,520 --> 00:05:21,000
Speaker 1: state constitution in nineteen eighty.

92
00:05:21,560 --> 00:05:24,680
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's I mean, it's really interesting, right, like privacy.

93
00:05:25,000 --> 00:05:27,800
Speaker 4: I don't know how they come to that decision. Obviously,

94
00:05:27,839 --> 00:05:32,200
Speaker 4: privacy is a much broader set of rights, about the

95
00:05:32,279 --> 00:05:35,400
Speaker 4: right to be you know, not monitored and have your

96
00:05:35,400 --> 00:05:38,279
Speaker 4: life intruded on, about the right to travel, and about

97
00:05:38,320 --> 00:05:39,880
Speaker 4: the right to live in the way that you want.

98
00:05:39,960 --> 00:05:43,479
Speaker 4: So I think it's confusing to understand how they came

99
00:05:43,520 --> 00:05:47,440
Speaker 4: to this, you know, definitive conclusion that abortion wasn't explicitly

100
00:05:47,520 --> 00:05:52,000
Speaker 4: contemplated or somehow was outside of privacy. As I said,

101
00:05:52,120 --> 00:05:55,080
Speaker 4: we already had multiple state supreme courts who have found

102
00:05:55,080 --> 00:05:58,440
Speaker 4: the opposite, And so how they sort of determined what

103
00:05:58,560 --> 00:06:00,920
Speaker 4: was in the mind of Florida voters is a mystery

104
00:06:00,960 --> 00:06:01,120
Speaker 4: to me.

105
00:06:01,360 --> 00:06:04,920
Speaker 1: And also in twenty twelve, Florida voters rejected an amendment

106
00:06:05,400 --> 00:06:10,240
Speaker 1: that would have exempted abortion from constitutional privacy protection. So

107
00:06:10,520 --> 00:06:13,840
Speaker 1: there were all kinds of indications they overturned decades of

108
00:06:13,920 --> 00:06:18,320
Speaker 1: legal precedent with this decision, didn't they? Because back in

109
00:06:18,400 --> 00:06:21,919
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty nine the Florida Supreme Court ruled that it

110
00:06:22,000 --> 00:06:23,040
Speaker 1: did apply to abortion.

111
00:06:23,960 --> 00:06:27,080
Speaker 4: Yeah, so they absolutely reversed that. And this was obviously

112
00:06:27,160 --> 00:06:30,159
Speaker 4: a major shift from the Florida Supreme Court's own previous

113
00:06:30,240 --> 00:06:33,640
Speaker 4: rulings on the state constitutional privacy right. It has not

114
00:06:33,880 --> 00:06:37,480
Speaker 4: escaped noticed that. I believe all but one of the

115
00:06:37,600 --> 00:06:40,880
Speaker 4: justices on the Supreme Court currently are appointees of the

116
00:06:40,880 --> 00:06:45,120
Speaker 4: current governor, who's taken a much more conservative position on this.

117
00:06:45,360 --> 00:06:49,200
Speaker 4: But yeah, clearly this is a major shift from the

118
00:06:49,240 --> 00:06:52,080
Speaker 4: way that the Florida Constitution was understood by its own

119
00:06:52,080 --> 00:06:53,560
Speaker 4: Supreme Court for a long time.

120
00:06:53,920 --> 00:06:57,799
Speaker 1: Does the argument they use that the past abortion cases

121
00:06:57,880 --> 00:07:01,880
Speaker 1: had been wrongly decided based on this overbroad interpretation of

122
00:07:01,920 --> 00:07:05,520
Speaker 1: the privacy clause in a state constitution, Is that similar

123
00:07:05,600 --> 00:07:08,880
Speaker 1: to the argument that the Supreme Court made in overturning

124
00:07:09,000 --> 00:07:10,200
Speaker 1: Row well, it's.

125
00:07:10,120 --> 00:07:12,760
Speaker 4: Look, in the case of the US Supreme Court decision

126
00:07:13,080 --> 00:07:17,240
Speaker 4: and the Federal Constitution, we do not have a explicit

127
00:07:17,320 --> 00:07:21,040
Speaker 4: right to privacy right. So in the US Constitution, over

128
00:07:21,120 --> 00:07:25,160
Speaker 4: a series of cases involving things like contraception and the

129
00:07:25,240 --> 00:07:28,520
Speaker 4: right of an interracial couple to marry, and the decision

130
00:07:28,560 --> 00:07:31,440
Speaker 4: over gay marriage, we had the Supreme Court of the

131
00:07:31,520 --> 00:07:35,040
Speaker 4: United States wrestling with finding a right to privacy. The

132
00:07:35,080 --> 00:07:38,160
Speaker 4: famous language was in the penumbra, meaning like sort of

133
00:07:38,440 --> 00:07:42,080
Speaker 4: hidden away or implied in the Fourth Amendment right of

134
00:07:42,120 --> 00:07:44,920
Speaker 4: the Bill of Rights the Federal Constitution to be free

135
00:07:44,960 --> 00:07:48,960
Speaker 4: from search and seizure and onreasonable government intrusion. So here

136
00:07:48,960 --> 00:07:50,600
Speaker 4: in the case of Florida, we have a much more

137
00:07:50,600 --> 00:07:54,680
Speaker 4: explicit reference to privacy right. Most of the state constitutions

138
00:07:54,760 --> 00:07:58,160
Speaker 4: were written at a much later period where privacy was

139
00:07:58,200 --> 00:08:01,000
Speaker 4: already an explicit concept. So in some ways there was

140
00:08:01,080 --> 00:08:05,200
Speaker 4: more room for conservative justices at the federal level to

141
00:08:05,360 --> 00:08:09,760
Speaker 4: question whether previous Supreme Court justices had gone too far

142
00:08:09,880 --> 00:08:13,160
Speaker 4: and been too aggressive in reading in a privacy right

143
00:08:13,520 --> 00:08:16,400
Speaker 4: and implying it without even the word privacy there. But

144
00:08:16,520 --> 00:08:20,560
Speaker 4: this is a more aggressive decision because privacy is very

145
00:08:20,640 --> 00:08:24,760
Speaker 4: clearly part of this state constitution, and it's hard to

146
00:08:24,800 --> 00:08:28,160
Speaker 4: see how a right to determine the management of a pregnancy,

147
00:08:28,200 --> 00:08:32,720
Speaker 4: including to terminate it, is not an essential part of privacy.

148
00:08:32,960 --> 00:08:35,800
Speaker 4: But obviously these justices appear to have been moved by

149
00:08:35,840 --> 00:08:40,080
Speaker 4: the sort of competing interest of the embryo of the fetus,

150
00:08:40,080 --> 00:08:42,560
Speaker 4: you know, of the privacy rights other than the rights

151
00:08:42,559 --> 00:08:45,319
Speaker 4: of the mother. So I think that's where this decision

152
00:08:45,360 --> 00:08:48,520
Speaker 4: comes down. But it's clearly more aggressive and more conservative

153
00:08:48,920 --> 00:08:50,880
Speaker 4: than the US Supreme Court's decision in my view.

154
00:08:51,080 --> 00:08:54,040
Speaker 1: And Harry, why is the sixth week ban able to

155
00:08:54,080 --> 00:08:56,880
Speaker 1: go into effect now that they've ruled on the fifteen

156
00:08:56,920 --> 00:08:57,480
Speaker 1: week ban?

