Podcasts about antitrust

This Day in Legal History: Abington School District v. SchemppOn this day in legal history, June 17, 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Abington School District v. Schempp, a landmark case concerning the constitutional boundaries between church and state. The case arose when Edward Schempp, a Unitarian from Pennsylvania, challenged a state law that required public schools to begin each day with Bible readings. The Schempp family argued that this practice violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from endorsing or establishing religion.In an 8–1 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the Schempps, holding that the mandatory Bible readings were unconstitutional. Justice Tom C. Clark, writing for the majority, emphasized that while the government must remain neutral toward religion, the school's policy amounted to state-sanctioned religious exercise. The ruling did not ban the Bible from public schools altogether but clarified that its use must be educational, not devotional.This decision built on the precedent set in Engel v. Vitale (1962), which struck down mandatory prayer in schools, and it reinforced a broader interpretation of the separation of church and state. The ruling provoked strong reactions across the country, with many viewing it as an attack on traditional religious values, while others saw it as a vital protection of individual liberties in a pluralistic society.The case remains a cornerstone in Establishment Clause jurisprudence, shaping debates over religion in public education for decades. It also marked a pivotal moment in the Warren Court's broader effort to expand civil liberties through constitutional interpretation.The American Bar Association (ABA) has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing it of using executive orders to intimidate major law firms based on their past clients and hiring choices. Filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., the lawsuit argues that these actions violate the U.S. Constitution and have created a chilling effect on the legal profession. The ABA claims Trump's actions hindered its ability to secure legal representation, especially in cases opposing the federal government.The suit comes after four law firms successfully challenged similar executive orders, with judges temporarily or permanently blocking enforcement. One of these firms, Susman Godfrey, is now representing the ABA in this new case. Despite court setbacks, nine firms have agreed to provide nearly $1 billion in free legal services to the Trump administration to avoid similar targeting.White House spokesperson Harrison Fields dismissed the ABA's lawsuit as “frivolous,” asserting presidential authority over security clearances and federal contracting. The ABA also alleges the administration has threatened its accreditation authority and slashed funding, particularly in areas like training legal advocates for domestic violence victims.American Bar Association sues to block Trump's attacks on law firms | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice is undergoing a significant restructuring under the Trump administration, marked by mass resignations, staff reductions, and departmental overhauls. Approximately 4,500 DOJ employees have accepted buyouts through the administration's deferred resignation program, known as “Fork in the Road,” which allows for paid leave through September before official departure. These exits, along with planned eliminations of 5,093 positions, are expected to save around $470 million and reduce the DOJ's workforce from roughly 110,000.The administration's proposed budget for the next fiscal year aims to reshape the DOJ in line with conservative priorities. This includes dismantling the tax division—once staffed by over 500 people—and distributing its enforcement functions across the civil and criminal divisions. Despite some added funding to these divisions, they are also set to reduce attorney headcounts. The move has drawn backlash from former DOJ and IRS officials, who warned it could undermine tax enforcement. The DOJ's top tax official resigned earlier this year in protest.Political leadership changes have also prompted an exodus from the civil rights division, where two-thirds of career attorneys have either resigned or been reassigned. Cuts are also planned for the Environment and Natural Resources Division and other oversight bodies, such as the DOJ Inspector General's office and the Community Relations Service.Other structural shifts include folding INTERPOL's U.S. office into the U.S. Marshals Service, closing multiple field offices, and launching a new firearm rights restoration initiative. The administration has also proposed merging the ATF with the DEA and cutting the FBI's budget by over half a billion dollars.Justice Department to Lose 4,500 Staffers to Buyout Offers (1)Justice Department to Eliminate Tax Unit as Workforce ShrinksThe NCAA's $2.8 billion settlement—approved earlier this month—has reignited momentum in Congress for national legislation to address key issues in college athletics, particularly around antitrust liability, name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation, and student-athlete classification. Beginning July 1, colleges can directly pay athletes, marking a historic shift that has intensified calls for a federal framework to standardize these changes.The settlement, which also includes back pay for nearly 400,000 athletes, has been described as a stabilizing force in the chaotic NIL landscape. It is now being used by the NCAA to push Congress for a liability shield to prevent further antitrust lawsuits. Although several NIL reform bills have been proposed in the past, none have passed. Two current bills—the bipartisan SPORTS Act and the GOP-led SCORE Act—aim to balance athlete rights with regulatory uniformity while clarifying that student-athletes are not employees.The SCORE Act would create revenue-based limits on athlete pay and involve multiple House committees, while the SPORTS Act focuses on educational support and fair market value benchmarks for NIL deals. Both would preempt state laws and address core NCAA concerns.Despite the settlement, legal uncertainty remains. Female athletes have already filed appeals challenging the deal under Title IX, and further litigation is expected. Experts note that any legislation granting an antitrust exemption—similar to the unique one held by Major League Baseball—would face judicial skepticism and political resistance.NCAA's $2.8 Billion Settlement Gets Congress Moving Toward FixesIn my column this week I write a bit about how a tax amnesty program in Illinois might provide a roadmap for the rest of the nifty fifty. Illinois' new remote seller amnesty program offers a strategic and replicable model for encouraging tax compliance among previously noncompliant businesses. By waiving penalties and interest and applying a simplified, flat 9% tax rate across the state's many local jurisdictions, the program lowers the barriers to voluntary disclosure. This approach addresses the core problem of the “compliance paradox,” where businesses avoid coming clean for fear of triggering audits. In contrast to fear-based enforcement, Illinois' model promotes intelligence-based compliance, exchanging amnesty for valuable insights into evasion tactics and tools.The program's design could be adapted to brick-and-mortar businesses engaged in sales suppression through tools like zapper software. If these businesses were offered amnesty in return for disclosing how they evaded taxes—such as revealing the software they used and methods employed—states could use this intelligence to improve enforcement. Such disclosures would turn voluntary compliance into a form of strategic reconnaissance, identifying enforcement blind spots and bad actors.Illinois' policy doesn't just recoup lost revenue; it also creates opportunities to map the ecosystem of tax evasion tools and techniques. By incentivizing transparency and simplifying compliance, the initiative provides a blueprint for other states facing fiscal pressure and looking to modernize tax enforcement.Illinois Remote Seller Amnesty Program Offers Roadmap for States 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

La rivoluzione dell'intelligenza artificiale non è più una questione di futuro, ma una realtà già in atto. ChatGPT e i nuovi modelli generativi sono solo la punta dell'iceberg: dietro le quinte, ''agenti IA'' stanno già sostituendo silenziosamente interi processi aziendali e professionali, eliminando posti di lavoro e trasformando radicalmente il mercato del lavoro mondiale.Grandi multinazionali come Microsoft, Walmart e Spotify stanno già adottando politiche di ''Quiet Firing'', limitando le assunzioni umane a favore della produttività algoritmica. Ma il vero punto critico non è la singola interazione con strumenti come ChatGPT: è l'implementazione silente e pervasiva degli agenti IA, basati su foundation model, che cambierà profondamente il tessuto sociale, umano ed economico con implicazioni che vanno oltre l'efficienza lavorativa.Da Sam Altman con la sua visione utopica a Dario Amodei con lo scenario del ''bloodbath per i colletti bianchi'': quale futuro stiamo scegliendo? Siamo certi di guardare nella direzione giusta per comprendere rischi, problemi etici e colli di bottiglia legati all'intelligenza artificiale — dai monopoli hardware come Nvidia alla collusione algoritmica nascosta?Quali decisioni politiche e regolatorie servono per affrontare queste trasformazioni senza precedenti? E soprattutto, siamo pronti ad affrontare le conseguenze sociali e occupazionali che si stanno delineando?Ne ho parlato alla biennale della Associazione Antitrust, qui il mio intervento.~~~~~ INGAGGI E SPONSORSHIP ~~~~~ Per contatti commerciali: sales@matteoflora.comPer consulenze legali: info@42LawFirm.it~~~~~ SOSTIENI IL CANALE! ~~~~~Con la Membership PRO puoi supportare il Canale » https://link.mgpf.it/proSe vuoi qui la mia attrezzatura » https://mgpf.it/attrezzatura~~~~~ SEGUIMI ANCHE ONLINE CON LE NOTIFICHE! ~~~~~» CANALE WHATSAPP » https://link.mgpf.it/wa» CANALE TELEGRAM » https://mgpf.it/tg» CORSO (Gratis) IN FUTURO » https://mgpf.it/nl» NEWSLETTER » https://mgpf.it/nl~~~~~ CIAO INTERNET E MATTEO FLORA ~~~~~ Questo è “Ciao Internet!” la prima e più seguita trasmissione di TECH POLICY in lingua italiana, online su YouTube e in Podcast.Io sono MATTEO FLORA e sono:» Professore in Fondamenti di Sicurezza delle AI e delle SuperIntelligenze (ESE)» Professore ac in Corporate Reputation e Crisis Management (Pavia).Sono un Imprenditore Seriale del digitale e ho fondato:» The Fool » https://thefool.it - La società italiana leader di Customer Insight» The Magician » https://themagician.agency - Atelier di Advocacy e Gestione della Crisi» 42 Law Firm » https://42lf.it - Lo Studio Legale per la Trasformazione Digitale » ...e tante altre qui: https://matteoflora.com/#aziendeSono Future Leader (IVLP) del Dipartimento di Stato USA sotto Amministrazione Obama nel programma “Combating Cybercrime (2012)”.Sono Presidente di PermessoNegato, l'associazione italiana che si occupa di Pornografia Non- Consensuale e Revenge Porn.Conduco in TV “Intelligenze Artificiali” su Mediaset/TgCom.

Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes joins Margaret Hoover to discuss his new book, “Marketcrafters,” in which he examines how American policymakers have shaped markets for social and political goals over the last century.Hughes, who is now pursuing a PhD in economics at the University of Pennsylvania, sees growing support on the left and the right for using the levers of government to cultivate markets for the common good.Hughes says that President Trump's tariffs are not marketcraft but "government by impulse,” and he envisions a marketcraft policy that could tackle the cost of living crisis that Americans face today. As a student at Harvard, Hughes helped Mark Zuckerberg launch Facebook more than 20 years ago, but he later became an outspoken critic of the social media network. With Zuckerberg's Meta in the midst of a massive antitrust trial, Hughes explains why he believes “Congress must act” and break up Meta.Hughes also discusses his assessment of Bidenomics, his support for repealing special liability protections for internet platforms, and how he reflects on his own legacy.Support for “Firing Line for Margaret Hoover” is provided by Robert Granieri, The Tepper Foundation, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Fairweather Foundation, Peter and Mark Kalikow, Pritzker Military Foundation, Cliff and Laurel Asness, The Meadowlark Foundation, The Beth and Ravenel Curry Foundation, Charles R. Schwab, The Marc Haas Foundation, Katharine J. Rayner, Damon Button, Craig Newmark Philanthropies, The Philip I Kent Foundation, Annie Lamont through The Lamont Family Fund, Lindsay and George Billingsley, The Susan Rasinski McCaw Fund, Cheryl Cohen Effron and Blair Effron, and Al and Kathy Hubbard. Corporate funding is provided by Stephens Inc. 

Did you know that consolidation in the fertilizer industry results in environmental harm and less choice for farmers? Join Food Sleuth Radio host and Registered Dietitian, Melinda Hemmelgarn for her conversation with Basel Musharbash, antitrust and trade regulation lawyer, and author of Kings Over the Necessaries of Life: Monopolization and the Elimination of Competition in America's Agriculture System. Musharbash discusses how consolidation in food and agriculture affects farmers, consumers and the well-being of rural communities with a unique and surprising focus on fertilizer.Related Websites:  https://farmaction.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Kings-Over-the-Necessaries-of-Life-Monopolization-and-the-Elimination-of-Competition-in-Americas-Agriculture-System_Farm-Action.pdf

This week on Caveat, Dave and Ben welcome back N2K's own ⁠Ethan Cook⁠ for our latest policy deep dive segment. As a trusted expert in law, privacy, and surveillance, Ethan is joining the show regularly to provide in-depth analysis on the latest policy developments shaping the cybersecurity and legal landscape. While this show covers legal topics, and Ben is a lawyer, the views expressed do not constitute legal advice. For official legal advice on any of the topics we cover, please contact your attorney.  Policy Deep Dive In this Caveat Policy Deep Dive, our conversation and analysis revisits antitrust policy. Throughout this conversation, we break down how President Trump has pursued one of the most aggressive initial antitrust policies in decades. Since taking office, the FTC and DOJ have continued to pursue many of the antitrust cases that the former Biden administration was pursuing targeting many Big Tech companies. However, these cases are not minor as in each of the cases, the Trump administration is actively pursuing major company breakups. Get the weekly Caveat Briefing delivered to your inbox. Like what you heard? Be sure to check out and subscribe to our ⁠⁠Caveat Briefing⁠⁠, a weekly newsletter available exclusively to ⁠⁠N2K Pro⁠⁠ members on ⁠⁠N2K CyberWire's⁠⁠ website. N2K Pro members receive our Thursday wrap-up covering the latest in privacy, policy, and research news, including incidents, techniques, compliance, trends, and more. This week's ⁠⁠Caveat Briefing⁠⁠ covers how Italy has cut ties with the Israeli spyware firm, Paragon after revelations that its technology was used to surveil government critics, including journalists and migrant rescue workers, sparking political outrage. A parliamentary report confirmed that Italian intelligence services had first paused, then terminated use of the spyware, though the timeline of the decision remains disputed. Curious about the details? Head over to the ⁠⁠Caveat Briefing⁠⁠ for the full scoop and additional compelling stories. Got a question you'd like us to answer on our show? You can send your audio file to ⁠⁠caveat@thecyberwire.com⁠⁠. Hope to hear from you. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is "Abundance" the answer to our housing, energy, and pharma crises—or just neoliberalism in a new outfit?In this in-depth conversation, Capital Forum's Teddy Downey sits down with Sandeep Vaheesan of the Open Markets Institute to dissect "Abundance", the much-hyped book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. Sandeep—legal director, historian, and author of Democracy and Power—offers a sweeping critique of the book's policy proposals and ideological foundations.We talk about:

AP's Lisa Dwyer reports on more jobs cuts at Google.

This Day in Legal History: Colegrove v. GreenOn June 10, 1946, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Colegrove v. Green, upholding an Illinois congressional districting scheme that created dramatically uneven district populations. The plaintiffs argued the map diluted votes by packing more people into some districts than others, violating principles of equal representation. However, the Court, in a plurality opinion by Justice Felix Frankfurter, declined to intervene. Frankfurter emphasized that districting was a “political question” and not within the judiciary's purview to resolve.This ruling effectively insulated redistricting practices from federal judicial review and left voters in malapportioned districts without a constitutional remedy. Frankfurter's view was rooted in judicial restraint, warning against courts becoming embroiled in “political thickets.” But critics argued that this deference allowed entrenched political interests to ignore population shifts and disenfranchise urban voters.The decision stood until 1962, when the Court reversed course in Baker v. Carr. There, the justices held that federal courts could indeed hear redistricting cases under the Equal Protection Clause, ushering in the “one person, one vote” era. Colegrove thus marked the high-water mark of the political question doctrine's use in avoiding electoral oversight—a stance the Court ultimately abandoned.Mexico's antitrust regulator is poised to issue a ruling by June 17 on whether Google engaged in monopolistic practices in the country's digital advertising market. If found guilty, the tech giant could face a fine amounting to 8% of its annual Mexican revenue—potentially one of the largest ever imposed by the agency. The case began in 2020 and moved into a trial phase last year, with a key hearing held on May 20. Mexican regulators claim Google built an illegal monopoly, and has obtained financial data from the Mexican tax authority as part of its investigation.Google, which hasn't disclosed Mexico-specific revenue but reported $20.4 billion for the broader “other Americas” region in 2024, could seek an injunction to delay the ruling pending judicial review. This would parallel similar antitrust issues the company faces in the U.S., where courts have ruled against its dominance in search and advertising technologies.Adding to tensions, President Claudia Sheinbaum has sued Google for renaming the Gulf of Mexico to “Gulf of America” for U.S. users—a move she claims Google had no authority to make. The long-standing antitrust case has drawn political attention, with lawmakers urging Mexican officials to act.Google in Mexico faces major potential fine as antitrust ruling nears | ReutersTexas has taken a meaningful first step toward curbing abuse in its affordable housing tax system with HB 21, but the new law leaves major gaps that developers could still exploit. Signed by Governor Greg Abbott, HB 21 aims to end long-term tax breaks for projects that offer little true affordability. However, the bill's reliance on “area median income” (AMI) to define affordability creates a loophole: in wealthy areas, rent set at 80% of AMI can be as high as typical market rates, making the term “affordable” misleading.The law requires that half of all units be reserved for “low-income” tenants, but without adjusting for local wage realities, this standard fails to address the needs of those most burdened by housing costs. Worse still, enforcement is delayed—audits may take years, and there is no mechanism to reclaim tax benefits already received by developers who fall out of compliance. This makes upfront compliance optional in practice, not mandatory.While HB 21 mandates parity in amenities between market-rate and affordable units, this provision seems symbolic without robust inspection. The lack of a tax credit clawback—something present in federal programs like the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit—further weakens accountability.The bill's structure could dissuade honest developers, who face unclear or burdensome requirements, while allowing bad actors to benefit before facing any scrutiny. Texas risks ending exploitative deals without fostering enough viable new ones, exacerbating its housing shortage.Texas Housing Law Addresses Problem but Creates Major LoopholesAs the push for government efficiency grows, the IRS is considering using artificial intelligence to identify noncompliant taxpayers based on past audit outcomes. While this might sound like a smart upgrade, history offers a sobering warning. The Netherlands tried something similar, using AI to spot fraud in childcare benefits, and it ended in a national scandal—the algorithm disproportionately targeted minority families, human reviewers failed to intervene, and the fallout brought down the government.A recent Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report suggests the IRS could “leverage examination results” to improve case selection algorithms. But this raises red flags. IRS audit history isn't neutral. A 2023 joint study by Stanford and the Treasury Department found that Black taxpayers were audited up to 4.7 times more than others, especially when claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit. That disparity likely came from algorithmic choices aimed at efficiency, not fairness.If the IRS trains AI on this unfiltered historical data, it risks cementing and expanding past biases into future audits. AI could be a powerful tool—but only if accompanied by key safeguards. First, training data must be rigorously reviewed to eliminate bias. Second, model decisions must be transparent so we understand how and why certain cases are flagged. And third, human reviewers must be actively trained and authorized to question and override algorithmic decisions.Week in Insights: TIGTA's AI Ambitions Risk Rerun of Dutch Fiasco 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

