WEBVTT -  A $63 Billion Week in Deals Cleared 

0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:07.520
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:08.680 --> 0:00:12.360
<v Speaker 1>I see it as my job to scrutinize deals consistently

0:00:12.440 --> 0:00:16.200
<v Speaker 1>with the timeline Congress created and our antitrust laws. And

0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:18.640
<v Speaker 1>if we think that they are illegal and we think

0:00:18.640 --> 0:00:20.400
<v Speaker 1>that we can win in court, we're going to go

0:00:20.400 --> 0:00:22.920
<v Speaker 1>to court. But if we don't think that they are

0:00:22.960 --> 0:00:25.120
<v Speaker 1>illegal or we don't think we can win in court,

0:00:25.480 --> 0:00:27.720
<v Speaker 1>the FTC is going to get out of the way again.

0:00:27.880 --> 0:00:30.360
<v Speaker 1>I've heard this complain a lot from the business community

0:00:30.400 --> 0:00:33.320
<v Speaker 1>that in the previous administration, a deal would enter the

0:00:33.400 --> 0:00:35.960
<v Speaker 1>FTC and it would sort of disappear, and sometimes it

0:00:36.000 --> 0:00:40.400
<v Speaker 1>could disappear for months while, you know, novel ideas were floated,

0:00:40.479 --> 0:00:44.040
<v Speaker 1>different theories, and sometimes it sort of seemed like the

0:00:44.080 --> 0:00:47.520
<v Speaker 1>FTC was hoping that deals would die on the vine

0:00:47.600 --> 0:00:50.680
<v Speaker 1>while they waited for regulatory clearance. I want nothing to

0:00:50.720 --> 0:00:51.159
<v Speaker 1>do with that.

0:00:51.920 --> 0:00:56.400
<v Speaker 2>Federal Trade Commission Chair Andrew Ferguson has repeatedly said that

0:00:56.640 --> 0:01:00.560
<v Speaker 2>if his agency can resolve issues with a proposed it

0:01:00.600 --> 0:01:02.880
<v Speaker 2>will get out of the way. And it appears that

0:01:02.960 --> 0:01:06.520
<v Speaker 2>both Trump's anti trust enforcers are getting out of the

0:01:06.560 --> 0:01:10.000
<v Speaker 2>way of multi billion dollar deals In the last week

0:01:10.040 --> 0:01:14.600
<v Speaker 2>of June. The FTC cleared candymaker mars thirty six billion

0:01:14.640 --> 0:01:20.680
<v Speaker 2>dollar acquisition of pringles maker Keleinova, It approved Omnicom's thirteen

0:01:20.800 --> 0:01:25.160
<v Speaker 2>point five billion dollar buyout of rival inter Public, which

0:01:25.200 --> 0:01:29.880
<v Speaker 2>will create the world's largest advertising agency, and the Department

0:01:29.920 --> 0:01:34.520
<v Speaker 2>of Justice cleared Hewlett Packard's fourteen billion dollar acquisition of

0:01:34.640 --> 0:01:38.959
<v Speaker 2>Juniper Networks. More than sixty three billion dollars in deals

0:01:39.240 --> 0:01:42.440
<v Speaker 2>cleared in the same week. Who better to explain what's

0:01:42.480 --> 0:01:46.360
<v Speaker 2>happening with the anti trust regulators than my guest, Harry First,

0:01:46.520 --> 0:01:51.360
<v Speaker 2>a professor at NYU Law School who specializes in anti trust. Harry,

0:01:51.400 --> 0:01:56.360
<v Speaker 2>the FTC and the Justice Department cleared three deals worth

0:01:56.400 --> 0:01:59.680
<v Speaker 2>more than sixty three billion dollars in the last week

0:01:59.720 --> 0:02:02.960
<v Speaker 2>of What does this tell you? Is it the change

0:02:03.000 --> 0:02:03.720
<v Speaker 2>in management?

0:02:04.320 --> 0:02:07.520
<v Speaker 3>Well, there's certainly a change in management. The question that

0:02:07.640 --> 0:02:11.960
<v Speaker 3>everyone asked when management changed is what direction? So I

0:02:12.000 --> 0:02:15.280
<v Speaker 3>think people were looking at two big things. The one

0:02:15.320 --> 0:02:19.320
<v Speaker 3>where the cases against the dominant platforms, the big tech

0:02:19.360 --> 0:02:23.000
<v Speaker 3>platforms that were ongoing neared five of those, what would

0:02:23.040 --> 0:02:25.200
<v Speaker 3>they do with those? And the second is what were

0:02:25.200 --> 0:02:28.160
<v Speaker 3>they going to do with mergers? So on the first,

0:02:28.360 --> 0:02:32.640
<v Speaker 3>they've kept them going. They haven't dismissed anything. They're litigating

0:02:32.680 --> 0:02:36.960
<v Speaker 3>them just like they were before, in fact, emphasizing the

0:02:37.000 --> 0:02:40.840
<v Speaker 3>continuity of the position of departments taking in some ways

0:02:40.960 --> 0:02:45.080
<v Speaker 3>maybe not surprising given sort of the maybe populism streak

0:02:45.639 --> 0:02:49.480
<v Speaker 3>in the Trump administration, but in some way surprising because

0:02:49.800 --> 0:02:52.799
<v Speaker 3>you know, they have moved closer and closer to put

0:02:52.840 --> 0:02:54.760
<v Speaker 3>up or shut up. You know, you have to remedy

0:02:54.800 --> 0:02:57.160
<v Speaker 3>these things. So that's where we are with those. The

0:02:57.200 --> 0:02:59.960
<v Speaker 3>other side was the mergers, and out of the box,

0:03:00.440 --> 0:03:05.160
<v Speaker 3>they filed the case HP's acquisition of Juniper Networks, and

0:03:05.200 --> 0:03:08.880
<v Speaker 3>it was the first case they filed, and it looked

0:03:08.919 --> 0:03:11.840
<v Speaker 3>like a Biden complaint. I think people were saying, look,

0:03:11.840 --> 0:03:14.200
<v Speaker 3>what they're going to do is they'll they'll pull the

0:03:14.280 --> 0:03:18.120
<v Speaker 3>merger guidelines that were issued in twenty twenty three by

0:03:18.160 --> 0:03:22.960
<v Speaker 3>the Biden FTC and Justice Department widely viewed as pretty

0:03:23.000 --> 0:03:26.560
<v Speaker 3>aggressive in terms of enforcement. Yeah, maybe they're going to

0:03:26.600 --> 0:03:30.720
<v Speaker 3>pull those and pull back from merger enforcement. But what

0:03:30.760 --> 0:03:34.239
<v Speaker 3>we saw in that first case was they file the case,

0:03:34.680 --> 0:03:38.200
<v Speaker 3>they cite the twenty twenty three guidelines, they follow them,

0:03:38.640 --> 0:03:41.640
<v Speaker 3>They say, hey, this case is presumptively bad because it

0:03:41.720 --> 0:03:45.680
<v Speaker 3>increases concentration, and you know, they're trying to suppress a

0:03:45.720 --> 0:03:50.840
<v Speaker 3>more innovative firm. WHOA. That seems to me surprising, So

0:03:51.560 --> 0:03:55.640
<v Speaker 3>I thought, well, maybe it's something in the changeover. The

0:03:55.720 --> 0:03:58.880
<v Speaker 3>person has signed it, maybe doesn't understand what he's done,

0:03:59.240 --> 0:04:01.800
<v Speaker 3>or who knows. You know, we're not well supervised. But

0:04:02.040 --> 0:04:06.000
<v Speaker 3>they kept it going. And so the next question is, well,

0:04:06.400 --> 0:04:08.040
<v Speaker 3>what are they going to do with these cases? And

0:04:08.080 --> 0:04:11.120
<v Speaker 3>you're right now we're seeing a string of dismissals.

0:04:11.480 --> 0:04:16.279
<v Speaker 2>Let's look closer at the Hewlett Packard acquisition of Juniper Networks.

0:04:16.720 --> 0:04:17.960
<v Speaker 2>What was the settlement like?

0:04:18.080 --> 0:04:18.400
<v Speaker 1>There?

0:04:19.160 --> 0:04:22.680
<v Speaker 3>The Justice Department announced the settlement. So on a Saturday

0:04:23.440 --> 0:04:27.720
<v Speaker 3>Hot news, Yeah, Saturday, June the twenty eighth, they announced

0:04:27.720 --> 0:04:32.159
<v Speaker 3>the settlement of HPE Juniper. This is a fourteen billion

0:04:32.240 --> 0:04:36.800
<v Speaker 3>dollar acquisition. So the settlement that they explain, and this

0:04:36.920 --> 0:04:39.880
<v Speaker 3>isn't over yet because the judge has to approve it

0:04:39.920 --> 0:04:45.040
<v Speaker 3>spins off some part of HPE that hasn't been mentioned.

0:04:45.200 --> 0:04:48.240
<v Speaker 3>It's some part that does networks for small business. So

0:04:48.279 --> 0:04:50.840
<v Speaker 3>it looks like small ball. You know, it's not even

0:04:50.880 --> 0:04:55.039
<v Speaker 3>clear how that's going to affect competition. Remember, they pleaded

0:04:55.040 --> 0:04:59.720
<v Speaker 3>that this was highly concentrated industry, anti competitive, strong head

0:04:59.720 --> 0:05:03.040
<v Speaker 3>to head competition between the two firms. What's the other part.

0:05:03.360 --> 0:05:07.240
<v Speaker 3>The other part is a compulsory license to the software

0:05:07.560 --> 0:05:12.000
<v Speaker 3>that Juniper has called missed. Now, a compulsory license means

0:05:12.400 --> 0:05:16.000
<v Speaker 3>actually the merge firm gets to keep it. They don't

0:05:16.040 --> 0:05:17.800
<v Speaker 3>have to get rid of it, they don't have to

0:05:17.839 --> 0:05:21.720
<v Speaker 3>divest it. All they have to do is license it,

0:05:21.800 --> 0:05:26.360
<v Speaker 3>for which they'll get some money, but non exclusively, so

0:05:26.400 --> 0:05:29.200
<v Speaker 3>they get to keep it. And then do they have

0:05:29.440 --> 0:05:33.599
<v Speaker 3>a potential licensee for this, No, they don't seem to

0:05:33.600 --> 0:05:36.200
<v Speaker 3>have anyone. They are going to appoint a trustee. So

0:05:36.320 --> 0:05:39.320
<v Speaker 3>who's going to take this license? Is as valuable? Isn't

0:05:39.360 --> 0:05:42.600
<v Speaker 3>it not explained? And they say maybe a second party

0:05:42.640 --> 0:05:45.080
<v Speaker 3>will show up. Well, a second party shows up, says

0:05:45.080 --> 0:05:48.640
<v Speaker 3>the decree with a bid of over eight million dollars,

0:05:49.000 --> 0:05:52.320
<v Speaker 3>they can have a license to eight million dollars. Might

0:05:52.360 --> 0:05:55.800
<v Speaker 3>be a second bid. Remember this acquisition is a fourteen

0:05:55.920 --> 0:06:00.320
<v Speaker 3>billion dollars acquisitions. So is a non exclusive life sense

0:06:00.400 --> 0:06:04.240
<v Speaker 3>to this software valuable? Will someone come up and take it?

0:06:04.720 --> 0:06:08.760
<v Speaker 3>Who might it be? No idea? So that's where we are.

0:06:09.360 --> 0:06:12.520
<v Speaker 3>Looks to me like we can call it, shall we say,

0:06:12.640 --> 0:06:16.599
<v Speaker 3>a really weak remedy for a case that's pleaded that

0:06:16.680 --> 0:06:22.480
<v Speaker 3>look very strong. So this is your insight into where

0:06:22.800 --> 0:06:26.479
<v Speaker 3>merger enforcement might be going. The first case out of

0:06:26.480 --> 0:06:31.159
<v Speaker 3>the box looks strong when it's pleaded. Looks to me

0:06:31.240 --> 0:06:34.320
<v Speaker 3>at the moment, Hey, maybe more information will turn up

0:06:34.560 --> 0:06:37.520
<v Speaker 3>pretty weak on the remedy that they go forward to

0:06:37.560 --> 0:06:40.000
<v Speaker 3>allow the merger to go forward. And this seems to

0:06:40.000 --> 0:06:43.160
<v Speaker 3>be the mantra that, you know, we've got these strong

0:06:43.160 --> 0:06:47.119
<v Speaker 3>guidelines on the books that look very pro enforcement. Maybe

0:06:47.160 --> 0:06:51.640
<v Speaker 3>we'll file a case and then have a weak remedy.

0:06:52.160 --> 0:06:56.159
<v Speaker 3>Or here's another good part, maybe we won't file a

0:06:56.240 --> 0:07:00.599
<v Speaker 3>case at all and just let these things go through.

0:07:02.240 --> 0:07:07.800
<v Speaker 2>The Omnicon deal creates the world's largest advertising agency, and

0:07:07.839 --> 0:07:13.640
<v Speaker 2>they got FDC approval by agreeing to stop withholding online

0:07:13.760 --> 0:07:17.720
<v Speaker 2>ads for political reasons, so no economic concessions.

0:07:18.440 --> 0:07:21.400
<v Speaker 3>You know. Another tactic is just to let it go through.

0:07:21.520 --> 0:07:26.160
<v Speaker 3>And in the advertising agency creates the largest advertising agency ever.

0:07:26.280 --> 0:07:29.960
<v Speaker 3>And for an administration that talks about how horrible concentration is,

0:07:30.280 --> 0:07:34.200
<v Speaker 3>you have to wonder exactly what's going on. There is

0:07:34.520 --> 0:07:39.600
<v Speaker 3>one more moler I guess interesting case in any trust

0:07:39.600 --> 0:07:44.200
<v Speaker 3>division allowing a merger to go forward. And it's a

0:07:44.360 --> 0:07:50.480
<v Speaker 3>cellular phone merger and it's T Mobile acquiring a smaller

0:07:50.520 --> 0:07:55.000
<v Speaker 3>company called US Cellular, and that they led through without anything.

0:07:55.600 --> 0:08:00.000
<v Speaker 3>But interestingly, they filed something that's called a closing statement

0:08:00.240 --> 0:08:04.080
<v Speaker 3>explaining why they closed the case. This is pretty rare

0:08:04.560 --> 0:08:07.440
<v Speaker 3>for the Justice Department to do or the FTC. They

0:08:07.440 --> 0:08:10.760
<v Speaker 3>don't usually explain why they don't do something, and there's

0:08:10.760 --> 0:08:13.200
<v Speaker 3>a lot of controversy about this, but this one they explained.

0:08:13.480 --> 0:08:15.120
<v Speaker 3>And I urge people to go and read it because

0:08:15.120 --> 0:08:18.000
<v Speaker 3>it's sort of funny. It's like, I think of you

0:08:18.000 --> 0:08:19.960
<v Speaker 3>remember the old Chinese fortune cookies.

0:08:20.120 --> 0:08:21.720
<v Speaker 1>Oh yeah, you know, right.

0:08:21.880 --> 0:08:24.000
<v Speaker 3>And you always thought you'd open one up whether the

0:08:24.000 --> 0:08:28.000
<v Speaker 3>fortune would be help I'm being held prisoner in a

0:08:28.160 --> 0:08:31.680
<v Speaker 3>Chinese fortune cookie factory. Well this was sort of like that,

0:08:32.320 --> 0:08:36.720
<v Speaker 3>because the closing statement was almost a statement about why

0:08:36.760 --> 0:08:40.160
<v Speaker 3>this merger was so any competitive and why it's so

0:08:40.360 --> 0:08:45.080
<v Speaker 3>needed to be stopped that we didn't do anything. And

0:08:45.640 --> 0:08:48.000
<v Speaker 3>what's also sort of great about it, and it is

0:08:48.080 --> 0:08:50.520
<v Speaker 3>from the closing statement, this is the Justice Department writing

0:08:50.720 --> 0:08:55.760
<v Speaker 3>the company. The Justice Department understood the unmet needs of customers. Okay,

0:08:55.760 --> 0:08:57.719
<v Speaker 3>this is the company that's going to be acquired, the

0:08:57.720 --> 0:09:02.320
<v Speaker 3>company that understood the un met needs of customers, right,

0:09:02.440 --> 0:09:08.840
<v Speaker 3>and they called their customers farm town, frugal and heartland families.

0:09:09.160 --> 0:09:12.559
<v Speaker 3>All right, it's just great. And these in some ways

0:09:12.600 --> 0:09:15.959
<v Speaker 3>would sound like you know, JD. Vans wrote this, and

0:09:16.520 --> 0:09:19.800
<v Speaker 3>they are the consumers you would think this administration purports

0:09:19.840 --> 0:09:22.439
<v Speaker 3>to want to protect. And instead what they're going to

0:09:22.480 --> 0:09:25.600
<v Speaker 3>be allowed to do is to join the Sprint network,

0:09:25.600 --> 0:09:27.600
<v Speaker 3>which presumably they decide not to do in the first

0:09:27.600 --> 0:09:31.439
<v Speaker 3>place when they signed up with US Cellular. And then

0:09:31.520 --> 0:09:34.680
<v Speaker 3>it goes on to lament the concentration in the cell

0:09:34.679 --> 0:09:38.640
<v Speaker 3>phone market. It's a big three and we don't seem,

0:09:38.960 --> 0:09:42.400
<v Speaker 3>you know, to be doing anything about this, we the

0:09:42.559 --> 0:09:47.520
<v Speaker 3>Justice Department. It is truly a curious document. Final curious

0:09:47.559 --> 0:09:51.120
<v Speaker 3>point on this Sprint T Mobile merger was supposed to

0:09:51.240 --> 0:09:55.800
<v Speaker 3>establish a fourth carrier, you know, through Dish. So Sprint

0:09:55.840 --> 0:09:59.600
<v Speaker 3>had to give Boost Mobile system to Dish to help

0:09:59.640 --> 0:10:03.560
<v Speaker 3>them stay I was a fourth carrier. No hint in

0:10:03.720 --> 0:10:09.120
<v Speaker 3>this statement that there's a fourth carrier that might emerge,

0:10:09.200 --> 0:10:11.920
<v Speaker 3>even though the Just Department is at this very moment

0:10:12.360 --> 0:10:17.480
<v Speaker 3>supervising the decree that they entered that purported to establish

0:10:18.360 --> 0:10:23.320
<v Speaker 3>or hope to establish a fourth carrier. So this is curious,

0:10:23.559 --> 0:10:29.800
<v Speaker 3>bizarre prisoner in the Fortune Cookie factory material. But again

0:10:29.880 --> 0:10:32.800
<v Speaker 3>it's sort of this why we see these problems, But hey,

0:10:33.760 --> 0:10:35.679
<v Speaker 3>I don't think we're going to do anything about it.

0:10:36.400 --> 0:10:38.720
<v Speaker 2>Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue

0:10:38.720 --> 0:10:43.079
<v Speaker 2>this conversation with Professor Harry First of NYU Law School.

0:10:43.640 --> 0:10:48.680
<v Speaker 2>Why did antitrust enforces during the Biden administration stop making deals?

0:10:50.440 --> 0:10:54.360
<v Speaker 2>Early on Chrump's head of the FTC echoed the tough

0:10:54.440 --> 0:10:58.640
<v Speaker 2>cop messaging of his controversial predecessor, Lena Kahan.

0:10:59.480 --> 0:11:02.959
<v Speaker 1>I think it's important to proceed like the FTC is

0:11:03.000 --> 0:11:06.080
<v Speaker 1>a vigilant cop on the beat. We're surveying the markets.

0:11:06.080 --> 0:11:09.040
<v Speaker 1>We're looking for competition problems, We're looking for violation of

0:11:09.120 --> 0:11:11.960
<v Speaker 1>the consumer protection laws, and if we think they're there,

0:11:12.000 --> 0:11:14.520
<v Speaker 1>we're going to go to court. But most importantly, if

0:11:14.559 --> 0:11:17.840
<v Speaker 1>we don't think that there are problems, it's really important

0:11:17.840 --> 0:11:19.520
<v Speaker 1>for the FTC to get out of the way.

0:11:19.920 --> 0:11:23.760
<v Speaker 2>And those comps have cleared several multi billion dollar deals

0:11:24.120 --> 0:11:27.360
<v Speaker 2>without much fuss. I've been talking to anti trust law

0:11:27.400 --> 0:11:31.480
<v Speaker 2>expert Harry First, a professor at NYU Law School, Harry

0:11:31.520 --> 0:11:37.200
<v Speaker 2>is Ferguson's tough talk, just talk court, all talk.

0:11:38.160 --> 0:11:40.840
<v Speaker 3>No, the idea that they're going to resolve it through,

0:11:41.240 --> 0:11:44.200
<v Speaker 3>you know, a deal is not all talk. Apparently, that

0:11:44.400 --> 0:11:48.040
<v Speaker 3>is action. You either don't do anything, you know, the

0:11:48.080 --> 0:11:52.400
<v Speaker 3>cell phone acquisition, or you do something weak the HP

0:11:53.080 --> 0:11:56.120
<v Speaker 3>Tuna Per Networks merger. I mean, you can always make

0:11:56.160 --> 0:11:58.959
<v Speaker 3>a deal if you're willing to give up a lot.

0:11:59.440 --> 0:12:02.080
<v Speaker 3>That's not hard to do. There was reason why the

0:12:02.120 --> 0:12:06.000
<v Speaker 3>Biden administration forcers said we're backing away from all these

0:12:06.040 --> 0:12:11.240
<v Speaker 3>deals because the remedies that had been agreed in so

0:12:11.440 --> 0:12:15.280
<v Speaker 3>many of these deals turned out to be ineffective. There

0:12:15.320 --> 0:12:18.679
<v Speaker 3>were studies of this that you know, you'd say, oh boy,

0:12:18.760 --> 0:12:21.280
<v Speaker 3>this will re establish competition in the market, and then

0:12:21.320 --> 0:12:25.200
<v Speaker 3>it didn't. And so what happened that people basically went

0:12:25.280 --> 0:12:28.880
<v Speaker 3>forward and we lost competition. You know, every once in

0:12:28.920 --> 0:12:31.760
<v Speaker 3>a while to be some good remedy. But basically the

0:12:31.880 --> 0:12:35.840
<v Speaker 3>argument was, you know, it's really hard to create competition

0:12:36.080 --> 0:12:39.320
<v Speaker 3>through these government decrees. The better thing is not to

0:12:39.360 --> 0:12:43.480
<v Speaker 3>let competition go away by allowing the merger. So, you know,

0:12:43.600 --> 0:12:47.240
<v Speaker 3>that was the basis of the policy in the Justice Department,

0:12:47.240 --> 0:12:51.280
<v Speaker 3>the FTC. Not that they didn't settle cases. They didn't,

0:12:52.040 --> 0:12:55.520
<v Speaker 3>and not all of them were actually effective. They weren't,

0:12:55.840 --> 0:13:01.720
<v Speaker 3>but the overall thrust was we're doing we're not settling,

0:13:02.320 --> 0:13:06.760
<v Speaker 3>And then parties were put together deals knowing that there

0:13:06.840 --> 0:13:10.240
<v Speaker 3>was a greater chance of litigation. Now it's gone the

0:13:10.320 --> 0:13:14.000
<v Speaker 3>other way, and you know, I think that this is

0:13:14.080 --> 0:13:17.480
<v Speaker 3>what a deal making the administration would want, And it

0:13:17.520 --> 0:13:20.760
<v Speaker 3>looks to me like that's where they're going always with

0:13:20.920 --> 0:13:27.560
<v Speaker 3>the ability to bring suit in a case that suits them,

0:13:27.880 --> 0:13:31.280
<v Speaker 3>because the twenty twenty frequentidelines have a lot of discretion

0:13:31.400 --> 0:13:35.040
<v Speaker 3>in them, and the flip side of we'll negotiate a

0:13:35.080 --> 0:13:38.960
<v Speaker 3>lot is but maybe not with you. So we have

0:13:39.080 --> 0:13:41.240
<v Speaker 3>yet to see with whom they are tough.

0:13:42.280 --> 0:13:45.200
<v Speaker 2>That was my next question. Are there certain kinds of

0:13:45.280 --> 0:13:47.840
<v Speaker 2>deals you think they won't approve?

0:13:48.400 --> 0:13:51.840
<v Speaker 3>Well, I think there's a push pull in both agencies

0:13:52.520 --> 0:13:56.760
<v Speaker 3>for actually following the law and saying, gee, this violates

0:13:56.760 --> 0:14:01.560
<v Speaker 3>the statue and maybe listening to their master. And you know,

0:14:01.640 --> 0:14:03.920
<v Speaker 3>I don't really understand why they didn't bring suit in

0:14:04.040 --> 0:14:07.640
<v Speaker 3>this T Mobile US cellular case. I don't know what's

0:14:07.679 --> 0:14:11.800
<v Speaker 3>going on there. So maybe someone was interested in having

0:14:11.880 --> 0:14:15.040
<v Speaker 3>it go forward. I don't know. So I think that

0:14:15.400 --> 0:14:18.360
<v Speaker 3>you know, there are a lot of serious anti trust

0:14:18.360 --> 0:14:23.400
<v Speaker 3>people in both agencies. People generally credit Gail Slater as being,

0:14:24.040 --> 0:14:26.600
<v Speaker 3>you know, a real anti trust person, not a hack

0:14:26.640 --> 0:14:30.560
<v Speaker 3>anti trust person, you know, but in the end, they

0:14:30.600 --> 0:14:34.560
<v Speaker 3>really do serve in this administration very much. I think

0:14:34.600 --> 0:14:37.320
<v Speaker 3>it's the will of those above them. Certainly that's true

0:14:37.360 --> 0:14:39.520
<v Speaker 3>for Andrew Ferguson, or at least how he perceives it.

0:14:39.840 --> 0:14:43.360
<v Speaker 3>And you know, maybe just some extent to Gail Slater,

0:14:43.840 --> 0:14:47.960
<v Speaker 3>but maybe this closing statement was the best she could

0:14:48.000 --> 0:14:50.880
<v Speaker 3>do to get her voice on the record that this

0:14:50.960 --> 0:14:54.560
<v Speaker 3>is a bad merger that should have been blocked.

0:14:54.760 --> 0:15:00.440
<v Speaker 2>So Slater at Justice and Ferguson at the FTC, see,

0:15:00.920 --> 0:15:04.600
<v Speaker 2>are they in tune or do they have the same goals?

0:15:05.400 --> 0:15:08.280
<v Speaker 3>Well, you know, I love the in tune idea. So

0:15:08.440 --> 0:15:13.360
<v Speaker 3>the question is what's the tune the no, no no. I

0:15:13.360 --> 0:15:16.360
<v Speaker 3>think that's a great question because if the tune is

0:15:16.400 --> 0:15:19.880
<v Speaker 3>what the piper calls, and the piper is the president,

0:15:20.240 --> 0:15:24.480
<v Speaker 3>Andrew Ferguson seems to be way in tune, and really,

0:15:25.280 --> 0:15:27.200
<v Speaker 3>just from what you read, I don't know him personally,

0:15:27.640 --> 0:15:33.840
<v Speaker 3>eager eager to please either the president or those with

0:15:33.960 --> 0:15:37.800
<v Speaker 3>the presidents here. And you know, he seemed to have

0:15:37.840 --> 0:15:41.520
<v Speaker 3>been running for chair strongly of the Federal Trade Commission

0:15:41.560 --> 0:15:45.760
<v Speaker 3>before he was appointed. And as you read what he writes, it's,

0:15:46.080 --> 0:15:49.520
<v Speaker 3>you know, very pro Trump. I mean, he came out

0:15:49.520 --> 0:15:52.680
<v Speaker 3>in favor of firing his Democratic colleagues on the Federal

0:15:52.720 --> 0:15:56.760
<v Speaker 3>Trade Commission. Really, why why does he do that? He's saying, okay,

0:15:56.800 --> 0:15:59.880
<v Speaker 3>and don't forget President, you can fire me too. Why

0:16:00.120 --> 0:16:00.600
<v Speaker 3>did you do that?

0:16:00.840 --> 0:16:00.960
<v Speaker 2>So?

0:16:01.320 --> 0:16:03.640
<v Speaker 3>I think gel Slator may be a little different. She

0:16:03.960 --> 0:16:07.359
<v Speaker 3>did advise jd Vance, you know, during the campaign apparently,

0:16:07.400 --> 0:16:11.000
<v Speaker 3>and she just seems to me to be more centered

0:16:11.080 --> 0:16:14.320
<v Speaker 3>as an any trust person. But you know, I don't

0:16:14.320 --> 0:16:19.200
<v Speaker 3>think in the end, you know, she's less subject to commands,

0:16:19.240 --> 0:16:22.200
<v Speaker 3>and she's in a in an organization where the lines

0:16:22.200 --> 0:16:26.240
<v Speaker 3>of command are much clearer. You know, there's deputy Attorney

0:16:26.240 --> 0:16:29.200
<v Speaker 3>General above her and the Attorney general above her, the

0:16:29.680 --> 0:16:32.800
<v Speaker 3>clear lines of authority. So she in the end will

0:16:33.400 --> 0:16:36.280
<v Speaker 3>you know, have to follow that tune. But she may

0:16:36.320 --> 0:16:40.200
<v Speaker 3>have more ability to maneuver, or maybe more willing to.

0:16:40.280 --> 0:16:41.960
<v Speaker 3>I just don't know, Harry.

0:16:42.000 --> 0:16:46.840
<v Speaker 2>The first Trump administration was that good for deals.

0:16:48.240 --> 0:16:52.640
<v Speaker 3>Generally, Yeah, I think generally Making Del Raheem, who was

0:16:52.680 --> 0:16:56.240
<v Speaker 3>head of any trust divisions, the people at the Federal

0:16:56.280 --> 0:17:00.480
<v Speaker 3>Trade Commission were sort of more shall we say, normal

0:17:00.520 --> 0:17:04.520
<v Speaker 3>anti trust enforcers in the mold of people who were

0:17:05.000 --> 0:17:11.040
<v Speaker 3>willing to take settlements and not so clearly politically in tune.

0:17:11.240 --> 0:17:14.280
<v Speaker 3>People thought that maybe making Delwraheem was a little more

0:17:14.320 --> 0:17:16.320
<v Speaker 3>politically in tune, and I'm not sure he did some

0:17:16.400 --> 0:17:19.480
<v Speaker 3>things that looked like that FTC not so much. Apparently

0:17:20.080 --> 0:17:22.760
<v Speaker 3>Trump threatened to fire the chair a couple of times.

0:17:23.280 --> 0:17:26.280
<v Speaker 3>So I think there was more independence, more if you

0:17:26.320 --> 0:17:31.080
<v Speaker 3>could call it that normalcy, and the ags were more normal.

0:17:31.280 --> 0:17:34.199
<v Speaker 3>I mean, Bill Barr was, for whatever you think of

0:17:34.280 --> 0:17:36.600
<v Speaker 3>him one way or the other. You know, he was

0:17:36.720 --> 0:17:40.080
<v Speaker 3>a sort of a normal lawyer and you know, not

0:17:40.400 --> 0:17:44.040
<v Speaker 3>a sick ephant to the president. So it was a

0:17:44.040 --> 0:17:47.040
<v Speaker 3>different time, it was things were done differently. I think

0:17:47.200 --> 0:17:52.040
<v Speaker 3>this administration, from all you can see, everything is just different.

0:17:52.600 --> 0:17:55.679
<v Speaker 2>So do you think that deal makers are happy with

0:17:55.760 --> 0:17:56.840
<v Speaker 2>the Trump administration?

0:17:57.359 --> 0:18:01.600
<v Speaker 3>Oh? Sure, yeah, I think they're they're glad to be

0:18:02.359 --> 0:18:09.240
<v Speaker 3>finished with the Biden administration. And Jonathan Canter and Lena Khan, yeah,

0:18:09.280 --> 0:18:11.560
<v Speaker 3>and feel that they're now in more of a let's

0:18:11.560 --> 0:18:15.560
<v Speaker 3>make a deal and maybe more able to bring political

0:18:15.600 --> 0:18:19.320
<v Speaker 3>pressure to bear if they can't make a deal, you know,

0:18:19.320 --> 0:18:22.359
<v Speaker 3>if staff resists and so forth, you know, they'll still

0:18:22.400 --> 0:18:25.080
<v Speaker 3>have to work through the staff. And you know, people

0:18:25.080 --> 0:18:28.760
<v Speaker 3>who are still there and haven't been laid off, fired

0:18:28.960 --> 0:18:33.240
<v Speaker 3>or left resigned. You know, staff knows what they're in for.

0:18:33.359 --> 0:18:34.760
<v Speaker 3>They've got new bosses.

0:18:35.200 --> 0:18:38.399
<v Speaker 2>And are there any interesting cases that you're watching that

0:18:38.440 --> 0:18:39.520
<v Speaker 2>we haven't talked about.

0:18:40.080 --> 0:18:45.400
<v Speaker 3>Well, this is something that the Justice Department filed recently

0:18:45.440 --> 0:18:50.880
<v Speaker 3>called a statement of interest, where they decide to poke

0:18:50.960 --> 0:18:54.520
<v Speaker 3>their nose into private any trust litigation and say what

0:18:54.600 --> 0:18:57.040
<v Speaker 3>the position in the United States is and the public

0:18:57.080 --> 0:19:02.680
<v Speaker 3>interest is. And they've chosen a case where the lead

0:19:02.760 --> 0:19:08.120
<v Speaker 3>plaintiff is a group called Children's Health Defense. So Children's

0:19:08.119 --> 0:19:11.359
<v Speaker 3>Health Defense is an anti vaxed group that had been

0:19:11.400 --> 0:19:15.480
<v Speaker 3>run by RFK Junior, and they filed private suit against

0:19:15.960 --> 0:19:20.880
<v Speaker 3>let's see Washington Post, Reuter's ap claiming that they've been

0:19:22.520 --> 0:19:27.679
<v Speaker 3>feeding information or agreeing and information and feeding it to

0:19:27.760 --> 0:19:32.479
<v Speaker 3>the platforms like Facebook so that these groups would be

0:19:32.640 --> 0:19:38.800
<v Speaker 3>deep platformed for misinformation. And the information apparently centers around

0:19:39.080 --> 0:19:42.800
<v Speaker 3>the idea that COVID vaccines were terrible COVID you know,

0:19:42.880 --> 0:19:47.040
<v Speaker 3>all the COVID conspiracy. It's an odd group of plaintiffs,

0:19:47.280 --> 0:19:52.000
<v Speaker 3>an odd piece of litigation because it's hard to see

0:19:52.040 --> 0:19:55.920
<v Speaker 3>what the anti trust injury is what you know, where

0:19:56.000 --> 0:19:59.800
<v Speaker 3>competition has been affected. But the Justice Department just thought

0:19:59.840 --> 0:20:04.919
<v Speaker 3>us statement of interest on the plaintiff side. And you know,

0:20:05.040 --> 0:20:08.320
<v Speaker 3>you look at all the things that the Justice Department

0:20:08.400 --> 0:20:12.359
<v Speaker 3>could do, and you say, so, why did you do

0:20:12.480 --> 0:20:15.000
<v Speaker 3>that in a case that I mean, I would say

0:20:15.000 --> 0:20:18.080
<v Speaker 3>in any trust case if it's marginal, that's sort of

0:20:18.200 --> 0:20:22.439
<v Speaker 3>a nice thing to call it. And part of the

0:20:22.560 --> 0:20:25.520
<v Speaker 3>problem that the Justice Department has in this statement of

0:20:25.560 --> 0:20:29.240
<v Speaker 3>interest is if you credit their theory a little bit

0:20:29.240 --> 0:20:33.400
<v Speaker 3>too much, they could cast a pall on what are

0:20:33.400 --> 0:20:42.840
<v Speaker 3>called standard setting organizations that help standardize interfaces in computers, telecommunications,

0:20:42.840 --> 0:20:46.720
<v Speaker 3>all sorts of technical things, because that involves sort of

0:20:46.760 --> 0:20:51.680
<v Speaker 3>similar behavior, except that as real economic consequences. So the

0:20:51.800 --> 0:20:54.960
<v Speaker 3>paper that they filed is to my reading, sort of

0:20:55.080 --> 0:20:58.720
<v Speaker 3>odd because they've got to make it a real legal brief.

0:20:58.800 --> 0:21:01.680
<v Speaker 3>On the other hand, you know, they talk about the

0:21:01.720 --> 0:21:07.080
<v Speaker 3>marketplace of ideas and discrimination and quote Clarence Thomas. So

0:21:07.680 --> 0:21:11.280
<v Speaker 3>this is an interesting case to watch because again, you know,

0:21:11.800 --> 0:21:14.000
<v Speaker 3>what are they doing by weighing in on this case.

0:21:14.040 --> 0:21:18.000
<v Speaker 3>There's a lot of work to do, and you know,

0:21:18.200 --> 0:21:22.200
<v Speaker 3>usually private plane ifs are left to pursue private cases,

0:21:22.640 --> 0:21:26.040
<v Speaker 3>they get treble damages if they win. But here just

0:21:26.080 --> 0:21:28.960
<v Speaker 3>the department feels the need to weigh in and say

0:21:29.280 --> 0:21:29.800
<v Speaker 3>this might be.

0:21:29.760 --> 0:21:30.359
<v Speaker 1>A good case.

0:21:30.840 --> 0:21:33.520
<v Speaker 2>It doesn't sound like you agree with them. Harry, thanks

0:21:33.520 --> 0:21:35.880
<v Speaker 2>so much, Always a pleasure to have you on. That's

0:21:35.880 --> 0:21:39.480
<v Speaker 2>Professor Harry First of NYU Law School. And that's it

0:21:39.560 --> 0:21:42.119
<v Speaker 2>for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you

0:21:42.160 --> 0:21:44.600
<v Speaker 2>can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg

0:21:44.720 --> 0:21:48.320
<v Speaker 2>Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

0:21:48.520 --> 0:21:53.560
<v Speaker 2>and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

0:21:53.960 --> 0:21:56.560
<v Speaker 2>and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

0:21:56.600 --> 0:22:00.520
<v Speaker 2>weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm Jum Grosso

0:22:00.640 --> 0:22:07.280
<v Speaker 2>and you're listening to Bloomberg. Mmhmm