157
00:08:58,280 --> 00:09:01,040
Speaker 4: I mean, this was a decision of the Florida legislature, right,

158
00:09:01,120 --> 00:09:04,960
Speaker 4: So when Governor Destantis proposed and the Florida Legislature enacted

159
00:09:05,200 --> 00:09:07,920
Speaker 4: the fifteen week ban, it appears that they chose that

160
00:09:08,160 --> 00:09:10,679
Speaker 4: time period because that was the law that was from

161
00:09:10,679 --> 00:09:13,000
Speaker 4: Mississippi that was before the Supreme Court. They tried to

162
00:09:13,080 --> 00:09:16,280
Speaker 4: match that law so that if that law stood, they

163
00:09:16,320 --> 00:09:18,880
Speaker 4: could pass it. And that law went into effect in

164
00:09:18,960 --> 00:09:21,480
Speaker 4: July of twenty twenty two, a few weeks after the

165
00:09:21,600 --> 00:09:25,280
Speaker 4: Supreme Court decision. But it became clear that the trend

166
00:09:25,440 --> 00:09:30,720
Speaker 4: among pro life advocates was for a much more restrictive time. Obviously,

167
00:09:30,920 --> 00:09:33,800
Speaker 4: those weeks between six and fifteen are massive difference. So

168
00:09:33,840 --> 00:09:37,240
Speaker 4: they came back. The Florida legislature came back and passed

169
00:09:37,240 --> 00:09:39,720
Speaker 4: a much more restrictive law. And the only reason it

170
00:09:39,720 --> 00:09:43,600
Speaker 4: hadn't gone into effectings was because of this older Florida

171
00:09:43,800 --> 00:09:46,760
Speaker 4: Supreme Court rulings that there was a right to privacy

172
00:09:46,800 --> 00:09:50,160
Speaker 4: here that prevented it. So it required the Florida Supreme

173
00:09:50,200 --> 00:09:53,320
Speaker 4: Court to come back revisit the issues you know in

174
00:09:53,360 --> 00:09:56,360
Speaker 4: this week, I mean make a different decision really to

175
00:09:56,520 --> 00:09:59,719
Speaker 4: revise their understanding of privacy so that the six week

176
00:09:59,760 --> 00:10:02,479
Speaker 4: ban could take effect and few.

177
00:10:02,480 --> 00:10:05,800
Speaker 1: Women realize that they're pregnant at six weeks.

178
00:10:06,400 --> 00:10:09,120
Speaker 4: Right, The difference between six weeks and fifteen weeks in

179
00:10:09,320 --> 00:10:12,400
Speaker 4: a woman realizing that she's pregnant, let alone making a

180
00:10:12,440 --> 00:10:16,360
Speaker 4: decision about whether to carry the pregnancy or whether to

181
00:10:16,480 --> 00:10:21,760
Speaker 4: terminate it is obviously those are crucial, crucial weeks. As

182
00:10:21,760 --> 00:10:24,400
Speaker 4: you say, you know, the likelihood is that many women

183
00:10:24,440 --> 00:10:28,040
Speaker 4: will not even realize that they're pregnant, let alone comes

184
00:10:28,040 --> 00:10:31,040
Speaker 4: to that kind of a decision in that time period.

185
00:10:31,120 --> 00:10:33,880
Speaker 4: So this is something that is it's practically a ban

186
00:10:34,000 --> 00:10:36,880
Speaker 4: on abortion when you make the time period that short.

187
00:10:37,440 --> 00:10:41,360
Speaker 1: And this decision has an effect outside Florida because it

188
00:10:41,559 --> 00:10:46,240
Speaker 1: was a place where women seeking abortions in other states

189
00:10:46,280 --> 00:10:50,440
Speaker 1: with more restrictive abortion laws came to get an abortion.

190
00:10:51,120 --> 00:10:51,320
Speaker 5: Yeah.

191
00:10:51,360 --> 00:10:55,000
Speaker 4: Absolutely, the whole issue of having Florida as a at

192
00:10:55,080 --> 00:11:00,920
Speaker 4: least still somewhat permissive jurisdiction for women who moved, you know,

193
00:11:01,040 --> 00:11:04,520
Speaker 4: with alacrity, who could move fairly promptly to come and

194
00:11:04,679 --> 00:11:07,120
Speaker 4: travel to the state was a good option for all

195
00:11:07,160 --> 00:11:10,680
Speaker 4: of the adjacents Southeastern states. I do think that this

196
00:11:10,800 --> 00:11:14,920
Speaker 4: decision is yet another driver for that those women that

197
00:11:15,000 --> 00:11:20,199
Speaker 4: will lead towards more use of medication and telemedicine. And

198
00:11:20,720 --> 00:11:22,920
Speaker 4: you know, I think this pressure will take away the

199
00:11:23,000 --> 00:11:26,160
Speaker 4: travel option to Florida at least until this the voters

200
00:11:26,200 --> 00:11:29,120
Speaker 4: of Florida have a chance to decide about whether to

201
00:11:29,160 --> 00:11:31,800
Speaker 4: sort of re it in state a longer option. And

202
00:11:31,840 --> 00:11:34,000
Speaker 4: I think it will move more people, more women to

203
00:11:34,160 --> 00:11:38,720
Speaker 4: utilize telemedicine and utilize medication which can be shipped into

204
00:11:38,720 --> 00:11:41,080
Speaker 4: the state, you know, whether the states approve of it

205
00:11:41,160 --> 00:11:41,360
Speaker 4: or not.

206
00:11:41,760 --> 00:11:44,000
Speaker 1: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show. I'll continue

207
00:11:44,000 --> 00:11:48,200
Speaker 1: this conversation with healthcare attorney Harry Nelson, and we'll talk

208
00:11:48,240 --> 00:11:52,080
Speaker 1: about that ballot measure on abortion, which Florida voters will

209
00:11:52,080 --> 00:11:55,080
Speaker 1: decide on in November. I'm June Grasso. When you're listening

210
00:11:55,120 --> 00:12:01,120
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg. Florida Supreme Court issued to rulings on abortion

211
00:12:01,240 --> 00:12:04,520
Speaker 1: on Monday. One will allow the states six week abortion

212
00:12:04,679 --> 00:12:07,480
Speaker 1: band to go into effect, while the other will let

213
00:12:07,600 --> 00:12:11,400
Speaker 1: voters decide on a proposed ballot measure in November that

214
00:12:11,520 --> 00:12:15,640
Speaker 1: will protect access to abortion up until viability, which is

215
00:12:15,720 --> 00:12:19,480
Speaker 1: considered to be around twenty four weeks into pregnancy. Abortion

216
00:12:19,600 --> 00:12:23,840
Speaker 1: on the ballot could have major political implications. In every

217
00:12:23,880 --> 00:12:27,080
Speaker 1: state where abortion rights have appeared on the ballot, the

218
00:12:27,200 --> 00:12:31,320
Speaker 1: side of abortion rights has won, including in conservative states

219
00:12:31,360 --> 00:12:35,199
Speaker 1: like Kentucky, Ohio, and Kansas. I've been talking to healthcare

220
00:12:35,240 --> 00:12:40,000
Speaker 1: attorney Harry Nelson of Nelson Hardiman Harry. The ballot measure says,

221
00:12:40,120 --> 00:12:44,600
Speaker 1: in part that no law shall prohibit penalized delay or

222
00:12:44,679 --> 00:12:49,840
Speaker 1: restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the

223
00:12:49,920 --> 00:12:54,560
Speaker 1: patient's health, as determined by the patient's healthcare provider. It's

224
00:12:54,559 --> 00:12:55,640
Speaker 1: pretty broad, isn't it.

225
00:12:56,320 --> 00:13:00,000
Speaker 4: Yeah, the ballot measure basically has the concept of fetale

226
00:13:00,120 --> 00:13:03,800
Speaker 4: ability built in, which I believe is understood to extend

227
00:13:03,840 --> 00:13:07,920
Speaker 4: to over twenty weeks, so essentially allowing women in the

228
00:13:07,920 --> 00:13:11,439
Speaker 4: first two trimesters more or less to have the option

229
00:13:11,480 --> 00:13:15,480
Speaker 4: of abortion. So it is a fairly broad and liberal ruling.

