October 31, 2025 • 42 mins
Key takeaways from President Donald Trump’s trip to Asia and the trade agreements reached lead Bloomberg Intelligence’s Votes and Verdicts podcast this week. Jennie Welch, chief geoeconomics analyst for Bloomberg Economics, examines that, while BI litigation and policy analysts discuss other important catalysts. Nathan Dean discusses possible paths to ending the government shutdown, as well as changes to the Federal Reserve’s stress-test process for big banks. Holly Froum discusses litigation challenging SNAP-funding shortfalls, and Texas’ lawsuit against Kenvue and Johnson & Johnson over alleged deceptive marketing regarding Tylenol. Matt Schettenhelm analyzes litigation challenging President Trump’s bid to increase H-1B visa fees. And Jen Rie explains recent developments in antitrust cases against Apple concerning its App Store.
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):
Hello, and welcome to the Votes and Verdicts podcast, hosted
by the litigation and policy team at Bloomberg Intelligence, the
investment research platform of Bloomberg LP on the Bloomberg terminal.
Bloomberg Intelligence has five hundred analysts and strategists working across
the globe and focus on all major markets. Our coverage
includes over two thousand equities and credits, and we have
(00:36):
outlooks on more than ninety industries and one hundred market indices,
currencies and commodities. This podcast series examines the intersection of
business policy and law, and today's our weekly look at
the litigation and policy catalysts that we're currently watching and
that we think will impact companies across a number.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Of different sectors as well as markets.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
My name is Elliott stein Ant with Bloomberg Intelligence, covering
litigation in the financials sector, and I'm delighted today as
always to be joined by several of my BI colleagues.
I'm also particularly delighted today to have one of our
colleagues from Bloomberg Economics, specifically Jenny Welch, who heads up
the geoeconomics team at Bloomberg Economics. As always, you can
(01:20):
find all of our research on the Bloomberg terminal at
BI go and you can find most of our litigation
and policy research on our dashboard, which is available on
the terminal at BI laws go. Just to timestamp. This
today is Thursday, October thirtieth, twenty twenty five. It's a
little after one pm in New York. So with that,
(01:43):
Jenny Welch, let's bring you in first time on the podcast.
Thank you for coming on. So, you know, the big
news I think this week across all major markets is
that President Trump was in Asia meeting with the heads
of state of Japan, South Korea, and China.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
I just wanted you know. You worked in the White House.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
You worked on China and other Asia affairs for the
National Security Council, among other things, So I am really
curious to hear what your main takeaways are from President
Trump's trip.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Well, first of all, thanks so much for having me Elliott,
first time caller, longtime listener. I would great to be here.
You sort of take on the meetings as what a whirlwind.
Anyone who has been involved in these kind of trips
before knows what a huge lift they can be. All
the coordination that's required, especially when you have as many
stops as Trump had before coming to South Korea for APEX.
(02:41):
As you mentioned, he was in Japan meeting with Japan's
new Prime minister. But before that he was in Malaysia
for the Aussion Meeting, where he also met and inked
deals with a number of Southeast Asian partners, including Thailand
and Malaysia, although we're still waiting for some of the
details of those to come out, as is often the case,
I think, in terms of the big meeting, the big
(03:03):
headline was his sit down with Chinese President Sheijinpayn just
a few hours ago as we're recording this, and the
main takeaway from that is largely what we were expecting
ahead of the meeting, which is they've agreed to reduce
some of the terroriffs. They've agreed to extend the truce
on some other terrorifts, but a lot of this still
(03:24):
remains to be seen how long it will last because
many of the steps that they agreed to take were
just suspensions or delays of things, rather than completely removing
the issue from the table. And for those of us
who've been watching this a while, we've seen this movie before,
and what that suggests is we could see sort of
a return to tensions and not all that distance of
(03:48):
the future.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
Yeah, so can you just sort of summarize some of
the key terms that was sort of at least agreed
to in principle, It seems I don't you know, I
haven't seen anything actually inked. Maybe that's coming, but it
maybe just sort of summarize some of the key things
that were reached.
Speaker 4 (04:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (04:06):
I think the biggest thing is that the US agreed
to cut in half terrace it's placed on China earlier
this year related to fetanol and from the US perspective,
China's lack of cooperation stemming the flow of fent in
and all the United States. Those terrafs were at twenty percent.
Now they're being cut down to ten percent, which means
(04:27):
overall US effective terif rate on China would come down
from around forty percent to around thirty percent, So still high,
but that would take China below terraces currently facing India
and Brazil and closer to where a lot of Southeast
Asian economies are. And that's meaningful because if you were
(04:48):
in the camp who thought that Washington was trying to
de risk from China and kind of reduce its import
dependence on China. That's now going to be a much
deeper hill to climb, because even though Chinese tariff rates
are still higher, they have so many advantages in this
space that unless the tariff rates were much much higher,
firms would not really be incentivized to move out of China.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
So yeah, so what does the US get in return?
I guess is the question?
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Apparently a lot more soybeans that China would return to
buying soybeans that it had suspended those purchases earlier this year. Now,
what that means for other economies like Brazil that had
been benefiting from Chinese purchases, I think is a question
to be answered here. The other things they agreed to
you were kind of just a suspension. So, for example,
(05:34):
on export controls, the US had taken this major step
earlier this month to essentially apply export controls to subsidiaries
of companies had already been blacklisted, and that ended up
affecting a huge number of Chinese firms. Beijing said that
in response to that, it was going to be launching
this new critical Minerals export control regime. Now, I think
(05:56):
there are questions about whether or not that action might
have been in the works already and China was just
kind of using it as an excuse to deploy it.
But in any case, both sides agreed that they were
going to suspend the implementation of those measures, but they're
not taking them off the table. So I think there's
this question of is that going to be hanging over
our heads for the next year and when it comes
time to either renewing that extension or renegotiating it, are
(06:21):
we going to see a repeat of this pattern of
both steps doing things to create leverage ahead of those talks.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
So what are some of the things they didn't reach
an agreement on as far as we can tell? You know,
one thing you haven't mentioned so far as Taiwan, and
I thought Boombeve Economics had an interesting piece yesterday on
how you know, like a simple misstatement can be misinterpreted
and lead down the road to so many you know,
(06:47):
unintended consequences.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
So, you know, was Taiwan discussed as far as we know?
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Were there are other things that don't appear to have
been agreed to by the parties.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
Trump said that they did not discuss Taiwan, But as
someone who's staffed many of these meetings in the past.
I would be shocked if Chinese President Hijimping didn't raise Taiwan.
It's always a part of Chinese standard talking points. Whoever
they are talking to, they're going to raise the issue
of Taiwan and concerned about US support for Taiwan. Now,
maybe President Trump just felt that there was nothing new
(07:23):
or novel there, and so that's why he framed it
as we didn't discuss it. But I have to assume
that Beijing at least brought it up, and we'll wait
to see whether or not we hear anything more on
what was discussed and whether or not there was that
slip up that we were concerned about could happen. The
language that the US uses to discuss Taiwan is so
(07:44):
carefully worded and very formal that it can be difficult
even for senior US officials to always abide by it.
I mean, this was a common issue in the prior administration,
with President Biden deviating from script a number of times,
then having to kind of issue a clarification and after
the fact. So it's very possible that that sort of
(08:04):
thing could happen with any president, and particularly for President Trump,
who is known to like to deviate from scripts and
talking points and kind of, you know, speak from the
heart or speak from the cuff. I think it's certainly
a possibility. The other issue they don't seem to have
made huge progress on was on Ukraine. President Trump going
into the meeting, was saying that he was going to
really put the pressure on she to reduce purchases of
(08:27):
Russian oil. China is the biggest foreign purchaser of Russian oil,
and the US hasn't taken action there, even though we
have against India, the second largest. But it seems like
that was not an outcome from this meeting. Doesn't surprise me.
Beijing considers Russia a very close partner and isn't going
to take steps against Russia lately without the US making
(08:49):
major concessions in return.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
What do you make of, you know, US and China
tensions now? Is the trade war over? I've seen references to,
you know, maybe it's moving from sort of like a
hot war to a cold trade war in a sense.
What's your take on that.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
I mean, I think we've been in a cold war
since at least President Trump's first term.
Speaker 4 (09:09):
At least.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
That's what a lot of observers would speculate, you know,
based on just the sustained tensions, the actions that are
taking place in the tech and the economic realms, if
not in others hears as well. So I think all
of that is going to continue. I mean, this was
a negotiation that we're not even sure came to full
resolution on some of the main trade and tech issues
(09:31):
that they were going to be discussing, let alone all
the other structural frictions in the relationship. And I'm not
sure that even what they did discuss on terrorists or
on export controls is really going to last on that
long based on the pattern of behavior we've seen to
date and kind of the structural features here of these
are delays or suspensions and not a fully putting to
(09:52):
rest of things, which means we're probably going to see
this again in about a year or so when things
come back up for renewal or re renegotiation.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
If not sooner, I guess right.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
I mean, I don't know what the enforcement mechanisms are
to stop by this side from reaching any of these terms.
Any just any last thoughts for what this all means
for markets, industries and other economies.
