This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
The resentencing hearing for the Menendez brothers was delayed again last week.
I would ask you'd asked the DA why at the last minute he doesn't hail mary filing of emotion to continue and does not notify any of the.
Victims or the victim's lawyer. Why what is going on?
Whose interest is he? Vindicating The newly elected LA District Attorney Nathan Hakman through a curveball. Just hours before the hearing was supposed to begin, he asked for a delay, arguing that the judge should first see a risk assessment on the brothers done by the California Parole Board as part of a separate proceeding.
We believed it constituted additional facts that the court should consider in deciding whether or not the Menendez brothers do pose a risk of danger to society.
Hawkman reversed corps from the prior d who said the brothers had been rehabilitated while in prison and should be eligible for parole as youthful offenders. But Hawkman firmly opposes the resentencing.
In order to be truly rehabilitated, you have to acknowledge the full breadth of your criminal conduct, your cover up, and your lives.
Mark Geragos, the brother's attorney, is calling for Hawkman to be thrown off the case, saying the DA is biased against the brothers and not acting in good faith with the other Menandez family members, including some who flew in to testify at the hearing. Joining me is Attorney Dave Ahrenberg, the former Palm Beach County State Attorney. A report on each brother was recently conducted by a forensic psychologist as
part of the Parole Board's clemency investigation. Why did this end up delaying the hearing that had been scheduled, Well, the.
Judge wants to make sure he's got all the information. Because the judge actually rejected the demands of the district attorney to not have the resentencing. The previous district attorney wanted the resentencing. The newly elected district attorney did not want the resentencing. So the judge said surprisingly that Nope, no takebacks. We're going to go ahead with this resentencing, and we want to make sure that we have every possible document so that if the Menandaz brothers get released,
that the judge has some cover from outside experts. Isn't just releasing these brutal murders into the public without enough paperwork to justify it.
Is the judge entitled to hear something from a separate proceeding before the parole board. There are two completely separate things, aren't they right?
The parle board is different, but it's relevant for the judge. The judge is the boss. He can decide to examine whatever he wants to because this is not a jury trial. This is not about the rules of evidence in keeping things from the jury to make sure the defendant gets a fair trial. This is about getting as much information as possible so the judge can make a decision on the resentence. Maybe what the judge decide, the pro Board
will get involved. In fact, the pro Board could get involved even if the judge decides to reject a Menendez brother's request to get out of jail early, because then the governor, through the clemency process, could refer to the pro board. So the pro Board is relevant regardless of what the judge says or does.
The District Attorney's team filed a motion for continuance just hours before the hearing. I mean, they knew this was out there, Why so late to try to delay this?
You know, I don't know that answer. The defense lawyers have been wanting to speed up this process for a while because their clients sit behind bars, So I don't know why they decide to delay it right now. Maybe it's because they had not fully vetted this reporter. Maybe the report has some damaging things in it that they need to respond to, So maybe that's perhaps the answer.
So let's talk about this second district attorney, the newly elected district attorney who says that Eric and Lylemanendez have to admit that they've lied to everyone for the past thirty years, and also says that the abuse they're claiming doesn't amount to a self defense claim. And this sort of always hits me with parole hearings where they want the accused to say that they're guilty. Why is it so important to him to hear them say that they lied?
Because they lied, So that's why he wants them to mess up, because they're liars. They lied throughout the whole process. They lied about the motivations. At first, they said they weren't even the killers. They were going out there living large until finally it got back to them. These Menenda's brothers tried to cover their tracks, and that's why a lot of us think that they should face the penalty of the jury and the judge gave them, which is
life in prison. And so there on the brink of getting a major break here, and so the least that they could do, according to the district attorneys, at least admit that you lied, at least emit and own up to what you did so that you can show real remorse instead of all the smokescreens have been putting up for the past several decades.
But isn't it resentencing about whether or not they've changed and rehabilitated themselves in prison.