230
00:13:15,480 --> 00:13:18,839
Speaker 4: It would essentially give definitely a period of at least

231
00:13:18,880 --> 00:13:22,480
Speaker 4: eight plus the maybe nine weeks longer than the fifteen

232
00:13:22,520 --> 00:13:26,480
Speaker 4: week option, which is something that the pro choice advocates

233
00:13:26,480 --> 00:13:30,280
Speaker 4: have been wanting just to give women more time to

234
00:13:30,320 --> 00:13:35,400
Speaker 4: make choices. So yeah, it's a fairly liberal, permissive constitutional

235
00:13:35,440 --> 00:13:39,200
Speaker 4: amendments that will be before Florida voters on the ever ballot,

236
00:13:39,360 --> 00:13:41,680
Speaker 4: and it will be interesting to see how that plays

237
00:13:41,679 --> 00:13:45,720
Speaker 4: out alongside the presidential election and all the other really

238
00:13:46,000 --> 00:13:48,600
Speaker 4: very important decisions that Florida voters have to make this year.

239
00:13:48,840 --> 00:13:53,000
Speaker 1: Well, Republican lawmakers are arguing that it will allow abortions

240
00:13:53,120 --> 00:13:54,199
Speaker 1: late in pregnancy.

241
00:13:54,480 --> 00:13:57,280
Speaker 4: It's absolutely true. I mean, look, when going back to

242
00:13:57,320 --> 00:14:00,120
Speaker 4: the medication abortion option for a minute. You know, the

243
00:14:00,120 --> 00:14:03,480
Speaker 4: the approval for mes apristone, which we were talking about

244
00:14:03,559 --> 00:14:05,760
Speaker 4: only a couple of weeks ago when Spreme Court heard

245
00:14:05,880 --> 00:14:08,560
Speaker 4: argument only is allowed to be used up to eleven weeks.

246
00:14:08,559 --> 00:14:11,320
Speaker 4: So this is definitely certainly a much broader issue, and

247
00:14:11,960 --> 00:14:14,040
Speaker 4: you know, it'll be interesting to see how voters react.

248
00:14:14,080 --> 00:14:16,720
Speaker 4: I think that it does seem that in the vast

249
00:14:16,720 --> 00:14:20,080
Speaker 4: majority of places, a majority of voters support more permissive

250
00:14:20,120 --> 00:14:23,320
Speaker 4: abortion rights. But the question of whether the language here

251
00:14:23,760 --> 00:14:26,520
Speaker 4: is broader than will attract the majority will be interesting

252
00:14:26,560 --> 00:14:27,120
Speaker 4: to see.

253
00:14:27,280 --> 00:14:31,560
Speaker 1: Well. The three female dissentis appointees on the Court dissented

254
00:14:32,120 --> 00:14:35,280
Speaker 1: on the ballot measure due to concerns that the impact

255
00:14:35,360 --> 00:14:38,200
Speaker 1: of the amendment was far greater than what voters will

256
00:14:38,200 --> 00:14:41,280
Speaker 1: be led to believe at the ballot box. They really

257
00:14:41,360 --> 00:14:45,080
Speaker 1: don't give much credence to voters. They act like voters

258
00:14:45,120 --> 00:14:47,400
Speaker 1: don't understand what's right in front of them.

259
00:14:47,720 --> 00:14:50,640
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's an interesting point. Look, I think we've seen

260
00:14:50,920 --> 00:14:54,520
Speaker 4: that voters in states like Kansas have really given a

261
00:14:54,600 --> 00:14:59,800
Speaker 4: rebuke to extremely conservative positions taken by their legislators, by

262
00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:03,600
Speaker 4: same court jurists in those states. Personally, I have more

263
00:15:03,640 --> 00:15:06,600
Speaker 4: faith in the in the voters to make themselves heard,

264
00:15:06,720 --> 00:15:08,800
Speaker 4: and we've seen that when these issues go to the

265
00:15:08,840 --> 00:15:12,400
Speaker 4: ballot box, there's far more support and it's harder for

266
00:15:13,200 --> 00:15:17,760
Speaker 4: either side frankly to engage in legislative gamesmanship or the

267
00:15:17,800 --> 00:15:21,600
Speaker 4: sort of take advantage of headcounting on particular courts to

268
00:15:21,680 --> 00:15:24,880
Speaker 4: get their way. And so from my perspective, I think

269
00:15:24,920 --> 00:15:26,600
Speaker 4: it's a good thing that we're going to the voters,

270
00:15:26,600 --> 00:15:28,000
Speaker 4: but obviously not everybody.

271
00:15:27,640 --> 00:15:29,840
Speaker 1: Feels that way, and I have to get sixty percent

272
00:15:30,040 --> 00:15:33,160
Speaker 1: for it to pass. So now, abortion rights groups in

273
00:15:33,440 --> 00:15:36,280
Speaker 1: several states are trying to put measures on the ballot,

274
00:15:36,560 --> 00:15:40,800
Speaker 1: and anti abortion groups have deployed a wide range of

275
00:15:40,920 --> 00:15:46,600
Speaker 1: tactics to keep proposals off the ballot, including challenging the language.

276
00:15:47,240 --> 00:15:51,440
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's very interesting the way that popular referendu you

277
00:15:51,480 --> 00:15:54,880
Speaker 4: know that voter initiatives have become a threat to the

278
00:15:54,920 --> 00:15:59,000
Speaker 4: pro life movement and to advocacy for more restrictive abortion laws.

279
00:15:59,440 --> 00:16:01,880
Speaker 4: And it just know the extent to which the idea

280
00:16:01,920 --> 00:16:06,440
Speaker 4: of restricting women's choices and women's rights to reproductive healthcare

281
00:16:06,480 --> 00:16:10,720
Speaker 4: access is just fundamentally unpopular and not something that the

282
00:16:10,760 --> 00:16:14,280
Speaker 4: majority of Americans want, and yet something that has succeeded

283
00:16:14,720 --> 00:16:17,720
Speaker 4: by virtue of you know, this whole legal effort in

284
00:16:17,800 --> 00:16:20,960
Speaker 4: the courts and legislatures. And so its ironic in a

285
00:16:21,000 --> 00:16:24,240
Speaker 4: way that the most democratic process we have, which is

286
00:16:24,280 --> 00:16:27,280
Speaker 4: to let voters decide at the ballot box, is now

287
00:16:27,520 --> 00:16:30,600
Speaker 4: the threat to the same people, and it definitely should

288
00:16:30,760 --> 00:16:33,560
Speaker 4: give pause to anybody who really thinks that the issue

289
00:16:33,560 --> 00:16:38,600
Speaker 4: here has political support. You know that in Republican politics nationally,

290
00:16:38,680 --> 00:16:42,680
Speaker 4: we've now seen several cycles in which excessive restriction of

291
00:16:42,720 --> 00:16:47,640
Speaker 4: abortion has been politically unpopular and costly in numerous elections,

292
00:16:47,680 --> 00:16:50,760
Speaker 4: and so it's surprising that we continue to see this

293
00:16:50,920 --> 00:16:55,600
Speaker 4: resistance to acknowledging and honoring the will of the voters

294
00:16:55,920 --> 00:17:00,080
Speaker 4: to have some level of abortion protection and access the

295
00:17:00,160 --> 00:17:03,600
Speaker 4: reproductive healthcare choices available. And it seems like it's a

296
00:17:03,600 --> 00:17:06,640
Speaker 4: decision to try to restrict this beyond what voters want

297
00:17:06,920 --> 00:17:09,760
Speaker 4: is having a political cost that was continuing to see

298
00:17:09,800 --> 00:17:10,560
Speaker 4: play out for.

299
00:17:10,920 --> 00:17:14,200
Speaker 1: Helping him speaking about the costs of going too far

300
00:17:14,920 --> 00:17:18,080
Speaker 1: in the case that got national attention where a woman

301
00:17:18,160 --> 00:17:22,320
Speaker 1: in Texas was charged with murder, arrested, and spent three

302
00:17:22,400 --> 00:17:26,560
Speaker 1: days in jail in twenty twenty two after health officials

303
00:17:26,680 --> 00:17:30,480
Speaker 1: reported her to authorities for attempting to terminate her pregnancy.

304
00:17:30,680 --> 00:17:34,320
Speaker 1: She's now suing the Star County District Attorney's office for

305
00:17:34,400 --> 00:17:37,520
Speaker 1: more than a million dollars, claiming the fallout from the

306
00:17:37,560 --> 00:17:39,520
Speaker 1: case has changed her life forever.

