Speaker 1: Big tech platforms Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, and Meta are all
Speaker 1: feeling the sting of the Biden administration's aggressive anti trust enforcers.
Speaker 1: All four have been sued by the US Department of
Speaker 1: Justice or the Federal Trade Commission for alleged monopolization, and
Speaker 1: the DOJ just notched a win in one of its
Speaker 1: cases against Google. What are these lawsuits about, where do
Speaker 1: they stand, and what's next. This is a Votes and
Speaker 1: Verdicts Brief.
Speaker 2: Welcome to Votes and Verdicts hosted by Bloomberg Intelligence, part
Speaker 2: of Bloomberg's Research department, comprised of five hundred analysts and
Speaker 2: strategists working across all major world markets. Our coverage includes
Speaker 2: over two thousand equities and credits, as well as outlooks
Speaker 2: on more than nine d industries, one hundred market indices, currencies,
Speaker 2: and come. In this podcast series, we talk about the
Speaker 2: intersection of business policy and law. I'm Justin Teresi, a
Speaker 2: litigation and policy analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence covering anti trust matters.
Speaker 1: And I'm Jennifer Ree, a senior analyst that also covers
Speaker 1: US anti trust litigation and policy.
Speaker 2: Our Votes and Verdicts Brief series highlights our research reports
Speaker 2: on the Bloomberg terminal, giving listeners a quick takeaway to
Speaker 2: help grasp key litigation or policy topics covered in that research. Today,
Speaker 2: my colleague Jen and I are going to talk about
Speaker 2: ongoing government anti trust actions against the four big tech
Speaker 2: platforms Jen mentioned at the start of the podcast, providing
Speaker 2: a snapshot of each case and where it stands. So Jen,
Speaker 2: so much going on here. Obviously, Let's start with Google,
Speaker 2: since the company faces two anti trust monopolization suits right
Speaker 2: now brought by the United States Department of Justice, and
Speaker 2: Google just lost one of them. That was the first
Speaker 2: suit brought against the company by DOJ back in twenty twenty,
Speaker 2: and it targeted Google's conduct relation to its search engine business.
Speaker 2: Can you give us a short summary of that ruling
Speaker 2: in the suit?
Speaker 1: Sure? Justin and you are right. That ruling was just
Speaker 1: issued against Google on August fifth. Pretty big deal since
Speaker 1: it's one of the first monopolization cases brought by the
Speaker 1: DOJ since Microsoft all the way back in the nineteen nineties.
Speaker 1: And here the judge determined that Google has monopoly power
Speaker 1: and markets for general search services and something called general
Speaker 1: search text ads. Those are the ads that you see
Speaker 1: when you do a search and they come up at
Speaker 1: the top of the search results page and they say sponsored.
Speaker 1: They kind of look like search results. So the judge
Speaker 1: also decided that Google had engaged in illegal conduct intended
Speaker 1: to maintain those monopolies, because just having that monopoly in
Speaker 1: search isn't illegal. It's all about the conduct and what
Speaker 1: Google is doing to try to either get to that
Speaker 1: monopoly or maintain the monopoly. So the crux of the
Speaker 1: conduct in this case was these distribution agreements Google had
Speaker 1: with a number of third parties, and Google would pay
Speaker 1: these companies a lot of money to set Google Search
Speaker 1: Engine as a default for most of the access points
Speaker 1: on the Internet. So specifically, the company paid about twenty
Speaker 1: six billion a year to companies like Apple and Mozilla,
Speaker 1: as well as makers of Android phones and sellers of phones,
Speaker 1: so that people accessing the web using these browsers or
Speaker 1: these devices were automatically using Google Search, sometimes without even
Speaker 1: knowing it. And the judge determined that those agreements were
Speaker 1: exclusionary because what they did is they foreclosed other search
Speaker 1: engine competitors like Being or duc duc Go, And what
Speaker 1: that did is it prevented those competitors from gaining the
Speaker 1: scale they needed to improve because essentially the more searches
Speaker 1: that are done in the search engine, the better the
Speaker 1: search engine becomes. This decision was only on liability, so
Speaker 1: that means just deciding was Google doing something illegal or not,
Speaker 1: So there wasn't really evidence directly focused on what the
Speaker 1: appropriate remedies would be at trials should Google lose the case.
Speaker 2: Right, So, I think a lot of people this week
Speaker 2: generally scratching their heads and they're saying, you know, given
Speaker 2: that this was just kind of a determination that Google
Speaker 2: broke the law, what really happens next? And how long
Speaker 2: do you think it'll be before there's some kind of
Speaker 2: indication about what kind of an injunction might be issued,
Speaker 2: what that might look like.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, justin I even think this might be
Speaker 1: the tougher part of the case, And usually proving that
Speaker 1: somebody is engaged in illegal monopolization is pretty tall task
Speaker 1: for a plaintiff, but we managed to do that here.
Speaker 1: But right the what is the remedy going to be
Speaker 1: to fix this? I think that's very complicated. And what's
Speaker 1: going to happen here at least is we're starting out
Speaker 1: with a hearing on September sixth, But that's just to
Speaker 1: hammer out a schedule. So that's not really about what
Speaker 1: the remedies would be. It's just to say, what's our
Speaker 1: schedule going forward in order to try to determine what
Speaker 1: the remedy should be. And I think the whole process
Speaker 1: is going to take. We should expect at least six months,
Speaker 1: probably longer. I mean, we don't have very good examples,
Speaker 1: but that's about how much time I think they'll need.
Speaker 1: In the meantime, Google's definitely going to appeal this decision
Speaker 1: on liability, and I assume what they will also do
Speaker 1: is seek to stay this whole process pending the appeal,
Speaker 1: But that alone could take another twelve to eighteen months.
Speaker 1: So what I think is most likely is that the
Speaker 1: judge goes forward with this remedy's process just to decide
Speaker 1: on what they should be, but stays their actual implementation
Speaker 1: until the appeal has been decided.
Speaker 2: Got it? So, I mean nothing in litigation happens overnight.
Speaker 2: I think we all know that's the case, right right,
Speaker 2: So I have to ask next, what do you think
Speaker 2: Google's chances are on the appeal?
Speaker 1: You know, I think they're low. I think it's a
Speaker 1: really well reasoned decision. It wasn't really novel or unique.
Speaker 1: It wasn't really a stretch under the antitrust laws. It
Speaker 1: was based on a traditional anti trust theory of harm.
Speaker 1: And I think also to the extent that some of
Speaker 1: the judges calls were based on his view and interpretation
Speaker 1: of the evidence that was presented, such as his rejection
Speaker 1: of Google's offered justifications for these default agreements. The appellate
Speaker 1: judges will have to give those calls deference because it's
Speaker 1: based on an interpretation of the evidence that the trial
Speaker 1: court heard, not the appeals court judges. And that's a
Speaker 1: pretty high standard.
Speaker 2: For rehearsal Right, it makes sense, makes sense. So with
Speaker 2: this behind us, now, so there's this second case against
Speaker 2: Google by the DOJ that I have to say, from
Speaker 2: my own perspective, is super complicated. I'm still diving into
Speaker 2: this case, and says you and I have discussed. I'll
Speaker 2: be attending the trial in September for the next Google
Speaker 2: case while you're attending the trial here in New York
Speaker 2: for FTC's case against Tapestry and Capri looking to break
Speaker 2: to block that merger. But the suit against Google, it
Speaker 2: deals with ad tech products. And still I am very
Speaker 2: much still getting up to speed on the case itself.
Speaker 2: Can you tell us about that suit and where it
Speaker 2: stands right now?
Speaker 1: I'll tell you justin I'm so glad you're going to
Speaker 1: that trial because it really.
Speaker 2: Be careful what you wish for. Jed the careful what
Speaker 2: you wish for.
Speaker 1: So in this case, the DOJ and a number of
Speaker 1: states along with it, sue Google. This was in the
Speaker 1: first quarter of twenty twenty three. Over how it operates,
Speaker 1: As you said, it's ad tech business. Ad tech products
Speaker 1: are pretty complicated, and you know, they're not used by
Speaker 1: everyday people like us, so we don't really know how
Speaker 1: they work, not at all. Really. They're used by digital
Speaker 1: advertisers and publishers to buy and sell the ads and
Speaker 1: impressions that we see on the websites when we're on
Speaker 1: the internet, right, And these products basically consist of sort
Speaker 1: of what we call a stack of products. There's an
Speaker 1: AD server that's used by large publishers to manage their
Speaker 1: inventory of I think of it as sort of space
Speaker 1: on their websites. And then they're ad buying tools on
Speaker 1: the other end that are used by advertisers to connect
Speaker 1: to an ad exchange, and the ad exchange is what
Speaker 1: sits right in between, and it's a real time auction
Speaker 1: marketplace that matches multiple buyers and multiple sellers to actually
Speaker 1: complete a transaction. Show that ad when you justin go
Speaker 1: to let's say CNN dot com or some other website.
Speaker 1: All of this is called the ad tech stack, and
Speaker 1: Google owns products across that entire stack. So the allegation here,
Speaker 1: because remember I said in the other case, it's all
Speaker 1: about conduct. Really, I mean, obviously you have to first
Speaker 1: prove that a company has a monopoly position, but once
Speaker 1: that's done, it's about conduct. And the allegation here is
Speaker 1: that Google's engaged in this very long list of sort
Speaker 1: of different strategies, initiatives and product changes that sort of
Speaker 1: all in different ways end up kind of manipulating this
Speaker 1: process to favor Google, so it keeps them, it keeps
Speaker 1: customers within Google stack using its products, kind of ensures
Speaker 1: that the actual transaction takes place on Google's at exchange,
Speaker 1: and then extracts fees all along the way. And that's
Speaker 1: kind of a general way of talking about a lot
Speaker 1: of allegations that are actually quite nitty gritty and complicated.
Speaker 1: The case is going to trial, as you mentioned in
Speaker 1: September in the Eastern District of Virginia. It's going to
Speaker 1: be a bench trial before a judge, and the judges
Speaker 1: in that district. I mean, as you know, justin move pretty.
Speaker 2: Fast, right right, rocket docketive sorts.
Speaker 1: Rocket docket, right. So I'm thinking, I mean guessing maybe
Speaker 1: a decision could even be issued within six months or
Speaker 1: so of trial completing. But we know that's just a guess.
Speaker 1: And once that trial's done, we're going to be asking
Speaker 1: you what you think is going to happen case I haven't.
Speaker 1: I think it's a good case for the DOJ, But
Speaker 1: as you know, we have to see what happens in
Speaker 1: trial and what the evidence look like looks like to
Speaker 1: make a better call. And I can't wait to hear
Speaker 1: what you think of it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I'm really hoping to have some of some
Speaker 2: opinions sorted out by then too, That is my hope anyway.
Speaker 2: So there are other lawsuits really similar to this one
Speaker 2: pending against Google as well, and we know there's one
Speaker 2: brought by a group of state attorneys general and a
Speaker 2: proposed class action by publishers and advertisers. It's pretty much
Speaker 2: the same issues. So how come there's some simultaneous litigations
Speaker 2: happening over the same thing in different courts.
Speaker 1: It's really a crazy situation, and I don't endy Google
Speaker 1: for the position it's in. So usually, as is the
Speaker 1: case when the government sues a large company, or even
Speaker 1: when the reports break that the government's investigating a company
Speaker 1: from monopilization, the aggrieved buyers of the products in this case,
Speaker 1: the publishers and advertisers will sue for monetary damages. In
Speaker 1: this case, they did actually sue first while the dj
Speaker 1: was still investigating and hadn't yet filed their suit. All
Speaker 1: of those suits were consolidated into one litigation, but the
Speaker 1: federal government is exempt from that consolidation process, so when
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice brought their own suit, it was
Speaker 1: separate and they were able to keep it separate. Now. Also,
Speaker 1: seventeen states that were led by Texas also sued, and
Speaker 1: this is all pretty much over the same products, the
Speaker 1: same conduct, the ad tech stack, the manipulation. These states
Speaker 1: sued before the DOJ as well, and originally their suit
Speaker 1: was consolidated with the publishers and advertisers suit in a
Speaker 1: New York court, but then the states were able to
Speaker 1: move it back to Texas, where it was originally filed
Speaker 1: after a new law went into effect in December of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two. That was called the State Antitrust Enforcement
Speaker 1: Venue Act, and it was signed into law as part
Speaker 1: of the omnibus spending bill at the end of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two. So what that did is it made the
Speaker 1: state attorney general anti Truss actions exempt from consolidation just
Speaker 1: like the federal government. Right, so Texas got their case
Speaker 1: moved back. Means we have three different suits in three
Speaker 1: different courts, and even though the DOJ suit was brought
Speaker 1: after all of these, as I mentioned, it's in the
Speaker 1: Rocket docket, so it's moving faster. The Texas suit is
Speaker 1: scheduled to go to trial in March of twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: and the private suits are way behind that and don't
Speaker 1: have a trial scheduled yet. But the upshot is that
Speaker 1: Google's in this unfortunate position of having defended the same
Speaker 1: case in three different courts and three different trials, assuming
Speaker 1: no settlements of any of them.
Speaker 2: Got I got it, so really complicated issues, and I
Speaker 2: think some really complicated procedure to go along with it.
Speaker 2: It sounds like that really doesn't look to be resolved
Speaker 2: for maybe the next few years.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think so.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, but so I should ask too, how about
Speaker 2: meta or we'll go with a Facebook for the purposes
Speaker 2: of this podcast. But I understand Facebook was first hued
Speaker 2: by the Trump administration's FTC quite a while ago, now
Speaker 2: obviously from monopolization, and that matter is still being continued
Speaker 2: by the current FTC. What's going on in that case
Speaker 2: and where does that stand?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so that has been pretty slow moving when you
Speaker 1: think about it long it's been out there. The allegation
Speaker 1: in this case, I think that doesn't get a lot
Speaker 1: of press attention these days, but it is a big deal.
Speaker 1: The allegation is that Facebook has engaged in strategies to
Speaker 1: target potential competitive threats to its social networking dominance. Now
Speaker 1: I'm going to say dominance because at the time this
Speaker 1: was brought it was dominant, but TikTok has changed for
Speaker 1: a little bit in the meantime.
Speaker 2: The whole New world, yes, the whole New world.
Speaker 1: But anyway, what Facebook was doing was looking for new
Speaker 1: startups in social networking. Our companies are kind of adjacent
Speaker 1: to social networking, and then buying them up before they
Speaker 1: could become a competitive force. At least that's the allegation,
Speaker 1: and the FTC is targeting two specific acquisitions that Facebook
Speaker 1: has made, Instagram and WhatsApp. So the FTC claims Facebook
Speaker 1: originally tried to compete with Instagram by improving its own product,
Speaker 1: but then ultimately chose just to buy it rather than
Speaker 1: to compete with it, and likewise with What's App, and
Speaker 1: the allegation is that both could have eventually become competitors
Speaker 1: in social networking over time. In the lawsuit, the FTC
Speaker 1: is seeking a court order that one or both of
Speaker 1: these companies be divested. Now, I should say this lawsuit's
Speaker 1: pretty controversial because it wasn't a unanimous decision by the FTC.
Speaker 1: Unlike the Department of Justice, the FTC is run by
Speaker 1: five commissioners when they have a full slate, and when
Speaker 1: they decide to sue, it's by vote and it has
Speaker 1: to be a majority vote. So this was a three
Speaker 1: to two vote, with two Republicans of the three dissenting,
Speaker 1: and they had policy concerns because the FTC had previously
Speaker 1: evaluated these acquisitions, it had the authority to review mergers
Speaker 1: before they close, right it still does, and had cleared
Speaker 1: both of the deals so one commissioner at least wrote
Speaker 1: that it's bad policy to undermine the integrity of this
Speaker 1: pre merger notification review process, particularly given that these companies
Speaker 1: rely on a clearance decision and then move forward as
Speaker 1: a merging business. Right now, we're in what's called the
Speaker 1: summary judgment phase of this case, and that's where the
Speaker 1: defendants can once again try to get the case dismissed.
Speaker 1: And I actually think there's some possibility here Facebook could
Speaker 1: win a dismissal before trial in this phase. And I
Speaker 1: say that because when the judge sustained the second complaint
Speaker 1: early on in a motion to dismiss, what he said
Speaker 1: was that the agency is going to face a tall
Speaker 1: task to prove its allegations. And he noted that what
Speaker 1: the FTC has to show is that these acquisitions harmed
Speaker 1: the competitive process and harmed consumers. But because Facebook, Instagram,
Speaker 1: and WhatsApp are all free to consumers, what the FDC
Speaker 1: is going to have to show is that the harm
Speaker 1: is that it resulted in poorer quality, less choice, less innovation.
Speaker 1: And these are hard to prove, and that's particularly hard
Speaker 1: given that Facebook's invested in the products and grown them
Speaker 1: since having acquired them. And they're both really very popular.
Speaker 1: Consumers like those products. So the briefing is ongoing, as
Speaker 1: I said, and I would expect a decision maybe toward
Speaker 1: the end of this year or in the first half ultimately.
Speaker 1: In terms of a trial, there is no trial date
Speaker 1: set yet in this case.
Speaker 2: Okay, So moving on to the next big bad tech platform.
Speaker 2: Apparently the antire trust enforcers didn't want Amazon or Apple
Speaker 2: to feel left out, it looks like so they've both
Speaker 2: been accused of monopolistic conduct as well, but the cases
Speaker 2: are not as developed as the ones against Google and Facebook, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, let's start with Apple. What's going on there?
Speaker 2: Right now?
Speaker 1: This is the newest case, and I actually think one
Speaker 1: of the weakest to get the big tech platforms. It
Speaker 1: was just filed this past March after a really long
Speaker 1: investigation by the DOJ, and like the other suits, a
Speaker 1: number of states have joined it. And Apple's basically accused
Speaker 1: of engaging in a series of actions that profit the
Speaker 1: company but aren't useful or beneficial for customers, and are
Speaker 1: intended to make it hard to switch to an Android phone.
Speaker 1: There are several examples. I'm not going to run through
Speaker 1: all of them, but there are things like Apple refusing
Speaker 1: to allow super apps. Super apps are apps that provide
Speaker 1: broad functionality in a single app, and the DOJ claims
Speaker 1: that super apps would reduce the users dependence on the
Speaker 1: iPhone and the operating system and the app store because
Speaker 1: if they act as sort of a middleware, right, allow
Speaker 1: developers to kind of go around the operating system and
Speaker 1: the users to go around the operating system. And then
Speaker 1: one other example, because gaming is so popular, are cloud
Speaker 1: streaming game apps. So Apple allows games on the device obviously,
Speaker 1: but not the apps that allow you to play games
Speaker 1: stream through the cloud. So according to the DOJ, these
Speaker 1: kinds of apps would decrease the importance of expensive hardware
Speaker 1: for people who want to play high compute games, and
Speaker 1: it would allow a serious gamer to play on a
Speaker 1: less expensive smartphone. So again it's the idea of keeping
Speaker 1: people on the Apple phone and getting them not to
Speaker 1: switch those. As I said, those are just a few examples,
Speaker 1: So this is a really new case. We're just in
Speaker 1: the motion to dismiss stage. I think they're still a
Speaker 1: few years of litigation ahead of us. The briefing on
Speaker 1: the motion to dismiss won't be done till October you know,
Speaker 1: maybe we'll get in an opinion probably at some point
Speaker 1: next year, maybe in the first half. You know. So
Speaker 1: it's pretty easy to surpass, survive in motion to dismiss.
Speaker 1: There's a very low bar there, and so I would
Speaker 1: suspect the case will survivive. I don't know about its
Speaker 1: long term survival, but I think it'll least get into
Speaker 1: the thick of litigation. And we've got a couple of
Speaker 1: years ahead of us on that one.
Speaker 2: Okay, okay, another drawn out litigation. It sounds like, I mean,
Speaker 2: so the last but certainly not least you know, how
Speaker 2: about Amazon? It seems like Amazon is consumer friendly at
Speaker 2: least in terms of the convenience and involves for users
Speaker 2: and quick delivery. I know, I use Amazon Prime myself.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, I think a lot of folks do.
Speaker 2: But what is it that Amazon is doing that the
Speaker 2: FTC particularly have views as a violation of monopolization laws.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, justin it's probably shameful how many Amazon
Speaker 1: boxes show up at my house.
Speaker 2: All the time, all the time. I can't keep track anymore.
Speaker 2: J I really wow.
Speaker 1: Right, so we are back to the Federal Trade Commission now, right,
Speaker 1: So this suit was brought by the Commission in September
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty three, like the others, joined by several
Speaker 1: state and in this case, the FTC is accusing Amazon
Speaker 1: of engaging in anti competitive conduct to maintain a monopoly
Speaker 1: in two different markets. One of them is the online
Speaker 1: superstore market that encompasses the e commerce business that's us
Speaker 1: buying products right. And then the other market is an
Speaker 1: online marketplace service market, and that's Amazon's third party business
Speaker 1: that connects sellers with online buyers, so allowing third party
Speaker 1: sellers to sell on its platform. So Amazon allegedly has
Speaker 1: illegally monopolized these markets through two distinct practices, and the
Speaker 1: first is what the FTC is calling anti discounting conduct.
Speaker 1: I kind of think of it as as price parity
Speaker 1: or most Favored Nation clause. But in the allegation here
Speaker 1: is that Amazon generally requires or pushes sellers to offer
Speaker 1: the lowest price on Amazon, and they can't offer the
Speaker 1: product on some other website for a lower price, but
Speaker 1: it might be less expensive for them to sell it
Speaker 1: on that other website. And what this does is artificially
Speaker 1: inflates prices on these other rival retailers. Then the second
Speaker 1: conduct that the FTC's targeting is that Amazon allegedly coerces
Speaker 1: sellers to use its fulfillment services for a fee, of course,
Speaker 1: if they want to be eligible for Amazon Prime, and
Speaker 1: Prime is obviously really valuable for companies that are selling
Speaker 1: products on the platform. Now, the really interesting thing to
Speaker 1: me about this case is that very similar claims were
Speaker 1: made against the company in the UK and the EU,
Speaker 1: and Amazon managed.
Speaker 2: To settle both of those cases, okay.
Speaker 1: Right, and it agreed to a bunch of behavioral changes.
Speaker 1: It'll give vendors equal placement alongside Amazon's own goods near
Speaker 1: what's called the buybox. That's a feature that's very beneficial
Speaker 1: for sellers. It also pledged that it wouldn't use rival
Speaker 1: sellers marketplace data to gain an unfair advantage when it
Speaker 1: sells its own products. And it's also going to allow
Speaker 1: third party businesses to negotiate the rates directly with other
Speaker 1: providers of Prime delivery services, so that way, essentially they
Speaker 1: don't have to use fulfillment by Amazon. So it seems
Speaker 1: like this case could settle at some point in the
Speaker 1: future because that's kind of a blueprint, and we'll know,
Speaker 1: you know, as time goes by, how things are working
Speaker 1: out with all of those commitments that Amazon made in
Speaker 1: Europe as the months go by, and I think there's
Speaker 1: particularly a potential for a settlement if the personnel of
Speaker 1: the FTC changes with a change in administration. But you know,
Speaker 1: like the DOJ's case against Apple, this one is in
Speaker 1: early stages. It's got a long way to go. It
Speaker 1: does have a trial date set in October of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six. We do have a motion to dismiss the
Speaker 1: suit pending. The briefing on that finished up in March
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty four, and maybe we could get a
Speaker 1: decision on that this year, but I wouldn't be surprised
Speaker 1: if it pushed into next year one que or even
Speaker 1: the first half. And as I said, those are sort
Speaker 1: of tough to win. So I don't think the case
Speaker 1: would get dismissed at this stage, and I think we'll
Speaker 1: be watching the We'll be watching the suit for a
Speaker 1: long time yet. So anyway, for now, justin that's it
Speaker 1: with respect to suits by the government against tech platforms.
Speaker 1: I should note that the Department of Justice has also
Speaker 1: sued Live Nation from anobilization, a very popular suit with
Speaker 1: Taylor's wife fans.
Speaker 2: Yes, it is right, but.
Speaker 1: That's gonna have to be the subject for a future
Speaker 1: podcast because today we were just focusing on meta alphabet,
Speaker 1: Amazon and Apple.
Speaker 2: All right, Jen, Never a dull moment in antitrust, I think,
Speaker 2: especially as it relates to big tech these days. But
Speaker 2: thanks so much for your quick overview of the anti
Speaker 2: trust cases pending against the four big tech platforms in
Speaker 2: the US and where they stand. And with that that's
Speaker 2: today's briefs. For Jen's full reports on the topic and
Speaker 2: all of our research, please visit BI laws on the
Speaker 2: Bloomberg terminal and of course, most importantly thanks to you
Speaker 2: the listener for tuning in. This was Votes and Verdicts.