The jurors in Donald Trump's hush money trial have heard the name Stormy Daniels countless times. Today they got to hear from her as she took the witness stand and offered a detailed and at times graphic account of a sexual encounter she says she had with Trump in two thousand and six that resulted in her being paid off to keep silent during the presidential race ten years later, and encounter Trump has denied. Joining me is former federal
prosecutor Michael Zelden. Why is Stormy Daniels' testimony important to the prosecution.
Stormy Daniels serves several purposes. One, Donald Trump has repeatedly said this never happened, and so to the extent that she can say this happened, then were Trump to testify, the jury has a basis to evaluate her testimony versus his testimony. She also, I think, plays the role of supporting the conversations that she had with Michael Cohen and her understanding that Donald Trump was the payre in this transaction, that Trump was intimately involved in it through her direct
conversations with Cohen, which Cohen will then testify to. So I think she serves the purpose of helping the prosecution say this story happened, helping the prosecution say there was an imperative that Trump felt to get this story suppressed, and from her dealings with Michael Cohen, it was her complete understanding that Donald Trump was aware of this, involved in it, and was the ultimate payre of the hush money.
So at different times she made Trump look almost ridiculous, saying he was rude, arrogant, didn't know how to have a conversation, and sleazy at many times. I mean, you know, his questions about her sex life, and she rolled up a magazine at one point and playfully spanked him. I mean, is this the prosecution's attempt to get this before the jury, to get in bad character.
Evidence in a sense, And in fact, the defense attorney moved for a mistrial after lunch on the basis of this sort of evidence. Remember, she says she walks into his hotel suite, she thought that they were supposed to be having dinner downstairs, and he comes out in silk pajamas. Then later in the course of the evening, before they eat dinner, she's in the bathroom. She comes out and he's chained out of his clothes into boxer shorts and a T shirt. So yes, it does make him look
like a predator. And remember he's sixty ish years old at the time. She's twenty seven years old at the time. It's on his turf. I think it really does make him look bad. And that's why the prosecution, I think, in part, wants it should he testify. They want to have a counterbalance against what he's going to say about himself. And that's also, of course why the defense move for a mistrial, because it is so damning as a character matter.
So the judge said before her testimony, I agree that she's got credibility issues, so the people have to establish her credibility. Is he talking about the fact that she's a porn star, the fact that she denied this at one point.
Yeah, I think all of those things. One, she is an adult actress, which is, you know, something that has some negative connotations to it too. She is selling a story which they're going to try to portray the defenses as extortion. She denies it, and then she admits it. Then she says she wants her story out, and then she says she wants her story suppressed as long as
she gets paid for it. So there's a lot of stuff there that is damaging as a character matter, and the prosecutors want to say, look, there is stuff here that's not ideal. But at the very bottom line, what she's telling us is the truth, which can be corroborated by other witnesses. And again, if Trump were to testify, they have the counterweight against what he will say, presumably which is consistent with what he said in the public, which is this never happened.
There was testimony about all these things that the judge at one point said that it wasn't necessary to go into detail here, and then she went into all this detail. Was she not prepped by the prosecution?
Well, I think she was prepped by the prosecution. I think that she was probably nervous, and they're asking her to tell a story of what happened, and she, you know, in her mind's eye, is back in the moment reliving that story. And I don't think she purposefully tried to inject this so called salacious stuff in. But if you're telling a story to you of what happened, which was a traumatic story at age twenty seven, a sixty year old man engage in what was consensual, but with a
really broad power dynamic between them. I think that, you know, her telling it as it happened actually makes it appear more believable than if it was very stylized in the telling of the story with look rehearsed, and I don't think that would have been helpful to her or the prosecution.
Could the salacious details backfire with some of the jurors finding her account distasteful and that bleeds over into their opinion of her testimony.