307
00:17:40,320 --> 00:17:44,080
Speaker 4: Lazelle Gonzalez, she's doing the prosecutors now, saying that they

308
00:17:44,560 --> 00:17:48,879
Speaker 4: knowingly misrepresented the fact in order to arrest her and

309
00:17:48,960 --> 00:17:53,240
Speaker 4: charge her, and that they caused significant harm to her.

310
00:17:54,000 --> 00:17:59,040
Speaker 4: That's quite a fascinating case about sort of how local

311
00:17:59,080 --> 00:18:02,480
Speaker 4: prosecutors may have gone much too far in the way

312
00:18:02,480 --> 00:18:06,040
Speaker 4: that they really made the spectacle of this poor woman

313
00:18:06,359 --> 00:18:09,760
Speaker 4: having her spend time in jail, publishing her mugshot in

314
00:18:09,840 --> 00:18:13,760
Speaker 4: the paper, I mean, putting her private medical information into

315
00:18:13,760 --> 00:18:17,239
Speaker 4: the newspapers. And so, you know, just another chapter in

316
00:18:17,280 --> 00:18:20,320
Speaker 4: this is our case where she is now going after

317
00:18:20,440 --> 00:18:23,960
Speaker 4: them and essentially alleging that they violated her rights in

318
00:18:24,000 --> 00:18:26,640
Speaker 4: the way that they went after her for criminal liability

319
00:18:26,800 --> 00:18:31,840
Speaker 4: for her decision to take medication abortion. So it's just

320
00:18:32,200 --> 00:18:35,160
Speaker 4: yet another example of this like crazy back and forth,

321
00:18:35,320 --> 00:18:39,439
Speaker 4: chaotic situation wherein where literally, you know, a private healthcare

322
00:18:39,600 --> 00:18:43,800
Speaker 4: choice that this woman made led to such an extreme reaction,

323
00:18:44,200 --> 00:18:44,480
Speaker 4: and the.

324
00:18:44,440 --> 00:18:48,760
Speaker 1: District attorney was investigated by the state bar of Texas

325
00:18:48,800 --> 00:18:51,199
Speaker 1: over his handling of the case, and they reached a

326
00:18:51,240 --> 00:18:55,439
Speaker 1: settlement so that his office could continue prosecuting cases. The

327
00:18:55,480 --> 00:18:59,240
Speaker 1: settlement conditions included a twelve hundred and fifty dollars fine

328
00:18:59,600 --> 00:19:02,440
Speaker 1: and a year year long probation of his legal license.

329
00:19:03,000 --> 00:19:05,960
Speaker 1: He told the Associated Press, I made a mistake in

330
00:19:06,000 --> 00:19:10,040
Speaker 1: that case. We'll see if that translates into money damages

331
00:19:10,560 --> 00:19:13,720
Speaker 1: for Gonzalez. Thanks so much, Harry. As always, that's Harry

332
00:19:13,760 --> 00:19:17,240
Speaker 1: Nelson of Nelson Hardiman. Let's turn out to some surprising

333
00:19:17,440 --> 00:19:21,320
Speaker 1: admissions today in Fifth Circuit oral arguments over the Texas

334
00:19:21,400 --> 00:19:26,640
Speaker 1: law known as SB four that authorizes state officials to arrest, detain,

335
00:19:26,920 --> 00:19:31,040
Speaker 1: and deport non citizens who enter the country illegally. Joining

336
00:19:31,040 --> 00:19:34,719
Speaker 1: me is Bloomberg, Texas legal reporter Madelein Meckelberg. Was the

337
00:19:34,720 --> 00:19:37,960
Speaker 1: State of Texas on the defensive in these arguments.

338
00:19:38,320 --> 00:19:41,840
Speaker 5: They definitely were. They knew coming into the arguments today

339
00:19:41,840 --> 00:19:45,440
Speaker 5: that they were facing an uphill battle. This same three

340
00:19:45,520 --> 00:19:48,720
Speaker 5: judge panel of the Fifth Circuit just last week had

341
00:19:48,920 --> 00:19:52,440
Speaker 5: ruled to block this law while they consider the full appeal.

342
00:19:52,880 --> 00:19:55,679
Speaker 5: So I think what we saw from Texas today was

343
00:19:55,840 --> 00:19:58,879
Speaker 5: a more nuanced position on what they'd be willing to

344
00:19:58,960 --> 00:20:02,640
Speaker 5: accept from the court. At one point, remarkably, we heard

345
00:20:02,680 --> 00:20:06,879
Speaker 5: the Texas Solicitor General suggests that perhaps Texas had gone

346
00:20:07,080 --> 00:20:11,320
Speaker 5: too far in trying to pass this statute right, and

347
00:20:11,359 --> 00:20:14,000
Speaker 5: that they'd be willing to if the court decided that

348
00:20:14,040 --> 00:20:16,240
Speaker 5: they wanted to block the law from going into effects,

349
00:20:16,320 --> 00:20:19,240
Speaker 5: they asked that they still let some provisions of the

350
00:20:19,280 --> 00:20:21,919
Speaker 5: measure go into effect, specifically one that would let the

351
00:20:22,000 --> 00:20:25,000
Speaker 5: state order the removal of people who they've identified as

352
00:20:25,040 --> 00:20:26,159
Speaker 5: being here illegally.

353
00:20:26,600 --> 00:20:28,920
Speaker 1: What part of the law did they think went too far?

354
00:20:29,480 --> 00:20:31,960
Speaker 5: Well. The way that he framed that idea was that

355
00:20:32,320 --> 00:20:36,120
Speaker 5: Texas crafted this statute as a whole with the intention

356
00:20:36,240 --> 00:20:38,679
Speaker 5: of going right up to the line of what Supreme

357
00:20:38,720 --> 00:20:42,200
Speaker 5: Court precedent has allowed up to this point, which, as

358
00:20:42,280 --> 00:20:45,520
Speaker 5: I'm sure you and your listeners know, is basically one

359
00:20:45,560 --> 00:20:48,080
Speaker 5: hundred and fifty years of the federal government being the

360
00:20:48,080 --> 00:20:52,600
Speaker 5: one responsible for immigration enforcement and the border. And so

361
00:20:52,640 --> 00:20:55,720
Speaker 5: Texas was trying to take as much authority as possible

362
00:20:55,800 --> 00:20:59,200
Speaker 5: with this statute while not running afoul of that precedent,

363
00:20:59,520 --> 00:21:01,439
Speaker 5: because they knew that this law would get challenged in

364
00:21:01,480 --> 00:21:03,520
Speaker 5: the courts and that they'd end up here right now.

365
00:21:04,040 --> 00:21:07,240
Speaker 5: But it seemed that Texas was willing to allow the

366
00:21:07,280 --> 00:21:10,240
Speaker 5: court to temporarily put on hold. So that's important to

367
00:21:10,280 --> 00:21:12,960
Speaker 5: note too, Like the conversation that's happening right now is

368
00:21:13,040 --> 00:21:15,800
Speaker 5: all over a preliminary injunction. This is not the last

369
00:21:15,840 --> 00:21:19,119
Speaker 5: word on the matter. But they seemed okay for now

370
00:21:19,240 --> 00:21:22,159
Speaker 5: for most of the statute to be blocked by the

371
00:21:22,160 --> 00:21:24,920
Speaker 5: court if they could keep on the books that provision

372
00:21:24,960 --> 00:21:26,439
Speaker 5: that would let them remove people.

373
00:21:26,880 --> 00:21:30,159
Speaker 1: How did the judges on the Fifth Circuit on the

374
00:21:30,200 --> 00:21:31,800
Speaker 1: panel react to that?

