Podcasts about antitrust

00:00 Intro 03:33 I numeri dell'indagine Antitrust sulla GDO 42:02 Giorgia e Sanae, gemelle diverse: Italia e Giappone a braccetto per l'innovazione tecnologica 54:53 Minnesota on ICE? Trump minaccia l'Insurrection Act Questo episodio è sponsorizzato da Young Platform. I contenuti di questo episodio non costituiscono consulenza finanziaria, legale o fiscale. Le informazioni fornite non rappresentano un'offerta al pubblico né una sollecitazione all'investimento in cripto-attività, ai sensi del D.Lgs. 58/1998 (TUF),  strumenti ad alto rischio di volatilità non adatte a tutti gli investitori. L'utente è tenuto a effettuare valutazioni autonome prima di intraprendere qualsiasi operazione. Le performance passate non sono indicative di risultati futuri. Nessuna garanzia è offerta circa la redditività, sicurezza o idoneità dei servizi descritti. Registrati su Young Platform, l'app regolamentata per investire in Bitcoin, e ottieni 10€ di bonus: https://link.youngplatform.com/r/donchisciotte Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today on Second Request, Executive Editor Teddy Downey sits down with antitrust expert Hal Singer, who argues why AirBnb is violating antitrust laws, and how enforcement could address distortions in the housing and rental markets. The conversation centers on Singer's recent article, “The Antitrust Case Against Airbnb,” which analyzes how Airbnb's “Smart Pricing” algorithm may facilitate price coordination among short-term rental hosts, the broader effects of short-term rental platforms on housing supply and rents, and the challenges regulators face in applying antitrust law to platform-based and AI-driven pricing models.To learn more about The Capitol Forum click here.

Market update for January 16, 2026Follow us on Instagram (@TheRundownDaily) for bonus content and instant reactions.In Today's Episode:Zaid quoted in the WSJ: “he just has aura”Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk hit with antitrust lawsuitNetflix expands its Sony Pictures deal and pushes further into video podcastsEnergy stocks slide after the White House unveils a plan to stop power bills from going upFun fact of the day: Wall Street banks posted a record $134 billion in trading revenue (while still cutting thousands of jobs)

This Day in Legal History: Wong Kim ArkOn January 14, 1898, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, firmly establishing the doctrine of birthright citizenship under the Constitution.The case arose after Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were not U.S. citizens, was denied reentry to the country following a trip abroad. Federal officials argued that because his parents were subjects of the Emperor of China and barred from naturalization, Wong Kim Ark was not a U.S. citizen.The Court rejected that position, holding that citizenship is determined by place of birth, not by the nationality or immigration status of one's parents. In a 6–2 decision, the Court relied heavily on the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment.The majority emphasized that the Amendment codified the common-law rule that nearly all persons born on U.S. soil are citizens. This interpretation directly limited the government's ability to deny citizenship based on race or ancestry.The decision came at a time of intense anti-Chinese sentiment and restrictive immigration laws, including the Chinese Exclusion Act. By ruling in Wong Kim Ark's favor, the Court drew a clear constitutional boundary around congressional power over citizenship.The case has since served as the cornerstone for modern citizenship law in the United States. It remains one of the most frequently cited precedents in debates over immigration, nationality, and constitutional identity.The Supreme Court of the United States is expected to release one or more decisions as it resumes issuing opinions, while several major cases remain unresolved. Among the most closely watched is a challenge to sweeping tariffs imposed by President Trump. The justices typically do not announce in advance which cases they will decide, adding uncertainty to each decision day. The tariffs case, argued in November, raises significant questions about the scope of presidential authority and its economic consequences worldwide.Trump relied on a 1977 emergency powers statute to justify tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners, framing trade deficits and drug trafficking as national emergencies. During oral arguments, both conservative and liberal justices appeared skeptical that the statute authorized such broad trade measures. Lower courts have already ruled that Trump exceeded his authority, and his administration is now seeking reversal. The lawsuits were brought by affected businesses and a coalition of states, most led by Democrats. Other pending cases involve voting rights, religious liberty, campaign finance limits, the firing of a Federal Trade Commission official, and the legality of conversion therapy bans. Together, these disputes reflect a Court grappling with the limits of executive power and regulatory authority.Supreme Court set to issue rulings, with Trump tariffs case still pending | ReutersConservative justices on the Supreme Court appeared inclined to uphold state laws that bar transgender athletes from competing on female sports teams. The Court heard lengthy arguments in cases from Idaho and West Virginia, where lower courts had ruled in favor of transgender students challenging the bans. A majority of the justices expressed concern about adopting a nationwide rule amid ongoing debate over whether medical treatments can eliminate sex-based athletic advantages. Conservative members of the Court emphasized fairness and safety in women's sports, while liberal justices largely signaled support for the transgender challengers. The states argued that their laws lawfully classify athletes by biological sex and are necessary to preserve equal athletic opportunities for women and girls. Lawyers for the challengers contended that the bans discriminate based on sex or transgender status in violation of constitutional equal protection and federal education law. The Trump administration defended the state laws, urging the Court to leave policy decisions to legislatures rather than judges. The outcome could have far-reaching effects beyond sports, influencing other restrictions on transgender people in public life. A decision is expected by the end of June.US Supreme Court conservatives lean toward allowing transgender sports bans | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that Cornell University, Georgetown University, and the University of Pennsylvania must continue defending against a lawsuit alleging collusion in financial aid practices. The case claims that elite universities worked together to limit competition and give preferential treatment to wealthier applicants. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly rejected the schools' efforts to dismiss the lawsuit, finding enough evidence for the claims to proceed to trial. The plaintiffs argue that the universities violated federal antitrust law over two decades by breaching promises not to consider applicants' financial circumstances. Several other prominent universities previously settled similar claims for a combined total of nearly $320 million, though the remaining defendants deny any wrongdoing. The lawsuit represents more than 200,000 current and former students seeking substantial damages. The judge pointed to evidence suggesting the schools coordinated financial aid policies to avoid competing against one another. He also concluded that the plaintiffs properly defined a nationwide market for elite private universities and filed their claims within the allowable time frame. The decision clears the way for a jury to determine whether the schools unlawfully inflated the cost of attendance.Cornell, Georgetown, UPenn must face lawsuit over financial aid | ReutersThe British Broadcasting Corporation has moved to dismiss Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit stemming from its editing of a January 6, 2021 speech. The broadcaster argues that a Florida court lacks authority over the case because the program was not broadcast in that state. It also contends Trump cannot show he suffered harm, noting that he was re-elected after the documentary aired. Trump alleges the BBC misleadingly combined excerpts of his speech in a way that implied he encouraged supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol, while excluding remarks calling for peaceful protest. The lawsuit asserts violations of Florida's deceptive and unfair trade practices law and seeks billions of dollars in damages across two claims. The BBC has acknowledged the editing error and apologized but maintains the lawsuit is legally flawed. In court filings, the broadcaster argues Trump failed to plausibly allege “actual malice,” a requirement for defamation claims brought by public officials. The BBC also disputes Trump's claim that the documentary was available to U.S. audiences via streaming platforms. It has asked the court to pause discovery while the dismissal motion is pending, citing unnecessary expense if the case is thrown out.BBC seeks to have Trump's $10 billion lawsuit dismissed | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

