WEBVTT - Google Accused of Abusing Monopoly Power

0:00:00.160 --> 0:00:05.560
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Masser from Bloomberg Radio. So, Paul,

0:00:05.600 --> 0:00:07.160
<v Speaker 1>no doubt about it. This was one of our big

0:00:07.200 --> 0:00:10.280
<v Speaker 1>stories that hit earlier this morning, and we've been covering

0:00:10.320 --> 0:00:12.520
<v Speaker 1>it all day, so we do want to get to

0:00:12.600 --> 0:00:14.440
<v Speaker 1>the latest on this story. We're talking about the US

0:00:14.520 --> 0:00:19.279
<v Speaker 1>Justice Department filing an antitrust lawsuit against Alphabet's Google, accusing

0:00:19.280 --> 0:00:22.520
<v Speaker 1>it of abusing its monopoly in search and in the

0:00:22.520 --> 0:00:26.720
<v Speaker 1>most significant antitrust action against an American company in more

0:00:26.760 --> 0:00:29.080
<v Speaker 1>than two decades. So let's get to the legal and

0:00:29.160 --> 0:00:32.159
<v Speaker 1>business sides of this story. We've got two great voices,

0:00:32.240 --> 0:00:35.960
<v Speaker 1>Jennifer Ree, senior litigation analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence on the

0:00:35.960 --> 0:00:38.800
<v Speaker 1>phone from Cleveland, and a voice very familiar to our

0:00:38.840 --> 0:00:41.199
<v Speaker 1>Business Week audience, Michael Moe, co founder of gs V

0:00:41.320 --> 0:00:44.880
<v Speaker 1>Asset Management, author of the Global Silicon Valley Handbook. Jed,

0:00:44.960 --> 0:00:48.320
<v Speaker 1>Let's start with you. So, what's the legal case of

0:00:48.400 --> 0:00:52.680
<v Speaker 1>this story. Well, the d o J finally filed this

0:00:52.760 --> 0:00:55.360
<v Speaker 1>lawsuit that I think was no big surprise. We all

0:00:55.440 --> 0:00:58.200
<v Speaker 1>knew this was coming um and and honestly it was

0:00:58.240 --> 0:01:00.760
<v Speaker 1>a little bit more targeted and narrowed, and I expected

0:01:00.800 --> 0:01:04.080
<v Speaker 1>it to be What essentially it accuses Google of doing

0:01:04.200 --> 0:01:07.080
<v Speaker 1>is what we call an anti trust exclusive dealing. Now,

0:01:07.120 --> 0:01:09.520
<v Speaker 1>it runs through a whole series of different kinds of

0:01:09.560 --> 0:01:13.640
<v Speaker 1>agreements and payments that Google makes two device manufacturers and

0:01:13.720 --> 0:01:19.039
<v Speaker 1>wireless carriers and browser developers like Mozilla to secure the

0:01:19.040 --> 0:01:23.000
<v Speaker 1>default status for Google's general search engine and sometimes prohibit

0:01:23.080 --> 0:01:26.680
<v Speaker 1>these third parties from dealing with some of Google's competitors.

0:01:26.680 --> 0:01:29.880
<v Speaker 1>And in antitrust we'd call it exclusive dealing, which is

0:01:29.959 --> 0:01:33.399
<v Speaker 1>sometimes illegal and sometimes not. But when a company that

0:01:33.440 --> 0:01:37.119
<v Speaker 1>has monopoly status, and in this case, it's probably fairly

0:01:37.160 --> 0:01:39.920
<v Speaker 1>easy to show that Google does of a monopoly at

0:01:40.000 --> 0:01:43.720
<v Speaker 1>least in general online search, and they foreclose they close

0:01:43.840 --> 0:01:47.720
<v Speaker 1>up more than about of the available outlets out there

0:01:47.720 --> 0:01:51.600
<v Speaker 1>to its rivals through exclusive agreements, it can be anti competitive.