Well, there's two things. The original DA who was voted out of office, said that he supported the resentencing because the brothers supposedly were on really good behavior and were model prisoners, and that is a reason why the former
DA wanted them released. That's the main reason. But there's another reason that will come up in the resentencing hearing, in that the defense is saying that the brothers were not allowed to pursue their abuse excuse, which is that their father, Jose sexually abused him, and that modifies the crime because they're saying that it's now manslaughter instead of murder. That they were under extreme emotional stress, they were acting as victims of sexual abuse and that's why they did it.
They were not allowed to bring up that defense at trial. So there are two avenues that the defense is going. Number one, that their model prisoners and deserve to be released early. And number two that they were victims of sexual abuse from the father and thus there should be a manslaughter case and not a murder case. And if it is a manslaughter conviction, then they would have been out already.
Yeah, because in the first trial the evidence or the testimony about sex abuse was allowed in and then the second trial it wasn't correct.
And this is the second trial that convicted them. The first trial led to a hung jury. Of course, in boat trials they were wearing those mister rogers Wedters had to try to soften them after himing such a brutal crime, being such a spoiled and titled kids who lived high in the hog after they murdered their parents. And keep in mind, when they did what they did, the parents
had their backs turned to them. The parents were watching TV eating ice cream on the couch while the boys walked up behind them and then blew them away with shotguns. And when the mother tried crawling away because she didn't die, the boys went back outside to reload their shotgun to come in and finish the job. And there was so much blood at the scene that investigators thought it was a mob hit. And the brothers lied. They lied the whole time, and they lied until they could lie no more.
And that's why the DA's saying, all right, guys, own up to what you did, own up to what you said, and then you can get a break.
Where does it play in that Almost all except I think for one of the family members are supporting their bid to get out of prison.
Yeah, this has become a cause slept and the momentum is clearly with the brothers. They've been all the movies, documentaries and time does heal some wounds and so with new information also about Jose's sexual abuse allegedly of the minudo boy band member, and then some other evidence that was not admitted in the second trial where apparently one of the brothers confided in someone that he was a
victim of sexual abuse. That all this together has galvanized the family to support the brothers, not all the family, but almost all. But the DA doesn't represent the victims or the families. The DA represents the people. It's the state the people, and the DA has to make the best decision based on principles of justice, and this DA says principles of justice mean they should not get out of prison now. It's not just the DA's call, it's the judge's call now, and the former DA help push
this along. That's why the judge has a lot of power. And even if the judge says no, then the governor could still get involved and work with a pro board to let them free.
The defense attorney feels that this DA is prejudiced against them, and even the family members complained because during the last hearing, the DA showed those gruesome photos of the murders without telling them that that was going to happen, and one of the ants ended up in the hospital and the family said she'd been traumatized by the photos, and the deputy DA apologized for not warning them, but said Eric and Lyle Menendez caused that carnage, not me, which almost
sounds like a retraction of the apology. So it seems like the La County DA has taken some missteps, and so the defense attorney is asking for the DA to be thrown off the case and replaced by the Attorney General of the state. Is that at all likely?
Yeah? I don't think that should happen, And I don't think the DA has crossed the line of the days using the pictures of what had happened. I mean, if you're going to let them free, you got to come to grips with what they did and not just gloss over it. It shouldn't be a one sided conversation. I mean, they committed a brutal, horrific crime, and just because decades have passed and now Kim Kardashian and major celebrities are behind them, doesn't mean you get a whitewash what they did.
And so that's where the DA's like, hey, remember what they did. Remember who were murdered here? I mean he's giving voice to Kitty and Jose. And even if Jose committed sexual abuse of the brothers, does that justify what they did to Kitty. I mean, Kitty was murdered in such a horrific way when she was trying to crawl away to save her life. That I don't see how that would be justified under manslaughter principles and not pure murder. I mean, there's no credible allegation that Kitty engaged in
sexual abuse with the kids. Now the argument is that she looked the other way, But does that justify her brutal murder? So that's why I think, you know, I understand why the DA one of those pictures in of course they should should have given some notice, but that's not enough to kick them off the case.