375
00:21:32,520 --> 00:21:34,600
Speaker 5: It was a little bit like deja vous since it

376
00:21:34,640 --> 00:21:36,840
Speaker 5: was the same three judges that had heard this case

377
00:21:36,880 --> 00:21:40,359
Speaker 5: a few weeks ago. We had Judge Andrew Oldham, who

378
00:21:40,440 --> 00:21:43,200
Speaker 5: was the one that was clearly in support of this

379
00:21:43,359 --> 00:21:45,480
Speaker 5: law and thought it should go into effects. He had

380
00:21:45,520 --> 00:21:48,720
Speaker 5: a lot of questions and concerns for the DOJ attorney

381
00:21:48,800 --> 00:21:51,359
Speaker 5: that was there, asking about whether the court had the

382
00:21:51,400 --> 00:21:54,640
Speaker 5: authority to block this law in totality before it's been

383
00:21:54,680 --> 00:21:57,479
Speaker 5: allowed to go into effect. But the other judges were

384
00:21:57,520 --> 00:22:00,879
Speaker 5: a little more quiet. Judge Erma Ramirez hardly spoke at

385
00:22:00,920 --> 00:22:03,640
Speaker 5: all during the hearing, but we know that she previously

386
00:22:04,160 --> 00:22:06,639
Speaker 5: wanted to block the law. And I think the swing

387
00:22:06,720 --> 00:22:09,639
Speaker 5: vote here that everyone's paying attention to is Chief Judge

388
00:22:09,640 --> 00:22:13,520
Speaker 5: Priscilla Richmond, she has been on the fence in the past.

389
00:22:13,720 --> 00:22:17,520
Speaker 5: She did rule in favor of blocking the law previously.

390
00:22:17,560 --> 00:22:20,720
Speaker 5: In this case, she raised some of the same concerns

391
00:22:20,760 --> 00:22:23,200
Speaker 5: today that she did in that opinion, which is basically

392
00:22:23,240 --> 00:22:26,320
Speaker 5: this idea that President up to this point has been

393
00:22:26,480 --> 00:22:29,360
Speaker 5: that immigration is the responsibility of the federal government.

394
00:22:30,680 --> 00:22:35,520
Speaker 1: And just explain what happened last week when this same

395
00:22:35,640 --> 00:22:38,000
Speaker 1: three judge panel made a decision.

396
00:22:38,800 --> 00:22:42,479
Speaker 5: So this case has been bouncing back and forth between

397
00:22:42,520 --> 00:22:45,520
Speaker 5: the courts, and in doing so, the courts of let

398
00:22:45,520 --> 00:22:47,359
Speaker 5: the law go into effect, block the law, let it

399
00:22:47,400 --> 00:22:50,720
Speaker 5: go into effect. Last week, this same three judge panel

400
00:22:50,760 --> 00:22:53,760
Speaker 5: of the Fifth Circuit, they basically said that they were

401
00:22:53,800 --> 00:22:56,960
Speaker 5: going to allow a district court order blocking the law

402
00:22:57,080 --> 00:23:01,480
Speaker 5: to remain in effect while they paid the full appeal

403
00:23:01,760 --> 00:23:04,840
Speaker 5: of that order. So what we heard today were arguments

404
00:23:04,880 --> 00:23:07,760
Speaker 5: on the merits of the case, the appeal of the

405
00:23:07,800 --> 00:23:11,800
Speaker 5: district judge ruling. Previously, all they were doing was deciding

406
00:23:11,840 --> 00:23:14,200
Speaker 5: whether or not the law should go into effect while

407
00:23:14,200 --> 00:23:15,040
Speaker 5: they weigh this case.

408
00:23:15,200 --> 00:23:17,359
Speaker 1: And this case already went to the Supreme Court. Tell

409
00:23:17,440 --> 00:23:18,639
Speaker 1: us what happened there.

410
00:23:18,680 --> 00:23:20,280
Speaker 5: When the case got to them. They said it was

411
00:23:20,320 --> 00:23:23,800
Speaker 5: too early for them to get involved. Because the Fifth

412
00:23:23,840 --> 00:23:28,680
Speaker 5: Circuit had not issued a stay pending appeal, They issued

413
00:23:28,880 --> 00:23:32,520
Speaker 5: an administrative stay to hang the decision while they decided

414
00:23:32,560 --> 00:23:36,200
Speaker 5: on a stay pending appeal while they decided the appealed.

415
00:23:36,480 --> 00:23:40,760
Speaker 1: Congratulations, I'm keeping all that straight. I see that the

416
00:23:40,840 --> 00:23:44,639
Speaker 1: Chief Judge, who most people do say is the swing

417
00:23:44,760 --> 00:23:48,840
Speaker 1: vote here, towards the end of the argument, emphasized that

418
00:23:49,040 --> 00:23:53,000
Speaker 1: states aren't permitted to remove non citizens, and the Supreme

419
00:23:53,040 --> 00:23:56,879
Speaker 1: Court decided that striking down an immigration law in Arizona

420
00:23:57,000 --> 00:24:01,280
Speaker 1: in twenty twelve. Quote it's on the books. So did

421
00:24:01,320 --> 00:24:04,480
Speaker 1: she appear to be leaning against this law?

422
00:24:04,920 --> 00:24:08,359
Speaker 5: I would say so, and that language is coming basically

423
00:24:08,520 --> 00:24:11,320
Speaker 5: directly from the order they issued last week on this

424
00:24:11,760 --> 00:24:14,840
Speaker 5: and the Arizona decision is key here, and it's what

425
00:24:15,040 --> 00:24:18,479
Speaker 5: the US government has been turning to frequently in arguing

426
00:24:18,520 --> 00:24:21,760
Speaker 5: against letting this law go into effect. But I think

427
00:24:21,800 --> 00:24:24,879
Speaker 5: that per point also raises a bigger question here that

428
00:24:24,920 --> 00:24:27,679
Speaker 5: I think a lot of people have, which is, how

429
00:24:27,800 --> 00:24:30,439
Speaker 5: is Texas actually going to enforce this law? This is

430
00:24:30,440 --> 00:24:33,880
Speaker 5: something they talked about today, and that removal proceedings specifically

431
00:24:34,240 --> 00:24:36,879
Speaker 5: because people who come to the country have certain rights

432
00:24:36,920 --> 00:24:40,520
Speaker 5: of asylum. There's processes in place from the federal government,

433
00:24:40,680 --> 00:24:44,000
Speaker 5: and it's not clear at this point how this Texas

434
00:24:44,080 --> 00:24:48,800
Speaker 5: law might impact federal immigration enforcement activities that are ongoing,

435
00:24:48,880 --> 00:24:51,880
Speaker 5: and that's something that I think Judge Richmond appeared concerned

436
00:24:51,880 --> 00:24:52,680
Speaker 5: about today too.

437
00:24:53,119 --> 00:24:54,960
Speaker 1: It appears that the writing is on the wall, but

438
00:24:55,160 --> 00:24:59,480
Speaker 1: we'll see. Thanks Madeline. That's Madeline Meckelberg, Bloomberg, Texas Legal

439
00:24:59,520 --> 00:25:03,040
Speaker 1: reporter coming up next. Why Google is deleting billions of

440
00:25:03,119 --> 00:25:08,440
Speaker 1: data records. This is Bloomberg. Google has agreed to delete

441
00:25:08,520 --> 00:25:12,760
Speaker 1: billions of records containing personal information collected from more than

442
00:25:12,880 --> 00:25:15,800
Speaker 1: one hundred thirty six million people in the US who

443
00:25:15,920 --> 00:25:19,720
Speaker 1: surfed the Internet through its Chrome web browser. It's part

444
00:25:19,760 --> 00:25:23,000
Speaker 1: of a settlement in a class action lawsuit accusing the

445
00:25:23,040 --> 00:25:27,480
Speaker 1: search giant of illegal surveillance. The lawsuit accused Google of

446
00:25:27,600 --> 00:25:31,920
Speaker 1: tracking Chrome user's Internet activity even when they had switched

447
00:25:31,960 --> 00:25:35,840
Speaker 1: the browser to the incognito setting that's supposed to shield

448
00:25:35,880 --> 00:25:39,040
Speaker 1: them from being shadowed by Google. The details of the

449
00:25:39,080 --> 00:25:42,280
Speaker 1: deal emerged in a court filing on Monday, more than

450
00:25:42,359 --> 00:25:45,600
Speaker 1: three months after Google and the attorney's handling the class

451
00:25:45,640 --> 00:25:49,359
Speaker 1: action case disclosed they had resolved the June twenty twenty

452
00:25:49,440 --> 00:25:54,959
Speaker 1: lawsuit targeting Chrome's privacy controls. Consumers represented in the class

453
00:25:54,960 --> 00:25:58,520
Speaker 1: action lawsuit will not receive any damages or any other

454
00:25:58,600 --> 00:26:02,200
Speaker 1: payments in the settlement. Joining me is data privacy expert

455
00:26:02,280 --> 00:26:06,200
Speaker 1: Austin Chambers, a partner at Dorsey and Whitney. For those

456
00:26:06,200 --> 00:26:11,480
Speaker 1: who are not familiar, tell us about the incognito browsing

457
00:26:11,600 --> 00:26:12,640
Speaker 1: mode on Google.

