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

2
00:00:09,960 --> 00:00:13,280
Speaker 2: Look, I screwed up like I would CEO. I had

3
00:00:13,320 --> 00:00:16,080
Speaker 2: a responsibility here. I had a responsibility to be on

4
00:00:16,160 --> 00:00:20,000
Speaker 2: top of what was going on on the exchange. I

5
00:00:20,040 --> 00:00:21,400
Speaker 2: wish I had done much better at that.

6
00:00:22,079 --> 00:00:27,120
Speaker 1: Sam Bankman Fried accepted responsibility for ftx's collapse in his

7
00:00:27,200 --> 00:00:30,680
Speaker 1: so called apology tour in November of twenty twenty two,

8
00:00:31,040 --> 00:00:33,440
Speaker 1: but when he took the stand at his fraud trial,

9
00:00:33,920 --> 00:00:37,720
Speaker 1: he danced around his answers and appeared vague and evasive

10
00:00:37,880 --> 00:00:41,400
Speaker 1: in a painstaking cross examination, so much so that his

11
00:00:41,520 --> 00:00:45,160
Speaker 1: own lawyer says Bankman Freed was the worst witness he's

12
00:00:45,280 --> 00:00:49,120
Speaker 1: ever seen. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Ava Benni Morrison,

13
00:00:49,159 --> 00:00:52,240
Speaker 1: who spoke to attorney David Mills, the behind the scenes

14
00:00:52,400 --> 00:00:56,240
Speaker 1: architect of Bankman Freed's defense at trial. Ava tell us

15
00:00:56,280 --> 00:00:58,000
Speaker 1: about David Mills. Who is he.

16
00:00:58,600 --> 00:01:03,400
Speaker 3: David Mills is a Stamford Ball professor, a longtime White

17
00:01:03,440 --> 00:01:06,399
Speaker 3: Cole lawyer who is also best friends with Sam Bateman

18
00:01:06,440 --> 00:01:10,960
Speaker 3: Fred's parents, Barbara and Joe. They're also Stanford Ball professors,

19
00:01:11,080 --> 00:01:16,120
Speaker 3: and he came into SBF case to be the legal strategist,

20
00:01:16,280 --> 00:01:19,000
Speaker 3: though he was sort of directing the approach that trial

21
00:01:19,040 --> 00:01:22,960
Speaker 3: attorneys should take, suggesting different strategies in terms of dealing

22
00:01:22,959 --> 00:01:25,560
Speaker 3: with the chargers, the defense, the kind of case that

23
00:01:25,560 --> 00:01:26,600
Speaker 3: they would make at the trial.

24
00:01:27,080 --> 00:01:32,039
Speaker 1: Law isn't his only career. He has quite an expansive resume.

25
00:01:32,720 --> 00:01:35,640
Speaker 3: That's right. He's a very interesting guy and he has

26
00:01:35,720 --> 00:01:39,840
Speaker 3: done a lot of different roles and cases throughout his career.

27
00:01:40,240 --> 00:01:42,679
Speaker 3: On top of being an attorney, he's also a managing

28
00:01:42,760 --> 00:01:47,160
Speaker 3: director at Fortress. He's also a general counsel at a

29
00:01:47,440 --> 00:01:51,280
Speaker 3: quite reputable Silicon Valley design firm run by the very

30
00:01:51,280 --> 00:01:54,880
Speaker 3: well known former chief designer at Apple, Johnny Ives. He's

31
00:01:54,920 --> 00:01:59,360
Speaker 3: also been advisor to the VC firm Benchmark, when it

32
00:01:59,440 --> 00:02:03,760
Speaker 3: was trying who out the uber CEO Travis Kalanick a

33
00:02:03,760 --> 00:02:06,640
Speaker 3: few years ago. So he has his things in a

34
00:02:06,680 --> 00:02:11,040
Speaker 3: lot of different pies, but he is relatively unknown. Most

35
00:02:11,080 --> 00:02:13,760
Speaker 3: people outside of the industry don't really know who he is.

36
00:02:14,160 --> 00:02:15,960
Speaker 3: People that I spoke to for this story that he's

37
00:02:16,040 --> 00:02:18,320
Speaker 3: very humble. He likes to keep his head down and

38
00:02:18,360 --> 00:02:20,799
Speaker 3: just do the work. He doesn't really seek the limeline

39
00:02:20,840 --> 00:02:21,160
Speaker 3: at all.

40
00:02:21,440 --> 00:02:24,640
Speaker 1: He's also been involved in a lot of pro bono

41
00:02:24,800 --> 00:02:28,720
Speaker 1: efforts for criminal defendants, and when you interviewed him, he

42
00:02:28,800 --> 00:02:31,600
Speaker 1: had a cap on with the number three, four, one

43
00:02:31,840 --> 00:02:35,240
Speaker 1: nine representing the number of people he's helped to get

44
00:02:35,280 --> 00:02:37,160
Speaker 1: out of prison exactly.

45
00:02:37,200 --> 00:02:40,720
Speaker 3: This is something he's probably most proud of. He was

46
00:02:40,919 --> 00:02:44,800
Speaker 3: a major financial backer and driver of the effort to

47
00:02:44,840 --> 00:02:48,400
Speaker 3: overturn California's three strikes for that was a law that

48
00:02:48,560 --> 00:02:51,400
Speaker 3: put people in prison for life on their third conviction,

49
00:02:51,560 --> 00:02:54,480
Speaker 3: no matter how big or small that third conviction was.

50
00:02:54,960 --> 00:02:58,720
Speaker 3: So he worked with students at Stanford Law in twentent

51
00:02:59,040 --> 00:03:02,840
Speaker 3: twelve to change that law, which ended up getting thousands

52
00:03:02,880 --> 00:03:04,440
Speaker 3: of people released from prison.

53
00:03:05,000 --> 00:03:09,200
Speaker 1: He told you that he realized right away that it

54
00:03:09,200 --> 00:03:13,840
Speaker 1: would be an uphill battle defending bankman Freed because lawyers

55
00:03:13,880 --> 00:03:15,760
Speaker 1: turned him down exactly.

56
00:03:15,880 --> 00:03:19,560
Speaker 3: He'd had a bit of an idea about FTX from

57
00:03:19,680 --> 00:03:23,920
Speaker 3: Joe's Sam Bakemont, Freed's father. They had some informal conversations

58
00:03:23,919 --> 00:03:27,800
Speaker 3: about how the crypto exchange was going. Joe thinking about

59
00:03:27,840 --> 00:03:30,919
Speaker 3: going over and working for FIFDX full time. But when

60
00:03:30,960 --> 00:03:34,560
Speaker 3: there was a run on a bank at FTX in

61
00:03:34,800 --> 00:03:39,080
Speaker 3: November twenty twenty two, so called David essentially for advice.