Well, they could, except I think she has basically come across as you read her testimony. You're not in the core rooms. I can't, you know, make eye contact with her and see her body language. But as you read it, she says, Look, I'm a seventeen year old kid. I leave home. I didn't have a great upbringing. I was sort of poor. I got involved in modeling and that led to adult filmmaking, and here I am. You know, this is who I am. You know I'm not apologizing
for it. You might not like my profession, but this is who I am. That doesn't make me dishonest, that makes me just who I am. And if you're going to judge me for that, well you know, I can't help that.
For about a year afterwards, he called her like once a week, and his pet name for her was honey bunch. How do you think the jury will see.
That their encounter, which started out as a consensual adult relationship, a one night's stand, although I say the power differential between them is profound, But she said immediately afterwards she was completely embarrassed, embarrassed enough to not tell but her closest friends to not tell her boyfriend. She was embarrassed. He on the other hand, thought, well, this was good. Let's keep it up, you know, honey bunch. Let's get
together when you're next in town. So I think he was seeing this as an ongoing opportunity, irrespective of the fact that he's married to Melania, and he didn't seem, according to her testimony, to be plussed at all by the fact that he was cheating on his wife. So I don't know that it's inconsistent with who many people believe Donald Trump is, as portrayed, perhaps best, on the Access Hollywood tape.
How will the prosecution deal with the fact that she was paid off for this story?
Well, they're gonna say that there's an arm length business deal that this occurs and that it may be unseemly, but as we heard from David Pecker, it occurs all the time with famous stars Hulk Hogan and the likes Karen McDougall. And she was just another person who was capitalizing on a story to sell. You might not like that, but look, people sell kiss and tell books all the time.
People make a fortune, you know, coming out of government saying let me tell you the behind the scenes story, what I did to save the union sort of stuff. So how does she fit in differently than that?
I was surprised that the defense didn't object that much while she was giving this testimony. Yet when it came time to make the motion for a mistrial, part of what they were objecting to were the salacious details in her testimony.
Well, you can argue that they waved it, or that they made a strategic choice, and whether they've waived or made a strategic choice to allow this in somehow limits there after the fact argument that we were prejudiced by it, and we saw the judge denied it. So I think though that on this questions of missionary position and pajamas and boxer shorts and honeybunch and all that sort of stuff.
Her testilony is going to boil down to the fact that it is credible that she had an affair with Donald Trump, and it is credible that Mike Cohen and she on behalf of Trump entered into a contract to suppress her story. That's the heart of what the prosecution needs to have the jury believe. All the other stuff is essentially collateral to the main argument that they will make.
So the prosecution says they have about two more weeks of trial, which was surprising, I think to a lot of people. What do you think about the placement of her as a witness? Does it say that Michael Cohen is coming up next? Or can you see what they're doing with their witnesses.
Yeah, they seem to be running a pattern of big name then document evidence, big name than document evidence, and so I'm not sure what the document evidence is that will follow Stormy Daniels, but I expect that there will be some additional low key people so that the jury can catch its breath before they bring on Cohen. My big question to myself is is Coen going to be
their cleanup hitter? Is he the last Hurrah? Or are they going to put him on and then try to introduce additional financial documents to support what he has to say. That's I think a tricky decision for the prosecutors.
Yeah, I mean, would you want to end with Michael Cohen because the defense is going to have a field day with him?
Exactly. I wouldn't want to end with him. I would want him to be somewhere in like the seventh inning, if you will, and we can bring in Mariano Rivera. If Michael Cohen is a seventh inning witness, who is the Mariano Rivera? Who is their closer to make the case to the jury that before closing arguments that they've proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. And I just don't know who that is yet.
It will be a while before that witness takes the stand though, Thanks so much, Michael. That's former federal prosecutor Michael Zelden. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. The government's landmark anti trust case against Google. It's the biggest anti trust challenge in more than two decades. The federal government's antitrust case against Google. The government claims that Google has illegally maintained a monopoly over online search and
related advertising. Judge Ammett Meta heard from more than fifty witnesses in a ten week trial that wrapped up on May third. However, closing arguments didn't take place until last week. Joining me is Jennifer Reed, Bloomberg Intelligence Senior litigation analyst. Jen Why are the closing arguments taking place so long after the testimony?