458
00:26:13,000 --> 00:26:15,560
Speaker 3: Google. It has the Chrome browser, and through the Chrome Browser,

459
00:26:15,600 --> 00:26:18,000
Speaker 3: it has several settings and pug up into the corner

460
00:26:18,240 --> 00:26:21,240
Speaker 3: there's the incognito mode. It's a very popular thing. I

461
00:26:21,240 --> 00:26:24,200
Speaker 3: think many people use it thinking that they're protecting their privacy.

462
00:26:24,480 --> 00:26:26,800
Speaker 3: It basically what it does is it's a tool that

463
00:26:27,160 --> 00:26:29,440
Speaker 3: Chrome makes available, and many other browsers have similar sorts

464
00:26:29,480 --> 00:26:32,399
Speaker 3: of functions. It doesn't store cookies in your browser, it

465
00:26:32,440 --> 00:26:35,760
Speaker 3: doesn't store your browsing history. So many people use this

466
00:26:35,800 --> 00:26:37,800
Speaker 3: if they just want to again sort of hide their

467
00:26:37,840 --> 00:26:40,639
Speaker 3: browsing history on a device that's maybe shared among the

468
00:26:40,640 --> 00:26:42,280
Speaker 3: family or something along those lines.

469
00:26:42,560 --> 00:26:45,240
Speaker 1: So the suit that was filed in twenty twenty, what

470
00:26:45,440 --> 00:26:47,560
Speaker 1: did it accuse Google of?

471
00:26:48,080 --> 00:26:51,399
Speaker 3: So the original suit claimed that this incognito mode was

472
00:26:51,920 --> 00:26:55,400
Speaker 3: essentially deceptive. So when users begin to use they start

473
00:26:55,440 --> 00:26:58,959
Speaker 3: a session in incognito, they would see this character. They

474
00:26:59,080 --> 00:27:02,040
Speaker 3: called him a spy. It looked like he was hidden

475
00:27:02,040 --> 00:27:05,240
Speaker 3: behind sunglasses with a little hat. They've made these disclosures

476
00:27:05,280 --> 00:27:07,639
Speaker 3: that stated that you're not being tracked, that your session

477
00:27:07,680 --> 00:27:10,560
Speaker 3: will be private, and that Google wouldn't collect any information

478
00:27:10,600 --> 00:27:13,160
Speaker 3: about you. The problem is that as people go about

479
00:27:13,160 --> 00:27:17,240
Speaker 3: the Internet, really all incognito does is prevent your browser,

480
00:27:17,320 --> 00:27:20,159
Speaker 3: that instance that you have installed on your computer of Chrome,

481
00:27:20,480 --> 00:27:23,600
Speaker 3: from collecting data about your browsing history. And it made

482
00:27:23,600 --> 00:27:25,880
Speaker 3: delete some of the cookies. But what it wasn't doing

483
00:27:26,080 --> 00:27:29,240
Speaker 3: was blocking other of Google's technologies like Google Analytics or

484
00:27:29,240 --> 00:27:31,639
Speaker 3: their ad services, all the things where they make their money,

485
00:27:31,800 --> 00:27:34,399
Speaker 3: as well as other things. So of course different parties

486
00:27:34,400 --> 00:27:36,560
Speaker 3: can also see your web traffic. Your ISP could always

487
00:27:36,560 --> 00:27:38,760
Speaker 3: see your traffic, your employer might be able to see

488
00:27:38,760 --> 00:27:42,120
Speaker 3: your traffic, and again different advertising vendors could probably see

489
00:27:42,119 --> 00:27:44,359
Speaker 3: your traffic. All these parties are of course able to

490
00:27:44,400 --> 00:27:46,600
Speaker 3: do with it what they want. And importantly, Google was

491
00:27:46,640 --> 00:27:51,320
Speaker 3: taking information about incognito browsers and they were continuing to

492
00:27:51,359 --> 00:27:55,359
Speaker 3: perform analytics and essentially track incognito users across the web

493
00:27:55,800 --> 00:27:58,360
Speaker 3: and even though the Chrome browser said that Google wasn't

494
00:27:58,359 --> 00:28:01,720
Speaker 3: collecting this information, really only that Chrome browser wasn't Google

495
00:28:01,760 --> 00:28:05,320
Speaker 3: itself was fundamentally still collecting data about all users as

496
00:28:05,320 --> 00:28:07,600
Speaker 3: they browsed the Internet using the incognitive browser.

497
00:28:08,119 --> 00:28:13,400
Speaker 1: Google vigorously fought the lawsuit until the district judge rejected

498
00:28:13,400 --> 00:28:16,400
Speaker 1: a request to dismiss the case last August, which would

499
00:28:16,440 --> 00:28:18,959
Speaker 1: set up a potential trial. Is it just that Google

500
00:28:19,000 --> 00:28:21,919
Speaker 1: fights every lawsuit or was there anything in particular about

501
00:28:21,920 --> 00:28:24,280
Speaker 1: this lawsuit that it feared.

502
00:28:25,400 --> 00:28:27,600
Speaker 3: I think this is one of the Google I think

503
00:28:27,840 --> 00:28:30,879
Speaker 3: vigorously fights a lot of cases, especially these privacy cases.

504
00:28:30,960 --> 00:28:33,960
Speaker 3: I think they tend to create negative case law. There's

505
00:28:34,000 --> 00:28:36,280
Speaker 3: not been it's been sort of slow to develop in

506
00:28:36,320 --> 00:28:39,520
Speaker 3: the US the sort of common law or various case

507
00:28:39,560 --> 00:28:43,280
Speaker 3: law around privacy claims, especially in the advertising space. And

508
00:28:43,360 --> 00:28:45,280
Speaker 3: I think that's sort of the risk in this case

509
00:28:45,360 --> 00:28:48,360
Speaker 3: is that it's sort of exposed to an extent what

510
00:28:48,480 --> 00:28:51,000
Speaker 3: Google was doing through its other products and the ability

511
00:28:51,120 --> 00:28:55,040
Speaker 3: and capabilities they had to track users through Google Analytics,

512
00:28:55,040 --> 00:28:58,680
Speaker 3: through ads, and sort of how pervasive the web tracking was.

513
00:28:58,720 --> 00:29:00,600
Speaker 3: And it's not as simple as people think. It's not

514
00:29:00,640 --> 00:29:03,480
Speaker 3: so simple to stay private on the Internet as opening

515
00:29:03,520 --> 00:29:05,720
Speaker 3: up in browser, and I think that this is one

516
00:29:05,760 --> 00:29:08,640
Speaker 3: of those things. It's very negative, you know, for I

517
00:29:08,640 --> 00:29:12,440
Speaker 3: think their reputation and presented a risk. And obviously in

518
00:29:12,480 --> 00:29:14,560
Speaker 3: this particular claim, they were leging I think five billion

519
00:29:14,560 --> 00:29:17,080
Speaker 3: in damages. We never got to exactly whether or not

520
00:29:17,080 --> 00:29:19,520
Speaker 3: that number would hold up, but in any event, it

521
00:29:19,560 --> 00:29:20,600
Speaker 3: was a very large number.

