Welcome to Votes and Verdicts, hosted by the Litigation and Policy team at Bloomberg Intelligence, the investment research arm of Bloomberg LP. This podcast series examines the intersection of business policy and the law. I'm justinterreesa antitrust litigation and policy analyst here at BI, and I'm.
Holly Frome, VI litigation analyst.
Before we jump into today's episode, just a quick word about Bloomberg Intelligence. As I said, we're the investment research platform on the Bloomberg terminal, with five hundred analysts and strategists working across the globe and focused on all major markets. Our coverage includes over two thousand equities and credits, and we have outlooks on more than ninety industries and one
hundred market indices, currencies and commodities. So in many circles our guests today really needs no introduction, and that's increasingly increasingly the case nationwide, well beyond the borders of her
home state Arizona. Arizona Attorney General Chris Mays took office in January twenty twenty three, and as we'll talk about today, has been on the front and center on every corner of the law affecting the public interests, since this follows a long career both in journalism and prior public service as a commissioner at the Arizona Corporation Commission, also making headlines. May's left the Republican Party in twenty nineteen and became a Democrat. But there's probably nobody better to tell the
AG story than the AG herself. So without further ado, I'm so glad to introduce today's guests at Arizona Attorney General Chris Mays AG. May's welcome to Votes and Verdicts.
Good morning.
It's great to be with you, justin absolutely so. It is so excited to have you today. I have to tell you, at the top of a little bit starstruck, my parents actually live in Tucson, so you're a bit of a celebrity in their house. Whenever I go out there, they're very political. Love they're MSNBC, and I have to say, every time I set foot in the house, they're gushing about all of the different things that you're evolved with
right now in your office. So just to frame the conversation with that at the start.
Tell them thank you and hope to see them sometime down at p mccunny.
Absolutely absolutely, So kind of a threshold question, we ask all of our guests what brought you to where you are today, What really I think motivated you to become the AG in Arizona, and what's the path you kind of took to get there.
Well, you know, as you mentioned, I've had a windy, interesting and sometimes weird paths to public service, and in public service, it's been a fascinating life. I started in journalism, ended up working as ben governor of Politano's press secretary.
She pointed me to Arizona's Public Utilities Commission, where I spent seven and a half years regulating our monopoly utilities are right utilities, and that's kind of where my interest at protecting consumers and in antitrust law started in regulating monopolies. Then went on to become a professor of energy lot a ISSU and in you know, twenty twenty one ish, and in twenty twenty two, I decided to run for Attorney general. We obviously had seen the January sixth insurrection happened.
I was really worried about our democracy, so I decided to leave the private sector and go back into politics, and ended up winning my AG race by two hundred and eighty votes. It was the closest statewide race in Arizona history.
So yeah, yes, so close. It really a side at the times I feel like about where we are politically too, not just because I don't know a nationwide yeah exactly. So I think, you know, kind of kind of piggybacking what you said there about January sixth and the motivations there from Bronning. It seems like with the change of presidential administrations this month, you know, we've seen kind of a political shift in priorities in DC and just generally speaking,
how do you see those changes? They are changing your role as AG in Arizona or or I guess the roles of ags nationwide.
Well, and you know, it is interesting. It's it has added a layer onto uh, you know, our jobs and and you know, I think, you know, protecting and upholding the constitution and the rule of law is has always been important to attorneys general, but that has just gotten even more important now as we see these multiple efforts already by the Trump administration to shred constitution, ignore do process. We're going to fight back against that. We can talk more about that, but you know, our role in my
role as AG is generally the same. It's holding federal government in addition to large corporations and other institutions, accountable for following the law and upholding the US, the US and Arizona constitution, you know, enforcing antitrust law, which I think we're going to talk about, Yeah, making sure that we protect consumers. I guess what I see is a growing and in some ways menacing consolidation of corporate power that definitely forms consumers in Arizona, whether it's renters or
folks going to the grocery store. That is a huge focus of my efforts here as AG and Arizona.