0:01:52.160 --> 0:01:54.240
<v Speaker 1>So I think the trick here is going to be

0:01:54.360 --> 0:01:57.480
<v Speaker 1>to show that foreclosure for the d o J, because

0:01:57.480 --> 0:02:00.680
<v Speaker 1>even though Google enterst these agreements, it does really different

0:02:00.840 --> 0:02:04.720
<v Speaker 1>users from changing the default through a tension. Hey, Michael,

0:02:04.760 --> 0:02:06.640
<v Speaker 1>let's look at it from the business side. Here, Jen

0:02:06.760 --> 0:02:08.960
<v Speaker 1>laid out some of the legal issues from the business side.

0:02:08.960 --> 0:02:11.840
<v Speaker 1>I'm looking at the stock goes up one point four today,

0:02:11.919 --> 0:02:14.480
<v Speaker 1>not exactly. The market kind of running for the hills here.

0:02:14.840 --> 0:02:18.880
<v Speaker 1>What do you make of this, Well, it's it's a

0:02:18.880 --> 0:02:24.079
<v Speaker 1>little bit from business standpoint um and from a traditional

0:02:24.120 --> 0:02:26.959
<v Speaker 1>antitrust standpoint, it's sort of hard to figure out. You

0:02:27.080 --> 0:02:29.480
<v Speaker 1>kind of scratch your head because you're saying, who's the

0:02:29.560 --> 0:02:33.760
<v Speaker 1>victim here? I mean, consumers love Google. They vote with

0:02:33.800 --> 0:02:37.440
<v Speaker 1>their feet, you know, that's the antitrust is about, uh,

0:02:37.520 --> 0:02:41.639
<v Speaker 1>you know, protecting the consumer and promoting innovation. And Internet

0:02:41.639 --> 0:02:44.560
<v Speaker 1>economics are about disproportion gained the leader in the category.

0:02:44.600 --> 0:02:47.400
<v Speaker 1>That's true almost everywhere. And what that means for the

0:02:47.440 --> 0:02:51.320
<v Speaker 1>consumer is they get better algorithms. The scale that they get,

0:02:51.680 --> 0:02:55.080
<v Speaker 1>the AI that they have provides better search results, so

0:02:55.240 --> 0:02:58.320
<v Speaker 1>you know, the search product is you know, it's hard

0:02:58.360 --> 0:03:01.079
<v Speaker 1>to argue that, you know, the the economics of the

0:03:01.120 --> 0:03:04.400
<v Speaker 1>marketplace don't benefit the consumer. I think what this ultimately

0:03:04.400 --> 0:03:07.160
<v Speaker 1>really gets about as the data, because it's you know,

0:03:07.240 --> 0:03:09.800
<v Speaker 1>the data is where the all the value is and

0:03:09.919 --> 0:03:12.600
<v Speaker 1>the business model Google has has a really advantaged way

0:03:12.639 --> 0:03:17.400
<v Speaker 1>to get very valuable data. So well, it's interesting, Jen,

0:03:17.520 --> 0:03:19.399
<v Speaker 1>So Michael brings up a good point. I mean, who

0:03:19.480 --> 0:03:23.600
<v Speaker 1>is the victim here? It's a very good point because

0:03:23.600 --> 0:03:26.120
<v Speaker 1>Google could will likely claim here that look, the reason

0:03:26.200 --> 0:03:28.560
<v Speaker 1>we have our position and everybody uses us as their

0:03:28.560 --> 0:03:31.240
<v Speaker 1>search engine is because we're just better than everybody else,

0:03:31.440 --> 0:03:33.799
<v Speaker 1>and users could switch over to being or to order

0:03:33.840 --> 0:03:35.800
<v Speaker 1>one of the others as their default, and they don't

0:03:35.840 --> 0:03:38.840
<v Speaker 1>because they like us better. Um, what the d J