And so, and as you said, even if the judge resentences them, they'll still have to go before the parole board.
You know, the pro board does have an involvement here, and yes, they'd still be involved. And that's why it's not just the judge that makes the complete decision. The par board is involved. And even if the judge decides to reject the request from the defense, the pro board will get involved. If the governor decides to move ahead with clemency.
Yeah, nothing stops the governor from granting clemency. And the rehearing is now reschedule from May ninth. We'll see if it actually takes place this time coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. I'll continue this conversation with Dave Ahrenberg on Friday. Luigia Mangioni is set to make his first appearance in federal court since the Justice Department said it would seek the death penalty in charging mangione murdered a United Healthcare executive. I'm June Grosso. When you're listening
to Bloomberg. On Friday, Luigi Mangioni is set to make his first appearance in federal court since the Justice Department said it would seek the death penalty. The twenty six year old Ivy League graduate was indicted on a federal murder charge in the killing of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Mangioni's indictment, returned by a federal grand jury in Manhattan, includes a charge of murder through the use of a firearm,
which carries the possibility of the death penalty. I've been talking to Dave Ahrenberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney. Why are the Feds bringing charges as well as the state.
The Feds have a time for here. Number One, they get to show that they are tough on crime, that they are reversing the Biden error policy on having a moratorium on the death penalty. And number two, they get to own the libs. I mean, those are two big motivations for this administration because Luigi Mangioni support really comes from folks on the left who hate insurance companies and
treat Luigi as a hero for what he did. And so the Trump administration gets to burnish their tough on crime credentials while at the same time upsetting those who never supported them to begin with, upsetting the people who are the most strident anti Trump advocates. And that's why they're doing what they're doing, even though because I got to believe they don't really believe they're going to get
the death penalty in New York. New York is a blue state, and you have to get a unanimous jury to impose a death penalty there, and that's going to be really, really hard to do, especially because you've got a young guy with no criminal record, who is good looking, in a cause celeb and just the reality it's tough in those kinds of cases to give someone capital punishment.
All the reasons you gave for why the federal government is bringing these charges are political reasons, not legal reasons, not based on a pursuit of justice.
Well, those reasons I gave are the reasons why they're seeking the death penalty. Now, as far as reasons why they're prosecuting the case, I would add that I do think there is a feeling within the Trump administration that New York prosecutors are not to be trusted because in this case, the DA is Alvian Bragg Junior, who is the prosecutor prosecutor Donald Trump in Manhattan.
And he got a conviction. I don't know why they don't trust him.
Well, yeah, they don't trust him because they think he's political, and they don't They just don't like him. So they are using themselves as a backstop to make sure that this case gets treated in the right way and as harshly as they believe it should be treated. They don't trust Alvin Bragg for the reasons I just mentioned. So for all these reasons, yes, a lot of them are political, but keep in mind the evidence is overwhelming against luigim MANJIONI.
Although I don't think he'll get the death penalty, I don't think there's any doubt that he'll be convicted I mean, he wrote a confession, they got pictures of him clearly as the guy who did it, from the hostel to the on the street, and it really was a cowardly thing to do. I mean, if you have a beef in the insurance company, you don't lie in wait, wear a mask, shoot someone in the back and run away. That's cowardly. He's a hero.
There's a ton of evidence. I'm not saying that. I'm just disagreeing about the FEDS bringing charges and getting around the double jeopardy because this doesn't look like a case that the FED should be involved in. He's going to be tried in New York. It's a state crime.
Yes, but there are other cases where the Feds.
Will I know, and I disagreed with those two. They're able to get around that not being tried twice for the same crime.