Right, right, And I think you touched a little bit about on this already, but you know, if you could talk a little bit more about just antitrust generally and how you see a state AG kind of playing a role in using those laws to benefit the public interest. You know that when something might not be you know, happening that you think needs to at the federal level.
Yeah, So, you know, it's really interesting not not not everybody knows that that most states have their own antitrust laws. I think not every state does, but right or it certainly does have what's called the uniform antitrust law or Anti Trust Act. We also have consumer fraud laws that allow us to attack, uh, you know, the consolidation of corporate power when it harms consumers and when it becomes deceptive or unfair. So our consumer law consumer fraud laws
prevent unfair practices. And so we've been using those anti trust laws, sometimes on our own, but also sometimes in tandem and in partnership with the FTC, especially under Lena Khan. Sure, and you know, we can we talk about those cases, the Real Page cases of a real time example of that, where we sued a company called real Page which was using an algorithm to collude with nine major landlords in Arizona and to you know, to set prices for rent
artificially high. They were using this algorithm to invite these corporate landlords to input which should have been proprietary competitive data into their algorithm, and the algorithm spat out a price for all of them to set in you know, at their apartment complexes in Arizona. And what result, what was the result was that they all set the same price, which was artificially high. And I called it the old fashioned price fixing using new technology. So we sued them.
We were the first state ag other than the District of Columbia to sue Real Page for that collusion. And and that you know, that collusion we allege has had a tremendously deleterious impact, tremendously you know, a really awful impact on renters in Arizona. The price rent is skyrocketed seventy six percent. It's twenty sixteen.
Right, Wow, Wow, that's a sounding. Yeah. Absolutely, it's really bad.
And you know, more than seventy percent of the apartment complexes in that Phoenix are controlled by Real Page and more than fifty percent in Tucson are controlled by Real Page or one of Real Page as colluders. And that means that you know a majority of renters in each of those major cities in Arizona have been the victims of corporate collusion. And that's not okay, We're going to
fight it. It has been one of the most that is I think the lawsuit that I that I filed as aging that it's resonated the most with Arizona's I hear about it everywhere I know people talk I do.
To you from my parents.
Absolutely, it's definitely hit home as they say, actually where home is an apartment complex.
Yeah, you know, it's it's interesting you see that. And you know, obviously the statistics you're throwing around too with regard to the market share in Phoenix and Tucson where where the algorithm is being deployed. You it certainly isn't this kind of pie in the sky kind of concept. It does sound like it's having this resonation with everyday Arizona.
And so, you know, can you talk a little bit about what the reception has been from folks on the campaign trail or constituents or whenever you're you're talking with folks, you know, what's the reaction you've kind of gotten from folks in recent months over the suit. You know, the.
Reaction has been really strong and and people are grateful. Everywhere I go, this is this is the thing they bring up with me, and they thank me in our office for for bringing this lawsuit. I am told that during the last election cycle, when volunteers would go to doors and knock on doors, people would voluntarily bring up this lawsuit and say to the to the folks who are knocking on doors campaigning, oh do you do you
know about Chris Mases. Are you here to campaign for Chris Mays because you really like that lawsuit that she and I'm not once en up on the on the ballot in four, but it's resonated so much that you know, it's the thing people are bringing up.
And you might have found something we could all agree on. It seems like from the historia telling for sure.
And that's Republicans and Democrats and independ it's because we're all they're all renters, I mean renters, you know, span the political landscape right and the economic landscape. I will say, I think it's you know, young people are probably hit really hard by this because oftentimes it's young people are living in apartment complexes. And we certainly see that people in their twenties and people in their thirties who here in Arizona can't afford to buy a house because it's
so hard to buy a house anymore. And so that this is just I think exacerbated and already difficult housing landscape and made affordability in housing even worse. And so we're going to continue to prosecute this case, and we're going to do other cases like it.
Got it, got it, and you interestingly too, the way you brought this case. You know, we saw the DOJ they added some landlords to their against real page earlier on this in January. But you know, I know landlords, they've been included in your lawsuit from the very start. And I'm just wondering if you view your litigation in Arizona as different from DOJ's, And you know, why do you think it's important for Arizona to have its own case when there's this federal action that's out there.
Yeah, and we filed before the DOJ did, and absolutely we included those nine major landlords because they were they were colluders, they were to the scheme, and so we felt like it was important to hold them accountable. They knew what they were doing, they knew what the software package was doing. They were being told, and the people who who rented apartments in those buildings were being told, do not deviate from this price, don't go down on
the price. You know, it got so bad that, you know, here in Phoenix, when you look around the landscape and I'm looking around at the buildings here around mind, you look in some of the buildings, some of them are half empty. But these landlords don't care because as long as they can keep ratcheting up the price on the people who are in the buildings, they still keep increasing their profits, which is just outrageous when you also have a housing problem.
Yeah yeah, definitely wide.
Yeah yeah, I mean so many people moving to Arizona who need housing, and yet these landlords have figured out through this algorithm that they can just keep making a profit, not by competing, which is how it used to be done. Right, if you were a landlord in one building, and you had one building and the guy next door to you was also renting, you would compete with that person on price, right, you would lower your price so that you could attract
renters into your building. Well, now that when you've got real page and you've got this algorithm, that doesn't matter anymore. You can just you know, keep colluding with your fellow landlords to raise the rent. And that that's uh what why we thought it was so important to include those landlords. And then with regard to d o J, I would just say this, I I definitely hope that Attorney General Bondi continues the lawsuit, right, and uh, you know, we we we urge her to not drop this loss and
we think it's important. There are other states that that did join the do o JA. We obviously filed our lawsuit in state court out here in Arizona, but there this is a bipartisan group of states UH that have joined the Attorney General and d o j UH in that lawsuit.
So yeah, of states there, yeah, yeah, I mean.
Obviously ours will go forward. We're not going to stop out here in Arizona. But I think it's important for DJ to to really keep planting that flag and move forward with that case with that bipartisan group of states.
Makes sense, And you know, I think it's interesting too. I think, you know, the the proposition of the algorithmics software. I think a lot of folks who've been looking at the litigation that kind of take this view of it's saying, hey, is this a situation where the law needs to catch up with technology or really does the law as it
exists in compass actually what's happening already? Right, So you know, it sounds like your view and that of DJ really has been that you know, this is this is price fixing. It is a conspiracy, even though it might be happening a bit differently than we're used to you know, with a smoke filled room or or you know, a handshake, you know, outside of a convention or something like that. Right, but exactly it is, it is.
It is really textbook price fixing. It's just using new technology. It's you know, it's precisely what these laws. Interestingly enough, it's precisely what these anti trust laws were written to prevent.
Right right. Well, I think kind of switching gears a little bit here too. I think going back a bit too to what you would express when we were kind of kind of coming in about the consolidation of corporate power. You know. Another other big example of things your office has been involved with lately was your recent work around blocking that Kroeger Albertson's mega merger in the grocery space. First, congratulations, this is a huge antitrust way on the merger side.
But if you could talk a little bit about why you wanted to be involved in that particular case and your work around stopping that deal, I think that'd be really really interesting for our listeners as well.
Yeah, thank you so much. It was a huge win for consumers all throughout this country and and in Arizona, and we we blocked the Kroger Albertson's murder from moving forward, we had we had joined the f TC. That was another one where the FDC played a really pivotal role and I hope they will continue to do that even though they don't have Lena Kahn anymore. But they need to continue that role. And we sued and stopped the merger.
The guy traveled all over Arizona, through out Arizona, especially rural Arizona places like Kingman, Sholo, Sierra Vista, and almost uniformally, Arizonans were opposed to this merger because they knew that the price of groceries is already too high. We've experienced
really severe inflation, just like every other state. And Arizonans are really smart people, and we know that when you allow this level of consolidation in the grocery industry, and you allow yet another mega entity to dominate the grocery space, prices are likely to go up. All certainly would go up. Layoffs would happen. You know, these were two Kroger and Albertson's which out here, Safeway and Fries.
Oh yeah, absolutely, but my parents love fries. I hear you.
They shop at Fries. I shop a Safeway. So you know, these are these two companies were two of the largest seven of the two of the seven largest companies employers in Arizona, right right. And so what we heard, especially in rural communities is and in our cities like Tucson, was we're really worried they we're gonna this is gonna they're gonna lay people off. In rural Arizona, sometimes these grocery stores are literally the economic engine of the town.
They are the anchors of a shopping center, and they employ people, and they're the economic center town people. We heard from military members who were worried because they believed one of the companies was not going to honor their health insurance and their prescription drug insurance service and or cards prescription drug cards. And then we also heard concerns about the creation of additional not only food deserts, but also pharmacy deserts and errors.
Interesting.
Interesting, as these corporate conglomerations have have happened, we see fewer and fewer independent pharmacies in rural Arizona as well.
And absolutely another huge added trust issue, right half with
you with action by the FTC. That's right, that's right. Yeah, yes, So so so much more than groceries obviously, which with that particular merger there too, and you know, so kind of turning the page, look turning the wheel a little bit here, you know, speaking of state ags bringing cases, you know, you know, we recently saw a suit by Texas Attorney General Ken packs In against investment firms like Black Rock and State Street, alleging that there was a
legal anti trust collusion between the banks because they participate in climate climate change accords like the net zero initiative. What do you think about that? And what do you think what do you think might be in store here for an era where we see anti trust perhaps use you know, in kind of a way that that that's akin to weaponization looking at an environmental or ESG policies that some corporate actors might have entered into.
Well, I must say, justin as a former Republican, I don't know what has happened to my former party, because it used to be that Republicans believed the government didn't have any place telling corporations how they should run their businesses.
Especially That's what I was always told too.
Yeah, it's necessary with regard to corporate governance.
Yeah, that was the one on one back in American government many many many years ago for me. But anyway, go on.
No, I feel like I feel like we're in this you know, the the the upside down and the stranger things. You know, It's like, what side down world are we in? Here? Wherever Bolicans think that it's okay to dictate to businesses how they should you know, run their their businesses. You know, if you know, if if Walmart wants to put solar panels on their rooftops and save money for them and their consumers, I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with that would be an ESG policy.
Right.
What I do have a problem with is government telling businesses, whether small or large, that they can't do ESG, that they can't improve their governance policies. And so that's why I one of the first things that I did when I took office as Attorney General of Arizona is I got us out. I withdrew us from a highly politicized investigation that my predecessor had had plunged Arizona into against you know, banks that you know and mate firms that were you know, and they were alleging or you know,
participating in this kind of collision. Yes, it's totally an improper use of antitrust law and it's not something we're going to do out here.
Yeah. Yeah, definitely, So obviously, so much happening at the States right now, maybe both good and bad from an anti trust perspective, but you know, I think certainly things will be keeping our eye on, you know, for the
next four years and beyond. But you know, I'll head it over and now to my colleague Holly from who's really been knee deep in these Forever Chemicals litigations, and I know your office has also been super busy with those, So Hollie, if you want to jump in here and Forever chemicals.
Thanks, justin yep. So, we've been hearing a lot about Forever Chemicals or peep Pass chemicals, and it's an issue of that affects most Americans. Pep as A chemicals linked to certain adverse health effects that have been found in the drinking water of tens of millions of Americans, and litigation against historic manufacturers and other manufacturers is whining. It's tough the courts. I know your office has been at
the forefront of this litigation. Arizona file the lawsuit against various firefighting foam or a triple F manufacturers, alleging peak Fast causes caused contamination across the state. Over twenty states at filed blows suaits, but a lot have not. What's this lawsuit about? And why did Arizona decided file? Yeah?
Thanks? So this is we think this is one of our most important lawsuits, certainly in the environmental sphere. But you know, as you mentioned, we have joined the group of states that have filed lawsuits against the manufacturers of of you know, products that contained p fast and the chemical companies that make the chemical, the p fast chemical. Those defendants include three M and DuPont, among others, you know.
And our our allegation is that these companies have known for decades that these so called forever chemicals, which is
pete bass would contaminate water supplies. They did here in Arizona and in elsewhere and elsewhere for generations to come, but they chose to sell those products anyway, and they didn't tell anybody that they knew these these things that were dangerous, and they uh the failure by the pullugeters to inform state regulators about those risks associated with the chemicals has harmed our environment and the health of Arizonas
and we think they have to be held accountable. I mean, these these compounds have been used in various industrial and consumer products. They contamorated the environment. You know when you they also have harmed firefighters. I will say, when you talk to any firefighter in Arizona, they will talk to you about the elevated levels of cancer that they have experienced, including testicular cancer, because they're the ones who are around
this firefighting foam the most. But it's also made its way near airports and near fire stations and elsewhere into our drinking water supplies. So we joined those other states and hundreds of cities across the United States that have filed similar lawsuits seeking basically damages to pay for the costs of removing pfasts from our drinking water supplies and
otherwise remediate p fast contamination. Otherwise, if we didn't file this lawsuit, and I don't know why other states, any other states have it filed, but otherwise it's going to be up to the cities or individuals, and obviously individuals aren't going to have the money to pay for this remediation, and we think it's these companies who should be held accountable.
That's such a good point. I mean, the manuitude, the scale of impact is sort of hard to believe. We've heard a lot about p fass contamination at Datas month And Air Force Base in Tucson. Two. What are your thoughts on how that the state might handle raminiation there? It might that be a roadmap for cleanup across Arizona, maybe even nationwide.
Yeah, you know, it's an interesting situation at Davis Montham as well. And you know, as far back as the nineteen seventies, the DoD studies showed that the firefighting foam used there containing Pefast was toxic, and Tucson officials and had said that the contamination has for you know, near the base or from the base, has forced the closure
of almost thirty wells. The city of Tucson, justin you know, where your folks live, has spent more than seventy one million dollars already on remediation costs.
Wow.
Well, yeah, you know, it's it's really staggering and and and in my mind, and that's just one area of peed Fast contamination. And in my mind, the the Department of Defense and the federal government really need to step up and pay the city back for what they've already spent on this, and you know, they continue to pay whatever it costs or fully remediate the problems. So you know, I just encouraged the federal government to really step up and help the city.
So we know on the trials, some pee fasts or a triple f manufacturers, the ones that you mentioned like three Aunt deepiment Camors, the historic manufacturers settled in class action deals with water authorities, Title and BASS also settled with what are authorities is and and the water authorities just by way of background, haads suit or costs to remediate their water that was contaminated. Is there anything that can be taken away from these settlements? Yeah?
Yeah, I think the biggest takeaway from those initial settlements in this sort of cluster of lawsuits is that lawsuits work. When states and communities push back on these companies that have done harm to our communities, we can hold them accountable and the courts are responsive. We are holding them accountable under the law, and our office is going to continue fighting to make sure that Arizonas aren't left paying the price for corporate pollution, and that's really what the
pfast lawsuit is all about. And I think it's particular this case is one of those cases that it's just particularly egregious and particularly important for state ags to go after because of the knowledge that these companies has had about the toxicity and the carcinogenic nature of what they were putting out there and how much money they made on these products without telling the American people that they were going to end up killing us in some cases and so or or or are giving us, uh, you know,
cancer and forcing us to deal with that. And and so it's just incredibly important to make sure that we hold these companies accountable and make them paid for the remediation.
Right.
So that brings me to my next question. Because the EPA passed rules in April last year designating and piklas hazardous under circlar or the Super Fun Law. It's also called the known as the Federal Super Fun Law and setting maximum containment levels and drinking water. The rules have been challenged in court and somehow suggested the Trump administration
may not defend them or may scale them back. If EPA rules our skilled back, do you anticipate Arizona may set its own PEA FAST standards for drinking water and groundwater.
Yeah, and that's really scary to us.
You know.
I think Donald Trump has already taken steps to undermine them proposed limits on p P fast and and uh, you know, the EPA and her President Biden had proposed limits on p FAST discharges, for instance, in industrial wastewater. The Trump administration rescinded that proposal as part of a freeze on federal regulation pass and his flurry of executive orders, and that left the states to address p FAST and
pfo A in position individually, you know. And I think that it's really not clear yet with the new EPA director is going to do overall Lee Zelden. But I would say to Lee Zelden, the last thing that you need to do or you should be doing, is making it harder to keep these pollutants out of our groundwater supplies and harder to protect Arizonans and Americans from from this kind of pollution. So I would just hope that he doesn't pull back on that to rule making, and
we will continue to push him to keep going. And certainly we will work with our governor here in Arizona and our ADEQ, our Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to hopefully step into the breach if we if.
We have to, right, it would be interesting to see what happens.
Yeah, just wow, so much going on on these two separate areas here, we're looking at that trust and the Forever Chemicals lidication and even then just scratching the surface. I know I could talk to you all day long, age you may, but I know you don't have all days,
So no worries there. Just want to give you an opportunity, you know, if there's anything more you want to add before we wrap up, you know, anything you might you might have to say about your role evolving the next few years, or emerging issues we should watch out for Arizona, or you know, anything else you might be working on it you want to highlight while we talk.
Yeah, I appreciate that, you know. I look, I would just urge the incoming Trump administration to continue the DOJ's lawsuits against monopolies like Amazon or their own the lawsuit against Real Page. You know, we didn't get a chance to talk about Amazon, but there are real concerns with that company as well. We have our own lawsuit the Amazon. You know again, I think protecting renters from exploitation should
be a bipartisan priority. Doesn't matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat in office, all of your constituents are affected by that exploitation. And I just really get the sense out there that that Republicans in this is one area that we all can agree on.
There's gotta be something.
Yeah, I think antitrust is the thing that might bring us together as a country. Let's focus and because it's certainly something that I find Republicans and Democrats all agree on, and so I want that I want Donald Trump to to to maintain that focus. You actually, you know, UH did have some focus on on anti trust when he was president the first time around. I certainly hope to see that continue. And as Attorney General here I can say we are going to really really focus on algorithmic
price fixing schemes wherever they occur in our economy. So I will tell you that we're looking in other areas where these algorithms may be used against consumers. And then and then we're also looking at consolidation and very concerned about the roll ups being done by private equity firms and hedge funds in various industries that are that are definitely impacting consumers in a negative way by creating too much consolidation in our marketplaces.
Fascinating. Yeah, and it's interesting you say that too about these algorithms and their application and other sectors too. I mean, you know there's stuff in those cases with with hotel rooms that are out there right now, but I have to imagine that this really goes so far beyond just apartments and hotel rooms and all of those particular markets too. So I think you're you're you're spot on. I think I'm calling an emerging issue here that we're going to
see roll out in the coming years as well. So it's super interesting there there, for sure.
For sure, absolutely watch this space. It's definitely an area that deserves to be focused on by regulators and by ags. And you know, at the end of the day, it's about protecting consumers and making sure that this is any that our marketplaces are fair, that we number one, we have free markets and number two that consumers get a fair deal and it's a fair fight.
Great. Great, And yeah, if you would have told me twenty years ago that anti trust would have been the thing to unite the nation. I probably would have said, you're crazy that we might be headed headed in that direction right now? Exactly? All right? Well, such a facting conversation, and without question, I know we'll be seeing a lot of activity coming out of your office on these issues and so many more as time goes on. We really appreciate you taking the time to discuss them with us
here today. Thanks again for joining.
Us, Thank you justin, thank you Holly, and always.
Thank you to you the listener for tuning in. As a reminder, you can read all of our Bloomberg intelligence research on the Bloomberg terminal at bi go. And with that, I'm justin thereesy. And this was votes and Verdicts