"McElroy & Cubelic In The Morning" airs 7am-10am weekdays on WJOX-94.5!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, I delve into the fascinating history of Silicon Valley with Margaret O'Mara, a professor of American History at the University of Washington and a leading historian of Silicon Valley. We explore the relationship between the public and private sectors that fueled the growth of Silicon Valley, debunking the myth of the lone entrepreneur and highlighting the significant role of Cold War defense spending. Margaret shares insights from her celebrated book "The Code" which tells the behind-the-scenes story of the people who built Silicon Valley and shaped Big Tech. We also discuss the impact of elections on tech policy, the evolving influence of tech in Washington, and the rise of AI. We also discuss the parallels between today's tech landscape and the Gilded Age, the importance of historical perspective, and the future of tech innovation amid increasing US-China tensions and energy concerns.(00:00) Introduction(04:18) From Politics to Tech History(06:02) The Cold War Origins of Silicon Valley(08:30) The Human Storytelling Behind Tech(11:18) Is Silicon Valley A Meritocracy?(17:38) Tech's Political Influence(22:13) The Emergence of the Tech Right(23:01) A New Gilded Age(26:47) Antitrust & Regulation(31:06) What Democrats Need(36:10) Future of AI and Crypto(36:38) The 2024 Elections(39:37) China and the New Cold War(40:23) US Government Spending and Innovation(42:01) Defense Tech(45:45) The Role of Universities and Big Tech(52:27) The Rise of AI(56:56) Energy Concerns in AI(01:03:20) The Value of History

A Londra si apre una delicata trattativa tra Stati Uniti e Cina sui dazi. Washington porta al tavolo tre figure chiave dell’amministrazione Trump, chiedendo subito lo sblocco delle terre rare cinesi e l’allentamento dei controlli sulle esportazioni USA. Intanto, l’export cinese verso gli Stati Uniti crolla del 34,5% su base annua: peggior calo da oltre 5 anni. A maggio, il surplus commerciale di Pechino si riduce a 18 miliardi di dollari. Le Dogane cinesi confermano il rallentamento, a dispetto della tregua raggiunta. Segnale chiaro che la guerra commerciale sta lasciando il segno. Facciamo il punto con Fabio Scacciavillani, economista, editorialista Il Sole24 OreArrivano nuove regole per aiutare l'autotrasporto. Brennero sempre sotto pressione: traffico limitato e meno merciIl Decreto Legge Infrastrutture, approvato il 19 maggio in Consiglio dei Ministri, introduce novità importanti per l’autotrasporto: il tempo di franchigia per carico/scarico scende da due ore a 90 minuti, con indennizzi automatici da 100 euro l’ora a carico sia del committente che del caricatore. Arrivano anche più poteri all’Antitrust sui ritardi nei pagamenti e 6 milioni l’anno per il rinnovo dei mezzi fondi però inferiori ai 12 milioni stanziati nel 2024. Intanto, il Brennero resta un nodo critico: limiti, dosaggi, cantieri e barriere hanno ridotto il traffico merci ma anche danneggiato l’economia del Nord Italia. Il ponte Lueg, ridotto a una corsia per senso di marcia, resiste, ma solo perché i volumi sono crollati, anche per effetto dei nuovi dazi. Ne parliamo insieme a Pasquale Russo, Presidente di Conftrasporto e Roberto Bellini, Presidente Confartigianato Trasporti Trento.CEO a Capitol Hill contro il Big Beautiful Bill di TrumpSecondo il Financial Times, decine di CEO tra cui quelli di Shell, SAP, Toyota e LVMH saranno questa settimana a Washington per contrastare la Sezione 899 del Big Beautiful Bill voluto da Trump. La norma introduce una "revenge tax": sovrattassa del 20% sui redditi passivi statunitensi incassati da imprese di Paesi giudicati fiscalmente ostili agli USA. Il gettito stimato è di 116 miliardi in 10 anni, ma i CEO temono danni agli investimenti, perdita di posti di lavoro e fuga di capitali. Le imprese chiedono almeno un rinvio della norma e un suo ridimensionamento. Andiamo dietro la notizia con Alessandro Plateroti, Direttore Newsmondo.it

In this episode of The Mentors Radio, Host Dan Hesse talks with Cecilia Kang, an award-winning journalist and author who discusses the enormous implications of the Meta antitrust trial for the Tech industry, damage wrought from "news" people consume on social media, and what business leaders might consider in order to ensure employees are well-informed.  In this episode, Cecilia Kang discusses the history of Facebook, the U.S. Government's antitrust trial against its parent, Meta, and the impact this company has on our privacy and on the news that its users receive.  Cecilia is an award-winning National Correspondent at The New York Times where she reports on the intersection of technology and public policy. She is the co-author of the best seller, "An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook's Battle for Domination" which she discusses in this episode. She was part of a team that won the Gerald Loeb and George Polk awards for their coverage of Facebook and were finalists for the Pulitzer Prize. Cecilia frequently appears on national television and radio as a commentator on technology and entertainment, and she's passionate about exposing the impacts and implications of technology on society, politics and culture. Listen to THE MENTORS RADIO broadcast on Salem Radio in San Francisco, via live-streaming on iHeart Radio worldwide or anytime, on ANY podcast platform, including Apple Podcast, Spotify, iTunes, TuneIN, Stitcher, Google Play and all the others. Sign up for the podcast here. SHOW NOTES: CECILIA KANG: BIO: Cecilia Kang is an award-winning National Correspondent at The New York Times, where she reports on the intersection of technology and public policy. She is also the co-author of the best seller, An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook's Battle for Domination. She was part of a team at The New York Times that won the Gerald Loeb and George Polk awards for their coverage of Facebook and were finalists for the Pulitzer Prize. Kang frequently appears on national television and radio as a commentator on technology and entertainment. She is passionate about exposing the impacts and implications of technology on society, politics and culture. BOOK: An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook's Battle for Domination, by Cecilia Kang and Sheera Frenkel LINKS: https://www.nytimes.com/by/cecilia-kang https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/27/technology/meta-antitrust-trial-concludes.html

Did you know that consolidation in our food and agriculture systems has more to do with the price of eggs than bird flu? Join Food Sleuth Radio host and Registered Dietitian, Melinda Hemmelgarn for her conversation with Basel Musharbash, antitrust and trade regulation lawyer, and author of Kings Over the Necessaries of Life: Monopolization and the Elimination of Competition in America's Agriculture System. Musharbash discusses the real reasons why egg prices escalated, and the larger impact of consolidation in our food system. (Part 1 of 2)Related Websites:  https://farmaction.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Kings-Over-the-Necessaries-of-Life-Monopolization-and-the-Elimination-of-Competition-in-Americas-Agriculture-System_Farm-Action.pdf

Alphabet Chief Executive Officer Sundar Pichai talks about the evolution of artificial intelligence and how it protects the data of users. He speaks to Bloomberg's Emily Chang at the Bloomberg Technology Summit in San Francisco.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Send us a textIn this episode of The Near Memo, Greg Sterling and Mike Blumenthal break down some of the biggest tectonic shifts happening at the intersection of AI, search, and antitrust law. The focal point? Google's claim that its Gemini AI now boasts 350 million monthly users. But what exactly counts as a user—and does stuffing Gemini into every app and product really mean it's being used?Greg and Mike dig deep into how Google is leveraging its product ecosystem—Chrome, Gmail, Workspace, Maps, Android, and Search—to inflate AI engagement numbers. The two unpack why Gemini still underperforms compared to ChatGPT and Claude, and what that gap reveals about Google's AI rollout and user trust.They also dive into the implications of the Department of Justice's antitrust remedies following the conclusion of the Google search monopoly trial. What could it mean for the web if Google is forced to divest Chrome—or even Maps? The conversation explores Google's use of default deals, bundling tactics, and how it might use its market power to dominate AI, just as it has search.Along the way, they highlight YouTube's overlooked role as a future-first search engine, powered by how-to content, brand channels, and a closed ecosystem that Google fully controls. And they dissect how local guides, AI-driven local search results, and Google's declining web traffic referrals are reshaping digital marketing as we know it.Whether you're a marketer, SEO professional, journalist, or tech policy nerd—this episode gives you a grounded, provocative look at what's really going on in the AI arms race.