But it's a separate sovereign you know, you're allowed to try people twice if it's not the same exact crime. In the federal and the state are also you know, they're separate sovereigns. So it happens. Now. One time it didn't happen was when the state decided to prosecute Paul Maniford after he was pardoned by Donald Trump at for federal crimes, and the state of New York tried to do that and the state Supreme Court said, Nope, can't
do that here. But it doesn't work quite that way the other way around.
And Mangioni's lawyers are arguing that the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, announcing that she was ordering prosecutors to seek the death penalty before he was indicted was a stunt, political stunt that corrupted the grand jury process and derived him of his constitutional right to do process.
I disagree. It may have been a political stunt, but it doesn't deprive him of his right to do process. It didn't taint the grand jury. I mean, the grand jury did what they did. They focus on the evidence and the law, and there's plenty of evidence to indict him for first degree murder at the state level and for the federal charges as well. So I don't think it handed the jury have been political stunt. But you know, these are the types of things that happen, you know,
you know what else is the political stunt? When Eric Adams walked with the armed team surrounding Luigim Mangoni on the way to court, Like, what was that about. I mean, this case is politicized from the beginning.
That was a political stunt, there is no doubt about it. I mean the response to that was why is he escorting him? Everybody wanted a piece of Luigi Mangoni's fame or infamy.
That was awful. Politicians shouldn't be the mess around the criminal justice system because and only jeopardizes cases when you do that. But even that, I thought that was over the top, that Eric Adams shouldn't have been walking with the armed law enforcement officers who are escorting luigim Angoni. But even that, I don't think the prize them all
right to a fair trial. I mean, this is the case that everyone's going to hear about, everyone's going to know, people are going to draw their own opinions, and you just have to find a jury that will set aside what they know and any buas they have and just follow the evidence of the law. And I've seen that happen in every high profile case, and I've been involved with a few of them, and you can always find a jury. I mean, they found a jury for Donald Trump.
Everyone knew about him and everyone had opinions about him. But yet they found an unbiased jury in Manhattan that listened to the evidence and followed the law.
In New York, though, it seems like the case has been overcharged with the first degree murder charges that have to be in furtherance of an act of terrorism, which the legal definition of his intent to intimidate or coerce the civilian population or a government unit, And that doesn't seem to be the case here. First of all, was in the early morning hours when there was no one around.
I agree with you, I think the case is overcharged in New York. New York is a weird system where it's not first degree murder unless it has some sort of enhance or like some sort of extra like terrorism. So that's why Alvin Bragg got that indictment about terrorism, even though really isn't an act of terrorism. I don't think, I mean, was he trying to intimidate the public. His writings said that he was trying to avoid any public cash, any innocence. He was trying to avoid that, and he
focused entirely on this one individual. And you see by the public support behind him, it's not exactly he was trying to terrorize people. If anything, he was trying to galvanize them behind him and his cause to fight against the insurance company. So I think that's like a square peg in a round hole. I think it's gonna be hard for them to get that enhancer. And that is
another reason why the FEDS have come in. I think fed saw that saw that they really don't have a true first or murder statue that applies here in New York. So let's come in with our own, and not only will we ensure he gets life in prison, we'll even seek the death penalty, which again not going to happen, but I do think they'll ensure that he never spends a day outside the prison for the rest of his life.
Let's turn down to the case against p Diddy. Opening statements in the trial are set for May twelfth. What are the charges against him? Because the prosecution has updated the indictment three times.
In the Didty case, the he did superseding indictments, which was expected. What they've done is they've added parties to it, new victims, They've added more detail to it. There's more counts now, so you know that's what happens in these types of cases. When more information comes forward, and did he wanted a postponement saying there's all these new victims now to like two more victims, we need more time
to prepare. But those victims were mentioned in the first superseding indictment back into January, and so they've got plenty of time to prepare for trial. The trial is going in the beginning of May, and so they had had enough time. Plus even if these individuals were not mentioned until January. Did he knew what was going on? He knew what he did, and so it's not like any
of this stuff is a big surprise for him. His attorneys may not have known exactly what the charges would it be, but they knew with plenty of time for the May trial.
I was surprised that he didn't get bail. I mean, they could have had electronic monitoring of him so he wouldn't escape the country. Why do you think they didn't give him any bail at all?
Because he's a rich guy who has tried to tamper with witnesses. So you've got tampering with witnesses, and you've got person with means who lives in Miami right on the water, easy to send a boat, just get out of dodge. So I think it was the right move to keep behind bars. You want to do justice for the victims here, and there's no justice. So he's able to leave to a country that has no extradition policy.
Have they indicated yet what the defense will be.
His defense is going to be consent for the victims of the human trafficking. He's going to say that these parties are these are all adults, these are not miners, So consent is a defense, and these were people who engage in these, you know, these acts and it's a money play that afterwards that he is being sued by some and all these allegations going around. So it's really going to be consent is the main defense here.
You think he will take the stand. Any chance interesting always a chance.
But whenever you have a big celebrity, you know, who make a living off the support of the public, where you have to convince them that you are someone who is likable and talented, and I think that they're more inclined to take the stand. Now, I bet he and this guy's a big ego, he'll want to take the stand. His lawyers may say, no, no, no, you do that and they're going to bring in all this other stuff that they otherwise can't bring in. So I say, it'll
depend how it's going. Depends how it's going. If it looks like it's going badly, then that's the hill Mary pass. Then he'll take the stand. If it looks like the prosecution has not proved its case, then he is sitting there with a zipper over his mouth.
I'm trying to remember the last time he was tried in New York, years and years and years ago. I think was on the gun charge. Johnny cochrane was his defense lawyer. That's how long ago that was. So several big cases happening in the Manhattan courts. Once again, thanks so much, Dave. It's always a pleasure. That's Day Ehrenberg,
former Palm Beach County State Attorney. In less than a year, two judges have found that Google is a monopolist, and now Google is facing the ultimate threat that Microsoft faced more than twenty five years ago, as the government tries to break up the tech giant. A hearing kicked off today in Washington, d C. To decide the remedy after a federal judge's decision last August that Google's search engine
is a monopoly. This comes just days after a federal judge in Maryland ruled in a separate case that Google illegally monopolized the market for online advertising technology. Joining me is Justin Teresi, Bloomberg Intelligence antitrust analyst. Justin can you explain that one hundred and fourteen page decision by Judge Brinkman.
So, I think this is one of those cases where the facts of the matter are actually far more complicated than the law underpinning it, right, So I'll do my best to break it down for you. That's right, So Google, And this is important too. The case is really limited to something called open web display advertising. And what I mean by that is when you go to a desktop version of a website, think about those little rectangular or square ads that you see on the web page itself.
So think like local newspapers or you know, something like that, where you go to the website and you see those ads. What's not in the market here really important, I think to the remedies phase is that we're not talking about mobile ads, the mobile versions of a website. We're not talking about the ads you might see in an app. We're not talking about the ads you might see in connected TV platforms where you might see something streaming. So that's kind of the nuts and bolts of what we're
looking at the three different markets. Google has a business on both the buy sides, so folks looking at place advertisements. The sell side, so the folks with websites looking to sell that space. Then there's that ad exchange in the middle that kind of match us up the right consumer with the right website to see the right ad at the right time. So that's kind of the three different
markets to your point. That's right, that the buy side, the folks looking at place advertisements that fell out of the liability funding with the judge fund that that particular side of the market really had a very active competitive marketplace existing in it.
And so why did she find that the other two were monopolized?
Sure, so on the cell side with the publishers who are looking to have folks buy ad space on their site, Google has over a ninety percent market share on that side, right, So not too difficult to see why. You know, a monopolization claim might have an easy time with some success there, but really when it comes down to it, you know that side was kind of tied to this AD exchange
in the middle in an illegal way. And the reason why is that Google had all this real time demand that it was serving through this ad exchange in the middle, and in order to get access to that real time demand to make the best business decisions you could, the publishers for their websites had to use that Google cell side platform in order to access that demand in the middle. So that's really the tying that perpetrated the There was a.
Lot of emphasis on double click and ad meld, and she found that those acquisitions were not anti competitive, right.
So you're right, she didn't find that those acquisitions were anti competitive. It was more a question of what they did with those companies once they bought them, right, So they were able to kind of institute these policies that again tied those two different things together, the AD server, which was the Double Click for Publishers and the AD exchange, and those policies they put in place that would ended
up being the issue. So what they would say is, hey, you know, folks using our double Click for Publishers platform, you know our AD exchange, they're going to get a first look at the bids that are out there. From our competitors. So kind of like think of it this way, A write a first refusal in many ways, you know, against other advertising exchanges. And then also they had a
policy for a while called last look. So think about an auction at Seaby's or something, right, And the judge actually loved this analogy and so I'm kind of ripping her off with it. But you know, imagine everybody else puts their bid in an envelope and you're also a bidder. You see everybody else's big, and then you decide, hey, I'm going to beat everybody else because I know what they are. And that's the kind of policies that Google had in place that were found to be the problem.
Google says it's going to appeal big surprise. It was a big surprise or no surprises. So what are the possible remedies in this case?
So I think a lot of folks are talking about a potential divestiture for the publisher, ad server the cell side here, But I have to tell you I kind of don't think we're going to see that. And the reason why is that, you know, well, it's certainly on the table and more here than in the search case. I think, you know, this tying of the two products
together that really seemed to be the issue. And at the trial itself there was testimony from rival publisher ad servers and from publishers who didn't want to be on that product anymore, and when asked what was the issue, they said, time and time again, we need that real time and demand from the ad exchange. And it seems to me that if you were to stip that tie and stop the policies from perpetrating the way they are, that probably goes a long way to resolve the anti
competitive findings of the court itself. Again, to your point, the acquisition weren't found to be anti competitive. The problem is how they behaved with those acquisitions once they were made.
And starting today there's a hearing on remedies in the other antitrust case against Google, which was decided last August, involving search tell us about that.
You know, I think similar to what we're seeing in the ad tech case. So there has been a finding by the court in the search related case that Google has maintained its monopoly, and again the distinction being that, you know, the court didn't find that Google bought its way into that monopoly in search. But the court is again saying, is that you know, you developed search in
your own homegrown way. The court credited Google a lot with their own kind of effort to make itself the search monopoly it is, versus buying it from someone else. But what they've done is they've entered these exclusivity agreements with folks like Apple, so that Google search mechanism would
be that underlying platform. Whenever you use Safari or Siri, it's running its search is over Google's search product, right, So and so doing Google's retained that kind of trained knowledge and its search engine and its competitors allegedly, well, I suppose found by the court can't really get to scale because it's not having that learning through its algorithms the way that Google search is.
The last time the government tried to break up a company like this was more than twenty five years ago with Microsoft. What exactly is the government proposing here?
The way we're looking at this, I think is in many ways it's kind of like an opening salve vote in a negotiation.
Right.
And when I say that, what I mean is, you know the government's kind of coming in here asking for a divestiture of Chrome, which I don't think goes a long way to solve the actual competitive harms found by the court, the agreements of the problem, and the government also for a time at least was looking for Google to divest its investments in the AI space. Kind of argument that that contributes to the problems here with search
as well. But realistically, you know, I think when we step back for a moment and look at the problem again, it was these exclusivity agreements. Perhaps what Google, you know, would be forced to as a remedy is share some of its data profiles or share some of its learning tools with competitors they could get to scale. Perhaps you see efforts to allow a choice screen on a phone,
which is being done in Europe now. Right, So when you go to do a search, you don't automatically end up with Google Chrome, but there are other search engines that you can choose, and you know, perhaps that lends a little bit more of a push to competitors.
I mean, Google is a verb. What's left of Googling or Google if they have to divest.
That, it is absolutely a verb, and I think in many different spaces to your point, so Chrome, Chrome is the browser, right, So that is, I suppose the tool to access the search engine itself. So we're not talking about Google devesting its search engine. We're talking about that
browsing tool that gets you to the search engine. Right, So you could still go to Google dot com, for example, on Microsoft Edge or through your Safari browser if it's not automatically pointed at Google, and you can access Google Search that way. And I have to say, June, this
is really interesting too. You know, at the trial itself, there was expert testimony about all these preset kind of defaults, and the reality is you're right, any consumer can use a different browser or go to a different search engine. That's true, But the court seems swayed by an expert at trial who testify folks are a little bit lazy. They don't want to They're not going to go to a different search engine if it's actually offered up to if one's right there in their face for them to go to.
Some of Google's partners, like Apple, probably won't be too happy with some of these suggested remedies.
Right from a lot of the way things look. Apple has a lot to lose right now in terms of the search case, in the sense that Google's actually paying Apple about twenty billion dollars a year to have these default kind of presets for Google search engine, audits devices, and you know, behind Safari, behind Siri, and Mozilla also, which operates Firefox, receives about four hundred five hundred million dollars a year for the same regarding its browsers. For
a big company like Apple, that definitely hurts. But Mozilla, a really small company, a four hundred five hundred million dollar payment per year could really means survival of the company itself. So there are a lot of actors involved, and a lot that could play out for companies outside of just Google.
So you think that this might be a prelude, sort of like Microsoft settled, a prelude to a settlement.
It could be. You know, with Search, I think things are pretty far along, but I think you know, in terms of a settlement coming together, You're right, anything could happen while we're waiting for a remedy to be handed out on the Search case. Same thing with the ad Tech case, where we're working on remedies there. The government certainly can settle claims at any time it wants to during that phase or even up through an appellet process, which is what happened in Microsoft, right, We were well
into an appeals process before a settlement happened there. So you know, the court will find what it's fine, the appeals court will say what it says. But at the end of the day, there's a lot of time here left and a lot of runway left for the government to settle claims if they want to have the actual ultimate say here.
And the Google case is different from the medic case because Google actually developed what's at stake here, while Meta bought the competition.
To your point, I think that's a lot of what the court was saying in both of these findings too, is that there has been given some degree of credit to Google for actually developing all of this, know how on their own. They haven't just run out and acquired a lot of these subsidiaries that are issue here. So your points well taken. I'll tell you myself personally, I love Google Search too. I don't know that I trust everything else.
Now, the final step is going to be well not the final step because there's President Trump possibly intervening, but these are all going to go to the Supreme Court.
There's a high likelihood and not even just because we're talking about a large defendant like Google. I think we're talking about areas of antitrust law that really haven't been tested for a very long time here, right, and there are a lot of them with both of these cases. The ad Tech case specifically, we're talking about refusals to deal. On how far that goes. I think Google still will fight that fight, even though they lost the trial court
on appeal. We're talking about two sided transaction markets, all of these these kind of corners and you know, nitty gritty of edit trust law where there's a lot of disagreement. Folks love to have a lot of theoretical conversations about them, but when it comes to black letter law, we're kind of starving for it in some ways. From the court.
I mean, we're talking about if there's no settlement years and years before this is finalized.
I think that's accurate. I think we're looking at a one to two window for just an appellate review of some kind, even in the Search case. But yes, I think we're looking at a long time down the road here. Google showed no signs of kind of going away quietly either.
I don't think anyone expects Google to go away quietly. Thanks so much, Justin. That's Bloomberg Intelligence antitrust analyst Justin Terteresi. 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