This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
In the biggest tech antitrust case in three decades, Google avoided a breakup after a DC federal judge ruled against the government's most severe proposals for remedies, including a forced sale of its Chrome browser. Judge on Metmeta had already found in August of twenty twenty four that Google illegally dominated the search market by paying more than twenty six billion dollars to Apple and other companies to make its search engine the default option on smartphones and web browsers.
Tuesday's ruling was all about the fix, and Google will have to make some concessions, including sharing online search data with rivals and ending exclusive contracts for distribution. My guest is antitrust law expert Harry First, a professor at NYU Law School. So on its website, the Department of Justice says, Department of Justice wins significant remedies against Google, but this falls far short of the severe remedies that the government wanted.
How much of a setback is it for the government in its attempt to curb the power of the biggest tech companies?
Well, you know, people often talk about things as being a win win, and that's a good thing. So I think that the judge's decision is a win win, but not a good thing. So why is it a win win because the Justice Department and the States gets something and Google gets more by their not being more. So I view it as win in sort of eight point type on the government's side, and win in sort of sixteen point type on Google. Said, so, here's what I mean.
It's not a significant victory for the Justice Department. They did win some things, and you know, maybe that will help bring some competition into search. But I think Google won a lot by not losing very much. They get to keep Chrome. A lot of the remedies that the Department asked for and got even were cut down, circumscribed, diminished. And you know, whether what the judge did will end up changing the search business, I doubt but who knows.
But we've now passed the point where the question will be will we get competition? And the question will just be is Google complying with the decree. Of course, all of that comes after a round of appeals, So there's much more to this, But in terms of, you know, the overall feeling about what we've done. I think it's, you know, from a public point of view, a disappointment.
So the big headline was zoeas will Google be forced to sell Chrome? We'll have to divest. So Google doesn't have to do that. Why did Judge Meta decide not to make Google divest Chrome?
So this is a second point that pervades Judge Meta's decision. Rightly in a legal sense, but I think not so correct from a policy point of view and really where the law ought to be. So this is in many ways a very conservative opinion. It's the judge expressing what judges often express is that they understand the limits of who they are, what the institution can do, and what they want to do on an ongoing basis. So they're
conservative about this. And here the government's plaintiffs are asking them to do some pretty strong restructuring of one of the superstar firms in the United States. So you got to be a little modest. Now. The judge backs up his modesty with a lot of quotations from the Court of Appeals and recently from the Supreme Court in a different anti trust case opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, which
counsels let's be careful a little bit. So the ask that Chrome be divested structural relief is something that the DC Circuit itself. Remember, Judge Meta is a district court judge overseen by a Court of Appeals from the DC Circuit District of Columbia Circuit, so he's required to follow
the law from that circuit. The law from that circuit on remedies is actually pretty conservative and cautious, and that stems from actually the Microsoft case, which is much the template for the complaint that the government filed and for the government's theories. So you know, they said, well, when it comes to structural relief, restructuring, reorganizing a company, you really need some strong proof before you do that. You
need to watch out. And so he took those admonitions to heart and just didn't find enough to overcome that sort of a presumption that you know, you don't do this unless you really have to do it for effective relief. And this then goes to the second part that maybe the government didn't make an effective enough case for divesting Chrome and maybe made it seem too easy. So stuck with all of that, he backed away from it.
How much did AI play into his decision, So that's.
Maybe the real lead which we're now burying. I think his decision is all about it, frankly, and I think that he's betting, and many in the industry, and if you listen to some of the news shows, are just simply betting that AI is going to replace search as we know it with something else that's not search as we know it, or maybe as you and I know it, but just simply getting information, and that Google Search, that product, no matter what he does in this opinion, is going
to be eclipsed by some AI product, and I think that that permeates. I think that he views generative AI as coming to the rescue of competition.
Yeah. Some say it's already eroding Google's events.
Yea.
The data seemed to show. He mentions this in his opinion that searches on Safari have decreased. You know, people seem to be going directly to you know, chat, GPT or Perplexity or some of these other AI assistant things and just getting information that way. And this is the destructive force of innovation, as the economist Joseph Schumpeter talked about many years ago. So maybe he's right, and you know that may mean that sort of didn't matter what
he did so long as AI lives. But of course the worry is that we'll just replicate the current structure of the tech platform. Superstar firms will just control AI, and we won't have moved to new competition, but we'll have a different product.