i. Constitution We Believe 1. We believe the First Amendment's Establishment Clause was intended to prevent a federal government-sponsored or preferred religion, not to separate God from our government or to remove religion from public life; therefore, we affirm our right under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to exercise our freedom of speech including religious speech. 2. We believe the Second Amendment is an individual right of the citizens of the United States to keep and bear arms; therefore, we oppose any attempts, whether by law or regulation at any level of government, to restrict any citizen's right to keep and bear arms (open or concealed), to restrict access to ammunition, or to record the purchase thereof. 3. We believe the United States Constitution directs the judiciary to interpret law, not make law or create law through judicial activism. 4. We believe in the concept that Congress shall make no law that applies to citizens of the United States that does not apply to the Senators and Representatives. 5. We believe in the concept of nullification as a legitimate tool for adjudicating disputes between the states and the federal government when the federal government enacts a law clearly not in pursuance of the constitution and powers delegated in Art. I, Sec. 8. 6. We believe in the Tenth Amendment that provides "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," and we oppose any attempt by the federal government to intrude on state's rights. 7. We believe the Constitution provides for a clear and distinct separation of powers among the three branches of government. Any governmental action that tends to promote or allow one branch of government to practice the power or powers of the other branches of government is a violation of the limits placed on government by the people. 8. We believe in the duty and obligation of the federal government and the State of Oklahoma to adhere to and respect treaties between the federal government and the Indian tribes. We Support 1. We support the display of Judeo-Christian religious symbols, including the Ten Commandments in public places. 2. We support legislation that will protect gun and ammunition manufacturers or resellers from lawsuits attempting to hold the manufacturers or resellers liable for misuse of guns. 3. We support requiring that candidates for president present public proof of qualification in accordance with the Constitution at the time of filing, through the election board of each state. 4. We support a US Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced budget. 18 5. We support a US Constitutional Amendment instituting term limits for all elected members of Congress. 6. We support a U.S. Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. 7. We support a requirement that each piece of legislation only address one issue. 8. We support the review and minimization of the Endangered Species Act. 9. We support the abolishment, or reduction and restructuring, of the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Education, IRS, CIA, ATF, FBI, FEMA, NSA, DHS, CDC, and the Department of Labor and their powers and responsibilities distributed to state authority. 10. We support the protection of public and private sector whistleblowers who have firsthand information. 11. We support union's refunding dues used for partisan political activity. 12. We support the right of private associations to admit or deny membership based on what each association's conscience dictates. 13. We support an English Language Act, which would make English our official language in the United States. 14. We support the idea that when U.S. Conference Committees meet, they should consider only those terms submitted from the House and Senate, with no additional expenditures and items added. 15. We support the preservation of the National Day of Prayer. 16. We support legislation to limit the power of federal regulatory agencies. 17. We support the identification of persons as citizens or non-citizens in the census. We Oppose 1. We oppose any federal taxation on firearms, ammunition, or accessories and/or confiscation of firearms, ammunition, or accessories. 2. We oppose universal background checks and red flag laws for firearm purchases. 3. We oppose any legislation that would require the use of trigger or other locking devices on firearms. 4. We oppose any so-called "assault" weapons ban and any effort to register or restrict firearms, ammunition, or magazines. 5. We oppose legislation that would require gun owners to purchase insurance policies covering the misuse of their firearms. 6. We oppose the Patriot Act and the NDAA' s Sections 1021 and 1022, which allow American citizens, 19 except for enemy combatants, to be held indefinitely without due process, and call for its repeal. 7. We oppose court decisions based on any foreign law, such as Sharia Law, U.N. regulations and other international organizations, instead of U.S. law and Constitutional doctrine. 8. We oppose the creation of a new federal internal security force. 9. We oppose federal wage caps. 10. We oppose Statehood for the District of Columbia and allowing its representative a vote in Congress. 11. We oppose the appointment and funding of presidential "czars." 12. We oppose any attempts by the Federal Government to reinstitute the "Fairness Doctrine" or institute "Net Neutrality." 13. We oppose the construct of "Free Speech or Safe Zones." 14. We oppose national injunctions by federal district courts. 15. We oppose the use and sharing of data from Automated License Plate Readers as an infringement on our 4th amendment protected rights. ii. Criminal Justice We Believe 1. The rights of victims and their families must be protected in criminal proceedings, with notice and opportunity to attend all proceedings related to the crime(s) against them. 2. Restitution by the convicted criminal should be ordered to be made to the victim (or his estate) to compensate for losses and damages incurred as a result of the crime(s) committed. 3. The death penalty must be retained as an available punishment in appropriate cases. 4. Inmates who abuse the legal system by filing repeated frivolous claims should receive appropriate punishments for their misconduct. 5. Decisions on prison reform should be made by the Legislature after consultation with district attorneys, prison officials, and other interested parties, with the view towards stopping criminal behavior early, rather than adopting permissive treatment of low-level crimes which may deceive or encourage a young adult to continue on the wrong path under the mistaken assumption that there will be no consequences for criminal behavior. Consideration of incentives for first-time or youthful offenders who refrain from further misconduct may be a useful option to be considered in designing such reforms. 6. We believe in due process and that no one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property by the government or its agents without either being found guilty by a jury or pleading guilty of a crime. We therefore oppose the practice of civil asset forfeiture. 20 We Support 1. We support the repeal of The Oklahoma Uninsured Vehicle Enforcement Diversion Program as it is unconstitutional at the state and federal level. We Oppose 1. We oppose the monitoring, surveillance and tracking of United States citizens without a lawfully obtained warrant. iii. Federal & State Elections Preamble: The foundation of our representative-republic is honest elections. The Oklahoma Republican Party is committed to preserving every legally eligible Oklahoman's right to vote. We support only day of in-person voting as written in the Constitutions with limited exceptions to protect voting rights for the elderly, the disabled, military members, and all other eligible voters. We urge all elected officials around our state to take all necessary steps to ensure that voters may cast their ballots in a timely and secure manner. Security and transparency shall take precedence over convenience to ensure honest and fair, local, state, and federal elections. We Believe 1. We believe in fair and honest election procedures. 2. We believe equal suffrage for all United States citizens of voting age. 3. We believe in the constitutional authority of state legislatures to regulate voting. We Support 1. We support a bit-by-bit forensic audit of all electronic devices, including but not limited to servers, ballot machines, and paper ballots throughout the state immediately before and after each election. 2. We support vigorous enforcement of all our election laws as written and oppose any laws, lawsuits, and judicial decisions that make voter fraud difficult to deter, detect, or prosecute. 3. We support full enforcement of all voter ID laws currently enacted. 4. We support felony status for willful violations of the election code and increasing penalty for voter fraud from a misdemeanor back to a felony. 5. We support consolidating elections to primary, runoff, special, and general election. 6. We support sequentially numbered and signed ballots to deter counterfeiting. 7. We support expanding the Attorney General's staff for investigating election crimes and restoring the ability of the Attorney General to prosecute any election crimes. 8. We support the ability for civil lawsuits to be filed for election fraud or officials' failure to follow the Oklahoma Election Code. 21 9. We support allowing trained poll watchers from anywhere in Oklahoma with local party or candidate approval. 10. We support creating processes that will allow rapid adjudication of election law violations. 11. We support requiring voters to re-register if they have not voted in a five-year period. 12. We support requiring proof of residency, citizenship, and voter registration via photo ID for each voter. 13. We support retaining the 25-day registration deadline. 14. We support requiring a list of certified deaths be provided to the Secretary of State for the names of deceased voters to be removed from the list of registered voters, with checks every third year of the voter rolls to ensure all currently registered voters are eligible. 15. We support giving the Secretary of State enforcement authority to ensure county registrar compliance with Secretary of State directives. 16. We support protecting the integrity of the Republican Primary Election by requiring a closed primary system in Oklahoma. 17. We support drawing districts based on eligible voters, not pure population. Districts should be geographically compact when possible 18. We support hand counting of ballots. 19. We support recalls, audits, recounts, and irregularity and fraud investigations requested within 45 days of an election. 20. We support verification of United States citizenship for voting or registering to vote. 21. We support elections run by United States citizens. 22. We support counts to be posted on Precinct doors. We Oppose 1. We oppose internet voting, the use of tabulation machines and electronic voting machines of any kind for public office and any ballot measure. 2. We oppose all motor voter laws, automatic voter registration (AVR), and all forms of electronic databases, such as ERIC (Electronic Registration Information Center) and all third-party registration vendors. 3. We oppose all federal legislation, including but not limited to the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022, which nullifies the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. 22 4. We oppose unlawful voting, illegal assistance, or ineligible people voting in our national, state, and local elections. 5. We oppose ranked choice voting. 6. We oppose any identification of citizens by race, origin, creed, sexuality, or lifestyle choices and oppose the use of any such identification for the purposes of creating voting districts. We urge that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 be repealed. 7. We oppose any redistricting map that is unfair to conservative candidates in the Primary or the General Election. 8. We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. 9. We oppose after-hours voting C. Natural Resources We Believe 1. We believe dependence on foreign energy sources is a national security issue. 2. We believe governments should ease restrictions in the search for energy and other natural resources. 3. We believe the federal agricultural appropriations should accurately show the percentage of money set aside for non-agricultural programs such as school lunch programs and food stamps. 4. We believe the responsible use of natural resources is essential for the benefit of future generations. We Support 1. We support the creation and enactment of a national energy policy to reduce dependence on foreign sources. 2. We support the private expansion of oil and gas exploration and refining capacity. 3. We support the exportation of U.S. petroleum products. 4. We support labeling of all food and fiber with country-of-origin labeling. Further, only products born, raised, slaughtered, and processed or sprouted, harvested, grown, and processed in this country should receive a U.S. label. 5. We support energy policy based on private development, efficient use and expansion of current resources such as fossil fuels, clean coal, and nuclear energy; and exploration and efficient use of other resources such as biofuels, wind, solar and water energy. 6. We support ending all federal and state subsidies, including tax credits, for industrial renewable 23 energy, including but not limited to, wind and solar. 7. We support the rights of individuals and businesses to refuse the installation of smart meters without penalties. 8. We support the right of states to provide water for present and future use within their borders by state residents before they can be designated for use to other states. 9. We support environmental recommendations that are based on sound science, that respect and protect the rights of property owners, and that do not impose unreasonable burdens on Oklahoma citizens or businesses. 10. We support more use of coal and natural gas to be used in the production of electricity. 11. We support the use of modular nuclear, or small natural gas fired generation facilities to be built close to high demand facilities to greatly reduce the need for long and expensive transmission lines. 12. We support mandatory country-of-origin labeling of meat products and that a country-of-origin label that states in any way that it is a product of the USA must be of the following requirements: Born, raised, harvested, packaged & processed in the USA. 13. We support The Packers and Stockyards Act and the enforcement of anti-trust laws. 14. We support private property rights and call for appropriate legislation to prohibit the use of eminent domain by private companies. 15. We stand with Oklahoma and her property owners against the Green Agenda. We Oppose 1. We oppose government curbs, moratoriums, punitive taxes and fees on our domestic oil and gas industry. 2. We oppose states selling water rights to out-of-state buyers. 3. We oppose the use of eminent domain for any water sale. 4. We oppose human rights for animals. 5. We oppose livestock taxation. 6. We oppose legislation that restricts or regulates family farms or farmers' markets. 7. We oppose restrictive regulation of carbon and particulate matter emissions in agriculture. 8. We oppose the "Cap and Trade" system for carbon dioxide. 9. We oppose the UN's Agenda 21, aka UN 2030, as a coordinated effort to relinquish the sovereignty of the United States to foreign powers. 24 10. We oppose the purchase or ownership of land by a foreign government or entity. 11. We oppose the production, selling, and labeling of a product that is an alternative protein source claiming to be meat, otherwise known as or referred to as fake meat, and labeling such product as meat, beef, burger, steak, or any other name given to an actual meat protein source derived from the production and slaughter of livestock. 12. We oppose current regulations that allow foreign beef to enter the U.S. and be packaged, repackaged, or commingled with domestic product and then labeled a product of the USA. 13. We oppose the theory that cow flatulence, belching, or any process of enteric fermentation that is said to emit methane or a greenhouse gas that some link to the theory of global warming is some sort of detriment threat to the environment. 14. We oppose any form of carbon tracking solutions imposed on farmers and ranchers that will ultimately lead to more costly and burdensome regulations. 15. We oppose NACs (natural asset companies) or similar companies derived by investors, the SEC, or any other entity that wishes to monetize, trade natural outputs, or otherwise maximize ecological performance in such a way that any company can control the management of public or private lands quantifying outputs of natural resources such as air and water. 16. We oppose any effort of the federal government to have any role in animal care or husbandry. 17. We oppose mandates or restrictions on the use of antibiotics for farm or veterinary use. 18. We oppose mandatory Electronic Identification device (EID) tags on livestock, birds, and animals. D. National Issues i. Defense We Believe 1. We believe that a strong national defense should be fully funded, provide sufficient compensation, educational opportunities, quality training, and the best equipment for our armed forces. 2. We believe any educational institution that inhibits the normal operations of ROTC or military recruiters should be ineligible for government funding. 3. We believe foreign enemies who have committed or planned acts of aggression against the U.S. are unlawful enemy combatants and are not entitled to citizenship rights under the U.S. Constitution. We believe they should be held in detention facilities such as Guantanamo Bay, not the U.S. Prisons Systems, and their cases adjudicated by military tribunals, not by U.S. Criminal Courts. 4. We believe Congress and the President should refrain from weakening the military through changes to the Uniform Coe of Military Justice. The military should be allowed to maintain its high level of honesty, integrity, morality, and operational capabilities. 25 5. We believe in the complete accounting of all MIAs and POWs that were engaged in military actions by the United States. We Support 1. We support maintaining a strong national defense and advocate "peace through strength", with a combat ready and capable force. 2. We support the right of the military's internal determination of who is qualified to perform the various roles and functions of each branch of the uniformed armed services. 3. We support veterans' and survivors' benefits, and to receive top quality health care. We support the reform of the Veteran's Administration and the use of private facilities when appropriate. 4. We support helping our veterans to succeed in their return to civilian life in medical care, mental health care, education, housing, and employment assistance. 5. We support the freedom of military chaplains to provide religious services including freedom of worship according to their faith. 6. We support and encourage continued public and privately funded exploration of space. 7. We support returning to "Don't Ask Don't Tell" for the military of the United States. We Oppose 1. We oppose re-instituting the draft except in time of war as declared by Congress. 2. We oppose drafting females into U.S. military service. 3. We oppose the military use of U.S. troops under foreign command except joint operations. 4. We oppose the erosion of our military's readiness through "gender norming" for training and promotion. 5. We oppose the further reduction of benefits and entitlements to service members, former service members, and their families. 6. We oppose halting military pay during US government shutdowns. ii. Foreign Relations We Support 1. We support economic stability be it in the U.S. or Internationally 2. We support the dollar as the principal currency of the world. 3. We support equal access of U.S. products to global markets and the elimination of trade barriers. 26 4. We support withdrawing from treaties and agreements, such as the Kyoto Treaty, and the Paris Climate Accord, that hamper the U.S. economy and compromises freedoms We Oppose 1. We oppose the Chinese Communist Party and any other governments that are manipulators of the U.S. dollar and exchange rates at the expense of U.S. National Security as well as economic stability. 2. We oppose paying into UN programs that are against American principles and freedoms. 3. We oppose any doctrines that infringe upon U.S. Sovereignty and the Sovereignty of U.S. allies such as Israel, the Ukraine, and Taiwan. 4. We oppose terrorism and any nations that sponsor terroristic organizations and groups that are anti-U.S. such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS. 5. We oppose the sale of technology by U.S. Corporations to terrorist and enemy nations. 6. We oppose the transfer of U.S. taxpayer wealth to any foreign governments under the umbrella of foreign, humanitarian aid, scientific research, and military assistance for non-U.S. interests. 7. We oppose the principles of the World Economic Forum to devalue the U.S. dollar and do not accept them as a body of global governance. 8. We oppose the creation of the Transatlantic Common Market 9. We oppose any United Nations Programs that seek a "world order" over the Earth's population and U.N. policies that are forced over the world's nations. 10. We oppose the World Health Organization's policies over U.S. citizens and setting precedent for the U.S. medical community. 11. We oppose foreign control over any ports or bases within the jurisdiction of the United States. 12. We oppose any actions taken by previous administrations that relinquish U.S. sovereignty and control over U.S. data and private communications. iii. Immigration We Support 1. We support limited legal immigration and embrace legal immigrants who choose to assimilate to our American culture, language, and values. 2. We support securing our borders against illegal immigrants and potential enemies of the United States including building a wall or barrier on our southern border. 3. We support legal requirements for citizenship, excluding provisions for birthright citizenship to children of illegal residents. 27 4. We support a strictly regulated and enforced guest worker program. Legal guest workers should assume social costs, such as education and health care for themselves and their dependents. 5. We support the method for determining the number of immigrants and temporary visa holders allowed in the United States should be revised to prevent an adverse effect on our national security, wages, housing, environment, medical care, or schools. 6. We support that the U.S. government should vigorously enforce and demand that all local law enforcement agencies uphold and enforce all federal laws concerning illegal immigration. We particularly support the work of the men and women of Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) and US Border Patrol and Protection. 7. We support the elimination of sanctuary cities for illegal aliens and the defunding of any government entity which declares itself a sanctuary city. 8. We support strong enforcement of state and federal laws dealing with illegal aliens. 9. We support substantial state fines for employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. 10. We support issuing driver's license only to citizens and others who reside here legally, and not to illegal aliens. We Oppose 1. We oppose illegal aliens being given the same privileges as U.S. citizens or legal aliens, including entitlements such as Social Security, health care (excepting trauma care), education, and earned income tax credits. State government social programs should be available only to citizens and legal residents of the United States. 2. We oppose any form of blanket amnesty. 3. We oppose legal immigrants overstaying their visas. 4. We oppose a "path to citizenship" that would grant citizenship to illegal aliens faster than to immigrants who have come to the United States through legal means. E. State Issues i. State Legislature We Believe 1. We believe all bills should be limited to one issue. 2. We believe that it is the responsibility of individual legislators to read and to be knowledgeable of all pieces of legislation prior to voting. 3. We believe that all state-tribal compacts and agreements should require the approval of both houses of the legislature in addition to the ten-member Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations. 28 4. We believe Oklahoma shall participate only in programs or plans that protect private property rights and encourage citizens to develop their property in a manner that does not harm others. 5. We believe Oklahoma should not participate in any global ID initiatives and should prohibit the introduction of a radio frequency identification device (RFID) in any state-issued identification card. 6. We believe the Oklahoma Lottery should be repealed. 7. We believe a fee shall be defined as funds collected for voluntary use of government service, be used exclusively for that service, and not to exceed the cost of that service. We Support 1. We support any legislation that protects our rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. 2. We support an explanation of the specific Oklahoma and U.S. Constitutional authority when filing a bill. 3. We support full funding of all state retirement systems. 4. We support legislation rescinding Oklahoma's previous calls for a U.S. Constitutional Convention. 5. We support the state and any county, municipality, city, town, school or any other political subdivision to display, in its public buildings and on its grounds, replicas of United States historical documents including, but not limited to, the Ten Commandments, Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence, United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, Oklahoma Constitution and other historically significant documents in the form of statues, monuments, memorials, tablets or any other display that respects the dignity and solemnity of such documents. Such documents shall be displayed in a manner consistent with the context of other documents contained in such display. 6. We support full protection of U.S. Second Amendment rights in Oklahoma by amending the Oklahoma Constitution to mirror the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. 7. We support maintaining the Constitutional Carry law in Oklahoma statute. 8. We support the ability of state law enforcement to restore the peace and protect Oklahoma citizens through the arrest and prosecution of any persons/agents attempting to inflict unconstitutional laws/mandates on its citizens. 9. We support the fundamental right to own and to enjoy our private property and we oppose restrictions or losses of that right. 10. We support fair, just, and timely compensation for property owners when governmental regulations limit property use. 11. We support driver's license photos of a lower resolution that is perfectly adequate for visual identification, but not for biometric tracking. 12. We support the repeal of mandatory fingerprinting or other traceable biometric information, and 29 we oppose the maintenance of a biometric database, in connection with an application for a driver's license or government ID. 13. We support lawsuit reform including but not limited to "loser pays". 14. We support amending the current Right to Farm law to explicitly allow for expansion, production, technological changes, and measures to protect these activities. 15. We support the Unmanned Surveillance Act which prohibits the use of a drone when no warrant has been issued. 16. We support a state constitutional amendment requiring judges to inform jurors of their duty to judge the law (nullification); and prohibiting judges and district attorneys from infringing on the rights of the defense to inform the jury of this duty. 17. We support amending the Oklahoma Constitution to remove the unelected Judicial Nominating Commission and adopt the federal model authorizing the Governor to appoint Oklahoma appellate judges with confirmation by the Oklahoma State Senate. 18. We support the oversight and regulation of the medical marijuana industry for medical purposes only. 19. We support the state and its citizens maintaining control of all transportation instead of selling or leasing control of that right to foreign entities, corporations, private/public partnerships, or other states. 20. We support efficient and necessary spending on our state, county, and local roads and bridges because they are essential for economic growth and development. 21. We support a moratorium on creation of additional turnpikes in Oklahoma until existing turnpikes in Oklahoma have generated enough toll revenue based upon an independent audit to repay their original costs, are conveyed to state ownership, and converted to toll-free roads. 22. We support the elimination of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and all tolls. We Oppose 1. We oppose the final passage of any legislation before the full text has been read. 2. We oppose the concept of claiming property as "blighted" as a reason for taking land. 3. We oppose allowing state agencies to hire lobbyists to lobby other state agencies or the legislature. 4. We oppose animal ID programs by the government, leaving it up to the free market. 5. We oppose the expansion of gambling in any form in Oklahoma. 30 ii. State Agencies, State, County, and Local Government We Believe 1. We believe in transparent and honest government in the Oklahoma Legislature, all legislative committees, and in state and county agencies. 2. We believe all state agencies should be made accountable for maintenance of their records and accurate enforcement of rules, policies, and regulations. 3. We believe all government officials, including judges, who act in violation of the U.S. or Oklahoma Constitution should be impeached and removed from office in a timely manner. 4. We believe the Attorney General should be removed from the District Attorney's Council so that locally elected officials have the proper degree of autonomy. 5. We believe that no governmental agency or private business should require from any citizen any information that is not essential to the direct performance of the agency's/ business's operation or mandate. We Support 1. We support reducing the size of state government to allow citizens to do those things that people can do best for themselves. 2. We support legislative efforts to repeal outdated and irrelevant statutes in keeping with the philosophy of smaller government and support the elimination or consolidation of redundant authorities, boards, commissions, and agencies. 3. We support providing an enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance with the Open Meetings and Records Act and with audit findings. 4. We support external annual performance and financial audits. The auditor shall not be selected by the audited agencies. 5. We support public disclosure of all financial records of public institutions including trusts, authorities, libraries, community foundations, all state retirement funds, and teacher retirement funds. 6. We support the Whistleblower Act which protects all public employees, including higher education employees. 7. We support all elected and appointed officials to aggressively uncover, remedy, and prosecute all waste, fraud, and abuse in government including the elimination of all unnecessary state agencies. 8. We support the repeal of Title 11, Section 22-104.1 of the OK Statutes, which enables a municipal corporation to engage in any business it is authorized to license. 9. We support mandatory random drug testing for all employees of the State of Oklahoma and recipients of public assistance with sanctions for positive test results. 31 10. We support and call on the Attorney General to vigorously enforce Article XXII, Section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution which prohibits foreign governments from owning businesses or real estate in Oklahoma. 11. We support that the state of Oklahoma shall not exercise any eminent domain action until at least 90% of affected property holders/interests has been acquired without the threat of eminent domain. 12. We support enforcement of state and federal Anti-Trust laws regulating the mergers of domestic and foreign corporations that create monopolies resulting in a loss of competition, and detrimental to Oklahoma entities. We Oppose 1. We oppose any exemptions to the current Open Meetings and Open Records Act. 2. We oppose unfunded mandates by the State Legislature and state agencies. 3. We oppose the declaration of a United Nations Day in Oklahoma. 4. We oppose legislative actions that would alter current county government structures (i.e. Home Rule). 5. We oppose self-serving legislation and conflict of interest legislation. 32   2025 Oklahoma Republican Party Platform Committee Casey Wooley, Chair Lori Gracey , Vice-Chair Patricia Pope – Blaine Bryan Morris – Canadian Rachel Ruiz – Canadian John Spencer – Canadian LeRoss Apple – Cimarron Bruce Fleming – Cleveland Sherrie Hamilton – Haskell Gary Voelkers – Kay Julie Collier – McClain Leslie Mahan – Oklahoma Ruth Foote – Oklahoma Mark Harris – Oklahoma Robert Scott – Okmulgee Jason Shilling – Payne Mishela DeBoer – Rogers Patricia Lyle – Rogers John Doak – Tulsa April Dawn Brown – Garvin Amanda Bergerson – Logan Michelle Wax – Carter Jana Belcher – Grady

In this episode of Jane's LME Addiction, our head of LME coverage Jane Komsky brings in Josh Brody and Kenneth Reinker from Cleary Gottlieb to discuss the Optimum Communications fka Altice USA antitrust litigation related to cooperation agreements. They provide an overview of the litigation and discuss the likelihood of success, the pitfalls of certain arguments, and whether this litigation is likely to impact how co-ops are formed.Find all our coverage on co-ops and LMEs at 9fin.com.Have any feedback on the podcast? Send us a note at podcast@9fin.com — thanks for listening!

In today's episode of Second Request, Executive Editor Teddy Downey sits down with Graham Steele former former Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions at the U.S. Department of the Treasury and current Academic Fellow at the Rock Center for Corporate Governance. They discuss Steele's recent paper Financial Statecraft and explore the role of financial institutions in American foreign policy, and the tradeoffs for regulation of those industries in the U.S. To learn more about The Capitol Forum click here. To read Graham Steele's paper Financial Statecraft click here.

In the eighth installment of their popular annual series, John D. Carroll, Partner, King & Spalding LLP, and Alexis J. Gilman, Partner, Alston & Bird LLP, discuss 2025's biggest antitrust developments and what attorneys should expect in 2026.Watch this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onCawnKti4MEssential Legal Updates, Now in Audio AHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Comprehensive members. Get all your health law news from the major media outlets on this podcast! To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/dailypodcast. Stay At the Forefront of Health Legal Education Learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community at https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/.

The podcast episode explores the perceived "2-year rule" for new motorcycle clubs (MCs) throwing parties or annuals, stipulations from coalitions, blacklisting practices, and whether any of this violates U.S. anti-trust laws. Let's break it down.Why Can't an MC Just Throw a Party Whenever It Wants? Stipulations & the "2-Year Rule"Traditional MC protocol often requires new clubs to "earn" the right to host events by demonstrating respect, loyalty, and commitment to the existing MC community. This isn't a universal "law" but a common practice enforced by regional Confederations of Clubs (COCs) or coalitions—loose alliances of established MCs that set guidelines to avoid conflicts, overcrowding of events, and territorial issuesrcvsmc.net +1.The "2-Year" Practice: Many COCs expect new clubs to start as riding clubs (RCs) and spend 1-2 years attending other clubs' functions, supporting events, and building relationships before "graduating" to full MC status and hosting their own parties. This includes paying entry fees, showing up consistently, and getting a "sponsor club" (an established MC vouching for them). The idea is to prove you're not a "pop-up" club causing drama or diluting the scenereddit.com +1.Why the Stipulations?: Overcrowded calendars (e.g., multiple parties on the same weekend) lead to low attendance and resentment. Coalitions coordinate to "space out" events and ensure new clubs "pay dues" by supporting others first. It's about maintaining order in a scene where rivalries can escalate fastfacebook.com +1.Origins: This stems from post-WWII MC culture, where clubs like Hells Angels and Outlaws established informal "rules" through dominance and respect. Coalitions (e.g., in Ohio, Texas) formalized it in the 1980s–90s to reduce violence and promote unity. It's not in any "official MC bible"—just evolved customscribd.com +1.Blacklisting/Blackballing by Coalitions: Is It Legal Under Anti-Trust Laws?Blacklisting (coalitions agreeing not to support or attend a club's events) or blackballing (excluding a club from alliances) happens when a new club violates protocol—e.g., throwing parties too soon or not supporting others. Is it anti-trust?Not Likely Illegal: U.S. anti-trust laws (e.g., Sherman Act 1890, Clayton Act 1914) target commercial boycotts by competitors with market power that harm trade (e.g., price-fixing, refusing to deal to raise prices)ftc.gov +1. MC coalitions are social/non-commercial—they're not businesses competing for profit. Boycotts here are about community norms, not economic harm. Courts have ruled similar social boycotts (e.g., NCAA rules, political actions) don't violate anti-trust if not commercially motivatedftc.gov +1.1920s/30s Anti-Trust Context: You mentioned anti-trust battles (e.g., Standard Oil breakup, Sherman Act enforcement). Those targeted monopolies and business cartels—not social groups. No cases apply to MC coalitions, as they're not "restraining trade" in a legal sensenyulawreview.org.Potential Gray Area: If a coalition has "market power" (e.g., controlling events in a region) and blacklisting harms a club's "business" (e.g., charity funds, dues), it could be challenged—but MCs aren't typically seen as commercial. No known successful anti-trust suits against MC coalitions.Should MC Protocol Change?Protocol isn't set in stone—it's evolved from military/veteran roots to modern realities. The 2-year rule and blacklisting promote stability, but critics say it's gatekeeping that stifles new clubs. With social media, recruiting is easier, so perhaps shorten probation or make coalitions more inclusive. But change risks diluting tradition—strong clubs adapt carefully.What do you think? Is the 2-year rule fair, or outdated? Call in and let's discuss. Ride safe, brothers—Black Dragon out.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-dragon-s-lair-motorcycle-chaos--3267493/support.Sponsor the channel by signing up for our channel memberships. You can also support us by signing up for our podcast channel membership for $9.99 per month, where 100% of the membership price goes directly to us at https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-.... Follow us on:Instagram: BlackDragonBikerTV TikTok: BlackDragonBikertv Twitter: jbunchiiFacebook: BlackDragonBikerBuy Black Dragon Merchandise, Mugs, Hats, T-Shirts Books: https://blackdragonsgear.comDonate to our cause:Cashapp: $BikerPrezPayPal: jbunchii Zelle: jbunchii@aol.com Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/BlackDragonNPSubscribe to our new discord server https://discord.gg/dshaTSTSubscribe to our online news magazine www.bikerliberty.comGet 20% off Gothic biker rings by using my special discount code: blackdragon go to http://gthic.com?aff=147Join my News Letter to get the latest in MC protocol, biker club content, and my best picks for every day carry. https://johns-newsletter-43af29.beehi... Get my Audio Book Prospect's Bible an Audible: https://adbl.co/3OBsfl5Help us get to 30,000 subscribers on www.instagram.com/BlackDragonBikerTV on Instagram. Thank you!We at Black Dragon Biker TV are dedicated to bringing you the latest news, updates, and analysis from the world of bikers and motorcycle clubs. Our content is created for news reporting, commentary, and discussion purposes. Under Section 107 of the Copyright

After Google and Meta: What Comes Next for Antitrust Policy with Jon Nuechterlein and Bill Kovacic by Technology Policy Institute

Amazon has inked contracts with local governments, municipalities and school districts that often bypasses the traditional guardrails in the procurement process. In this episode of Second Request, The Capitol Forum's Executive Editor Teddy Downey sits down with Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance about ISLR's recent report "Amazon's Capture of Local Government Purchasing Is Driving Up Public Costs and Eliminating Competition."To learn more about The Capitol Forum click here. Read Stacy Mitchell's report here.

Zynex was a medical device company on the rise. After experiencing decades of growth, Zynex's founder Thomas Sandgaard had hopes of becoming a billionaire — until The Capitol Forum revealed how they were fraudulently billing insurers, patients and even the U.S. government for tens of millions of dollars. In this episode of The Capitol Forum Investigates, reporter Michael Williams reveals how Zynex misled customers into entering predatory financial arrangements. He also unpacks Sandgaard's efforts to quash his reporting, including efforts to target Williams and his family.

The Department of Justice has intensified antitrust scrutiny of real estate commission structures, signaling that decades-old MLS rules and broker fee norms may face forced change as legal, pricing, and platform pressures accelerate.—Ready to kill the rat race?This free ⁠"Beginner's Guide to Real Estate Investing in 2025" will show you exactly how to start, even if you're broke, busy, or scared to death of losing a dime.It's short. It's simple. It's real.Download now: https://www.unitedstatesrealestateinvestor.com/freeguide/—Helping you learn how to achieve financial freedom through real estate investing. https://www.unitedstatesrealestateinvestor.com/

Computational methods are increasingly used by competition law regulators worldwide. But what are these and can companies also take advantage? Todd Davies, PhD candidate in competition law at University College London, joins Matthew Hall and Anora Wang to discuss the issues raised by the use of computational antitrust. Listen to this episode to learn more about the pros and cons of adoption by regulators, new tools available to companies, possible responses by regulators and key takeaways for practitioners and companies. With special guest: Todd Davies, University College London Related Links: Todd Davies, The Dark Side of Computational Antitrust: When AI is Used to Evade the Law, Kluwer Competition Law Blog (October 28, 2025) Thibault Schrepel, Computational Antitrust: An Introduction and Research Agenda (January 15, 2021) Thibault Schrepel and Teodora Groza, Computational Antitrust Worldwide: Fourth Cross-Agency Report (June 18, 2025) Hosted by: Matthew Hall, McGuireWoods and Anora Wang, Arnold & Porter

In this episode of Second Request, Executive Editor Teddy Downey sits down with Michael Murray, Katherine Wyszkowski, and Daniel Hanley to discuss their recent research about the antitrust risk posed by U.S. electric utilities — especially as it relates to their control over consumer energy‑usage data, potential exclusionary conduct, and the broader consequences for competition, consumers, and market transparency.To learn more about The Capitol Forum click here.

i'm wall-e, welcoming you to today's tech briefing for friday, december 26th. explore the latest in tech news: microsoft & openai partnership: microsoft commits an additional $1 billion to openai, aiming to integrate advanced ai models into its products, particularly azure, enhancing ai capabilities for businesses globally. amazon's green initiative: amazon pledges to purchase 100,000 electric delivery vans as part of their strategy to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2040, showcasing commitment to sustainability. google under scrutiny: european regulators investigate google for alleged unfair promotion of its services in search results, with potential significant implications for its business model and advertising strategies. zoom's rise: zoom shares soar after surpassing earnings expectations, with a growing user base fueled by the pandemic and continual enhancements in security and user experience. that's all for today. we'll see you back here tomorrow!

Il Governo pone fiducia sul testo al Senato: ne parliamo con Francesco Cancellato, Direttore di FanPage.Ryanair, maxi-multa da 255 milioni dall'Antitrust: sentiamo Andrea Giuricin, CEO di Tra consulting e docente di Economia dei Trasporti presso l'Università Milano Bicocca.Il Canto degli Italiani, niente più "sì" alla fine: con noi Michele D'Andrea, storico, araldista e studioso di cerimoniale e musica del Risorgimento.

Is the United States already at war with Venezuela—and if so, who authorized it? The Law Talk crew reconvenes for a wide-ranging debate over presidential war powers, congressional passivity, and how far modern practice has drifted from constitutional text. The conversation then pivots to Netflix's attempt to buy Warner Bros antitrust and whether or not in these […]

i'm wall-e, welcoming you to today's tech briefing for monday, december 22nd. amazon's project kuiper: amazon announces its new satellite internet service aiming to deliver high-speed connectivity in remote areas worldwide, directly competing with spacex's starlink. initial satellite launches are expected in early 2024, with service trials soon after. google under antitrust scrutiny: european regulators intensify investigations into google's advertising practices as part of efforts to regulate big tech dominance. google pledges cooperation with the probe and adherence to competition laws. microsoft ai advancements: microsoft introduces new ai-powered tools aimed at enhancing productivity within its office suite. these tools include writing assistants and advanced data analysis features, set to be available to users shortly. that's all for today's tech briefing. we'll see you back here tomorrow for more updates.

Is the United States already at war with Venezuela—and if so, who authorized it? The Law Talk crew reconvenes for a wide-ranging debate over presidential war powers, congressional passivity, and how far modern practice has drifted from constitutional text. The conversation then pivots to Netflix's attempt to buy Warner Bros antitrust and whether or not in these big mergers consumer welfare still matters at all. The episode closes with a sharp examination of the most feverish legal question of the moment: could a president really serve a third term—or is that pure constitutional fantasy?

Is the United States already at war with Venezuela—and if so, who authorized it? The Law Talk crew reconvenes for a wide-ranging debate over presidential war powers, congressional passivity, and how far modern practice has drifted from constitutional text. The conversation then pivots to Netflix's attempt to buy Warner Bros antitrust and whether or not in these big mergers consumer welfare still matters at all. The episode closes with a sharp examination of the most feverish legal question of the moment: could a president really serve a third term—or is that pure constitutional fantasy?

For decades the amount of small homebuilders in the United States has been dwindling. One reason is the shuttering of local financial networks. Today on Second Request, Executive Editor Teddy Downey sits down with Laurel Kilgour Policy Director at the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP) to discuss the findings of Kilgour's recent report Capital Crunch: How the Fall of Local Finance and the Rise of Shareholder Primacy Warped Single-Family Homebuilding in America — And What to Do About It. Follow The Capitol Forum on X, Bluesky or Linkedin.Read Laurel Kilgour's paper here.

On this episode of Conduct Detrimental: THE Sports Law Podcast, Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ , ⁠⁠Tarun Sharma (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@tksharmalaw⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠), and Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) return with a wide-ranging episode covering some of the most consequential legal and governance issues currently facing our sports world.The trio opens with a discussion of the Michigan football coaching scandal involving Sherrone Moore. Dan and Tarun break down the allegations, the disturbing off-field conduct, and -critically- the contract and employment law implications surrounding termination for cause, morals clauses, and whether Michigan's prior knowledge of the relationship could have complicated its ability to fire Moore absent subsequent criminal conduct. Dan walks through the key contractual language, while the group debates how timing, performance, and internal investigations factor into university exposure.Next, the conversation turns to Georgia's aggressive attempt to enforce an NIL agreement against former defensive standout Damon Wilson II following his transfer. The group analyzes why this marks one of the first public efforts by a school to pursue liquidated damages, how arbitration provisions and assignment clauses come into play, and what this signals for collectives, players, and the evolving enforcement landscape in college athletics.From there, the team shifts gears to NASCAR's landmark antitrust settlement involving 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports. Mike recaps how the lawsuit reshaped NASCAR's charter system, revenue sharing model, and governance structure—fundamentally altering the sport's business framework and strengthening team autonomy in a way rarely seen in motorsports.Dan, Mike, and Tarun then tackle the ongoing NBA controversy surrounding Terry Rozier, betting investigations, and the Miami Heat's frustration over trade disclosures. The group evaluates Adam Silver's carefully worded response, whether teams are entitled to know about active criminal investigations during trades, and how this situation compares to prior precedent involving injuries, discipline, and league approval of transactions.Finally, the show touches on NBA expansion timelines, potential markets like Las Vegas and Seattle, Knicks history, fantasy chaos, and concludes with a farewell as Tarun Sharma makes his final appearance on the podcast for the foreseeable future, reflecting on mentorship, career growth, and lessons for aspiring sports lawyers.Let us know your thoughts!***Have a topic you want to write about? ANYONE and EVERYONE can publish for ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ConductDetrimental.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Let us know if you want to join the team.As always, this episode is sponsored by Themis Bar Review: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.themisbarsocial.com/conductdetrimental⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Host: Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)  Featuring: Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠), Tarun Sharma (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@tksharmalaw⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)Produced by: Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email⁠

On this episode of Conduct Detrimental: THE Sports Law Podcast, Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ , ⁠⁠Tarun Sharma (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@tksharmalaw⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠), and Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) return with a wide-ranging episode covering some of the most consequential legal and governance issues currently facing our sports world.The trio opens with a discussion of the Michigan football coaching scandal involving Sherrone Moore. Dan and Tarun break down the allegations, the disturbing off-field conduct, and -critically- the contract and employment law implications surrounding termination for cause, morals clauses, and whether Michigan's prior knowledge of the relationship could have complicated its ability to fire Moore absent subsequent criminal conduct. Dan walks through the key contractual language, while the group debates how timing, performance, and internal investigations factor into university exposure.Next, the conversation turns to Georgia's aggressive attempt to enforce an NIL agreement against former defensive standout Damon Wilson II following his transfer. The group analyzes why this marks one of the first public efforts by a school to pursue liquidated damages, how arbitration provisions and assignment clauses come into play, and what this signals for collectives, players, and the evolving enforcement landscape in college athletics.From there, the team shifts gears to NASCAR's landmark antitrust settlement involving 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports. Mike recaps how the lawsuit reshaped NASCAR's charter system, revenue sharing model, and governance structure—fundamentally altering the sport's business framework and strengthening team autonomy in a way rarely seen in motorsports.Dan, Mike, and Tarun then tackle the ongoing NBA controversy surrounding Terry Rozier, betting investigations, and the Miami Heat's frustration over trade disclosures. The group evaluates Adam Silver's carefully worded response, whether teams are entitled to know about active criminal investigations during trades, and how this situation compares to prior precedent involving injuries, discipline, and league approval of transactions.Finally, the show touches on NBA expansion timelines, potential markets like Las Vegas and Seattle, Knicks history, fantasy chaos, and concludes with a farewell as Tarun Sharma makes his final appearance on the podcast for the foreseeable future, reflecting on mentorship, career growth, and lessons for aspiring sports lawyers.Let us know your thoughts!***Have a topic you want to write about? ANYONE and EVERYONE can publish for ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ConductDetrimental.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Let us know if you want to join the team.As always, this episode is sponsored by Themis Bar Review: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.themisbarsocial.com/conductdetrimental⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Host: Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)  Featuring: Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠), Tarun Sharma (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@tksharmalaw⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)Produced by: Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email⁠

In episode 37, Teodora Groza and Thibault Schrepel talk to Nuno Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Portuguese Competition Authority since 2023. They discuss the tools developed by the agency, how its lawyers work with economists and computer scientists, and the future of the field. Follow the Stanford Computational Antitrust project at https://law.stanford.edu/computationalantitrust

Matt is joined by United States Senator Elizabeth Warren to discuss what should happen to Warner Bros., why it should not go to Netflix or Paramount Skydance, whether Democrats and Republicans could unite to block this sale, and how Hollywood should fight to survive in the era of big tech consolidation (02:08). Matt finishes the show reacting to the Oscars moving exclusively to YouTube in 2029 (25:29). For a 20 percent discount on Matt's Hollywood insider newsletter, ‘What I'm Hearing ...,' ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.Email us your thoughts! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠thetown@spotify.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Host: Matt Belloni Guest: Senator Elizabeth Warren Producers: Craig Horlbeck and Jessie LopezTheme Song: Devon Renaldo Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As pay transparency laws rapidly expand across U.S. jurisdictions, companies are facing complex intersections between labor law, antitrust compliance, and pay-equity analytics. Where are the high risk areas? Ye Zhang, a labor economist and director at Resolution Economics, joins Anora Wang and Alicia Downey to unpack how state law disclosure mandates interact with competitive dynamics in labor markets, when pay benchmarking can cross antitrust lines, and how firms can design compensation systems that are both transparent and compliant. With special guest: Ye Zhang, Director, Resolution Economics   Related Links: U.S. Dep't of Justice & Federal Trade Commission, FTC-DOJ Antitrust Guidelines for Business Activities Affecting Workers (Jan. 2025) Hosted by: Anora Wang, Arnold & Porter and Alicia Downey, Downey Law

Netflix (NFLX) remains in the spotlight as the stock trades nearly 30% off its all-time high. James Czerniawski calls its bidding war between Paramount Skydance (PSKY) for Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) "fascinating" as talks are expected to continue for months, even years. James adds that those talks can face criticism from antitrust firms. Tom White offers an example options trade for Netflix. ======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day.Options involve risks and are not suitable for all investors. Before trading, read the Options Disclosure Document. http://bit.ly/2v9tH6DSubscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – https://twitter.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/schwab-network/About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

The Supreme Court appears ready to let Donald Trump fire Federal Trade Commission members at will. On this week's On the Media, why the court's expansion of presidential powers would impact the entire government. Plus, how two Hollywood giants are squaring off over a massive merger. [02:47] Host Brooke Gladstone sits down with Noah Rosenblum, associate professor of law at New York University, to discuss how the Supreme Court's pending decision in Trump v. Slaughter could radically expand the president's power, and the history behind the case. [23:02] Host Micah Loewinger talks with Oliver Darcy, lead author of the newsletter Status and co-host of the podcast Power Lines, about the moguls at Netflix and Paramount Skydance battling over Warner Brothers Discovery, and what this means for the future of CNN, which is owned by Warner Brothers Discovery, and Hollywood. [37:41] Micah speaks with Joel Simon, founding director of the Journalism Protection Initiative at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism, about what happened with Blake Lively's legal team subpoenaed Perez Hilton, the gossip blogger, and why expanding the legal framework of journalistic protections is essential.  Further reading / watching:The Supreme Court Is About to Hand Trump a Cudgel in the Paramount-Netflix Fight, by Mark Joseph SternThe CNN Sacrifice, by Oliver DarcyThe O.G. News Influencer, by Joel Simon   On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org.

A settlement has been reached in the historic NASCAR Antitrust trial. Our resident reporters Jeff Gluck and Jordan Bianchi check-in for an emergency episode to fill listeners in on what the two sides agreed upon. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

23XI and Front Row Motorsports lawyers wrap up their case today, and the NASCAR Antitrust trial moves into NASCAR's defense. Our resident NASCAR reporters Jeff Gluck and Jordan Bianchi were back in the courtroom as NASCAR cross examined Jim France and heard testimony from NASCAR CFO Greg Motto and one of the leading engineers of the Next Gen car, John Probst.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

There's a word that's gained a lot of popularity in the last year: “ensh*ttification”. It refers to a trajectory many see with digital platforms: they initially offer immense value to users, only to systematically degrade that quality over time in order to extract maximum surplus for shareholders. We invited the coiner of this term, science fiction author and activist Cory Doctorow, on the podcast to discuss whether he thinks this decline is an inevitable feature of digital markets or a consequence of specific policy failures. And, most importantly, how he thinks it could be reversed.For Doctorow, "ensh*ttification" is not simply a result of "revealed preferences", where users tolerate worse service because they value the platform, but rather the outcome of a regulatory environment that has permitted the creation of high switching costs and the elimination of competitors. Doctorow also argues that historically, interoperability acted as an engine of dynamism, allowing new entrants to lower the barriers to entry. But current IP frameworks, such as anti-circumvention laws, have been "weaponized" to prevent this, effectively allowing firms to enforce cartels and engage in rent-seeking behavior.Finally, Doctorow offers a critical assessment of the current AI boom, arguing that the sector is creating "reverse centaurs", where human labor is conscripted to correct algorithmic errors, and warns of a potential asset bubble driven by inflated revenue attribution. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We had a blockbuster day in the NASCAR Antitrust Trial, as Steve Phelps, Richard Childress and Jim France all took the stand. Thankfully, our resident NASCAR reporters Jeff Gluck and Jordan Bianchi were on the case, and the took over the airwaves tonight to fill listeners in on everything that transpired during day seven. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We are officially in the second week in the trial of the century. We started out hearing more cross examination of RTA Executive Director Jonathan Marshall and we also heard expert testimony from Edward Snyder. Our resident reporters Jeff Gluck and Jordan Bianchi were back in the courtroom, and they fill listeners in on everything that happened during day six. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode of Good Morning Liberty, host Nate Thurston returns after a brief hiatus to discuss various major happenings, including the potential Netflix acquisition of Warner Brothers, the impact of antitrust laws, and the economic consequences. Nate critiques the concept of antitrust laws, citing them as anti-American and anti-capitalism while explaining how historical market shifts, like Netflix's rise over Blockbuster, demonstrate the dynamic nature of markets. Furthermore, the episode digs into political reactions from figures like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, the role of government in business consolidations, and implications for consumer choice and competition. Additional topics include recent revelations from Venezuela, healthcare cost proposals from Josh Hawley, and public reaction to the potential merger. The show wraps up with an examination of Dan Goldman's 'Robinhood Act' proposal aimed at taxing billionaires' lines of credit, scrutinizing its feasibility and economic rationale. 00:00 Intro 01:46 Upcoming Topics and Antitrust Laws 05:33 Netflix and Warner Brothers Merger 13:03 Government's Role in Antitrust 16:42 Public Reactions and Criticisms 23:49 Right-Wing Concerns and Free Market Debate 35:41 Exploring Anti-Competitive Barriers 36:20 The Rise of Netflix 37:10 Debating Antitrust Laws 40:34 The Blockbuster Monopoly 43:28 Netflix's Market Disruption 46:55 The Future of Streaming Content 52:44 Taxing the Rich: The Robinhood Act 01:08:40 Final Thoughts and Sign-Off

Send us a textNetflix just shocked Hollywood with a $72B bid for Warner Bros, the biggest media deal of the decade. But behind the headlines is a fight over market share, regulation, and the future of streaming.In this episode, we break down:Why Netflix is suddenly willing to buy instead of buildHow HBO, Warner Bros, and gaming change Netflix's strategyThe regulatory risk (and why Trump and Paramount matter)Whether this deal can ever pay for itselfWhat this means for the future of streaming bundles and pricingPartner Links:Learn more about NordStellar's Threat Exposure Management Program; unlock 20% off with code BLACKFRIDAY20 until Dec. 10, 2025Episode Links:Netflix press releaseNetflix set to buy Warner Bros. in deal valued at $83 billion (ABC News)Netflix Co-Founder LinkedIn PostChapters: 01:20 Christmas tree banter and setting the stakes 03:05 What Netflix is actually buying from Warner Bros 07:00 Why Netflix wants Warner Bros and HBO 11:45 Can this $72B deal ever pay off? 16:30 Ads, bundles and the future Netflix business model 20:50 Antitrust risk, Trump factor and hostile bids 24:30 Disney, YouTube and the real competitive set 28:10 When M&A stops being rationalListen to the Market Outsiders podcast, the new daily show with the Management Consulted teamConnect With Management Consulted Schedule free 15min consultation with the MC Team. Watch the video version of the podcast on YouTube! Follow us on LinkedIn, Instagram, and TikTok for the latest updates and industry insights! Join an upcoming live event - case interviews demos, expert panels, and more. Email us (team@managementconsulted.com) with questions or feedback.

Re-Air Date: 12–2-25 Unless you were a member in May of 2024, this episode of SOLVED! will be brand new to you! If you were a member back then, THANK YOU and this one is worth a re-listen. We're slowing down production for a little bit to reorganize our production processes, so enjoy this episode from our archives (and B.Y: before YouTube) where Jay!, Amanda, Deon, and Erin discuss: Ch. 1 - How supply and demand economics is not about "distribution of goods with the greatest efficiency" and is instead about nothing more than predatory greed Ch. 2 - How what we value as humans goes far beyond the price of commodities Ch. 3 - More examples of "enshitification" as companies reach inside our homes to control things we already bought Ch. 4 - How companies are restricting functionality to extract even more from us FOLLOW US ON: YouTube (This full episode premieres on YouTube on Friday - please share!) Bluesky Instagram Facebook Mastadon   REFERENCES: WELCOME TO PRICING HELL - The Atlantic The Gap Between the Price You See and What You Pay Is Getting Worse - The Wall Street Journal Welcome to the Golden Age of User Hostility - The Atlantic My Printer Is Extorting Me - The Atlantic Bought a Model Y? Tesla may charge you to use the battery's full range - Yahoo! Finance Corporate America Knows We're Miserable. Is a Toilet Bomb the Answer? - The Wall Street Journal   EXTRAS: 00:12:53 "Not everything that counts can be counted" by Billy Bragg 00:42:41 Best of the Left Ep. #1629 - "Hitting Where it Hurts in Our Era of Negative Partisanship: Messaging left-wing politics amid cultish politics" (Air Date: May 2024) 00:48:44 Best of the Left Ep. #1628 - "New Era of Antitrust for a New Era of Capitalism, Mega-Corporations and Big Tech" (Air Date: May 2024)   Join our Discord Server Reach us via Signal: Bestoftheleft.01 Leave a message at 202-999-3991   Produced by: Jay! Tomlinson Thanks for listening!

We have reach the end of the first week of the NASCAR anti-trust trial, and what a way to wrap up the week. After hearing testimony from NASCAR President Steve O'Donnell and co-owner of Joe Gibbs Racing Heather Gibbs, none other than Michael Jordan took the stand. Jeff Gluck and Jordan Bianchi continued to take notes in the courtroom, and they again took to the airwaves this evening to fill listeners one what transpired in day five. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The trial of the century continues on. Today we continue to hear cross examination of Front Row Motorsports' owner Bob Jenkins. After his testimony concluded, NASCAR President Steve O'Donnell took the stand. Jeff Gluck and Jordan Bianchi continue their excellent courthouse coverage as the trial rolls towards the end of its first week. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Netflix has reached a deal to buy Warner Brothers Discovery film and streaming assets, ending a dramatic bidding war between Paramount Skydance, Comcast, and Netflix. Andrew Ross Sorkin, Becky Quick, and Joe Kernen examine the terms, the break-up fees, the regulatory risks, and the math for shareholders with CNBC's David Faber. Together, they consider whether Paramount Skydance owner David Ellison will pay the breakup fee and what players are willing to pay for key intellectual property. Entertainment journalist and Puck founding partner Matt Belloni offers his insight from sources inside Hollywood and warns, many creatives in the industry are not happy about the deal. David Faber - 10:41Matt Belloni - 21:05 In this episode:Matt Belloni, @MattBelloniDavid Faber, @davidfaberBecky Quick, @BeckyQuickJoe Kernen, @JoeSquawkAndrew Ross Sorkin, @andrewrsorkinCameron Costa, @CameronCostaNY Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Carl Quintanilla, Sara Eisen, and Michael Santoli began the hour with a deluge of data: with PCE, Consumer Sentiment, Personal Savings and more crossing the wires. Bridgewater's former Chief Investment Strategist helped the team break it all down - before key analysis later on about what it all means for the Fed decision next week with Goldman Sach's Chief Economist. Plus: details on the deal rocking the media world today - Netflix buying Warner Brothers' film and steaming assets... Hear former DOJ Antitrust Chief Jonathan Kanter's take on whether the deal will pass regulatory scrutiny... and more on what it means for the film industry with the head of the world's largest movie theater trade group (who calls it an "unprecedented threat").  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Flawed Logic of the FTC's Crusade Against Meta — Jessica Melugin — Melugin analyzes the failed FTCcomplaint against Meta, arguing the agency fundamentally abandoned the "consumer welfare standard" governing antitrust doctrine to prioritize competitor protection over demonstrable consumer harm. Melugin emphasizes that the FTC's characterization of Meta's acquisitions as anti-competitive ignores the critical reality that Meta services are provided at zero cost to users, who have demonstrably benefited from continuous service improvements and technological innovation arising from Meta's competitive acquisitions. 1954

Federal Judge Dismisses FTC Antitrust Complaint Against Meta — Jessica Melugin — Judge Boasberg dismissed the FTC's monopoly complaint on the foundational grounds that the agency failed to properly define the relevant market, artificially inflating Meta's competitive share by excluding dominant competitors including TikTok and YouTube. Melugin documents that proper market definition analysis places Meta's competitive share at approximately 30–50%, insufficient to constitute monopoly status under established antitrust doctrine, with the decision correctly emphasizing forward-looking statutory authority rather than retroactive punishment of 2020 historical behavior. 1953

Day 3 of the NASCAR antitrust lawsuit began with NASCAR executive Scott Prime returning to the stand. Later, Front Row Motorsports owner Bob Jenkins provided witness testimony. During the proceedings, the jury had reactions to some of the questions asked, and with the jury out of the room, Judge Bell addressed NASCAR's lawyers regarding two matters related to evidentiary orders.Legal analyst Shannon McMinimee also joined the discussion to break down the day's events. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

A recent proposal by Lina Khan, co-chair of Zohran Mamdani's mayoral transition team, to cap the price of beer at stadiums in New York City sparked a debate on X last month. At the center of that debate was Matthew Yglesias, editor and author the Slow Boring newsletter, who argued that the modern antitrust movement has become "slipshod" and is ignoring basic economic trade-offs in favor of political wins.In this episode, Yglesias joins Luigi and Bethany to discuss his views on the theoretical and practical limitations of the "Neo-Brandeisian" approach to antitrust. He contends that proposals like price caps for complementary goods like stadium concessions reveals a lack of economic rigor, arguing that such measures often result in higher ticket prices rather than consumer savings . He suggests that the movement increasingly attempts to use antitrust law as a universal tool for societal grievances.Bethany and Luigi debate Yglesias on the limits of this modern anti-monopoly movement, arguing that he sounds like a "Chicago economist circa 1970" who assumes markets are always efficient and rational. From the lobbying might of the banking industry to the extractive fees of Amazon, Luigi argues that economic concentration inevitably morphs into political power which standard price theory often ignores. He posits that even if consolidated industries remain price-efficient, their size allows for the capture of the regulatory process—citing the banking and tobacco industries as historical precedents.Of course, antitrust enforcement isn't the only proposal on the table to address people's concerns about price levels, as the current excitement around the "affordability" and "abundance" movements demonstrate. But Yglesias argues neither abundance, affordability nor antitrust is going to drive down nominal prices. As he puts it: the only thing that could do that is “a catastrophic depression…but that's not going to make people happier". Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

PREVIEW — Jessica Melugin (Civitas Outlook) — The Flawed Logic of the FTC's Meta Lawsuit. Melugin argues that the Federal Trade Commission's failed antitrust litigation against Meta Platforms fundamentally abandoned the traditional "consumer welfare standard" governing antitrust jurisprudence, instead prioritizing protection of corporate competitors over demonstrable consumer harm. Melugin emphasizes that because Meta provides innovative digital platforms offering zero-cost access to billions of users, the FTC could not satisfy the burden of proving consumer detriment required to successfully prosecute monopoly charges under established antitrust legal doctrine. Melugincontends that the FTC's regulatory overreach reflects ideological hostility toward successful technology companies rather than coherent consumer protection theory, establishing precedent for prosecuting businesses solely for competitive dominance absent documented consumer injury. 1923 SCOTUS

Day 2 of the NASCAR antitrust lawsuit saw fiery and combative testimony from Denny Hamlin, followed by NASCAR executive Scott Prime, who was questioned on NASCAR's potentially monopolistic practices.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The 23XI Racing/Front Row Motorsports trial is underway in Charlotte. Jeff and Jordan share all the key details from Day 1, including Denny Hamlin's testimony, opening statements and jury selection. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Motorsports writers Jeff Gluck and Jordan Bianchi are joined by attorney Shannon McMinimee to preview the 23XI Racing/Front Row Motorsports vs. NASCAR monopoly trial, which begins Dec. 1 in Charlotte, N.C. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

What happens when the AI bubble bursts, how did Meta get away with it yet again, and…is Elon “Bubba”? Max Fisher pays Offline a visit to take stock of the year in memes, conspiracy theories, and information siloes. He and Jon meet the ghosts of twitter fights past and future, compare notes on staying off their phones, and chat about what they're watching right now…besides Zohran and Trump flirting.For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email transcripts@crooked.com and include the name of the podcast. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.