WEBVTT - Weekend Law: Luigi Pleads, Meta's $1.4 Trillion Trial & NFL Antitrust 0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:07.000 This is Bloomberg Law with June grosseol from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:08.800 --> 0:00:14.760 This was not a spontaneous act of violence. It was deliberate, calculated, 0:00:15.200 --> 0:00:16.160 and premeditated. 0:00:16.400 --> 0:00:21.360 Luigi Mangioni pleaded guilty on Friday to two federal stalking 0:00:21.560 --> 0:00:25.960 charges in the killing of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, 0:00:26.360 --> 0:00:30.240 admitting matter of factly that he trailed the executive to 0:00:30.280 --> 0:00:33.360 an investor conference and gunned him down on a New 0:00:33.440 --> 0:00:37.200 York City street in twenty twenty four. After the plea, 0:00:37.440 --> 0:00:42.280 Mangioni's attorney, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, echoed what he had said 0:00:42.320 --> 0:00:45.640 in his allocution to the court that he endured years 0:00:45.640 --> 0:00:49.279 of severe pain from a broken back while struggling to 0:00:49.400 --> 0:00:52.400 navigate the obstacles of the healthcare system. 0:00:52.920 --> 0:00:55.120 Like the thousands of people who've reached out since this 0:00:55.240 --> 0:00:58.720 tragedy to share their own experiences, he believed that the 0:00:58.760 --> 0:01:01.280 system had failed him and destroyed his life. 0:01:01.760 --> 0:01:06.080 Mangione's state trial on murder and weapons charges is set 0:01:06.120 --> 0:01:09.600 to start on September eighth, but his lawyers have filed 0:01:09.600 --> 0:01:13.039 a motion to dismiss the state trial under New York's 0:01:13.080 --> 0:01:14.679 double jeopardy statute. 0:01:14.959 --> 0:01:18.400 It was a single tragic event, yet he's being prosecuted 0:01:18.440 --> 0:01:20.319 twice for the same conduct. 0:01:20.840 --> 0:01:25.600 Federal prosecutors didn't give Mangioni any deal or incentive to 0:01:25.640 --> 0:01:30.399 plead guilty. In fact, Manhattan US Attorney Jamie McDonald said 0:01:30.440 --> 0:01:33.240 that they'll ask for a sentence of life in prison 0:01:33.520 --> 0:01:35.880 when he's sentenced on December eighteenth. 0:01:35.959 --> 0:01:38.920 There are no accommodations or concessions, and we are free 0:01:38.959 --> 0:01:41.160 to seek the maximum penalty under the law. 0:01:41.560 --> 0:01:45.399 My guest, his criminal defense attorney Jeremy saland a former 0:01:45.440 --> 0:01:49.120 Manhattan prosecutor, Jeremy It's not often you see a defend 0:01:49.160 --> 0:01:53.760 in pleading guilty to every charge without a plead deal 0:01:53.800 --> 0:01:54.320 in place. 0:01:55.400 --> 0:01:57.200 If you're going to plead to an entire indictment, you 0:01:57.240 --> 0:02:00.320 can do so. It's exceedingly rare. In this you find 0:02:00.360 --> 0:02:03.240 yourself in a bind, which he did here. By the way, 0:02:03.280 --> 0:02:05.160 I break this down at least internally, and I think 0:02:05.200 --> 0:02:08.640 it's a fair assessment. If I'm Manngioni and his defense team, 0:02:08.680 --> 0:02:12.000 I recognize that my defenses are limited. There was at 0:02:12.000 --> 0:02:15.799 one point an effort to pursue extreme emotional distress that 0:02:15.960 --> 0:02:18.799 died on the proverbial line didn't go anywhere. We look 0:02:18.840 --> 0:02:20.880 at the evidence, and we lost our hearing upon the 0:02:20.919 --> 0:02:23.239 defense for the most part. So the evidence that was 0:02:23.280 --> 0:02:25.880 the most damning still came in. So if we don't 0:02:25.919 --> 0:02:29.400 have that extreme emotional distress and the evidence is pretty damning, 0:02:29.400 --> 0:02:32.160 what is our defense? And if our defense is hoping 0:02:32.200 --> 0:02:36.799 to get a secret centurion candidate type juror, then that's 0:02:36.840 --> 0:02:40.160 a pretty bad defense because even if you are successful 0:02:40.200 --> 0:02:42.600 in round one, you know the state is going to 0:02:42.600 --> 0:02:45.560 prosecute at round two and you know that defense are 0:02:45.560 --> 0:02:48.280 there waiting in the wings, although they clearly did not wait. 0:02:48.600 --> 0:02:51.639 So he was really stuck. And I'd rather be doing 0:02:51.680 --> 0:02:55.720 my time in a federal peditentiary than in Attica or 0:02:55.760 --> 0:02:57.680 sing Sing or green Haven. And for those who do 0:02:57.760 --> 0:03:01.240 not know, you should visit from the outside. Scary scary places. 