He's ordering Google to share data with rivals to open up competition in online search. Google has to share some of the data with competitors, but not some of its most important data.
Would you say, well, here again, it's hard to say exactly what our important data. You could say all of the data are important, the more the more. But you know, this particularly involves the search index, which is something that Google has done really well, and the government in some ways didn't ask for as much as it could, which would have been a license to the index itself. What they wanted is some help with the data so competitors
could build an index. And even with that, the judge cut down the kinds of data that will be required to be disclosed, and to me, even more importantly, the timing of the disclosure. So for some of these data it's a one time snapshot, which strikes me. As you know, the judge calls at a kickstart for competition. Yeah, like a kick in the rear. I don't know, you know, a one time thing for some very important parts of some basic information to help them put together a better
index of the web. There's an awful lot of information out there, and indexing it is critical for an effective search engine. And you know, when it comes to sort of this user side data to click and query. You know what we do when we get free search is create data that's worth a heck of a lot of money for which we don't get paid, we being you
and me and all the other users. But these data here Again, the judge cuts down the request, gives some amount of the request, and then sort of puts on some limits yet to be decided about how often this will be disclosed more than once. Now it's not just a snapshot, but the cap yet to be determined by this technical committee that the decree is going to set up.
So I don't know, it's you know, it's hard for me to say exactly, you know, will this enable competitors real to really get an effect of competing search engine or will it not quite be enough? And in some ways this goes to what I've always viewed as the underlying problem with these decrees is a judge trying to say what competitors need to succeed, instead of a judge saying, don't ask me, just come back, you know, Google, just come back and let me know whether there's competition or not.
And if there isn't, we're going to have to do something more about it. You know, trying for judges or even the Justice Department, which apparently at least is still made up of some lawyers. You know, trying to design these remedies is tough, and you can feel it with what the judge is written in this opinion. It's hard and trying to figure out what the effect is going to be. And he says at the beginning, you know,
I don't have a crystal ball. Other judges have used that worry as well when being asked to predict effects in future markets.
Coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show, I'll continue this conversation with NYU law professor Harry First. Google has already said it's going to appeal. Will judge Meta's decisions stand up? I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg, a federal judge ordered a shake up of Google's search engine in an attempt to curb the power of an illegal monopoly, while rejecting the government's attempt to break up
the company and impose other restraints. The two hundred twenty six page decision made by DC Federal Judge on Meta will likely ripple across the technological landscape at a time when the industry is being reshaped by artificial intelligence, as companies like Chat, GPT and Perplexity try to upend Google's
long held position as the Internet's main gateway. Those innovations and competition reshape the judge's approach to the remedies in the nearly five year old anti trust case, Judge Meta wrote, unlike the typical case, where the court's job is to resolve a dispute based on historic facts, here the judge is asked to gaze into a crystal ball and look to the future. Not exactly a judge's forte. I've been talking to anti trust law professor Harry First of NYU
Law School. So, Harry, the judge is directing both sides to come back by September tenth with a new remedy proposal consistent with his ruling or file a status report outlining any disagreements. Do you expect anything real from that?
I think what he's looking for is he's got to write this down. He's got to enter a decree that has definitions, that has specific language that's understandable. I mean, the first challenge is figuring out sort of what to accept in the party's proposals. But the second challenge is the drafting of that decree. I think that's what he's looking for. Next, you know, give me your actual proposed decrees.
The parties have done that, they have proposed final judgments, but now they've got to take here's what he's ordered, and I think he wants language now. He also hinted at some fallback potential remedies. One of the problems I think that he faced, and it surfaced in a question that he ended up posing on the record, which is pretty rare. You know, tell me why you ask for this particular thing, Google, please explain it. And he had
a final hearing. But as he sits down to start to write the opinion, he he's thinking, I've got an interesting different idea here that no one's proposed to me. Maybe you should think about it. So there's sort of some version of like conditionality maybe on payments for you know, not allowing certain kinds of payments for you said, you can make any kinds of payments. But maybe there's a
fallback position. Maybe they had a fallback position for Chrome that they might want to articulate now, you know, just they said, let's get rid of it, but maybe there's some fallback. So this may be an opportunity also for the parties to propose, in addition to clarifying language, some modifications for what he's imposed. So maybe that's that will also go on as well. So who said this, Yogi Barret.