522
00:29:20,880 --> 00:29:23,200
Speaker 1: Yeah, So now tell us. As part of the settlement,

523
00:29:23,440 --> 00:29:26,200
Speaker 1: Google has to delete billions of data records.

524
00:29:26,640 --> 00:29:30,640
Speaker 3: So Google agreed basically to four key things. The first

525
00:29:30,640 --> 00:29:33,360
Speaker 3: thing is that they had to change this this disclosure

526
00:29:33,360 --> 00:29:35,520
Speaker 3: as I mentioned, the spy guy or it's saying in

527
00:29:35,520 --> 00:29:38,000
Speaker 3: this idea that you know your session is private, So

528
00:29:38,040 --> 00:29:41,080
Speaker 3: they basically said that other people can track you, including Google,

529
00:29:41,320 --> 00:29:44,880
Speaker 3: across the internet. They basically clarified these disclosures to say

530
00:29:45,040 --> 00:29:47,280
Speaker 3: just as much that it's just your browsing history. Essentially,

531
00:29:47,320 --> 00:29:49,520
Speaker 3: it's not being stored here. They also had to disable

532
00:29:49,600 --> 00:29:52,720
Speaker 3: what are called third party cookies, which are basically advertising

533
00:29:52,720 --> 00:29:55,000
Speaker 3: tools they can track you across the internet, so those

534
00:29:55,000 --> 00:29:58,600
Speaker 3: are disabled by default. And then, as you suggested, they

535
00:29:58,640 --> 00:30:01,560
Speaker 3: have to delete the ex data that was collected from

536
00:30:01,560 --> 00:30:05,360
Speaker 3: incognito users over the years, and what's somewhat interesting is

537
00:30:05,360 --> 00:30:08,240
Speaker 3: that Google was able to identify all of the records

538
00:30:08,240 --> 00:30:11,360
Speaker 3: that were related to incognito users, which really isn't supposed

539
00:30:11,400 --> 00:30:13,160
Speaker 3: to be the case, but they were able to do it.

540
00:30:13,440 --> 00:30:15,560
Speaker 3: And this results in i think they said, hundreds of

541
00:30:15,560 --> 00:30:17,920
Speaker 3: billions of records and again a ton of work in

542
00:30:17,960 --> 00:30:21,320
Speaker 3: identifying that data and ultimately deleting it from their records.

543
00:30:21,520 --> 00:30:24,200
Speaker 1: So it's going to cost Google a certain amount to

544
00:30:24,240 --> 00:30:24,719
Speaker 1: delete that.

545
00:30:25,160 --> 00:30:25,720
Speaker 3: Absolutely.

546
00:30:26,160 --> 00:30:28,600
Speaker 1: Is this a trend, This is a settlement, but our

547
00:30:28,720 --> 00:30:34,040
Speaker 1: courts also where data collection is found to be illegal,

548
00:30:34,520 --> 00:30:38,520
Speaker 1: our courts forcing companies to delete data.

549
00:30:38,760 --> 00:30:40,760
Speaker 3: Yes, this is a trend. We've been watching for a

550
00:30:40,800 --> 00:30:44,520
Speaker 3: few years now. In particular, the FTC has been particularly active.

551
00:30:44,600 --> 00:30:47,600
Speaker 3: So the FTC is probably the most robust enforcer of

552
00:30:47,720 --> 00:30:51,400
Speaker 3: privacy laws under the general consumer protection frameworks. So over

553
00:30:51,440 --> 00:30:54,920
Speaker 3: the last few years, as they've explored different companies sort

554
00:30:54,920 --> 00:30:58,320
Speaker 3: of unfair or deceptive practices that have resulted in unlawful

555
00:30:58,400 --> 00:31:01,760
Speaker 3: data collection, the remedies that they've been seeking are fundamentally

556
00:31:01,760 --> 00:31:05,000
Speaker 3: and not just fines, but really coming in requiring them

557
00:31:05,000 --> 00:31:08,480
Speaker 3: to delete source data and beyond that, any data derived

558
00:31:08,560 --> 00:31:11,320
Speaker 3: from the source data that was collected lawfully and any

559
00:31:11,360 --> 00:31:14,360
Speaker 3: models or algorithms that were built using that data, so

560
00:31:14,480 --> 00:31:16,920
Speaker 3: relatively robust remedies. And then you know, kind of looking

561
00:31:16,920 --> 00:31:19,080
Speaker 3: forward as we look at sort of how AI is

562
00:31:19,160 --> 00:31:21,800
Speaker 3: blowing up across the industry, this is a real potential

563
00:31:21,840 --> 00:31:24,920
Speaker 3: risk for companies that are sort of building these models

564
00:31:24,920 --> 00:31:26,040
Speaker 3: and collecting data.

565
00:31:26,400 --> 00:31:28,440
Speaker 1: You know, as you mentioned, Google for the next five

566
00:31:28,560 --> 00:31:33,960
Speaker 1: years will allow private browsing users to block third party cookies.

567
00:31:34,360 --> 00:31:36,800
Speaker 1: So that's just for five years. It seems like something

568
00:31:36,800 --> 00:31:38,240
Speaker 1: you should always be able to block.

569
00:31:39,160 --> 00:31:41,160
Speaker 3: And there are there are tools that have been available

570
00:31:41,200 --> 00:31:43,920
Speaker 3: on the market for probably fifteen or more years at

571
00:31:43,920 --> 00:31:46,440
Speaker 3: this point. I'm sure many people are familiar with ad

572
00:31:46,480 --> 00:31:49,400
Speaker 3: blocker plus or you know, the similar Ghostry I think

573
00:31:49,480 --> 00:31:52,040
Speaker 3: is another popular when there's a several of these out

574
00:31:52,080 --> 00:31:54,640
Speaker 3: on the marketplace that are basically they're ad blockers, and

575
00:31:55,000 --> 00:31:57,880
Speaker 3: these are basically tools that you can install in your browser.

576
00:31:58,200 --> 00:32:01,720
Speaker 3: They run off of lists have lists of all basically

577
00:32:01,760 --> 00:32:04,000
Speaker 3: all known third party trackers, at least the common ones,

578
00:32:04,200 --> 00:32:06,600
Speaker 3: and they simply strip the code out of the website.

579
00:32:06,800 --> 00:32:10,280
Speaker 3: So if you've ever been browsing with an ad blocker,

580
00:32:10,280 --> 00:32:12,960
Speaker 3: you've probably seen the pop ups that come up and say,

581
00:32:13,080 --> 00:32:15,920
Speaker 3: you know you're blocking our ads. We can't make money.

582
00:32:16,080 --> 00:32:18,240
Speaker 3: You know obviously it's impacting revenue. Please turn your ad

583
00:32:18,240 --> 00:32:20,320
Speaker 3: blocker off. So we see these sorts of things. These

584
00:32:20,480 --> 00:32:23,760
Speaker 3: the tools are relatively powerful. Another interesting piece really is

585
00:32:23,760 --> 00:32:27,040
Speaker 3: the Google itself is moving away from third party cookies

586
00:32:27,080 --> 00:32:30,000
Speaker 3: as a tracking tool, and they're moving to different different

587
00:32:30,040 --> 00:32:33,360
Speaker 3: methods of sort of tracking and delivering ads to users. So,

588
00:32:33,640 --> 00:32:36,240
Speaker 3: in one sense, even though it's only for five years,

589
00:32:36,280 --> 00:32:38,640
Speaker 3: the trend has been away from third party cookies into

590
00:32:38,640 --> 00:32:40,160
Speaker 3: alternative tracking methods.

591
00:32:40,320 --> 00:32:43,960
Speaker 1: A Google spokesperson said, the company is pleased to settle

592
00:32:44,000 --> 00:32:47,480
Speaker 1: this lawsuit, which we always believe was merit list. We

593
00:32:47,560 --> 00:32:52,360
Speaker 1: never associate data with users when they use incognito mode.

594
00:32:53,200 --> 00:32:53,960
Speaker 1: Is that true?

595
00:32:54,440 --> 00:32:56,960
Speaker 3: Certainly, the claims alleged that there was an ability to

596
00:32:57,320 --> 00:33:01,080
Speaker 3: identify or make its users identifiable. Interesting to understand what

597
00:33:01,120 --> 00:33:05,280
Speaker 3: they meant by i'd never identify users. This is something

598
00:33:05,320 --> 00:33:09,440
Speaker 3: that oftentimes in the advertising space, you don't necessarily identify

599
00:33:09,480 --> 00:33:12,480
Speaker 3: someone by name, but what you can do is track

600
00:33:12,560 --> 00:33:15,479
Speaker 3: their device or track their browser or a similar session

601
00:33:15,560 --> 00:33:17,720
Speaker 3: something like that. So it's not to say that they

602
00:33:17,760 --> 00:33:20,000
Speaker 3: know who you are and link that to a profile.

603
00:33:20,120 --> 00:33:23,120
Speaker 3: Necessarily tied to your name, but they can certainly sort

604
00:33:23,120 --> 00:33:26,680
Speaker 3: of impact your experience, and they do know how your

605
00:33:26,760 --> 00:33:28,520
Speaker 3: devices are used on the web.

606
00:33:28,680 --> 00:33:31,720
Speaker 1: Yeah, he said, we are happy to delete old technical

607
00:33:31,800 --> 00:33:35,200
Speaker 1: data that was never associated with an individual and was

608
00:33:35,280 --> 00:33:39,880
Speaker 1: never used for any form of personalization. So Google tried

609
00:33:39,920 --> 00:33:42,840
Speaker 1: to sort of downplay this whole thing, said that, you know,

610
00:33:42,880 --> 00:33:46,680
Speaker 1: the plaintiffs originally wanted five billion dollars in this class

611
00:33:46,720 --> 00:33:49,800
Speaker 1: action and they're not getting any money. But the attorneys

612
00:33:49,800 --> 00:33:53,320
Speaker 1: who represented the Google users said that this was a

613
00:33:53,360 --> 00:33:57,120
Speaker 1: major victory for personal privacy. Do you agree? Is this

614
00:33:57,200 --> 00:33:58,120
Speaker 1: a major victory?

615
00:33:58,440 --> 00:34:00,680
Speaker 3: I wouldn't characterize it as a major vigo. I do

616
00:34:00,720 --> 00:34:03,600
Speaker 3: think it's an important milestone. I think it really does

617
00:34:03,960 --> 00:34:06,240
Speaker 3: make I would say two key points. First is that

618
00:34:06,280 --> 00:34:09,359
Speaker 3: this is a case where Google was forced to change

619
00:34:09,400 --> 00:34:11,840
Speaker 3: their disclosures about how data is collected. People have to

620
00:34:11,880 --> 00:34:15,000
Speaker 3: become more transparent about their data collection practices, and I

621
00:34:15,000 --> 00:34:18,160
Speaker 3: think pushing the industry in that direction and setting that

622
00:34:18,200 --> 00:34:21,400
Speaker 3: milestone is important. And then, second, as I mentioned, requiring

623
00:34:21,480 --> 00:34:24,280
Speaker 3: data deletion, even though this didn't necessarily reach the models

624
00:34:24,400 --> 00:34:27,320
Speaker 3: or the algorithms that Google may have built using this data,

625
00:34:27,440 --> 00:34:30,239
Speaker 3: it does force companies to really think about how they

626
00:34:30,280 --> 00:34:31,640
Speaker 3: collect data and the rights that they'll have in it

627
00:34:31,680 --> 00:34:34,120
Speaker 3: long term. You know, forcing them to delete data is

628
00:34:34,160 --> 00:34:35,360
Speaker 3: still an impactful remedy.

629
00:34:35,800 --> 00:34:39,520
Speaker 1: The Planeff's lawyers valued the settlement at four point seventy

630
00:34:39,520 --> 00:34:43,000
Speaker 1: five billion dollars to seven point eight billion, and they

631
00:34:43,080 --> 00:34:47,400
Speaker 1: calculated that on the potential ad sales that the personal

632
00:34:47,440 --> 00:34:51,920
Speaker 1: information collected through Chrome could have generated in the past

633
00:34:52,040 --> 00:34:55,760
Speaker 1: and future without the new restrictions. Is that a difficult

634
00:34:55,760 --> 00:34:59,279
Speaker 1: I mean, is that calculation difficult to make? Is that

635
00:35:00,040 --> 00:35:00,479
Speaker 1: sort of.

636
00:35:01,920 --> 00:35:02,000
Speaker 5: Not?

637
00:35:03,719 --> 00:35:06,840
Speaker 3: Yeah, it does. It does seem like an interesting number. Obviously,

638
00:35:06,840 --> 00:35:09,040
Speaker 3: they you know, sort of dispute that number in different ways.

639
00:35:09,040 --> 00:35:12,040
Speaker 3: There's sort of valuing the settlement at that amount. Of course,

640
00:35:12,080 --> 00:35:14,600
Speaker 3: the users were I think the original claimant said that,

641
00:35:14,680 --> 00:35:17,239
Speaker 3: you know, the five billion dollar number came from a number.

642
00:35:17,280 --> 00:35:20,160
Speaker 3: I think that Google originally had agreed to pay users

643
00:35:20,200 --> 00:35:22,839
Speaker 3: for their browsing history, so they had, you know, set

644
00:35:22,840 --> 00:35:25,399
Speaker 3: it at some number of dollars per user, per per

645
00:35:25,440 --> 00:35:28,319
Speaker 3: time period or something like that. So interesting how they

646
00:35:28,320 --> 00:35:30,320
Speaker 3: come up with these numbers, but I think it always

647
00:35:30,360 --> 00:35:31,800
Speaker 3: involves a degree of creative accounting.

648
00:35:32,080 --> 00:35:35,480
Speaker 1: Fair enough, Thanks so much, Austin that's Austin Chambers of

649
00:35:35,560 --> 00:35:39,120
Speaker 1: Dorsey and Whitney. Google may have settled this lawsuit, but

650
00:35:39,160 --> 00:35:42,960
Speaker 1: it's still facing legal threats on the regulatory frontier that

651
00:35:43,080 --> 00:35:46,400
Speaker 1: could have a far bigger impact on its business depending

652
00:35:46,440 --> 00:35:50,320
Speaker 1: on the outcomes. During a trial last fall, the Justice

653
00:35:50,360 --> 00:35:55,080
Speaker 1: Department outlined its allegations that Google is abusing the dominance

654
00:35:55,120 --> 00:35:58,920
Speaker 1: of its search engine to thwart competition and innovation, and

655
00:35:59,000 --> 00:36:02,239
Speaker 1: a federal judge schedule to hear closing arguments in the

656
00:36:02,280 --> 00:36:06,480
Speaker 1: case on May first before issuing a ruling. Google is

657
00:36:06,520 --> 00:36:10,440
Speaker 1: also facing potential changes to its app store for smartphones

658
00:36:10,480 --> 00:36:14,360
Speaker 1: powered by the Android software that could undercut its revenue

659
00:36:14,360 --> 00:36:18,080
Speaker 1: from commissions after a federal jury last year concluded the

660
00:36:18,080 --> 00:36:22,520
Speaker 1: company was running an illegal monopoly. A hearing examining possible

661
00:36:22,560 --> 00:36:25,200
Speaker 1: revisions that Google may have to make to its play

662
00:36:25,200 --> 00:36:28,400
Speaker 1: store is scheduled for late May. And that's it for

663
00:36:28,440 --> 00:36:31,440
Speaker 1: this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can

664
00:36:31,520 --> 00:36:34,480
Speaker 1: always get the latest legal news by subscribing and listening

665
00:36:34,480 --> 00:36:38,160
Speaker 1: to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg

666
00:36:38,239 --> 00:36:42,319
Speaker 1: dot com Slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June Grosso and

667
00:36:42,400 --> 00:36:43,680
Speaker 1: this is Bloomberg