0:03:01.720 --> 0:03:05.200 So do you think that the evidence was so overwhelming 0:03:05.560 --> 0:03:08.840 as we've heard it described that the only real choice 0:03:08.880 --> 0:03:10.880 was federal prison over state prison. 0:03:11.280 --> 0:03:13.959 The evidence is overwhelming and if you lack those, you know, 0:03:14.080 --> 0:03:17.600 the mental health defense, extreme emultionim distress or some other 0:03:17.760 --> 0:03:21.120 insanity type play, there's no question of identity. And all 0:03:21.120 --> 0:03:24.080 that damning evidence motive intent came in with things were 0:03:24.080 --> 0:03:27.600 written in video and all that. Again, you see the 0:03:27.600 --> 0:03:30.760 writing on the wall. If you lack the defense, why 0:03:30.760 --> 0:03:33.040 am I going to have two trials? Why am I 0:03:33.080 --> 0:03:35.480 going to risk being in a state penitentiary? Why am 0:03:35.480 --> 0:03:37.440 I going to risk life in prison with the state. 0:03:37.880 --> 0:03:40.400 So I think, if I had to choose, I would 0:03:40.480 --> 0:03:43.200 rather be with defense, and at least I have a chance, 0:03:43.400 --> 0:03:46.880 albeit a small one, to limit my exposure on the 0:03:46.880 --> 0:03:48.600 back end in terms of that sentence from the court. 0:03:48.640 --> 0:03:50.400 But I don't see how the court does that the 0:03:50.520 --> 0:03:52.920 meaning give him much of anything less than that life 0:03:52.920 --> 0:03:55.760 without parole. I mean a little bit potentially, certainly, But 0:03:56.040 --> 0:03:58.440 you're a young man. You know, twenty thirty years in 0:03:58.480 --> 0:04:00.720 prison you get paroled is still long time. 0:04:01.080 --> 0:04:06.120 The judge asked the federal prosecutors about the advisory guidelines. 0:04:06.560 --> 0:04:10.120 They said the guideline range was between twenty four to 0:04:10.120 --> 0:04:13.880 thirty six years in prison. So why wouldn't the judge 0:04:13.880 --> 0:04:18.159 follow those guidelines instead of sentencing him to life. 0:04:18.160 --> 0:04:21.440 Because if a stature authorizes you to do that, we 0:04:21.480 --> 0:04:23.640 know the death penalty is off the table. This is 0:04:23.720 --> 0:04:25.640 sort of rhetorical question, and I think we can all 0:04:25.680 --> 0:04:28.240 answer it differently. But what's the value of the life 0:04:28.240 --> 0:04:31.599 meaning taking a life, and the punishment and the deturn factor. 0:04:32.120 --> 0:04:34.400 So I think all things, you know, are on the 0:04:34.400 --> 0:04:36.599 table for the court. You know, I would not have 0:04:36.680 --> 0:04:39.760 been surprised if when he was allocuting and asked questions about, 0:04:39.880 --> 0:04:41.719 you know, whether you understand your rights and you're giving 0:04:41.720 --> 0:04:43.440 a right to a trial and the opportune to discuss 0:04:43.480 --> 0:04:46.000 with your attorney and all those different things. He was asked, 0:04:46.040 --> 0:04:47.760 you know, he was under the influence of any drugs, 0:04:47.760 --> 0:04:49.760 and I think only medication he said he had taken 0:04:49.839 --> 0:04:52.680 was a sleeping cot, which really is counter to the 0:04:52.800 --> 0:04:55.160 argument that my client has mentally ill and has suffered 0:04:55.160 --> 0:04:57.799 from all of these issues. So by not saying anything, 0:04:57.839 --> 0:04:59.600 either he's going to call him later on he really 0:04:59.640 --> 0:05:02.680 was attorney's throw him to shut his mouth, and therefore 0:05:02.880 --> 0:05:05.200 I didn't get my truth out, or he's really not 0:05:05.600 --> 0:05:07.599 and now you've lost the opportunity to argue that in 0:05:07.720 --> 0:05:09.080 large part in your sentencing. 0:05:09.560 --> 0:05:13.039 That sounds like real defense attorney thinking. So all along 0:05:13.080 --> 0:05:16.160 the defense attorneys have been arguing that the state and 0:05:16.360 --> 0:05:21.440 federal prosecutions constitute double jeopardy, And right after the plea, 0:05:21.560 --> 0:05:24.599 the defense attorneys came out and said, they just filed 0:05:24.640 --> 0:05:29.400 e motion seeking dismissal of the state's case, arguing that 0:05:29.560 --> 0:05:33.400 New York law prohibits defendants from being prosecuted twice for 0:05:33.480 --> 0:05:36.560 the same crime. So that was the real plan then, 0:05:36.680 --> 0:05:38.520 to get the state case dismissed. 0:05:39.360 --> 0:05:42.200 Yeah, June, of course, you know when I started off 0:05:42.240 --> 0:05:45.159 with TIF. You can limit it to one and give 0:05:45.200 --> 0:05:48.720 yourself an argument as best as possible to avoid the 0:05:48.760 --> 0:05:52.240 maximum time incarcerated, and you could find yourself in a 0:05:52.279 --> 0:05:54.279 federal prison, which is no cakewalk, don't get me wrong, 0:05:54.520 --> 0:05:57.720 as opposed to a state prison. Win would be an overstatement, 0:05:57.920 --> 0:06:00.000 but it's better than the alternative. 0:06:00.400 --> 0:06:03.920 So tell us what the defense double jeopardy argument is 0:06:04.520 --> 0:06:08.039 and what their chances are of getting the state case dismissed. 0:06:08.680 --> 0:06:12.719 So, generally speaking, there is a rule of sovereignty that 0:06:12.880 --> 0:06:16.320 says you can have two parallel proceedings even if they 0:06:16.360 --> 0:06:19.239 stem from really the same incident, meaning federal in state. 0:06:19.520 --> 0:06:22.520 New York has its own rules, and that limits the 0:06:22.520 --> 0:06:27.080 ability for the state to prosecute if the underlying criminal 0:06:27.120 --> 0:06:30.520 transaction and offense is the same. That in part was 0:06:30.640 --> 0:06:34.480 changed and made it even tighter with Paul Manifort when 0:06:35.400 --> 0:06:38.799 New York prosecuted him for what was really the same crimes, 0:06:39.080 --> 0:06:42.600 the same transactions, even more so than this court said no, 0:06:42.680 --> 0:06:47.120 you can't prosecute Paul mannatfort. So that rule applies here too. 0:06:47.640 --> 0:06:50.240 But I think there is some color for the prosecution 0:06:50.440 --> 0:06:52.440 to push back whether they're going to be successful in 0:06:52.440 --> 0:06:54.440 a different animal, But they do have some arguments to make. 0:06:54.560 --> 0:06:57.960 For example, in court today, as I understand, demand Jones 0:06:58.040 --> 0:07:00.960 admitted to shooting mister Thompson and putting him in fear 0:07:01.000 --> 0:07:03.680 of his safety or something to that effect, but he 0:07:03.760 --> 0:07:08.360 did not admit to intentionally murdering Thompson. That wasn't required 0:07:08.360 --> 0:07:10.520 as part of the stalking plea. Now setting us out 0:07:10.520 --> 0:07:12.600 whether that's justice where you're getting to plead to something 0:07:12.640 --> 0:07:15.560 else on a homicide intentional murder to stalking. That's a 0:07:15.680 --> 0:07:18.240 separate question, and I think a valuable one. But the 0:07:18.320 --> 0:07:21.480 elements are different in these crimes, and the allocution is 0:07:21.480 --> 0:07:25.160 important here. Also the stalking, the harm intended by the 0:07:25.160 --> 0:07:28.160 stalking statue, you know, is different than that of the 0:07:28.240 --> 0:07:31.160 murder too, So there is some color there to argue, 0:07:31.200 --> 0:07:33.600 But I still think it's a tough lift. One other thing, 0:07:33.960 --> 0:07:36.320 anything he said in that court room. Remember under oath 0:07:36.520 --> 0:07:39.680 is usable against him for sure, and that state prosecution 0:07:39.800 --> 0:07:41.400 if it ever were to rear its head and be 0:07:41.400 --> 0:07:42.200 able to be pursued. 0:07:42.840 --> 0:07:47.200 So Mangioni read from a prepared statement during the hearing, 0:07:47.760 --> 0:07:51.440 and part of it talked about years of enduring severe 0:07:51.480 --> 0:07:55.160 pain from a broken back and having to navigate the 0:07:55.200 --> 0:07:59.160 obstacles of the healthcare system. His attorney also mentioned that 0:07:59.200 --> 0:08:02.480 when she spoke outside the courthouse, does that tell us 0:08:02.480 --> 0:08:06.360 they're going to use that in his sentencing to try 0:08:06.440 --> 0:08:09.000 to mitigate the severity of his sentence. 0:08:09.360 --> 0:08:13.720 Everything that Karen and Marc Agniffolos stated and said was 0:08:13.760 --> 0:08:17.920 intentional and deliberate, and they're both phenomenal attorneys, so we 0:08:17.920 --> 0:08:22.160 should expect delaying the foundation. My response to that is 0:08:22.640 --> 0:08:26.280 very simply that is neither here nor there. If I'm 0:08:26.280 --> 0:08:29.560 the judge, it does not give you the right to 0:08:29.680 --> 0:08:32.880 take a man's life and strip his family of his 0:08:33.000 --> 0:08:37.359 love and compassion and partnership. Take a hike, mister Mangoni, 0:08:37.880 --> 0:08:38.960 your day is done. 0:08:39.400 --> 0:08:45.360 Mangioni's attorney said that he's been treated differently from every 0:08:45.440 --> 0:08:49.800 other defendant charged in New York with the same crime and. 0:08:49.880 --> 0:08:54.520 Has successfully fought off terrorism charges and the death penalty 0:08:54.840 --> 0:08:59.280 while also fighting at the same time, two simultaneous prosecutions 0:08:59.400 --> 0:09:00.560 in two jury dictions. 0:09:00.880 --> 0:09:03.439 Do you think he's been treated differently? 0:09:03.640 --> 0:09:11.360 Sobsolutely there, unequivocally correct. And I hope those in charge, 0:09:11.640 --> 0:09:13.960 from the US Attorney and the Southern District of New 0:09:14.000 --> 0:09:18.200 York on up recognized they had no place in this prosecution. 0:09:18.800 --> 0:09:21.520 They had no place seeking the death penalty. And what 0:09:21.559 --> 0:09:24.040 I mean by that is not that it weren't a 0:09:24.120 --> 0:09:26.200 potential death penalty if you believe in the death penalty. 0:09:26.240 --> 0:09:29.439 That's not my point. My point is when I start 0:09:29.480 --> 0:09:31.920 seeing and you start seeing June, and average New Yorker 0:09:31.920 --> 0:09:35.600 starts seeing them going after domestic abusers who cross state 0:09:35.640 --> 0:09:38.960 lines with guns and kill their intimate partners with the 0:09:39.000 --> 0:09:44.319 same fortitude and intention and zealousness as they did man Gione, 0:09:44.800 --> 0:09:47.280 then we can have a different conversation. But they don't. 0:09:47.640 --> 0:09:50.880 They don't, they don't. This is all about ego. It's 0:09:50.880 --> 0:09:54.280 still about the arrogance of the Southern District. And also 0:09:54.520 --> 0:09:57.560 a piece of this is I think retribution against Alvin 0:09:57.559 --> 0:10:00.280 brad for prosecuting Donald Trump. It may not have started 0:10:00.280 --> 0:10:02.520 that way because started under Biden, but it also was 0:10:02.520 --> 0:10:04.520 we're going to wait for the prosecution in the state 0:10:04.559 --> 0:10:07.520 to go through, and it devolved into let's seek the 0:10:07.559 --> 0:10:11.400 death penalty and let's brush the state aside. And if 0:10:11.440 --> 0:10:13.680 you want more proof of that, I would bet my 0:10:13.880 --> 0:10:18.240 career on the fact that Alvin Bragg and the prosecutors 0:10:18.240 --> 0:10:22.160 in Manhattan did not know that the defense and the 0:10:22.200 --> 0:10:25.199 federal prosecutors were in conversation about a plea. Hence this 0:10:25.440 --> 0:10:28.560 apparent spur of the moment on Friday. Let's get it 0:10:28.600 --> 0:10:31.800 in there, and let's get a plea. That's not judicial economy, 0:10:31.840 --> 0:10:33.760 doing the right thing for the court system, because it's 0:10:33.800 --> 0:10:35.959 overburdened and there's a lot of people warranting that attention. 0:10:36.440 --> 0:10:40.559 The prosecutors have other homicides and horrible sex crimes, violent 0:10:40.640 --> 0:10:44.760 crimes that demand their attention. The financial equity, the emotional equity, 0:10:45.040 --> 0:10:48.800 the capital put into this, it's a disgusting injustice, not 0:10:49.320 --> 0:10:51.880 injustice in the sense that by far and away June, 0:10:51.880 --> 0:10:54.320 obviously a man was murdered and his name is lost. 0:10:54.400 --> 0:10:56.400 His name is Brian Thompson. In case we forget, it's 0:10:56.440 --> 0:10:59.640 not Manzoni. He is dead and his family is traumatized. 0:10:59.840 --> 0:11:02.240 That's not what the Southern District cared about. They wanted 0:11:02.240 --> 0:11:05.520 this prosecution. They landed on an aircraft carrier, had fireworks 0:11:05.559 --> 0:11:07.960 going off, and they took Mangoni and brought him into custody. 0:11:08.440 --> 0:11:12.520 That's what this was about. And that's disappointing because this 0:11:12.600 --> 0:11:15.920 deserved the attention of the state prosecutors, which it did. 0:11:16.280 --> 0:11:18.120 And in the end, if this is the last thing 0:11:18.160 --> 0:11:20.839 that stands is he convicted of murder? Did he plead 0:11:20.880 --> 0:11:24.760 to intentionally murdering Brian Thompson? No, that's terrible to me. 0:11:25.240 --> 0:11:29.360 Well, MANGIONI may yet be tried for murder and state court. 0:11:29.720 --> 0:11:33.319 Bragg's office said they're prepared to litigate the defense motions. 0:11:33.760 --> 0:11:37.800 Thanks so much, Jeremy. That's criminal defense attorney Jeremy Saland. 0:11:38.320 --> 0:11:42.640 Coming up next, State attorneys general are demanding one point 0:11:42.720 --> 0:11:47.600 four trillion dollars in damages from Meta over youth social 0:11:47.640 --> 0:11:51.119 media addiction. I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg. 0:11:53.280 --> 0:11:56.480 Now they must pay the price for the choice that 0:11:56.520 --> 0:12:00.720 they made to put profits over to of safety. 0:12:01.400 --> 0:12:05.520 In a landmark decision this month, New Mexico's Attorney General 0:12:05.559 --> 0:12:08.960 won a nine hundred and forty two million dollar judgment 0:12:09.000 --> 0:12:13.120 against Meta after a jury found the social media giant 0:12:13.400 --> 0:12:18.040 knowingly harmed children's mental health. That verdict may pale in 0:12:18.120 --> 0:12:21.959 comparison to the potential verdict. Meta is facing at a 0:12:22.000 --> 0:12:26.079 federal trial where a coalition of twenty nine state attorneys 0:12:26.160 --> 0:12:31.120 general accused the company of engaging in deceptive business practices 0:12:31.480 --> 0:12:35.600 that exploit and manipulate young users, leading to a mental 0:12:35.600 --> 0:12:39.640 health crisis. My guest is an expert in internet law, 0:12:40.040 --> 0:12:44.400 Professor Eric Goldman of Santa Clara University Law School. Eric 0:12:44.440 --> 0:12:46.440 tell us about the stakes in this trial. 0:12:46.800 --> 0:12:50.000 In this trial, the state attorney's general are pursuing the 0:12:50.200 --> 0:12:53.480 social media defendants for a number of claims, including claiming 0:12:53.480 --> 0:12:57.040 that they are a public nuisance. The state attorneys general 0:12:57.080 --> 0:13:01.600 have asked for one point four trillion dollars worth damages, which, 0:13:01.880 --> 0:13:06.640 if issued, would represent a major chunk of the overall 0:13:06.760 --> 0:13:11.080 value that those entities are worth. The case also potentially 0:13:11.080 --> 0:13:15.880 puts in play structural remedies that would change how social 0:13:15.920 --> 0:13:21.280 media services operate. So between the damages of words and 0:13:21.400 --> 0:13:25.640 the possibility of structural reform, it's possible that these cases 0:13:25.640 --> 0:13:27.679 will change social media structurally. 0:13:28.280 --> 0:13:31.920 The state attorneys general are saying that Meta designed the 0:13:32.040 --> 0:13:37.120 platforms to get children and teenagers hooked. Tell us more 0:13:37.120 --> 0:13:38.760 about the allegations here. 0:13:39.080 --> 0:13:40.920 There's a lot of allegations, so it's a little hard 0:13:40.920 --> 0:13:43.880 to summarize. You hinted at one of them. The State 0:13:43.920 --> 0:13:47.360 of the Attorneys General are arguing that social media services 0:13:47.360 --> 0:13:50.360 were designed to be addictive, in fact addicted the users, 0:13:50.440 --> 0:13:53.760 and that addiction caused harm. They've also claimed, for example, 0:13:53.840 --> 0:13:58.200 that the social media services knew about that addictive attributes 0:13:58.240 --> 0:14:01.160 and harm and failed to disclads it to the public. 0:14:01.400 --> 0:14:05.199 And they're also claiming that the consequences of this addiction 0:14:05.600 --> 0:14:07.199 are harming society generally. 0:14:07.600 --> 0:14:11.760 Obviously, Meta denies the allegations. What specifically has it said? 0:14:12.280 --> 0:14:15.000 The social media defendants are depending on a wide range 0:14:15.000 --> 0:14:18.200 of grounds that the claims that are being advanced against 0:14:18.240 --> 0:14:22.840 them simply don't fit the facts, that what the social 0:14:22.920 --> 0:14:27.280 media services have done is not illegal and therefore there 0:14:27.320 --> 0:14:30.040 should be no remedy for it. They have argued that 0:14:30.320 --> 0:14:33.520 the First Amendment applies to their decisions, that they're acting 0:14:33.920 --> 0:14:38.200 like publishers, making editorial decisions and basing liability on those 0:14:38.280 --> 0:14:41.680 editorial decisions is in consists of the First Amendment, and 0:14:41.720 --> 0:14:45.280 they're claiming that section two thirty applies. Section two there 0:14:45.320 --> 0:14:48.400 says websites are liable for third party content, and a 0:14:48.400 --> 0:14:52.640 lot of the arguments about addiction are ultimately about the 0:14:52.680 --> 0:14:56.000 delivery of third party content, and therefore the social media 0:14:56.000 --> 0:14:59.400 defendants argue that Section two thirty should preempt those claims. 0:15:00.120 --> 0:15:03.720 I was expected to last about seven weeks. What kind 0:15:03.800 --> 0:15:07.600 of witnesses will the state ags likely call to try 0:15:07.600 --> 0:15:08.560 to prove their case. 0:15:09.320 --> 0:15:12.600 I think that they'll use a variety of different experts 0:15:13.160 --> 0:15:16.560 who will try to bolster the argument that the social 0:15:16.600 --> 0:15:22.920 media services engaged in addictive practices and in fact caused harm. 0:15:23.280 --> 0:15:28.160 Both of those propositions are not scientifically established. The state 0:15:28.200 --> 0:15:31.360 ags will have to make a case for them. I 0:15:31.400 --> 0:15:34.960 would assume that we will hear from individual victims. We 0:15:35.040 --> 0:15:39.240 might also hear from former company employees who have inside information, 0:15:39.800 --> 0:15:41.000 and maybe others. 0:15:41.640 --> 0:15:46.760 The damages of one point four trillion dollars metas market 0:15:46.800 --> 0:15:49.880 cap is one point five trillion. I mean, where does 0:15:49.920 --> 0:15:51.520 that number come from? 0:15:51.800 --> 0:15:55.080 The number might have a little bit of fiction to it. 0:15:55.280 --> 0:15:59.920 It might be a fantasy land computation, but it doesn't 0:16:00.360 --> 0:16:03.800 matter if that number is the right number. It really 0:16:03.920 --> 0:16:07.479 is more the order of magnitude of the State attorney's 0:16:07.520 --> 0:16:11.720 general position. They are saying that if the social media 0:16:11.760 --> 0:16:15.560 services are causing as much or more damage as their 0:16:15.720 --> 0:16:19.920 market cap, they literally shouldn't exist. They're basically trying to 0:16:20.200 --> 0:16:24.000 drive the value of those companies to near zero. And 0:16:24.040 --> 0:16:26.240 so that's why I think that the number is so 0:16:26.360 --> 0:16:29.240 helpful of crystallizing the stakes of this case. It's a 0:16:29.280 --> 0:16:33.960 reminder that the arguments that state ags are advancing potentially 0:16:34.040 --> 0:16:39.080 make social media services untenable, not profitable, and maybe no 0:16:39.200 --> 0:16:40.640 longer a viable market. 0:16:41.080 --> 0:16:46.800 They're also demanding changes besides this staggering sum. The changes 0:16:47.200 --> 0:16:50.680 to the platforms that the state ages are asking for, 0:16:51.080 --> 0:16:54.480 would they change, you know, the very essence of the 0:16:54.520 --> 0:16:57.640 way these companies social media platforms work. 0:16:58.560 --> 0:17:02.800 Unquestionably, the structural remedies that are being ordered by courts 0:17:03.120 --> 0:17:08.080 and also mandated by legislatures will change how social media operates. 0:17:08.320 --> 0:17:11.720 What's less clear today is that they're going to change 0:17:11.760 --> 0:17:15.600 it in a way that will materially affect our willingness 0:17:15.640 --> 0:17:17.560 to use them. And I'm going to give you an 0:17:17.600 --> 0:17:20.720 example because I think it's so helpful. The New Mexico 0:17:21.080 --> 0:17:24.600 judge set a cap on the number of hours that 0:17:24.640 --> 0:17:27.400 a user could use the service in a month. Now, 0:17:27.480 --> 0:17:30.040 that cap was pretty generous. That's a lot of hours. 0:17:30.119 --> 0:17:32.520 I think it was ninety. But imagine that a different 0:17:32.640 --> 0:17:35.800 judge based on some other assessment of the science, such 0:17:35.880 --> 0:17:38.600 that any of these decisions are based on that, besides 0:17:38.600 --> 0:17:41.600 that the number is much much lower. Besides that only 0:17:41.680 --> 0:17:44.639 five hours a month is permissible. At that point, then 0:17:44.920 --> 0:17:48.080 many users will no longer be able to engage in 0:17:48.119 --> 0:17:51.520 the community the way they're currently engaging, and it'll just 0:17:51.720 --> 0:17:55.000 starve the ecosystem for the engagement that's been driving it. 0:17:55.240 --> 0:17:57.880 There'll be less people there, they'll be contributing less, there'll 0:17:57.880 --> 0:18:00.280 be less people to consume it, and as a result, well, 0:18:00.480 --> 0:18:03.240 the ecosystem goes into a death spiral. It just you 0:18:03.720 --> 0:18:06.960 can no longer function as the kind of vibrant conversation 0:18:07.320 --> 0:18:10.960 that we've assumed. Now, I'm just giving you a speculative scenario. 0:18:11.160 --> 0:18:12.720 I don't know if that scenario is going to play out, 0:18:12.920 --> 0:18:17.320 but it's helpful to show how one small product change 0:18:17.680 --> 0:18:22.239 ordered by a court or legislature could easily trigger a 0:18:22.600 --> 0:18:26.840 downward spiral and multiply that by the dozens, if not hundreds, 0:18:26.880 --> 0:18:30.639 of different product changes that courts could issue or that 0:18:30.720 --> 0:18:34.639 legislatures have already mandated, and we can see that the 0:18:34.760 --> 0:18:38.520 ecosystem is under extraordinary pressure and may not survive it. 0:18:39.200 --> 0:18:42.880 Eric Meta has not fared well so far before juries 0:18:43.280 --> 0:18:46.960 in these youth social media trials. You had the New 0:18:47.000 --> 0:18:51.040 Mexico case and then the California case where a jury 0:18:51.040 --> 0:18:54.760 awarded a single planet iff a young woman six million dollars. 0:18:55.119 --> 0:18:57.399 The cases are not going well for Meta, or for 0:18:57.480 --> 0:19:01.080 that matter, for other social media defendants. The judges and 0:19:01.119 --> 0:19:05.040 the juries have generally looked disfavorably on the arguments that 0:19:05.080 --> 0:19:08.760 they're making. However, these cases are all going to go 0:19:08.880 --> 0:19:13.480 up on appeal, and there's no reason to believe that 0:19:13.520 --> 0:19:18.000 the jury or judge verdicts are going to survive intact. 0:19:18.240 --> 0:19:21.080 There are a number of good arguments that the defendants 0:19:21.119 --> 0:19:23.879 will make on appeal, and if they can succeed on 0:19:23.920 --> 0:19:27.439 any one of those arguments, it's possible that some or 0:19:27.520 --> 0:19:31.080 all of the lower court rulings will be undone. So 0:19:31.280 --> 0:19:33.240 I haven't put a lot of stock in where we 0:19:33.320 --> 0:19:37.080 stand today. Other than a data points. The juries are 0:19:37.240 --> 0:19:40.600 sending a message that they do hold social media services 0:19:40.720 --> 0:19:46.240 culpable for harming their users. Whether or not they law 0:19:46.400 --> 0:19:50.480 recognizes that harm and upholds the legal consequences that have 0:19:50.520 --> 0:19:53.120 been signed to it remains to be seen on appeal. 0:19:53.680 --> 0:19:56.720 Is the strongest argument on appeal that the social media 0:19:56.800 --> 0:20:01.840 platforms have had immunity from secution over the content that 0:20:02.000 --> 0:20:05.840 users post, and states are trying to sidestep that by 0:20:05.880 --> 0:20:08.119 going after the product design features. 0:20:08.480 --> 0:20:11.600 I think there are several strong arguments that will be 0:20:11.680 --> 0:20:15.280 advanced on appeal in this case and in frankly all 0:20:15.320 --> 0:20:18.520 of the cases. Section two thirty is one of those. 0:20:18.600 --> 0:20:21.880 Section two thirty says that the services can't be responsible 0:20:21.880 --> 0:20:25.520 for their party content and ultimately, given that their basic 0:20:25.600 --> 0:20:28.800 business is the delivery of their party content, Section two 0:20:28.880 --> 0:20:31.359 very clearly casts a long shadow. But I think the 0:20:31.400 --> 0:20:35.560 First Amendment arguments are even more obvious and in some 0:20:35.600 --> 0:20:39.719 respects even more troubling. In the end, social media services 0:20:39.840 --> 0:20:44.520 are engaging in publication of content, whether it's third party 0:20:44.520 --> 0:20:47.640 content or first party content. The First Amendment applies equally 0:20:47.640 --> 0:20:50.959 in that circumstance. As a result, to the extent that 0:20:51.760 --> 0:20:55.200 social media defendants are being held legally liable for their 0:20:55.359 --> 0:20:58.680 editorial decisions, that sounds like a problem, and that sounds 0:20:58.680 --> 0:21:00.440 like the kind of thing that an impels court will 0:21:00.440 --> 0:21:01.119 pay attention to. 0:21:01.480 --> 0:21:04.200 It seems like the allegations and the defenses and these 0:21:04.240 --> 0:21:07.680 social media trials are pretty much the same. Do you 0:21:07.760 --> 0:21:10.760 think that Meta has learned from its losses at trial 0:21:10.800 --> 0:21:13.600 and it may change its tactics here? 0:21:14.240 --> 0:21:18.160 Meta seems impervious to the feedback that it has been 0:21:18.200 --> 0:21:22.560 getting for a very long time about the concerns that 0:21:22.560 --> 0:21:25.480 people have with its decision making. It seems to be 0:21:25.520 --> 0:21:29.840 making the same basic mistakes over and over again, both 0:21:29.840 --> 0:21:32.800 in terms of how it treats its users and also 0:21:32.920 --> 0:21:35.800 how it's been approaching the legal risk that it faces. 0:21:36.119 --> 0:21:40.000 So I don't think Meta is likely to learn any 0:21:40.119 --> 0:21:44.520 lesson from any particular development. The most likely way that 0:21:44.600 --> 0:21:47.080 Meta would change its tune is when the investors start 0:21:47.080 --> 0:21:50.119 putting pressure on it. Meta isn't delivering the kind of 0:21:50.400 --> 0:21:55.040 equity returns that its investors respect that will catch their attention. 0:21:55.440 --> 0:21:59.000 I think everything else is unlikely to change who they are. 0:21:59.359 --> 0:22:04.880 A settlement is always a possibility, and Bloomberg Intelligence estimates 0:22:05.000 --> 0:22:08.840 that a settlement would most likely land in the low 0:22:09.000 --> 0:22:14.000 single digit billions, perhaps somewhere between four and seven billion. 0:22:14.600 --> 0:22:19.640 Considering that Meta settle with the FTC for five billion, 0:22:19.800 --> 0:22:23.800 and Amazon settle with the FTC for two point five billion. 0:22:24.560 --> 0:22:25.280 What do you think? 0:22:25.640 --> 0:22:28.280 To be honest, I think if Meta thought it could 0:22:28.320 --> 0:22:31.120 settle this case for seven million dollars and avoid all 0:22:31.200 --> 0:22:34.400 future liability, it'd probably write that check happily. But I'm 0:22:34.440 --> 0:22:37.360 guessing that both the state ags and the other plaintiffs 0:22:37.359 --> 0:22:40.560 inclaring individual plaintiffs have much higher numbers. 0:22:40.560 --> 0:22:40.920 In mind. 0:22:41.320 --> 0:22:43.680 Remember though, in the Bellwether trial, I believe that the 0:22:43.720 --> 0:22:47.439 one plaintiff in the first bell Weather asked for one 0:22:47.480 --> 0:22:48.639 hundred million dollars. 0:22:49.000 --> 0:22:52.200 She ended up with not that much, though the verdict 0:22:52.359 --> 0:22:53.520 was six million dollars. 0:22:53.800 --> 0:22:56.199 Right, So going back to the evaluation, you know how 0:22:56.240 --> 0:22:59.080 much is each case worth? And I will note that 0:22:59.320 --> 0:23:03.840