62
00:03:39,440 --> 00:03:42,840
Speaker 3: David's response was, Sam needs a lawyer right away. So

63
00:03:42,960 --> 00:03:46,360
Speaker 3: David started calling around different terms looking for someone to

64
00:03:46,360 --> 00:03:49,320
Speaker 3: try and represent Sam Bankman Freed. But he said a

65
00:03:49,320 --> 00:03:51,120
Speaker 3: lot of people didn't want to touch the case. He

66
00:03:51,200 --> 00:03:55,760
Speaker 3: described Sam as most hated person in America behind Donald Trump.

67
00:03:56,040 --> 00:03:58,880
Speaker 3: He finally settled on two trial attorneys in New York,

68
00:03:59,040 --> 00:04:01,840
Speaker 3: Mark Owen An christ Evdel who ended up taking the

69
00:04:01,920 --> 00:04:02,960
Speaker 3: case right through a trial.

70
00:04:03,560 --> 00:04:06,720
Speaker 1: And what was his role in the trial because he

71
00:04:06,880 --> 00:04:08,560
Speaker 1: didn't appear before the judge.

72
00:04:08,880 --> 00:04:11,600
Speaker 3: That's right, He was there for most of the trial,

73
00:04:12,120 --> 00:04:15,280
Speaker 3: but he took a bit of a behind this scene role.

74
00:04:15,360 --> 00:04:19,160
Speaker 3: He described himself as the legal strategist, So he was

75
00:04:19,279 --> 00:04:22,520
Speaker 3: doing a lot of the strategizing with the trial attorneys

76
00:04:22,560 --> 00:04:26,039
Speaker 3: about Sam Bateman Freed's defense, what arguments they should make,

77
00:04:26,120 --> 00:04:28,880
Speaker 3: how they should deal with some of the charges that

78
00:04:29,000 --> 00:04:32,560
Speaker 3: were filed against Sam Bateman Freed after he was extradited

79
00:04:32,880 --> 00:04:35,680
Speaker 3: back from the Bahamas late last year. Some of those

80
00:04:35,760 --> 00:04:39,279
Speaker 3: charges ended up actually being severed and kicked down the

81
00:04:39,360 --> 00:04:43,320
Speaker 3: road for a potentially second trial next year. So he

82
00:04:43,520 --> 00:04:46,560
Speaker 3: was sort of the key architect behind that strategy.

83
00:04:47,480 --> 00:04:50,680
Speaker 1: He told you that he doesn't believe the trial.

84
00:04:50,480 --> 00:04:52,479
Speaker 3: Was fair, that's right.

85
00:04:52,640 --> 00:04:53,280
Speaker 1: He said.

86
00:04:53,360 --> 00:04:57,279
Speaker 3: He believed that Sam is innocent because he didn't form

87
00:04:57,320 --> 00:05:00,159
Speaker 3: the intempt to do anything wrong, which is obviously a

88
00:05:00,240 --> 00:05:04,160
Speaker 3: key element of proving fraud. He said that the pre

89
00:05:04,240 --> 00:05:07,880
Speaker 3: trial motions, though, the orders that the judge handed down

90
00:05:08,160 --> 00:05:11,200
Speaker 3: before the trial even got started, really put the defense

91
00:05:11,200 --> 00:05:13,719
Speaker 3: at a disadvantaged so they weren't allowed to haul a

92
00:05:13,800 --> 00:05:17,000
Speaker 3: number of expert witnesses, so they couldn't really rely on

93
00:05:17,040 --> 00:05:19,880
Speaker 3: the defense that Sam was acting on the advice of

94
00:05:19,960 --> 00:05:21,719
Speaker 3: lawyers and doing a lot of the things that the

95
00:05:21,720 --> 00:05:25,240
Speaker 3: prosecution said was wrong. He said, from that point on

96
00:05:25,480 --> 00:05:27,960
Speaker 3: he realized the case was essentially unwinnable.

97
00:05:29,080 --> 00:05:32,760
Speaker 1: And you and I have discussed Sam beckman Fried's decision

98
00:05:32,880 --> 00:05:37,440
Speaker 1: to take the witness down. He said that after the

99
00:05:37,440 --> 00:05:42,920
Speaker 1: prosecution's case, SBF really had no choice but to testify.

100
00:05:42,880 --> 00:05:46,400
Speaker 3: Exactly, He said, after those pretrial motions and hearing the

101
00:05:46,560 --> 00:05:51,320
Speaker 3: damning testimony from some of sammcman Fried's former friends and

102
00:05:51,360 --> 00:05:54,440
Speaker 3: fellow executives, that Sam really had no other choice but

103
00:05:54,800 --> 00:05:58,880
Speaker 3: to testify himself. Mill said it was his idea and

104
00:05:59,120 --> 00:06:02,880
Speaker 3: his strategy for Sam to get up there and say, yes,

105
00:06:02,960 --> 00:06:05,560
Speaker 3: I did everything that you said I did, and I

106
00:06:05,640 --> 00:06:08,640
Speaker 3: made all of these statements that, yes, they were conflicting

107
00:06:08,880 --> 00:06:12,200
Speaker 3: after bankruptcy last year, but I was doing my best

108
00:06:12,320 --> 00:06:14,840
Speaker 3: to look after customers and I was trying to save

109
00:06:14,920 --> 00:06:18,039
Speaker 3: their money. But he didn't do that. He seemed to

110
00:06:18,040 --> 00:06:21,880
Speaker 3: be okay and coherent and clear on direct examination, but

111
00:06:22,120 --> 00:06:25,080
Speaker 3: when he was under cross examination, he came across as

112
00:06:25,080 --> 00:06:27,320
Speaker 3: a little bit of basive. He was quibbling with the

113
00:06:27,360 --> 00:06:31,640
Speaker 3: prosecutors questioning. It seemed like he wouldn't answer sort of

114
00:06:31,720 --> 00:06:34,640
Speaker 3: simple questions about whether he said something or he didn't.

115
00:06:34,920 --> 00:06:38,440
Speaker 3: And Mills was pretty candid in his assessment of Sam

116
00:06:38,600 --> 00:06:41,760
Speaker 3: under cross examination, saying he was probably the worst witness

117
00:06:41,839 --> 00:06:44,080
Speaker 3: he's ever seen under cross.

118
00:06:44,080 --> 00:06:46,159
Speaker 1: I assume they prepped him, but did he talk about

119
00:06:46,200 --> 00:06:47,320
Speaker 1: how they prepped him at all?

120
00:06:47,880 --> 00:06:49,960
Speaker 3: I asked that question. I said, well, isn't at your

121
00:06:50,160 --> 00:06:55,599
Speaker 3: job Sam ahead of his trial for this very situation.