This Day in Legal History: Henderson v. United States DecidedOn June 5, 1950, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816 (1950), a significant civil rights ruling concerning racial segregation in interstate transportation. Elmer W. Henderson, an African American passenger, had been denied equal dining services on a train operated by the Southern Railway Company under a policy that enforced segregation. Although a dining car had a partition supposedly to accommodate Black passengers, in practice Henderson was often unable to access equivalent service due to timing and seat availability.The case reached the Supreme Court after the Interstate Commerce Commission failed to provide meaningful relief. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Fred Vinson, the Court held that the railway's practices violated the Interstate Commerce Act, particularly its provision requiring carriers to provide equal treatment and avoid undue prejudice. Importantly, the Court based its reasoning not on constitutional grounds (such as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment), but on statutory interpretation, finding that the carrier's conduct constituted an unjust and unreasonable discrimination.This ruling marked an early and important step toward dismantling legally sanctioned segregation in public accommodations, prefiguring later landmark decisions like Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Although not framed as a constitutional equal protection case, Henderson nonetheless contributed to the legal groundwork of the civil rights movement and challenged the legitimacy of the “separate but equal” doctrine in practical terms.SAP, Europe's largest software company, has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a decision that revived an antitrust lawsuit brought by its competitor, Teradata. The case centers on allegations that SAP unlawfully tied its business-planning applications to a required purchase of its own database software, which competes with Teradata's products. SAP argues that such software integration benefits consumers and constitutes healthy competition, not anti-competitive conduct.The lawsuit was initially filed by California-based Teradata in 2018 after the companies ended a joint venture. SAP had prevailed in the lower court, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision in December, stating a jury should decide the case. SAP's petition criticizes the appellate court's reliance on a version of the “per se rule,” under which the conduct is presumed illegal without a detailed analysis. Instead, SAP advocates for applying the more nuanced “rule of reason” standard, which considers both competitive harms and justifications.SAP also claims the ruling conflicts with how a different federal appeals court treated a similar antitrust issue in the historic Microsoft case. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to hear the case.This case hinges on the concept of “tying,” where a company conditions the sale of one product on the purchase of another, potentially stifling competition. It's significant because whether courts apply a strict “per se” rule or the more flexible “rule of reason” can dramatically affect the outcome in such antitrust disputes.Tech giant SAP asks US Supreme Court to reconsider rival's antitrust win | ReutersA federal judge in Washington, D.C., has dismissed a lawsuit filed by three Democratic Party committees accusing President Donald Trump of trying to undermine the independence of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled that the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee failed to demonstrate any “concrete and imminent injury” necessary to sustain a legal challenge.The lawsuit, filed in February 2025, contested an executive order issued by Trump that aimed to increase White House control over independent federal agencies, including the FEC. The order stated that the legal views of the president and the attorney general would be “controlling” for federal employees and prohibited them from expressing opposing positions. Democrats claimed this language threatened the FEC's independence and could deter campaign planning.Judge Ali, however, noted that administration lawyers had assured the court that the executive order would not be used to interfere with the FEC's decision-making. He also found the plaintiffs' concerns too speculative, emphasizing that the Supreme Court requires a demonstrated change in the relationship with the agency in question, which the plaintiffs had not shown.The judge's decision hinged on the plaintiffs' lack of standing, a fundamental requirement in federal court. To proceed with a lawsuit, plaintiffs must show a specific, actual, or imminent injury caused by the defendant. In this case, speculative harm and vague concerns about agency behavior were insufficient. This principle helps prevent courts from weighing in on political disputes where no direct harm can be proven.Trump defeats Democrats' lawsuit over election commission independenceThe Trump administration is pursuing a new $25 million contract to allow U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to conduct DNA testing on families facing deportation. The goal, according to ICE, is to verify family relationships—but critics warn the program could lead to unnecessary family separations, especially in cases involving non-biological caregivers like godparents. Civil rights advocates also raise concerns that the DNA data could be misused for unrelated criminal investigations and stored indefinitely.The contract was initially awarded in May to SNA International, a firm specializing in forensic identification. However, Bode Cellmark Forensics filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office, arguing the contract wasn't competitively bid. ICE subsequently issued a stop-work order on the contract pending resolution of the protest, with a decision expected by September 2.This is not ICE's first attempt at rapid DNA testing. A similar program began in 2019 during Trump's first term to detect alleged “fraudulent” parent-child relationships, often targeting migrant families. Though handed over to Customs and Border Protection in 2021, the Biden administration ended it in 2023. Reports since then have highlighted issues with consent, with some migrants mistaking DNA swabs for COVID-19 tests or feeling coerced into participation under threat of legal consequences.Privacy advocates argue that such widespread collection of genetic data lacks transparency and oversight. The Georgetown Law Center on Privacy and Technology recently sued the Department of Homeland Security for failing to provide records on how DNA samples from migrants are collected and stored.The revived DNA testing raises key legal questions about informed consent and the scope of data use by federal agencies. When individuals are unaware of what they're consenting to—or coerced into it—the practice may violate federal standards for ethical data collection, especially under the Privacy Act and due process protections.ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract 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

This past weekend, OTM co-host Micah Loewinger went to Seattle to sit down with an all-time favourite guest of the show: tech activist and writer Cory Doctorow. We recorded the following conversation in front of a live audience at the Cascade PBS Ideas festival. The topic was “Enshittification” – Cory's theory of how everything on the internet got worse. We first discussed this idea on the show a couple years ago – and this was an opportunity to talk about what enshittification looks like right now: the latest attempts by tech companies to take advantage of users and workers, and the surge of lawsuits attempting to hold these companies to account. 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.

On May 7, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Federal Trade Commission’s lawsuit challenging Microsoft's $69 billion purchase of “Call of Duty” maker Activision Blizzard, affirming the lower judge's order finding that the FTC was not entitled to a preliminary injunction blocking the deal, which closed in 2023. Hear from former agency officials and amici filers for the Business Roundtable, Communications Workers of America, and TechFreedom as they discuss the various views presented in the briefing and the ramifications of this decision on future merger enforcement at the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice.Featuring:Allen P. Grunes, Shareholder, Brownstein Hyatt Farber SchreckHon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Partner, Antitrust and Competition, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & RosatiRahul Rao, Antitrust Partner, White & CaseBilal Sayyed, Senior Competition Counsel, TechFreedom Moderator: Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies--To register, click the link above.

The company argued that the federal court's decision was wrong and would hurt consumers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In today's MadTech Daily, Judge Amit Mehta zooms in on generative AI in Google's antitrust case, the New York Times strikes an AI content licensing deal with Amazon, and the AI copyright clash in the UK intensifies.

Featured Guests: David Daneshgar, CEO, Whippy AI | Jake O'Shea, principal, AntlerPresident Trump is quietly wiring Palantir across the government, laying digital rails for what may become a master database on American citizens. Business Insider slashes 21% of staff and doubles down on AI, betting automation can rescue a shrinking newsroom. And a judge now holds Google's fate as the DOJ pushes to dismantle its search empire, clearing the runway for AI challengers.DOWNLOAD PUBLIC: Public.com/ventureInvest in everything—stocks, options, bonds, crypto. You can even earn some of the highest yields in the industry—like the 7% or higher yield you can lock in with a Bond Account. Public is a FINRA-registered, SIPC-insured platform that takes your investments as seriously as you do. Fund your account in five minutes or less at public.com/venture and get up to $10,000 when you transfer your old portfolio.All investing involves the risk of loss, including loss of principal. Brokerage services for US-listed, registered securities, options and bonds in a self-directed account are offered by Public Investing, Inc., member FINRA & SIPC. Public Investing offers a High-Yield Cash Account where funds from this account are automatically deposited into partner banks where they earn interest and are eligible for FDIC insurance; Public Investing is not a bank. Cryptocurrency trading services are offered by Bakkt Crypto Solutions, LLC (NMLS ID 1890144), which is licensed to engage in virtual currency business activity by the NYSDFS. Cryptocurrency is highly speculative, involves a high degree of risk, and has the potential for loss of the entire amount of an investment. Cryptocurrency holdings are not protected by the FDIC or SIPC.A Bond Account is a self-directed brokerage account with Public Investing, member FINRA/SIPC. Deposits into this account are used to purchase 10 investment-grade and high-yield bonds. The 7%+ yield is the average, annualized yield to worst (YTW) across all ten bonds in the Bond Account, before fees, as of 5/15/2025. A bond's yield is a function of its market price, which can fluctuate; therefore, a bond's YTW is not “locked in” until the bond is purchased, and your yield at time of purchase may be different from the yield shown here. The “locked in” YTW is not guaranteed; you may receive less than the YTW of the bonds in the Bond Account if you sell any of the bonds before maturity or if the issuer defaults on the bond. Public Investing charges a markup on each bond trade. See our Fee Schedule. *Terms and Conditions apply.

In this episode, AdTechGod interviews James Rosewell, co-founder of Movement for an Open Web, discussing the evolution of the open web, the implications of the Privacy Sandbox, the importance of web browsers, and the future of regulation in the digital advertising landscape. They explore the impact of political changes on antitrust initiatives and the need for market certainty, while also providing resources for listeners to stay informed about these developments. Takeaways James Rosewell founded Movement for an Open Web to address concerns about the Privacy Sandbox. The open web must offer advertisers a good return on investment and protect content rights. Privacy Sandbox can now compete on its merits without coercion from Google. Web browsers play a crucial role in the digital advertising ecosystem. Regulation is needed to ensure fair competition in the browser market. Political changes are influencing antitrust motivations in the US. Market certainty is essential during the appeal process for Google. The European Commission is taking steps towards divestiture of Google. Funding models for web browsers need to be reevaluated. Resources are available for those wanting to learn more about the open web movement. Chapters 00:00 Introduction to the Open Web Movement 01:29 The Birth of Movement for an Open Web 04:09 Antitrust and Privacy Sandbox Insights 06:02 The Role of Web Browsers in Advertising 10:00 Regulation and the Future of Browsers 12:10 Political Changes and Their Impact 14:00 Looking Ahead: Opportunities and Challenges 16:33 Resources for Further Learning AI Anxiety, Media Shakeups & the Social Disconnect In this episode of The Refresh, Kait breaks down a pivotal week in Adland marked by existential questions around AI, massive corporate restructuring, and the steady evolution of streaming. From WPP's dramatic rebrand and layoffs to the Meta antitrust trial's conclusion and fresh Nielsen numbers, the episode weaves together the mounting pressure of rapid technological change and its human cost. Key Discussion Points: WPP rebrands Group M as “WPP Media” under an AI-first strategy, but the move triggers confusion and layoffs impacting up to 45% of staff. The broader advertising industry is facing an AI reckoning, as companies move faster than ever with minimal oversight or infrastructure for displaced workers. Meta's antitrust trial wraps, with the FTC accusing the company of a “buy or bury” strategy—highlighting internal emails and challenging definitions of competition. Despite social media's waning ability to foster community, creator marketing continues to boom—but may need reevaluation for long-term brand building. Nielsen's April report shows streaming now holds 44% of total TV usage, with ad-supported content making up 72% of viewership; Grey's Anatomy tops the charts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Timothy McVeigh ConvictedOn June 2, 1997, Timothy McVeigh was convicted by a federal jury for his role in the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history at the time—the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The attack killed 168 people, including 19 children, and injured hundreds more. McVeigh, a Gulf War veteran, carried out the bombing using a truck packed with explosives parked in front of the building. The trial, held in Denver due to pretrial publicity concerns in Oklahoma, lasted over five weeks and featured powerful testimony from survivors and victims' families.The jury found McVeigh guilty on all 11 counts, including conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction and eight counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of federal law enforcement personnel. His conviction marked a pivotal moment in how the U.S. viewed and responded to homegrown terrorism. Eleven days later, McVeigh was sentenced to death by lethal injection, a sentence he did not appeal.McVeigh's case underscored the rise of anti-government extremism in the 1990s and prompted a reevaluation of domestic security protocols. It also led to legislative changes, including the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which aimed to streamline federal habeas corpus appeals and enhance penalties for terrorism-related offenses. McVeigh was executed in 2001, the first federal execution in 38 years.The U.S. Supreme Court recently handed key legal victories to President Donald Trump's administration on immigration, allowing it to proceed with controversial deportation policies. The Court lifted lower court orders that had blocked the termination of humanitarian parole and temporary protected status for over 800,000 migrants, including many from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua. Though these rulings advanced Trump's hardline agenda, the justices also expressed concern over the fairness of how deportations are being carried out, particularly regarding due process rights.In multiple rulings, the Court emphasized that even non-citizens, including alleged gang members, are entitled to proper notice and the opportunity to contest deportation. In one case, it blocked an attempt to quickly remove migrants from a Texas detention center without giving them enough time or information to respond legally. The justices also limited the administration's use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants, a law historically used only during wartime.The Court also ordered the administration to assist in returning a wrongly deported migrant, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, to the U.S.—a directive that has yet to be fulfilled. Legal experts note that while the Court has tried to rein in some of the administration's most extreme actions, it continues to show broad deference to presidential authority over immigration. This deference was evident as the justices issued high-impact rulings without written explanation, stripping legal protections from hundreds of thousands of migrants.Pending cases before the Court include challenges to Trump's attempt to limit birthright citizenship and to expand deportations to unstable third countries like South Sudan. A lower court found the administration violated migrants' rights by attempting such deportations without adequate legal process.Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings | ReutersA federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from invalidating work permits and legal status documents for approximately 5,000 Venezuelan migrants, despite the U.S. Supreme Court recently allowing broader termination of protections for hundreds of thousands under the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem likely overstepped her authority by voiding these documents in February while ending TPS for Venezuelans more generally.Although the Supreme Court lifted Chen's earlier injunction halting the broader termination of TPS on May 19, it did not preclude migrants from challenging the cancellation of individual documents tied to the program. These documents were issued after President Biden extended TPS protections for Venezuelans through October 2026. Judge Chen found that nothing in the TPS statute allowed the Secretary to retroactively invalidate permits already granted.The decision safeguards the legal status of the small subset of Venezuelans who possess these documents, allowing them to remain employed and protected from deportation. Chen emphasized that the relatively low number—around 5,000—undermines arguments that their continued presence poses economic or national security risks. The ruling comes just hours after the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to end a separate parole program affecting over half a million migrants from four countries.US judge blocks Trump from invalidating 5,000 Venezuelans' legal documents | ReutersGoogle announced it will appeal a recent antitrust ruling that found the company unlawfully maintained a monopoly in online search, even as a federal judge considers less aggressive remedies than those sought by U.S. antitrust enforcers. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta recently concluded a trial over how to address Google's dominance, with the Justice Department and a coalition of states advocating for strong structural changes—such as forcing Google to divest parts of its ad tech business and cease paying Apple and other companies to remain the default search engine.In response, Google reiterated its disagreement with the original decision, arguing that the Court erred and expressing confidence in its planned appeal. Antitrust officials have pushed for remedies that include requiring Google to share search data and end exclusive agreements they claim restrict market competition, particularly in the evolving field of AI-driven search.At the hearing, Google's attorney John Schmidtlein noted the company has already taken steps to improve competition, such as ending exclusive deals with smartphone manufacturers and wireless carriers. This, Google argues, allows for more freedom to include rival search and AI applications on devices.Google says it will appeal online search antitrust decision | ReutersPBS has filed a lawsuit against Trump over an executive order that cuts federal funding to the public broadcaster, calling the move a violation of the First Amendment. The complaint, filed in a Washington, D.C. federal court, argues that Trump's May 1 order is an act of viewpoint discrimination because it targets PBS over the content of its programming. PBS claims the funding cut is a retaliatory response to perceived political bias in its coverage, amounting to unconstitutional government interference in free speech.The order instructs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to halt financial support for both PBS and NPR. PBS stated that while CPB provides only 16% of its overall budget, the ban would also affect local member stations that rely on federal support and contribute 61% of PBS's funding through dues. PBS and Lakeland PBS, a Minnesota-based station, are plaintiffs in the case, arguing that the executive order would destabilize public television across the country.The Trump administration defended the cuts as a necessary step to prevent public funds from supporting what it labeled partisan or ideologically driven programming. NPR has also filed a separate lawsuit to block the order. The CPB, which receives congressional funding two years in advance to minimize political interference, previously sued Trump over his attempt to remove board members.PBS sues Trump to reverse funding cuts | 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

Google plans to appeal the antitrust ruling against its search engine dominance, a new Nebraska law wants to make social media less addictive for kids, and the movie '28 Years Later' used iPhones in tandem for some wild shots. It's Monday, June 2nd and here's a quick look at tech in the news this morning from Engadget. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A.M. Edition for May 30. Lawyers for the Justice Department and Google prepare to make closing arguments today as a judge weighs how to improve competition in online search. Plus, top U.S. officials say trade negotiations with foreign capitals remain on course, despite a court ruling that President Trump's sweeping global tariffs were illegal. And WSJ reporter Feliz Solomon explains the situation in Gaza as a new aid distribution system backed by Israel goes into effect. Luke Vargas hosts.  Sign up for the WSJ's free What's News newsletter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Plus: Chinese tech stocks falter on pessimism over U.S.-China trade progress. And Ray-Ban maker pushes into medical AI with Optegra deal. Victoria Craig hosts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

LIVE today at 2pm PT, join me on Trader Merlin as we dive into the week's biggest market-moving stories. The Google antitrust case dominated headlines, with the DOJ pushing hard for a potential breakup of Google's core businesses— a move that could send shockwaves across the tech sector. Meanwhile, in the world of crypto and government, Elon Musk officially stepped down from the controversial Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), signaling a potential new chapter for both Musk and the meme-turned-policy project. On Wall Street, the S&P 500 just posted its best May performance in over 30 years—closing the month up more than 6% as optimism around easing tariff tensions and a resilient U.S. economy fueled bullish momentum. Is this rally sustainable, or are cracks starting to form beneath the surface? We'll break it all down, plus look at the latest action in Bitcoin and altcoins, key technical levels across equities, and as always—I'll recap my personal trades and setups I'm watching for next week. Tune in LIVE at 2pm PT for all this and more—don't miss this week's Trading Week Wrap Up! #TraderMerlin #TradingWeekWrapUp #GoogleAntitrust #ElonMusk #DOGE #SP500 #Bitcoin #CryptoNews #StockMarketRally #InvestingPodcast #MarketRecap #FinancialPodcast #TradingPodcast #StockMarketNews #InvestingInsights   Contact TraderMerlin: Email – TraderMerlin@gmail.com Follow TraderMerlin: Twitter: TraderMerlin - https://twitter.com/TraderMerlin IG: TraderMerlin - https://www.instagram.com/tradermerlin/ FB: TraderMerlin  - https://www.facebook.com/TraderMerlin Live Daily Show:  - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCczw6L9MSllTvWDK1fNlLrg Trading Applications used: -          Clik -          TradeStation -          Tradingview

A.I. isn't just changing how people use search, but it's also changing how some litigators see Alphabet's (GOOGL) antitrust case. If the Big Tech giant is found to have a search monopoly, it will be forced to divest its Google Chrome browser. However, Diane King Hall talks about how A.I. programs like ChatGPT could overthrow that perspective.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day.Subscribe 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 Department of Justice is making the final push in its antitrust case against Alphabet (GOOGL). A ruling saying Alphabet is running a search monopoly could force the tech giant to divest its Google Chrome browser. Rick Ducat turns to the technicals in Alphabet's chart and offers a call butterfly example options trade.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day.Subscribe 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 – / schwabnetwork Follow us on Facebook – / schwabnetwork Follow us on LinkedIn - / schwab-network About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

How much is Google Chrome worth to Alphabet (GOOGL)? That's a question Kevin Green weighs when looking at Alphabet's valuation if the company is forced to divest its Chrome search browser. He talks about the other aspects of Alphabet's business that still make it an "undervalued" Big Tech company. Dan Deming turns to an example options trade for the Mag 7 giant.======== 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

This Day in Legal History: Trump Guilty on All CountsOn this day in legal history, May 30, 2024, President Donald J. Trump was convicted on all 34 felony counts in a criminal trial related to a hush money scheme during the 2016 presidential campaign. The case centered on falsified business records used to conceal payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, intended to silence her allegations of an affair in the run-up to the election. The charges—each tied to entries in the Trump Organization's internal ledger—were elevated to felonies on the basis that they were committed in furtherance of another crime, namely influencing the outcome of a federal election.The trial, held in New York State Supreme Court, marked an unprecedented legal moment in U.S. history: a former president, and presumptive candidate in the upcoming election, being found guilty of criminal conduct. Prosecutors argued that Trump orchestrated the payments to suppress damaging information and maintain his electoral chances, while his defense claimed the case was politically motivated and the records reflected routine legal expenses.The conviction did not bar Trump from running for office again, but it did raise serious constitutional, electoral, and logistical questions about the rule of law and the separation of powers. The verdict was reached by a jury of 12 New Yorkers after weeks of testimony from former aides, prosecutors, and key witnesses like Michael Cohen, Trump's onetime fixer.Trump's sentencing was scheduled for a future date, and appeals were expected. Reactions across the political spectrum were predictably polarized, with critics calling it accountability at last, while supporters denounced the trial as a miscarriage of justice. Legal scholars noted the symbolic weight of the decision in reaffirming that no one—including a former president—is above the law.The U.S. Department of Justice and several states are wrapping up a major antitrust case against Google, with closing arguments scheduled for Friday. At issue is whether Google must sell its Chrome browser and stop default search engine deals with companies like Apple and wireless carriers, which the DOJ says stifles competition. These proposals follow a prior court finding that Google unlawfully monopolized online search and advertising markets.Judge Amit Mehta, who is presiding over the case, expects to issue a ruling by August. The DOJ is also pushing for Google to share its search data, which could benefit AI companies. OpenAI has expressed interest in purchasing Chrome if a divestiture occurs and noted that access to Google's search data would improve its AI responses.Google argues that the DOJ's proposed remedies overreach and would unfairly advantage competitors. The company has already taken some steps, such as loosening default search engine deals with phone manufacturers like Samsung. However, the government wants a full ban on payments that secure Google's search dominance on devices.Google and DOJ to make final push in US search antitrust case | ReutersA federal appeals court has temporarily reinstated President Trump's wide-ranging tariffs after a lower trade court ruled they exceeded presidential authority. The stay, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, allows the tariffs—targeting imports from most trading partners and specifically Canada, Mexico, and China—to remain in effect while the appeals process unfolds. The plaintiffs and the government must submit legal arguments by early June.The U.S. Court of International Trade previously found that Trump misused the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which is designed for national emergencies, not trade disputes. The panel emphasized that Congress, not the president, holds constitutional power to impose tariffs. Trump and his administration remain defiant, vowing to pursue alternative legal pathways if needed. Trump criticized the ruling publicly, warning it would weaken presidential power and harm national interests.Financial markets responded cautiously, factoring in the likelihood of a drawn-out legal process. Some companies, like small businesses represented by the Liberty Justice Center, argue the tariffs threaten their survival due to disrupted supply chains. Broader economic impacts include $34 billion in losses and stalled negotiations with key partners. Notably, separate national security-based tariffs on steel, aluminum, and cars remain unaffected.Trump's tariffs to remain in effect after appeals court grants stay | ReutersTrump's latest tax-and-spending bill, dubbed the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," includes a provision that could significantly limit federal courts' power to enforce contempt orders against the government. The measure, buried in the 1,100-page bill, would block courts from enforcing contempt if plaintiffs did not post a monetary bond when seeking an injunction—a practice rarely required in lawsuits against the government.The provision applies retroactively and would affect both lower courts and the Supreme Court. Critics say it could effectively prevent courts from holding government officials accountable for ignoring judicial orders, as most past injunctions didn't involve posted bonds. While the administration says the measure is aimed at deterring frivolous lawsuits, legal experts warn it undermines judicial authority and incentivizes noncompliance.This change comes after a Trump administration memo encouraged agencies to request bonds in litigation. Judges have previously flagged possible defiance of court orders by administration officials but have stopped short of issuing contempt rulings. In one recent case over tariffs, a judge set a bond at just $100, overruling a higher request by the government.The House narrowly passed the bill without any Democratic support. It now moves to the Senate, where some Republicans have expressed intentions to amend it. A group of House Democrats has already called for the contempt provision to be removed, arguing it would render courts ineffective in enforcing lawful orders.Trump's sweeping tax-cut bill includes provision to weaken court powers | ReutersThe U.S. Justice Department has asked a judge to dismiss the criminal fraud charge against Boeing tied to two deadly 737 MAX crashes that killed 346 people, following a new agreement with the company. Under the deal, Boeing avoids a felony conviction but will pay an additional $444.5 million into a victims' compensation fund and a $243.6 million fine, bringing the total to $1.1 billion. The sum includes investments in safety, compliance, and quality enhancements.This resolution has drawn strong criticism from families of crash victims and some lawmakers, who argue that Boeing should face trial. While most families have settled civil lawsuits and received billions in compensation, several legal representatives are planning to challenge the agreement. The Justice Department defended the deal, stating it ensures accountability and public benefit while avoiding a potentially uncertain trial outcome.As part of the agreement, Boeing's board must meet with victims' families, and the company will hire a compliance consultant instead of facing court-appointed oversight. The deal halts a planned June 23 trial over Boeing's alleged deception of U.S. regulators regarding a key flight control system implicated in the crashes.US asks judge to dismiss Boeing 737 MAX criminal fraud case | ReutersThis week's closing theme brings us to one of the towering figures of Classical music: Joseph Haydn. Born in 1732 and known as the “Father of the Symphony” and “Father of the String Quartet,” Haydn's influence shaped the musical landscape of his time and set the foundation for generations of composers to come, including his younger contemporaries Mozart and Beethoven. Though widely celebrated for his symphonic and chamber works, Haydn also made remarkable contributions to keyboard music—works that showcase both his wit and structural innovation.Our selection is the first movement, Vivace, from his Keyboard Concerto in D major, Hob. XVIII:11, arguably his most famous and frequently performed keyboard concerto. Composed in the mid-1770s, the piece bursts with energy and clarity, reflecting Haydn's mature style. The Vivace movement is bright, spirited, and rhythmically engaging, with a dialogue between soloist and orchestra that feels playful yet assured.What makes this concerto particularly special is its balance of accessibility and sophistication. The melodies are immediately appealing, but the musical craftsmanship runs deep—complex harmonic turns, sparkling ornamentation, and a joyful momentum that never wanes. In the Classical tradition, this was written for the harpsichord or fortepiano, but it's often performed on modern piano today, bringing a different resonance and brilliance to the sound.As we close the week, Haydn's Vivace offers a fitting send-off: lively, inventive, and rooted in a composer who, even two centuries later, continues to surprise and delight.Without further ado, Joseph Haydn's Vivace – Keyboard Concerto in D Major. Enjoy!  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

Special Counsel Amelia McKellar joins us to talk trends and developments in antitrust, artificial intelligence and digital regulation in Asia -- what's going on in key jurisdictions and what it all means for Australia. Plus our new-look ministry and what's next for competition and regulation, a win for the ACCC in the Qteq qase and new wrinkles in the Spotless and Ventia action, steak sauce in schools and roaming commissioners in the US. All this and Humphrey's Executor with co-hosts Moya Dodd and Matt Rubinstein. Meet the Gilbert + Tobin Competition, Consumer + Market Regulation team Email us at edge@gtlaw.com.au Support the show: https://www.gtlaw.com.au/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Back in 2016, Joan Williams, distinguished professor of law (emerita) at UC Law San Francisco, wrote an essay for the Harvard Business Review on why President Donald Trump attracted so many non-college voters. It went viral with almost four million views, becoming the most-read article in the 90-year history of the publication.Williams' new book, Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back, outlines how the seemingly common view that her fellow progressives must abandon their social causes to win back those non-college-educated voters is wrong. What is required, she argues, is a renewed understanding of class. She introduces her conceptualization of the “diploma divide,” or the gap between Americans with and without college degrees. Her worldview divides the electorate into three class-based groups: the college-educated, upper-class “Brahmin left”, the low-income working (middle) class, and the right-wing merchant class, which pushes for economic policies that benefit the rich. Her argument is that a new coalition between the latter two has shifted politics to the right.In this week's Capitalisn't episode, Luigi and Bethany invite Williams to discuss whether our society indeed breaks down so neatly. If it does, how does her breakdown help us understand recent electoral shifts and trends in populism and why the left is on the losing end of both? As she writes in her book and discusses in the episode, “[the Brahmin] left's anger is coded as righteous. Why is non-elite anger discounted as “grievance?” Together, their conversation sheds light on how the left can win back voters without compromising on progressive values.Over the last four years, Capitalisn't has interviewed conservative thinkers like Oren Cass, Patrick Deneen, and Sohrab Ahmari to understand how the political right developed a new platform after President Joe Biden's victory in 2020. With this episode, we begin the same project with the left by asking: What could be the economic basis for a new progressive platform?Show Notes:Read an excerpt from Joan Williams' new book, “Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back,” out now at St. Martin's PressQuiz: “Are You in a Class Bubble?”What So Many People Don't Get About the U.S. Working Class, by Joan Williams, Harvard Business Review, November 10, 2016

In today's MadTech Daily, we look at Meta's FTC antitrust trial drawing to a close, PDD Holdings' income dropping amid price wars and tariffs, and YouTube topping TV viewing among media companies for the third month in a row.

In this episode of Hashtag Trending, Jim Love discusses several major tech industry stories. Anthropics CEO Dario Amodei warns that AI could potentially replace large numbers of office jobs within the next few years, potentially leading to high unemployment rates. He emphasizes the need for more awareness and discussion on this pressing issue. Google faces escalating global antitrust challenges, with Canada threatening significant penalties. Google's comeback attempt with smart glasses and its partnerships with Samsung, Warby Parker, and a Chinese company called X REAL are explored. Additionally, a leaked Wall Street Journal story reveals details of a collaboration between OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and iPhone designer Johnny Ive on a new screenless AI companion device. The episode concludes with host Jim Love's personal book recommendation. 00:00 Introduction and Headlines 00:28 AI's Impact on Job Market: A Dire Warning 05:38 Google's New Smart Glasses: A Second Attempt 09:32 Google's Antitrust Troubles: A Global Battle 13:43 OpenAI and Johnny Ive's Screenless AI Device 16:05 Conclusion and Host's Sign-Off

Jason and Jeff dive into the mailbag to answer listener questions. They compare Google to America, discuss the potential long-term impacts of extreme US political moves on the stock market, evaluate the risks and rewards of investing in Enphase Energy amidst recent legislative changes, and more. 01:43 Addressing Criticisms and Mailbag Introduction02:28 Comparing Google and America03:49 Political Parallels and Alphabet's Strengths06:41 The Future of Alphabet and AI11:02 Antitrust and Alphabet's Potential Breakup14:42 Hypothetical Scenarios and Market Stability20:03 Historical Context and International Relations27:15 Global Perspectives on American Capital29:53 Debate on Endphase and Solar Industry38:58 International Expansion of Enphase44:18 Savvy Trader Portfolio Performance45:42 Overrated and Underrated StocksCompanies mentioned: AAPL, ANET, CEG, CPNG, ENPH, GOOGL, MELI, MSFT, MTH, NVDA*****************************************Join our PatreonSubscribe to our portfolio on Savvy Trader *****************************************Email: investingunscripted@gmail.comTwitter: @InvestingPodCheck out our YouTube channel for more content: ******************************************To get 15% off any paid plan at finchat.io, visit https://finchat.io/unscripted******************************************Listen to the Chit Chat Stocks Podcast for discussions on stocks, financial markets, super investors, and more. Follow the show on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or YouTube******************************************2025 Portfolio Contest2024 Portfolio Contest2023 Portfolio Contest

My guest on this episode of the podcast is Brian Albrecht, the Chief Economist at the International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE). Brian holds a PhD in Economics from the University of Minnesota and is an expert on antitrust and consumer protection.In this episode, Brian and I deliberate on the importance and application of antitrust law, as well as the current state of antitrust enforcement in the United States. Among other topics, we discuss:The purpose of antitrust enforcement;The tools that exist to combat monopoly abuses;The Neo-Brandesian worldview;How FTC Chair Ferguson may approach antitrust differently from his predecessor, Lina Khan;Why tariffs are disruptive to an economy;Why the impact of tariffs tends to be underestimated (see this post and this post from Brian for more on the economic dynamics of tariffs).Thanks to the sponsors of this week's episode of the Mobile Dev Memo podcast:ContextSDK. ContextSDK uses over 200 smartphone signals to detect a user's real-world context, allowing apps to deliver perfectly timed push notifications and in-app offers.INCRMNTAL⁠⁠. True attribution measures incrementality, always on.Interested in sponsoring the Mobile Dev Memo podcast? Contact ⁠Marketecture⁠.

In this episode, Megan S. Lewis, Partner at McGuireWoods LLP and former DOJ antitrust prosecutor, discusses the rise of labor market antitrust enforcement in healthcare, key DOJ cases, and what health systems need to know about wage-fixing and no-poach agreements.

Jonathan Kanter (former DOJ Antitrust) and Martin Gaynor (Carnegie Mellon Professor and former FTC official) join The Capitol Forum to discuss their groundbreaking paper, The Rise of Healthcare Platforms. They explain how companies like UnitedHealth have evolved into sprawling conglomerates—combining insurer, provider, pharmacy, and PBM functions—and why this consolidation threatens both market competition and patient care.

In this episode, Stacey Richter explores the impact of trust on healthcare outcomes, drawing from listener contributions and prior episodes of Relentless Health Value. The discussion underscores how trust or the lack thereof affects patients, clinicians, and healthcare systems. Key points include the importance of building trusted relationships, the detrimental effects of antitrust behaviors, and the broader implications for healthcare delivery. Stacey also highlights a bonus show featuring Charles Green on earning and maintaining trust. The episode concludes with an uplifting message about the collaborative and giving nature of the Relentless Health Value community. === LINKS ===

American antitrust laws were designed to stop companies from wielding the power of kings. But in the 1970s, a legal scholar named Robert Bork convinced Washington to ignore those laws. Host Cory Doctorow traces how Bork's influence gave digital giants like Amazon a decades-long free pass to dominate markets, crush competitors, exploit their own business clients, and treat users like hostages — and how, after 40 years of inaction, former FTC chair Lina Khan took on the fight to rein in monopoly power. Guests in this episode include Michael Wiesel, Lina Khan, and Clive Thompson. Archival recordings feature Robert Bork.

ROI! Return On Investment? Ritual Of Indulgence? Robust Oral Idol? ROI Podcast™ hosted by Law Smith @LawSmithWorks and Eric Readinger... Here's the episode description fo sho fo sho wrote   Law Smith and Eric Readinger piggyback off the previous episode hitting the back walls about hilarious chaos behind Tampa's 2 Bears 5K race. Law shares his adventures sprinting through Raymond James Stadium in American flag speedos, awkward celebrity run-ins with comedians Bert Kreischer and Tom Segura, and funny mishaps you won't hear anywhere else. Expect wild stories, comedic insights, and candid celebrity gossip—all served with ROI's signature humor. Buckle up comedy fans, this one's a ride. N.O.R.E. Noreaga, Comedian Meat Dave's Dave Williamson, Dean Akers, Jason Kelce, Bo Allen, Former All Pro and former Buccaneer Ryan Jensen, Buccaneer OG Cody Mauch, Buccaneer C Graham Barton, All Pro Buccaneer OT Tristian Wirfs, Barstool's Frank The Tank, Kevin KFC Clancy, John Feitelberg, Mike Calta, Por Osos Vodka, 2 Bears 1 Cave, Spartan Race, Oddsox, Alexis Fawx. Host Law Smith shares an unforgettable encounter with the genuinely gracious Alexis Fawx. Dive into candid, hilarious reflections on dating app mishaps, eyebrow disasters, and navigating today's relationship minefields. Laugh, learn, and improve your emotional intelligence by decoding life's subtle absurdities—only on ROI Podcast®.   Episode sponsored by @ZUPYAK  https://www.Zupyak.com → promo code → SWEAT @Flodesk -50% off https://flodesk.com/c/AL83FF @Incogni remove you personal data from public websites 50% off https://get.incogni.io/SH3ve @SQUARESPACE website builder → https://squarespacecircleus.pxf.io/sweatequity @CALL RAIL call tracking → https://bit.ly/sweatequitycallrail @LINKEDIN PREMIUM - 2 months free! → https://bit.ly/sweatequity-linkedin-premium @OTTER.ai → https://otter.ai/referrals/AVPIT85N   Hosts' Eric Readinger & Law Smith

Ben Criddle talks BYU sports every weekday from 2 to 6 pm.Today's Co-Hosts: Ben Criddle (@criddlebenjamin)Subscribe to the Cougar Sports with Ben Criddle podcast:Apple Podcasts: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cougar-sports-with-ben-criddle/id99676

Lina Khan recently concluded her term as one of the Biden administration's most controversial leaders. Her tenure as chair of the Federal Trade Commission raised the profile of the relatively obscure antitrust agency charged with protecting competition. Her anti-monopoly outlook and more aggressive enforcement strategies, particularly toward Big Tech market power and protecting workers, earned the ire of the business community and the dedicated vitriol of the Wall Street Journal editorial board.Khan began her term as the youngest-ever appointee of the FTC. She initially rose to prominence for her 2017 Yale Law Journal article, “Amazon's Antitrust Paradox,” which went viral among the antitrust community for its argument that scholars and regulators must look beyond prices to understand what constitutes a harm from a lack of competition, especially in today's digital economy where many services are nominally provided for free to consumers. Fresh out of law school, Khan appeared on a Capitalisn't episode in our first season and wrote for our sister publication at the Stigler Center, ProMarket, as far back as 2018. She also delivered two keynote addresses at the Stigler Center's annual Antitrust and Competition Conferences while FTC chair.On this episode, Khan returns to Capitalisn't to reflect on her tenure, her vision of capitalism, and how her approach to enforcing existing laws with new thinking may have impacted the everyday lives of Americans. How does she respond to her critics, who include major Democratic business leaders? How does she view the new Trump administration, which is continuing many of her transformative policies, including revised merger guidelines and major lawsuits? As a senator, Vice President JD Vance said she was “one of the few people in the Biden administration actually doing a pretty good job.” Reflecting on her work, Khan also touches upon how conflicts of interest among corporate lawyers and consultants, former bureaucrats, and academics distort policymaking, court rulings, and market outcomes. Finally, she highlights the antitrust issues to pay attention to moving forward, such as algorithmic collusion.Show Notes: Also, check out ProMarket's series on the future of the Neo-Brandesian movement, of which Lina Khan is an emblematic figure.

It's go time: The biggest Patch Tuesday of 2025 sets the stage for 2025! Microsoft has finally revealed whether it will further extend Windows 10 support past October (it won't). Also, Microsoft designed notifications in Windows 11 to be annoying and pointless, so Paul has some advice. Plus, Proton Drive gets a long awaited albums feature, and more on the way.Windows 11 Recall (preview) and Click to Do (preview) come to stable for the first time Let's give Microsoft a bit of credit for this one non-reported behavior Also: Improvements to Settings, Narrator, Start, Phone Link, Widgets, File Explorer You knew this was coming: Microsoft now testing a "Hey, Copilot" feature It's opt-in and an alternative to holding down Alt + Spacebar for two seconds Microsoft discusses the new Start design and it's not a s#$t show like it was three years ago No builds for the second Friday in a row Improvements to Settings AI agent, intelligent text actions in Click to Do, a few small changes come to 24H2 in Dev and Beta channels Copilot Vision gets Highlights and 2-App Support across all channels Google's big Android reveal includes Material Expressive, big Wear OS update. Android, like Windows 11 (and iOS) is just being updated all the time now Windows 10 Extended support program Will support Microsoft 365 on Windows 10 through October 2028 Those time frames are identical So what about those Surface PCs that can't upgrade to Windows 11? Microsoft has an answer (for all unsupported PCs) and it's not as cynical as you think Microsoft quietly discontinued entry-level 13.8-inch Surface Laptop and 13-inch Surface Pro when it introduced those smaller new models last week Layoffs Microsoft just made $70 billion, so naturally it's laying off employees. How to explain this? The FTC's losing streak against Microsoft continues A proposal for solving the "Mozilla problem" in U.S. v. Google Fortnite could return to the iPhone App Store as soon as today AI OH MY GOD IS THERE NO AI NEWS FOR ONCE. OK, three small items OpenAI brings OneDrive and SharePoint integration with ChatGPT for paid business customers "AI mode" could replace "I'm feeling lucky" on the Google home page Spotify's AI DJ keeps improving Dev Build is next week in Seattle, a few thoughts .NET 10 Preview 4 is out Xbox & Games Today's the day: DOOM: The Dark Ages goes live at 8:00 ET tonight! Xbox Insiders can now play cloud-enabled games with mouse and keyboard Paul reviews the Backbone Pro controller Nintendo revenues slide big ahead of Switch 2 - 15m consoles expected in first year Sony sold 18.5 million PS5s in the most recent fiscal year, down 11 percent YOY Tips & Picks Tip of the week: Windows 11 notifications make iOS look sophisticated App pick of the week: Proton Drive RunAs Radio this week: Active Directory in 2025 with Liz Tesch Brown liquor pick of the week: Limeburners Albany Tawny Cask These show notes have been truncated due to length. For the full show notes, visit https://twit.tv/shows/windows-weekly/episodes/932 Hosts: Leo Laporte, Paul Thurrott, and Richard Campbell Sponsors: 1password.com/windowsweekly threatlocker.com/twit uscloud.com

Three Visions of Where Democrats Went Wrong | The Ezra Klein Show - Zephyr Teachout and Saikat ChakrabartiREALIGNMENT NEWSLETTER: https://therealignment.substack.com/PURCHASE BOOKS AT OUR BOOKSHOP: https://bookshop.org/shop/therealignmentEmail Us: realignmentpod@gmail.comElizabeth Wilkins, President and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute and alumn of the White House and Lina Khan's Federal Trade Commission, joins The Realignment. Marshall and Elizabeth discuss why the left has reacted critically to the abundance agenda, her agreement with Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's emphasis on enhancing state capacity, and how to restore faith in government. They explore the tension between technocratic fixes and populist demands, the need for effective political storytelling, and why "small," tangible wins like banning junk fees and non-competes matter as much as big legislative wins.  

The remedy phase of one of the antitrust cases against Google wrapped up last week and the judge is expected to issue his decision by August on how the company must address its monopoly in search. One option suggested by the Justice Department: ban Google from paying browsers to make its search engine the default. But Mozilla, the developer of the independent Firefox browser, has opposed this remedy. Marketplace's Meghan McCarty Carino spoke with Laura Chambers, CEO of the Mozilla Corporation, about how the move would be crippling for smaller browsers like theirs.

The remedy phase of one of the antitrust cases against Google wrapped up last week and the judge is expected to issue his decision by August on how the company must address its monopoly in search. One option suggested by the Justice Department: ban Google from paying browsers to make its search engine the default. But Mozilla, the developer of the independent Firefox browser, has opposed this remedy. Marketplace's Meghan McCarty Carino spoke with Laura Chambers, CEO of the Mozilla Corporation, about how the move would be crippling for smaller browsers like theirs.

Episode 4448: GOP Proposes Eliminating Key Antitrust Laws; MAGA On The Ground In NJ