You know, I think in this case, there was a lot of evidence and complicated evidence, and I really think he wanted to be able to go through it all, to walk back through all the documents from the trial, maybe go back through transcripts from the experts, to really understand the case and understand the facts of the case and understand what both sides were alleging before the closing arguments. And I think that was really evident because he was
so active. I mean, some closing are arguments are just the lawyers standing up making their case. There might be a few questions, but he was questioning all of the lawyers the entire way through, and it was very clear that he was very well acquainted with the evidence and very well acquainted with the precedent that both sides had cited. In their various papers or that just you know, he understood was relevant to the case, and I think that's why he took so much time.
So he said, Judge Meta, the importance and significance of this case is not lost on me, not only for Google but for the public. Well, how important is this case?
Well, I think that has a lot of importance. First, because it's actually the very first monopolization lawsuit the Department of Justice has brought against a tech company since the nineteen nineties. I mean, that's a long time.
Now.
I limit that to the Department of Justice because the Federal Trade Commission did sue Qualcomm for monopolization back in twenty seventeen, so we had that suit, But there was just this long period of time where we had very few government enforcement monopolization suits period, and nothing against the tech companies. And this is the very first one. So
in some ways it kind of sets the tone. I don't want to say it sets any kind of a groundwork for the others to come, the trials to come against Amazon, Meta, Google for other conduct, and Apple, because we're talking about different markets, different companies, different kinds of conduct. Really each case is quite different, but it kind of
sets the tone for going forward. And I think it's also important because it's likely we don't know yet, but it's likely that if the Department of Justice does win on liability, that they'll seek some sort of a structural remedy, some sort of a breakup of the company. And that is also something that hasn't happened in a long time and something that's very rarely tested out. And this judge is going to be put to the test and we'll
have to see what happens with that. But it's important for presidential reasons, for historical reasons, and I think it's just the very first effort we're seeing in the US to try to contain the power and the dominance of a big tech platform.
So is the first question defying the market? Yes, just to remind us why that's important.
Right, So, for any monopolization suit, there are a series of steps that the plaintiff has to go through and if they fail at any of one of those steps, they lose the case. Right, So they have the burden of proving what the relevant antitrust market is and what that means is what is the sphere of competition? This is about Google Search, the search engine. So what other
search services out there does Google compete with? And why is that important, June is because the next step they have to prove that Google has a monopoly in that market, and you have to know who else is in the market to determine the market shares and whether Google has monopoly.
So you start there and on that one, obviously, you know the lawyers will disagree across everything contended by the plaintiffs, but at least on this one, the Department of Justice alleges that the market is general search services, and you see very few competitors there. That's Google, it's being it's Duck, duc Go. There was another entrant called Neba that has
exited the market. And these are the search engines where you can go and ask them anything, Right, They're going to scan the entire Internet, so you can go in and look for anything. And what Google's argue here is that no, no, no, no, no, the market's a lot broader because some of the searches you can do on Google you can also do elsewhere. You can search for items you might want to shop or on Amazon. You can search for travel deals on Kayak or any other number
of travel websites. So you have to consider those companies our competitors too. So there's this argument about how broad the market is, and that's important because the broader it is, the lower Google's market share is, and DOJ has to prove that that market share is somewhere up over sixty or seventy percent in order to establish that it has a monopoly.
Said, certainly, I don't think the average person would say, yeah, Google and Amazon are the same. Is that a signal that he's accepting the Justice Department's definition of the market?
I think for everything, for anything that they discussed at this trial, this is the one area where I think it's pretty clear where the judge is going to come out. I think that you just highlighted I think one of the most important statements that he made with respect to the relevant market that suggests he's going to align with
the DOJ on this. He also ruled in a merger trial when US Food Srancisco tried to merge that had some similar concepts that were being discussed with respect to the relevant market, whether some of the niche players that could substitute were part of what the companies did, whether they were in the market, and in that case, he decided they were not, and so that would be aligned with the judge siding with the DOJ on market here.
And I think, look, you and I can think about this as consumers, and in my opinion, really Google doesn't compete with Amazon for search. You know, even if I'm searching to buy some item of clothing, I probably would actually start on Google, even though I think some would start on Amazon. But the fact of the matter is you can't do on Amazon everything you can do on Google. I agree, right, So I think the DJA wins on that.
The advertising part of this is that part of the marketers at a different question.
So that's the second market. They've argued that Google's causing harm in two different markets. So the first market is this general search engine services market, and that was the first day they talked about that. And the second market is search advertising. Now, search advertising is different from other advertising on the Internet. These are the ads that come up when I do a search on Google, right, So that's a specific kind of advertising because the advertiser has
an indication of what that user is interested in. I'm doing a search, and let's say I'm searching for pickleball clothes, you know, and I don't even know why. I hope not because I don't play pickleball, so I don't even know why I said that, but all my friends do. But anyway, then the advertiser understands the user has this interest in pickleball, right, so they can send this targeted
ad because there's this search, that kind of search. And there was some evidence that advertisers view these general search ads as different from putting ads elsewhere. Let's say I OPENCNN dot com to read some news. There would be different ads there. They view that as a different kind of a target, right, and not substitutable. So what the DJ's arguing is that general search ads are also that is a relevant market.
So explain this comment to me. The judge said, unlike wrapping a sandwich in newspaper instead of sell a faith, if you move your ad money from Google to Amazon, you're not wrapping your ad in newspaper, right.
So, in other words, when the Department of Justice is trying to argue that no, no, no, no, no, you know, advertisers can't substitute. They don't get the return on investment, they can't substitute to some other website, he's saying, oh no, no, No, Amazon is a great website, you know, Yelp a great website, Facebook, you know, huge dominant social networking company that's hugely valuable
to the advertisers to advertise there. So what he's saying is that it's not jump change as compared to advertising on a Google search page. That it's very good and it's almost equivalent. So it's less clear for that market June whether or not the judge is going to accept the DJ's market definition.
In twenty seventeen, Google ran an experiment over several weeks and found it could increase prices five to fifteen percent while still growing revenue. And he said that's something that only a monopolist could.
Do, right, right, because in the precedent, the definition of a monopolist is a company that has the power to basically control price or reduce output without losing any profitability. So this is evidence that Google can's the sort of price anyway they want to for these search ads and not lose profit by doing it, not have advertisers flee
go place their ads somewhere else. And that suggests that they do have monopoly power and that that is a relevant market because it suggests that the advertisers say, well, I'm just going to accept that price increase because I have to advertise here. There isn't some other substitute where I'm going to get, you know, the return for my investment that I will hear.
So what were some of the other questions that went to whether Google is a monopolist?
So two different markets, so we're sort of talking about two different things. But let's if we start with the search engine market. You know, basically they just said, hey, you know, if this is the market, they had evidence that Google shares anywhere, you know, over eighty percent, And I think, to us, that's not a big surprise, right because your other options in the US are being inductucco And I think I use Google all the time. Most of the people I know use Google all the time,
so that's not a surprise. So I think they get
there there, you know, on the search advertising. If he accepts that market and doesn't broaden the market out to advertising elsewhere digitally and not just through a firstal that cut the results page for search, then I think the evidence that the DOJ presented that they have monopoly power there was about this ability to kind of willing nearly raise the price anytime they wanted, and any percentage that they wanted without losing business or at least without losing
the profitability. So these are their ways of showing that in these relevant markets, Google has monopoly power. Those are the first two steps. That's not the end of the inquiry, but those are the first two steps the dj has to get through to get to the next step.
And the next step is have.
They engaged in an anti competitive conduct? Because June, it's not illegal to have a monopoly, you know, it's not illegal to have a monopoly positioned. So just proving that Google has a monopoly position in these two markets is not enough. There has to be exclusionary anti competitive conduct intended to hold on to that monopoly. So it really means conduct that has no other reason. There's no justification for the conduct, but for to hold back my rivals
and hold on to my position. That's really what that is. And so at the end of the day, if the DOJ can get through those two steps, and I think it can, it's going to be all about conduct. And that's the most difficult question the judge is going to have to answer, and very clearly the one he's struggling with the most based on his questions and the closing arguments. And I'm not surprised by that, because there's a very fine line in any monopolization suit between conduct that is
anti competitive and conduct that's very highly competitive. And courts across the country, you know, are very mixed on this. The one set of facts for one judge might be viewed as anti competitive conduct, while the same set of facts by another might be viewed as not crossing that line. And so it's a very difficult determination to make. And here it's about the agreements or payments that Google makes.
Agreements plus payments to Apple and to OEMs, I think into telecoms too, So to place Google Search as the default behind Safari, let's say, or to place the Google Search app on the phone as a condition that Samsung's making the Android phone as a condition to getting the other Google apps that really must be on the phone, like YouTube and play Store and things like that.
Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue this conversation with Bloomberg Intelligence Senior litigation analyst Jenniferree. We'll talk about which way the judge may be leaning and what the remedies might be if he finds against Google. I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg in its biggest anti trust challenge yet. Google is being sued by the Justice Department and state attorneys general. It's a case that could result in the breakup of the twenty five year
old company. I've been talking to Bloomberg Intelligence senior litigation analyst Jennifer ree. So, Jen, what's Google's answer to the question of whether they engaged in anti competitive conduct?
While Google's answer, and it's a good one, honestly, is that, well, this isn't true. Foreclosure be just because we're set let's say Safari. Let's say let's use Apple as the example. Just because we're set as the default behind Safari, any user can go in and change that at any time. We have done nothing, We have put no conditions on Apple to get their payment, to do anything through technological
means to prevent a user from changing that default. They can change it to duc dot Goo, they can change it to Bing. And in fact, you see people who have Microsoft devices where Bing is set as the default actually going in and changing that default to Google. This is interchangeable. We're not blocking anybody if we had set to Apple, you won't get your payment unless you block users from changing that default. That might have been different. That's a little bit more like the old Microsoft case
where Microsoft was blocking out Netscape and Java. It really made it technologically impossible for somebody to use Netscape or Java on an Intel based Windows operating System computer. So that's where things diverge a little bit from Microsoft in
it starts to get tricky. And really what the DJ has to prove is that these other search engines have been for closed from the market, therefore harming them and therefore harming consumers because consumers have lack of choice, a lack of innovation, a lack of quality, maybe you know, a lack of ability to have better privacy through searches, things like that.
Judge Meta said he didn't see how an upstart could entice Apple away from that lucrative partnership. I can't conceive of a world in which some other competitor, particularly a new competitor, could do that if Microsoft couldn't do it right.
So Microsoft tried hard to get that default position, to negotiate with Apple to take that default position and pay Apple. I mean Apple's getting paid about twenty billion dollars a year, we understand from Google for this default positioning, and Microsoft
tried and they failed. And Apple would say, well, it's because we want our users to have the best experience when they open up that new iPhone and they go into search and safari, we want them to have the best search results, and we think Google Search is the best, and that's why we've gone that route. I'm sure it doesn't hurt that Google saying Apple twenty million dollars a year for that. This is the issue when the judge is basically pointing out, he's asking querying in his own head,
is this foreclosing or not right? Because it isn't technologically foreclosing. People can go in and make the change, But does it actually operate that way? Is it defacto exclusive? Does it operate in an exclusionary way? And he's saying that one. You know, if these defaults do operate that way in g you're paying twenty billion for it, so it must get you something, right, It's valuable to you for some reason.
It's blocking nascent competition because new competitors are simply not going to try to enter the market when they know they've got that huge barrier when they know they've got to come in and try to be a really great search engine to start, but then also pay Apple twenty billion dollars to try to supplant Google Search as that default.
And where does it fit in that Google says, you know, we're just better. And wasn't there something about a big search on being is for Google something like that?
Yes, there was that the most often searched item on being is Google Google Search.
So I mean, you know I've use both, You've used both. A lot of people have, and they tend to go back to Google.
Right.
So the argument is Google would say, obviously, we've put in massive, massive amounts of R and D. We hire the best people, we put a lot of money into it, we are constantly innovating, we have great engineers. We've done the best we can to make this a great product, and we've succeeded. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's
perfectly legal, it's pro competitive. What the Department of Justice has argued, and there was quite a bit of evidence presented on this, is that the issue is though that the default agreements that Google has has prevented the others from getting better because his search learns. It's the old artificial intelligence, not the newer generative AI. But each search teaches the search engine, and each search makes the search
engine better. And so a search engine needs scale. They need a high volume of searches in order to improve. And by having those default positions, they kept being induct Dutgo and any other smaller competitors that might have tried to enter the market from getting the scale they needed to actually improve and be as good as Google Search, each over being search page, or at least making it easier for them to advertise that way.
So in the summary, the attorney for the DOJ said that the last tech monopoly decision Microsoft fits like a glove. Google's lead litigator disagreed, of course right. He said, manufacturers were coerced into deals and customers were spoon fed and inferior product they didn't want. Google has one with a superior product. I mean, how much does Microsoft that case hang over this?
Oh?
I think it hangs over it enormously. I mean, first, the judge made clear that it hangs over it enormously. He made it clear that he has read that case one in any case he's ever read, and that he sees that as the precedent that he will follow and needs to follow. I mean, there isn't very much out there for him, so this is an important case for him.
There are similarities, There are absolutely similarities. There were many many different types of conduct that Microsoft was accused of in that case to try to maintain its monopoly and operating systems, its Windows operating system. At the time, Apple wasn't very big in computers, and amongst the many different things it was doing was agreements that operated in an exclusionary manner because they were paying Internet service providers a lot of money to use Internet Explorer as the browser.
This was about browsers, not about search engines. To use Internet Explorer and to install Internet Explorer and to block out Netscape. Netscape and Java were a threat to Microsoft's operating system monopoly, so in order to protect its operating systems monopoly, it was trying to push out these other
two entities, which are considered middleware. So the judge said those payments to these companies to install Internet Explore as the default found similar were illegal, but that was deemed to be illegal, and Microsoft's pro competitive justifications were deemed to be a sham or pretextual or at least didn't outweigh the harm from the agreements, and they were ordered, at least originally because they ended up settling, but they
were ordered to drop those payments. They could not offer anything of value to these Internet service providers and other companies like AOL to install Internet Explorer as the default. So that is a similarity, and so both sides are right, but again there is a difference in that at the time Netscape was actually considered a better product, Internet Explorer was the inferior or at least many thought was the
inferior browser. And so it was Microsoft kind of forcing this inferior product on the makers of these computers or the entities that provided people access to the Internet on the computers to block out a better product and really forcing them because at the time it had this monopoly for operating systems, and if you wanted the Windows operating system and you wanted to install that in the computer you're building, asn't noem yet you had to abide by Microsoft's rules.
I know it's difficult, but do you have a feeling I always ask you this. Yes, it's hard, because he asked hard questions of both sides.
He really did. He played the devil's advocate across the board. Outside of what we've talked about that it seemed pretty clear he's going to align with the Department of Justice on their market definition that very first step at least on general search. Not as clear on advertising, but I tend to think for both, he's probably going to align with the DJ. It was really hard to say. So what I did is I went back to the way I felt at the end of trial. You know, after
observing the trial and listening to the evidence. I attended some I read transcripts for some My gut there was that the DOJ had the edge, that it's close because it's a hard call to make on whether this conduct is anti competitive or not, but that I lean toward the DJ, and I'm sticking with that because the closing arguments didn't really change that viewpoint after I'd seen all the evidence, and I think June, it's because there was a lot of fairly credible and strong evidence that defaults
are very important, that they're sticky, that most people don't really know they can change them, or don't know how to change them, or wouldn't bother to change them, And then there was never a very good answer by Google as to why, if you're just better and that's why you have this strong market share, why you need to pay that twenty billion for that default position more than twenty billion because they're paying others beyond Apple, So the
twenty two twenty five whatever it is they're paying a year, Why are you paying that for this default position? If you can be dominant simply because you're just desired, consumers want to use you and not the others, that you don't need to pay that kind of money. And I don't really feel like they ever had a very good answer to that question. And that speaks volumes. And then agreement doesn't have to be overtly exclusive to be illegal.
There is de facto exclusivity that we've seen in the law that we've seen in precedent, where if it operates in an exclusive manner right, even if it's not overtly exclusive, as these are not, that can also be illegal. And I think that's basically what that evidence showed with respect to how sticky these are and the fact that Google's paying so much for those positions, they are important for some reason.
So Jen, if the judge decides in the Justice Department's favor, the government's favor. Then there'll be another sort of mini trial.
Yeah, another hearing, probably a few days, I'm assuming down the road with experts to discuss what the remedy should be, and I think briefing before that, they'll probably ask the DOJ, well, here's what we decided. What remedy do you think is appropriate? And the DOJ will then advocate we don't know yet. The DJ has been very vague. There's really no talk about what the remedy should be. The DOJ has said
very little. So we'll get better clarity at that point from the briefing on what the DOJ is looking for, and then Google will probably oppose that, probably lay out something they think would work and would be better, and then the judge will have a hearing and have to decide on that. That'll be yet another very difficult decision to make.
What would some possible remedies be. I mean to get rid of the deal with Apple.
When exclusive agreements are illegal, the most straightforward solution is to get rid of the exclusive agreements, so that would be straightforward. It is an odd solution in this case, though, because it's basically saying the Google, which is already entrenched. Okay, hey, you don't have to pay twenty two or twenty three or whatever it is billion a year. You're going to profit from that. And you know what, Apple's going to
get hurt, and Mozilla is going to get hurt. They have Firefox and they have an agreement also, and maybe even the OEMs like Samsung will get hurt. And maybe maybe if you're going to hurt all those other companies, that's going to trickle down to consumers and higher prices for their iPhone or higher prices for their Android phone. Like who knows, you know, you don't know what that trickle down effect is going to be. So I think
that would be an odd solution. It is the most typical we've seen exclusive dealing cases in the past where the plaintiffs of one that's usually been the solution. And when Microsoft finally settled, and so Microsoft in that case voluntarily through the settlement, agreed to drop these payments it was making to Internet service providers to set Internet Explore as the default. So we don't have even you know, other examples, the very few other cases where plaintiffs of
one that's been the answer to drop the agreements. This would be a bit of an odd case. And other option June might be what they've done in Europe, which are these choice screens. So for a new Android phone, if you open up a new Android phone, they would give you a choice what do you want to set is your default search engine? Do you want being duc dot go, do you want Google or any other small entities that may be out there, and then the user picks as they set up their phone. That's another option
that the judge could impose here. We haven't seen it do very much in Europe in terms of cutting into Google's share, but again that could align with what Google is saying that we're just better in consumers prefer us.
You know.
Another option could be sharing of data. That's one other thing that's possible. There could be some privacy concerns there, but it could be all this data you've collected through all the millions of searches that have been done to make you a better search engine. Share that with being induc dot go, so they have the opportunity to try to use that data to get better too.
It's always wonderful to hear your insights. Jen, That's Bloomberg Intelligence Senior litigation analyst Jenniferree. I'm June Grosso. Stay with US. Today's top stories and global business headlines are coming up right now.