Speaker 3 (10:16):
I mean, I think that takeaway for other economies is
going to be for economies like Vietnam, India that we're
hoping to attract supply chains and industries out of China,
they are going to face a much deeper hill to
doing so, especially India, which is still facing very high
US terrorf rates. I think for key industries, especially anyone
(10:37):
that relies on critical minerals, it maybe brings some temporary
relief that the Chinese have decided to suspend one aspect
of their licensing regime, but their prior controls, I assume
are still going to be in place because that didn't
seem to be part of the agreement. And again, the
new ones aren't off the table, they're just on a delay.
So I think that they're still going to be huge
uncertainty in that space, and I think that's why some
(11:01):
of the reaction from markets that we've seen today has
so far been much more tempered than what you might
expect from the big headline of the US and China
have reached a deal that lowers terraces. Markets seem to
be pretty mixed on it and not overly excited.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
That makes sense, all right, That is really good color.
Thank you so much. For coming on. We'll have to
have you on again soon to as we continue to
follow the story and the entire issue of trade as
it develops. Thanks Jenny, Thanks so much. Nathan, let's uh,
let's bring you in. Nathan Dean's are a chief policy
analyst also down in Washington, d C. All right, Nathan,
(11:40):
for the last I don't know, four or five episodes.
We're always checking in with you on you know, what
the statuses of the shutdown, any any end in sight.
Speaker 5 (11:51):
So you know, I actually think there are I don't
want to say negotiations, just call them chit chats. Like
there's there's chit chats going on amongst a group of
ors that recognize that we are about to hit one
of the biggest pressure points that we've hitten, and that
is the absence of SNAP benefits for approximately forty two
(12:12):
million Americans. Now, obviously we're recording this on October thirtieth,
so things could change by the time that this episode
hits the wire. But you know, that is something that
policymakers are recognizing will be a problem for many many Americans,
and so there have been some negotiations about potentially trying
to move certain funding appropriation bills. You know, there really
(12:37):
hasn't been any major discussions in terms of extending ACAS
premium subsidies or anything like that. But unlike last week,
we're both sides. We're looking at the pulling data and
saying naw, we're good. Now we're starting to see a
little bit of negotiations or more like chit chats. So
I think there is a chance that we could have
a deal by next week. I don't want to call
(12:59):
it a great chance, but there is a chance. And
if that doesn't happen, then we're back to this scenario
we've talked about before, where if we get towards the
Thanksgiving holiday and there's traffic snarls, And for what it's worth,
there was a ground stop at JFK just twenty minutes ago.
There's a ground stop at LaGuardia just ten minutes ago.
Now I don't not sure if there was an air
traffic controller related, but anybody flying in New York yesterday,
(13:23):
flying into New York at a ninety minute ground stop
because of air traffic controllers, that's only going to get worse.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
So we in New Jersey are used to that at
Neware exactly.
Speaker 6 (13:32):
And you know.
Speaker 5 (13:33):
I will also point out that former Congressman mcmulvaney was
on Bloomberg Television yesterday and they asked him about this,
and he said, whenever we get into shutdown negotiations, travel
disruptions and air traffic controllers was always part of the
calculation of whin a shutdown will in. So if it doesn't,
if it opened, if it doesn't open next week, you
know that Thanksgiving holiday is going to be really difficult
(13:54):
for policymakers to keep the gar guns shut.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
And on the it's not benefits.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
We're going to talk to Holly in a moment because
there's litigation around that as well.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
Well.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
One question I had for you. You live in Virginia.
I live in New Jersey. We both have elections next
week for governor. Do you think that plays into the
shutdown calcuation at all? If you know, either party does
resoundingly well and exceeds expectations, does that party then get
(14:23):
more leverage and the shutdown negotiations.
Speaker 6 (14:26):
I think tangentially yes, just a little bit.
Speaker 5 (14:29):
I mean, and I think more of the scenario plays
out if the Democrats have a great night, because if
the Democrats have a not great night, then leadership will
feel in boldened to continue with their strategy. But leadership
is not what's ultimately going to bring about a deal here. Look,
Senator Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader in the House.
(14:49):
I don't see either of them coming together and saying
let's start negotiations. It's going to be by a group
of senators that in Senator Thune, just you know, the
majority leader in the Senate and the Republican side, said
he hates the idea of gangs, but they always call
it a gang of eight or a gang of twelve
or whatever. There's going to be a gang of some senators, bipartisan,
(15:09):
moderate senators. They're going to come up with a solution,
and they're going to say to leadership, here's the deal.
And that's when leadership will grab onto it.
Speaker 6 (15:17):
So yeah, a little bit, but not you know.
Speaker 5 (15:20):
But my stating right now is, you know, there's always
this thought that, you know, national politics is now local politics,
but local politics is also national politics, as those of
you in New York City are about to find out.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
Yeah, that's right, that's I had never heard that about
the gang of whatever. I mean, it's in their power
to change the moniker. It could be, you know, a
group of eight if they wanted to. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
Anyways, all right, let's just get a little wonky and
talk policy, because this week the FED put out a proposal.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
To revamp the stress test. Do you want to talk
about that for a moment.
Speaker 6 (15:51):
Yeah. So there's two proposals here.
Speaker 5 (15:53):
Actually technically there's three, but there was one proposal from April,
and this is think of it as the Volatility Stress
Test PERP. What that data is that spread out the
timeframe of the stress tests for the impact on what's
known as.
Speaker 6 (16:06):
The stress capital buffer.
Speaker 5 (16:07):
Stress capital buffer is an additional capital requirement charge that
banks have to follow, and the stress test results go
into what is your SCB calculation and what the April
proposal dated is essentially smoothed out the timeframe, so over
two years of tests goes into the SCB as opposed
to one, so it's not as volatile in terms of
(16:28):
what that calculation is that happened in April. I think
they'll finalize that early next year. What the FED did
on Friday, in our analysis this week talks about is
they opened up the transparency portion of the proposals. So
they did two things one is they gave a new
framework for what stress tests would look like going forward.
For example, when they calculate global market shock, rather than
(16:50):
going into twenty thousand risk factors, they're decreasing that to
twenty three hundred risk factors. They're taking things like mortgage
spreads into account, cre commercial real estate, and they're making
it essentially transparent, so the banks know what these stress
tests are. And then what they also did is they
release the scenarios for the twenty twenty six stress test.
(17:10):
Because the scenarios come out every year, the banks don't
know what's in the scenario and then they have to
respond to it. So the banks don't know what they're
being graded on. They do now and so as anybody
essentially growing up in elementary school knows, you know when
you're given the test, you know least how you're going
to respond to it. That's essentially what happened here. So
(17:31):
they've released the stress test scenarios for twenty twenty six.
I think they finalize them and call it February March
or of twenty twenty six. The comment deadlines are December
first and January twenty second. Stress test seizing season season
starts at around March. But ultimately what the investor should
know is is that maybe there's a small impact on
(17:52):
the stress capital buffer, but ultimately these are capital neutral,
no real capital requirement changes. So if you're on the
compliance side or the risks, you got very excited. If
you're a bank investor or somebody looking at this from
the you know, the capital portion of it, you shrug
and say, it's my familiar friends in legal and compliance
can deal with this.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
I feel like it doesn't take that much for risk man.
It's been in compliance folks to get excited. But all right,
good stuff, Nathan, thank you. All right, Holly from Let's
bring you in. We were talking about you know, Snap
benefits earlier with Nathan and the potential for that impact
to maybe you know, and the shutdown.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
You are following a lawsuit brought by.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
Many states, I don't know exactly how many, challenging the
Trump administration because the administration has said that, you know,
there's no contingent funding to continue some of the SNAP benefits.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
Do you want to just tell us a little bit
about the lawsuit, what the claims are, what the timing is,
how you viewed, you know, the likely outcome.
Speaker 7 (18:54):
Sure, thanks Elliot. So yep, twenty five states and the
District of DC to the Trump administration, saying that the
US Department of Agricultural suspension of SNAP benefits for the
month of November was arbitrary. And so what the government
says is that they can't use that There is a
contingency fund, but they can't use the contingency fund to
(19:17):
pay SNAP benefits because the fund only comes into play
when there have already been appropriations, and those appropriations aren't
specially like if there's an emergency like a disaster like
a hurricane disaster for example. But here there's no appropriations
because the government is shut down, so they can't tap
that fund. And what the states are arguing is that
sort that's like a drastic change in policy that's been
(19:40):
unexplained because no other administration has not funded SNAP during
a government shutdown, and in fact, the administration twenty nineteen
funded it during a government shutdown. And they also say
that Trump the Trump administration also funded WICK, which is
a program for intants and pregnant women, during this shutdown.
(20:04):
So they haven't explained why they can't tap this contingency So.
Speaker 4 (20:09):
What I think is, you know, given its.
Speaker 7 (20:13):
Prior position, the government's prior position, I think the court
will find that the policy ship is arbitrary. I haven't
seen the briefing yet. On the I expect there's going
to be a you know, preliminary injunction request, But right
now there's a t RO request. So they've asked the
court to issue a temporary restraining order preventing the government
(20:36):
from suspending the payments on November first. And that hearing
is today on October thirtieth.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
At what time?