It's not over till it's over, And it was Yogi Barrett right, well, allegedly apparently he never said anything that he's supposed to have said, which is another thing.
Yeah, we'll discuss that next time.
Now.
As far as pay to play, the judge said that this exclusive deal that Google had with Apple where it pays it something like twenty billion a year to be of the search default on iPhones, et cetera, So they can still do that, but it just can't be exclusive.
They can pay for the fault, but can't keep others from you know, putting another search bar or who knows what, but they can still pay for the fault, so they can pay anyone for having the default. The faults were never exclusive. I mean they were exclusives. So you know, you can only out of the box if you, you know, were original equipment manufacturer, handset manufacture, you know, an exclusive to put the Google search bar on if you wanted
other programs, or you know, inexclusive. If you have an exclusive, you get revenue shares things like that. So maybe not that, but he basically said you can pay for the faults, which the testimony from the behavioral economist was that's the factual equivalent of a near exclusive because people don't change from defaults very often. You know, it's an old behavioral habit with which we're very familiar and with which Google's familiar. So the judge did suggest he did this in a footnote.
You read the footnotes too, Harry, I'm impressed.
Hey, I'm a not quite reformed law professor, and we always know you put the good stuff in the footnotes. But anyway, at least that's our version. But there is a footnote. It's not fourteen. And he said he could revisit the idea of a ban on paying for default but allowing to pay for distribution. So you could say, okay, if you distribute Google Search, that's fine, we'll pay you, but we can't pay you to make it the default search engine. Now me said, nobody's sort of raised this. Hello,
No one raises so I don't know the effect. Hello, So maybe we'll get something. You could wonder whether that makes any difference, frankly, because once you distribute it, given the strength of this default in most people's experience, it may not make a difference whether you label a default
or not. If you get you know, the Google win, you know on your phone, particularly where it's very strong because you want to use Google Search, and whether it was a default or not, or whether it's a fault in your Chrome browser, which it's going to be, you'll use it, and you know the payment won't be for requiring it to be a default, say on the iPhone. But you know, Apple may still make it a default
unless they're offered a better alternative, which the testimony. The testimony from Eddie Q, the Apple guy involved, was that he wouldn't buy being for any amount of money. Ever, apparently so he needs something better, and is he going to take away Google Search full from Apple users? I doubt it. So there might be some modifications, but at
the moment Google can still pay for default. And here again this was the judge's concern for the impact and being modest, sort of the impact on you could say, the whole eCos system of stopping those payments and you know, maybe wrecking Firefox, you know, go, you know, even you seem to be concerned about wrecking Apple. I didn't know that Apple was in such bad shape. But there we are.
Well, the government said it's considering its next steps. I mean, I don't know what next steps it can take besides appeal. But Google has previously said it's going to appeal. So we assume we'll go to the Supreme Court. Right, It could be years, then years and years before this gets implemented.
Yeah, it might not go to the Supreme Court. Court doesn't have to take it. Who you know, who knows the court didn't take Microsoft for example, So yeah, maybe, yes, maybe no. But the years is right. This will be a while yet, and we haven't seen but could see political interference with this. We really don't know. So there's
a lot between now and then, I guess. But the liability decision, which he made more than a year ago, I guess is that the whole bundle is subject to appeal once a final judgment is entered, which he has not done yet. So once that's done, then the parties have you know, I think, sixty days to file their notices of appeal and then the process starts to play out in the Court of Appeals, you know, unless they start some sort of settlement negotiations or something.
I mean, do you think that his opinion is conservative enough to survive the DC Court of Appeals?
So he did a lot to try to survive review by the Court of Appeals. I mean, he relied quite heavily on you know, key decisions, particularly the Microsoft remedy decisions. And he also, oh, by the way, bolstered one of the potential weaknesses in the liability decision while he was at it. So I think it's not perfectly bulletproof the aspect of letting AI companies share in some of these data.