0:03:39.040 --> 0:03:41.760
<v Speaker 1>has claimed is that Google has secured this position and

0:03:42.040 --> 0:03:44.880
<v Speaker 1>it hasn't really allowed any of these other search engines

0:03:44.920 --> 0:03:47.480
<v Speaker 1>to get to a scale where they could be as

0:03:47.560 --> 0:03:50.800
<v Speaker 1>good as Google, because you need to tale, you need access,

0:03:50.880 --> 0:03:53.480
<v Speaker 1>and you need that size, and you need to users

0:03:53.560 --> 0:03:56.520
<v Speaker 1>in order to be as good as Google is. And

0:03:56.560 --> 0:03:59.480
<v Speaker 1>they claim the DMJ claims that what Google has done

0:03:59.520 --> 0:04:03.640
<v Speaker 1>is reduced quality, innovation, and choice. And interestingly, they haven't

0:04:03.760 --> 0:04:06.960
<v Speaker 1>talked about price because obviously search for consumers is free,

0:04:07.760 --> 0:04:10.480
<v Speaker 1>we're not paying for it, and the typical anti trust harm,

0:04:10.520 --> 0:04:14.040
<v Speaker 1>which is increased price, is not really in here. Um,

0:04:14.240 --> 0:04:17.159
<v Speaker 1>it's sort of inn a side bar, but but really

0:04:17.200 --> 0:04:19.520
<v Speaker 1>they're talking about quality, innovation, and choice, and that is

0:04:19.560 --> 0:04:21.839
<v Speaker 1>another aspect that's going to make this case a bit

0:04:21.920 --> 0:04:27.119
<v Speaker 1>challenging because those are not channelally typically anti trust harms

0:04:27.160 --> 0:04:29.479
<v Speaker 1>without also some sort of an increase in price. Or

0:04:29.560 --> 0:04:33.000
<v Speaker 1>they're harm to consumers. And and the point that Michael's

0:04:33.040 --> 0:04:37.279
<v Speaker 1>made the consumers don't reappear, at least superficially to be

0:04:37.360 --> 0:04:39.760
<v Speaker 1>harmed and have a great product, It's a very good

0:04:39.800 --> 0:04:44.320
<v Speaker 1>one in terms of Google pretending to see So, Michael,

0:04:44.920 --> 0:04:50.200
<v Speaker 1>this isn't Microsoft correct Soft you know, used its advantaged

0:04:50.240 --> 0:04:55.159
<v Speaker 1>position on the desktop to basically keep innovation um away

0:04:55.400 --> 0:04:58.120
<v Speaker 1>and you know, and and guage customers. I mean to

0:04:58.240 --> 0:05:01.719
<v Speaker 1>be blunt, you know, this is a whole different dynamic,

0:05:01.880 --> 0:05:04.400
<v Speaker 1>as I said, you know, for the custom of consumer.

0:05:05.040 --> 0:05:07.760
<v Speaker 1>You know, you basically you're getting an exceptional product for

0:05:07.839 --> 0:05:12.920
<v Speaker 1>free and scale brings advantages to the consumer. And Google

0:05:12.960 --> 0:05:16.039
<v Speaker 1>is innovating all the time. I think when in the

0:05:16.080 --> 0:05:18.000
<v Speaker 1>world you're saying you need more choices, I don't think

0:05:18.000 --> 0:05:19.680
<v Speaker 1>people want more choices. I think what we have is

0:05:19.720 --> 0:05:22.280
<v Speaker 1>a problem of what I call infadecity. There's too much

0:05:22.320 --> 0:05:25.640
<v Speaker 1>information and so being able to have that you know,

0:05:25.800 --> 0:05:29.840
<v Speaker 1>great product at no cost. You know, who's losing here?

0:05:30.279 --> 0:05:32.600
<v Speaker 1>I do think what the interesting part here? I think

0:05:32.640 --> 0:05:35.320
<v Speaker 1>it is ultimately about the data and advantages that Google

0:05:35.360 --> 0:05:37.920
<v Speaker 1>gets from that data. But that's not what the that's

0:05:37.920 --> 0:05:40.200
<v Speaker 1>not what the you know, that's not what the anti

0:05:40.279 --> 0:05:44.839
<v Speaker 1>trust the suit said. All right, Well, you know the

0:05:44.839 --> 0:05:47.159
<v Speaker 1>one thing I do wonder, Michael, is it's Silicon Valley

0:05:47.279 --> 0:05:49.640
<v Speaker 1>like just sitting up and taking notice and saying, Okay,

0:05:49.640 --> 0:05:52.560
<v Speaker 1>maybe if it's not this one that becomes a problem,

0:05:52.640 --> 0:05:55.800
<v Speaker 1>there is something else. Because there's more and more you

0:05:55.839 --> 0:06:00.080
<v Speaker 1>know tech you know, exacts being hauled before Congress, and

0:06:00.120 --> 0:06:03.520
<v Speaker 1>there's more discussions. I mean, I'm just curious, what if

0:06:03.560 --> 0:06:08.360
<v Speaker 1>anything reverberating through Silicon Valley. Well, I think there's a reality.

0:06:08.400 --> 0:06:11.359
<v Speaker 1>I think Silicon Valley needs to be hyper sensitive to

0:06:11.440 --> 0:06:14.200
<v Speaker 1>the to the fact that a lot of the America,

0:06:14.200 --> 0:06:16.760
<v Speaker 1>a lot of the world's hurting and yet digital you know,

0:06:17.040 --> 0:06:21.000
<v Speaker 1>Silicon Valleys driving you know, Nazas up, which is basically tech,

0:06:21.080 --> 0:06:23.640
<v Speaker 1>and the Dow Jones is down for the yearth So

0:06:23.960 --> 0:06:26.240
<v Speaker 1>the bottom line is, I do think there's not a

0:06:26.279 --> 0:06:29.440
<v Speaker 1>lot of sempathy towards technology, and so I think that

0:06:29.680 --> 0:06:32.719
<v Speaker 1>you know, the strength of these businesses and the position

0:06:32.760 --> 0:06:35.120
<v Speaker 1>they have in society, they've got to be extremely careful

0:06:35.440 --> 0:06:39.279
<v Speaker 1>not to do things that are anti competitive or that

0:06:39.440 --> 0:06:42.560
<v Speaker 1>take innovation or you know, hurt the consumer. And so

0:06:42.600 --> 0:06:44.480
<v Speaker 1>I think that's the that's the delicate dance that we're

0:06:44.480 --> 0:06:47.680
<v Speaker 1>dealing with, because I do think there is a negative

0:06:47.720 --> 0:06:51.640
<v Speaker 1>sentiment about Silicon Valley just because of success. Hey, Jen,

0:06:51.800 --> 0:06:54.720
<v Speaker 1>you are my favorite anti trust lawyer, and I must

0:06:54.960 --> 0:06:57.960
<v Speaker 1>say you're the only anti trust lawyer I know. But still,

0:06:58.920 --> 0:07:02.880
<v Speaker 1>how do you think this is going to play out?

0:07:02.960 --> 0:07:05.960
<v Speaker 1>You sit there, You've seen these things for a long time.

0:07:05.960 --> 0:07:10.680
<v Speaker 1>Have you expect this high profile case will play out? Well?

0:07:10.720 --> 0:07:12.600
<v Speaker 1>The first thing is it's going to take a long time.

0:07:12.920 --> 0:07:15.160
<v Speaker 1>I mean, you know, we're saying all this news today

0:07:15.200 --> 0:07:17.320
<v Speaker 1>and there might be some for quite a while, but

0:07:17.360 --> 0:07:19.800
<v Speaker 1>then it's just going to get quiet because this case

0:07:19.920 --> 0:07:22.800
<v Speaker 1>is going to drag on um. You know, we saw

0:07:22.840 --> 0:07:27.000
<v Speaker 1>the FTC's lawsuit against Qualcom from monopolizations that had some

0:07:27.120 --> 0:07:30.120
<v Speaker 1>similarities to this one. Before we had a disrecord the

0:07:30.280 --> 0:07:33.720
<v Speaker 1>decision um and uh, it was about three years and

0:07:33.760 --> 0:07:36.160
<v Speaker 1>I think that's fast, and you know, and at that

0:07:36.200 --> 0:07:40.239
<v Speaker 1>point either company can appeal and drag it on even further.

0:07:40.320 --> 0:07:41.800
<v Speaker 1>So that's one thing. This is going to be a

0:07:41.840 --> 0:07:45.480
<v Speaker 1>marathon and we aren't going to have any discernible impact

0:07:46.160 --> 0:07:49.640
<v Speaker 1>um or outcomes for quite some time. And the second

0:07:49.640 --> 0:07:52.160
<v Speaker 1>thing is, as an exclusive dealing case, I think the

0:07:52.240 --> 0:07:55.520
<v Speaker 1>d o J has some hurdles here. There's some evidence

0:07:55.560 --> 0:07:58.080
<v Speaker 1>that it looks like from the complaint and what they

0:07:58.080 --> 0:08:01.080
<v Speaker 1>say that's on their side, But the these can be

0:08:01.240 --> 0:08:07.200
<v Speaker 1>difficult cases to win. Historically, UM exclusive dealing arrangements have

0:08:07.360 --> 0:08:10.280
<v Speaker 1>been challenged for many years under the anti trust laws,

0:08:10.280 --> 0:08:12.800
<v Speaker 1>and you know, a plaintiffs can win, but it is

0:08:12.840 --> 0:08:16.680
<v Speaker 1>also difficult. It's an uphill climb. UM. And one thing

0:08:16.680 --> 0:08:19.160
<v Speaker 1>that makes this quite different from Microsoft, which might make

0:08:19.160 --> 0:08:22.080
<v Speaker 1>it a little more difficult, is that Microsoft actually technically

0:08:22.480 --> 0:08:26.640
<v Speaker 1>prevented users of the Microsoft operating system from being able

0:08:26.640 --> 0:08:30.040
<v Speaker 1>to use Netscape or Java. UM. You couldn't change it

0:08:30.080 --> 0:08:32.240
<v Speaker 1>as a default as the consumer if you wanted to,

0:08:32.640 --> 0:08:35.240
<v Speaker 1>and Google hasn't gone that far. You know, Google might

0:08:35.280 --> 0:08:38.440
<v Speaker 1>set itself in these agreements where it's the default search engine,

0:08:38.760 --> 0:08:41.480
<v Speaker 1>but any consumer can go in and change that, and

0:08:41.520 --> 0:08:46.400
<v Speaker 1>so it's not really technically forced foreclosing its rivals. UM.

0:08:46.600 --> 0:08:50.000
<v Speaker 1>It's more of a de facto exclusive greeling exclusive dealing

0:08:50.040 --> 0:08:52.240
<v Speaker 1>than explicit and that makes it just a little bit

0:08:52.280 --> 0:08:54.720
<v Speaker 1>tougher too. But but I think that the main thing

0:08:54.760 --> 0:08:56.360
<v Speaker 1>is it's going to be some time before we really

0:08:56.440 --> 0:08:59.079
<v Speaker 1>understand what direction this is going to go in So

0:08:59.320 --> 0:09:02.079
<v Speaker 1>I gotta ask you guys, what about the timing? Is

0:09:02.120 --> 0:09:04.559
<v Speaker 1>it kind of interesting that here we are just thirteen

0:09:04.640 --> 0:09:06.920
<v Speaker 1>days out from an election? Michael, Mom, what do you

0:09:06.960 --> 0:09:09.240
<v Speaker 1>make of that? And I do wonder, you know, does

0:09:09.280 --> 0:09:12.480
<v Speaker 1>a new administration change anything when it comes to a

0:09:12.520 --> 0:09:15.920
<v Speaker 1>case like this. Well, I don't think it's a coincidence,

0:09:15.960 --> 0:09:19.320
<v Speaker 1>that's for sure. And you know, I think, uh, you know,

0:09:19.360 --> 0:09:22.560
<v Speaker 1>California last time I checked, as in a battleground state. Um,

0:09:22.600 --> 0:09:25.120
<v Speaker 1>I think I think it's pretty safe to say that

0:09:25.840 --> 0:09:29.040
<v Speaker 1>California is gonna go for Biden. So yeah, I think

0:09:29.080 --> 0:09:31.480
<v Speaker 1>that's you know, I think that's reality. Um, I think

0:09:31.480 --> 0:09:34.840
<v Speaker 1>that's unfortunate. Again, I think this. You know, I'm not

0:09:34.880 --> 0:09:37.000
<v Speaker 1>an anti trust lawyer, but I think just looking at

0:09:37.000 --> 0:09:39.240
<v Speaker 1>sort of what a COmON sense, looking at sort of

0:09:39.280 --> 0:09:43.040
<v Speaker 1>the allegations, to me, it just as nonsensical it makes

0:09:43.080 --> 0:09:45.720
<v Speaker 1>it makes complete sense. I guess for the political standpoint,

0:09:45.720 --> 0:09:49.120
<v Speaker 1>what why it was filed now? But it's it's, it's

0:09:49.480 --> 0:09:54.120
<v Speaker 1>it's it seems a little bit um crazy to me. Jim,

0:09:54.160 --> 0:09:57.400
<v Speaker 1>what do you make of the timing of this? I

0:09:57.440 --> 0:10:00.280
<v Speaker 1>think the timing is interesting as well. Um, you know,

0:10:00.559 --> 0:10:03.160
<v Speaker 1>look the dj has been investigating Google for more than

0:10:03.200 --> 0:10:06.720
<v Speaker 1>a year now and off. Oftentimes that is the timing.

0:10:06.840 --> 0:10:09.760
<v Speaker 1>I mean, these investigations go on for a year, sometimes

0:10:09.760 --> 0:10:12.280
<v Speaker 1>two years, and then a lawsuit is brought. Um. But

0:10:12.440 --> 0:10:16.559
<v Speaker 1>we did see some news reports that leaks coming from

0:10:16.600 --> 0:10:18.959
<v Speaker 1>some d o J staffers saying that they didn't think

0:10:19.000 --> 0:10:20.920
<v Speaker 1>they were quite ready and that they would have liked

0:10:20.960 --> 0:10:23.400
<v Speaker 1>to have more have had more time to flesh out

0:10:23.400 --> 0:10:25.680
<v Speaker 1>their case a little bit more, and they thought they'd

0:10:25.679 --> 0:10:27.800
<v Speaker 1>have a stronger case if they had more time. So

0:10:28.040 --> 0:10:33.400
<v Speaker 1>it does look it looks a little odd. So you know, Jen,

0:10:33.559 --> 0:10:37.079
<v Speaker 1>what are next steps here? Um? You know, I think

0:10:37.120 --> 0:10:42.199
<v Speaker 1>they they they've been served here that now what right?

0:10:42.240 --> 0:10:44.320
<v Speaker 1>So the next step would be, you know, they'll get together,

0:10:44.400 --> 0:10:46.720
<v Speaker 1>they'll get assigned to a judge. They'll get together to

0:10:46.800 --> 0:10:48.920
<v Speaker 1>set up a schedule. And the schedule really is just

0:10:49.000 --> 0:10:52.920
<v Speaker 1>a discovery schedule, meaning collecting of documents from each other,

0:10:53.480 --> 0:10:57.640
<v Speaker 1>deposing witnesses um that will be used for trial. And

0:10:57.679 --> 0:10:59.960
<v Speaker 1>that is a long process that can take about a year.

0:11:00.240 --> 0:11:03.360
<v Speaker 1>But before you jump into that the heavy duty part

0:11:03.360 --> 0:11:06.680
<v Speaker 1>of discovery, the defendant, Google has the opportunity to file

0:11:06.679 --> 0:11:09.520
<v Speaker 1>what's called emotion to dismiss an emotion to dismiss this

0:11:09.559 --> 0:11:12.600
<v Speaker 1>basically saying just based on the allegations in this complaint

0:11:12.880 --> 0:11:15.480
<v Speaker 1>and not digging into the evidence, they haven't released, they

0:11:15.480 --> 0:11:18.320
<v Speaker 1>haven't plausibly stated, and then she trust claim here. I

0:11:18.320 --> 0:11:20.680
<v Speaker 1>think Google will do that and we could see that

0:11:20.760 --> 0:11:23.280
<v Speaker 1>within the next couple of months. I don't see that

0:11:23.360 --> 0:11:26.240
<v Speaker 1>being successful. So this is what's called a rule of

0:11:26.280 --> 0:11:28.800
<v Speaker 1>reason case, which means a judge really has to weigh

0:11:28.800 --> 0:11:31.480
<v Speaker 1>the evidence and dive into the evidence before they can

0:11:31.520 --> 0:11:34.320
<v Speaker 1>make a determination. So so I think this will continue

0:11:34.360 --> 0:11:37.240
<v Speaker 1>on past that, but it's likely Google with file something

0:11:37.320 --> 0:11:39.080
<v Speaker 1>like that. And I think the other thing we may

0:11:39.120 --> 0:11:42.720
<v Speaker 1>see is other states signing on to this case or

0:11:42.960 --> 0:11:46.200
<v Speaker 1>another suit being filed by a different set of states

0:11:46.240 --> 0:11:49.320
<v Speaker 1>that might contain additional allegations. Be honest, all right, We're

0:11:49.320 --> 0:11:51.320
<v Speaker 1>gonna leave it on that note. Um, folks, thank you

0:11:51.400 --> 0:11:54.640
<v Speaker 1>so much. Jennifer Ree, she's senior litigation analyst Hepp Limburg

0:11:54.640 --> 0:11:58.080
<v Speaker 1>Intelligence on the phone from Cleveland. Michael Mouh, thank you

0:11:58.120 --> 0:12:01.280
<v Speaker 1>as well, co founder gsb Asset Management, also author of

0:12:01.280 --> 0:12:04.600
<v Speaker 1>the Global Silicon Valley Handbook. But really understand what's going

0:12:04.640 --> 0:12:06.800
<v Speaker 1>on in Silicon Valley and as he said, you know,

0:12:07.040 --> 0:12:09.760
<v Speaker 1>some of the issues about who owns our data, um,

0:12:10.360 --> 0:12:13.320
<v Speaker 1>you know, and the free speech issues, issues in censorship

0:12:13.320 --> 0:12:15.040
<v Speaker 1>are some of the things that you know, he thinks

0:12:15.040 --> 0:12:17.439
<v Speaker 1>maybe big tech really needs to be looked at. Yeah,

0:12:17.480 --> 0:12:19.880
<v Speaker 1>I think so, because that's something that Congress is looking at.

0:12:20.160 --> 0:12:22.240
<v Speaker 1>And whenever you have Congress, they can look at your industry,

0:12:22.280 --> 0:12:24.800
<v Speaker 1>your company. Uh, that's a big issue. VISA be just

0:12:24.880 --> 0:12:25.920
<v Speaker 1>a typical regulator.