122
00:06:56,200 --> 00:06:58,200
Speaker 3: He said that while there was a lot of preparation

123
00:06:58,320 --> 00:07:01,920
Speaker 3: done for his direct examination, and it was really difficult

124
00:07:02,000 --> 00:07:06,440
Speaker 3: to prepare him adequately because he was in prison, his

125
00:07:06,520 --> 00:07:09,240
Speaker 3: battle was revoked just before trial. There were a lot

126
00:07:09,279 --> 00:07:12,760
Speaker 3: of issues around his lawyers and getting proper access to him,

127
00:07:12,960 --> 00:07:15,200
Speaker 3: and Mill also said that if he had all of

128
00:07:15,240 --> 00:07:17,560
Speaker 3: the resources and money in the world, he would have

129
00:07:17,640 --> 00:07:20,520
Speaker 3: hired a different lawyer who wasn't involved in the case

130
00:07:20,800 --> 00:07:24,080
Speaker 3: to go through a mock cross examination with Sam, but

131
00:07:24,160 --> 00:07:26,920
Speaker 3: they didn't do that. So he put it down to

132
00:07:27,280 --> 00:07:30,160
Speaker 3: the lack of access to Sam in prison and the

133
00:07:30,280 --> 00:07:32,680
Speaker 3: lack of money. Essentially, he told you.

134
00:07:32,680 --> 00:07:36,280
Speaker 1: That bankman Fried went off script when he took the stand.

135
00:07:36,880 --> 00:07:37,920
Speaker 1: What did he mean by that?

136
00:07:38,160 --> 00:07:41,679
Speaker 3: Mill said that it was his strategy and he wanted

137
00:07:41,720 --> 00:07:44,640
Speaker 3: Sam to get up there and admit to everything that

138
00:07:45,000 --> 00:07:47,920
Speaker 3: the prosecution and the witnesses said that he did. They

139
00:07:47,960 --> 00:07:51,360
Speaker 3: wanted him to just admit to all of the public statements,

140
00:07:51,440 --> 00:07:54,600
Speaker 3: the tweets, and the media interviews and all of those

141
00:07:54,880 --> 00:07:57,320
Speaker 3: different things that were on the public record in the

142
00:07:57,320 --> 00:07:59,960
Speaker 3: context of yes, I said these things, but I was

143
00:08:00,320 --> 00:08:03,640
Speaker 3: trying my best in really difficult circumstances to do the

144
00:08:03,680 --> 00:08:08,119
Speaker 3: best for customers. But he didn't do that. Instead, Sam

145
00:08:08,160 --> 00:08:11,560
Speaker 3: got up there and said time and time again he

146
00:08:11,600 --> 00:08:15,000
Speaker 3: couldn't recall things that the prosecution said that he had

147
00:08:15,040 --> 00:08:19,240
Speaker 3: said that he couldn't recall certain conversations with witnesses. So

148
00:08:19,320 --> 00:08:22,480
Speaker 3: there was a disconnect there between what Mills wanted him

149
00:08:22,520 --> 00:08:25,400
Speaker 3: to do, and what his strategy was and what Sam did.

150
00:08:26,120 --> 00:08:31,000
Speaker 1: What's astonishing is that Mills thinks that even if Sam

151
00:08:31,040 --> 00:08:34,760
Speaker 1: bankman Fried had performed better on the stand, a guilty

152
00:08:34,880 --> 00:08:36,079
Speaker 1: verdict was inevitable.

153
00:08:36,679 --> 00:08:40,559
Speaker 3: Yes, Mills said that he thought a guilty verdict was inevitable,

154
00:08:40,640 --> 00:08:44,960
Speaker 3: but the trial wasn't there. This circles back to Mills

155
00:08:45,040 --> 00:08:48,600
Speaker 3: referring to the pretrial motions that essentially whittled down the

156
00:08:48,640 --> 00:08:51,560
Speaker 3: defense case to a case that was very thin. He

157
00:08:51,640 --> 00:08:56,400
Speaker 3: also thought that the testimony from Sam bankman Fried's former

158
00:08:56,480 --> 00:09:00,600
Speaker 3: friends Gary Wong, Caroline Ellison, and the Shad Singh were

159
00:09:00,640 --> 00:09:04,320
Speaker 3: pretty powerful and it was difficult to go up against those.

160
00:09:05,040 --> 00:09:06,800
Speaker 1: Did he come to the trial every day?

161
00:09:07,520 --> 00:09:09,679
Speaker 3: Mills wasn't there every day, but I would say he

162
00:09:09,720 --> 00:09:12,040
Speaker 3: was there for about eighty percent of the time, and

163
00:09:12,080 --> 00:09:14,720
Speaker 3: he would sit in a row that was reserved for

164
00:09:14,760 --> 00:09:17,880
Speaker 3: Sam Bateman Freed's family. During the breaks, he was often

165
00:09:17,920 --> 00:09:20,800
Speaker 3: talking to Sam's parents, Barbara and Joe. Sometimes he would

166
00:09:20,840 --> 00:09:24,200
Speaker 3: go up and confer with the trial attorneys as well,

167
00:09:24,520 --> 00:09:25,320
Speaker 3: just at the table.

168
00:09:25,600 --> 00:09:28,360
Speaker 1: Mills wasn't there for the jury verdict. He said he'd

169
00:09:28,360 --> 00:09:29,520
Speaker 1: had enough. When did he.

170
00:09:29,600 --> 00:09:35,280
Speaker 3: Leave Towards the end Mills left. It was probably during

171
00:09:35,559 --> 00:09:39,680
Speaker 3: the closing statements that the prosecution and the defense were making,

172
00:09:40,040 --> 00:09:43,040
Speaker 3: and Mills wasn't there when the jury handed down his verdict.

173
00:09:43,720 --> 00:09:45,520
Speaker 1: Why he got involved in this is that he was

174
00:09:45,679 --> 00:09:51,400
Speaker 1: close friends with Sam Bakmanfried's parents. Did something happen that

175
00:09:52,240 --> 00:09:54,880
Speaker 1: has caused a breach in that relationship?