If I were Google, I would be hitting on that whether that was you know, not warranted given as he started out by saying there was nothing at the trial about AI and there are ways of casting what he did as maybe not within the balance of what the goal was in the trial. So there's some potential issue there, and I think it is certainly possible. I mean, I assume Google will pursue that, So I think it's a pretty you know, I mean, it could be more conservative.
I guess he could have just given Google what Google wanted. But it's a carefully drawn opinion, and you know, time after time he sort of knocks the government plaintiffs back a bit by saying, you know, you've overreached, you're asking for too much. You know, we need to be modest, etc.
Etc.
Harry the trial later this month to determine remedies in a different case brought by the Justice Department, where a judge found that Google holds illegal monopolies in online advertising technology. How does that threaten Google? Is it more of.
The same, Well, it is a little different. There's some a bit of remedy on advertising, but not very much because it's so much directed at effect on the search
engine market so directly, not so much indirectly. I think we have to see it because from the beginning, the Justice Department has asked for structural relief to break apart the way Google does advertising, you know, to break it up in fact, and have them to vest certain parts of its advertising stack as they So this opinion is very skeptical about this structural relief said, you know, if
nothing else works, then that may be possible. But the ad Tech case may be a case where you know, it's been directed at structural relief, so that may be okay. Another aspect is how much money Google has made from advertising, so it reinforces the notion that this has been a monopolized market, so you know, that may have some effect. It's important to note that that case is in a
different federal circuit. It's not in the DC circuit, and it may be that the Justice Department chose to file there for a number of reasons, but one of it may be that on remedy wanting a structural remedy, the DC circuit is a bad place to bring a case like that given Microsoft, so maybe they were trying to avoid that by being in a different circuit, in the fourth circuit. So we've yet to see. I think she's been holding up on this spending meta's opinion on remedy.
But you know they are fencing along on remedies hearing in that case, so that should happen relatively soon.
Yes, I googled it and the trial is scheduled to begin on September twenty second. Thanks so much, Harry. As always, that's Professor Harry First of NYU Law School, coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. More than one thousand HHS employees are calling on rfk Junior to step down.
I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg today. More than a thousand current and former employees across the Department of Health and Human Services signed a letter calling for Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Junior's resignation, accusing him of endangering the health of Americans. The new letter comes just two days after nine former directors and acting directors of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wrote an op
ed also condemning Kennedy for endangering every American's health. Doctor Richard Besser was one of the signees.
We have grave concerns that the Secretary of Health is endangering the health of people across our nation by not letting the agency do its job, not following the science and putting out guidance around COVID vaccine that is leading to confusion.
But it appears Kennedy is not listening. He wrote in a Wall Street Journal op ed published today that his changes are restoring trust in the CDC that was lost during the COVID pandemic. That's something he said before.
I'm very confident in the political staff that we have down there now that they're going to be able to accomplish that and ensure the confident functionality of that agency.
My guest is Harry Nelson, a partner at Leech Tishman Nelson Hardiman explain some of the concerns that healthcare professionals have about Kennedy.
Yeah.
I think first and foremost what they're sounding the alarm over is the politicization of public health itself. It just seems that, you know that we're kind of in a battle where science is losing ground over ideology in steering health policy. So, you know, I think that op ed was intended to be as public a form of rebuke for RSK and the way he's reshaping the CDC and
public health policy as could be. You know, it was the vaccines left week or two, but it's going to move on to you know, the CONTI conversation over environmental causes of autism and all the ways in which he has really become, you know, very politicized and moving away from science and kind of driving our public health policy.
He's canceled medical research how much and in what areas well?
I mean the cuts medical research have mostly come through National Institute of Health NIH grants, over a billion dollars in NIH grant cuts across different institutions, and you know, just a massive, you know, reduction in kind of established leadership in positions that were previously not considered political, from the leadership of CDC itself, removing Susan Monarez after just a few weeks on the job, to completely clearing out the Advisory Committee on Vaccines, and so he's just done
a wholesale shift on public policy in ways that will be experiencing the ramifications up for years to come. It's not decades.
What probably prompted this, the final straw, if you want to call it, is the attempt to fire Manarez. So she was just in there for a month. Didn't they know what she stood for? What happened?
You know? I think essentially she was really just following sort of standard protocol at the CDC, and it was clear that there was tension escalating as there was a push from RFK and the people around him to narrow federal COVID vaccine recommendations, to get rid of the standing Advisory Committee, to start really changing the Vaccines for Children program, And essentially it became clear that she was standing in the way of some of the very aggressive moves that RFK and as people wanted to make.
RFK promised he wouldn't take vaccines away from anyone, but tell us what happened with this guidance, the recent guidance, and what it means for people who not in those categories but want to get vaccines.
I mean, so the main thing was that, you know, the SDA essentially planned the break you could say on sort of broad access to COVID boosters. Vaccines will remain available and covered for sixty five and over and for younger people who have a specific risk factor, but in general are not going to be available for people under sixty five without some specific risk factor, and of course
it's an issue of access. It now appears that there are a number of states in which is going to be very difficult to get vaccines, and also the cost of vaccines because the change in health policy is going to mean that the insurance companies will not be doing any cost sharing on them, so these vaccines will be much more expensive. It's clear that there's going to be a difficult time for people who are wanting to get vaccinated.
And you know, the real question that will come likely at the end of the next flu season that's not yet here, is what the death rate, what the hospitalizations will be. I think a lot of people will be watching closely to see what the net impact of these changes is going to be.
So is that for the COVID vaccine? What about flu shots?
This was specifically a COVID policy, but it's clear that there are going to be significant limits on the flu vaccine as well. But this specific policy was update to eligibility for the various COVID nineteen you know vaccines you'll
remember as Pfizer, Maderna, and Novovac. It's certainly going to have a broader effect on access to other vaccines, just because so many pharmacies and insurance companies are taking their leads from COVID policy for purposes of broader like influenza B and other flu related shots.
Is there anything that can be done or is it just a question of you know, Kennedy's there and that's it unless he's fired for some reason.
Obviously, we're going to see lawsuits undoubtedly and challenges to the firing of CDC director essentially, you know, questioning whether there's a violation of separation of powers here and whether there's any kind of retaliatory aspect to this. There certainly is the possibility that states could start enacting their own
coverage mandates. We already see California and New York Massachusetts are kind of moving in that direct and Congress could step in here, although it doesn't seem like that is likely to happen. The real remedy here, I think, is if the American public are upset about this. It's not only in the courts or in Congress. It's also just by a public outcry to make it clear to President Trump and his administration that this is really, you know,
a high priority issue that's concerning people. I do think there are political remedies that are legal remedies, but the train that's sort of leaving the station, then if they're going to happen. We need to see some action, you know, eminently.
In this up ed, the CDC directors called on Congress to exercise oversight authority over the Department of Health and Human Services. What can Congress do if they wanted to?
Congress certainly could hold hearings, They could start to subpoena you know, administration officials. They could certainly exercise you know, authority to restore funding to state and local health agencies that's been cut. I mean, I think there is quite a bit that they could do. I think investigating holding hearings, you know, demanding accountability from RFK, from the people reporting up to him, and filling some of the funding gaps
are the obvious things that they could do. Kennedy, it doesn't seem that Congress is at this moment demanding the kind of answers on everything from the vaccine policy to the leadership changes and the funding shifts that you know, people concerned with public health might hope that they would.
Well, Kennedy's going to appear on Thursday, I believe, so maybe we'll see some of that. But you know, Bill Cassidy, and he was the Louisiana Republican senator who delivered the key vote to confirm Kennedy, and I remember he said, I'm something like I'm trusting you on vaccines. He called on HHS to indefinitely postpone it's Vaccine Advisory Committee meeting on September eighteenth. That's not a long term solution.
It's justesting, you know, Cenator Casey, who was as chair of the Senate Health Committee and as a doctor with someone whose vote was clearly pivotal in the confirmation, seems to be trying to walk a cautious line here asking for oversight, transparency, postponement on some of these critical vaccine advisory you know meetings. He's definitely an important voice here. What's been disappointing to me has been that, you know, RFK is basically just refusing to dress, you know, square
on the issues. He seems to be just interested in deflecting blame and you know, kind of trying to stay on a higher level message about problems at the CDC and a need for strong leadership, but without really getting into the nuts and bolt of vaccine policy. And frankly, there's no way to see the actions being taken now as consistent with his testimony during the confirmation hearing.
He is suggesting Silicon Valley investor and entrepreneur Jim O'Neill is a new acting CDC director. Tell us about him.
Yeah, I think people are worried that Jim O'Neill is, you know, is not coming from the world of public health and science. O'Neill, first of all, was a deputy to RFK already and seems to be aligned with his vision that he's just rebuilding the CDC. He's not expected to put any challenge forward, you know, in the name of science or in the name of public health. Is likely that he's just going to be, you know, a mouthpiece for RFK and for all the changes that are
already being made. So I don't think anyone who's concerned about what's going on is that all reassured by O'Neill's selection.
Does the CDC director have to be confirmed by the Senate?
Yeah, the CDC director is a confirmed position. Yeah. I think a lot of it will flow from how much feedback the senators are getting from their constituents. You know. It certainly is an opportunity to sort of take the pulse of where America is standing on these issues. My understanding is that he can serve six or seven months without a formal confirmation hearing, so we may see this issue pushed off until, you know, early twenty twenty six.
So Trump said he would allow RFK Junior to go wild on healthcare, and he certainly has done that. Are there any restrictions on what RFK Junior can do.
It's hard to see where Trump is having misgivings. I mean, you know, there's certainly are areas where they were aligned. We've seen, you know, President Trump posting on true Social urging pharmaceuticals to release more data and sort of, you know, claiming that there's some kind of hidden story about vaccine efficacy.
You know.
I think it's funny because President Trump has taken pride at different points on Operation Warp Speed in the extent to which his administration brought the vaccines out in the middle of COVID, when, by the way, we had in the course of two years we look at the data, now over a million Americans dead in the first two years of COVID. I think President Trump is largely distancing himself from RFK specific actions and still trying to protect
his vaccine legacy. I would think that there's probably some discomfort with the more aggressive aspects of RFK, but we have yet to see like a real action to sort of rein him.
In Well, what was surprising to me is that they had a gallup pole in July and Kennedy had higher favorability ratings than Trump and the vice president and others.
Interesting. He's obviously a very polarizing figure. I mean, make America Healthy Again campaign has a lot of resonance. He's clearly, you know, someone who for people who were excited about what RK presented, he's delivering right, you know, whereas President Trump is definitely having to walk a line sort of affecting how people view him. But for people who buy into the public health agenda that's being carried out in this administration, to them, RFK the hero.
Okay, so we talk about the negative things, is he doing anything positive to make America healthy?
There definitely are some good things. He's calling attention to big food and to you know, the need for a sort of new look at nutrition as a driver of health. You know, the people who support him see him as a reformer fighting against entrenched institutions, and I think MAHA make American Health against speaks to people who are frustrated
with public health bureaucracy. But the problem is that when you look at the op ed piece that came out, for example, I mean the other side has a strong scientific grounding to say that he's taking risks with American health buy things like dismantling vaccine infrastructure. So there are things that are positive. He's calling attention to chronic disease.
He's doing, you know, good things to sort of try to create a populist focus on chronic illness in America and the way in which American healthcare could stand to be changed and shake it up. But I think we're seeing that he's also throwing out the baby with the bathwater on things like vaccine policy that I expect we'll see is really keeping Americans alive and out of the hospital in much larger numbers than without it.
How likely is it that during the winter months we'll see a resurgence of COVID without these vaccines.
I think that's a critical question, and I think will be watching. Obviously nobody is hoping for bad news, but I think people are going to be watching very very closely for the number of hospitalizations and the number of deaths. And I do think that clearly by narrowing vaccine eligibility to the sixty five and older group and to people with a high risk condition, there's a bet being made that those populations are the most at risk and have
the biggest central benefit. And on the other side, is this, you know, not backed up by science, that there's negative effects of vaccines for healthier, younger Americans. And so I think everyone's should be watching the numbers months by month as they get released closely this season, and certainly we should all be praying for a mild flu season, you know, not to have deadly variants of COVID, you know all
the other flues that are out there, bird flues. You know, we should obviously be hoping for the best, but we're definitely not coming into the season in a state of high preparedness. If the opposite happens, and if we have something deadly, well, as.
You say, let's hope not. Thanks so much, Harry. That's healthcare attorney Harry Nelson of Leech Tishman Nelson Hardiman. And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg