February 20, 2025 • 36 mins
The political shift in Washington DC is rippling through to states and may bring additional challenges to officials trying to navigate the changes. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes joins Bloomberg Intelligence analysts Justin Teresi and Holly Froum to discuss a wide range of litigation and policy issues on which her office is leading the states. On the antitrust front, we delve into recent cases against RealPage and landlords, like Camden Property Trust, around alleged use of artificial-intelligence algorithms to fix rent prices, and Mayes’ involvement in blocking the Kroger-Albertson’s merger. We also examine the role of Arizona and other states in litigation against manufacturers of forever chemicals, including 3M, DuPont and Chemours, seeking compensation for cleanup efforts across the state.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
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.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Holly Frome, VI litigation analyst.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
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
(00:59):
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
(01:19):
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
(01:40):
General Chris Mays AG. May's welcome to Votes and Verdicts.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
Good morning.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
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
(02:05):
right now in your office. So just to frame the
conversation with that at the start.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
Tell them thank you and hope to see them sometime
down at p mccunny.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
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.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
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.
(02:52):
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.
(03:14):
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
(03:37):
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.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
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,
(04:15):
how do you see those changes? They are changing your
role as AG in Arizona or or I guess the
roles of ags nationwide.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
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
(04:46):
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
(05:07):
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
(05:27):
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.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
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.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
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
(06:32):
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
(06:53):
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
(07:17):
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
(07:38):
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
(08:02):
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
(08:27):
impact on renters in Arizona. The price rent is skyrocketed
seventy six percent. It's twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
Right, Wow, Wow, that's a sounding. Yeah. Absolutely, it's really bad.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
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
(08:59):
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.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
To you from my parents.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
Absolutely, it's definitely hit home as they say, actually where
home is an apartment complex.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
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
(09:52):
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.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
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
(10:21):
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,
(10:49):
it's the thing people are bringing up.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
And you might have found something we could all agree on.
It seems like from the historia telling for sure.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
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
(11:19):
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
(11:41):
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.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
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
(12:13):
you think it's important for Arizona to have its own
case when there's this federal action that's out there.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
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
(12:43):
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
(13:05):
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.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
Yeah yeah, definitely wide.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
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
(13:45):
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
(14:09):
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
(14:31):
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
(14:53):
that lawsuit.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
So yeah, of states there, yeah, yeah, I mean.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
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.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
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,
(15:35):
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.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
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.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
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,
(16:33):
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.
Speaker 3 (16:45):
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
(17:07):
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,
(17:28):
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
(17:49):
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.
Speaker 1 (18:08):
Oh yeah, absolutely, but my parents love fries. I hear you.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
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,
(18:32):
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
(18:53):
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.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
Interesting.
Speaker 3 (19:16):
Interesting, as these corporate conglomerations have have happened, we see
fewer and fewer independent pharmacies in rural Arizona as well.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
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
(19:50):
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
(20:10):
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.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
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.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
Especially That's what I was always told too.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
Yeah, it's necessary with regard to corporate governance.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Yeah, that was the one on one back in American
government many many many years ago for me. But anyway,
go on.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
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
(21:12):
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.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
Right.
Speaker 3 (21:23):
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
(21:44):
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,
(22:04):
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.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
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
(22:35):
I know your office has also been super busy with those,
So Hollie, if you want to jump in here and
Forever chemicals.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
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
(23:02):
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?
Speaker 3 (23:20):
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
(23:43):
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
(24:05):
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
(24:28):
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
(24:50):
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
(25:12):
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
(25:33):
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
(25:53):
aren't going to have the money to pay for this remediation,
and we think it's these companies who should be held accountable.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
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.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
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
(26:43):
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.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (26:59):
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
(27:22):
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.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
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
(27:52):
remediate their water that was contaminated. Is there anything that
can be taken away from these settlements? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (28:00):
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
(28:20):
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
(28:41):
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
(29:01):
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
(29:24):
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.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
Right.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
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
(30:03):
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.
Speaker 3 (30:15):
Yeah, and that's really scary to us.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
You know.
Speaker 3 (30:20):
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
(30:40):
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
(31:01):
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
(31:24):
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
(31:45):
and our ADEQ, our Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to
hopefully step into the breach if we if.
Speaker 2 (31:53):
We have to, right, it would be interesting to see
what happens.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
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
(32:19):
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.
Speaker 3 (32:27):
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
(32:48):
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
(33:09):
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.
Speaker 1 (33:21):
There's gotta be something.
Speaker 3 (33:22):
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
(33:45):
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
(34:08):
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
(34:32):
definitely impacting consumers in a negative way by creating too
much consolidation in our marketplaces.
Speaker 1 (34:39):
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
(35:00):
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.
Speaker 3 (35:06):
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
(35:26):
have free markets and number two that consumers get a
fair deal and it's a fair fight.
Speaker 1 (35:35):
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
(35:57):
appreciate you taking the time to discuss them with us
here today. Thanks again for joining.
Speaker 3 (36:01):
Us, Thank you justin, thank you Holly, and always.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
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
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.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Holly Frome, VI litigation analyst.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
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
(00:59):
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
(01:19):
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
(01:40):
General Chris Mays AG. May's welcome to Votes and Verdicts.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
Good morning.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
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
(02:05):
right now in your office. So just to frame the
conversation with that at the start.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
Tell them thank you and hope to see them sometime
down at p mccunny.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
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.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
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.
(02:52):
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.
(03:14):
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
(03:37):
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.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
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,
(04:15):
how do you see those changes? They are changing your
role as AG in Arizona or or I guess the
roles of ags nationwide.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
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
(04:46):
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
(05:07):
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
(05:27):
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.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
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.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
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
(06:32):
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
(06:53):
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
(07:17):
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
(07:38):
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
(08:02):
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
(08:27):
impact on renters in Arizona. The price rent is skyrocketed
seventy six percent. It's twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
Right, Wow, Wow, that's a sounding. Yeah. Absolutely, it's really bad.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
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
(08:59):
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.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
To you from my parents.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
Absolutely, it's definitely hit home as they say, actually where
home is an apartment complex.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
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
(09:52):
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.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
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
(10:21):
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,
(10:49):
it's the thing people are bringing up.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
And you might have found something we could all agree on.
It seems like from the historia telling for sure.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
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
(11:19):
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
(11:41):
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.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
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
(12:13):
you think it's important for Arizona to have its own
case when there's this federal action that's out there.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
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
(12:43):
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
(13:05):
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.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
Yeah yeah, definitely wide.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
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
(13:45):
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
(14:09):
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
(14:31):
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
(14:53):
that lawsuit.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
So yeah, of states there, yeah, yeah, I mean.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
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.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
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,
(15:35):
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.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
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.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
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,
(16:33):
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.
Speaker 3 (16:45):
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
(17:07):
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,
(17:28):
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
(17:49):
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.
Speaker 1 (18:08):
Oh yeah, absolutely, but my parents love fries. I hear you.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
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,
(18:32):
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
(18:53):
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.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
Interesting.
Speaker 3 (19:16):
Interesting, as these corporate conglomerations have have happened, we see
fewer and fewer independent pharmacies in rural Arizona as well.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
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
(19:50):
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
(20:10):
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.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
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.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
Especially That's what I was always told too.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
Yeah, it's necessary with regard to corporate governance.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Yeah, that was the one on one back in American
government many many many years ago for me. But anyway,
go on.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
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
(21:12):
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.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
Right.
Speaker 3 (21:23):
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
(21:44):
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,
(22:04):
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.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
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
(22:35):
I know your office has also been super busy with those,
So Hollie, if you want to jump in here and
Forever chemicals.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
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
(23:02):
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?
Speaker 3 (23:20):
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
(23:43):
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
(24:05):
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
(24:28):
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
(24:50):
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
(25:12):
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
(25:33):
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
(25:53):
aren't going to have the money to pay for this remediation,
and we think it's these companies who should be held accountable.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
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.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
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
(26:43):
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.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (26:59):
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
(27:22):
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.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
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
(27:52):
remediate their water that was contaminated. Is there anything that
can be taken away from these settlements? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (28:00):
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
(28:20):
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
(28:41):
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
(29:01):
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
(29:24):
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.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
Right.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
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
(30:03):
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.
Speaker 3 (30:15):
Yeah, and that's really scary to us.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
You know.
Speaker 3 (30:20):
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
(30:40):
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
(31:01):
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
(31:24):
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
(31:45):
and our ADEQ, our Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to
hopefully step into the breach if we if.
Speaker 2 (31:53):
We have to, right, it would be interesting to see
what happens.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
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
(32:19):
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.
Speaker 3 (32:27):
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
(32:48):
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
(33:09):
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.
Speaker 1 (33:21):
There's gotta be something.
Speaker 3 (33:22):
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
(33:45):
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
(34:08):
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
(34:32):
definitely impacting consumers in a negative way by creating too
much consolidation in our marketplaces.
Speaker 1 (34:39):
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
(35:00):
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.
Speaker 3 (35:06):
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
(35:26):
have free markets and number two that consumers get a
fair deal and it's a fair fight.
Speaker 1 (35:35):
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
(35:57):
appreciate you taking the time to discuss them with us
here today. Thanks again for joining.
Speaker 3 (36:01):
Us, Thank you justin, thank you Holly, and always.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
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
Host
Elliott Stein
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.