176
00:09:55,360 --> 00:09:58,319
Speaker 3: Yes, Mill thinks that this case and the verdict against

177
00:09:58,320 --> 00:10:01,400
Speaker 3: Sam Bankman Bread has certainly had impact on his friendship

178
00:10:01,679 --> 00:10:04,640
Speaker 3: with Barbara and Joe. Neil said that he took on

179
00:10:04,720 --> 00:10:07,959
Speaker 3: this case out of a favor to Sambakman Bree's parents,

180
00:10:08,200 --> 00:10:10,920
Speaker 3: as well as an interest in being involved in a

181
00:10:11,040 --> 00:10:14,600
Speaker 3: really novel and high profile case. Mill said that he

182
00:10:14,760 --> 00:10:18,800
Speaker 3: was concerned that parents who think that their child hasn't

183
00:10:18,840 --> 00:10:21,960
Speaker 3: done anything wrong will look for someone to blame, and

184
00:10:22,000 --> 00:10:24,920
Speaker 3: that he was in their line of sight. He also

185
00:10:24,960 --> 00:10:27,560
Speaker 3: said that he didn't think their friendship would recover. We

186
00:10:27,600 --> 00:10:30,640
Speaker 3: actually went to Barbara and Joe and asked them what

187
00:10:30,760 --> 00:10:34,720
Speaker 3: they thought of Mills and his comments. They responded and said,

188
00:10:34,760 --> 00:10:38,440
Speaker 3: we love David Mills and we're eternally grateful for everything

189
00:10:38,520 --> 00:10:40,040
Speaker 3: that he has done for us.

190
00:10:40,320 --> 00:10:43,640
Speaker 1: This really struck me. He said, I'm not going to

191
00:10:43,640 --> 00:10:47,000
Speaker 1: get myself emotionally involved on a very deep personal level

192
00:10:47,040 --> 00:10:51,200
Speaker 1: in a case like this again. And he's rethinking his

193
00:10:51,360 --> 00:10:54,560
Speaker 1: future and criminal law exactly.

194
00:10:54,640 --> 00:10:58,600
Speaker 3: He seems like someone who just throws absolutely everything into

195
00:10:58,640 --> 00:11:00,480
Speaker 3: a case once he signs on it.

196
00:11:00,800 --> 00:11:00,960
Speaker 1: You know.

197
00:11:01,000 --> 00:11:03,280
Speaker 3: He told us he often talks to his wife to

198
00:11:03,520 --> 00:11:06,760
Speaker 3: almost get her permission and her support to take on

199
00:11:06,920 --> 00:11:09,840
Speaker 3: a client because he just gives his entire life to it.

200
00:11:10,400 --> 00:11:12,640
Speaker 3: So that's what he did in this case. And I

201
00:11:12,640 --> 00:11:16,160
Speaker 3: think it had the added complexity of a friendship there.

202
00:11:16,480 --> 00:11:20,520
Speaker 3: And he found the whole experience very demanding, very exhausting,

203
00:11:20,920 --> 00:11:23,080
Speaker 3: and he just doesn't want to do another criminal law

204
00:11:23,120 --> 00:11:24,040
Speaker 3: case like it again.

205
00:11:24,559 --> 00:11:27,200
Speaker 1: So he's not going to be involved in the appeal.

206
00:11:27,280 --> 00:11:29,680
Speaker 3: Then, that's what he said. He doesn't want to be

207
00:11:29,720 --> 00:11:32,760
Speaker 3: involved in the appeal. He feels like he's done his

208
00:11:32,840 --> 00:11:36,600
Speaker 3: bit and he's ready to just take it down a

209
00:11:36,600 --> 00:11:39,040
Speaker 3: few notches and spend a bit more time with his family.

210
00:11:39,600 --> 00:11:42,560
Speaker 1: Do we know about Sam Beakman Free's appeal when it

211
00:11:42,600 --> 00:11:43,360
Speaker 1: will be filed.

212
00:11:43,679 --> 00:11:46,080
Speaker 3: We don't. We don't even know if they are definitely

213
00:11:46,120 --> 00:11:49,160
Speaker 3: going to appeal. They haven't filed a notice to appeal.

214
00:11:49,520 --> 00:11:53,880
Speaker 3: We understand that they've been seeking advice from different appellate lawyers,

215
00:11:53,880 --> 00:11:56,559
Speaker 3: but it's not clear yet whether they'll definitely go ahead

216
00:11:56,600 --> 00:11:59,720
Speaker 3: with us. If they do, it would likely be after sentencing.

217
00:12:00,400 --> 00:12:03,000
Speaker 1: I can't imagine that they wouldn't appeal this. They certainly

218
00:12:03,000 --> 00:12:05,880
Speaker 1: have enough issues. And when is bankmin Freed going to

219
00:12:05,920 --> 00:12:06,720
Speaker 1: be sentenced?

220
00:12:07,520 --> 00:12:10,440
Speaker 3: Send Magm and Fredy's schedule to be sentenced in late match.

221
00:12:11,080 --> 00:12:14,440
Speaker 3: He's facing decades in prison. I don't want to say

222
00:12:14,640 --> 00:12:17,240
Speaker 3: one hundred and ten years, like that's collectively, but he's

223
00:12:17,240 --> 00:12:17,959
Speaker 3: never going to face that.

224
00:12:18,360 --> 00:12:22,200
Speaker 1: Such an interesting interview, Ava, Thanks so much. That's Bloomberg

225
00:12:22,280 --> 00:12:26,720
Speaker 1: Legal reporter Ava, Benny Morrison. Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite,

226
00:12:26,880 --> 00:12:30,680
Speaker 1: won an epic court battle against Google on Monday, when

227
00:12:30,720 --> 00:12:34,160
Speaker 1: a jury decided that the search engine giant wheels illegal

228
00:12:34,200 --> 00:12:38,319
Speaker 1: monopoly power through its Android app store. Epic sued Google

229
00:12:38,360 --> 00:12:41,559
Speaker 1: and Apple in twenty twenty, accusing the tech titans of

230
00:12:41,640 --> 00:12:45,560
Speaker 1: abusing control of their respective shops selling apps and other

231
00:12:45,640 --> 00:12:50,200
Speaker 1: digital content on mobile devices. Google and Apple take percentages

232
00:12:50,240 --> 00:12:53,920
Speaker 1: of all financial transactions at their app stores, leading to

233
00:12:54,000 --> 00:12:58,760
Speaker 1: complaints by developers about an unfair tax imposed by the companies.

234
00:12:59,160 --> 00:13:02,199
Speaker 1: Joining me is anti trust expert Harry First, a professorate,

235
00:13:02,280 --> 00:13:06,080
Speaker 1: and why you law school? What did the jury decide

236
00:13:06,120 --> 00:13:06,960
Speaker 1: exactly here?

237
00:13:07,360 --> 00:13:12,000
Speaker 4: So the jury decided basically that in a number of

238
00:13:12,040 --> 00:13:17,680
Speaker 4: different ways Google abused its power to keep its monopoly

239
00:13:18,480 --> 00:13:24,480
Speaker 4: in the Google App stores or the distribution of Google apps,

240
00:13:24,840 --> 00:13:28,600
Speaker 4: and that they did a number of different ways, agreements

241
00:13:28,640 --> 00:13:33,600
Speaker 4: with the handset makers, agreements with developers, you know, making

242
00:13:33,640 --> 00:13:38,800
Speaker 4: sure that Google Play appears on every Android phone, keeping

243
00:13:39,000 --> 00:13:43,680
Speaker 4: developers from going off and developing their own app stores,

244
00:13:44,160 --> 00:13:48,240
Speaker 4: and basically requiring everyone to sort of go through this funnel.

245
00:13:48,280 --> 00:13:51,440
Speaker 4: You know, it's sort of like the old hourglasses. You know,

246
00:13:51,480 --> 00:13:56,160
Speaker 4: it goes down into the middle and everything goes through

247
00:13:56,280 --> 00:13:58,440
Speaker 4: Google Play if you want to reach someone with an

248
00:13:58,440 --> 00:14:03,000
Speaker 4: Android phone in their hands. So those little grains of sand,

249
00:14:03,280 --> 00:14:05,920
Speaker 4: thirty percent of them go into Google's pockets.

250
00:14:06,440 --> 00:14:10,360
Speaker 1: The jury deliberated for a little over three hours after

251
00:14:10,440 --> 00:14:13,520
Speaker 1: a month long trial, and came back with the unanimous verdict.

252
00:14:14,160 --> 00:14:16,840
Speaker 1: Was the evidence against Google that strong?

253
00:14:17,320 --> 00:14:21,320
Speaker 4: Well, I wasn't there, and I would have said that

254
00:14:21,400 --> 00:14:24,880
Speaker 4: is a joke. But actually, outside observers, unless they sit

255
00:14:24,920 --> 00:14:27,160
Speaker 4: there through the whole trial, don't really get the same

256
00:14:27,680 --> 00:14:30,520
Speaker 4: sense of the case that the jurors do, and jurors

257
00:14:30,560 --> 00:14:35,320
Speaker 4: take these cases very seriously, and sometimes it's maybe surprising

258
00:14:35,440 --> 00:14:39,640
Speaker 4: to people get a little cynical about things, but particularly

259
00:14:39,680 --> 00:14:42,200
Speaker 4: in federal courts, at least what I've observed and what

260
00:14:42,240 --> 00:14:48,120
Speaker 4: others have said, jurors pay attention. They sit there and

261
00:14:48,160 --> 00:14:52,080
Speaker 4: they listen hard. This is new to them in a sense.

262
00:14:52,960 --> 00:14:56,200
Speaker 4: I mean, maybe some of them have played video games

263
00:14:56,200 --> 00:14:58,640
Speaker 4: on their phones, and certainly all of them have phones,

264
00:14:59,000 --> 00:15:01,800
Speaker 4: but they listen hard. And I took a look at

265
00:15:01,920 --> 00:15:05,400
Speaker 4: the sheep with their findings and the jury form, and

266
00:15:05,440 --> 00:15:08,840
Speaker 4: I assume it was wrote in it said you're supposed

267
00:15:08,880 --> 00:15:12,360
Speaker 4: to define what the market is. And instead of the

268
00:15:12,400 --> 00:15:15,120
Speaker 4: sheet having a list of things with a checkbox you

269
00:15:15,120 --> 00:15:17,240
Speaker 4: know what it might be, it just had a box

270
00:15:17,280 --> 00:15:19,800
Speaker 4: and you had to write it in. So they wrote

271
00:15:19,840 --> 00:15:24,040
Speaker 4: in the exact right product market definition that the plaintiffs wanted.

272
00:15:24,520 --> 00:15:27,240
Speaker 4: And it's sort of to me, now maybe I'm exaggerating.

273
00:15:27,240 --> 00:15:30,720
Speaker 4: So they're a little tell that they're paying attention, you know,

274
00:15:30,840 --> 00:15:33,720
Speaker 4: I mean, this is a little bit technical language, and

275
00:15:33,760 --> 00:15:36,560
Speaker 4: they were paying attention to what was going on. There

276
00:15:36,560 --> 00:15:39,840
Speaker 4: were atmospherics in the case, of course, there always are

277
00:15:40,080 --> 00:15:45,920
Speaker 4: you know, testimony of how apparently Google made an offer

278
00:15:46,440 --> 00:15:50,000
Speaker 4: to Epic to come back on board. We'll give you

279
00:15:50,080 --> 00:15:53,080
Speaker 4: a lot of money there, you know, with some question

280
00:15:53,200 --> 00:15:56,760
Speaker 4: about how Google was dealing with its internal chats, and

281
00:15:57,080 --> 00:15:59,400
Speaker 4: you know, whether they were trying to you know, erase

282
00:15:59,440 --> 00:16:02,920
Speaker 4: the evidence as they were making it. So those may

283
00:16:02,960 --> 00:16:05,520
Speaker 4: have played a role. But I think that's a real

284
00:16:05,640 --> 00:16:13,120
Speaker 4: indication of non technical experts saying, Okay, we understand what

285
00:16:13,720 --> 00:16:17,240
Speaker 4: power is. You know what a monopoly is. We're not economists,

286
00:16:17,320 --> 00:16:21,120
Speaker 4: but we can understand this evidence and Google's it.

287
00:16:21,280 --> 00:16:23,280
Speaker 1: I mean, what was Google's defense to all this.

288
00:16:23,920 --> 00:16:26,200
Speaker 4: It's sort of a lot of defenses. The basic defenses.

289
00:16:26,800 --> 00:16:31,000
Speaker 4: We give you a great product, the whole Android ecosystem

290
00:16:31,120 --> 00:16:33,960
Speaker 4: that we've constructed, and Google Play is only part of

291
00:16:34,000 --> 00:16:40,600
Speaker 4: It is all designed to enable handset makers to offer

292
00:16:40,680 --> 00:16:45,320
Speaker 4: you alternatives to Apple. So Android phones are the competitor

293
00:16:45,720 --> 00:16:49,560
Speaker 4: to Apple, and we compete and Google Play is part

294
00:16:49,600 --> 00:16:54,160
Speaker 4: of that competition. And you know, we compete against Apple

295
00:16:54,240 --> 00:16:59,400
Speaker 4: and Apple's app store. So if our consumers aren't having

296
00:16:59,680 --> 00:17:02,960
Speaker 4: good experiences they feel, you know, the apps aren't good

297
00:17:03,080 --> 00:17:05,879
Speaker 4: or whatever it is, they may decide the next time

298
00:17:06,119 --> 00:17:09,639
Speaker 4: they change their phones it's going to be an Apple

299
00:17:09,840 --> 00:17:14,119
Speaker 4: and an iPhone, so we're under competition. We ain't no monopoles.

300
00:17:14,960 --> 00:17:18,639
Speaker 1: Epic, which brought this case, it seems to be on

301
00:17:18,680 --> 00:17:23,000
Speaker 1: a mission, lost a similar challenge to Apple's App Store

302
00:17:23,040 --> 00:17:25,960
Speaker 1: two years ago, and both companies have asked the Supreme

303
00:17:26,000 --> 00:17:30,040
Speaker 1: Court to review that. Does the judges verdict there contradict

304
00:17:30,080 --> 00:17:33,080
Speaker 1: the jury's verdict here? Or are the cases and the

305
00:17:33,119 --> 00:17:33,920
Speaker 1: facts different?

306
00:17:36,160 --> 00:17:37,960
Speaker 4: Yes, maybe or maybe yes?

307
00:17:39,880 --> 00:17:42,119
Speaker 1: So you're doing it again, Harry, you got to be

308
00:17:42,200 --> 00:17:42,640
Speaker 1: one of those.

309
00:17:43,960 --> 00:17:46,240
Speaker 4: I mean, this actually certainly is going to be one

310
00:17:46,240 --> 00:17:49,720
Speaker 4: of Google's arguments when Google appeals this case to the

311
00:17:49,800 --> 00:17:52,679
Speaker 4: Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit saying, you know,

312
00:17:52,960 --> 00:17:57,800
Speaker 4: you just affirmed this decision finding a very different statement

313
00:17:57,880 --> 00:18:02,200
Speaker 4: of what the product market is, finding that Apple and

314
00:18:02,240 --> 00:18:07,840
Speaker 4: Google compete in the distribution of gaming apps, and you

315
00:18:07,920 --> 00:18:12,359
Speaker 4: were right in the Apple case. And this case can't stand.

316
00:18:12,440 --> 00:18:16,960
Speaker 4: The jury made an error of law, reflected no doubt

317
00:18:17,000 --> 00:18:20,520
Speaker 4: in the instructions that it was given, and the verdict

318
00:18:20,560 --> 00:18:22,680
Speaker 4: can't stand. So I think that's going to be a

319
00:18:22,760 --> 00:18:24,760
Speaker 4: key part. Now, what did I say?

320
00:18:24,760 --> 00:18:25,000
Speaker 2: Maybe?

321
00:18:25,080 --> 00:18:29,040
Speaker 4: Yes, yes, maybe Google is going to right. Epic is

322
00:18:29,040 --> 00:18:31,280
Speaker 4: still argue of course that the judge was wrong in

323
00:18:31,320 --> 00:18:34,720
Speaker 4: the Apple case, but putting that to the side, we'll

324
00:18:34,800 --> 00:18:39,240
Speaker 4: argue there's differences between what Google's doing and what Apple's doing,

325
00:18:39,920 --> 00:18:44,720
Speaker 4: and the product market definition is different because other companies

326
00:18:44,840 --> 00:18:51,280
Speaker 4: actually do distribute Android compatible applications. So the product market

327
00:18:51,320 --> 00:18:56,600
Speaker 4: is not Google applications, it's Android compatible applications. So Samsung

328
00:18:57,080 --> 00:19:01,280
Speaker 4: has not very successful I gather app store. It's not

329
00:19:01,520 --> 00:19:05,359
Speaker 4: a product market definition constructed for one seller, as it

330
00:19:05,480 --> 00:19:10,160
Speaker 4: seems for Apple, since no one else can distribute applications

331
00:19:10,200 --> 00:19:14,479
Speaker 4: that will work with the Apple operating system because Apple

332
00:19:14,520 --> 00:19:19,080
Speaker 4: controls that. But Google doesn't quite control Android in the

333
00:19:19,119 --> 00:19:22,159
Speaker 4: same way, although there are probably arguments over that. So

334
00:19:22,160 --> 00:19:24,760
Speaker 4: they'll try to distinguish the facts of the case a

335
00:19:24,800 --> 00:19:28,840
Speaker 4: little bit, but at heart it seems like a problem.

336
00:19:29,119 --> 00:19:33,560
Speaker 4: Now it's the same problem that the Justice Department faces

337
00:19:33,600 --> 00:19:37,960
Speaker 4: in some sense in the Search case, because you're still

338
00:19:37,960 --> 00:19:42,760
Speaker 4: talking about that Android system and talking about distribution agreements,

339
00:19:43,119 --> 00:19:46,920
Speaker 4: the very same distribution agreements about which EPIC is complaining

340
00:19:46,960 --> 00:19:50,480
Speaker 4: in this case. The Justice Department is complaining in the

341
00:19:50,560 --> 00:19:55,440
Speaker 4: Search case distribution agreements that tie in the handset makers

342
00:19:55,600 --> 00:19:58,240
Speaker 4: who don't have any choice. Really, the Android system is

343
00:19:58,280 --> 00:20:01,600
Speaker 4: the only operating system really that they can use for

344
00:20:01,680 --> 00:20:02,240
Speaker 4: their phones.

345
00:20:03,080 --> 00:20:06,440
Speaker 1: The case isn't over because the judge has to decide

346
00:20:06,440 --> 00:20:09,760
Speaker 1: what the remedy will be. Yet, Epic didn't seek monetary

347
00:20:09,840 --> 00:20:14,159
Speaker 1: damages from Google, only a change in app store policies.

348
00:20:14,520 --> 00:20:17,560
Speaker 1: I mean, what's the range that the judge can order here?

349
00:20:18,240 --> 00:20:23,280
Speaker 4: Well, you're being more specific about what Epic seeking than

350
00:20:23,520 --> 00:20:28,040
Speaker 4: Epic was in its complaint. The remedy was stated very

351
00:20:28,080 --> 00:20:31,520
Speaker 4: generally about adjunctive relief. So it's not one hundred percent

352
00:20:31,600 --> 00:20:37,280
Speaker 4: clear what Epic wants, except to say that apparently whatever

353
00:20:37,640 --> 00:20:41,200
Speaker 4: Match was offered, Match dot Com was offered and agreed

354
00:20:41,240 --> 00:20:45,840
Speaker 4: to in its settlement. Presumably Google would have been glad

355
00:20:46,200 --> 00:20:50,280
Speaker 4: for Epic to take the same settlements it didn't, So

356
00:20:50,760 --> 00:20:56,240
Speaker 4: presumably it wants more than just that. Now, I'm not

357
00:20:56,280 --> 00:20:59,800
Speaker 4: one hundred percent clear about exactly what it wants, except

358
00:21:00,160 --> 00:21:03,840
Speaker 4: it certainly wants to be able to free itself from

359
00:21:03,880 --> 00:21:06,719
Speaker 4: the Google payment system. It wants to be able to

360
00:21:06,760 --> 00:21:11,479
Speaker 4: sell things in Fortnite through its own Fortnite app and

361
00:21:11,720 --> 00:21:14,959
Speaker 4: not have to pay a commission to Google. But exactly

362
00:21:15,760 --> 00:21:19,680
Speaker 4: you know how they want to achieve that. Technically they

363
00:21:20,080 --> 00:21:22,919
Speaker 4: don't seem to want to have some sort of a

364
00:21:23,040 --> 00:21:27,679
Speaker 4: choice thing that's within Google's control. So it's not one

365
00:21:27,720 --> 00:21:31,040
Speaker 4: hundred percent clear, but I would say this Epic did

366
00:21:31,080 --> 00:21:36,160
Speaker 4: not invest so much money in this litigation without thinking

367
00:21:36,320 --> 00:21:40,080
Speaker 4: that it could get something worth more. So whatever it wants,

368
00:21:40,240 --> 00:21:42,359
Speaker 4: they must think it will be worth a lot of

369
00:21:42,560 --> 00:21:47,080
Speaker 4: money to them, you know, going forward, because Fortnite's big business.

370
00:21:47,080 --> 00:21:50,399
Speaker 1: Coming up is a three hundred billion dollar app store

371
00:21:50,440 --> 00:21:53,720
Speaker 1: industry really in danger. I'm June Gross. When you're listening

372
00:21:53,720 --> 00:21:57,400
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg, Epic Games want a major court battle against

373
00:21:57,480 --> 00:22:01,200
Speaker 1: Google when a jury decided that the search engine giant

374
00:22:01,359 --> 00:22:05,920
Speaker 1: wields illegal monopoly power through its Android app store. I've

375
00:22:05,960 --> 00:22:09,280
Speaker 1: been talking to Professor Harry First of NYU Law School.

376
00:22:10,080 --> 00:22:13,439
Speaker 1: Some analysts have been saying that the business model in

377
00:22:13,600 --> 00:22:17,680
Speaker 1: apps that generates for Google and Apple close to two

378
00:22:17,760 --> 00:22:21,200
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollars a year is in jeopardy. Tim Sweeney,

379
00:22:21,280 --> 00:22:24,600
Speaker 1: the chief executive officer of Epic, said, the dominoes are

380
00:22:24,680 --> 00:22:28,040
Speaker 1: going to start falling here. The end of thirty percent

381
00:22:28,320 --> 00:22:31,720
Speaker 1: is in sight. Thirty percent being they charge commissions of

382
00:22:31,720 --> 00:22:34,760
Speaker 1: as much as thirty percent to software developers. Do you

383
00:22:34,800 --> 00:22:36,280
Speaker 1: think it's as big as all that.

384
00:22:36,880 --> 00:22:42,159
Speaker 4: Well maybe, I mean it's certainly epic wants to argue

385
00:22:42,240 --> 00:22:45,719
Speaker 4: that your business is about to end. You know, this

386
00:22:45,800 --> 00:22:48,960
Speaker 4: may just be a dance towards the settlement. Hard to say,

387
00:22:49,320 --> 00:22:51,879
Speaker 4: but you know, whatever it is at least for the

388
00:22:51,960 --> 00:22:56,280
Speaker 4: big players. I mean, Apple and Google have already moderated

389
00:22:56,320 --> 00:22:59,960
Speaker 4: some of their pricing for smaller developers, but the big

390
00:23:00,040 --> 00:23:04,160
Speaker 4: money appears to be, particularly with the games, which offer

391
00:23:04,320 --> 00:23:08,240
Speaker 4: things subscriptions and things that can be bought within the

392
00:23:08,520 --> 00:23:10,760
Speaker 4: app itself, and there's a lot of money in that.

393
00:23:11,080 --> 00:23:14,200
Speaker 4: So no doubt that's thirty percent is going to stick.

394
00:23:14,840 --> 00:23:17,119
Speaker 4: But what it's going to be and who's going to

395
00:23:17,200 --> 00:23:20,240
Speaker 4: control the payments, I don't know. Apparently the judge thought

396
00:23:20,440 --> 00:23:24,359
Speaker 4: that he could push the parties to a settlement to

397
00:23:24,440 --> 00:23:27,000
Speaker 4: come up with some number, you know, And part of

398
00:23:27,000 --> 00:23:30,240
Speaker 4: the question is is this a settlement that's only sort

399
00:23:30,240 --> 00:23:33,680
Speaker 4: of a one off for them, or you know, is

400
00:23:33,720 --> 00:23:37,440
Speaker 4: it going to help other developers? And I guess that's

401
00:23:37,480 --> 00:23:38,280
Speaker 4: yet to be seen.

402
00:23:38,800 --> 00:23:43,160
Speaker 1: So you refer to this, but does the verdicteer sort

403
00:23:43,160 --> 00:23:48,879
Speaker 1: of underscore a sentiment among consumers that major tech companies

404
00:23:48,920 --> 00:23:50,600
Speaker 1: have gained too much power?

405
00:23:51,240 --> 00:23:54,040
Speaker 4: Well in a way, Yes, I think so, but I

406
00:23:54,040 --> 00:23:57,280
Speaker 4: would put it this way. I think that consumers seeing

407
00:23:57,320 --> 00:24:01,320
Speaker 4: what they do and you know, the steps they take

408
00:24:01,400 --> 00:24:06,199
Speaker 4: to fend off competition and fend off the ability of

409
00:24:06,800 --> 00:24:11,879
Speaker 4: other firms to offer consumers different products, and then the

410
00:24:12,000 --> 00:24:15,280
Speaker 4: prices they charge. I think it's not just consumers saying,

411
00:24:15,560 --> 00:24:18,600
Speaker 4: oh my god, these are really big companies, by darn.

412
00:24:18,920 --> 00:24:22,200
Speaker 4: These are people saying, we're seeing some of the evidence

413
00:24:22,240 --> 00:24:24,800
Speaker 4: and you know what, all those critics have been saying this,

414
00:24:25,080 --> 00:24:27,520
Speaker 4: and they've got a point, and you know, hard to

415
00:24:27,560 --> 00:24:31,119
Speaker 4: see that they should be making so much money off

416
00:24:31,240 --> 00:24:35,000
Speaker 4: of things they don't develop, you know, just because it

417
00:24:35,080 --> 00:24:38,440
Speaker 4: has to go through their little fingers. So I think

418
00:24:38,480 --> 00:24:40,040
Speaker 4: consumers are saying the facts.

419
00:24:40,359 --> 00:24:44,000
Speaker 1: Google is going to appeal. Do you think that it'll

420
00:24:44,000 --> 00:24:47,520
Speaker 1: be a difficult appeal because of the sweeping verdict.

421
00:24:47,960 --> 00:24:51,840
Speaker 4: Well, it's a different kind of appeal because they don't

422
00:24:51,840 --> 00:24:55,200
Speaker 4: have an opinion from the judge to sort of balance

423
00:24:55,280 --> 00:24:59,080
Speaker 4: off of and to focus on. And you know, once

424
00:24:59,119 --> 00:25:02,600
Speaker 4: a jury fine something as a fact, it's hard to

425
00:25:02,640 --> 00:25:05,679
Speaker 4: go around that. On the other hand, what they're going

426
00:25:05,760 --> 00:25:09,199
Speaker 4: to argue is straight issues of law, and you know,

427
00:25:09,280 --> 00:25:13,119
Speaker 4: they have jury instructions that the judge submitted, so they

428
00:25:13,200 --> 00:25:16,000
Speaker 4: have something written they can say, look, this was wrong.

429
00:25:16,080 --> 00:25:19,720
Speaker 4: The jury may have found that under what they were

430
00:25:19,760 --> 00:25:23,280
Speaker 4: told to look for, that's a market and Google is

431
00:25:23,359 --> 00:25:26,560
Speaker 4: a monopolist, but that was the wrong definition of market.

432
00:25:26,840 --> 00:25:30,520
Speaker 1: It almost seems like an anti trust revolution for Google.

433
00:25:30,720 --> 00:25:33,440
Speaker 1: I mean, they have this case, they have the Landmark

434
00:25:33,600 --> 00:25:38,160
Speaker 1: anti trust case you mentioned in DC. The Justice Department

435
00:25:38,200 --> 00:25:43,640
Speaker 1: has been investigating Apple's app store practices since twenty nineteen.

436
00:25:44,280 --> 00:25:47,160
Speaker 1: Is it an anti trust revolution? Looking at it from

437
00:25:47,240 --> 00:25:50,280
Speaker 1: the viewpoint of a professor of anti trust.

438
00:25:50,600 --> 00:25:54,520
Speaker 4: Well, from professor of anti trust, I think, gee, what

439
00:25:54,720 --> 00:25:57,439
Speaker 4: took everyone so long catched up to this? You know,

440
00:25:57,560 --> 00:26:01,800
Speaker 4: if you think about using anti trust against major economic powerhouses,

441
00:26:01,840 --> 00:26:05,480
Speaker 4: and particularly in the tech space, it took two decades

442
00:26:05,520 --> 00:26:10,600
Speaker 4: between Microsoft and filing cases against the major tech platforms.

443
00:26:11,119 --> 00:26:14,879
Speaker 4: So in that sense, it is the revolution not taking

444
00:26:14,920 --> 00:26:19,000
Speaker 4: place in the streets. It's taking place in courtrooms. So

445
00:26:19,560 --> 00:26:23,520
Speaker 4: it's pretty amazing in that sense. And I would add

446
00:26:23,520 --> 00:26:26,119
Speaker 4: in one other case to this, which is the ad

447
00:26:26,200 --> 00:26:30,400
Speaker 4: Tech case against Google that the Justice Department is filed.

448
00:26:30,800 --> 00:26:33,880
Speaker 4: And the reason why I just mentioned that is that

449
00:26:33,960 --> 00:26:37,000
Speaker 4: will also be tried before a jury because the Justice

450
00:26:37,040 --> 00:26:42,040
Speaker 4: Department is asking for money damages because the federal government

451
00:26:42,160 --> 00:26:45,360
Speaker 4: is an advertiser. So it's a way both to get

452
00:26:45,400 --> 00:26:50,720
Speaker 4: money back for taxpayers, but also a way to have

453
00:26:50,800 --> 00:26:53,480
Speaker 4: a case try before the jury instead of a judge.

454
00:26:53,760 --> 00:26:57,240
Speaker 4: And this may be a little cautionary tale for Google

455
00:26:57,280 --> 00:26:58,160
Speaker 4: about that case.

456
00:26:58,320 --> 00:27:00,800
Speaker 1: Yeah, do you think that the Justice important because they

457
00:27:00,840 --> 00:27:03,600
Speaker 1: haven't fared well in front of some of the judges

458
00:27:03,960 --> 00:27:06,320
Speaker 1: that they want a jury or just they would generally

459
00:27:06,400 --> 00:27:07,560
Speaker 1: want a jury anyway.

460
00:27:07,960 --> 00:27:11,760
Speaker 4: Well, to put it in context, the Justice Department has

461
00:27:11,880 --> 00:27:16,760
Speaker 4: had the authority to seek treble damages since nineteen ninety

462
00:27:17,000 --> 00:27:21,120
Speaker 4: and single damages since nineteen fifty five. I don't think

463
00:27:21,160 --> 00:27:25,159
Speaker 4: they filed a dozen cases all that time, and recent

464
00:27:25,240 --> 00:27:28,960
Speaker 4: cases that they had filed really were sort of odd cases,

465
00:27:29,320 --> 00:27:33,120
Speaker 4: so they've almost never used this. I think the culture

466
00:27:33,160 --> 00:27:37,040
Speaker 4: has not been to you know, be suing for damages.

467
00:27:37,480 --> 00:27:41,439
Speaker 4: And I'm not sure why they chose the strategy, but

468
00:27:41,760 --> 00:27:44,360
Speaker 4: it may be because they did want to get out

469
00:27:44,440 --> 00:27:47,360
Speaker 4: from just you know, having to present their case before

470
00:27:47,400 --> 00:27:51,280
Speaker 4: a judge whose you know, judges are conservative, that's what

471
00:27:51,400 --> 00:27:55,320
Speaker 4: they are, and this gives them a chance to tell

472
00:27:55,359 --> 00:27:59,400
Speaker 4: the story to you know, twelve citizens very powerful.

473
00:27:59,640 --> 00:28:02,640
Speaker 1: I OWE always enjoy our conversations, Harry, thanks so much

474
00:28:02,680 --> 00:28:05,760
Speaker 1: for coming on the show. That's Professor Harry First of

475
00:28:06,000 --> 00:28:09,040
Speaker 1: NYU Law School, and that's it for this edition of

476
00:28:09,040 --> 00:28:11,720
Speaker 1: The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the

477
00:28:11,760 --> 00:28:15,000
Speaker 1: latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can

478
00:28:15,000 --> 00:28:19,240
Speaker 1: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot

479
00:28:19,280 --> 00:28:23,439
Speaker 1: bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law, And remember to

480
00:28:23,480 --> 00:28:26,520
Speaker 1: tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten

481
00:28:26,600 --> 00:28:30,360
Speaker 1: pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening

482
00:28:30,480 --> 00:28:31,119
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg