1 00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:07,960 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:09,119 --> 00:00:12,360 Speaker 1: Should Whole Foods be allowed to stop its employees from 3 00:00:12,360 --> 00:00:16,040 Speaker 1: wearing Black Lives Matter face masks or T shirts on 4 00:00:16,079 --> 00:00:19,279 Speaker 1: the job. Whole Foods fired workers in at least six 5 00:00:19,320 --> 00:00:23,640 Speaker 1: states for wearing BLM apparel, and the National Labor Relations 6 00:00:23,640 --> 00:00:27,360 Speaker 1: Board is now prosecuting the company, which is owned by Amazon, 7 00:00:27,800 --> 00:00:31,639 Speaker 1: seeking a change in policy and reinstatement for the workers. 8 00:00:32,000 --> 00:00:35,000 Speaker 1: Joining me is Anne Marie La Fasso, a professor at 9 00:00:35,000 --> 00:00:38,599 Speaker 1: the West Virginia University College of Law, and tell us 10 00:00:38,600 --> 00:00:42,640 Speaker 1: about the case the National Labor Relations Board and its 11 00:00:42,680 --> 00:00:47,760 Speaker 1: general council Jennifer Brutso is making in court. So, Jennifer 12 00:00:47,800 --> 00:00:52,480 Speaker 1: Bruso is pushing the idea that wearing Black Lives Matter 13 00:00:52,640 --> 00:00:56,080 Speaker 1: is a matter of solidarity to get better working conditions 14 00:00:56,120 --> 00:01:01,480 Speaker 1: for people of color, and therefore that that protected activity 15 00:01:01,520 --> 00:01:05,480 Speaker 1: under Section seven. And because it's protected, an employer cannot 16 00:01:05,600 --> 00:01:08,760 Speaker 1: fire you for that reason. Now, there's always employers can 17 00:01:08,800 --> 00:01:12,360 Speaker 1: always bring in justifications that can override that. But she's 18 00:01:12,360 --> 00:01:16,080 Speaker 1: saying there is no real justification here. But she's presenting 19 00:01:16,080 --> 00:01:19,000 Speaker 1: this first to an administrative law judge, and then she 20 00:01:19,080 --> 00:01:23,200 Speaker 1: will present this to the board. The board can decide 21 00:01:23,240 --> 00:01:26,840 Speaker 1: whether or not that is correct, and it can do 22 00:01:26,880 --> 00:01:30,520 Speaker 1: it on different levels. So first it has to decide 23 00:01:30,720 --> 00:01:36,160 Speaker 1: is this really concerted activity, is it considered activity that 24 00:01:36,200 --> 00:01:40,720 Speaker 1: hasn't lost its protection? And then is there an employer justification? 25 00:01:40,959 --> 00:01:45,000 Speaker 1: So that would be the basic analysis. The Supreme Court's 26 00:01:45,120 --> 00:01:47,600 Speaker 1: ruling that employees have the right to speak at on 27 00:01:47,720 --> 00:01:51,400 Speaker 1: issues reasonably related to their jobs. Does that play a 28 00:01:51,480 --> 00:01:55,440 Speaker 1: part here? Yes, So, the Supreme Court is said in 29 00:01:55,440 --> 00:01:57,840 Speaker 1: a case called E. S. Tex Um. In that case, 30 00:01:58,040 --> 00:02:02,760 Speaker 1: there were employees that were way above minimum wage in Texas. 31 00:02:03,200 --> 00:02:07,000 Speaker 1: They were circulating like some union literature, and the literature 32 00:02:07,320 --> 00:02:12,400 Speaker 1: said two things which were controversial. One was push your 33 00:02:12,560 --> 00:02:16,040 Speaker 1: politicians to vote in favor of raising the minimum wage, 34 00:02:16,840 --> 00:02:20,760 Speaker 1: and the second was tell your Texas state legislature not 35 00:02:20,880 --> 00:02:24,800 Speaker 1: to um, not to change the constitution to be a 36 00:02:24,880 --> 00:02:28,720 Speaker 1: right to work state. So those are major political issues, 37 00:02:29,520 --> 00:02:35,680 Speaker 1: and the Supreme Court said that this was concerted activity 38 00:02:35,919 --> 00:02:40,200 Speaker 1: and it didn't matter that it wasn't about this particular employer. 39 00:02:40,600 --> 00:02:45,000 Speaker 1: For example, UM, they were already unionized and they were 40 00:02:45,080 --> 00:02:49,240 Speaker 1: also paying way above minimum wage. So what they were 41 00:02:49,280 --> 00:02:52,600 Speaker 1: barely saying is that any worker in the country is 42 00:02:52,639 --> 00:02:58,200 Speaker 1: allowed to peacefully talk about the working conditions of any 43 00:02:58,240 --> 00:03:03,160 Speaker 1: other workers. So if part of the Black Lives Matter 44 00:03:03,240 --> 00:03:07,079 Speaker 1: movement is about also being treated barely as a person 45 00:03:07,160 --> 00:03:11,680 Speaker 1: of color in the workplace, then anyone can pass around 46 00:03:11,760 --> 00:03:15,079 Speaker 1: that literature. Okay, So it seems to me that Black 47 00:03:15,120 --> 00:03:19,360 Speaker 1: Lives Matter and that step would probably pass the concerted 48 00:03:19,400 --> 00:03:22,600 Speaker 1: activity portion as long as there's more than one person, 49 00:03:23,040 --> 00:03:24,640 Speaker 1: or as long as they're trying to do it for 50 00:03:24,720 --> 00:03:28,240 Speaker 1: collective reasons. So the question then becomes, well, is it 51 00:03:28,680 --> 00:03:33,239 Speaker 1: losing its protection for some reason? And so that would 52 00:03:33,280 --> 00:03:36,560 Speaker 1: be if they got violent. For example, if they get violence, 53 00:03:36,640 --> 00:03:39,480 Speaker 1: the employer can fire them. If they do things that 54 00:03:39,520 --> 00:03:44,160 Speaker 1: are intentionally trying to sabotage other workers, they can fire them. 55 00:03:44,520 --> 00:03:47,280 Speaker 1: There's been no evidence of that here, and so it 56 00:03:47,320 --> 00:03:50,640 Speaker 1: seems to me it would make that cut. And then 57 00:03:50,840 --> 00:03:55,640 Speaker 1: the next thing is, well, then is there a justification 58 00:03:55,760 --> 00:03:58,560 Speaker 1: which is going to be the strongest argument for Amazon. 59 00:03:59,200 --> 00:04:02,360 Speaker 1: What's the best first line of attack for Amazon. It's 60 00:04:02,440 --> 00:04:07,440 Speaker 1: possible that the board can say that way, this is 61 00:04:07,520 --> 00:04:11,520 Speaker 1: too attenuated from the workplace for it to really be 62 00:04:11,640 --> 00:04:15,600 Speaker 1: protective concerned activity. And so if it's too attenuated. It 63 00:04:15,680 --> 00:04:18,680 Speaker 1: could lose on that ground, and that would be another 64 00:04:18,760 --> 00:04:21,640 Speaker 1: place where the employer could attack. If I were the employer, 65 00:04:21,720 --> 00:04:23,720 Speaker 1: that that would be the first place that I would attack. 66 00:04:24,120 --> 00:04:27,640 Speaker 1: But what they've been doing is saying it's provocative, that 67 00:04:27,800 --> 00:04:32,120 Speaker 1: somehow it's losing its protection. That's really a losing argument 68 00:04:32,160 --> 00:04:35,200 Speaker 1: for exactly the reason that Jennifer Bruto said. She said, 69 00:04:35,480 --> 00:04:37,440 Speaker 1: would we have said that, should we have said that 70 00:04:37,480 --> 00:04:40,599 Speaker 1: in the nineteen fifties, by just we can't hire black 71 00:04:40,640 --> 00:04:45,279 Speaker 1: people because it's provocative and customers will not want to 72 00:04:45,279 --> 00:04:48,560 Speaker 1: come in here. That can't be the reason. And that 73 00:04:48,640 --> 00:04:51,520 Speaker 1: was a really great response that she made. So it's 74 00:04:51,640 --> 00:04:54,080 Speaker 1: really what they should be attacking is well, this is 75 00:04:54,120 --> 00:04:59,440 Speaker 1: too attenuated from the workplace. That might be a better argument. Now, 76 00:04:59,520 --> 00:05:02,440 Speaker 1: let's say, but they lose that argument, then they have 77 00:05:02,520 --> 00:05:05,320 Speaker 1: to come in and say, well, we have our justification. 78 00:05:05,680 --> 00:05:09,320 Speaker 1: So one justification would be we have a uniform, so 79 00:05:09,360 --> 00:05:13,239 Speaker 1: we don't let any other T shirt. If that's true, 80 00:05:13,360 --> 00:05:16,479 Speaker 1: that's a pretty good justification. If they don't let any 81 00:05:16,560 --> 00:05:19,520 Speaker 1: kind of T shirt at all, political t shirt, that 82 00:05:20,320 --> 00:05:24,600 Speaker 1: may win the day. But if it's just buttons, buttons 83 00:05:24,600 --> 00:05:30,240 Speaker 1: are usually something. If it says like Black Lives Matter BLM, 84 00:05:30,240 --> 00:05:33,600 Speaker 1: workers rights and the button. That's going to be much 85 00:05:33,640 --> 00:05:37,800 Speaker 1: harder for the employer to justify because buttons are almost 86 00:05:37,839 --> 00:05:42,120 Speaker 1: always going to be considered something that employer just is 87 00:05:42,160 --> 00:05:45,240 Speaker 1: not allowed to touch. So for example, if it's like 88 00:05:45,320 --> 00:05:49,640 Speaker 1: a big button that's Neon green and interfering with really 89 00:05:49,640 --> 00:05:53,560 Speaker 1: with customer, it would just be too distracting, then they 90 00:05:53,560 --> 00:05:56,080 Speaker 1: can win that. So they would have to argue that 91 00:05:56,200 --> 00:05:59,719 Speaker 1: a small button is just so distracting it's like Neon green. 92 00:06:00,080 --> 00:06:03,320 Speaker 1: So that would be the analysis not knowing all the facts, 93 00:06:03,360 --> 00:06:06,479 Speaker 1: because the facts come out really in the administrative law 94 00:06:06,560 --> 00:06:09,760 Speaker 1: judges hearing. You know, what were they exactly wearing? Were 95 00:06:09,800 --> 00:06:12,080 Speaker 1: they Was it just t shirts over their buttons? Because 96 00:06:12,240 --> 00:06:15,240 Speaker 1: I've seen some different reports on this. So that's how 97 00:06:15,240 --> 00:06:17,839 Speaker 1: it's going to be analyzed. But then the next step 98 00:06:18,080 --> 00:06:22,080 Speaker 1: is whatever the board does is not enforceable to a 99 00:06:22,279 --> 00:06:26,080 Speaker 1: court has approved it in what's called the petition for 100 00:06:26,120 --> 00:06:29,640 Speaker 1: review or an application for enforcement. So an administrative law 101 00:06:29,720 --> 00:06:33,080 Speaker 1: judge makes the first decision, then the board makes the 102 00:06:33,160 --> 00:06:36,400 Speaker 1: second decision. Does it base it on the administrative law 103 00:06:36,480 --> 00:06:39,800 Speaker 1: judges decision? The only thing it will give deference to 104 00:06:39,960 --> 00:06:43,320 Speaker 1: on the a l J would be credibility findings. This 105 00:06:43,520 --> 00:06:48,400 Speaker 1: sounded like they weren't really credibility issues. That everyone's pretty 106 00:06:48,400 --> 00:06:50,640 Speaker 1: close to agreeing on what the facts are, but I 107 00:06:50,960 --> 00:06:54,360 Speaker 1: don't know. So the board then gets to make the policy. 108 00:06:54,400 --> 00:06:57,360 Speaker 1: At that point, the board is really a policy making body, 109 00:06:57,640 --> 00:07:01,359 Speaker 1: So the board can say, well, we're engineer policy. So 110 00:07:01,640 --> 00:07:05,359 Speaker 1: different general councils have been willing to expand or contract 111 00:07:05,720 --> 00:07:12,800 Speaker 1: how much politics really relates to the employment conditions. So 112 00:07:13,040 --> 00:07:17,640 Speaker 1: they'll give you an example. In South Africa during Apartheit, 113 00:07:18,240 --> 00:07:21,560 Speaker 1: it turned out that when when people would would go 114 00:07:21,640 --> 00:07:26,040 Speaker 1: against Apartheit, it was very much also a working issue, 115 00:07:26,480 --> 00:07:29,640 Speaker 1: and so what looked like was a political issue turned 116 00:07:29,680 --> 00:07:31,680 Speaker 1: out to be really a working issue. The same thing 117 00:07:31,720 --> 00:07:34,960 Speaker 1: in like Latin America, on a lot of unions, they 118 00:07:35,040 --> 00:07:37,920 Speaker 1: look very political because they're going against the government, but 119 00:07:38,040 --> 00:07:41,080 Speaker 1: the government's what's giving them a job. I use those 120 00:07:41,080 --> 00:07:43,760 Speaker 1: examples in the international setting because it's easier for Americans 121 00:07:43,800 --> 00:07:46,560 Speaker 1: sometimes to understand it if it's not in their own backyard. 122 00:07:47,040 --> 00:07:51,920 Speaker 1: So here, this Black Lives Matter is definitely a political movement, 123 00:07:52,360 --> 00:07:55,800 Speaker 1: but it doesn't matter if it's political. That's sort of irrelevant. 124 00:07:56,000 --> 00:07:59,160 Speaker 1: The question is is it also a working class movement? 125 00:07:59,280 --> 00:08:03,040 Speaker 1: Or is Black Lives Matter saying something about the working person? 126 00:08:03,600 --> 00:08:06,200 Speaker 1: Now I think someone was saying, well, what about it 127 00:08:06,200 --> 00:08:09,080 Speaker 1: if they wanted to bring the Confederate flag. Well, that's 128 00:08:09,200 --> 00:08:13,320 Speaker 1: very different because the Confederate flag is not about a 129 00:08:13,400 --> 00:08:16,760 Speaker 1: working class movement at all, or the KKK. The KKK 130 00:08:17,200 --> 00:08:21,200 Speaker 1: is a terrorist organization. The problem is some people want 131 00:08:21,200 --> 00:08:24,680 Speaker 1: to label the Black Lives Matter movement as the same 132 00:08:24,800 --> 00:08:27,560 Speaker 1: as the left wing version of sort of one of 133 00:08:27,560 --> 00:08:31,160 Speaker 1: these more right wing political movements. So that's a losing 134 00:08:31,280 --> 00:08:34,559 Speaker 1: argument that's not going to win in court. There's no 135 00:08:34,640 --> 00:08:38,480 Speaker 1: evidence of that. Yes, there's been some riots, but there's 136 00:08:38,520 --> 00:08:41,640 Speaker 1: been riots for abortion rights, the's rights, for lots of 137 00:08:41,760 --> 00:08:46,520 Speaker 1: legitimate causes. That's not really what's an issue here. The 138 00:08:46,640 --> 00:08:51,719 Speaker 1: question is one is a concerted activity. Concerned activity is 139 00:08:52,120 --> 00:08:55,760 Speaker 1: where you have two or more people or one person 140 00:08:55,840 --> 00:08:59,720 Speaker 1: trying to get group activity that is improving the working 141 00:08:59,760 --> 00:09:03,400 Speaker 1: law of workers. If they become violent at work, it 142 00:09:03,440 --> 00:09:05,840 Speaker 1: would lose the protection and they can stop it. But 143 00:09:06,000 --> 00:09:08,760 Speaker 1: there hasn't been violence at work. So that's why I 144 00:09:08,800 --> 00:09:11,440 Speaker 1: say that's really not gonna work. This has to go 145 00:09:11,480 --> 00:09:15,280 Speaker 1: to a court and the appellate courts, A lot of 146 00:09:15,280 --> 00:09:18,280 Speaker 1: them are very conservative. I mean, I'm not even sure 147 00:09:18,280 --> 00:09:21,760 Speaker 1: if this Supreme Court would make the same decision on speech. 148 00:09:22,000 --> 00:09:25,000 Speaker 1: So is there a problem once it reaches those levels. 149 00:09:25,559 --> 00:09:29,320 Speaker 1: It's possible. Yeah, I mean, because it's Amazon, and Amazon 150 00:09:29,360 --> 00:09:32,280 Speaker 1: does business everywhere in the country. If Amazon loses at 151 00:09:32,280 --> 00:09:34,800 Speaker 1: the board that then it can choose to go to 152 00:09:34,880 --> 00:09:37,240 Speaker 1: any court in the country. So it can choose. It 153 00:09:37,320 --> 00:09:39,839 Speaker 1: can choose like the most conservative court. Some of the 154 00:09:39,880 --> 00:09:42,599 Speaker 1: courts are pretty liberal also, So Chance Start is not 155 00:09:42,640 --> 00:09:45,040 Speaker 1: going to choose the Ninth Circuit. Chance Star wouldn't even 156 00:09:45,120 --> 00:09:47,760 Speaker 1: would choose the second Circuit. The Chances Star it would choose, 157 00:09:47,800 --> 00:09:51,600 Speaker 1: say the fifth Circuit. So it goes to the Fifth Circuit, 158 00:09:51,880 --> 00:09:56,040 Speaker 1: and the Fifth Circuit says we disagree. Um, let's just 159 00:09:56,120 --> 00:09:58,160 Speaker 1: say it goes that way. I don't know. The board 160 00:09:58,240 --> 00:10:01,280 Speaker 1: might say, look, this is too far um or could say, 161 00:10:01,480 --> 00:10:05,280 Speaker 1: actually it is concerted activity. It is protected. But in 162 00:10:05,320 --> 00:10:08,720 Speaker 1: this particular case there was justification, so put all of 163 00:10:08,720 --> 00:10:11,480 Speaker 1: that aside. But let's just say it goes against the employer. 164 00:10:12,000 --> 00:10:15,480 Speaker 1: Then the employer would take it to say the fifth Circuit, 165 00:10:15,600 --> 00:10:19,520 Speaker 1: the eleventh Circuit, something like that, and then say um, 166 00:10:20,000 --> 00:10:24,240 Speaker 1: that court would have to distinguish east Text at that point. 167 00:10:25,040 --> 00:10:30,240 Speaker 1: So the courts of Appeals are confined to what the 168 00:10:30,320 --> 00:10:33,560 Speaker 1: Supreme Court has said. So it would be the board's 169 00:10:33,640 --> 00:10:37,480 Speaker 1: job to say why east Text decides this case and 170 00:10:37,520 --> 00:10:40,720 Speaker 1: decides it either in favor of the employer or the 171 00:10:40,960 --> 00:10:45,480 Speaker 1: or the union. Okay, So depending on how it's written, 172 00:10:45,880 --> 00:10:49,520 Speaker 1: a conservative court might very well approve it, because the 173 00:10:49,600 --> 00:10:52,520 Speaker 1: court's job is not to go against the Supreme Court. 174 00:10:52,720 --> 00:10:54,760 Speaker 1: So let me give you an example, is there were 175 00:10:54,800 --> 00:10:58,560 Speaker 1: plenty of judges that are pro life, and before DABS, 176 00:10:59,040 --> 00:11:02,800 Speaker 1: they still have to enforce the law, and the law 177 00:11:02,960 --> 00:11:07,199 Speaker 1: was that you can't put certain barriers to women who 178 00:11:07,200 --> 00:11:10,439 Speaker 1: want to have an abortion. Now it's the opposite. So 179 00:11:10,520 --> 00:11:12,760 Speaker 1: there's a lot of liberal judges and they have to 180 00:11:12,800 --> 00:11:15,520 Speaker 1: abide by the Supreme Court, and most of them really 181 00:11:15,600 --> 00:11:18,959 Speaker 1: do most of the time. Now you say, okay, well 182 00:11:18,960 --> 00:11:21,240 Speaker 1: then it goes to the Supreme Court. Well, the Supreme 183 00:11:21,240 --> 00:11:25,319 Speaker 1: Court is not going to take one case because it's 184 00:11:25,320 --> 00:11:28,000 Speaker 1: out of whack. Let's say the Supreme Court thinks, yeah, 185 00:11:28,040 --> 00:11:30,280 Speaker 1: you know, east Text was wrong, we want to re 186 00:11:30,360 --> 00:11:33,480 Speaker 1: evaluate east Text. They're not going to do that unless 187 00:11:33,520 --> 00:11:35,840 Speaker 1: there's a split in the circuits. This would have to 188 00:11:35,880 --> 00:11:40,240 Speaker 1: start to really what's called percolate or ripen in the circuits. 