Speaker 4 (20:44):
So it was it already happened?
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Ok?
Speaker 7 (20:48):
Yeah, So I expect a decision either today or tomorrow.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
All right?
Speaker 1 (20:51):
So yeah, but so right, so right now it's like
one twenty pm October thirtieth. By the time this gets published,
which will be on Halloween Friday, October thirty first, we
may have a decision on the TRO. And were you
able to listen into the hearing or no?
Speaker 4 (21:09):
Because there was an in person only hearing.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
And this is in Massachusetts Federal Court of Massachusetts, which
is in the first Circuit, which tends to lean as
if I recall all the active judges in the first
Circuit are appointed by Democrats.
Speaker 4 (21:27):
Yeah, this judge was appointed by Obama.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Right, So it tends to be you see a lot
of actually a lot of the challenges against the Trump
administration brought by blue leaning states, brought in Massachusetts or
other parts of the First Circuit, just because the judges
there do tend to be I think a little more liberal,
sort of.
Speaker 2 (21:48):
Like the opposite of the Fifth Circuit.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
All right, so tro ruined probably today or tomorrow yep.
Speaker 7 (21:57):
And then I just checked the docket and there's another
hearing that the court schedule, and I'm not sure what
that's for, but they schedule another hearing on November thirteenth, so.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
They're okay, yeah, that could be like maybe the preliminary
injunction ruling.
Speaker 7 (22:12):
Maybe there will be yeah, something filed before then.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
And I mean, and then after that it goes up
to the Circuit and then it feels like the shutdown
will be over by the time this could potentially hit
go to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
But I guess we'll see.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
Do you want to just talk about what companies this
matters for, like the grocery stores, I assume companies like
Walmart and Kroger.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
You want to just talk about that?
Speaker 7 (22:38):
Sure, So Walmart seems to be the biggest player in
the snap space.
Speaker 4 (22:42):
So you know, I read.
Speaker 7 (22:45):
Sets of four percent of Walmart's total sales in the
US came from food stamps in twenty thirteen, and it
took in about twenty five percent of snap shopper dollars annually.
Kroger and Alberton's are followed at eight and six percent.
And according to one report, it's you know, someone inferred
(23:08):
that Walmart could lose about two billion dollars if the
suspension lasted for the entire amount entire month of November.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
Wow, that's a lot, okay, And if anything else on
that case, wh should we pivot quickly to?
Speaker 2 (23:22):
Uh the case?
Speaker 7 (23:23):
Well, I mean that's going to be a fast moving case,
so I think we're going to get a decision.
Speaker 4 (23:26):
Very very soon.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Yep, yeah, all right. Uh.
Speaker 1 (23:30):
The other case you're following this week that had some
news is the State of Texas sued ken View and
Johnson and Johnson over alleged deceptive marketing concerning TiAl and
all and alleged links to autism and ADHD.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
Do you want to just talk about that case for
a minute.
Speaker 4 (23:49):
Sure, So we talked about this in a couple podcasts ago.
Speaker 7 (23:53):
Can you well actually, Johnson and Johnson was sued and
can you was it's been off that retain certain liabilities
and so Johnson and Johnson was food because there were
allegations that thailand All is linked to autism in ADHD,
and lawsuits were filed in federal court. The court missed
(24:16):
the lawsuits in twenty twenty three, but recently the Trump
administration came out and said that there's a link and
though it's not a causal association yet, there's you know,
they advised against pregnant women taking thailand All unless they
really really need it. So there's been some concern that
these are going to sort that's going to breed new
(24:37):
life into these lawsuits. I don't think it changes anything
in federal court. That ruling is on appeal. That appeal
is going to be heard in November. But I don't
think that the ruling gets reversed because of this new information.
And I don't think the lower court is going to
change its mind. In the event that the lower court,
(24:58):
you know, actually reopens the cases, I doubt that it does,
but if it does, I don't think it's going to
change anything. But what happened this week is that the
Texas Attorney General file of the lawsuit on behalf the
State of Texas saying that can You and Johnson and
Johnson are libel consumer or they're alleging consumer fraud because
(25:20):
they misled the public about the risks associated with tailanol.
And so what I've said about that is I think
this is a harder case to prove because for consumer
fraud you have to show fraud, which is, you know,
a higher intent level than like, let's say negligence, which
you could you know, you can win on a negligence
claim for a personal injuryaction. So the science is very mixed,
(25:44):
Like the government is saying there's no you know, they
don't have evidence of a causative association. There's just these
reports out there that there's an increased risk. So the
science is mixed. So I don't think based on that
science you could say that the manufacturers knew that this
increased the risk. So for that reason, I don't think
(26:04):
this is you know a huge risk for.
Speaker 4 (26:08):
Can you. But what what you know?
Speaker 7 (26:10):
There there is other settlements out there, like Johnson and
Johnson was uh, you know, investigated by I think it
was around forty states and entered into an agreement, and
that was over talcum powder and allegations that they misled
the public about, you know, as best as potentially being
in their product. And there was a settlement and it
was around seven hundred million dollars.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
So I assume then what you're watching for next is
emotions are dismissed by Johnson and Johnson and ken View
in this case.
Speaker 4 (26:39):
Well, it's a Texas state case.
Speaker 7 (26:41):
Oh it's you know, the filings are not readily acceptable
to me as they would be with with you know,
the federal court doctors. But I'm assuming you know in
most of these cases, they do file emotion to dismiss,
got it, unless you know there's a preemption issue. You
usually those usually don't get granted. And the preemption did
(27:02):
not win the day in federal court. So emotion just dismiss.
You know, I haven't.
Speaker 4 (27:11):
Talked about emotion to disiness.
Speaker 7 (27:12):
I haven't seen emotion to dismiss, but typically those are
hard to win in a case like this.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
Got it?
Speaker 1 (27:17):
Okay, Well, we'll continue checking back in with you on
this story. All right, thanks, Holly. All right, let's bring
in Matt sett in Helm. It covers all things litigation
and policy in the TMT World for US Matt the
H one B litigation. This relates to the Trump Administration's
(27:38):
bid to increase H one the visa fees up to
one hundred thousand dollars. There's been a lawsuit. At least
one lawsuit filed. I know one one you want to
talk about was filed by the Chamber of Commerce. Sounds
like they filed emotion for preliminary injunction. Do you want
to just tell us about that?
Speaker 8 (27:57):
Yep, Yep, that's right, Elliott. So just I think we've
talked about this before on this podcast. But yes, two
lawsuits have now been filed that I know of, to
challenge President Trump's September nineteenth proclamation establishing this new one
hundred thousand dollars fee regime. This is for the whole
H one B program, which is how US companies, many
(28:19):
US companies bring in specialized workers and obtain visas for them.
The policy would require this one hundred thousand dollars fee
when previously under the law, fees ranged you know, three
to five thousand dollars more typically. And so, yeah, what
(28:39):
I wanted to talk about today was this filing last
week October twenty fourth, the Chamber of Commerce filed this
motion for preliminary injunction or summary judgment in the alternative,
which basically moves this case forward, I think pretty fast.
And basically it says, look, this violates federal law for
(29:02):
for President Trump to do this, and it asks this
District Court in Washington, d C. Two UH to en
join the operation of President Trump's proclamation. And and so
the judge assigned here is an Obama appointee, Judge Beryl
Howell and UH. She her first action on the case
(29:26):
came yesterday in the docket. The the US government had
come in and and said, well, we got the shutdown
going on right now, we need to hit hit pause
on this stuff, and you and they're not really claiming
a reparable harm anyway, so let's let's slow all this down.
She wasn't having any of it. She responded pretty quickly
on the docket and said, look, no, we're going to
(29:48):
brief this fast. And so she set up a briefing
schedule that runs through December eighth on this, and she
said she might set a hearing shortly thereafter. So you
start to see the timeline for how this is going
to come together. I think as I read the merits
of the claim, and I haven't seen the US's response yet,
(30:09):
but I think I know what it will say.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
To me.
Speaker 8 (30:12):
This is a pretty strong argument. This is President Trump,
you know, taking a very broad view of a president's
power to control entry into the United States. But never
before has that been transformed into a power to set
fees for the H one B program, when when Congress
itself has effectively set fees in existing laws. And so
(30:36):
I think that tension is really going to be a
problem for the administration, certainly at the district court, probably
at the d C circin on appeal, and then possibly
even at the Supreme Court. This could move quickly through
the court system.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
So yeah, so you linked it to the president being
able to control entry into the country. So what's the
statute that the administration is purporting to use to enact
this increase?
Speaker 8 (31:00):
So under the immigration laws, there is a law that
gives the power power to the president to restrict entry
into the United States, and it was tested in a
Supreme Court case in twenty eighteen, Trump versus Hawaii, when
President Trump had had imposed restrictions on entry into the
(31:23):
United States from seven different countries and the US Supreme
Court ultimately ruled with President Trump in that case and said,
this statute that speaks to entry exudes deference to the president,
and so it's very deferential in terms of letting the
president decide who can literally come into the country. What
(31:45):
the President is trying to do in this case is
expand that power over entry restrictions into the power to
remake the H one B program and say, look, all
I'm doing is entry restriction. You can't come in unless
you pay me on hundred thousand dollars, and he can
try that.
Speaker 4 (32:04):
I'm just not.
Speaker 8 (32:05):
Sure when you have specific statutes in a full H
one B program set up by Congress, and the Constitution
typically says that that's setting fees taxing authority, that's not
really the president's role. That's typically Congress's role. I think
you run into a pretty pretty tough argument that the
(32:26):
Chamber has done a nice job presenting. I think it
will be really tough getting it through Judge Howell at
the district court level. Despite you know, it's a strong
president that that entry statute is strong for President Trump.
Trump v. Hawaii is a great decision for him. I'm
just not sure it's going to be enough.
Speaker 1 (32:43):
So yeah, so, I mean it could result in a
scenario where President Trump is allowed to bar employees from
particular countries, I guess on national security grounds, But you
can't do a blanket increase of fees for folks from
all countries.
Speaker 8 (33:00):
I think that's I think that's most likely the case.
He's going to continue to have the power to restrict entry,
but to remake the program that is and which is
effectively what this does, is really going to be for
Congress to do. Is what I expect the courts to say.
I think that you know that the tension between those
(33:22):
two lines of cases that we talked about, that it's
probably going to go all the way up to the
Supreme Court, and you could see, you could see the
justices themselves that you know, divided along those lines. But
even at the end of the day, even with that court,
you know, the Supreme Court, you know, sometimes sympathetic to
President Trump, I'm still not sure even there it will
be enough for this to get through.
Speaker 2 (33:44):
That's this is going to be a fascinating case. All right,
thanks Matt.
Speaker 1 (33:48):
All right, Jen ree, last, but certainly not least, let's
bring you in and talk some antitrust you had a
big decision concerning Apple.
Speaker 2 (33:57):
I figured if it was this this week or last week.
Speaker 4 (34:00):
This week?
Speaker 2 (34:00):
Yeah, this week, okay, yeah, you told me about this.
They won.
Speaker 1 (34:05):
They got a class decertified, which is a pretty rare occurrence,
but it potentially could save them twenty billion dollars with
the Bee. You want to just talk about that case.
Speaker 9 (34:15):
Yeah, sure, I mean I think Apple's had kind of
an astonishing streak of good luck or good fortune with
respect at least to US anti trust matters, and this
was a surprising one and very good for Google. The
magic number for them seems to be twenty billion, because
that's basically what.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
You just said, Google, But I think you meant to
have Oh well.
Speaker 9 (34:35):
Sorry, I mean Apple. You know that they have been
sued for the same thing, including this consumer case that
we're talking about. So this was a consumer class action that,
believe it or not, been pending since two thousand and
eight and has already had a run through the Supreme Court.
So it was worth a lot of money. The consumers
were claiming they were harmed by twenty billion dollars. And
(34:57):
what this is about was the app store that Apple
has for years charged to developers in the app Store,
which did range previously from about fifteen percent to thirty percent.
And what the consumers claimed here was that developers were
overcharged and that that overcharge was then passed on to them.
And this is for any purchase in the app store,
whether it was buying an app, making an in app purchase,
(35:18):
or buying a subscription. Now, the consumers said their class
was anybody since two thousand and eight that has spent
more than ten dollars on any of those kinds of purchases,
because so you can imagine it's a lot of people. Yeah,
big class and a lot of transactions. Now, we thought
Apple had some good legal defenses, but this was barreling
toward trial. It was set to go early February, and
(35:39):
it was going to be before a jury. So that
was negative for Apple because a jury recently kind of
resoundingly found Google guilty for almost the exact same thing
relative to its play store and the fees that it
charges in the play Store. And you know, it's pretty
easy to kind of cast for a lawyers to cast
(35:59):
these companies the big bully beating up on these little
mom and pop developers, And I think it would be
fairly easy for them to get a verdict from the
jury after what we saw it happened in Google. So
the break up in October twenty seventh and the judge
kind of surprisingly desertified the class. So what it means
is that Withdrew certification, it ended the case of status
(36:20):
as a collective action. And it did so because the
economic modeling of the plaintiff's expert trying to prove damages
and how the class members were hurt and to the
extent that they were harmed, financially, he was disqualified and
it led to a finding that the consumers hadn't offered
a reliable, common method to show class wide injuries, injury
(36:40):
and damages and that it has to be shown to
maintain a class action. So they just simply weren't able
to show that most members of their proposed class were
harmed in a similar way and to quantify what those
damages were. And these errors were actually kind of, you know,
they seemed sort of simplistic, but I guess at the
end of the day, they were not. They were related
to what we call dedooping of Apples data. And it
(37:01):
meant that because this expert, in the process of trying
to match Apple IDs to actual people that bought apps
or made payments to the app store, included a lot
of extra unharmed people into the class because they weren't
properly deduced, so people were duplicated over and over again,
and there were a lot of other mistakes beyond that,
(37:22):
so it made this model unreliable. Once the model was unreliable,
it's thrown out and they have nothing left.
Speaker 2 (37:28):
So they basically got rid of this expert, or the
judge said, this expert is not reliable and he can't
function as an expert in this case. Can the plaintifs
get another expert?
Speaker 9 (37:41):
So they had other experts involved. This is already kind
of their third shot, as I said, this has been
penning since two thousand and eight, and we've gone through
a couple of iterations of their class certification. It was
actually years ago originally denied. But the judge said, but
I gave them the reasons it was denied, said you
can fix it, gave them an opportunity them extra time,
let them bring on more experts, let them have more
(38:03):
discovery to try again. And she was very clear about
what they needed to do, and this time they failed
to do it. It was like their third shot, and
so that was it. So at this point all they
have is an appeal Elliott, and I think it'll be
a real uphill climb.
Speaker 4 (38:16):
So the opshot of.
Speaker 9 (38:17):
That for Apple, what does that mean that these plaintiffs
only can bring individual claims? And that's highly unlikely. You know,
even if they were going to win one thousand dollars
in the consumer class action, it's going to cost them
a lot more than that to try the case, right.
Speaker 1 (38:29):
Just to get the lawyers, yeah, to take it all, right,
And you also had a pellet or arguments in a
different Apple case, a related case, right, because this is
Epic Games versus Apple, which also concerns the app store.
Speaker 9 (38:42):
Yeah, got kind of the same claims, very similar claims
by Epic Games. There had been a class of developers
by the way, that they had the same claims. Right,
this is all kind of the same thing. Apple's already
settled with the developers, but Epic Games did what it's
called opted out, and they brought their own case. It
went to trial, and Apple largely one you know, it
was found to not be in violation of federal antitrust laws.
(39:04):
But Epic one on one single California state law against
unfair competition, and it was related to what's called anti
steering rules. Apple had to rule the developers in its
app store couldn't push consumers out of the app store
to pay for that app out in the web at
a less expensive price. And the judge said, no, Apple,
you got to let developers do that. So Apple said,
(39:25):
all right, we're going to be in compliance with this injunction.
We're going to do that. We're letting developers include a
link in the app that people can click on, go
into the web and pay for the app somewhere else.
But then what Apple did was they charged developers who
did that twelve percent and twenty seven percent rather than
fifteen and thirty And guess what, These developers have to
(39:45):
pay about three percent in processing fees to process the Faymans,
so they're still playing fifteen and thirty percent. And the judge,
i think, not surprisingly, said this is not in compliance.
She held Apple in contemptive court. And she turned around
and issued a new injunction and said, you know what, Apple,
you've been messing with me too much.
Speaker 4 (40:02):
Here.
Speaker 9 (40:03):
You can't charge anything period. Wow, these app developers get
to use your app store but if a consumer links
out and buys an a Apple, you get nothing. And
this is a little bit problematic Elliott, because it really
contradicts her liability decision, which was that Apple had the
right to get some compensation for the use of its
app store, for the use of its IP, for the
(40:24):
use of providing an audience to these developers. It was
just a matter of how much. The fifteen percent and
the thirty percent was too much, and Apple wasn't able
to establish what the right fee was. So Apple appealed,
and it really seemed like the panel, at least two
of the three judges who spoke up a lot, agreed
with Apple that there's something wrong here and that Apple
(40:45):
needed to have a chance to go back to the
judge with some experts and establish what a fair fee
would be.
Speaker 2 (40:50):
Well, all right, well that'll be interesting.
Speaker 1 (40:52):
This is the Ninth circuitizing yes, okay, And so when
you expect a decision, you know this has.
Speaker 9 (40:59):
Been before the Ninth Circuit a couple times already, so
I think it'll be quicker than normal. The Ninth Circuit's
been very slow in the last couple of years. But
I would think we're going to get something within the
first half of next year, maybe even one Q just
because they know this case. This is just on a
narrow issue related to the injunction, so I think they'll
turn around a decision quicker than they have in the past.
Speaker 2 (41:18):
Such interesting cases.
Speaker 1 (41:19):
I'm going to think about these every time I go
back onto the app store on my iPhone. I know,
all right, good stuff, Thanks Jen. I think with that
we will wrap up this episode of Votes and Verdicts.
As always, thank you for listening. If you have any
questions about anything we talked about on this episode, please
don't hesitate to reach out to us at your convenience
with questions. As a reminder, you can find all of
(41:40):
our research on the Bloomberg terminal at big You can
find all our litigation and policy research at BI laws Go.
We also want to thank our producer Aditya Somani, without
whom this podcast would never publish on time. Thank you
for listening, and have a great day.
Hello, and welcome to the Votes and Verdicts podcast, hosted
by the litigation and policy team at Bloomberg Intelligence, the
investment research platform of Bloomberg LP on the Bloomberg terminal.
Bloomberg Intelligence has five hundred analysts and strategists working across
the globe and focus on all major markets. Our coverage
includes over two thousand equities and credits, and we have
(00:36):
outlooks on more than ninety industries and one hundred market indices,
currencies and commodities. This podcast series examines the intersection of
business policy and law, and today's our weekly look at
the litigation and policy catalysts that we're currently watching and
that we think will impact companies across a number.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Of different sectors as well as markets.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
My name is Elliott stein Ant with Bloomberg Intelligence, covering
litigation in the financials sector, and I'm delighted today as
always to be joined by several of my BI colleagues.
I'm also particularly delighted today to have one of our
colleagues from Bloomberg Economics, specifically Jenny Welch, who heads up
the geoeconomics team at Bloomberg Economics. As always, you can
(01:20):
find all of our research on the Bloomberg terminal at
BI go and you can find most of our litigation
and policy research on our dashboard, which is available on
the terminal at BI laws go. Just to timestamp. This
today is Thursday, October thirtieth, twenty twenty five. It's a
little after one pm in New York. So with that,
(01:43):
Jenny Welch, let's bring you in first time on the podcast.
Thank you for coming on. So, you know, the big
news I think this week across all major markets is
that President Trump was in Asia meeting with the heads
of state of Japan, South Korea, and China.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
I just wanted you know. You worked in the White House.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
You worked on China and other Asia affairs for the
National Security Council, among other things, So I am really
curious to hear what your main takeaways are from President
Trump's trip.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Well, first of all, thanks so much for having me Elliott,
first time caller, longtime listener. I would great to be here.
You sort of take on the meetings as what a whirlwind.
Anyone who has been involved in these kind of trips
before knows what a huge lift they can be. All
the coordination that's required, especially when you have as many
stops as Trump had before coming to South Korea for APEX.
(02:41):
As you mentioned, he was in Japan meeting with Japan's
new Prime minister. But before that he was in Malaysia
for the Aussion Meeting, where he also met and inked
deals with a number of Southeast Asian partners, including Thailand
and Malaysia, although we're still waiting for some of the
details of those to come out, as is often the case,
I think, in terms of the big meeting, the big
(03:03):
headline was his sit down with Chinese President Sheijinpayn just
a few hours ago as we're recording this, and the
main takeaway from that is largely what we were expecting
ahead of the meeting, which is they've agreed to reduce
some of the terroriffs. They've agreed to extend the truce
on some other terrorifts, but a lot of this still
(03:24):
remains to be seen how long it will last because
many of the steps that they agreed to take were
just suspensions or delays of things, rather than completely removing
the issue from the table. And for those of us
who've been watching this a while, we've seen this movie before,
and what that suggests is we could see sort of
a return to tensions and not all that distance of
(03:48):
the future.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
Yeah, so can you just sort of summarize some of
the key terms that was sort of at least agreed
to in principle, It seems I don't you know, I
haven't seen anything actually inked. Maybe that's coming, but it
maybe just sort of summarize some of the key things
that were reached.
Speaker 4 (04:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (04:06):
I think the biggest thing is that the US agreed
to cut in half terrace it's placed on China earlier
this year related to fetanol and from the US perspective,
China's lack of cooperation stemming the flow of fent in
and all the United States. Those terrafs were at twenty percent.
Now they're being cut down to ten percent, which means
(04:27):
overall US effective terif rate on China would come down
from around forty percent to around thirty percent, So still high,
but that would take China below terraces currently facing India
and Brazil and closer to where a lot of Southeast
Asian economies are. And that's meaningful because if you were
(04:48):
in the camp who thought that Washington was trying to
de risk from China and kind of reduce its import
dependence on China. That's now going to be a much
deeper hill to climb, because even though Chinese tariff rates
are still higher, they have so many advantages in this
space that unless the tariff rates were much much higher,
firms would not really be incentivized to move out of China.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
So yeah, so what does the US get in return?
I guess is the question?
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Apparently a lot more soybeans that China would return to
buying soybeans that it had suspended those purchases earlier this year. Now,
what that means for other economies like Brazil that had
been benefiting from Chinese purchases, I think is a question
to be answered here. The other things they agreed to
you were kind of just a suspension. So, for example,
(05:34):
on export controls, the US had taken this major step
earlier this month to essentially apply export controls to subsidiaries
of companies had already been blacklisted, and that ended up
affecting a huge number of Chinese firms. Beijing said that
in response to that, it was going to be launching
this new critical Minerals export control regime. Now, I think
(05:56):
there are questions about whether or not that action might
have been in the works already and China was just
kind of using it as an excuse to deploy it.
But in any case, both sides agreed that they were
going to suspend the implementation of those measures, but they're
not taking them off the table. So I think there's
this question of is that going to be hanging over
our heads for the next year and when it comes
time to either renewing that extension or renegotiating it, are
(06:21):
we going to see a repeat of this pattern of
both steps doing things to create leverage ahead of those talks.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
So what are some of the things they didn't reach
an agreement on as far as we can tell? You know,
one thing you haven't mentioned so far as Taiwan, and
I thought Boombeve Economics had an interesting piece yesterday on
how you know, like a simple misstatement can be misinterpreted
and lead down the road to so many you know,
(06:47):
unintended consequences.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
So, you know, was Taiwan discussed as far as we know?
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Were there are other things that don't appear to have
been agreed to by the parties.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
Trump said that they did not discuss Taiwan, But as
someone who's staffed many of these meetings in the past.
I would be shocked if Chinese President Hijimping didn't raise Taiwan.
It's always a part of Chinese standard talking points. Whoever
they are talking to, they're going to raise the issue
of Taiwan and concerned about US support for Taiwan. Now,
maybe President Trump just felt that there was nothing new
(07:23):
or novel there, and so that's why he framed it
as we didn't discuss it. But I have to assume
that Beijing at least brought it up, and we'll wait
to see whether or not we hear anything more on
what was discussed and whether or not there was that
slip up that we were concerned about could happen. The
language that the US uses to discuss Taiwan is so
(07:44):
carefully worded and very formal that it can be difficult
even for senior US officials to always abide by it.
I mean, this was a common issue in the prior administration,
with President Biden deviating from script a number of times,
then having to kind of issue a clarification and after
the fact. So it's very possible that that sort of
(08:04):
thing could happen with any president, and particularly for President Trump,
who is known to like to deviate from scripts and
talking points and kind of, you know, speak from the
heart or speak from the cuff. I think it's certainly
a possibility. The other issue they don't seem to have
made huge progress on was on Ukraine. President Trump going
into the meeting, was saying that he was going to
really put the pressure on she to reduce purchases of
(08:27):
Russian oil. China is the biggest foreign purchaser of Russian oil,
and the US hasn't taken action there, even though we
have against India, the second largest. But it seems like
that was not an outcome from this meeting. Doesn't surprise me.
Beijing considers Russia a very close partner and isn't going
to take steps against Russia lately without the US making
(08:49):
major concessions in return.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
What do you make of, you know, US and China
tensions now? Is the trade war over? I've seen references to,
you know, maybe it's moving from sort of like a
hot war to a cold trade war in a sense.
What's your take on that.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
I mean, I think we've been in a cold war
since at least President Trump's first term.
Speaker 4 (09:09):
At least.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
That's what a lot of observers would speculate, you know,
based on just the sustained tensions, the actions that are
taking place in the tech and the economic realms, if
not in others hears as well. So I think all
of that is going to continue. I mean, this was
a negotiation that we're not even sure came to full
resolution on some of the main trade and tech issues
(09:31):
that they were going to be discussing, let alone all
the other structural frictions in the relationship. And I'm not
sure that even what they did discuss on terrorists or
on export controls is really going to last on that
long based on the pattern of behavior we've seen to
date and kind of the structural features here of these
are delays or suspensions and not a fully putting to
(09:52):
rest of things, which means we're probably going to see
this again in about a year or so when things
come back up for renewal or re renegotiation.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
If not sooner, I guess right.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
I mean, I don't know what the enforcement mechanisms are
to stop by this side from reaching any of these terms.
Any just any last thoughts for what this all means
for markets, industries and other economies.
Speaker 3 (10:16):
I mean, I think that takeaway for other economies is
going to be for economies like Vietnam, India that we're
hoping to attract supply chains and industries out of China,
they are going to face a much deeper hill to
doing so, especially India, which is still facing very high
US terrorf rates. I think for key industries, especially anyone
(10:37):
that relies on critical minerals, it maybe brings some temporary
relief that the Chinese have decided to suspend one aspect
of their licensing regime, but their prior controls, I assume
are still going to be in place because that didn't
seem to be part of the agreement. And again, the
new ones aren't off the table, they're just on a delay.
So I think that they're still going to be huge
uncertainty in that space, and I think that's why some
(11:01):
of the reaction from markets that we've seen today has
so far been much more tempered than what you might
expect from the big headline of the US and China
have reached a deal that lowers terraces. Markets seem to
be pretty mixed on it and not overly excited.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
That makes sense, all right, That is really good color.
Thank you so much. For coming on. We'll have to
have you on again soon to as we continue to
follow the story and the entire issue of trade as
it develops. Thanks Jenny, Thanks so much. Nathan, let's uh,
let's bring you in. Nathan Dean's are a chief policy
analyst also down in Washington, d C. All right, Nathan,
(11:40):
for the last I don't know, four or five episodes.
We're always checking in with you on you know, what
the statuses of the shutdown, any any end in sight.
Speaker 5 (11:51):
So you know, I actually think there are I don't
want to say negotiations, just call them chit chats. Like
there's there's chit chats going on amongst a group of
ors that recognize that we are about to hit one
of the biggest pressure points that we've hitten, and that
is the absence of SNAP benefits for approximately forty two
(12:12):
million Americans. Now, obviously we're recording this on October thirtieth,
so things could change by the time that this episode
hits the wire. But you know, that is something that
policymakers are recognizing will be a problem for many many Americans,
and so there have been some negotiations about potentially trying
to move certain funding appropriation bills. You know, there really
(12:37):
hasn't been any major discussions in terms of extending ACAS
premium subsidies or anything like that. But unlike last week,
we're both sides. We're looking at the pulling data and
saying naw, we're good. Now we're starting to see a
little bit of negotiations or more like chit chats. So
I think there is a chance that we could have
a deal by next week. I don't want to call
(12:59):
it a great chance, but there is a chance. And
if that doesn't happen, then we're back to this scenario
we've talked about before, where if we get towards the
Thanksgiving holiday and there's traffic snarls, And for what it's worth,
there was a ground stop at JFK just twenty minutes ago.
There's a ground stop at LaGuardia just ten minutes ago.
Now I don't not sure if there was an air
traffic controller related, but anybody flying in New York yesterday,
(13:23):
flying into New York at a ninety minute ground stop
because of air traffic controllers, that's only going to get worse.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
So we in New Jersey are used to that at
Neware exactly.
Speaker 6 (13:32):
And you know.
Speaker 5 (13:33):
I will also point out that former Congressman mcmulvaney was
on Bloomberg Television yesterday and they asked him about this,
and he said, whenever we get into shutdown negotiations, travel
disruptions and air traffic controllers was always part of the
calculation of whin a shutdown will in. So if it doesn't,
if it opened, if it doesn't open next week, you
know that Thanksgiving holiday is going to be really difficult
(13:54):
for policymakers to keep the gar guns shut.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
And on the it's not benefits.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
We're going to talk to Holly in a moment because
there's litigation around that as well.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
Well.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
One question I had for you. You live in Virginia.
I live in New Jersey. We both have elections next
week for governor. Do you think that plays into the
shutdown calcuation at all? If you know, either party does
resoundingly well and exceeds expectations, does that party then get
(14:23):
more leverage and the shutdown negotiations.
Speaker 6 (14:26):
I think tangentially yes, just a little bit.
Speaker 5 (14:29):
I mean, and I think more of the scenario plays
out if the Democrats have a great night, because if
the Democrats have a not great night, then leadership will
feel in boldened to continue with their strategy. But leadership
is not what's ultimately going to bring about a deal here. Look,
Senator Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader in the House.
(14:49):
I don't see either of them coming together and saying
let's start negotiations. It's going to be by a group
of senators that in Senator Thune, just you know, the
majority leader in the Senate and the Republican side, said
he hates the idea of gangs, but they always call
it a gang of eight or a gang of twelve
or whatever. There's going to be a gang of some senators, bipartisan,
(15:09):
moderate senators. They're going to come up with a solution,
and they're going to say to leadership, here's the deal.
And that's when leadership will grab onto it.
Speaker 6 (15:17):
So yeah, a little bit, but not you know.
Speaker 5 (15:20):
But my stating right now is, you know, there's always
this thought that, you know, national politics is now local politics,
but local politics is also national politics, as those of
you in New York City are about to find out.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
Yeah, that's right, that's I had never heard that about
the gang of whatever. I mean, it's in their power
to change the moniker. It could be, you know, a
group of eight if they wanted to. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
Anyways, all right, let's just get a little wonky and
talk policy, because this week the FED put out a proposal.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
To revamp the stress test. Do you want to talk
about that for a moment.
Speaker 6 (15:51):
Yeah. So there's two proposals here.
Speaker 5 (15:53):
Actually technically there's three, but there was one proposal from April,
and this is think of it as the Volatility Stress
Test PERP. What that data is that spread out the
timeframe of the stress tests for the impact on what's
known as.
Speaker 6 (16:06):
The stress capital buffer.
Speaker 5 (16:07):
Stress capital buffer is an additional capital requirement charge that
banks have to follow, and the stress test results go
into what is your SCB calculation and what the April
proposal dated is essentially smoothed out the timeframe, so over
two years of tests goes into the SCB as opposed
to one, so it's not as volatile in terms of
(16:28):
what that calculation is that happened in April. I think
they'll finalize that early next year. What the FED did
on Friday, in our analysis this week talks about is
they opened up the transparency portion of the proposals. So
they did two things one is they gave a new
framework for what stress tests would look like going forward.
For example, when they calculate global market shock, rather than
(16:50):
going into twenty thousand risk factors, they're decreasing that to
twenty three hundred risk factors. They're taking things like mortgage
spreads into account, cre commercial real estate, and they're making
it essentially transparent, so the banks know what these stress
tests are. And then what they also did is they
release the scenarios for the twenty twenty six stress test.
(17:10):
Because the scenarios come out every year, the banks don't
know what's in the scenario and then they have to
respond to it. So the banks don't know what they're
being graded on. They do now and so as anybody
essentially growing up in elementary school knows, you know when
you're given the test, you know least how you're going
to respond to it. That's essentially what happened here. So
(17:31):
they've released the stress test scenarios for twenty twenty six.
I think they finalize them and call it February March
or of twenty twenty six. The comment deadlines are December
first and January twenty second. Stress test seizing season season
starts at around March. But ultimately what the investor should
know is is that maybe there's a small impact on
(17:52):
the stress capital buffer, but ultimately these are capital neutral,
no real capital requirement changes. So if you're on the
compliance side or the risks, you got very excited. If
you're a bank investor or somebody looking at this from
the you know, the capital portion of it, you shrug
and say, it's my familiar friends in legal and compliance
can deal with this.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
I feel like it doesn't take that much for risk man.
It's been in compliance folks to get excited. But all right,
good stuff, Nathan, thank you. All right, Holly from Let's
bring you in. We were talking about you know, Snap
benefits earlier with Nathan and the potential for that impact
to maybe you know, and the shutdown.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
You are following a lawsuit brought by.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
Many states, I don't know exactly how many, challenging the
Trump administration because the administration has said that, you know,
there's no contingent funding to continue some of the SNAP benefits.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
Do you want to just tell us a little bit
about the lawsuit, what the claims are, what the timing is,
how you viewed, you know, the likely outcome.
Speaker 7 (18:54):
Sure, thanks Elliot. So yep, twenty five states and the
District of DC to the Trump administration, saying that the
US Department of Agricultural suspension of SNAP benefits for the
month of November was arbitrary. And so what the government
says is that they can't use that There is a
contingency fund, but they can't use the contingency fund to
(19:17):
pay SNAP benefits because the fund only comes into play
when there have already been appropriations, and those appropriations aren't
specially like if there's an emergency like a disaster like
a hurricane disaster for example. But here there's no appropriations
because the government is shut down, so they can't tap
that fund. And what the states are arguing is that
sort that's like a drastic change in policy that's been
(19:40):
unexplained because no other administration has not funded SNAP during
a government shutdown, and in fact, the administration twenty nineteen
funded it during a government shutdown. And they also say
that Trump the Trump administration also funded WICK, which is
a program for intants and pregnant women, during this shutdown.
(20:04):
So they haven't explained why they can't tap this contingency So.
Speaker 4 (20:09):
What I think is, you know, given its.
Speaker 7 (20:13):
Prior position, the government's prior position, I think the court
will find that the policy ship is arbitrary. I haven't
seen the briefing yet. On the I expect there's going
to be a you know, preliminary injunction request, But right
now there's a t RO request. So they've asked the
court to issue a temporary restraining order preventing the government
(20:36):
from suspending the payments on November first. And that hearing
is today on October thirtieth.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
At what time?
Speaker 4 (20:44):
So it was it already happened?
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Ok?
Speaker 7 (20:48):
Yeah, So I expect a decision either today or tomorrow.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
All right?
Speaker 1 (20:51):
So yeah, but so right, so right now it's like
one twenty pm October thirtieth. By the time this gets published,
which will be on Halloween Friday, October thirty first, we
may have a decision on the TRO. And were you
able to listen into the hearing or no?
Speaker 4 (21:09):
Because there was an in person only hearing.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
And this is in Massachusetts Federal Court of Massachusetts, which
is in the first Circuit, which tends to lean as
if I recall all the active judges in the first
Circuit are appointed by Democrats.
Speaker 4 (21:27):
Yeah, this judge was appointed by Obama.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Right, So it tends to be you see a lot
of actually a lot of the challenges against the Trump
administration brought by blue leaning states, brought in Massachusetts or
other parts of the First Circuit, just because the judges
there do tend to be I think a little more liberal,
sort of.
Speaker 2 (21:48):
Like the opposite of the Fifth Circuit.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
All right, so tro ruined probably today or tomorrow yep.
Speaker 7 (21:57):
And then I just checked the docket and there's another
hearing that the court schedule, and I'm not sure what
that's for, but they schedule another hearing on November thirteenth, so.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
They're okay, yeah, that could be like maybe the preliminary
injunction ruling.
Speaker 7 (22:12):
Maybe there will be yeah, something filed before then.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
And I mean, and then after that it goes up
to the Circuit and then it feels like the shutdown
will be over by the time this could potentially hit
go to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
But I guess we'll see.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
Do you want to just talk about what companies this
matters for, like the grocery stores, I assume companies like
Walmart and Kroger.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
You want to just talk about that?
Speaker 7 (22:38):
Sure, So Walmart seems to be the biggest player in
the snap space.
Speaker 4 (22:42):
So you know, I read.
Speaker 7 (22:45):
Sets of four percent of Walmart's total sales in the
US came from food stamps in twenty thirteen, and it
took in about twenty five percent of snap shopper dollars annually.
Kroger and Alberton's are followed at eight and six percent.
And according to one report, it's you know, someone inferred
(23:08):
that Walmart could lose about two billion dollars if the
suspension lasted for the entire amount entire month of November.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
Wow, that's a lot, okay, And if anything else on
that case, wh should we pivot quickly to?
Speaker 2 (23:22):
Uh the case?
Speaker 7 (23:23):
Well, I mean that's going to be a fast moving case,
so I think we're going to get a decision.
Speaker 4 (23:26):
Very very soon.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Yep, yeah, all right. Uh.
Speaker 1 (23:30):
The other case you're following this week that had some
news is the State of Texas sued ken View and
Johnson and Johnson over alleged deceptive marketing concerning TiAl and
all and alleged links to autism and ADHD.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
Do you want to just talk about that case for
a minute.
Speaker 4 (23:49):
Sure, So we talked about this in a couple podcasts ago.
Speaker 7 (23:53):
Can you well actually, Johnson and Johnson was sued and
can you was it's been off that retain certain liabilities
and so Johnson and Johnson was food because there were
allegations that thailand All is linked to autism in ADHD,
and lawsuits were filed in federal court. The court missed
(24:16):
the lawsuits in twenty twenty three, but recently the Trump
administration came out and said that there's a link and
though it's not a causal association yet, there's you know,
they advised against pregnant women taking thailand All unless they
really really need it. So there's been some concern that
these are going to sort that's going to breed new
(24:37):
life into these lawsuits. I don't think it changes anything
in federal court. That ruling is on appeal. That appeal
is going to be heard in November. But I don't
think that the ruling gets reversed because of this new information.
And I don't think the lower court is going to
change its mind. In the event that the lower court,
(24:58):
you know, actually reopens the cases, I doubt that it does,
but if it does, I don't think it's going to
change anything. But what happened this week is that the
Texas Attorney General file of the lawsuit on behalf the
State of Texas saying that can You and Johnson and
Johnson are libel consumer or they're alleging consumer fraud because
(25:20):
they misled the public about the risks associated with tailanol.
And so what I've said about that is I think
this is a harder case to prove because for consumer
fraud you have to show fraud, which is, you know,
a higher intent level than like, let's say negligence, which
you could you know, you can win on a negligence
claim for a personal injuryaction. So the science is very mixed,
(25:44):
Like the government is saying there's no you know, they
don't have evidence of a causative association. There's just these
reports out there that there's an increased risk. So the
science is mixed. So I don't think based on that
science you could say that the manufacturers knew that this
increased the risk. So for that reason, I don't think
(26:04):
this is you know a huge risk for.
Speaker 4 (26:08):
Can you. But what what you know?
Speaker 7 (26:10):
There there is other settlements out there, like Johnson and
Johnson was uh, you know, investigated by I think it
was around forty states and entered into an agreement, and
that was over talcum powder and allegations that they misled
the public about, you know, as best as potentially being
in their product. And there was a settlement and it
was around seven hundred million dollars.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
So I assume then what you're watching for next is
emotions are dismissed by Johnson and Johnson and ken View
in this case.
Speaker 4 (26:39):
Well, it's a Texas state case.
Speaker 7 (26:41):
Oh it's you know, the filings are not readily acceptable
to me as they would be with with you know,
the federal court doctors. But I'm assuming you know in
most of these cases, they do file emotion to dismiss,
got it, unless you know there's a preemption issue. You
usually those usually don't get granted. And the preemption did
(27:02):
not win the day in federal court. So emotion just dismiss.
You know, I haven't.
Speaker 4 (27:11):
Talked about emotion to disiness.
Speaker 7 (27:12):
I haven't seen emotion to dismiss, but typically those are
hard to win in a case like this.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
Got it?
Speaker 1 (27:17):
Okay, Well, we'll continue checking back in with you on
this story. All right, thanks, Holly. All right, let's bring
in Matt sett in Helm. It covers all things litigation
and policy in the TMT World for US Matt the
H one B litigation. This relates to the Trump Administration's
(27:38):
bid to increase H one the visa fees up to
one hundred thousand dollars. There's been a lawsuit. At least
one lawsuit filed. I know one one you want to
talk about was filed by the Chamber of Commerce. Sounds
like they filed emotion for preliminary injunction. Do you want
to just tell us about that?
Speaker 8 (27:57):
Yep, Yep, that's right, Elliott. So just I think we've
talked about this before on this podcast. But yes, two
lawsuits have now been filed that I know of, to
challenge President Trump's September nineteenth proclamation establishing this new one
hundred thousand dollars fee regime. This is for the whole
H one B program, which is how US companies, many
(28:19):
US companies bring in specialized workers and obtain visas for them.
The policy would require this one hundred thousand dollars fee
when previously under the law, fees ranged you know, three
to five thousand dollars more typically. And so, yeah, what
(28:39):
I wanted to talk about today was this filing last
week October twenty fourth, the Chamber of Commerce filed this
motion for preliminary injunction or summary judgment in the alternative,
which basically moves this case forward, I think pretty fast.
And basically it says, look, this violates federal law for
(29:02):
for President Trump to do this, and it asks this
District Court in Washington, d C. Two UH to en
join the operation of President Trump's proclamation. And and so
the judge assigned here is an Obama appointee, Judge Beryl
Howell and UH. She her first action on the case
(29:26):
came yesterday in the docket. The the US government had
come in and and said, well, we got the shutdown
going on right now, we need to hit hit pause
on this stuff, and you and they're not really claiming
a reparable harm anyway, so let's let's slow all this down.
She wasn't having any of it. She responded pretty quickly
on the docket and said, look, no, we're going to
(29:48):
brief this fast. And so she set up a briefing
schedule that runs through December eighth on this, and she
said she might set a hearing shortly thereafter. So you
start to see the timeline for how this is going
to come together. I think as I read the merits
of the claim, and I haven't seen the US's response yet,
(30:09):
but I think I know what it will say.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
To me.
Speaker 8 (30:12):
This is a pretty strong argument. This is President Trump,
you know, taking a very broad view of a president's
power to control entry into the United States. But never
before has that been transformed into a power to set
fees for the H one B program, when when Congress
itself has effectively set fees in existing laws. And so
(30:36):
I think that tension is really going to be a
problem for the administration, certainly at the district court, probably
at the d C circin on appeal, and then possibly
even at the Supreme Court. This could move quickly through
the court system.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
So yeah, so you linked it to the president being
able to control entry into the country. So what's the
statute that the administration is purporting to use to enact
this increase?
Speaker 8 (31:00):
So under the immigration laws, there is a law that
gives the power power to the president to restrict entry
into the United States, and it was tested in a
Supreme Court case in twenty eighteen, Trump versus Hawaii, when
President Trump had had imposed restrictions on entry into the
(31:23):
United States from seven different countries and the US Supreme
Court ultimately ruled with President Trump in that case and said,
this statute that speaks to entry exudes deference to the president,
and so it's very deferential in terms of letting the
president decide who can literally come into the country. What
(31:45):
the President is trying to do in this case is
expand that power over entry restrictions into the power to
remake the H one B program and say, look, all
I'm doing is entry restriction. You can't come in unless
you pay me on hundred thousand dollars, and he can
try that.
Speaker 4 (32:04):
I'm just not.
Speaker 8 (32:05):
Sure when you have specific statutes in a full H
one B program set up by Congress, and the Constitution
typically says that that's setting fees taxing authority, that's not
really the president's role. That's typically Congress's role. I think
you run into a pretty pretty tough argument that the
(32:26):
Chamber has done a nice job presenting. I think it
will be really tough getting it through Judge Howell at
the district court level. Despite you know, it's a strong
president that that entry statute is strong for President Trump.
Trump v. Hawaii is a great decision for him. I'm
just not sure it's going to be enough.
Speaker 1 (32:43):
So yeah, so, I mean it could result in a
scenario where President Trump is allowed to bar employees from
particular countries, I guess on national security grounds, But you
can't do a blanket increase of fees for folks from
all countries.
Speaker 8 (33:00):
I think that's I think that's most likely the case.
He's going to continue to have the power to restrict entry,
but to remake the program that is and which is
effectively what this does, is really going to be for
Congress to do. Is what I expect the courts to say.
I think that you know that the tension between those
(33:22):
two lines of cases that we talked about, that it's
probably going to go all the way up to the
Supreme Court, and you could see, you could see the
justices themselves that you know, divided along those lines. But
even at the end of the day, even with that court,
you know, the Supreme Court, you know, sometimes sympathetic to
President Trump, I'm still not sure even there it will
be enough for this to get through.
Speaker 2 (33:44):
That's this is going to be a fascinating case. All right,
thanks Matt.
Speaker 1 (33:48):
All right, Jen ree, last, but certainly not least, let's
bring you in and talk some antitrust you had a
big decision concerning Apple.
Speaker 2 (33:57):
I figured if it was this this week or last week.
Speaker 4 (34:00):
This week?
Speaker 2 (34:00):
Yeah, this week, okay, yeah, you told me about this.
They won.
Speaker 1 (34:05):
They got a class decertified, which is a pretty rare occurrence,
but it potentially could save them twenty billion dollars with
the Bee. You want to just talk about that case.
Speaker 9 (34:15):
Yeah, sure, I mean I think Apple's had kind of
an astonishing streak of good luck or good fortune with
respect at least to US anti trust matters, and this
was a surprising one and very good for Google. The
magic number for them seems to be twenty billion, because
that's basically what.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
You just said, Google, But I think you meant to
have Oh well.
Speaker 9 (34:35):
Sorry, I mean Apple. You know that they have been
sued for the same thing, including this consumer case that
we're talking about. So this was a consumer class action that,
believe it or not, been pending since two thousand and
eight and has already had a run through the Supreme Court.
So it was worth a lot of money. The consumers
were claiming they were harmed by twenty billion dollars. And
(34:57):
what this is about was the app store that Apple
has for years charged to developers in the app Store,
which did range previously from about fifteen percent to thirty percent.
And what the consumers claimed here was that developers were
overcharged and that that overcharge was then passed on to them.
And this is for any purchase in the app store,
whether it was buying an app, making an in app purchase,
(35:18):
or buying a subscription. Now, the consumers said their class
was anybody since two thousand and eight that has spent
more than ten dollars on any of those kinds of purchases,
because so you can imagine it's a lot of people. Yeah,
big class and a lot of transactions. Now, we thought
Apple had some good legal defenses, but this was barreling
toward trial. It was set to go early February, and
(35:39):
it was going to be before a jury. So that
was negative for Apple because a jury recently kind of
resoundingly found Google guilty for almost the exact same thing
relative to its play store and the fees that it
charges in the play Store. And you know, it's pretty
easy to kind of cast for a lawyers to cast
(35:59):
these companies the big bully beating up on these little
mom and pop developers, And I think it would be
fairly easy for them to get a verdict from the
jury after what we saw it happened in Google. So
the break up in October twenty seventh and the judge
kind of surprisingly desertified the class. So what it means
is that Withdrew certification, it ended the case of status
(36:20):
as a collective action. And it did so because the
economic modeling of the plaintiff's expert trying to prove damages
and how the class members were hurt and to the
extent that they were harmed, financially, he was disqualified and
it led to a finding that the consumers hadn't offered
a reliable, common method to show class wide injuries, injury
(36:40):
and damages and that it has to be shown to
maintain a class action. So they just simply weren't able
to show that most members of their proposed class were
harmed in a similar way and to quantify what those
damages were. And these errors were actually kind of, you know,
they seemed sort of simplistic, but I guess at the
end of the day, they were not. They were related
to what we call dedooping of Apples data. And it
(37:01):
meant that because this expert, in the process of trying
to match Apple IDs to actual people that bought apps
or made payments to the app store, included a lot
of extra unharmed people into the class because they weren't
properly deduced, so people were duplicated over and over again,
and there were a lot of other mistakes beyond that,
(37:22):
so it made this model unreliable. Once the model was unreliable,
it's thrown out and they have nothing left.
Speaker 2 (37:28):
So they basically got rid of this expert, or the
judge said, this expert is not reliable and he can't
function as an expert in this case. Can the plaintifs
get another expert?
Speaker 9 (37:41):
So they had other experts involved. This is already kind
of their third shot, as I said, this has been
penning since two thousand and eight, and we've gone through
a couple of iterations of their class certification. It was
actually years ago originally denied. But the judge said, but
I gave them the reasons it was denied, said you
can fix it, gave them an opportunity them extra time,
let them bring on more experts, let them have more
(38:03):
discovery to try again. And she was very clear about
what they needed to do, and this time they failed
to do it. It was like their third shot, and
so that was it. So at this point all they
have is an appeal Elliott, and I think it'll be
a real uphill climb.
Speaker 4 (38:16):
So the opshot of.
Speaker 9 (38:17):
That for Apple, what does that mean that these plaintiffs
only can bring individual claims? And that's highly unlikely. You know,
even if they were going to win one thousand dollars
in the consumer class action, it's going to cost them
a lot more than that to try the case, right.
Speaker 1 (38:29):
Just to get the lawyers, yeah, to take it all, right,
And you also had a pellet or arguments in a
different Apple case, a related case, right, because this is
Epic Games versus Apple, which also concerns the app store.
Speaker 9 (38:42):
Yeah, got kind of the same claims, very similar claims
by Epic Games. There had been a class of developers
by the way, that they had the same claims. Right,
this is all kind of the same thing. Apple's already
settled with the developers, but Epic Games did what it's
called opted out, and they brought their own case. It
went to trial, and Apple largely one you know, it
was found to not be in violation of federal antitrust laws.
(39:04):
But Epic one on one single California state law against
unfair competition, and it was related to what's called anti
steering rules. Apple had to rule the developers in its
app store couldn't push consumers out of the app store
to pay for that app out in the web at
a less expensive price. And the judge said, no, Apple,
you got to let developers do that. So Apple said,
(39:25):
all right, we're going to be in compliance with this injunction.
We're going to do that. We're letting developers include a
link in the app that people can click on, go
into the web and pay for the app somewhere else.
But then what Apple did was they charged developers who
did that twelve percent and twenty seven percent rather than
fifteen and thirty And guess what, These developers have to
(39:45):
pay about three percent in processing fees to process the Faymans,
so they're still playing fifteen and thirty percent. And the judge,
i think, not surprisingly, said this is not in compliance.
She held Apple in contemptive court. And she turned around
and issued a new injunction and said, you know what, Apple,
you've been messing with me too much.
Speaker 4 (40:02):
Here.
Speaker 9 (40:03):
You can't charge anything period. Wow, these app developers get
to use your app store but if a consumer links
out and buys an a Apple, you get nothing. And
this is a little bit problematic Elliott, because it really
contradicts her liability decision, which was that Apple had the
right to get some compensation for the use of its
app store, for the use of its IP, for the
(40:24):
use of providing an audience to these developers. It was
just a matter of how much. The fifteen percent and
the thirty percent was too much, and Apple wasn't able
to establish what the right fee was. So Apple appealed,
and it really seemed like the panel, at least two
of the three judges who spoke up a lot, agreed
with Apple that there's something wrong here and that Apple
(40:45):
needed to have a chance to go back to the
judge with some experts and establish what a fair fee
would be.
Speaker 2 (40:50):
Well, all right, well that'll be interesting.
Speaker 1 (40:52):
This is the Ninth circuitizing yes, okay, And so when
you expect a decision, you know this has.
Speaker 9 (40:59):
Been before the Ninth Circuit a couple times already, so
I think it'll be quicker than normal. The Ninth Circuit's
been very slow in the last couple of years. But
I would think we're going to get something within the
first half of next year, maybe even one Q just
because they know this case. This is just on a
narrow issue related to the injunction, so I think they'll
turn around a decision quicker than they have in the past.
Speaker 2 (41:18):
Such interesting cases.
Speaker 1 (41:19):
I'm going to think about these every time I go
back onto the app store on my iPhone. I know,
all right, good stuff, Thanks Jen. I think with that
we will wrap up this episode of Votes and Verdicts.
As always, thank you for listening. If you have any
questions about anything we talked about on this episode, please
don't hesitate to reach out to us at your convenience
with questions. As a reminder, you can find all of
(41:40):
our research on the Bloomberg terminal at big You can
find all our litigation and policy research at BI laws Go.
We also want to thank our producer Aditya Somani, without
whom this podcast would never publish on time. Thank you
for listening, and have a great day.
Host
Elliott Stein
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.