189 00:11:40,280 --> 00:11:42,120 Speaker 1: So this would take years before we go to the 190 00:11:42,120 --> 00:11:44,360 Speaker 1: Supreme Court. This case itself would not go to the 191 00:11:44,400 --> 00:11:50,720 Speaker 1: Supreme Court. I'm nine sure, because Supreme Court wants to 192 00:11:50,800 --> 00:11:55,520 Speaker 1: have conflict and really wants the courts to think about it. 193 00:11:56,000 --> 00:11:59,760 Speaker 1: You mentioned Jennifer Bruteso. She was a lawyer for a 194 00:11:59,800 --> 00:12:03,599 Speaker 1: you onion before. She's the daughter to two union members. 195 00:12:03,800 --> 00:12:07,360 Speaker 1: How does she differ from past general councils? What is 196 00:12:07,400 --> 00:12:14,480 Speaker 1: she trying to accomplish? Traditionally Democrats have been pretty and 197 00:12:14,600 --> 00:12:17,560 Speaker 1: then say conservative in the sense what I mean by 198 00:12:17,559 --> 00:12:22,240 Speaker 1: conservative is just going by the book. And Republicans really 199 00:12:22,280 --> 00:12:28,719 Speaker 1: starting in about the Eisenhower era, we're pushing too to 200 00:12:29,240 --> 00:12:33,800 Speaker 1: um interpret the Act in a more activist way and 201 00:12:34,000 --> 00:12:39,680 Speaker 1: a politically conservative way, and Democrats didn't get the memo, 202 00:12:40,200 --> 00:12:43,079 Speaker 1: and so Democrats would just when they got into power, 203 00:12:43,120 --> 00:12:45,000 Speaker 1: we just go back to sort of we're going to 204 00:12:45,120 --> 00:12:48,040 Speaker 1: just enforce the law like that. It was not until 205 00:12:48,080 --> 00:12:53,800 Speaker 1: Fred Feinstein in the nine nineties under Clinton really started 206 00:12:53,840 --> 00:12:58,640 Speaker 1: to push more toward not just the agenda of undoing 207 00:12:58,679 --> 00:13:00,640 Speaker 1: what the Republicans have done in putting it back in 208 00:13:00,679 --> 00:13:05,520 Speaker 1: the middle, but pushing a more liberal interpretation of the act. 209 00:13:06,200 --> 00:13:09,679 Speaker 1: And what we're seeing is this whiplash. Now, it's not 210 00:13:09,760 --> 00:13:12,640 Speaker 1: always in every administration. For example, the Bush one administration 211 00:13:12,720 --> 00:13:14,280 Speaker 1: was just sort of wanted to bring it back to 212 00:13:14,320 --> 00:13:17,840 Speaker 1: the middle, but the Bush to administration went way over 213 00:13:18,400 --> 00:13:24,440 Speaker 1: to the right. Um. Now, in defense of Jennifer Rutso, though, 214 00:13:24,640 --> 00:13:27,280 Speaker 1: is the National Labor Relations Act, if you just look 215 00:13:27,320 --> 00:13:31,280 Speaker 1: at from a textualist point of view, is a pro 216 00:13:31,440 --> 00:13:36,840 Speaker 1: worker act. And that's her point. Her point is that, hey, guys, 217 00:13:36,960 --> 00:13:40,760 Speaker 1: we have been giving this to the establishment all these years, 218 00:13:40,800 --> 00:13:42,920 Speaker 1: giving up all this ground. But if you actually look 219 00:13:42,960 --> 00:13:45,320 Speaker 1: at the text of this act, and by the way, 220 00:13:45,360 --> 00:13:47,160 Speaker 1: when it was enacted, so if you want to look 221 00:13:47,160 --> 00:13:50,160 Speaker 1: at not just texted only at context, this was a 222 00:13:50,320 --> 00:13:53,080 Speaker 1: very progressive act. In fact, if you look at like 223 00:13:53,280 --> 00:13:55,920 Speaker 1: Professor Carl Claire at Northeastern said, it was the most 224 00:13:56,000 --> 00:13:59,439 Speaker 1: radical act ever enacted in the country up until that point. 225 00:13:59,440 --> 00:14:02,160 Speaker 1: And that's too, it's a very radical act. You just 226 00:14:02,160 --> 00:14:05,040 Speaker 1: look at the text. And so what she's really saying 227 00:14:05,160 --> 00:14:08,640 Speaker 1: is we're just enforcing the law and that in the 228 00:14:08,720 --> 00:14:11,560 Speaker 1: past we have not been doing that. We have been 229 00:14:11,600 --> 00:14:15,480 Speaker 1: just giving over to the to the establishments. That's pretty 230 00:14:15,559 --> 00:14:19,840 Speaker 1: much the political issue. And so what employers want is 231 00:14:20,440 --> 00:14:22,360 Speaker 1: they want to maximize their profits, which means they don't 232 00:14:22,400 --> 00:14:27,400 Speaker 1: want to alienate customers, which means they basically somehow want 233 00:14:27,400 --> 00:14:31,080 Speaker 1: to go on this line of supporting Black Lives matter 234 00:14:31,120 --> 00:14:34,000 Speaker 1: because they have a lot of customers who support Black 235 00:14:34,040 --> 00:14:36,320 Speaker 1: Lives Matter, but not supporting it so much of an 236 00:14:36,360 --> 00:14:40,240 Speaker 1: alienating customers who don't like Black lives matter. So black 237 00:14:40,240 --> 00:14:43,800 Speaker 1: Lives Matter is is controversial. Whether it should be or not, 238 00:14:43,960 --> 00:14:47,920 Speaker 1: that's for you to decide, but it is controversial, and 239 00:14:47,960 --> 00:14:51,440 Speaker 1: therefore this is why employers are trying to figure out 240 00:14:51,520 --> 00:14:53,960 Speaker 1: that line. I'll tell you Amazon is not the only 241 00:14:53,960 --> 00:14:55,800 Speaker 1: one dealing with this. They're just the one that's gotten 242 00:14:55,840 --> 00:14:59,120 Speaker 1: caught right now. I have plenty of friends in New 243 00:14:59,160 --> 00:15:01,560 Speaker 1: York City who are telling me this is going all 244 00:15:01,600 --> 00:15:04,440 Speaker 1: over New York City about whether you can wear Black 245 00:15:04,480 --> 00:15:07,600 Speaker 1: Lives Matter shirts or not. Here I'll give you another example. 246 00:15:08,000 --> 00:15:10,840 Speaker 1: During Pride months, you will have a lot of people 247 00:15:10,880 --> 00:15:13,800 Speaker 1: wearing in New York City a lot of Pride outfits, 248 00:15:14,240 --> 00:15:18,600 Speaker 1: right which like rainbow things like that. That's not really 249 00:15:18,880 --> 00:15:21,720 Speaker 1: that controversial in New York City. That might be current 250 00:15:21,800 --> 00:15:27,080 Speaker 1: controversial somewhere else. But once you allow that symbolism, why 251 00:15:27,120 --> 00:15:29,720 Speaker 1: not black lives matter? And that's that is some of 252 00:15:29,760 --> 00:15:32,000 Speaker 1: the conversation that's going on in New York City right now. 253 00:15:32,000 --> 00:15:33,720 Speaker 1: It's like, wait, wait, wait, wait, we do all this 254 00:15:33,800 --> 00:15:38,120 Speaker 1: for Pride months and we're supporting the LGBTQ plus community. 255 00:15:38,520 --> 00:15:41,600 Speaker 1: Why are we not supporting people of color who we 256 00:15:41,760 --> 00:15:44,640 Speaker 1: know are being discriminated against in the workplace. So that's 257 00:15:44,680 --> 00:15:46,920 Speaker 1: kind of the issue that's going on right now. Thanks 258 00:15:46,960 --> 00:15:50,000 Speaker 1: for being on the Bloomberg Lass Show. And that's Professor 259 00:15:50,040 --> 00:15:53,720 Speaker 1: and Marie Lo Fossil of the West Virginia University College 260 00:15:53,760 --> 00:15:58,560 Speaker 1: of Law. The Federal Trade Commission has sued to block 261 00:15:58,680 --> 00:16:02,320 Speaker 1: Meta from buying the Verse Trual Reality company, within the 262 00:16:02,400 --> 00:16:07,280 Speaker 1: studio behind the popular fitness apps Supernatural. The federal regulator 263 00:16:07,360 --> 00:16:09,720 Speaker 1: says the purchase would help put Meta on a path 264 00:16:09,760 --> 00:16:13,720 Speaker 1: to a monopoly in virtual reality. The acquisition was small 265 00:16:13,840 --> 00:16:18,680 Speaker 1: compared with Metas more controversial purchases of What's App and Instagram, 266 00:16:19,080 --> 00:16:22,160 Speaker 1: which the FTC did not object to at the time. 267 00:16:22,520 --> 00:16:26,760 Speaker 1: Joining me is Jennifer Ree, Bloomberg Intelligence Senior litigation analyst. 268 00:16:27,200 --> 00:16:30,440 Speaker 1: It's a small deal. Why is the FTC challenging it? 269 00:16:31,760 --> 00:16:33,800 Speaker 1: First of all, there within the company that they're buying 270 00:16:33,840 --> 00:16:37,520 Speaker 1: actually creates apps for virtual reality space, and I think 271 00:16:37,640 --> 00:16:40,520 Speaker 1: really here the FTC is thinking about the position they're 272 00:16:40,520 --> 00:16:43,120 Speaker 1: in with respect to Facebook and Instagram and WhatsApp. You know, 273 00:16:43,160 --> 00:16:45,920 Speaker 1: they have a lawsuit where they're challenging those acquisitions. They 274 00:16:45,960 --> 00:16:48,920 Speaker 1: were once cleared by the FTC, but now the FTC 275 00:16:49,080 --> 00:16:52,160 Speaker 1: thinks that there was an anti competitive strategy and they're 276 00:16:52,160 --> 00:16:54,920 Speaker 1: trying to force the divestiture of those companies. And I 277 00:16:54,920 --> 00:16:57,000 Speaker 1: think they're trying to get ahead of that here in 278 00:16:57,040 --> 00:17:00,840 Speaker 1: the virtual reality space. They know that face book, Meta, 279 00:17:00,880 --> 00:17:03,920 Speaker 1: I should say, has a strategy for future growth in 280 00:17:03,960 --> 00:17:07,000 Speaker 1: the virtual reality world, which is partly why they change 281 00:17:07,040 --> 00:17:09,560 Speaker 1: their name from Facebook to Meta, and that they have 282 00:17:09,800 --> 00:17:12,800 Speaker 1: the most popular device, the Oculus glasses that people use, 283 00:17:12,800 --> 00:17:15,320 Speaker 1: and they also have a very popular app store. So 284 00:17:15,359 --> 00:17:18,679 Speaker 1: at this point, Meta needs the content, They need the apps, 285 00:17:18,680 --> 00:17:20,520 Speaker 1: and they have some that they've developed on their own. 286 00:17:20,880 --> 00:17:22,639 Speaker 1: But what they're trying to do is buy a company 287 00:17:22,680 --> 00:17:25,560 Speaker 1: that has a very popular fitness app. It's called Supernatural, 288 00:17:26,040 --> 00:17:30,240 Speaker 1: where people do workouts cardiovascular with weight their personal trainers, 289 00:17:30,280 --> 00:17:33,359 Speaker 1: they monitor heartbeat rate, all of that, And the FTC 290 00:17:33,480 --> 00:17:37,320 Speaker 1: says that by buying this company, first of all, they'll 291 00:17:37,359 --> 00:17:40,239 Speaker 1: have to concentrated a market in fitness apps because they 292 00:17:40,280 --> 00:17:43,680 Speaker 1: believe that Facebook has an app that competes with this, Supernatural. 293 00:17:43,960 --> 00:17:47,320 Speaker 1: And they've also said if they don't compete that it 294 00:17:47,600 --> 00:17:51,040 Speaker 1: hinders potential competition in the future because if Meta didn't 295 00:17:51,040 --> 00:17:53,720 Speaker 1: buy within they develop their own fitness app that would 296 00:17:53,720 --> 00:17:57,760 Speaker 1: compete with Supernatural. It sounds like what Facebook has been 297 00:17:57,800 --> 00:18:03,360 Speaker 1: accused of doing in the past by buying up smaller competitors. Absolutely, 298 00:18:03,400 --> 00:18:05,440 Speaker 1: And you know, I think there's a document that keeps 299 00:18:05,440 --> 00:18:08,960 Speaker 1: getting cited by the FDC that Mark Zuckerberg author that 300 00:18:09,240 --> 00:18:11,760 Speaker 1: hurts them here because he has a very famous document 301 00:18:11,800 --> 00:18:14,480 Speaker 1: that says it's better to buy than compete, right, And 302 00:18:14,520 --> 00:18:17,520 Speaker 1: I think that's the whole entire background for the FTC here. 303 00:18:17,680 --> 00:18:19,800 Speaker 1: They see Meta as a company that just wants to 304 00:18:19,840 --> 00:18:23,400 Speaker 1: buy potential competitors rather than compete with them, rather than 305 00:18:23,440 --> 00:18:26,040 Speaker 1: trying to be better and innovate and develop on their own. 306 00:18:26,200 --> 00:18:28,560 Speaker 1: And so that's the case here. I'll tell you I 307 00:18:28,600 --> 00:18:30,720 Speaker 1: don't think it's a very good suit because I think 308 00:18:30,800 --> 00:18:33,960 Speaker 1: it's really arguably the companies don't compete with each other 309 00:18:34,320 --> 00:18:37,720 Speaker 1: within is this dedicated fitness app. What Facebook has is 310 00:18:37,760 --> 00:18:40,040 Speaker 1: a game called Beat Saber, which is a lot of 311 00:18:40,040 --> 00:18:42,800 Speaker 1: fun but not for fitness, but you happen to get 312 00:18:42,800 --> 00:18:45,120 Speaker 1: a part of your vascular exercise when you play it. 313 00:18:45,560 --> 00:18:48,680 Speaker 1: And I also didn't necessarily see in the complaint real 314 00:18:48,800 --> 00:18:52,840 Speaker 1: concrete plans by Facebook to develop internally their own dedicated 315 00:18:52,840 --> 00:18:55,240 Speaker 1: fitness app. And I think for a court to believe 316 00:18:55,320 --> 00:18:58,919 Speaker 1: that potential competition is being blocked by this deal, that 317 00:18:59,000 --> 00:19:01,760 Speaker 1: they have to see some real plans that with development, 318 00:19:01,760 --> 00:19:03,680 Speaker 1: with a budget, with a team, and you know, an 319 00:19:03,720 --> 00:19:07,199 Speaker 1: expectation that it's going to go forward. So what stage 320 00:19:07,280 --> 00:19:11,640 Speaker 1: is the lawsuit at. We're really early, so they just sued. 321 00:19:11,760 --> 00:19:14,240 Speaker 1: Now what they said is by law, the companies could 322 00:19:14,240 --> 00:19:17,240 Speaker 1: have closed I think earlier this month, sometime in the 323 00:19:17,240 --> 00:19:20,119 Speaker 1: middle of August. So what the companies did is stipulate 324 00:19:20,440 --> 00:19:23,040 Speaker 1: to not close until the end of this year and 325 00:19:23,080 --> 00:19:26,200 Speaker 1: that should be enough time for preliminary injunction hearing, which 326 00:19:26,280 --> 00:19:28,679 Speaker 1: is what's happening right now. The FTC is just seeking 327 00:19:28,720 --> 00:19:31,719 Speaker 1: a preliminary block on the closing. The companies have agreed 328 00:19:31,760 --> 00:19:33,359 Speaker 1: we won't close till the end of the year, or 329 00:19:33,400 --> 00:19:35,520 Speaker 1: if we're legally allowed to before that, we'll do it 330 00:19:35,560 --> 00:19:38,159 Speaker 1: before that, and then we'll see what happens. Um if 331 00:19:38,200 --> 00:19:41,439 Speaker 1: they win the preliminary injunction, the plan by the FTC 332 00:19:41,600 --> 00:19:44,399 Speaker 1: would be then to file a lawsuit internally in the 333 00:19:44,400 --> 00:19:48,040 Speaker 1: administrative court to actually really delve into the merits to 334 00:19:48,080 --> 00:19:50,359 Speaker 1: say whether this is an anti competitive deal or not. 335 00:19:51,000 --> 00:19:55,240 Speaker 1: Let's turn to another mega merger, or to a mega merger. 336 00:19:55,280 --> 00:20:00,320 Speaker 1: I guess so the FTCs review of Microsoft activisions exty 337 00:20:00,400 --> 00:20:03,240 Speaker 1: nine billion dollar merger. First of all, tell us about 338 00:20:03,320 --> 00:20:06,160 Speaker 1: this merger and why the FTC might object to it. 339 00:20:06,440 --> 00:20:09,600 Speaker 1: I think this is such an interesting case. So Microsoft 340 00:20:09,640 --> 00:20:13,160 Speaker 1: has the very popular Xbox console for games for mobile games, 341 00:20:13,200 --> 00:20:16,080 Speaker 1: not virtual reality. We're now in just the regular world 342 00:20:16,119 --> 00:20:19,240 Speaker 1: playing mobile games. UM and Activision makes a lot of games, 343 00:20:19,240 --> 00:20:21,560 Speaker 1: and they have a really popular one called Call of Duty. 344 00:20:21,840 --> 00:20:23,680 Speaker 1: I don't play a lot of these games. It's called 345 00:20:23,720 --> 00:20:26,919 Speaker 1: the first person shooter game. I can't really tell you 346 00:20:26,960 --> 00:20:28,840 Speaker 1: what that is, but that is what it's called. It's 347 00:20:28,840 --> 00:20:33,119 Speaker 1: an action game basically, and essentially Microsoft has only a 348 00:20:33,119 --> 00:20:36,000 Speaker 1: few competitors and consoles. Now people can play games on 349 00:20:36,040 --> 00:20:38,719 Speaker 1: a console, on a computer, on a mobile device, but 350 00:20:39,280 --> 00:20:41,679 Speaker 1: arguably they may not be all in the same market 351 00:20:41,680 --> 00:20:44,040 Speaker 1: because you have a different experience playing on a console 352 00:20:44,160 --> 00:20:46,679 Speaker 1: versus a computer versus a mobile device. And if you 353 00:20:46,720 --> 00:20:49,480 Speaker 1: look at just consoles, Microsoft has a pretty big piece 354 00:20:49,520 --> 00:20:52,680 Speaker 1: of that market. Now Sony PlayStation is bigger, and Nintendo 355 00:20:52,800 --> 00:20:55,359 Speaker 1: is also in there with the Switch. So the fear 356 00:20:55,400 --> 00:20:58,320 Speaker 1: here would be what's called vertical foreclosure. When I say 357 00:20:58,359 --> 00:21:00,440 Speaker 1: the fear, I think the concern the FDC he might 358 00:21:00,480 --> 00:21:03,640 Speaker 1: have that Microsoft, once it has this very popular Call 359 00:21:03,680 --> 00:21:06,919 Speaker 1: of Duty game, would keep that game from its console rivals, 360 00:21:06,960 --> 00:21:09,560 Speaker 1: and that would hurt its console rivals. I don't think 361 00:21:09,600 --> 00:21:11,919 Speaker 1: that theory is a winner either in court, and I 362 00:21:11,960 --> 00:21:14,200 Speaker 1: don't actually know whether the FTC will go forward and 363 00:21:14,280 --> 00:21:17,119 Speaker 1: sue on that theory, But I just view this deal 364 00:21:17,200 --> 00:21:20,080 Speaker 1: as a deal the FTC won't be happy with. Generally, 365 00:21:20,359 --> 00:21:24,160 Speaker 1: the current share backed by the majority simply doesn't really 366 00:21:24,200 --> 00:21:28,080 Speaker 1: like the big tech companies getting bigger via acquisition, and 367 00:21:28,200 --> 00:21:31,399 Speaker 1: I think it's looking for theories anti trust theories in 368 00:21:31,400 --> 00:21:33,960 Speaker 1: which to sue them rather than to settle or clearer merger. 369 00:21:34,000 --> 00:21:36,560 Speaker 1: But I'm not completely convinced that they will sue because 370 00:21:36,560 --> 00:21:38,359 Speaker 1: I don't think that they have a very good case, 371 00:21:38,560 --> 00:21:40,560 Speaker 1: and eventually they're going to have to file a case 372 00:21:40,560 --> 00:21:44,000 Speaker 1: in court that they know that they can win. So 373 00:21:44,240 --> 00:21:47,560 Speaker 1: what's the timing on this? If there is any specific timing, 374 00:21:48,200 --> 00:21:51,080 Speaker 1: So we know something about the timing, we don't have details. 375 00:21:51,160 --> 00:21:55,400 Speaker 1: We know that Microsoft and Activision did what's called complied 376 00:21:55,440 --> 00:21:58,080 Speaker 1: with the second request in mid July. That's basically means 377 00:21:58,119 --> 00:22:00,840 Speaker 1: they completely finished the big subpoenas the they got from 378 00:22:00,880 --> 00:22:03,600 Speaker 1: the FTC in order to do the investigation of the deal. 379 00:22:04,160 --> 00:22:07,280 Speaker 1: Once companies comply with second requests, it starts at time 380 00:22:07,280 --> 00:22:10,320 Speaker 1: clock for the FTC and it's usually thirty days, So 381 00:22:10,440 --> 00:22:13,080 Speaker 1: that would have meant that by mid August, the FTC 382 00:22:13,119 --> 00:22:14,960 Speaker 1: would have had to make a decision. But it's pretty 383 00:22:14,960 --> 00:22:17,679 Speaker 1: typical to enter a timing agreement, and we don't know 384 00:22:17,800 --> 00:22:20,200 Speaker 1: if Microsoft enter at the timing agreement, but we assume 385 00:22:20,280 --> 00:22:22,439 Speaker 1: that it did, and I assume it's probably about a 386 00:22:22,480 --> 00:22:25,080 Speaker 1: hundred twenty days. So I think we're looking for some 387 00:22:25,160 --> 00:22:27,920 Speaker 1: kind of an activity outcome, whether it's a lawsuit or 388 00:22:27,960 --> 00:22:30,680 Speaker 1: whether it's clearing the deal in about mid November. Let's 389 00:22:30,720 --> 00:22:34,199 Speaker 1: turn to the Department of Justice. There's been news lately 390 00:22:34,520 --> 00:22:39,000 Speaker 1: that the Department of Justice may soon sue Google over 391 00:22:39,080 --> 00:22:42,520 Speaker 1: monopolization of the ad tech space. So first of all, 392 00:22:42,640 --> 00:22:47,080 Speaker 1: there is a lawsuit by states already led by Texas. 393 00:22:47,359 --> 00:22:50,080 Speaker 1: What's that lawsuit about? And where does that one stand? 394 00:22:50,480 --> 00:22:52,840 Speaker 1: So I think these lawsuits would be very similar if 395 00:22:52,880 --> 00:22:55,680 Speaker 1: the dj filed a suit, because the state suit led 396 00:22:55,680 --> 00:22:59,200 Speaker 1: by Texas really kind of has everything but the kitchen 397 00:22:59,240 --> 00:23:02,480 Speaker 1: sink in their respect to conduct within the attach space. 398 00:23:03,000 --> 00:23:05,879 Speaker 1: It's moving very very slowly. I mean, they're only at 399 00:23:05,920 --> 00:23:09,239 Speaker 1: the motion to dismiss stage for the State's complaint. Uh, 400 00:23:09,280 --> 00:23:11,240 Speaker 1: and it's a couple of years old already, and and 401 00:23:11,359 --> 00:23:14,919 Speaker 1: combined with consolidated with the States suit, are also suits 402 00:23:14,920 --> 00:23:18,000 Speaker 1: by publishers and advertisers class actions, and that's going to 403 00:23:18,119 --> 00:23:20,840 Speaker 1: slow it all down. The federal government has the right 404 00:23:20,880 --> 00:23:23,000 Speaker 1: to stay out of a consolidation when they bring a 405 00:23:23,040 --> 00:23:26,000 Speaker 1: sister suit to a private class action, but the States don't, 406 00:23:26,040 --> 00:23:28,159 Speaker 1: at least not right now. I think there is a 407 00:23:28,200 --> 00:23:31,280 Speaker 1: bill proposed to pull exempt them also from consolidation, but 408 00:23:31,320 --> 00:23:33,960 Speaker 1: at least for now they're not. And Texas and the 409 00:23:34,000 --> 00:23:36,600 Speaker 1: States were forced to put their suits together with these 410 00:23:36,600 --> 00:23:40,320 Speaker 1: others The allegation is essentially that Google bought its way 411 00:23:40,359 --> 00:23:42,720 Speaker 1: into all of the different kinds of pieces of software 412 00:23:42,720 --> 00:23:44,760 Speaker 1: that are needed to buy and sell a digital ad 413 00:23:44,800 --> 00:23:47,080 Speaker 1: so that they run that They run the process from 414 00:23:47,119 --> 00:23:50,240 Speaker 1: the publisher to the advertiser, and by doing that they 415 00:23:50,280 --> 00:23:52,840 Speaker 1: take advantage of that system to benefit themselves and to 416 00:23:52,920 --> 00:23:55,560 Speaker 1: the detriment of their rivals. And they also push out 417 00:23:55,840 --> 00:23:58,399 Speaker 1: the individual rivals they have for each of those different 418 00:23:58,400 --> 00:24:01,880 Speaker 1: pieces of software, and this raises prices for both publishers 419 00:24:01,920 --> 00:24:05,720 Speaker 1: and advertisers. That's generally the allegation. I believe the d 420 00:24:05,840 --> 00:24:08,639 Speaker 1: o J might even if they file suit, kept to 421 00:24:08,680 --> 00:24:11,399 Speaker 1: trial earlier than that case, because that case is moving 422 00:24:11,440 --> 00:24:14,439 Speaker 1: so very slowly, the d o J can keep itself 423 00:24:14,480 --> 00:24:16,680 Speaker 1: out and not get consolidated with it, and I think 424 00:24:16,720 --> 00:24:19,360 Speaker 1: that's probably what it would do. We do know that 425 00:24:19,400 --> 00:24:23,240 Speaker 1: they have an existing suit against Google over search um 426 00:24:23,280 --> 00:24:25,879 Speaker 1: and and Google said is the default search, having agreements 427 00:24:25,920 --> 00:24:28,280 Speaker 1: to be the default search. But we know that after 428 00:24:28,320 --> 00:24:30,919 Speaker 1: that they continue to investigate, So I think it's not 429 00:24:31,000 --> 00:24:33,480 Speaker 1: surprising to me that they're thinking about or may bring 430 00:24:33,520 --> 00:24:36,439 Speaker 1: another suit. When I looked at this, I mean always 431 00:24:36,440 --> 00:24:39,000 Speaker 1: hearing Google is being sued. Google is being suited. How 432 00:24:39,000 --> 00:24:44,200 Speaker 1: many suits are there against Google for anti competitive conduct? 433 00:24:45,320 --> 00:24:47,359 Speaker 1: There are a lot, you know. I I have a 434 00:24:47,480 --> 00:24:49,919 Speaker 1: charge to keep track of all these suits. You know. 435 00:24:50,000 --> 00:24:53,399 Speaker 1: So we have the state suit over the ad tech space, 436 00:24:53,720 --> 00:24:56,000 Speaker 1: we have the publisher and advertiser suits over the ad 437 00:24:56,160 --> 00:24:58,520 Speaker 1: tech space. Then we have the d o J suit 438 00:24:58,600 --> 00:25:02,160 Speaker 1: that's over monopolization in search, and then you have state 439 00:25:02,200 --> 00:25:06,359 Speaker 1: plus private suits over play Store, super similar to Epic 440 00:25:06,440 --> 00:25:09,439 Speaker 1: Games case against Apple about the app store. This is 441 00:25:09,480 --> 00:25:14,440 Speaker 1: all about just controlling the Android ecosystem, mobile ecosystem, having 442 00:25:14,520 --> 00:25:17,159 Speaker 1: the Place store, not allowing other app distribution or at 443 00:25:17,200 --> 00:25:21,320 Speaker 1: least not easily allowing other app distribution, forcing Google's payment system, 444 00:25:21,359 --> 00:25:24,159 Speaker 1: and taking pretty high fees. So all of that is 445 00:25:24,200 --> 00:25:27,120 Speaker 1: ongoing right now. So kind of many areas of Google's 446 00:25:27,119 --> 00:25:32,119 Speaker 1: business are under assault. So good for lawyers. UM. So, 447 00:25:32,200 --> 00:25:36,720 Speaker 1: now let's talk about the American Innovation and Choice Online Act. 448 00:25:36,840 --> 00:25:39,720 Speaker 1: They've got to get a better name than that. Tell 449 00:25:39,800 --> 00:25:42,280 Speaker 1: us about that and where it stands. It's a mouthful, 450 00:25:42,359 --> 00:25:46,000 Speaker 1: isn't it. Um? So you know, I think proponents really 451 00:25:46,080 --> 00:25:50,159 Speaker 1: wanted this bill to get a vote before recess. It didn't. 452 00:25:50,720 --> 00:25:53,760 Speaker 1: It's very much targeted to just the big tech platforms 453 00:25:53,800 --> 00:25:57,720 Speaker 1: really just meta alphabet Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft, and that's it. 454 00:25:58,440 --> 00:26:01,439 Speaker 1: And really it's called an anti self preferencing bill, but 455 00:26:01,480 --> 00:26:04,000 Speaker 1: there's a lot more in it than just anti self preferencing, 456 00:26:04,160 --> 00:26:07,360 Speaker 1: and it would actually pretty radically probably change the business 457 00:26:07,400 --> 00:26:09,520 Speaker 1: model for Amazon and for a few of the others. 458 00:26:09,800 --> 00:26:12,920 Speaker 1: I think it would hurt Facebook the least as compared 459 00:26:12,920 --> 00:26:15,040 Speaker 1: to the others who have a lot of their own 460 00:26:15,119 --> 00:26:19,760 Speaker 1: vertical products on their own platform. So this bill was 461 00:26:20,160 --> 00:26:22,879 Speaker 1: It got through the committee um in a bipartisan manner 462 00:26:22,880 --> 00:26:24,600 Speaker 1: with a pretty strong vote. There are a lot of 463 00:26:24,600 --> 00:26:28,280 Speaker 1: hopes for it, but it's unclear whether there are sixty 464 00:26:28,359 --> 00:26:31,680 Speaker 1: votes for than the Senate or not. And Chuck Schumer, 465 00:26:31,720 --> 00:26:34,280 Speaker 1: who is responsible for deciding whether it gets a vote, 466 00:26:34,320 --> 00:26:36,760 Speaker 1: had said not that long ago that he didn't necessarily 467 00:26:36,840 --> 00:26:39,280 Speaker 1: think it had the sixty votes, and I believe he 468 00:26:39,320 --> 00:26:41,439 Speaker 1: doesn't really want to introduce it on the floor unless 469 00:26:41,440 --> 00:26:44,159 Speaker 1: he thinks it will pass. But what we've heard is 470 00:26:44,200 --> 00:26:46,920 Speaker 1: that he's promised a vote in the fall. Um we'll 471 00:26:46,960 --> 00:26:49,720 Speaker 1: see what happens. I'm still really skeptical about it, because 472 00:26:49,760 --> 00:26:52,639 Speaker 1: we do know there are some senators that have objected 473 00:26:52,680 --> 00:26:55,119 Speaker 1: to the fact that they believe the way it's written 474 00:26:55,520 --> 00:26:58,480 Speaker 1: will hinder some of the content moderation that these companies 475 00:26:58,520 --> 00:27:01,680 Speaker 1: do now, and that it's going to proliferate. The hateful 476 00:27:01,720 --> 00:27:06,840 Speaker 1: speech and misinformation and damaging language will proliferate because there'll 477 00:27:06,880 --> 00:27:09,800 Speaker 1: be a fraide of lawsuits over discrimination if they do 478 00:27:09,920 --> 00:27:13,000 Speaker 1: take this kind of content down or banned certain users. 479 00:27:13,080 --> 00:27:15,800 Speaker 1: So they'd like some changes, but those changes are a 480 00:27:15,840 --> 00:27:18,560 Speaker 1: bit of a nonstarter for the GOP members that support it, 481 00:27:18,640 --> 00:27:21,960 Speaker 1: So I think that could be one of the stumbling blocks. Um, 482 00:27:22,000 --> 00:27:23,800 Speaker 1: we'll have to see what happens in the fall, if 483 00:27:23,840 --> 00:27:26,399 Speaker 1: and when it does get a vote. And now, thanks 484 00:27:26,440 --> 00:27:28,960 Speaker 1: to you, Jen, we are all up to date on 485 00:27:29,080 --> 00:27:34,040 Speaker 1: what's happening in antitrust. Thanks so much. That's Bloomberg Intelligence 486 00:27:34,040 --> 00:27:38,119 Speaker 1: Senior Litigation Analyst Jennifer Ree. For more of Jen's analysis, 487 00:27:38,240 --> 00:27:40,719 Speaker 1: you can go to b I go on the Bloomberg terminal. 488 00:27:41,160 --> 00:27:43,440 Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. 489 00:27:43,800 --> 00:27:46,119 Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on 490 00:27:46,160 --> 00:27:50,439 Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, 491 00:27:50,640 --> 00:27:55,720 Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcast, Slash Law, 492 00:27:56,119 --> 00:27:58,719 Speaker 1: and remember to tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every 493 00:27:58,760 --> 00:28:02,160 Speaker 1: week night at ten am Wall Street Time. I'm June 494 00:28:02,200 --> 00:28:07,560 Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg m