Podcast appearances and mentions of sherman act

This episode dives into the latest warnings issued by the Federal Trade Commission to major U.S. law firms regarding their participation in diversity certification programs. I outline the broader pattern of executive branch pressure and explore the implications for law firms and media companies. Key Topics Covered:  FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson's cautionary letters to 42 law firms participating in Diversity Lab's Mansfield Certification program, highlighting potential antitrust liability under the Sherman Act and FTC Act. The Mansfield Rule's origins, modeled on the NFL's Rooney Rule, and its focus on expanding opportunities for underrepresented lawyers without mandating quotas. Judicial decisions, including Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ and Jenner & Block LLP v. DOJ, addressing claims of discrimination and political retaliation in the context of diversity initiatives and legal advocacy. The Trump administration's use of antitrust law to challenge perceived collusion in both legal and media sectors, including scrutiny of media partnerships like the Trusted News Initiative and high-profile media mergers. Broader ideological and regulatory trends, including heightened enforcement, government intervention in media ownership, and ongoing appeals in federal courts. Discussion Points: How coordinated diversity efforts may be viewed as labor-market collusion and the legal risks for law firms. The intersection of antitrust law, freedom of speech, and diversity initiatives in shaping the future of legal and media industries. The potential impact of executive orders and regulatory actions on the independence and competitive landscape of law firms and media companies. I discuss how law firms and media organizations must adapt to an environment of increased political scrutiny, regulatory enforcement, and ongoing legal challenges. Tune in for the latest in the evolving relationship between private power and government oversight. ______________________________________ Thanks for listening! If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps. If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more. Tom on LinkedIn Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

Welcome to RIMScast. Your host is Justin Smulison, Business Content Manager at RIMS, the Risk and Insurance Management Society.   In this episode, Justin interviews Rich Lenkov, Founder and CEO of SERMA, about the unique aspects of risk management in sports and entertainment, such as stadium security and crowd safety for a big game or event. They look at what SERMA offers to risk professionals in sports and entertainment. Rich speaks of cross-disciplinary collaboration and the specialized content offered by SERMA. Rich shares his thoughts about the Day of the Endangered Lawyer and the importance of the Constitution and international law.   Listen for tips on sports and entertainment risk management.   Key Takeaways: [:01] About RIMS and RIMScast. [:17] About this episode of RIMScast. Our guest is Rich Lenkov, the Founder and CEO of SERMA, the Sports and Entertainment Risk Management Alliance. [:43] We will talk about all things sports and entertainment risk-related and get his play-by-play on what it takes to succeed in sports and entertainment risk. But first… [:54] RIMS-CRMP and Some Prep Courses. The next virtual prep courses will be held on March 110th and 11th and again on April 21st and 22nd. Links to these courses can be found through the Certification page of RIMS.org and through this episode's show notes. [1:12] RIMS Virtual Workshops are coming up. On February 2nd and 3rd, Pat Saporito will host the debut of the two-day course, "Storytelling with Data for Risk Management". [1:26] On February 4th and 5th, Ken Baker will return to deliver the course, "Applying and Integrating ERM". [1:35] The full schedule of virtual workshops can be found on the RIMS.org/education and RIMS.org/education/online-learning pages. A link is also in this episode's notes. [1:47] RIMS members always enjoy deep discounts on the virtual workshops. [1:51] The next RIMS Webinar will celebrate Women's History Month by exploring "Hard Hats & High Stakes: Women Leaders Shaping Construction Risk Management" on March 6th. [2:00] We'll be joined by a Chief Risk Officer, an underwriter, and a broker, who will explore their career paths and risk and safety philosophies, and lend some insight as to why this is the time for the next generation of leaders to rise. Check out the link in this episode's show notes. [2:23] The RIMS-CRO Certificate Program in Advanced Enterprise Risk Management is hosted by the famous James Lam. This is a live virtual program that helps elevate your expertise and career in ERM. [2:36] You can enroll now for the next cohort, which will be held over 12 weeks from April 14th through June 23rd. Links to registration and enrollment are in this episode's show notes. [2:52] On with the show! Our guest today is Rich Lenkov, Founder and CEO of SERMA, the Sports and Entertainment Risk Management Alliance. Rich is a lawyer by trade, but he is vested in the success of risk management, particularly against the backdrop of sports and entertainment. [3:13] With all the developments, regulations, or lack thereof, Rich has got a lot to say. We'll have a volley of ideas about sports risk management, active shooter preparedness at a stadium, name, image, and likeness rights for college athletes, and other topics. [3:41] Rich is also the host of SERMA's SERMAPod, so it's nice to have a podcasting brother on the show. Let's get to it… [3:49] Interview! Rich Lenkov, welcome to RIMScast! [4:07] Rich tells about hosting the SERMAPod. About 11 years ago, Chicago radio station WGN approached him to do a legal podcast for them, Legal Face-Off. About five years ago, SERMA started the SERMAPod. It's been a lot of fun! This is SERMA's fifth year, too. [4:50] Rich is a Capital Member of Downey & Lenkov. He's a full-time lawyer. This is Rich's 30th year in practice, having started in 1996. [5:16] Downey & Lenkov began in 2001. Rich has been with the firm since 2002. A Midwest-based law firm, Downey & Lenkov primarily handles insurance defense in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. [5:29] Downey & Lenkov does insurance defense in all its forms, from sports and entertainment law to premises liability, workers' compensation, employment, construction, products, and anything like that. They also do some transactional work and some professional liability. [5:47] That's Rich's day job. They're busy and have lots of clients. There's too much work, and not enough lawyers to do it! Rich says that servicing his clients is really rewarding. [6:07] Rich also has a production company. With that background and having worked in sports and entertainment law, he realized that there were not a lot of resources devoted to sports and entertainment risk management. [6:43] In discussing these issues with clients and colleagues, Rich saw a hole in the market for someone to provide content, networking, resources, and information-sharing. So he thought, why not? That's how SERMA got started. [7:01] Justin gives a shoutout to Emily Buckley, a member of both RIMS and SERMA. SERMA hosted a wonderful event at the RIMS ERM Conference 2025 in Seattle, and Emily invited Justin. [7:41] Rich has been a RIMS member, strong advocate, and supporter for almost his whole career. He finds it to be an incredible resource for knowledge and networking. He says the regional and national events are second to none. Lots of SERMA members are RIMS members. [8:03] Early on, SERMA decided to partner with groups like RIMS and local RIMS chapters. As the new kids on the block, SERMA is indebted to RIMS for inviting them to host events with them. [8:49] Rich says that a lot of the risks in sports and entertainment relate to high-profile companies, teams, leagues, and studios. The whole world is watching. When there's a tragedy or a weather event at a sporting event, it's not limited to the grounds. [9:17] There is a lot of scrutiny. Laws are involved, or legislation is produced. These are frequently ground-breaking losses for high-profile brands. Brand protection is important. Some of the biggest companies on the planet are very concerned about how their brand is perceived. [9:39] Rich says, the types of risks and claims are different from "garden-variety" hospitality or construction claims. You're dealing with unique circumstances. How do you extricate actors from the jungles of Costa Rica in a weather event? How do you protect the Super Bowl? [10:03] Those are not things that risk managers deal with every day. They are unique, specialized risks. Rich says he's learning new things every time SERMA provides content that's not seen anywhere else. [10:17] Justin adds that the teams and athletes themselves are some of the most recognizable brands in history, such as Michael Jordan. [10:32] Rich says  SERMA members deal with high-profile claims and risks. SERMA has done lots of content on handling workers' compensation claims from players. A lot of high-profile athletes, making a lot of money, are also pursuing workers' compensation claims. [10:58] Workers' compensation for highly-paid athletes is very expensive. All the teams are very attuned to what they are spending on workers' compensation. [11:11] SERMA brings together lawyers, risk managers, insurers, claims professionals, vendors, outside counsel, and other vendors who support the industry. At the end of 2025, SERMA had around 700 members with a ratio between industry professionals and vendors of seven to one. [11:41] Rich says SERMA consciously makes its environment one where risk managers, claims managers, and general counsel can meet and share resources in a relatively confidential way. [12:02] SERMA is not a space with a lot of salesmanship, but networking is encouraged. SERMA wants everyone to develop relationships. SERMA's priority is to have great, cutting-edge content, rather than just selling products. [12:43] Rich believes cross-disciplinary collaboration is important. We learn from each other. When Rich handles a sports or entertainment claim, he sees it from his perspective; he doesn't know what it's like to have boots on the ground at a venue when they are securing a big event. [13:12] It's important to collaborate with people who handle safety and security. When Rich speaks as an attorney to these folks, they have no idea what effect their initial investigation of a claim will have on discovery or if they go to trial. You have to learn from each other. [13:35] Rich finds that collaboration with risk professionals has been great. SERMA's risk professionals bring a unique perspective to the table. [13:52] A risk manager for a team or venue has to cover everything. A whole world of claims happens on any given sporting event. So much goes on behind the scenes that impacts the risks that the risk manager has to deal with. [14:09] Rich took his son to a Bears game over the weekend; they enjoyed it and went home. The risk manager, for weeks and months before, was dealing with everything from security to food preparation, active shooter drills, player injuries, and claims. [14:29] There is so much that any given game brings on a risk manager. The risk manager starts all over again the next day. It's a challenging environment. Rich says most risk managers would tell you that their jobs are really rewarding. [14:59] Rich was talking to the risk manager for the Boston Celtics. He gets to watch the Celtics every day. Sports risk management is difficult, it's challenging, but it's also a lot of fun. You get to be in spaces that most of us can only dream of. [15:14] Quick Break! RISKWORLD 2026 will be held from May 3rd through the 6th in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. RISKWORLD attracts more than 10,000 risk professionals from across the globe. It's time to Connect, Cultivate, and Collaborate with them. Booth sales are open now! [15:36] General registration and speaker registration are also open right now! Marketplace and Hospitality badges will be available starting on March 3rd. Links are in this episode's show notes. [15:51] Let's Return to Our Interview with SERMA CEO Rich Lenkov! [16:11] Rich says that between operations and the risk team, there is sometimes a lack of communication. Programs that are running well have good communication between operations and the risk team. [16:28] The people running security and game day operations have serious jobs with lots involved. They might not be thinking of some of the things the risk manager thinks about. [16:42] As people see the effects of proper planning and enterprise risk management, they are training the people on the ground to react as quickly as possible and employ many preventive measures to avoid issues in the first place. [17:47] Rich says trending and current topics drive SERMA. SERMA wants to provide content you can't get anywhere else. This space evolves every day. Wherever you get your news, you'll see issues involving sports, entertainment, the law, and risk, almost every day. [18:24] SERMA tries to be a provider of cutting-edge content, as well as a good basis of content that applies to lots of areas in sports and entertainment risk. SERMA decided from the beginning not to be a provider of content and resources for everyone. [18:52] Rich says some of SERMA's webinars only attract a small group of people. SERMA did a webinar on roller skating risk. That's not for everyone, but it's important to a lot of SERMA's members. It's not something you'll see anywhere else. It's very specific, cutting-edge content. [19:13] Justin hosts webinars for RIMS. Some attract a wider audience than others. Quality is prized over quantity. Some webinars that are not as well-attended are information-rich. Some are very exciting to learn about. [19:41] Rich says SERMA was very conscious from the beginning to be a different organization. SERMA is not looking for volume of membership or content. It's looking for quality. SERMAnar in New York, SERMA's tentpole event, is capped at 150 people. In LA last year, it sold out quickly. [20:05] SERMA wants people to leave events feeling that they went to an intimate gathering and met two or three good connections. That's a good use of time. SERMA wants to be a quality content provider. [20:33] SERMAnar IV is The Sports and Entertainment Risk Conference, coming up on April 16th and 17th at Citi Field in New York City. The agenda is packed. [20:47] There are six panels in a day and a half, with lots of great content covering everything from IP issues to how to break into sports and entertainment risk management. There is a general counsel forum. There's a lot of great content. Citi Field is a beautiful place. [21:59] A Final Break! The Spencer Educational Foundation's goal to help build a talent pipeline of risk management and insurance professionals is achieved, in part, by its collaboration with risk management and insurance educators across the U.S. and Canada. [22:19] Spencer awards undergraduate, graduate, Ph.D., and Pre-Instructor of Practice Scholarships to students enrolled at an accredited college or university in the U.S. and Canada, and physically studying in either location. No remote coursework eligibility from other locations. [22:36] Including part-time, graduate scholarships to risk management and insurance professionals continuing their education. [22:41] Since 1980, Spencer has invested more than $11.1 million in the scholarship program with awards to over 1,700 students. More than 85% of Spencer's scholarship recipients remain in the industry to this day. [22:57] They've got undergraduate scholarships, full-time Master's scholarships, part-time Master's scholarships, pre-dissertation Ph.D. candidates, doctoral candidates, and Pre-Instructor of Practice Scholarships all open now. The application deadline is January 31st, 2026. [23:18] Visit SpencerEd.org/scholarships. You'll find the different application buttons. See the link in this episode's show notes for more information. [23:30] Let's Return to the Conclusion of Our Interview with SERMA CEO Rich Lenkov!  [23:39] Justin asks about Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights for college athletes, and the 2021 Supreme Court case NCAA v. Alston, that players in college have the right to earn from their NIL. They can be endorsed by a brand. [24:14] Rich says Alston was the key case that challenged NCAA rules on athlete compensation. The Supreme Court unanimously held that the NCAA's restrictions were unlawful under the Sherman Act. [24:34] It didn't directly address NIL, but it opened the floodgates. Rich comments on how we're seeing the effects of this every day. The Ole Miss quarterback just filed a lawsuit to have a seventh year of eligibility. For many of these players, it's more lucrative to stay in college.  [25:37] Rich says this affects women's college basketball and volleyball, as well. It's benefiting all college athletes and giving more agency to women college athletes. Libby Dunne does a sports clothing line. This is all tied to social media and influencing. [26:41] The Transfer Portal has given athletes the ability to have more of a hand in choosing their future and career. [27:08] Rich says a couple of weeks ago, a lot of major college coaches were bemoaning NIL. There's still no directive from the NCAA on this, in the fifth year. Major programs are complaining. There's room for more regulation. Universities are scrambling to catch up. [28:05] There's a lot of pending legislation. There hasn't been any movement on setting forth regulations we could all abide by that level the playing field. Some universities have a lot deeper pockets than others to deal with this. [28:31] Until there's legislation that makes this a little more equitable, you're going to have a lot of different applications of NIL. [28:42] Justin says January 24th is the Day of the Endangered Lawyer. It highlights the threats to the rule of law and legal independence and the physical safety of lawyers, judges, and legal professionals. [29:07] Rich says, Love Your Lawyer is another way of saying it. International law matters. On his Legal Face-off podcast, Rich discussed this recently with a professor on whether snatching a foreign leader and bringing him to justice in your country is lawful. [29:44] Rich says the adage that everybody hates their lawyer until they need one is true. Not only lawyers but good lawyers are in danger. [30:24] Rich's advice to lawyers is to stick with it. It's hard to stand up to some of the injustices and pressures you might face. The Constitution and international law will outlive most of us. They provide a compass to stick to what's right. [31:15] Rich offers advice on how to succeed in sports and entertainment risk. There is a panel at SERMAnar in New York on it. You have to hustle, network, and get to know people. [31:34] No one is going to knock on your door and give you a job in this incredibly competitive space. A lot of young lawyers want to go into sports and entertainment. You've got to hustle. There are lots of resources out there if you take the initiative. [31:50] Start wherever you can. Get your foot in the door with any sports or entertainment entity or law firm in sports and entertainment. After that, kick the door down and hustle. [32:18] Rich, it's been such a pleasure to record with you and to meet you. We've got the links to SERMA and The SERMA Pod in this episode's show notes. Hopefully, we'll have a chance to catch up at RISKWORLD. [32:51] Special thanks again to SERMA CEO Rich Lenkov for joining us here on RIMScast. A link to TheSERMA.org is in this episode's show notes. There you will also find information about the SERMAnar IV, which will be held on April 16th and 17th, 2026, at Citi Field in New York. [33:11] Be sure to check out The SERMA Pod, which is their podcast. I may be making an appearance there in the near future. [33:20] In this episode's show notes, there are links to prior RIMScast episodes featuring RIMS members who are active in sports and entertainment risk. Those episodes are a slam dunk! [33:33] Plug Time! You can sponsor a RIMScast episode for this, our weekly show, or a dedicated episode. Links to sponsored episodes are in the show notes. [34:00] RIMScast has a global audience of risk and insurance professionals, legal professionals, students, business leaders, C-Suite executives, and more. Let's collaborate and help you reach them! Contact pd@rims.org for more information. [34:18] Become a RIMS member and get access to the tools, thought leadership, and network you need to succeed. Visit RIMS.org/membership or email membershipdept@RIMS.org for more information. [34:35] Risk Knowledge is the RIMS searchable content library that provides relevant information for today's risk professionals. Materials include RIMS executive reports, survey findings, contributed articles, industry research, benchmarking data, and more. [34:50] For the best reporting on the profession of risk management, read Risk Management Magazine at RMMagazine.com. It is written and published by the best minds in risk management. [35:04] Justin Smulison is the Business Content Manager at RIMS. Please remember to subscribe to RIMScast on your favorite podcasting app. You can email us at Content@RIMS.org. [35:15] Practice good risk management, stay safe, and thank you again for your continuous support!   Links: RISKWORLD 2026 Registration — Open for exhibitors, members, and non-members! Reserve your booth at RISKWORLD 2026! RIMS-CRO Certificate Program In Advanced Enterprise Risk Management | April‒June 2026 Cohort | Led by James Lam The Strategic and Enterprise Risk Center RIMS Diversity Equity Inclusion Council RIMS Risk Management magazine | Contribute RIMS Now Spencer Educational Foundation Scholarships | Submission Deadline Jan. 31, 2026 RISK PAC | RIMS Advocacy RIMS-Certified Risk Management Professional (RIMS-CRMP) | Insights Video Series Featuring Joe Milan! SERMA | The SERMAPod | SERMAnar IV: The Sports & Entertainment Risk Conference Upcoming RIMS-CRMP Prep Virtual Workshops: RIMS-CRMP Exam Prep March 10‒11 | April 21‒22, 2026 9:00 am‒4:00 pm EST, Virtual Full RIMS-CRMP Prep Course Schedule See the full calendar of RIMS Virtual Workshops "Storytelling with Data for Risk Management" | Feb. 2‒3 "Applying and Integrating ERM" | Feb 4 "Facilitating Risk-Based Decision Making" | March 4‒5 Upcoming RIMS Webinars: "Hard Hats & High Stakes: Women Leaders Shaping Construction Risk Management" | March 6 | Presented by RIMS RIMS.org/Webinars   Related RIMScast Episodes: "ERM, Retail, and Risk with Jeff Strege" "Supply and Bike Chains with Emily Buckley" "Risk and Leadership Patterns with Super Bowl Champion Ryan Harris"   Sponsored RIMScast Episodes: "Secondary Perils, Major Risks: The New Face of Weather-Related Challenges" | Sponsored by AXA XL (New!) "The ART of Risk: Rethinking Risk Through Insight, Design, and Innovation" | Sponsored by Alliant "Mastering ERM: Leveraging Internal and External Risk Factors" | Sponsored by Diligent "Cyberrisk: Preparing Beyond 2025" | Sponsored by Alliant "The New Reality of Risk Engineering: From Code Compliance to Resilience" | Sponsored by AXA XL "Change Management: AI's Role in Loss Control and Property Insurance" | Sponsored by Global Risk Consultants, a TÜV SÜD Company "Demystifying Multinational Fronting Insurance Programs" | Sponsored by Zurich "Understanding Third-Party Litigation Funding" | Sponsored by Zurich "What Risk Managers Can Learn From School Shootings" | Sponsored by Merrill Herzog "Simplifying the Challenges of OSHA Recordkeeping" | Sponsored by Medcor "How Insurance Builds Resilience Against An Active Assailant Attack" | Sponsored by Merrill Herzog "Third-Party and Cyber Risk Management Tips" | Sponsored by Alliant   RIMS Publications, Content, and Links: RIMS Membership — Whether you are a new member or need to transition, be a part of the global risk management community! RIMS Virtual Workshops On-Demand Webinars RIMS-Certified Risk Management Professional (RIMS-CRMP) RISK PAC | RIMS Advocacy RIMS Strategic & Enterprise Risk Center RIMS-CRMP Stories — Featuring RIMS President Kristen Peed!   RIMS Events, Education, and Services: RIMS Risk Maturity Model®   Sponsor RIMScast: Contact sales@rims.org or pd@rims.org for more information.   Want to Learn More? Keep up with the podcast on RIMS.org, and listen on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.   Have a question or suggestion? Email: Content@rims.org.   Join the Conversation! Follow @RIMSorg on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.   About our guest: Rich Lenkov, Founder and CEO of SERMA Capital Member of Downey & Lenkov LLC The SERMA Pod   Production and engineering provided by Podfly.  

Can Therapists Start a Union? The Antitrust Trap, the Shadow Committee, and the Economic Strangulation of American Psychotherapy Analyzing America's Healthcare Regulations and Their Effect on Us: Why the Law Prevents Therapists from Organizing While Allowing a Private Committee to Fix Prices for the Entire Medical System https://gettherapybirmingham.com/can-therapists-start-a-union-spoiler-alert-they-cant/ The Monthly Rage Thread If you hang around therapist forums long enough, you will see it happen. It operates with the regularity of the tides. Someone posts a thread, usually after receiving a contract from an insurance company offering 1998 rates for 2025 work, and asks the obvious question: “We are the ones providing the care. The system collapses without us. Why don't we just all go on strike? Why don't we form a union and demand fair pay?” It is a logical question. In almost every other sector of the economy, workers who feel exploited band together to negotiate better terms. Screenwriters shut down Hollywood to get paid for streaming residuals. Auto workers walk off the line. Teachers fill the state capitol. Nurses at major hospital systems have successfully unionized and won significant concessions. So why, in the midst of a national mental health crisis, does the mental health workforce remain so politically impotent? The answer is not that we lack will. It is not that we lack organization. The answer is that for private practice therapists, forming a union is a federal crime. This is not a political manifesto. It is an analysis of the bizarre regulatory environment that governs American healthcare, a system of antitrust laws, shadow committees, and bureaucratic classifications that effectively strips clinicians of their bargaining power while empowering the corporations that pay them. If you want to understand why corporate tech monopolies are ruining therapy, or why the corporatization of healthcare feels so suffocating, you have to understand the legal straitjacket we are all wearing. And you have to understand the one group that is allowed to set prices, the one group exempt from the rules that bind the rest of us. Part I: You Are Not a Worker, You Are a Standard Oil Tycoon The primary reason therapists cannot unionize dates back to the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was designed to prevent massive corporations like Standard Oil from colluding to fix prices and destroy the free market. It prohibits “every contract, combination… or conspiracy, in restraint of trade.” The law was a response to genuine abuses: companies buying up competitors, dividing territories, and coordinating prices to gouge consumers who had no alternatives. Here is the catch: In the eyes of the federal government, a private practice therapist is not a “worker.” You are a business entity. Even if you are a solo practitioner struggling to pay rent in a subleased office, seeing clients between crying in your car and eating lunch at your desk, the law views you as the CEO of a micro-corporation. You are classified as a 1099 independent contractor, not a W-2 employee, and that distinction makes all the difference in the world. If two workers at Starbucks talk about their wages and agree to ask for a raise, that is “collective bargaining,” which is protected by the National Labor Relations Act. But if two private practice therapists talk about their reimbursement rates and agree to ask Blue Cross for a raise, that is “price-fixing.” It is legally indistinguishable, in the eyes of the Federal Trade Commission, from gas stations conspiring to raise the price of unleaded. It sounds absurd, but the FTC takes it deadly seriously. When independent contractors organize to demand higher rates, when they share information about what they are being paid and coordinate their responses, they are engaging in horizontal price-fixing, one of the most serious violations of antitrust law. The Sherman Act provides for criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment. The law that was meant to break up monopolies is now used to prevent social workers from asking for a cost-of-living adjustment. The irony is crushing. The same regulatory framework that prevents two therapists from discussing their rates allows massive insurance conglomerates to merge repeatedly, concentrating buyer power in fewer and fewer hands. UnitedHealth Group, for example, has acquired dozens of companies over the past two decades, becoming the largest healthcare company in the United States. When they offer a “take it or leave it” contract to providers, they do so with the full knowledge that fragmented, legally prohibited from organizing therapists have no counter-leverage. The antitrust laws, designed to prevent monopoly power, have created a system where sellers are atomized and buyers are consolidated. Economists call this “monopsony,” and it is precisely the market distortion the Sherman Act was supposed to prevent. Part II: The Day the “Learned Profession” Died For a long time, doctors and lawyers thought they were exempt from these laws. They argued that they were “learned professions,” not mere tradespeople, and therefore above the grubby laws of commerce. They believed that their ethical obligations to patients and clients set them apart from the rules that governed steel mills and meatpacking plants. Medicine was a calling, not a business, and surely the government would not regulate the sacred doctor-patient relationship as if it were a commercial transaction. That illusion was shattered in 1975 by the Supreme Court case Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar. The case involved lawyers, not doctors, but its implications cascaded through every licensed profession in America. The Goldfarbs were purchasing a home and needed a title examination. The Virginia State Bar had established a minimum fee schedule for such services, and every lawyer they contacted quoted the exact same price. They sued, arguing that this fee schedule was illegal price-fixing. The Supreme Court agreed. In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that professional services, including legal and medical advice, are “trade or commerce” subject to antitrust laws. The “learned profession” exemption, which had been assumed but never explicitly established in law, was declared a myth. “The nature of an occupation, standing alone,” the Court wrote, “does not provide sanctuary from the Sherman Act.” This ruling was intended to lower prices for consumers by preventing lawyers from setting minimum fees, and in that narrow sense it was a good thing. But in healthcare, it had a catastrophic side effect: it made it illegal for doctors and therapists to band together to resist the pricing power of insurance companies. The “learned profession” exemption is dead. We are now just businesses, and businesses are not allowed to hold hands. This creates the illusion of progress: we have “free market” competition among providers, but monopsony power among payers. It is a market where the sellers are forbidden from organizing, but the buyers are allowed to merge until they are too big to fail. The result is not a free market at all. It is a market designed to transfer wealth from one class (providers) to another (insurers and administrators), with the law itself serving as the enforcement mechanism. Part III: The Cartel in the Basement If therapists cannot collude to set prices, surely nobody else can, right? Wrong. There is one group in American healthcare that is allowed to meet in a room, decide what every doctor's time is worth, and set prices for the entire industry. It is called the RUC, the AMA/Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee. And understanding the RUC is the key to understanding why talk therapy is dying in the medical model, why psychiatrists abandoned the couch for the prescription pad, and why your insurance company offers you a ghost network of providers who never answer the phone. The Birth of a Shadow Government To comprehend the current crisis in mental health economics, one must excavate the foundations of the physician payment system. Prior to 1992, Medicare reimbursed physicians based on a system known as “Customary, Prevailing, and Reasonable” charges. Under this system, physicians were paid based on their historical billing charges. It was inherently inflationary; it rewarded those who raised their fees most aggressively and created wide geographic disparities for identical services. In response to spiraling costs, Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, mandating a transition to a fee schedule based on the resources required to provide a service. This birthed the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale. The intellectual architecture for this system was developed by a team of economists at Harvard University, led by William Hsiao. Hsiao's team sought to create a “unified theory” of medical value, attempting to quantify the “work” involved in disparate medical acts, comparing the cognitive intensity of a psychiatric evaluation with the technical skill of a hernia repair. The Harvard study was revolutionary. It promised to level the playing field, suggesting that cognitive services, the thinking and talking that comprises primary care and mental health, were vastly undervalued relative to surgical procedures. Had Hsiao's original recommendations been implemented purely, the income gap between generalists and specialists might have narrowed significantly. But the administrative complexity of assigning values to over 7,000 Current Procedural Terminology codes overwhelmed the Health Care Financing Administration. Into this administrative vacuum stepped the American Medical Association. The AMA, fearing that the government would unilaterally set prices, proposed a “partnership.” They would convene a committee of experts to maintain and update the relative values, providing this labor-intensive service to the government at no cost. The government accepted. Thus, in 1991, the RUC was born, not as a government agency, but as a private advisory body with unparalleled influence over public funds. The Architecture of Control The RUC's claim to legitimacy rests on its status as an “expert panel.” But a structural analysis of its composition reveals a profound bias that mimics the governance of a cartel designed to protect incumbent interests. The committee consists of 32 members, but power is concentrated in the 29 voting seats. Of these, 21 seats are appointed by major national medical specialty societies. The distribution is not proportional to the volume of services provided to Medicare beneficiaries, nor is it proportional to the physician workforce. Instead, it is frozen in a historical moment that favored high-technology specialties. Primary care physicians, who perform roughly 45 to 50 percent of Medicare work, hold approximately 4 to 5 seats, giving them about 17 percent of the vote. Procedural and surgical specialties, including surgery, radiology, and anesthesiology, hold 15 to 18 seats, giving them roughly 60 percent of the vote despite performing only 35 to 40 percent of Medicare work. The American Psychiatric Association holds a single seat. One seat. This lone representative must negotiate with a supermajority of specialists, neurosurgeons, cardiothoracic surgeons, radiologists, and ophthalmologists, whose financial interests are often diametrically opposed to the valuation of cognitive work. The cartel dynamic is enforced by a statutory requirement of budget neutrality. The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule is a zero-sum game. If the total relative value units projected for a given year exceed the budget, a “scaler” is applied to reduce the conversion factor, effectively cutting everyone's pay. Therefore, any proposal to increase the value of psychotherapy, which would increase the total RVU spend, effectively asks every surgeon in the room to take a pay cut to fund the raise for psychiatrists. Given that a two-thirds majority is required to pass a recommendation, the procedural bloc holds absolute veto power over any redistribution of wealth. The Secret Chamber A hallmark of cartel behavior is the restriction of information. For nearly two decades, the RUC operated in near-total secrecy. While recent years have seen minor concessions to transparency, such as the publication of vote totals, the core deliberative process remains opaque. RUC meetings are private. The public, the press, and even non-RUC physicians are largely barred from attending the deliberations where billions of tax dollars are allocated. Participants, including the specialty advisors who present data, must sign strict non-disclosure agreements. These agreements prevent them from discussing the specific tradeoffs, deals, or arguments made within the chamber. A former RUC participant described these agreements as “draconian,” designed to insulate the committee from public accountability. The Government Accountability Office and the Center for American Progress have noted the inherent conflict of interest. The individuals setting the prices are the same individuals who receive the payments. Unlike a regulatory agency, where officials are salaried and divested of industry assets, RUC members are practicing physicians whose personal incomes are directly tied to the decisions they make. This secrecy serves a functional purpose: it allows for “logrolling.” A representative from Orthopedics might support an inflated value for a Cardiology code in exchange for Cardiology's support on a Knee Replacement code. This “I'll scratch your back” dynamic creates an upward pressure on procedural values that excludes those outside the dominant coalition, specifically primary care and mental health. The Antitrust Shield Why has the Department of Justice not broken up this cartel? The legal shield is the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine. This Supreme Court doctrine establishes that private entities are immune from antitrust liability when they are petitioning the government. Because the RUC technically only “recommends” values to CMS (that is petitioning), and CMS “decides” (that is government action), the RUC is protected by the First Amendment right to petition. This legal loophole allows the RUC to operate with monopolistic characteristics without fear of prosecution, provided CMS continues to go through the motions of “reviewing” the recommendations. And CMS accepts those recommendations over 90 percent of the time. Because private insurance companies generally base their rates on Medicare, this private committee effectively sets the price of healthcare for the entire country. If independent therapists did this, if they gathered in a room and agreed on what their services should cost, they would face criminal prosecution. But because the RUC operates under the fiction of “advising” the government, it is protected. The same regulatory framework that criminalizes therapist solidarity provides cover for industry-wide price coordination by the most powerful medical specialties. Part IV: The Mechanics of Suppression To control a market, one must control its currency. In American medicine, that currency is the Relative Value Unit. Every medical service, from a 15-minute therapy session to a heart transplant, is assigned a total RVU value. This value is the sum of three components: the Work RVU, which accounts for physician time, technical skill, mental effort, and judgment; the Practice Expense RVU, which covers overhead costs like rent, staff, and equipment; and the Malpractice RVU, which reflects professional liability insurance costs. The Work RVU, which comprises roughly 50 to 55 percent of the total value, is determined by RUC surveys. When a code is flagged for review, the relevant specialty society distributes a survey to a sample of its members. These respondents are asked to estimate the time and intensity of the service compared to a “reference service.” This methodology violates several principles of statistical validity. The surveys are voluntary and distributed by the specialty societies themselves. The respondents are typically those most active in the society and most invested in maximizing reimbursement, advocates rather than neutral observers. The sample sizes are often shockingly small; RUC surveys frequently rely on fewer than 50 or 70 respondents to set the price for services performed millions of times annually. A sample of 30 orthopedic surgeons might determine the value of a procedure costing Medicare billions. The Time Arbitrage The most critical variable in the RUC equation is time. The Work RVU is conceptually derived from the formula: Work equals Time multiplied by Intensity. Therefore, inflating the time estimate is the most direct route to inflating the price. Independent studies by RAND and the Urban Institute, often using objective data like Operating Room logs, have consistently shown that the RUC overestimates the time required for surgical procedures. A procedure valued by the RUC as taking 60 minutes may, in reality, take 30 minutes. This creates an arbitrage opportunity. If a gastroenterologist can perform a “60-minute” colonoscopy in 20 minutes, they can effectively perform three procedures in the time allotted for one. They bill for three hours of work in one hour of real time. This “efficiency gain” is captured entirely by the physician as profit. Psychotherapy cannot utilize this arbitrage. CPT codes for psychotherapy are explicitly time-based in their definition. Code 90832 requires 16 to 37 minutes. Code 90834 requires 38 to 52 minutes. Code 90837 requires 53 minutes or more. A psychiatrist cannot perform a 60-minute therapy session in 20 minutes; doing so constitutes fraud. Therefore, the revenue of a psychotherapist is capped by the linear passage of time. They can sell, at maximum, roughly 8 to 10 units of labor per day. A proceduralist, aided by RUC-inflated time assumptions, can sell 20 or 30 units of “RUC time” in the same day. This structural discrepancy creates a widening income gap that no amount of “hard work” by the therapist can close. It is not a market failure. It is market design. The “Thinking” Penalty The RUC's bias is not merely structural; it is philosophical. The committee, dominated by surgeons and proceduralists, consistently values “doing things to people,” cutting, scanning, injecting, far more highly than “talking to people,” diagnosing, counseling, managing complex chronic conditions. This creates a regulatory environment that functions as a de facto wealth transfer from cognitive care to procedural care. In 2013, a major revision of psychiatry codes exposed this bias in stark relief. Previously, psychiatrists used codes that bundled the medical evaluation with the psychotherapy. The new system required psychiatrists to bill an E/M code for the medical management plus an “add-on” code for psychotherapy. While intended to improve transparency, this change exposed psychotherapy to the raw mechanics of the RUC's valuation bias. By isolating the “therapy” component, the committee could subject it to rigorous cross-specialty comparison. And the committee, dominated by surgeons, views “talking to a patient” as low-intensity work compared to “operating on a patient.” The economic signal was clear. This created the 15-minute med check culture not because psychiatrists stopped caring, but because the regulatory environment made relational care financial suicide. It effectively “illegalized” the practice of deep, slow psychiatry for anyone who wanted to take insurance. Part V: The “Messenger Model” and Other Legal Fictions When therapists ask about collective bargaining, lawyers will often point them to the only legal loophole available: the “Messenger Model.” In this model, a third party (the messenger) acts as an intermediary between a group of providers and an insurance company. The messenger takes the insurance company's offer and conveys it to each therapist individually. Each therapist must then make a unilateral, independent decision to accept or reject it. The messenger is strictly forbidden from negotiating. They cannot say, “The group rejects this.” They cannot say, “We want 10% more.” They cannot advise the therapists on what to do. They can only carry messages. This is why “Independent Practice Associations” are often toothless. In the 2008 case North Texas Specialty Physicians v. FTC, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals made clear that if an IPA actually tries to leverage its numbers to demand better rates, it violates antitrust laws. If it follows the messenger model, it has no leverage. It is a “heads I win, tails you lose” regulatory structure designed to protect payers, not providers. The only exception is “clinical integration,” where providers genuinely merge their practices, share infrastructure, and accept joint financial risk. But this requires substantial capital investment and essentially means ceasing to be an independent practitioner. It is a legal pathway available mainly to large physician groups and hospital systems, not to solo therapists working out of rented offices. Part VI: Market Distortions and the Flight to Cash When a cartel sets a price below the market equilibrium, suppliers exit the formal market. This is precisely what has happened in psychotherapy. Mental health providers generally have lower overhead than surgeons. They do not need MRI machines or sterile surgical suites. And they face high consumer demand; the national mental health crisis ensures a steady stream of people seeking services. This gives them an “exit option” that proceduralists do not have. They can refuse to accept insurance and operate as cash-only businesses. The statistics are stark. Nearly 50 percent of psychiatrists do not accept commercial insurance, compared to less than 10 percent of other specialists. A 2023 survey indicated that 64 percent of private practice therapists planned to increase their cash-pay rates. Research published in Health Affairs Scholar found that patients are 10.6 times more likely to go out-of-network for mental health care than for medical/surgical care. This mass exodus is a rational economic response to RUC-suppressed rates. If the RUC says an hour of therapy is worth $100 via the RVU-to-dollar conversion, but the market demand is willing to pay $250, the provider will leave the RUC-controlled sector. They are not abandoning their profession; they are abandoning a pricing regime that values their work at less than half its market rate. Ghost Networks The RUC's pricing failure creates “Ghost Networks,” directories filled with providers who are ostensibly “in-network” but are functionally inaccessible. They are either full, not accepting new patients, retired, have moved, or simply do not respond to inquiries from insurance-based patients because the administrative burden of prior authorizations and clawbacks outweighs the suppressed fee. This is not a “shortage” of providers in the absolute sense. There is no shortage of therapists in private practice. There is a shortage of therapists willing to work at the RUC-determined price point. The insurance directories are graveyards of phantom availability, creating the illusion of access where none exists. The Cost Paradox The central thesis of the RUC's defenders is that they “control costs.” By strictly managing RVUs, they claim to save taxpayer money. In psychotherapy, this logic backfires catastrophically. By suppressing reimbursement rates to a level that drives providers out of the network, the RUC forces patients into the cash market. The theoretical in-network cost might be a $20 copay with the insurer paying $100. The actual out-of-network cost is $250 cash out-of-pocket, paid in full by the patient. Thus, the “cost of therapy” for the consumer skyrockets. Therapy becomes a luxury good, accessible only to those with disposable income. For the poor and middle class, the “cost” is effectively infinite, because the service becomes inaccessible. The RUC's cost-control measure for the system becomes a cost-multiplier for the patient. It shifts the financial burden from the risk pool, where it belongs, to the individual, where it causes maximum harm. The Signal to Students The RUC sends powerful economic signals to medical students making career decisions. When a student observes that a dermatologist or radiologist can earn $500,000 working regular hours, while a psychiatrist earns $240,000 handling emotional trauma and on-call emergencies, while a primary care doctor earns even less, the choice is clear for those motivated by financial security. The undervaluation of cognitive codes discourages the best and brightest from entering mental health and primary care. The cartel's pricing structure creates a perpetual labor shortage in the fields most needed for public health, while creating a surplus in high-margin procedural specialties. We then wonder why there are not enough psychiatrists, why primary care is in crisis, why mental health access is collapsing. The answer is in the price signal, and the price signal is set by a committee of proceduralists meeting behind closed doors. The Hands Are Tied The question “Why can't therapists start a union?” is not just a labor question. It is a window into the broken soul of American healthcare. We have built a system where a secret committee of proceduralists can legally fix prices to favor surgery over therapy, but a group of social workers cannot band together to ask for a living wage. We have utilized laws meant to break up Standard Oil to break up the solidarity of caregivers. The same regulatory framework that criminalizes therapist coordination provides legal cover for industry-wide price coordination by the most powerful medical specialties. The result is a regulatory environment that drives doctors crazy, burns out therapists, and leaves patients navigating a fragmented, assembly-line system that was never designed to heal them. It was designed to process them. Until we confront the legal architecture of this system, the RUC, the Sherman Act, the 1099 trap, we will remain powerless to change it. And the reality of therapy is that quick fixes, whether in treatment or in policy, usually end up costing us more in the end. Some states are beginning to push back. New York and California have implemented strict network adequacy standards requiring mental health appointments within 10 business days. These regulations force insurers to expand their networks, which means they must attract providers, which means they must raise reimbursement rates above the RUC/Medicare floor. It is effectively a state-level override of the RUC cartel, forcing capital back into the mental health labor market. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission has long advocated for stripping the RUC of its power, proposing the use of empirical data, tax returns, payroll records, practice invoices, to set values automatically. But these are patchwork solutions to a systemic problem. The fundamental issue remains: we have created a healthcare system that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. We have engineered a system where the only way to survive is to stop acting like a healer and start acting like a factory. And we have wrapped this system in a legal framework that criminalizes resistance while protecting the status quo. The hands are tied. But at least now we can see the ropes. Bibliography For those interested in the primary sources and legal texts that underpin this analysis, the following external resources provide high-trust verification of the claims made above: Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975): The Supreme Court decision that ended the “learned profession” exemption from antitrust laws. Read the Oyez Summary. The Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7): The foundational text of US antitrust law prohibiting restraint of trade. Read the Document at the National Archives. North Texas Specialty Physicians v. Federal Trade Commission (5th Cir. 2008): A key ruling establishing that independent physicians cannot collectively bargain on fees without financial integration. Read the Court Opinion. FTC/DOJ Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care (1996): The federal guidelines explaining the “Messenger Model” and the narrow exceptions for clinical integration. Read the Guidelines (PDF). The RUC (AMA/Specialty Society RVS Update Committee): The AMA's own description of the committee structure and its role in valuing physician work. Visit the AMA RUC Page. “Special Deal” by Haley Sweetland Edwards (Washington Monthly, 2013): An investigative deep-dive into how the RUC operates and its impact on primary care vs. specialty pay. Read the Investigation. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA): The law governing the right to unionize, which specifically excludes independent contractors. Read the NLRA. Laugesen, Miriam J. Fixing Medical Prices: How Physicians Are Paid. Harvard University Press, 2016. The definitive scholarly analysis of the RUC's history, structure, and influence on American healthcare pricing. Government Accountability Office. “Medicare Physician Payment Rates: Better Data and Greater Transparency Could Improve Accuracy.” 2015. GAO's critical analysis of RUC methodology and conflicts of interest. Center for American Progress. “Rethinking the RUC.” 2015. Policy analysis of the RUC's structural bias against primary care and cognitive services. Health Affairs Scholar. “Insurance Acceptance and Cash Pay Rates for Psychotherapy in the US.” 2023. Empirical research on out-of-network utilization in mental health care. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). “Report to the Congress: Medicare and the Health Care Delivery System.” 2024. Annual policy recommendations including proposals for reforming physician fee schedule methodology. Joel Blackstock, LICSW-S, is the Clinical Director of Taproot Therapy Collective in Hoover, Alabama. He specializes in complex trauma treatment and writes at GetTherapyBirmingham.com.  

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

This Day in Legal History: Clayton Antitrust Act PassedOn October 15, 1914, Congress passed the Clayton Antitrust Act, a landmark piece of legislation aimed at strengthening U.S. antitrust law and curbing anti-competitive business practices. The Act was designed to build upon the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which had proven inadequate in addressing certain forms of corporate behavior that undermined market fairness. Unlike the Sherman Act, which broadly prohibited monopolistic conduct, the Clayton Act identified specific practices as illegal when they substantially lessened competition or created a monopoly.The law targeted interlocking directorates—situations where the same individuals served on the boards of competing companies—recognizing such arrangements as fertile ground for collusion. It also outlawed price discrimination that lessened competition, exclusive dealing contracts that restricted a buyer's ability to purchase from competitors, and mergers or acquisitions that threatened market competition. Another critical provision banned tying agreements, where the sale of one product was conditioned on the purchase of another, potentially unrelated, product.The Clayton Act was notable for providing more detailed guidance to businesses and regulators, reducing ambiguity that had plagued the enforcement of the Sherman Act. It also allowed for both government and private parties to seek injunctive relief and recover damages, increasing the avenues for challenging anti-competitive behavior. Importantly, labor unions and agricultural organizations were exempted from the Act's provisions, a significant shift from previous antitrust enforcement that had often targeted labor as a “combination in restraint of trade.”This legislative move reflected the progressive era's push to check corporate power and protect consumers and smaller businesses from monopolistic abuses. The Federal Trade Commission Act, passed just weeks earlier, worked in tandem with the Clayton Act to provide an institutional mechanism—the FTC—for enforcement. Together, these laws marked a turning point in the federal government's role in regulating the economy and ensuring competitive markets.The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today in a case challenging Louisiana's congressional map, a dispute that could undermine Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—a key provision prohibiting electoral practices that dilute minority voting power, even without direct evidence of racist intent. The controversy centers on Louisiana's post-2020 redistricting, initially producing a map with only one Black-majority district despite Black residents comprising about a third of the state's population. A federal judge sided with Black voters who challenged the map, prompting lawmakers to draw a new version adding a second Black-majority district.That revision sparked a separate lawsuit from white voters who claimed the new map unfairly diminished their voting influence. A three-judge panel agreed, ruling the map relied too heavily on race and violated the Equal Protection Clause. The state, which had previously defended the redrawn map, has now reversed course and is urging the justices to bar race-conscious districting entirely.This marks the second time the Court will hear arguments in the case this year, after sidestepping a decision in June. With its 6-3 conservative majority, the Court could issue a ruling that weakens Section 2, building on a 2013 decision that nullified another major part of the Voting Rights Act. However, a 2023 decision saw Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh side with liberals in upholding Section 2 in an Alabama case. The outcome could impact congressional control, with Democrats warning that as many as 19 districts could be redrawn if Section 2 is curtailed.By way of brief background, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits any voting practice or procedure that results in discrimination based on race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Originally passed in 1965 and strengthened by Congress in 1982, the provision allows voters to challenge laws that either deny the right to vote outright (“vote deprivation”) or weaken the effectiveness of their vote (“vote dilution”), even if no discriminatory intent can be proven. Courts reviewing Section 2 claims consider the totality of circumstances to determine whether minority voters have an equal opportunity to participate in elections and elect candidates of their choice. In redistricting cases, plaintiffs must show that minority voters are numerous and politically unified enough to elect a representative, and that white voters typically vote as a bloc to defeat them. The Supreme Court has clarified over time that states aren't required to maximize minority districts, but race-based line drawing must strike a balance between avoiding racial discrimination and complying with equal protection principles. As other parts of the Voting Rights Act have been weakened, Section 2 has taken on even greater importance in protecting minority voting rights.US Supreme Court to hear case that takes aim at Voting Rights Act | ReutersElon Musk's $56 billion Tesla compensation package heads to the Delaware Supreme Court today, marking the final stage of a high-stakes corporate legal battle. A lower court struck down the record-setting pay plan in January 2024, ruling that Tesla's board was not sufficiently independent and that shareholders lacked vital information when they approved the deal in 2018. Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery found the award unfair and applied strict legal scrutiny, igniting criticism from business leaders who argue Delaware courts are increasingly hostile to entrepreneurs.In response to the ruling, some companies—including Tesla—relocated their legal incorporation from Delaware to states like Texas and Nevada, where corporate governance laws are more lenient. This exodus, dubbed “Dexit,” prompted Delaware lawmakers to revise the state's corporate statutes in an attempt to retain business charters.Musk's legal team contends that McCormick misapplied the law and ignored evidence that Tesla shareholders were fully informed when they approved the deal. They argue the board's decision should have been reviewed under the more deferential “business judgment” standard. Despite the setback, Musk remains in line to receive billions under a replacement compensation plan approved in August, aimed at retaining him as Tesla shifts focus to robotics and autonomous technology.Tesla's board also proposed a $1 trillion future compensation framework, underscoring confidence in Musk's leadership, even as the company faces slowing EV demand and stiff competition from China. The Delaware justices will also weigh whether Tesla must pay $345 million in legal fees to the shareholder who brought the lawsuit. The Court typically takes months to issue a decision.Musk's legal fight over $56 billion payday from Tesla enters final stage | ReutersAustralia's High Court upheld the government's decision to deny far-right U.S. commentator Candace Owens a visa, citing concerns that her presence could incite social discord. Owens had applied for a visa to conduct a speaking tour in late 2024, but Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke rejected the request, referencing her history of controversial remarks—including Holocaust denial and Islamophobic statements. Owens challenged the decision, arguing that it violated the implied freedom of political communication in Australia's Constitution. The court unanimously disagreed, emphasizing that this freedom is not an absolute personal right and that the Migration Act's restrictions served a legitimate purpose in safeguarding public order.The judges found that Owens' record of inflammatory commentary—touching on issues such as race, religion, gender, and public health—posed a significant risk of social division. The ruling also noted that denying her visa was consistent with protecting Australia's national interest and social cohesion. As a result, Owens was ordered to pay the government's legal costs.Far-right US influencer Candace Owens loses legal fight to enter Australia | ReutersA federal judge ruled that the Trump administration defied a prior court order by reintroducing nearly identical immigration-related conditions for states to receive FEMA emergency preparedness grants. Judge William Smith, based in Rhode Island, had previously struck down the original grant conditions, which required state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. After his ruling, the Department of Homeland Security issued new grant documents with the same conditions, adding a clause that they would only take effect if the ruling was overturned. Smith rejected this workaround, stating that it was not a good faith attempt at compliance but a coercive tactic to pressure states into supporting federal immigration efforts.He ordered the administration to remove the conditions by the following week, emphasizing that states should not be forced to choose between upholding their policies and losing critical disaster funding. The judge characterized the move as an unlawful effort to bully states, not a legitimate policy revision. DHS did not immediately comment on the ruling. The case is one of several legal challenges brought by Democratic-led states aimed at halting parts of Trump's immigration agenda through the courts.Trump administration flouted court order on FEMA grant funding, US judge rules | 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

My guest today is Bailey Sanders, a Visiting Assistant Professor of Law at Duke University. Her work examines how market competition can advance gender equality and the critical role of women's representation in law and politics. Her research bridges antitrust, constitutional law, and gender equity, and has appeared or is forthcoming in leading law reviews and peer-reviewed journals. She is also co-author of The Fundamental Voter: American Electoral Democracy, 1952–2020 (Oxford University Press, 2024).Sanders received her JD and PhD in Political Science from Duke University before clerking for Judge Gerald B. Tjoflat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and practicing in the antitrust group at McDermott Will & Emery in Washington, D.C. Most importantly, she was my student at Duke Law School during the height of Covid, and one of the few bright spots in my zoom day. She joins us today to discuss her paper, Religious Riders and the Sherman Act, forthcoming in the Michigan Law Review. This episode is co-hosted by UVA Law 2Ls Sari Mithal and Cindy Tran.Show NotesAbout Bailey SandersAbout Kim KrawiecAbout Sari MithalAbout Cindy TranSanders, Bailey, Religious Riders and the Sherman Act (January 01, 2024). Michigan Law Review, Forthcoming. Bailey Sanders, Barak Richman, and Kierra B. Jones, “Growing Market Power Among Catholic Hospitals Restrains Access to Reproductive Health Care”, American Progress (SEP 29, 2025)Bailey Sanders, “The Price of Fertility: Egg Donor Compensation in the United States Following Kamakahi v. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine,” Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy, Vol. 22 (2022)Kimberly D. Krawiec, Sunny Samaritans and Egomaniacs: Price-Fixing in the Gamete Market, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 72, No. 3, 2009. Kimberly D. Krawiec, Gametes: Commodification and The Fertility Industry, The Routledge Handbook of Commodification, Vida Panitch and Elodie Bertrand eds., 2023.

What if business insiders could accelerate antitrust enforcement as they have done with other corporate misconduct, like fraud? That's exactly what the Department of Justice is hoping for.In this special episode* of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, I'm joined by Julie Keeton Bracker of Bracker & Marcus and Dan Mogin of Mogin Law to dig into a new program designed to motivate antitrust whistleblowers.They trace the roots of qui tam cases—laws that let private citizens, called relators, bring suits on behalf of the government—and why they remain one of the most powerful tools for uncovering corporate fraud and misconduct. Julie explains historical and modern False Claims Act litigation, and Dan walks us through the machinations of private and public enforcement of antitrust laws, the Sherman Act being the big dog in this fight. Together they describe the Department of Justice's aspirations to bring individuals into the antitrust enforcement game.Along the way, Julie and Dan share lessons from their practices and insights on where whistleblower and antitrust enforcement may be headed next.If you've ever wondered how whistleblowers drive billion-dollar recoveries, or what the rise of antitrust whistleblowing means for businesses and enforcers alike, this episode is worth a listen.Thanks to Julie and Dan for sharing their insights based on decades of practice in two challenging and important areas of law. Tom HagyHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastP.S. You can also watch this podcast and slide presentation on the HB Litigation News YouTube Channel. *We produced this simultaneously as a CLE webinar, because we're just that clever. Look for it on the CeriFi LegalEdge CLE platform. ______________________________________ Thanks for listening! If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps. If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more. Tom on LinkedIn Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

Antitrust: Does the NCAA's 5-year rule, which counts time spent in junior college, violate the Sherman Act? - Argued: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 10:43:22 EDT

One year ago, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta held that “Google is a monopolist and has acted as one to maintain its monopoly”, and, in doing so, violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. On Tuesday, September 2, 2025, Judge Mehta’s remedy decision rejected the United States’ request for structural relief and indicated only limited conduct and behavioral requirements were appropriate to address any past effect of Google’s conduct and to protect competition going forward. Does either party have substantive grounds to expect an appellate court to reverse Judge Mehta’s liability and remedy decision? Is the remedy decision consistent with the liability decision (and vice-versa)? What are the next steps to implementing the remedy decision? What is the likely impact of Judge Mehta’s liability and remedy decisions on Google, monopolization law, and the Government’s anti-monopoly agenda. Please join our body of expert lawyers for a discussion of these and other related questions.Featuring:Alden F. Abbott, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason UniversityAshley Baker, Executive Director, The Committee for JusticeKathleen W. Bradish, Vice President and Director of Legal Advocacy, American Antitrust InstituteDerek W. Moore, Counsel, Rule Garza Howley LLP(Moderator) Bilal Sayyed, Counsel, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

While most of us have heard of the Sherman Act, few have savored Senator John Sherman's speech to the Senate in defense of that act.  Today, I present to you my reading of an edited version of that speech, in this Bonus Episode: Senator John Sherman's Address to The Senate.

On this episode of Ruled by Reason, AAI Senior Counsel David O. Fisher chats with legal scholar Giovanna Massarotto about what antitrust law can learn from computer science, and particularly how understanding agreement algorithms can help courts and enforcers police algorithmic price-fixing and other illegal agreements under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.   The conversation centers on Massarotto's recent paper,  Detecting Algorithmic Collusion, which examines the characteristics of agreement algorithms and how they can inform the “plus factor” analysis courts use to determine the likelihood of an illegal agreement. It begins with an introduction to the concept of a "distributed system," which is any network of computers that works together to perform a common task, the Bitcoin blockchain being one notable example (5:25). It then examines the Byzantine Generals Problem, a classic story illustrating how the nodes in a distributed network can reach an agreement despite the existence of one or more unreliable nodes, which has parallels to the formation of stable cartel agreements (9:09).   Massarotto explains how agreement algorithms create stability, and what they can teach courts and enforcers about how algorithmic cartels function. Specifically, she describes how agreement algorithms use digital signatures, cryptography, broadcasting, leader election, and private channels to allow stable decision-making in distributed systems (21:50). Massarotto concludes that, while broadcasting and leader election are accounted for in the existing plus-factor analysis, courts and enforcers should add the use of digital signatures, cryptography, and private channels to the list of plus factors which may indicate the existence of an illegal agreement (30:40).

This Day in Legal History: US DOJ Files Suit Against AT&TOn November 20, 1974, the United States Department of Justice initiated one of the most significant antitrust actions in American history by filing a lawsuit against telecommunications giant AT&T. The case, United States v. AT&T, aimed to dismantle the company's monopoly over telephone services. AT&T, through its Bell System, controlled virtually all local and long-distance phone services in the United States, stifling competition and innovation in the rapidly evolving communications sector. The Justice Department argued that AT&T's dominance violated antitrust laws, particularly the Sherman Act, which prohibits monopolistic practices that harm consumers and market fairness.The case did not proceed to trial. Instead, after nearly a decade of legal maneuvering and negotiations, AT&T reached a landmark settlement in 1982. The agreement mandated the breakup of AT&T into several regional companies, known as the Baby Bells, while AT&T retained its long-distance service and equipment manufacturing businesses. This divestiture marked the end of AT&T's century-long monopoly and transformed the telecommunications industry, creating opportunities for competition and technological advancements.The breakup of AT&T paved the way for the rise of new players in the market and innovations like wireless communications and the internet. It also became a model for how antitrust law could address monopolistic practices in other industries. The case remains a pivotal moment in legal and business history, demonstrating the government's ability to take on corporate behemoths in the interest of fostering competition and protecting consumers.The House Ethics Committee is set to convene as the controversy surrounding Matt Gaetz, Donald Trump's bafflingly stupid pick for attorney general, intensifies. Gaetz, who recently resigned from the House of Representatives, faces unresolved allegations of sexual misconduct, including accusations of sex with a minor. While the Justice Department's prior investigation into sex trafficking claims against Gaetz concluded without charges, the lingering ethical questions make his nomination a stunningly reckless choice.Gaetz, a hardline Republican notorious for orchestrating Kevin McCarthy's ouster as House Speaker, has no prosecutorial experience and has openly clashed with traditional Republican leadership. His nomination has drawn skepticism, even among Senate Republicans, some of whom demand that the Ethics Committee release findings from its probe. Critics argue that Gaetz's checkered history and lack of qualifications disqualify him from leading the nation's top law enforcement agency.Trump, undeterred by the backlash the way a dog eating a diaper ignores its screaming owner, has reportedly pressured Republican senators to confirm Gaetz, underscoring his pattern of appointing ideologically extreme figures with dubious credentials to key roles. Democrats, such as Representative Dean Phillips, emphasize the need for transparency, citing the importance of vetting someone poised to wield significant power. Despite these concerns, hardliners like Lauren Boebert dismiss the ethical questions, showcasing the deep divisions in the GOP over this chaotic appointment.Matt Gaetz probe in focus as House Ethics panel expected to meet | ReutersApple will ask a federal judge in New Jersey to dismiss a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit accusing the company of monopolistic practices in the smartphone market. Prosecutors claim Apple's restrictions on third-party app developers and devices create barriers to competition, locking users into its ecosystem. Apple argues that these restrictions are reasonable, protect innovation, and should not be considered anticompetitive. This case follows a broader bipartisan push to curb Big Tech's market power. Similar lawsuits target Google for monopolizing online search, Meta for stifling competition through acquisitions, and Amazon for restrictive policies against sellers. However, some claims, like those alleging anticompetitive restrictions by Meta and Google, have been dismissed in court. Apple has cited these rulings to bolster its argument for dismissal.The DOJ and several states filed the lawsuit in March, focusing on Apple's fees and technical obstacles to competing devices, such as digital wallets and messaging services. If the judge finds the claims credible, the case could proceed, adding to the growing antitrust scrutiny of major tech firms.Apple to urge judge to end US smartphone monopoly case | ReutersU.S. prosecutors are set to outline potential remedies for Google's online search monopoly, following a landmark ruling in August that deemed Alphabet's practices illegal under antitrust laws. Options floated include terminating Google's exclusive agreements with companies like Apple, divesting business segments such as the Android operating system, or even requiring the sale of its Chrome browser. Prosecutors are expected to pursue several of these measures, despite Google's objections that such actions would harm consumers, businesses, and U.S. competitiveness in AI.The case, initiated during Donald Trump's presidency, faces uncertainty with his return to office. Trump has voiced both criticism of Google for perceived political bias and hesitancy about breaking up the company. His upcoming appointment of a new DOJ antitrust chief could shift the strategy, potentially altering the case's trajectory. A trial to consider these proposals is scheduled for April 2025, though final rulings by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta are expected in August 2025. Google, which plans to appeal, will also present its own remedies in December.Google prosecutors to propose cure for search monopoly | ReutersAlex Jones, his depravity seemingly having no limit, has filed a lawsuit against Sandy Hook victims' families, The Onion's parent company, and a bankruptcy trustee, alleging collusion in the auction of his Infowars media company. The lawsuit follows a bankruptcy court's decision to award the majority of Infowars' assets to Global Tetrahedron LLC, whose bid of $1.75 million was deemed the best value. This winning bid included an agreement from some Sandy Hook families to waive their claims, boosting The Onion's affiliated bid.Jones, a grotesquerie facing $1.5 billion in defamation judgments for calling the Sandy Hook shooting a hoax, argues that the auction process was unfair and is seeking to disqualify the winning bid. First United America Companies, the backup bidder with a $3.5 million cash offer, also claims collusion and seeks to overturn the auction results.The bankruptcy trustee has defended the auction process as fair and transparent, emphasizing that Global Tetrahedron's bid was valued at over $7 million and was the clear choice. Sandy Hook families' attorneys reaffirmed their commitment to holding Jones accountable and rejected his intimidation tactics. Meanwhile, The Onion has dismissed Jones' claims as baseless, citing his history of conspiracy theories.Alex Jones Sues Sandy Hook Parents, Onion Over Infowars Bid (1)Former billionaire Bill Hwang, founder of Archegos Capital Management, is set to be sentenced for orchestrating a financial collapse that cost Wall Street over $10 billion. Convicted on charges of wire fraud, securities fraud, and market manipulation, Hwang faces a potential 21-year prison term, along with demands for $12.35 billion in forfeitures and restitution. Prosecutors described Hwang as a repeat offender who has shown no remorse, arguing for a severe sentence to deter others from similar actions.Archegos' collapse in March 2021 exposed Hwang's aggressive borrowing and speculative bets on media and tech stocks, which at its height created $160 billion in market exposure. When stock prices fell, Hwang failed to meet margin calls, triggering massive sell-offs and erasing over $100 billion in market value. Major banks, including Credit Suisse and Nomura Holdings, suffered significant losses.Hwang's defense argues for leniency, citing his Christian faith, philanthropic efforts, and lack of flight risk. They claim his actions didn't directly cause the losses and that his age and health reduce his risk of reoffending. However, prosecutors maintain that Hwang's reckless conduct and refusal to accept responsibility warrant harsh punishment. The 21-year sentence sought by prosecutors would be among the longest for white-collar crime in the U.S.Archegos' Bill Hwang to be sentenced for massive US fraud | 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

CFB and the Sherman Act. (Huh?)   To advertise on our podcast, please reach out to sales@advertisecast.com or visit https://www.advertisecast.com/TheJeffWardShow

Antitrust: Did Nantucket violate the Sherman Act when it capped the number of rental car licenses on the island? - Argued: Tue, 05 Nov 2024 17:21:13 EDT

Send us a textOriginally broadcast: February 27, 2024Discover how the 2024 US presidential election could transform the regulatory landscape for mergers, antitrust enforcement, and foreign investment. With the prospect of President Joe Biden facing off against former President Donald Trump, this episode unpacks the economic policies and national security priorities of these political titans. Milbank partners Adam DiVincenzo and John Bain join host Allan Marks to provide a sharp analysis of how both administrations have wielded the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), particularly in relation to China, and what that means for foreign investment strategies moving forward.As we navigate the intricate balance between market power, innovation, and regulation, learn how historical antitrust measures influence modern policies. Our conversation draws on the insights of economists like Schumpeter and Arrow to understand the role of large companies in fostering or stifling innovation. We explore the complex interplay of regulatory bodies like the FTC and DOJ in shaping market competition and how geopolitical considerations can impact merger activities. This episode offers a comprehensive look at how shifting political landscapes and economic strategies are poised to redefine the future of business.We also delve into the nuances of antitrust laws and market strategies, exploring how proposed bans and historical perspectives like the Sherman Act inform current debates. The discussion reflects on Robert Bork's theory of consumer welfare, questioning its relevance today. Learn how administrations may continue to leverage robust antitrust tools and how geopolitical tensions with countries like Russia and China could impact merger regulations. From ESG initiatives to strategies for navigating CFIUS reviews, we provide the insights you need to understand the forces shaping tomorrow's corporate environment.For more information and insights, follow us on social media and podcast platforms, including Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, iHeart, Google and Audible.Disclaimer

Charles Webb, Lead Antitrust Counsel at FedEx (NYSE: FDX)   When it comes to mergers and acquisitions, everyone loves to talk about synergies, growth, and market share. However, these enticing prospects can quickly dim if regulatory compliance risks are overlooked. While not the most glamorous aspect of M&A, compliance forms the bedrock that ensures deals are legally sound and smoothly executed.   In this episode of the M&A Science Podcast, Charles Webb, Lead Antitrust Counsel at FedEx, discusses how to manage regulatory compliance risks in M&A.   Things you will learn: • Different types of regulatory compliance risks in M&A • Applicability of antitrust framework to companies • The evolution of antitrust laws • The importance of avoiding Gun Jumping • Increased aggressiveness of antitrust regulators   ******************* This episode is sponsored by Grata. Grata is the leading platform for private market dealmaking. With innovative AI and diligence-grade data, Grata makes it easy to find and evaluate targets from the outside looking in. Win more with Grata.   This episode is also sponsored by DealRoom AI, the latest innovation from DealRoom designed specifically for M&A professionals. DealRoom AI automates the analysis and extraction of key information from due diligence documents, empowering teams to save up to 80% of their time on document analysis and focus on what really matters—closing the deal.  Ready to streamline your M&A process? Visit dealroom.net today.   ******************* Episode Timestamps 00:00 Intro 06:40 Different types of regulatory compliance risks in M&A 14:41 Applicability of antitrust framework to companies 20:47 Impact of HSR filing on the deal timeline 22:43 What does the HSR form look like? 24:56 How to land the narrative in a merger 28:25 The Origins of the Sherman Act 29:47 The Magna Carta of Free Enterprise 30:03 Fast forward 1914 30:36 Amendments and the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act 31:33 The evolution of antitrust laws 33:47 Risks during the waiting period 39:33 The importance of avoiding Gun Jumping 42:22 Best practices for internal communication during a deal 44:01 Understanding deal review risk in advance 46:11 What happens if a deal is rejected? 50:11 Increased aggressiveness of antitrust regulators 51:41 Real consequences for gun jumping 53:05 Balancing integration planning with gun jumping risks 57:43 The key to preparing for regulatory compliance 58:52 Craziest Thing in M&A  

What happens when a single company dominates a crucial segment of the financial market? In this episode, Michael Volkov explores the Justice Department's recent antitrust lawsuit against Visa, highlighting allegations of monopolization and exclusionary practices in the debit card market. With Visa controlling over 60% of debit transactions in the U.S., the DOJ aims to restore competition and prevent further stifling of innovation in this vital financial sector. Tune in as Michael breaks down the case details, Visa's strategic responses, and the implications for the broader financial landscape.Listen in as Michael discusses:The DOJ has charged Visa with monopolization and exclusionary conduct under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.Visa holds over 60% of the U.S. debit transaction market, with MasterCard as its closest competitor at 25%.The complaint alleges Visa engages in exclusionary agreements that penalize banks and merchants for using alternative debit networks.The 2010 Durbin Amendment aimed to increase competition but has had minimal effect on Visa's dominance, leading to ongoing scrutiny.Visa's strategies include partnering with potential competitors while leveraging significant market power to suppress competition.Following successes in technology sector enforcement, the DOJ is now expanding its scrutiny into financial markets, indicating a potential shift in antitrust enforcement dynamics.ResourcesMichael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law Group

We find out where your beef checkoff dollars are being spent and why.  Plus we have market updates, horses and hay for sale and lots more on this all new episode of the Ranch It Up Radio Show. Be sure to subscribe on your favorite podcasting app or on the Ranch It Up Radio Show YouTube Channel.   EPISODE 207 DETAILS How Are Beef Checkoff Dollars Spent & Cattle News Where Your Beef Checkoff Dollars Go Beef Checkoff Budgets Explained The Beef Checkoff takes one dollar for every head of cattle sold and applies it to marketing campaigns and the promotion of beef and beef products.  But many producers wonder where the Beef Checkoff dollars are spent and how and are unaware of where to find this information. Andy Bishop, Chairman of The Cattlemen's Beef Board breaks down what the beef checkoff is and the 2025 operating budget.  You can always view this information by heading to the Beef Board's Website. Latest Beef Industry News Florida's Cultivated Meat Ban A U.S. District Court in Northern Florida denied Upside Foods' request for a preliminary injunction on Florida's ban of cultivated meat. Chief Judge Mark Walker ruled the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act does not override the state's ban on the sale, distribution, or manufacture of cultivated meat. Upside Foods, based in Berkeley, California, sued Florida in August, arguing the law, effective July 1, is unconstitutional. The company has publicly opposed the law, including a "Freedom of Food" event featuring its cultivated chicken. The lawsuit continues as the court addresses the ban's constitutionality.  For the complete article click HERE. McDonald's Lawsuit Accuses Suppliers Of Fixing Prices McDonald's Corp. is suing nine beef processors, including Cargill, JBS, National Beef, and Tyson Foods, alleging they conspired to inflate beef prices since 2015. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, claims the companies worked together to limit slaughter-ready cattle and manipulate beef supply, violating the Sherman Act. McDonald's seeks a declaration of the conspiracy, triple damages, and a permanent injunction to stop the alleged collusion. The companies have not commented on the case.  For the complete article, click HERE. RanchChannel.Com Now Has The Futures Markets Futures Markets RanchChannel.com now has futures markets at your fingertips!  Feeder Cattle, Live Cattle, Corn, Wheat, Soybeans, Soybean Oil, Milk Class IV, and Ethanol.  Information is provided by DTN and market information may be delayed by as much as 10 minutes.  Click Here for more information! UPCOMING SALES & EVENTS JYJ Red Angus:  November 9, 2024, Columbia, Alabama Clear Springs Cattle Company: November, 20, 2024, Starbuck, MN World Famous Miles City Bucking Horse Sale: May 15 - 18, 2025   BULL SALE REPORT & RESULTS Churchill Cattle Company Van Newkirk Herefords Gardiner Angus Ranch Cow Camp Ranch Jungels Shorthorn Farms Ellingson Angus Edgar Brothers Angus Schaff Angus Valley Prairie Hills Gelbvieh Clear Springs Cattle Company CK Cattle Mrnak Hereford Ranch Frey Angus Ranch Hoffmann Angus Farms Topp Herefords River Creek Farms Upstream Ranch Gustin's Diamond D Gelbvieh Schiefelbein Farms Wasem Red Angus Raven Angus Krebs Ranch Yon Family Farms Chestnut Angus Eichacker Simmentals & JK Angus Windy Creek Cattle Company Pedersen Broken Heart Ranch Mar Mac Farms Warner Beef Genetics Arda Farms & Freeway Angus Leland Red Angus & Koester Red Angus Fast - Dohrmann - Strommen RBM Livestock Weber Land & Cattle Sundsbak Farms Hidden Angus Wheatland Cattle Company Miller Angus Farms L 83 Ranch U2 Ranch Vollmer Angus Ranch A & B Cattle Carter Angus Farms Roller Ranch Montgomery Ranch Jorgensen Farms DLCC Ranch Four Hill Farm North Country Angus Alliance Spruce Hill Ranch Wilson Angus Jorgensen Land & Cattle Motherlode Sale ISA Beefmasters   FEATURING Andy Bishop Cattlemen's Beef Board, Chairman https://www.beefboard.org/ @BeefCheckoff Kirk Donsbach: Stone X Financial https://www.stonex.com/   @StoneXGroupInc    Mark Vanzee Livestock Market, Equine Market, Auction Time https://www.auctiontime.com/ https://www.livestockmarket.com/ https://www.equinemarket.com/ @LivestockMkt @EquineMkt @AuctionTime Shaye Koester Casual Cattle Conversation https://www.casualcattleconversations.com/ @cattleconvos Questions & Concerns From The Field? Call or Text your questions, or comments to 707-RANCH20 or 707-726-2420 Or email RanchItUpShow@gmail.com FOLLOW Facebook/Instagram: @RanchItUpShow SUBSCRIBE to the Ranch It Up YouTube Channel: @ranchitup Website: RanchItUpShow.com https://ranchitupshow.com/ The Ranch It Up Podcast is available on ALL podcasting apps. https://ranchitup.podbean.com/   Rural America is center-stage on this outfit. AND how is that? Tigger & BEC Live This Western American Lifestyle. Tigger & BEC represent the Working Ranch world and cattle industry by providing the cowboys, cowgirls, beef cattle producers & successful farmers the knowledge and education needed to bring high-quality beef & meat to your table for dinner. Learn more about Jeff 'Tigger' Erhardt & Rebecca Wanner aka BEC here: TiggerandBEC.com https://tiggerandbec.com/ #RanchItUp #StayRanchy #TiggerApproved #tiggerandbec #rodeo #ranching #farming References https://www.stonex.com/ https://www.livestockmarket.com/ https://www.equinemarket.com/ https://www.auctiontime.com/ https://gelbvieh.org/ https://www.imogeneingredients.com/ https://alliedgeneticresources.com/ https://westwayfeed.com/ https://medoraboot.com/ http://www.gostockmens.com/ https://www.imiglobal.com/beef https://www.tsln.com/ https://transova.com/ https://axiota.com/ https://axiota.com/multimin-90-product-label/ https://jorgensenfarms.com/ https://www.bredforbalance.com/ https://ranchchannel.com/ https://www.wrangler.com/ https://www.ruralradio147.com/ https://www.rfdtv.com/ https://thehappytoymaker.com/ https://www.meatingplace.com/Industry/News/Details/116395 https://www.meatingplace.com/Industry/News/Details/116314

Cooperation agreements have taken the LME world by storm, foiling distressed companies' plans to play creditors off of one another to secure a better deal. But are these agreements anti-competitive?In this week's episode of Cloud 9fin, our global head of distressed and restructuring Max Frumes delves into this quandary with distressed legal analyst Jane Komsky. They compare the use of co-op agreements to a US Supreme Court case that pitted an apparel supplier against the NFL, and look into whether co-op agreements could be considered a Sherman Act violation.For more detail on this topic, read Jane's analysis and our follow-up Default Notice newsletter on 9fin.com. If you have any feedback for us about this episode, or requests to get involved in the podcast, email us at podcast@9fin.com. Thanks for listening.

Sports Law: Legal Principles in Professional and Amateur Athletics Chapter 1: Introduction to Sports Law Purpose: This chapter provides an overview of the field of sports law, introducing readers to its key concepts and the legal issues that permeate the sports industry. Key Topics: Definition and Scope of Sports Law: Sports law is a unique blend of multiple areas of law—contract law, labor law, antitrust law, intellectual property law, and tort law—all applied within the context of the sports industry. It covers legal matters that arise in both professional and amateur sports, including issues related to governance, contracts, competition, player conduct, and commercialization. This multidisciplinary field serves athletes, teams, leagues, sports organizations, and regulatory bodies, addressing everything from player contracts to antitrust concerns and intellectual property rights. Distinction Between Professional and Amateur Sports Law: While professional sports law typically revolves around commercial and employment issues like contracts, compensation, and league governance, amateur sports law often focuses on eligibility, athlete rights, and regulatory compliance, especially in collegiate sports. Professional athletes negotiate contracts with teams and sponsors, whereas amateur athletes—particularly in the U.S. under NCAA rules—have historically been restricted by rules around compensation and endorsements, although recent changes in NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) rights have begun to shift that landscape. Historical Development of Sports Law: The legal regulation of sports has evolved significantly. Historically, the law treated sports as a private matter governed by internal rules. Over time, as sports grew into a major economic and social institution, external legal frameworks were developed to address issues like antitrust concerns, labor disputes, and intellectual property protection. Milestones like the establishment of the reserve clause in baseball, the formation of player unions, and landmark antitrust cases such as Flood v. Kuhn have shaped modern sports law. Key Legal Frameworks Governing Sports (Domestic and International): Sports are governed by a variety of legal frameworks that vary based on jurisdiction and the nature of the sport. Domestically, key frameworks include contract law, labor law (especially through the National Labor Relations Act), and antitrust laws like the Sherman Act. Internationally, sports are subject to regulations from bodies like the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Various national and international regulatory bodies such as FIFA for soccer and the International Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) provide oversight and resolve disputes in the international arena. Role of Courts, Arbitrators, and Regulatory Bodies in Sports Law: Courts, arbitrators, and regulatory bodies play crucial roles in resolving disputes in sports law. Courts interpret laws and contracts, resolve labor disputes, and address antitrust concerns, while arbitration is often used to settle disputes efficiently, particularly within leagues and between players and teams. Specialized bodies like CAS are essential in handling disputes at the international level, particularly in matters related to doping, athlete eligibility, and contract disputes. Summary: This chapter introduces the diverse legal challenges inherent in the sports industry, emphasizing the field's multifaceted nature. It explains how sports law intersects with other areas of law and sets the stage for deeper exploration of specific issues, from contracts to antitrust law and doping regulations. Through understanding the historical development and the legal frameworks at play, readers will grasp how the sports industry navigates complex legal landscapes. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Sports Law: Legal Principles in Professional and Amateur Athletics Chapter 1: Introduction to Sports Law Purpose: This chapter provides an overview of the field of sports law, introducing readers to its key concepts and the legal issues that permeate the sports industry. Key Topics: Definition and Scope of Sports Law: Sports law is a unique blend of multiple areas of law—contract law, labor law, antitrust law, intellectual property law, and tort law—all applied within the context of the sports industry. It covers legal matters that arise in both professional and amateur sports, including issues related to governance, contracts, competition, player conduct, and commercialization. This multidisciplinary field serves athletes, teams, leagues, sports organizations, and regulatory bodies, addressing everything from player contracts to antitrust concerns and intellectual property rights. Distinction Between Professional and Amateur Sports Law: While professional sports law typically revolves around commercial and employment issues like contracts, compensation, and league governance, amateur sports law often focuses on eligibility, athlete rights, and regulatory compliance, especially in collegiate sports. Professional athletes negotiate contracts with teams and sponsors, whereas amateur athletes—particularly in the U.S. under NCAA rules—have historically been restricted by rules around compensation and endorsements, although recent changes in NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) rights have begun to shift that landscape. Historical Development of Sports Law: The legal regulation of sports has evolved significantly. Historically, the law treated sports as a private matter governed by internal rules. Over time, as sports grew into a major economic and social institution, external legal frameworks were developed to address issues like antitrust concerns, labor disputes, and intellectual property protection. Milestones like the establishment of the reserve clause in baseball, the formation of player unions, and landmark antitrust cases such as Flood v. Kuhn have shaped modern sports law. Key Legal Frameworks Governing Sports (Domestic and International): Sports are governed by a variety of legal frameworks that vary based on jurisdiction and the nature of the sport. Domestically, key frameworks include contract law, labor law (especially through the National Labor Relations Act), and antitrust laws like the Sherman Act. Internationally, sports are subject to regulations from bodies like the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Various national and international regulatory bodies such as FIFA for soccer and the International Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) provide oversight and resolve disputes in the international arena. Role of Courts, Arbitrators, and Regulatory Bodies in Sports Law: Courts, arbitrators, and regulatory bodies play crucial roles in resolving disputes in sports law. Courts interpret laws and contracts, resolve labor disputes, and address antitrust concerns, while arbitration is often used to settle disputes efficiently, particularly within leagues and between players and teams. Specialized bodies like CAS are essential in handling disputes at the international level, particularly in matters related to doping, athlete eligibility, and contract disputes. Summary: This chapter introduces the diverse legal challenges inherent in the sports industry, emphasizing the field's multifaceted nature. It explains how sports law intersects with other areas of law and sets the stage for deeper exploration of specific issues, from contracts to antitrust law and doping regulations. Through understanding the historical development and the legal frameworks at play, readers will grasp how the sports industry navigates complex legal landscapes. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Ralph welcomes back Dr. Michael Osterholm for a COVID check-up. They'll discuss the latest vaccines, what we know about long-haul COVID, updated testing guidelines, and some of the key lessons we can take from COVID and apply to future outbreaks. Plus, a call to action from Ralph. Dr. Michael Osterholm is a professor and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. In November 2020, Dr. Osterholm was appointed to President-elect Joe Biden's 13-member Transition COVID-19 Advisory Board. He is the author of Deadliest Enemy: Our War Against Killer Germs, and he has a weekly podcast called The Osterholm Update which offers discussion and analysis on the latest infectious disease developments.I think what we're trying to do today is use this vaccine to target those high-risk people in particular to say—you know what, you need to get it at least every four to six months, and that, unlike the flu vaccine, this is not going to be a once-a-year vaccine. If you did that— by just reducing serious illness, hospitalizations, and deaths—it would be a big accomplishment.Dr. Michael OsterholmThe last time you had me on, Ralph, we actually talked about the need for a panel to actually do a post-pandemic review. Not to point fingers, not to blame people, but—what should we have learned from that pandemic? And what I think is, for me, still a real challenge is we haven't seemed to learn through any of this. But more importantly—we haven't realized what happened with COVID could be child's play compared to what we could see, if this was anything like a “1918-like” pandemic of influenza.Dr. Michael OsterholmWe are using, today, virtually the same technology to make flu vaccines that we did in 1940. Now, that should wake everyone up. Dr. Michael Osterholm, on why we need to invest in vaccine developmentWe have, as a society, a cultural aversion to foreseeing and forestalling omnicides.Ralph NaderIn Case You Haven't Heard with Francesco DeSantisNews 8/28/241. Last week, the Uncommitted movement staged a sit-in at the DNC after the Democratic Party barred any Palestinian-American from speaking at the convention. According to Mother Jones, Uncommitted co-leader Abbas Alawieh, a delegate to the DNC, had been requesting a speaking slot for a Palestinian-American for two months in advance, and was only officially denied on the third night of the convention. Alawieh said he was “stunned” by the refusal, and added “We just want our voices to be heard.” As the article notes, “At the DNC, Republican staffers have been offered the chance [to speak]. An Uber lawyer who is high in the campaign got a prime-time slot. But not a single Palestinian has been given even five minutes on that stage.” Uncommitted gave the DNC an extensive list of potential speakers, including a physician just back from Gaza, and a Palestinian elected official from Georgia named Ruwa Romman. Her speech, available at Mother Jones, ended with the lines “To those who doubt us, to the cynics and the naysayers, I say, yes we can—yes we can be a Democratic Party that prioritizes funding our schools and hospitals, not…endless wars. That fights for an America that belongs to all of us—Black, brown, and white, Jews and Palestinians, all of us…together.” This was deemed unacceptable by the power brokers of the Democratic Party.2. In more bad news from the DNC, the New Republic reports that despite major progress in the party's foreign policy platform in 2020, “the center of gravity appears to have shifted almost as far—right back to where it had previously been.” Not only does the 2024 foreign policy platform include nothing about ending the sale and shipment of arms to Israel, the Democrats actually removed sections about ending the support for the Saudi war in Yemen, moving away from misguided forever wars, and cutting military spending – as well as criticizing Trump for being too soft on Iran. This article goes on to say “The Democratic platform abandons the progress made in 2020 in more subtle ways, too. The last platform noted that ‘when misused and overused, sanctions not only undermine our interests, they threaten one of the United States' greatest strategic assets: the importance of the American financial system.'…the new platform does not repeat these concerns…Both platforms call for competition with China, but in 2020 it said that Democrats would do so while avoiding the trap of a ‘new Cold War'—language that does not appear this time around.” In other words, the Democrats are trying desperately to scrub off any progress on foreign policy that pressure from the Bernie Sanders campaigns forced them to adopt into their platform. This is an ominous portend of what foreign policy could look like in a Kamala Harris administration.3. In yet more bad news from the DNC, the Huffington Post's Jessica Schulberg reports “The Democrats quietly dropped abolishing the death penalty from their party platform. This is the first time since 2012 the platform doesn't call for abolition and the first time since 2004 there's no mention of the death penalty at all.” Prior to 2012, the Democratic platform called for limiting the practice. This article continues, “Public support for the death penalty has been gradually declining. A Gallup poll last year found that 65% of Democrats oppose the punishment.” Yet despite this super-majority support the Democrats are abandoning this promise and did not even bother responding to her email asking if the party still supports death penalty abolition.4. On Monday, the Middle East Studies Association sent a letter to the University of Pennsylvania “denouncing its collaboration with the House Committee on Education and the Workforce's investigation of faculty members.” This letter expresses the association's, and its Committee on Academic Freedom's “grave concern about the apparent cooperation of the University…with the [Republican] witch-hunt…against…faculty, as well as faculty and students at other institutions of higher education.” Specifically, the Association accuses the university of providing the committee with materials – including course syllabi – despite no subpoena being issued. The Association compares this “witch-hunt,” to “the now-disgraced House Un-American Activities Committee hearings in the late 1940s and 1950s,” and makes clear that the House committee members are “less concerned with combatting invidious discrimination than with suppressing and punishing pro-Palestine speech.” This letter ends with a demand that the university “immediately desist from any form of cooperation…[and] to affirm [their] commitment to protect the academic freedom of [their] faculty, students and staff, and to vigorously defend them against all forms of governmental harassment and intimidation.”5. Remember the astronauts stranded on the International Space Station due to Boeing's incompetence? According to AP, “NASA decided Saturday it's too risky to bring [them] back to Earth in Boeing's…capsule, and they'll have to wait until next year for a ride home…What should have been a weeklong test flight for the pair will now last more than eight months.” As AP highlights, this is “a blow to Boeing, adding to the safety concerns plaguing the company on its airplane side. Boeing had counted on Starliner's first crew trip to revive the troubled spacecraft program after years of delays and ballooning costs. The company had insisted Starliner was safe based on all the recent thruster tests both in space and on the ground.” In other words, whether in the air or in space, Boeing craft are undependable and dangerous. According to Good Jobs First's Subsidy Tracker, Boeing has received nearly $100 billion in public subsidies, loans or bailouts since 1994.6. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has dropped out of the presidential race and endorsed Donald Trump, the BBC reports. In a press conference, Kennedy said he would “seek to remove his name from the ballot in 10 battleground states…where his presence would be a ‘spoiler' to Trump's effort.” That said, election officials in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada said it was too late to take his name off the ballot. In exchange for his endorsement, Kennedy's running mate Nicole Shanahan “entertained the idea that Kennedy could join Trump's administration as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services,” per AP, a perch that would allow him to carry out his anti-vaccine agenda. Kerry Kennedy, his sister, released a statement saying his support for Trump was a “betrayal of the values that our father and our family hold most dear. It is a sad ending to a sad story.”7. Last year, the Department of Justice announced an antitrust lawsuit accusing the meat industry of colluding to fix prices with the help of a data company, Agri Stats, that “violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by collecting, integrating, and distributing competitively sensitive information related to price, cost, and output among competing meat processors,” per Common Dreams. Now, More Perfect Union has released a video on the case featuring Errol Schweizer, the former vice president of Whole Foods' grocery division, saying “This is probably one of the top five food scandals of the 21st Century, and we can't underplay it…People f*****g need to go to jail…for this s**t.”8. Labor Notes' Luis Feliz Leon reports “Costco turned down a card check agreement with the Teamsters.” In a statement, the Teamsters explain “Costco Teamsters were forced to suspend negotiations for a new National Master Agreement after the wholesale giant, despite its claims of being pro-union, refused to accept a card check agreement that would make it easier for nonunion Costco workers to join the Teamsters…Despite Costco's public reputation as a ‘worker-friendly' company, the wholesaler has undergone a troubling shift in its corporate culture and governance. Increasingly…catering to Wall Street shareholders at the expense of workers.” Teamsters General President Sean O'Brien is quoted saying “Costco's so-called ‘pro-worker' image is now nothing more than a talking point for investors…We are not here for empty rhetoric — we're here to win an industry-leading contract that stops Costco's corporate backsliding and guarantees workers the right to organize with a card-check agreement.” This statement also notes that “Costco is ranked as the 11th largest U.S. corporation on the Fortune 500 and reported $242 billion in revenue and $29.7 billion in annual gross profits in 2023.”9. According to Vox, the 2019 US teacher strikes were “good, actually.” This piece cites “New research [which] finds labor stoppages raised wages without harming student learning.” As this article explains, “Answering…questions [like do these strikes work? Do they deliver gains for workers? Do they help or hurt students academically?] has been challenging…due to a lack of centralized data that scholars could use to analyze the strikes…Now, for the first time…researchers …have compiled a novel data set to answer these questions, providing the first credible estimates of the effect of US teacher strikes.” According to this data, which covers 772 teacher strikes across 610 school districts in 27 states between 2007-2023, “on average, strikes were successful,” delivering average compensation increases of 3 percent one year post-strike and reaching 8 percent five years out. Not only that, the data show strikes related to “improved working conditions, such as lower class sizes or increased spending on school facilities and non-instructional staff like nurses…were also effective…as pupil-teacher ratios fell by 3.2 percent and there was a 7 percent increase in spending dedicated to paying non-instructional staff by the third year after a strike.” Perhaps most critically, “the researchers find no evidence that US teacher strikes…affected reading or math achievement for students in the year of the strike, or in the five years after…In fact…they could not rule out that the…strikes actually boosted student learning over time, given the increased school spending associated with them.” The bottom line is this: teacher strikes get the goods, for teachers, staff, and students alike.10. Finally, Bloomberg reports China has achieved their renewable power target six years ahead of schedule. According to this report, “The nation added 25 gigawatts of turbines and panels in July, expanding total capacity to 1,206 gigawatts…Xi set a goal in December 2020 for at least 1,200 gigawatts from the clean energy sources by 2030.” As Bloomberg notes, “China by far outspends the rest of the world when it comes to clean energy, and has repeatedly broken wind and solar installation records in recent years. The rapid growth has helped lead to declines in coal power generation this summer and may mean the world's biggest polluter has already reached peak emissions well before its 2030 target.” Impressive as these achievements are, solar and wind still only account for around 14% of energy generation in China. In order to arrest catastrophic climate change, much much more remains to be done.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

In this episode of Ruled by Reason, AAI President Randy Stutz sits down with Andy Green, the Senior Advisor for Fair and Competitive Markets at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The two discuss how Green found his way to the USDA after beginning his career as a corporate securities lawyer and developing policy expertise in the financial sector (2:46), the new role created for a competition advisor at USDA (9:25), USDA's tools for implementing President Biden's Executive Order on Promoting Competition (11:02), USDA's coordination with the USPTO to strengthen patent quality and promote competition in seeds markets (29:25), USDA's coordination with the Antitrust Division of the DOJ to enforce the unique standards of the Packers & Stockyards Act (35:57), the interplay between Sherman Act claims involving collusive price setting through intermediaries and the USDA's pricing transparency rulemakings (41:48), and issues in food and agriculture that the next president of the United States will inherit (44:28).

Jackson Hole ECO Confab (this week) Live Nation is in trouble Icahn get a slap on the wrist Gold - ripping - where to next? PLUS we are now on Spotify and Amazon Music/Podcasts! Click HERE for Show Notes and Links DHUnplugged is now streaming live - with listener chat. Click on link on the right sidebar. Love the Show? Then how about a Donation? Follow John C. Dvorak on Twitter Follow Andrew Horowitz on Twitter DONATIONS ? Warm Up - Jackson Hole ECO Confab (this week) - Live Nation is in trouble - Icahn get a slap on the wrist - Gold - ripping - where to next? - Price Controls - 3rd Rail? Market Update - Nearing all-time highs again - Buy the Dips! - Yields under 4% on 10-Year - Yen still in control - Back to Overbought again - still thinking not out of the woods - Lowe's and Home Depot Outlook - POOR (But stocks are up) Jackson Hole - Aristocrats line up to speak - Big doings as often a platform for Fed and other central bankers to make policy adjustments - Powell scheduled to speak at 10am Friday --- With all of the latest data and market push - what will he do?? - Before that - Wednesday we will see the July FOMC minutes GOLDDDDDDDD - Gold hit all-time high last Friday ($2,509.65) !!!!NOW $2,563!!!!! - WHY? Discussion ranges from Fed Reserve, Election, Middle East, India Buying.... - Gold has been a better GOLD then Bitcoin - just saying... Monopoly - Finally! - Ten Additional States Join Justice Department's Suit Against Live Nation-Ticketmaster for Monopolizing Markets Across the Live Concert Industry - Today, the Attorneys General of Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah and Vermont joined a civil antitrust lawsuit filed by the Justice Department, 29 other states and the District of Columbia against Live Nation-Ticketmaster for monopolization and other unlawful conduct in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. - Stock does not seem to care - or believe anything adverse will happen AMD buys ZT Systems - $4.9 Billion - What is ZT Systems? The company engages in full rack deployment -- a block filled with servers, storage, switches, etc. -- for hyperscale data centers. ZT also commands a data center infrastructure manufacturing business, for which AMD announced it would seek out a strategic partner to offload this part of the company. - Clearly the company does not have a CHIP or infrastructure  ready for a major AI play at this time. Carl Ichan - Hand Slap - Carl Icahn and his publicly traded company Icahn Enterprises settled with the SEC over allegedly failing to disclose billions worth in stock-backed borrowing. - Icahn and IELP will pay a combined $2 million in fines, without admitting or denying wrongdoing, over the failure to disclose as much as $5 billion in margin loans that were backed by Icahn's stake in the company. - Icahn, a well-known activist investor, had been facing pressure from another activist short seller in 2023. (Hindenburg which is still short the shares) Circle K 11? - Canada's Alimentation Couche-Tard (Circle K) has sounded out Japan's Seven & i (7-Eleven) about a potential takeover, the two companies said on Monday, making the 7-Eleven owner the largest-ever Japanese target of a foreign buyout. - While the value of the offer has not been disclosed, the bid is the latest example of the growing interest in Japanese companies by Western investors, who have been drawn by the country's push for better governance. - News of the deal sent shares of Seven & i surging by almost 23% in Tokyo Chicken and the Egg - Chicken prices are going up - Perdue Foods is recalling more than 167,000 pounds of frozen chicken nuggets and tenders after some customers reported finding metal wire embedded in the products. - According to Perdue and the U.S. Agriculture Department's Food Safety and Inspection Service, the recall covers select lots of three product...

After a lengthy and highly revealing trial a federal court has ruled that Google is using its enormous resources to monopolise the search market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. “After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” US District Judge Amit Mehta wrote in his decision which has the potential to reshape the business of Internet dominance. We asked lawyer, journalist, and former WMR.FM host Bennet Kelley to explain the scope of the charges and how the ruling might affect Google's future. Bennet is the founder of the Internet Law Center and is considered on of America's top Internet lawyers. Hosts Jim Hedger and Kristine Schachinger also discuss the new British government's reaction to Elon Musk's push for racial disharmony in the UK and Europe, an exodus of leadership at OpenAI, the new Search Console feature Google Recommends, and the coincidental timing of Google's announcements it would allow pubic hair grooming ads while it is also testing the new "Snippets you may like" label. From what we hear about anti-trust rulings, the first cuts are the deepest.Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/webcology/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

“Friendly fraud” is costing businesses $100 billion a year I was surprised to learn of a new term called friendly fraud. This is when a customer disputes a legitimate charge they made on their credit card, debit card, or another payment method. According to a recent survey,35% of Americans admit to committing this kind of fraud, and 40% know someone who has. This has come at a huge cost to merchants as it is estimated to cost them $100 billion per year. Some of the fraud is accidental as it can come about when a consumer doesn't recognize the merchant's name used to identify a purchase on their bill. Sometimes a merchant will have a name that differs from their commonly known name. If you are a merchant, you may want to look into this as it could help save you some of these potential costs. Of those that committed this type of fraud, 29% said it was accidental. Other reasons for committing this type of fraud included economic hardship (34%) and respondents knew someone else who had gotten away with it and then gave it a try (19%). I have to say, if you have intentionally done this, it is just wrong. It is really no different than walking into the store and stealing. Ultimately, this costs other people as merchants will need to charge more for their goods to offset these costs.   Google's monopoly ruling could be a huge loss for Apple This might sound crazy, but I believe the ruling by a federal U.S. judge that Google has illegally held a monopoly in search and text advertising might have a bigger impact on Apple's stock than Alphabet's. This case was filed in 2020 by the Department of Justice and a bipartisan group of attorneys general from 38 states and territories. It alleged that Google has kept its share of the general search market by creating strong barriers to entry and a feedback loop that sustained its dominance. The court found that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which outlaws monopolies. In the ruling, the court focused on Google's exclusive search arrangements on Android and Apple's iPhone and iPad devices, saying that they helped to cement Google's anticompetitive behavior and dominance over the search markets. This should be a major concern for Apple considering Google paid them $20 B in 2022 and if we annualize the recent service revenue in Q3 of $24.2 B the Google payment would account for about 25% of service revenue. I can't imagine there are many costs associated with this for Apple, so the loss of this payment would essentially subtract $20 B from total profit. For Google the risk is that users might have other options for search engines, but with their strong reputation and well-run platform I don't think they would lose a lot of users.    The US debt continues to climb, should you be concerned? If you haven't heard the news already, you probably will hear it as time goes on, the US treasury estimates America's gross national debt at $35 trillion which was hit last week. No doubt about it, $35 trillion by itself is a scary number. But this number is only half the story. In accounting, a balance sheet has assets and liabilities. To know the total equation, one needs to know what the assets are for the United States government. It is estimated the government has assets of $178 trillion which is made up of real estate, oil and natural gas rights and other assets. It is also important to know that much of the real estate was bought many many years ago and is carried at book value, not the current value or market value. Taking it one step further and looking at the debt-to-equity ratio, the government would have a debt/equity of 24.5%. This is not a bad ratio at all and I'm sure many people across the country would love to have a personal debt ratio that low. So when you hear people complain about the debt, ask them what are the assets and their value? Most people don't have a clue! Thank you to most of the mainstream media that only wants to scare you, rather than educate you by giving you the whole story!   Financial Planning: Tax Changes in 2026 The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 contained quite a few changes for federal taxation, but some of the more impactful differences were the tax rates themselves, the ranges of income that is subject to the tax rates, and the adjustment to deductions and exemptions. These went into effect in 2018 and are expected to sunset back to their original rules in 2026. We are now in 2024, so we only have 2 tax years left. There are 7 federal tax brackets which currently are 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35%, and 37% and these are expected to increase back to 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%, and 39.6%. This is one of the more well-known adjustments, but one of the lesser-known features is that the amount of income subject to each of those tax rates will be adjusting as well. Essentially this means the same level of taxable income will climb into the higher tax brackets more quickly beginning in 2026. In other words, you may fall into the 3rd tax bracket right now, but after the sunset, you would fall into the 4th tax bracket with no other changes to income. These tax rate and income range changes are both bad for your tax bill as they will increase tax lability in 2026. Alternatively, there is also the change to the standard deduction, itemized deduction, and exemptions which may be helpful for your tax bill in 2026 and beyond. Between 2017 and 2025, the standard deduction was increased, limits were placed on itemized deductions, and exemptions were eliminated. Based on your situation, the net impact of this is either a larger or smaller level of taxable income, which is what is subject to the tax brackets. Many people currently claim the standard deduction, but itemizing will again become more common in 2026 which results in lower levels of taxable income. What's funny is most people aren't familiar with how taxes work or how much they actually pay, they just know they pay “a lot” or “too much”. Consequently, people seem to let their opinion of former president Trump dictate whether they are in favor or not of these tax changes as he was largely responsible for them. We've seen people who love Trump and thought they got a tax cut, when their tax bill really didn't change much, and we've seen people who hate Trump thinking their taxes increased when really, they didn't. Every situation is different but generally people with lower levels of income will see a tax increase in 2026. This is because most low-level income earners do not itemize which means they will have a higher taxable income that is taxed at a higher rate. People with higher levels of income will either see relatively no change, or a tax increase in 2026 as they will likely itemize resulting in lower levels of taxable income but will be subject to higher tax rates. People who claim the standard deduction and who are in the middle tax brackets will likely see an increase in taxes in 2026 as their taxable income will be higher and will be taxed at higher rates. People who will itemize and who are in the middle tax brackets will either see not much of a tax change in 2026 or will see a tax decrease. People who are more likely to see a tax decrease are those in the third or fourth tax bracket living in a high-income tax state and who have a house with a mortgage with higher property taxes. This is because they will have a higher level of itemized deductions from the extra state income and property taxes, but their income is low enough so they aren't pushed too far into the upper brackets. Overall, the majority of people, even in California, will either see relatively no change or a tax increase in 2026, but there are a few who will see a tax decrease.   Companies Discussed: Intel (INTC), Merck (MRK), Charles Schwab (SCHW) 

It's Hump Day! Sam speaks with David Dayen, executive editor at The American Prospect,, to discuss Kamala Harris selecting Tim Walz as her running mate, and the recent ruling by a federal judge against Google. First, Sam runs through updates on Walz's thunderous debut as Harris jumps out to a polling lead, Cori Bush's primary loss, Hamas leadership, Israel's torture camps, Elon vs. Advertisers, Teachers' Union action, and JD Vance's link to Project 2025, also diving into Walz opening act as Vice Presidential candidate, and his ability to weave shots at the oddities of the GOP with clear progressive policy messages. David Dayen then joins, as he first dives into the DOJ's recent massive victory over Google's monopolistic violations of section two of the Sherman Act, becoming only the second major anti-monopoly victory of the digital age, walking through the case's parallels with Microsoft's monopoly case a quarter-century ago, and the central role Google's dominance of the search engine market via buying default access across the industry. Expanding on this, Dayen explores the $25 billion budget in 2021 (as well as myriad internal documents) that undercut Google's claim that this “default” status wasn't actually important to their market share, before stepping back to walk through the upcoming “remedy” phase of the trial, why it's so difficult to undo decades of monopoly power with punitive measures, and whether there is hope for greater structural change to come out of this case. This brings Dayen to the future of the administrative state, with this case's appeal likely to go well into the next presidency, and the approach a Harris Administration might take to this issue, parsing through the early signs as major Dem donors implore her to ditch the major anti-trust leaders of Biden's Administration, and whether Tim Walz and greater institutional defense of Biden's administrative choices serves as a stronger signal. Sam concludes the free half by highlighting LinkedIn co-founder and major Dem Donor Reid Hoffman's attempt to defend his call for Harris to drop FTC Chair Lina Khan. And in the Fun Half: Sam dives into the absurd new lawfare offensive by Elon and X to punish companies for not advertising, watches Cori Bush be very clear about her next steps in politics, and admires the complete meltdowns by everyone from Joe Scarborough and Van Jones to Ben Shapiro and Kevin McCarthy over Harris picking Walz over Shapiro. Steven Miller gets back on his xenophobic BS, and Hasan schools Dan Lebatard on crime and immigration, plus, your calls and IMs! Follow David on Twitter here: https://x.com/ddayen Check out David's work at the Prospect here: https://prospect.org/topics/david-dayen/ Check out the LIMITED EDITION Vergogna shirt on the MR shop!: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/collections/all-items/products/the-majority-report-vergogna-t-shirt Check out Tony Y, who designed the Vergogna shirt's website!: https://linktr.ee/tonyyanick AND! Check out Anne from Portland's website where her Vergogna t-shirt! INQUIRE MORE HERE FOR DETAILS!: https://www.pictrixdesign.com/mr Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Join Sam on the Nation Magazine Cruise! 7 days in December 2024!!: https://nationcruise.com/mr/ Check out the "Repair Gaza" campaign courtesy of the Glia Project here: https://www.launchgood.com/campaign/rebuild_gaza_help_repair_and_rebuild_the_lives_and_work_of_our_glia_team#!/ Check out StrikeAid here!; https://strikeaid.com/ Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: Nutrafol: Take the first step towards achieving your hair growth goals. For a limited time, Nutrafol is offering our listeners ten dollars off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you go to https://Nutrafol.com/men and enter the promo code TMR.  Find out why over 4,500 healthcare professionals and stylists recommend Nutrafol for healthier hair. https://Nutrafol.com/men. Manukora Honey: Now it's easier than ever to try Manukora Honey with the Starter Kit. Just head to https://Manukora.com/MAJORITY to get $25 off. The Starter Kit comes with an MGO 850+ Manuka honey, 5 honey travel sticks, a wooden spoon, plus a guidebook! Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

We explore the recent landmark ruling by Judge Amit Mehta, who found Google in violation of the Sherman Act due to its exclusive search deals with Android and Apple devices. Discover how Google's monopoly in general search has expanded from 80% in 2009 to 90% by 2020, and what this means for the tech giant. We'll also discuss Google's plans to appeal the decision and their argument that their dominance is a result of the quality of their search engine, not anti-competitive behavior. Stay tuned for more updates on this evolving story.

Everyone knows that price fixing is against the law, chiefly Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Competitors may not collude, i.e., agree, to keep prices where they want them, but there are relatively new pricing platforms that some companies maintain take them out of the equation, so they do not have to share private information directly with competitors. Instead, they claim, they feed their data to a third-party which uses algorithms to come up with pricing for these competitors based on data they all contribute. The subject has been getting a lot of attention as cases mount against a company called RealPage, a firm that provides shared pricing services for landlords. The company faces dozens of suits in multidistrict litigation and has also captured the attention of federal antitrust law enforcers. But they are not the only company finding themselves in litigation. As our guest recently wrote: “When pricing algorithms are used by individual firms, such as airlines, e-commerce platforms, ride-share and room-share companies, stock traders, and others, there are unlikely to be anti-competitive consequences. It is when market competitors avail themselves of the same algorithmic program or service that the specter of unlawful collusion arises.” That risk increases as markets become more concentrated, he says. He is Jonathan Rubin, Partner and Co-Founder of MoginRubin LLP, a widely recognized competition law attorney, economist, and commentator who has presented at antitrust conferences in the United States and Europe, testified before several congressional committees, and before the Directorate General for Competition of the European Commission.  “The fact that these services employ an algorithm is not central to what's going on in this scenario,” he told me, “because what's important is the conduct of the businesspeople involved.”Listen to my interview with Jonathan Rubin as we discuss what algorithmic or software-facilitated pricing is, what the law says about price collusion, how this new pricing mechanism violates that law, and recent developments in litigation. *******This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageFollow us on LinkedInSubscribe on your favorite platform.  

This Day in Legal History: Pivotal LGBTQ+ Rights DecisionsOn this day, June 26th, in legal history, two pivotal Supreme Court decisions significantly advanced the cause of marriage equality in the United States.On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in United States v. Windsor. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had defined marriage for federal purposes as the union between a man and a woman. Edith Windsor, the plaintiff, had been denied a spousal tax exemption after her same-sex spouse's death, prompting her to challenge the law. The Court held that DOMA's definition of marriage was unconstitutional as it violated the principles of due process and equal protection guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. This landmark decision allowed same-sex couples to receive the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples, marking a significant step forward for LGBTQ+ rights and equality.Two years later, on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued another historic ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. In another closely divided 5-4 decision, the Court declared that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment. The case consolidated several challenges from same-sex couples who had been denied the right to marry or have their marriages recognized by their home states. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, stated that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, same-sex couples cannot be denied that right. This ruling effectively legalized same-sex marriage across the United States, ensuring that all states must perform and recognize marriages between individuals of the same sex.These decisions on June 26th were monumental in affirming the rights of same-sex couples and dismantling legal barriers to marriage equality, marking significant victories for the LGBTQ+ community and setting precedents for future civil rights advancements.Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recently surprised defense attorneys with her unexpected votes against criminal defendants, despite her background as a former federal defender. In two cases decided at the end of the term, Jackson broke from her liberal colleagues. She joined the majority in a case broadening expert witness testimony and dissented in another that reinforced the right to a jury trial.President Joe Biden highlighted Jackson's unique experience as a public defender when nominating her in 2022. In Diaz v. United States, a 6-3 decision, the Court sided with prosecutors on expert witness testimony, allowing experts to discuss what most defendants generally know. Jackson joined Justice Clarence Thomas's majority opinion and wrote separately, suggesting the rule could benefit both prosecutors and defendants.In Erlinger v. United States, the Court ruled 6-3 to apply the Apprendi v. New Jersey precedent broadly, requiring juries to decide facts that could increase sentences. Jackson dissented, arguing that Apprendi limits legislative efforts to create fairer sentencing systems. She suggested overturning Apprendi, which surprised many in the defense community given its importance to defendants' rights.Some notable defense attorneys have expressed disappointment in her positions, though acknowledging that public defender views are not monolithic.Justice Jackson Takes Unexpected Positions in Criminal CasesA recent study by Georgetown University's Center on Education and Workforce revealed that law school graduates earn a median salary of $72,000 after debt payments four years into their careers. However, this figure varies significantly depending on the law school attended. Graduates from seven elite law schools, including Columbia, University of Pennsylvania, and Harvard, have median earnings of over $200,000 after debt. In contrast, graduates from 33 lower-ranking law schools earn $55,000 or less.The report, titled "A Law Degree Is No Sure Thing: Some Law School Graduates Earn Top Dollar, but Many Do Not," shows that law graduates typically leave school with a median debt of $118,500. Columbia Law School offers the highest return on investment with net median earnings of $253,800 after four years, followed by other top-tier schools. These elite institutions account for about 20% of law students and tend to send over half their graduates to high-paying jobs at large law firms.Conversely, 20 law schools have graduates with median net earnings of $50,000 or less after debt payments, including Cooley Law School and Atlanta's John Marshall Law School. The study utilized data from various sources, such as the U.S. Census Bureau and the American Bar Association, to assess employment outcomes, salaries, bar passage rates, and debt.The report underscores a significant disparity in financial outcomes between graduates of top-ranked law schools and those from lower-ranked institutions.Law grads' median earnings of $72,000 after debt show 'vast gulf' in pay, study finds | ReutersLawmakers in the United States are pushing for the first major federal data privacy legislation, the American Privacy Rights Act, which has bipartisan support. The bill, sponsored by Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell and Republican Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, aims to establish a national data privacy standard. This would allow individuals to access, delete, and opt out of their data being used for targeted advertising, and would create a national data broker registry.The U.S. has lagged behind other regions like the European Union, which implemented the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2018. Industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and TechNet, argue that the bill lacks safeguards to prevent states from adding their own regulations, which could complicate compliance for businesses. They advocate for a unified national standard without additional state-level regulations.Privacy advocates, however, contend that the bill would hinder states from addressing new technological developments and responding to emerging privacy issues. They fear that federal pre-emption could stifle the progressive influence of states like California, which often leads in privacy regulations. Ashkan Soltani, from the California Privacy Protection Agency, warned against setting static regulations given the rapid pace of technological advancements.Democratic Representative Suzan DelBene supports the bill, citing the current "patchwork" of state laws as problematic for small businesses. The bill will undergo a markup hearing on Thursday, a crucial step before potentially advancing to a House vote.US lawmakers push for federal data privacy law; tech industry and critics are wary | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that Walt Disney Co. must face an antitrust class action lawsuit filed by 25 subscribers to YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream. The subscribers allege that Disney's agreements with rival streaming TV providers, which included access to ESPN content, restrained trade and led to higher prices. Judge Edward J. Davila of the US District Court for the Northern District of California found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged Disney's conduct harmed competition in the streaming live pay TV market (SLPTV).The lawsuit claims Disney's agreements prevented other streamers from offering lower-priced bundles excluding ESPN, thus raising subscription costs and protecting Disney-owned Hulu from competition. Despite partially dismissing the initial complaint, the judge allowed an amended complaint to proceed, alleging violations of the federal Sherman Act and state antitrust laws. While the court dismissed claims for damages under the Sherman Act, limiting potential relief to an injunction, it allowed most state antitrust claims to continue, except for those under the Illinois Antitrust Act and Tennessee Trade Practices Act.The decision follows the Justice Department's plans to review a proposed new streaming service by Disney, Fox Corp., and Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. for potential consumer harm. The case, Biddle et al v. Walt Disney Co., continues to highlight concerns over anticompetitive practices in the streaming industry.Disney Must Face Antitrust Class Suit by TV Streaming Consumers 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

The preservation of competition in agricultural markets has been identified as as one of the Biden Administration's highest enforcement priorities. In this episode, co-hosts Alicia Downey and Barry Nigro talk to Professor Kelly Nuckolls of the University of Arkansas School of Law about recent enforcement actions and rulemaking efforts targeting anticompetitive practices in the agriculture sector. Listen to this episode to learn about the DOJ Antitrust Division's case against benchmarking service provider Agri Stats based on allegedly collusive information-sharing, and the Division's renewed interest in enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921--a federal statute with the potential to support challenges to unfair conduct that the Sherman Act might not reach. With special guest: Kelly Nuckolls, Assistant Director and Visiting Assistant Professor of Law for the LL.M. Program in Agricultural and Food Law, University of Arkansas School of Law Related Links: Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture (USDA), Inclusive Competition and Market Integrity Under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 9 CFR 201.302-201.390 (Mar. 6, 2024) Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture (USDA), Transparency in Poultry Grower Contracting and Tournaments, 9 CFR 201.2-201.4 (Nov. 28, 2023) Wheeler v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 591 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2009) Hosted by: Alicia Downey, Downey Law LLC and Barry Nigro, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP

Welcome to another thrilling episode of SaaS Fuel! In this episode, our guest Massoud Alibakhsh, a tech entrepreneur and multi-time founder, delves deep into the world of AI and software development. Together, they explore the future of software architecture, Omadeus, and its potential to revolutionize project management in the SaaS enterprise world. Massoud shares his insights on integrating traditional software with AI and offers a glimpse into his company's cutting-edge AI-based project management tool. Join us as we unravel the power of intelligent object messaging architecture and its seamless integration with natural language interfaces. Stay tuned for an in-depth discussion on the evolving AI landscape and the impact of large language models in the tech industry. It's an episode packed with thought-provoking ideas and forward-thinking solutions!Key Takeaways00:00 Successful event debut despite setbacks and uncertainty.05:10 Encourage customer interaction, value feedback, and empower advocates.07:12 Leverage community for SaaS growth, and leadership insights.11:52 Creating innovative project management through intelligent architecture.15:27 Turning innovative ideas into practical, profitable products.17:07 Open source, Facebook's Lima, growing competition in technology.20:55 Program logic assigns x-ray data to an entity.25:08 Describing software problem, need for AI adaptation.29:04 Confusion about the upcoming Internet transition.31:19 DOJ filed Sherman Act suit against Apple.33:07 Tech companies' legal battles may impact profitability.37:41 SaaS resource for scaling up revenue.40:12 Met professor Johanna Goldie, and discussed a new field.43:51 AI's rapid development will impact everyone's lives.47:20 Organizing and processing information to save efficiently.52:05 Experienced software developer discusses solving privacy issues.54:09 Rebranding to OMA Deus, launching new products.56:38 Masoud shares journey and insights, check out.Tweetable QuotesThe Future of AI: "So that world is kinda growing, competing. But the philosophy of, you know, if we solve a lot of these problems with the parameters and, processing power, why don't we, pour more parameters and more processing power and solve all the problems in the world?" — Massoud Alibakhsh 00:17:15The Future Impact of AI: "What is gonna change everybody's lives True. Is the transfusion of traditional software with AI in a way that you can't tell them apart." — Massoud Alibakhsh 00:44:23The Future of Information Architecture: "This architecture removes the burden of processing information and reroute it or saving it from humans altogether." — Massoud Alibakhsh 00:47:45Community-Led Growth: "The real secret to creating brand affinity and a loyal following is community-led growth." — Jeff Mains 00:01:04Building Brand Loyalty: "If you want to be successful, your brand has to be bigger than a tomato. But brand loyalty isn't built overnight. It's about cultivating genuine connections and fostering a sense of belonging among your customers." — Jeff Mains 00:03:07Creating Brand Loyalty: "But the real magic happens when your customers don't just use your product or want your product. They love it." — Jeff Mains 00:03:44SaaS Leadership Lessons1. Embrace Revolutionary Change: Massoud highlights the importance of adapting to technological revolutions and shares his experiences of starting companies during the GUI revolution and the inspiration he sees for the upcoming AI revolution. SaaS leaders should be proactive in embracing and leveraging revolutionary technological changes to stay ahead in the...

While California is often seen as being on the forefront of Progressive legislation and individual rights, the state's main anti-trust law, The Cartwright Act, dates back to the Roosevelt era - the TEDDY Roosevelt era, that is - 1907, to be exact. The Cartwright Act is often invoked in tandem with the federal anti-trust statute, The Sherman Act of 1890, but in fact, the federal law has stricter proscriptions against monopolies than the California legislation. That may be about to change.In 2022, the legislature passed a resolution tasking the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) with providing recommendations on how to update The Cartwright Act. The CLRC set up a series of working groups to prepare in depth reports on a set of seven specific issues - the working groups have published their reports, which are now being discussed at a series of public meetings. After these meetings, the CLRC will prepare a final report with recommendations for the legislature, teeing up new legislation to update The Cartwright Act in 2025.We're joined today by Teri Olle, Director of Economic Security California Action. She walks us through the specifics of what The Cartwright Act does, how it differs from the Sherman Act, and why updating it for the 21st Century matters.EPISODE NOTES2:16 The Cartwright Act vs. The Sherman Act4:25 The Commission process and potential impacts5:33 "Neoliberalism"6:49 The impact of monopolization on healthcare in California7:58 Concentration of food and gas markets9:17 What specifically be changed here?12:46 The first time in a generation to look at what our economy looks like RIGHT NOW16:46 How to get people to engage? (#taylorswift)22:02 How is monopolization handled in other jurisdictions?23:59 How to have a say26:09 "The economy is not the weather: we shape it"26:43 WWCA - Third time is not the charmWant to support the Capitol Weekly Podcast? Make your tax deductible donation here: capitolweekly.net/donations/Capitol Weekly Podcast theme is "Pickin' My Way" by Eddie Lang"#WorstWeekCA" Beat provided by freebeats.io

Taylor Swift's Influence in Ticketmaster Lawsuit: The antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster, influenced by Taylor Swift's ticketing fiasco, underscores the Sherman Act's role in preventing monopolistic practices. The Act aims to maintain fair competition for the benefit of consumers, ensuring that monopolies do not stifle innovation or drive up prices. This case could set a precedent for how digital marketplaces operate and are regulated. Alec Baldwin's Legal Battle in ‘Rust' Shooting: The denial of Alec Baldwin's request to dismiss his criminal charge brings to light the legal principles of duty of care and negligence. In the context of film production, it raises questions about the responsibility of actors, producers, and crew members to ensure safety on set and the extent to which they can be held liable for accidents. International Court of Justice's Decision on Israel's Military Operations: The International Court of Justice's order for Israel to halt military operations in Rafah touches on international humanitarian law, particularly the principles of distinction and proportionality in armed conflict. It also raises issues about the enforcement of international court decisions and the sovereignty of nations. Uvalde Families Sue Gun Maker and Tech Companies: This lawsuit challenges the legal boundaries of product liability and marketing practices. It questions the extent to which manufacturers and tech platforms can be held responsible for the misuse of their products, especially when they are used to commit crimes. Unionization Efforts at Mercedes-Benz: The objections filed by the UAW against the unionization vote at Mercedes-Benz highlight the National Labor Relations Act's provisions on fair labor practices and the right to unionize. It also brings up the role of the National Labor Relations Board in overseeing union elections and addressing complaints of unfair labor practices. Exxon Mobil's Shareholder Rights Lawsuit The lawsuit by Norges Bank Investment Management against Exxon Mobil focuses on shareholder rights and corporate governance. It examines the fiduciary duties of corporations to their shareholders and the legal mechanisms available to shareholders to hold corporations accountable. NCAA's Historic Revenue Sharing Agreement: The NCAA's settlement to share revenue with athletes represents a significant shift in amateurism and the legal concept of student-athletes' rights. It challenges the traditional notion that student-athletes should not be compensated beyond scholarships and could redefine the economic landscape of collegiate sports. FTX Bankruptcy Developments: The support for Sullivan & Cromwell's role as the main bankruptcy attorney for FTX, despite potential conflicts of interest, brings up ethical considerations in legal practice. It also highlights the complexities of bankruptcy law, particularly in the emerging field of cryptocurrency. Peter Navarro's Stance from Prison: Peter Navarro's decision not to seek a pardon while focusing on a new MAGA agenda from prison raises questions about the legal and political strategies of individuals involved in high-profile investigations. It also touches on the presidential pardon power and its implications for justice and accountability. AI Bias Law in Colorado: Colorado's AI bias law is a pioneering move to regulate artificial intelligence and prevent discrimination. It sets a legal framework for transparency and accountability in automated decision-making processes, potentially influencing future legislation in other states and at the federal level. Supreme Court Ethics Spotlight: The call for an official code of ethics for Supreme Court justices reflects the principles of judicial conduct and integrity. It underscores the importance of impartiality, independence, and public confidence in the judiciary. Legal Battles in the World of Sports: The consideration of facial-recognition technology at the Miami Marathon and the NCAA's revenue-sharin --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

This Day in Legal History: Standard Oil DissolvedOn this day in legal history, May 15, 1911, the United States Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision that significantly altered the landscape of American business practices. The case in question was Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, where the Court found Standard Oil guilty of monopolistic practices in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. This Act, passed in 1890, was designed to combat anti-competitive practices, reduce market domination by individual corporations, and preserve fair competition.The decision to break up John D. Rockefeller's oil empire was pivotal in the enforcement of antitrust laws in the United States. The Court's ruling declared that Standard Oil had restrained trade and maintained monopolistic power through unfair and unethical business practices, including predatory pricing and collusive dealings. The verdict mandated the dissolution of Standard Oil into 34 independent companies, some of which have since evolved into major players in today's oil industry, such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips.The significance of this ruling extended beyond the immediate impact on Standard Oil. It set a precedent for the interpretation of the Sherman Act, introducing the "rule of reason" doctrine. This doctrine asserts that only those combinations and contracts that unreasonably restrain trade are subject to actions under the antitrust laws. This nuanced approach allowed for greater flexibility in the application of the law, acknowledging that some business combinations might enhance competition.The case also highlighted the growing public and governmental concern over the power wielded by large corporations, which led to increased regulation and oversight over monopolies. The ruling was a crucial step in defining the boundaries of lawful conduct for businesses, emphasizing that large size and monopoly were not inherently illegal, but that harmful, anti-competitive practices would not be tolerated.The Standard Oil decision remains one of the most important in the annals of American legal and economic history, symbolizing the struggle between corporate power and public interest. It underscores the ongoing challenges and complexities of balancing economic power with the need to preserve free market competition, a concept still very much at the heart of American antitrust enforcement today.The bankruptcy case of Rudolph Giuliani, managed by Judge Sean H. Lane, is facing significant delays, primarily due to Giuliani's challenges against a $148 million defamation judgment. At a recent hearing, Judge Lane expressed his concern over the slow progress and considered major changes to expedite the case. Giuliani has failed to meet deadlines for submitting required financial disclosures, and his legal team reported difficulties in obtaining necessary information from him.The possibility of appointing a trustee to oversee the case or dismissing it entirely was discussed by creditors' lawyers. Additionally, Giuliani's focus on appealing the defamation judgment—related to false accusations made against two Georgia poll workers—has hindered advancements in other aspects of his bankruptcy proceedings. This focus on the appeal has also been criticized for potentially causing indefinite delays. The financial strain is evident as Giuliani has not made moves to sell his properties or settle the defamation judgment, which prompted his Chapter 11 filing. The situation is further complicated by recent derogatory remarks Giuliani made on his radio show, resulting in his suspension. Concerns about the case's stagnation were also voiced by the Justice Department's bankruptcy watchdog, indicating minimal reorganizational activity. The judge has yet to make a decision regarding Giuliani's request to hire special litigation counsel, given the lack of progress on the appeal.Giuliani Bankruptcy Nears Turning Point as Judge Rues Slow PaceLandlords in the commercial real estate sector are bracing for further challenges as an increasing number of retailers file for bankruptcy amidst persistent economic difficulties. The recent Chapter 11 filings by companies such as teen clothing retailer rue21, Express Inc., and Joann Inc. are indicative of the broader issues facing retailers, including high inflation and rising interest rates. While companies like rue21 are opting for liquidation, others like Express are using bankruptcy proceedings to shed unprofitable leases and attempt a turnaround.Bankruptcy laws enable retailers to terminate leases relatively inexpensively, which has become a critical tool for distressed businesses looking to streamline operations. This trend has led to landlords frequently engaging in bankruptcy cases, with larger landlords often having more influence and even purchasing companies out of bankruptcy to maintain continuity in mall spaces.The economic backdrop for these bankruptcies includes the lingering effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, which initially pushed retailers like J.C. Penney and Neiman Marcus into bankruptcy in 2020. Current economic pressures such as inflation and higher interest rates have exacerbated the situation, making it difficult for retailers to pass increased costs onto consumers who are also feeling the financial pinch.For instance, rue21 has been particularly impacted, with its core customer base facing significant financial stress due to inflation. Joann has struggled with increased costs from tariffs on Chinese imports and rising interest expenses, which have doubled in the past two years due to higher interest rates. These challenges are prompting concerns that more businesses may face bankruptcy as the benefits of previous federal aid diminish and the costs of refinancing grow under the current economic conditions.Retail Bankruptcies Pose Pain for Landlords as Headwinds PersistIn Delaware, the corporate legal community is divided over a proposed legislative response to a court decision that challenged long-standing corporate strategies involving stockholder agreements. This legislative move, viewed by some as an overreaction, aims to counteract a February ruling by Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster, which curtailed the powers granted to founders and certain investors through stockholder agreements in corporate governance. Critics argue that the rush to amend the law could undermine legal coherence and bypass the appellate process, potentially leading to a loss of confidence in Delaware as a prime jurisdiction for corporate charters.Meanwhile, Elon Musk has been ordered by a U.S. federal court to provide further testimony in the Securities and Exchange Commission's investigation into his acquisition of Twitter. The investigation examines whether Musk violated federal securities laws during his takeover of the social media company. This court decision continues a longstanding conflict between Musk and the SEC, which includes previous disputes over Musk's communications about his business ventures. The SEC's ongoing scrutiny of Musk's actions reflects its role in overseeing transparency and legality in corporate executives' maneuvers in the securities markets.Elon Musk ordered to testify again in US SEC probe of Twitter takeover | ReutersMove to Change Delaware Law After Musk Attacks Called Knee-JerkDuring the hush money trial of former President Donald Trump, his former fixer Michael Cohen was subjected to intense scrutiny by Trump's defense attorneys. They aimed to discredit his testimony, highlighting his transformation from a staunch Trump supporter to a harsh critic, and questioning his motivations, suggesting they were driven by financial gain and revenge. Cohen, having already testified for approximately nine hours, claimed that Trump had directed him to pay adult film star Stormy Daniels to prevent her from disclosing an alleged encounter that could harm his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump's lawyers did not focus on the $130,000 payment directly but instead on Cohen's credibility, citing his previous prison sentence for related offenses and his admitted history of lying under oath.During his testimony, Cohen highlighted several key points:* Cohen claimed that Trump had given him the green light to proceed with the payment to Daniels, emphasizing that Trump saw the $130,000 as trivial compared to his wealth, and urged Cohen to just make the payment.* Cohen depicted the payment as a crisis for Trump's 2016 campaign, asserting that Trump believed the disclosure of Daniels' story would be disastrous, particularly because he was already polling poorly with women voters.* In discussions about how the payment might affect his marriage, Trump indicated to Cohen that he was not concerned about the potential impact on his relationship with Melania Trump, suggesting his focus was solely on the electoral implications.* Prosecutors played a recording where Trump can be heard discussing the payment method for a related silence agreement involving Playboy model Karen McDougal, which supports allegations of a "catch and kill" strategy used to suppress damaging stories during the campaign.* Cohen also recounted a meeting with Trump at the White House where Trump reassured him about the financial arrangements for covering the payment to Daniels.The trial, which has been ongoing since April 15, saw Cohen as the prosecution's final witness, with his cross-examination set to continue. The defense presented evidence of Cohen's financial endeavors post-allegations, including profits from memoirs and a podcast critical of Trump, as well as Trump-themed merchandise he sold online. The case hinges on accusations that Trump falsified business records to disguise reimbursements to Cohen for the hush money as legal fees, contributing to the 34 counts he faces. Trump, who has pleaded not guilty, denies any encounter with Daniels and claims the case is politically motivated. The trial also includes a backdrop of Trump defending Cohen publicly, even as federal investigations closed in, which Cohen described as part of a "pressure campaign" to keep him aligned with Trump. This case is one of several legal challenges Trump faces, with others involving allegations of trying to overturn the 2020 election results and mishandling classified documents.Trump's lawyers assail estranged fixer Michael Cohen's credibility at hush money trial | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In yet another example of the government rejecting founding principles by working to bring businesses under federal control, the DOJ and 16 state attorneys general accused Apple of violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act, a “law” allowing the government to intervene against companies said to be acting "in restraint of trade or commerce." The post Bully Government Bullies Apple first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

This Day in Legal History: Andrew Johnson is a Scoundrel On this day in legal history, March 27, 1866, President Andrew Johnson enacted one of the most consequential vetoes in American history. Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Bill, a pivotal piece of legislation intended to extend full U.S. citizenship to all former slaves and to fundamentally reshape the landscape of civil rights in the aftermath of the Civil War. This bill was a direct response to the Black Codes, laws passed by Southern states that severely restricted the rights of newly freed African Americans.Johnson, a Southern Democrat who ascended to the presidency after Lincoln's assassination, argued that the bill encroached upon states' rights and would lead to federal overreach. His veto underscored a profound political and ideological rift between the President and the Radical Republicans in Congress, who advocated for more stringent Reconstruction policies and greater protections for former slaves.The veto of the Civil Rights Bill did not mark the end of the struggle for equality; rather, it galvanized Congress to action. In a rare and historic move, Congress overrode Johnson's veto in April 1866, marking the first time in U.S. history that a major piece of legislation became law over a presidential veto. This event signaled a shift in the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches and underscored the growing commitment of the federal government to civil rights.The passage of the Civil Rights Bill set the stage for the 14th Amendment, which would be ratified two years later in 1868. The amendment enshrined in the Constitution the principles of birthright citizenship and equal protection under the law, fundamentally transforming the nature of American citizenship and laying the groundwork for future civil rights advancements. Johnson's veto, and the legislative response it provoked, remain a testament to the turbulent and transformative nature of the Reconstruction era, highlighting the enduring struggle for justice and equality in the United States.The U.S. Justice Department strategically filed its significant antitrust lawsuit against Apple Inc. in New Jersey, aiming to leverage the Third Circuit Court's history of plaintiff-friendly rulings in monopoly cases. This move is part of the broader Biden administration effort to regulate the dominance of Big Tech through antitrust law, targeting practices Apple uses to maintain its smartphone market monopoly. The Third Circuit, known for its openness to cracking down on monopolistic behavior, contrasts with other circuits perceived as more defendant-friendly in antitrust matters.Legal experts point out the Third Circuit's precedents in supporting the government's stance against monopolistic practices, citing past rulings against companies like Dentsply and 3M Co. for violating the Sherman Act. These precedents underline the court's stricter standards for monopolists, relevant to the DOJ's allegations against Apple for Section 2 violations of the same act. The choice of New Jersey also reflects tactical considerations regarding subpoena power and the desire for a court that might approach the case with fresh eyes, avoiding circuits like the Ninth, where Apple has previously secured favorable rulings.The DOJ's lawsuit, joined by New Jersey and other states, underscores the strategic legal and geographic considerations at play in selecting a venue. This reflects a deliberate effort to position the case advantageously within the U.S. legal landscape, aiming for a fresh judicial examination of Apple's business practices and their impact on competition and consumers.DOJ's Apple Suit Filed in New Jersey for Friendly Third CircuitThe 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals has temporarily halted a Texas law, SB4, which authorizes state officials to arrest, detain, and deport individuals entering the U.S. illegally, pending an appeal. This decision represents a temporary victory for the Biden administration in a legal battle with significant ramifications for U.S. immigration policy. The court's 2-1 ruling maintains the suspension of the law, following a lower court judge's determination that it conflicts with federal immigration statutes.Chief Judge Priscilla Richman, writing for the court, underscored that immigration enforcement predominantly falls within federal jurisdiction, despite Texas' efforts to address what it perceives as a failure by Congress to fund adequate responses to increased illegal entries into the United States. She emphasized that Texas cannot assume the federal government's role in immigration matters according to the Constitution and laws.The contested law has caused considerable confusion and uncertainty in Texas, especially regarding its potential enforcement mechanisms. Texas officials argue that SB4 is necessary to mitigate the border crossing influx, criticizing federal inaction. Conversely, the Biden administration contends that the law unlawfully encroaches on federal authority to manage immigration policy and could hinder border management efforts.The appeals court noted that the Texas statute would likely disrupt the federal government's established processes for managing the removal of individuals in the country illegally, pointing out the federal system's complexity and national scope. The 5th Circuit is set to further review the state's appeal of a February ruling by US District Judge David Ezra, who blocked the law on grounds that it would effectively nullify federal law and authority. Oral arguments for the appeal are slated for April 3, as the broader legal challenge to SB4's enforceability continues, with the federal government, a Texas border county, and immigrant rights organizations seeking its permanent injunction.Texas Deportation Law Stays Blocked Until Appeal Is Resolved (1)Disney has settled a lawsuit with the state of Florida, marking the end of its dispute with Governor Ron DeSantis. This resolution came about after a board, appointed by DeSantis to manage the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District which oversees Disney's operations in the region, accepted Disney's settlement offer. The conflict, lasting nearly a year, stemmed from Disney's implementation of certain changes that diminished the municipal authority's powers, specifically limiting the new board's oversight on theme park expansions and billboard advertising.These changes were enacted just before the takeover by the DeSantis-appointed board, leading to a significant legal and public relations battle between the state and Disney, one of Florida's largest employers. Under the terms of the settlement, Disney has agreed to withdraw these controversial changes, thereby restoring the authority of the municipal board.Jeff Vahle, president of Walt Disney World Resort, expressed satisfaction with the settlement, highlighting that it not only concludes the ongoing litigation in Florida's state court but also initiates a period of positive engagement with the district's new leadership. He emphasized that this agreement facilitates further investments and job creation in Florida, benefiting both the state's economy and its workforce. This settlement represents a significant step towards resolving the tensions between Disney and the Florida government, opening the door to future cooperation and development.Disney Ends Fight With Ron DeSantis by Settling Florida LawsuitFlorida governor, Disney reach settlement | ReutersA consumer lawsuit accusing Apple of anti-competitive practices related to cryptocurrency transactions in its App Store was dismissed by a federal judge in San Francisco. The lawsuit, filed in November 2023, claimed Apple's restrictions on cryptocurrency technology stifled competition and increased transaction fees for services like Venmo and Cash App. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria criticized the lawsuit as "speculative," identifying several critical flaws, but allowed the plaintiffs 21 days to amend their complaint. Apple, which has faced various antitrust challenges, including a notable lawsuit from the U.S. Justice Department over smartphone market monopolization, denied any wrongdoing. This dismissal adds to the ongoing debate about Apple's influence on app market competition and its regulatory compliance amidst growing legal scrutiny.Apple defeats consumers' crypto-payment antitrust case for now | ReutersHunter Biden is set to request the dismissal of tax evasion charges against him, claiming the case is politically motivated. His legal team will argue before a Los Angeles federal court that the prosecution was influenced by Republican scrutiny of his father, President Joe Biden. Hunter has pleaded not guilty to charges of evading $1.4 million in taxes from 2016 to 2019, despite having repaid the amount. His trial is scheduled for June, ahead of the contentious November presidential election. Additionally, Hunter faces separate charges in Delaware related to the alleged purchase of a handgun while using illegal drugs, to which he has also pleaded not guilty. His defense includes claims of selective prosecution and challenges the appointment of Special Counsel David Weiss, asserting the case should be dismissed due to an earlier plea deal that fell through.Hunter Biden to ask judge to dismiss tax charges as politically motivated | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Lawmakers Ignoring The LawIn her influential 2017 Yale Law Journal article, "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox," Lina Khan argues that the current antitrust framework, which primarily focuses on consumer welfare and price effects, fails to capture the full range of anticompetitive practices employed by digital platforms like Amazon. She suggests that the Sherman Act and other antitrust laws may need to be reinterpreted or updated to address these companies' specific challenges from an anti-trust point of view.Khan writes,"The current framework in antitrust—specifically its pegging competition to 'consumer welfare,' defined as short-term price effects—is unequipped to capture the architecture of market power in the modern economy."She argues that focusing primarily on price effects overlooks other ways digital platforms can harm competition, such as by leveraging their dominance across multiple markets or using their control over data to create barriers to entry.While Khan does not explicitly state that the Sherman Act is inadequate, her arguments suggest that the current interpretation and application of antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act, may not be sufficient to address the challenges posed by Big Tech. Her work has contributed to a broader discussion about updating antitrust enforcement for the digital age. But the harsh truth is - she cannot use current Law because her targets are not breaking it.The DOJ complaint that Apple is a monopoly (not a crime) and abusing its monopoly power fails if the Sherman Act is relied upon to judge criminality. Although the FTC is not bringing the case—it is run by Lina Khan—the DOJ is clearly on the same page as she is in bringing it. In July 2023, I argued, “Khan and Gensler Should be Fired.” The case for that is now even more convincing.As Jason Snell from Six Colors argues:Defining a “monopoly.” Before we get to some of the details of Apple's specific anti-competitive behavior, it's worth noting that this suit is charging Apple with violations of the Sherman antitrust act, which is meant to specifically regulate monopolies. Things that are legal for regular companies to do become illegal when monopolies do them.Part of this document, then, has to establish that Apple holds monopoly power over a specific market. Given that Apple's share of the U.S. smartphone market is about 60 percent, how can it be called a monopoly? The DoJ attempts to square this circle in a few different ways: It uses revenue instead of unit sales, pointing out that Apple and Samsung combined hold 90 percent of the U.S. smartphone market by revenue. It creates a new sub-market, the “Performance Smartphone,” which pushes Apple up to about 70 percent of the market in terms of unit sales. It accuses Apple of attempting to create a monopoly through its various business tactics, which is also illegal.Questions I would ask about this approach: Can you add in Samsung, find a number starting in ninety, and declare something a monopoly? Is revenue share how monopolies are defined? Can you draw borders on a product category in a beneficial way in order to declare it a new market?Apple's position in the U.S. market is certainly strong, but regardless of how you view its behavior, it will be interesting to see if the DoJ can make a convincing case that Apple is actually a monopoly, given the presence of Samsung and Google in the market. Jason Snell, six colorsBecause the law does not provide a solid case against Apple, the DOJ is attempting to redefine the meaning of words to allow its case. This alone should be sufficient evidence that the complaint is a political, not a criminal, decision. The case will fail before a judge and jury, and Apple's response indicates it plans to fight.Renowned former journalist Walt Mossberg had this to say on Threads:https://www.threads.net/@mossbergwalt/post/C41RaBuvrC0And Steven Sinofsky - his article is below - gives a damning appraisal of the DOJs chances.His first day X post is a great overview from somebody who - at Microsoft - has been down this path with the DOJ. Click the graphic for the full thread.https://twitter.com/stevesi/status/1770878948421059035?s=61&t=vSSPDgMsv3aFc2ctR_yOwwApple's multibillion-dollar investment in building a global software distribution platform benefits its shareholders. But it also benefits users, even Android users. Who in their right mind would have thought Eric Schmidt would have focused on mobile as much had Apple not started the mobile revolution in 2007?The intense competition for users (Android's many varieties have about 80% global market share) drives innovation on all sides.The essence of the DOJ case is that Apple should be forced to be as bad as Android, or there will be no equality. The essay By Kurt Vonnegut that Daring Fireball ‘typeset'—‘HARRISON BERGERON'—is therefore entirely appropriate—and hilarious, too. It's the first Essay of the Week. See below.This DOJ complaint is not for “the people.” It is for the DOJ and the FTC, who are increasingly attempting to hold back innovation, especially when the innovator is better than the competition. This makes it increasingly irrelevant as accelerated competition challenges all incumbents.OpenAI and its peers (now several) are a great example, seemingly driving two of the slower movers - Apple and Google - to partner on AI in the next version of iOS.Well, there you have it. Shame on the DOJ for filing this amateur complaint. And if we buy the DOJ case or fail to oppose it, Shame on us. ContentsEditorial: Lawmakers Ignoring the LawEssays of the Week‘HARRISON BERGERON' ★ (Fiction) United States v. Apple (Complaint) Apple slams DOJ case as misguided attempt to turn iPhone into Android The Department of Justice comes for Apple A few thoughts on the DOJ's antitrust case against Apple Two Roads Diverged: The Splitting of Venture CapitalVideo of the WeekThe Odds of Raising a Series A, The Latest in Venture Valuations, The AI Premium and More! - Jason LemkinAI of the WeekNvidia's Accelerating AI Strategy. RTZ Apple Is in Talks to Let Google Gemini Power iPhone AI Features How to win at Vertical AI After raising $1.3B, Inflection is eaten alive by its biggest investor, Microsoft Here's how Microsoft is providing a ‘good outcome' for Inflection AI VCs, as Reid Hoffman promised Stability AI CEO resigns because you're ‘not going to beat centralized AI with more centralized AI' Saudi Arabia Announces New $40B AI Fund AI is changing writingNews Of the WeekVC Funds Drawing Down More Capital Truth Social is going public Reddit prices IPO at $34 per share, the top of the rangeStartup of the WeekNeuralink video shows patient using brain implant to play chess on laptopX of the WeekAlways good to know you can be fired from Deepmind for being an a*****e, abandon your $$ startup, and still get hired as a Microsoft VP! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thatwastheweek.com/subscribe

On Friday, the NCAA suffered another legal setback as a federal judge prohibited the organization from enforcing its rules against compensating recruits for their name, image, and likeness. The preliminary injunction, demanded by the states of Tennessee and Virginia, deals a blow to the NCAA's authority over college sports and its vast athlete population exceeding 500,000.Gabe Feldman, a sports law expert at Tulane University, suggested that congressional action might offer a lifeline to the NCAA, although he noted this ruling is preliminary and subject to appeal. The case would likely move to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, covering Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan.The NCAA faces a barrage of legal challenges, with at least five major federal antitrust cases underway, posing significant threats to its traditional model of amateurism. Feldman remarked on the unprecedented level of attacks the NCAA is confronting simultaneously, prompting serious discussions about necessary reforms in college sports.U.S. District Judge Clifton Corker's injunction challenges a longstanding NCAA principle: the prohibition of third-party payments to recruits. Corker argued that the NCAA's position likely violates antitrust laws, emphasizing the harm caused to athletes who cannot ascertain their true value before committing to a school.While acknowledging the importance of maintaining competitive balance, Corker cautioned against anticompetitive behavior, citing the Sherman Act's aim to prevent such practices.Support Us By Supporting Our Sponsors!LinkedIn These days every new potential hire can feel like a high stakes wager for your small business. That's why LinkedIn Jobs helps find the right people for your team, faster and for free. Post your job for free at LinkedIn.com/lockedoncollege. Terms and conditions apply.GametimeDownload the Gametime app, create an account, and use code LOCKEDON for $20 off your first purchase.FanDuelNew customers, join today and you'll getONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS in BONUS BETS if your first bet of FIVE DOLLARS or more wins. Visit FanDuel.com/LOCKEDON to get started. eBay MotorsWith all the parts you need at the prices you want, it's easy to turn your car into the MVP and bring home that win. Keep your ride-or-die alive at EbayMotors.com. Eligible items only. Exclusions apply. eBay Guaranteed Fit only available to US customers.FANDUEL DISCLAIMER: 21+ in select states. First online real money wager only. Bonus issued as nonwithdrawable free bets that expires in 14 days. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit FanDuel.com/RG (CO, IA, MD, MI, NJ, PA, IL, VA, WV), 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXTSTEP to 53342 (AZ), 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org/chat (CT), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (WY, KS) or visit ksgamblinghelp.com (KS), 1-877-770-STOP (LA), 1-877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY (467369) (NY), TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN)

We head to the Glacial Ridge of Minnesota and Home of Clear Springs Cattle Company.  The weather did not slow down feeder calf sales, we have several reports.  News updates, markets and lots more.  Join Jeff 'Tigger' Erhardt, the Boss Lady Rebecca Wanner aka 'BEC', and our crew as we bring you the latest in markets, news, and Western entertainment on this all-new episode of the Ranch It Up Radio Show.  Be sure to subscribe on your favorite podcasting app or on the Ranch It Up Radio Show YouTube Channel. EPISODE 167 DETAILS We are constantly working to highlight unique and innovative programs that bring you the very best genetics within their prospective breeds.  Today, we introduce you to Clear Springs Cattle Company and the philosophy behind the Bred For Balance Sale featuring quality Simmental and SimAngus Genetics.   Many parts of the country are being hit by winter weather conditions.  But that has not slowed down the feeder cattle market!  Is there no limit to where these feeder cattle prices can go?  Be bring you a market report from Faith Livestock Auction in Faith, South Dakota; Torrington Livestock in Torrington, Wyoming; and the Joplin Regional Stockyards in Joplin, Missouri.   CLEAR SPRINGS CATTLE COMPANY & THE BRED FOR BALANCE SALE The Wulf Family In 1949, Leonard Wulf moved to Minnesota when he married the love of his life, Vi. There they raised their family and lots of sheep and cattle. Jim was one of 11 children and learned to love cattle from his Dad, which he passed down to his sons. In 2011, Jim, Twyla, Travis and Brady moved south of Starbuck to start their ranch, Clear Springs Cattle Company. This is when the family transitioned from Limousin to Simmental. They then teamed up with Hook Farms to start marketing genetics under the Bred For Balance brand. The Ranch Located on the Glacial Ridge, surrounded by rolling prairie and oak savannas, Clear Springs has a unique landscape for Minnesota. The namesake is the many natural springs they have captured to water the cattle, providing them with some of the cleanest water in the world. Every acre is managed with soil health in mind, from intensive rotation on the pastureland to no till and cover crops practiced on the farmland. The vacation rental house on the ranch allows us to share our beautiful views and rural lifestyle with others. The Herd Grown mainly from the Hook Farms herd, the current CLRS cowherd is "bred for balance". Balance between genotype and physical traits, balance throughout their EPD profiles, and balance within the offering having both maternal and terminal oriented bulls. The latest tools and technology are used to further advance the genetics of the herd as well as good ol' cowboy logic. They strive to graze as long as possible each year and develop seedstock with longevity in mind. The Wulf family, along with their affiliates Highland Acres, Anderson Cattle and Trails End market yearling bulls and select females through the Bred for Balance sale held each February.   BEEF ANTITRUST LITIGATION GETS MORE ENTRIES According to Meating Place, The Big Four beef packing companies face yet another four lawsuits accusing them of conspiring to “fix, raise, stabilize and/or maintain the price of beef” sold to retailers since 2015, according to the documents in filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York last week. The New York cases mirror allegations leveled in lawsuits filed over the last few months in North Carolina and Illinois, and a case filed in 2022 by several quick-service restaurant chains. The Illinois case and those that were filed earlier have been transferred to the Minnesota District Court to be consolidated with other, similar antitrust cases in Multidistrict Litigation. All of those lawsuits resemble previous litigation against beef packers that garnered settlements in the tens of millions of dollars, at the same time that the Department of Justice and Congress scrutinized their practices.  In the most recent New York-based cases, BJ's Wholesale Club Inc., Gordon Food Service Inc. and Glazer Foods Co.,  Quality Supply Chain Co-Op Inc. (QSCC) and Target Corp., all accused Cargill Inc., JBS S.A., National Beef Packing Co. and Tyson Foods Inc. of coordinating or manipulating beef prices to levels they would not have reached without the alleged actions, according to court documents. The separate filings also accuse several operating affiliates of the four processors of participating in the alleged violations of the Sherman Act through “anticompetitive means” concerning the price of boxed and case-ready meat. The four defendants sold approximately 80% of the more than 25 million pounds of fresh and frozen beef sold in the U.S. market in 2018 alone, each of the similar suits claim. The latest lawsuits also all cite efforts by the U.S. Department of Justice and USDA in 2020 to investigate allegations of beef pricing practices among the current defendants going back to at least the beginning of 2015. SALE BARN REPORTS Faith Livestock Auction, Faith, South Dakota https://www.faithlivestock.com/ @faithlivestock.livestock1 Torrington Livestock, Torrington, Wyoming https://www.torringtonlivestock.com/ @TorringtonLivestock Joplin Regional Stockyards, Joplin, Wyoming https://www.joplinstockyards.com/index.php @JoplinStockyards FEATURING Travis Wulf, Clear Springs Cattle Company https://www.bredforbalance.com/ @twulf09   Kirk Donsbach: Stone X Financial https://www.stonex.com/   @StoneXGroupInc      Mark Van Zee  Livestock Market, Equine Market, Auction Time https://www.auctiontime.com/ https://www.livestockmarket.com/ https://www.equinemarket.com/ @LivestockMkt @EquineMkt @AuctionTime   Shaye Koester Casual Cattle Conversation https://www.casualcattleconversations.com/ @cattleconvos Questions & Concerns From The Field? Call or Text your questions, or comments to 707-RANCH20 or 707-726-2420 Or email RanchItUpShow@gmail.com FOLLOW Facebook/Instagram: @RanchItUpShow SUBSCRIBE to the Ranch It Up YouTube Channel: @ranchitup Website: RanchItUpShow.com https://ranchitupshow.com/ The Ranch It Up Podcast available on ALL podcasting apps. Rural America is center-stage on this outfit. AND how is that? Because of Tigger & BEC... Live This Western Lifestyle. Tigger & BEC represent the Working Ranch world by providing the cowboys, cowgirls, beef cattle producers & successful farmers the knowledge and education needed to bring high-quality beef & meat to your table for dinner. Learn more about Jeff 'Tigger' Erhardt & Rebecca Wanner aka BEC here: TiggerandBEC.com https://tiggerandbec.com/ #RanchItUp #StayRanchy #TiggerApproved #tiggerandbec #rodeo #ranching #farming References https://www.stonex.com/ https://www.livestockmarket.com/ https://www.equinemarket.com/ https://www.auctiontime.com/ https://gelbvieh.org/ https://www.imogeneingredients.com/ https://alliedgeneticresources.com/ https://westwayfeed.com/ https://medoraboot.com/ https://www.bek.news/dakotacowboy http://www.gostockmens.com/ https://www.lucky7angus.com/ https://www.bredforbalance.com/ https://www.wasemredangus.com/ https://ranchchannel.com/ https://www.faithlivestock.com/ https://www.faithlivestock.com/uploads/20240108Mon1.pdf https://www.joplinstockyards.com/index.php https://www.joplinstockyards.com/monday_thursday_weighted_averages.php https://www.cattleusa.com/ https://www.torringtonlivestock.com/ https://www.torringtonlivestock.com/sale%20results/January3_2024Market.pdf https://www.meatingplace.com/Industry/News/Details/112846

This Day in Legal History: Standard Oil Incorporated On this day in legal history, January 10 marks the incorporation of Standard Oil by John D. Rockefeller in 1870. This event set the stage for one of the most significant antitrust legal battles in American history. Standard Oil, under Rockefeller's leadership, quickly grew to dominate the U.S. oil industry, achieving near-monopoly status.The company's growth was characterized by aggressive strategies, such as undercutting competitors' prices, securing favorable railroad rates, and acquiring rival refineries. By the 1880s, Standard Oil controlled approximately 90% of the U.S. refining capacity, prompting public and legal scrutiny.Concerns about Standard Oil's monopoly power and business tactics contributed to the development of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, a landmark federal statute in the field of competition law. The Act aimed to prohibit monopolistic practices and promote fair competition.In 1906, the federal government filed a lawsuit against Standard Oil under the Sherman Act. The case, Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey vs. United States, reached the Supreme Court. The Court's 1911 decision became a cornerstone of antitrust jurisprudence.The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling, found Standard Oil guilty of monopolizing the petroleum industry through a series of abusive and anticompetitive actions. The Court ordered the dissolution of Standard Oil into 34 independent companies, including those that would become ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips.This case set a significant precedent for antitrust enforcement in the United States. It demonstrated the government's commitment to regulating large corporations and maintaining competitive markets. The ruling was also a pivotal moment in the history of corporate law, shaping the legal landscape for future antitrust cases.The rise and fall of Standard Oil not only transformed the oil industry but also had a lasting impact on American business practices and legal frameworks. Rockefeller, through this enterprise, became America's first billionaire, illustrating the profound economic impact of the industrial age.Today, the legacy of the Standard Oil case continues to influence antitrust law and policy, serving as a reminder of the legal system's role in balancing corporate power and public interest.The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) experienced a significant cybersecurity incident when its social media account was hacked. The compromised account falsely announced the approval of a spot-Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF), which led to a brief surge in Bitcoin's price. This incident has triggered an investigation by US authorities into the breach of one of Wall Street's main regulatory bodies.Kurt Gottschall, a former SEC regional director, commented on the irony of the situation, noting that the SEC, known for its strict stance on cybersecurity breaches in public companies, is now a victim itself. The hack has also intensified criticism from cryptocurrency advocates, who perceive the SEC's chair, Gary Gensler, as overly stringent on crypto regulations.The SEC confirmed that the unauthorized access was terminated and clarified that the post about the ETF approval was not made by the SEC or its staff. Joe Benarroch, head of business operations at the involved social media service, stated that they are investigating the root cause of the hack. It was revealed that the SEC's account did not have two-factor authentication enabled, a standard security measure, at the time of the incident.Republican Senators JD Vance and Thom Tillis have demanded explanations from the SEC regarding this misleading post, seeking a briefing and responses by January 23.Meanwhile, anticipation for the SEC's decision on several Bitcoin ETF applications is high. The SEC is due to act on these applications, with speculation about possible approval for these products. The approval process involves signing off on exchange filings and the issuers' registration applications, with potential for the ETFs to start trading soon after approval.This incident underscores the ongoing controversy and speculation surrounding the introduction of spot-backed Bitcoin ETFs, an area where the SEC has historically expressed concerns over investor protection and market manipulation.SEC's X Account Hacked to Falsely Say Bitcoin ETF Approved (3)In 2023, U.S. law firms saw a significant milestone with women associates outnumbering their male counterparts for the first time. According to a survey by the National Association for Law Placement (NALP), 50.3% of associates in U.S. law firms were women last year. This shift reflects the growing gender dynamics in the legal profession, as the number of women in U.S. law schools has been surpassing men for the past eight years, with nearly 56% of current J.D. students being women.Since NALP began tracking diversity data in 1991, when women comprised just over 38% of law firm associates, there has been a gradual but notable increase in their representation. Nikia Gray, NALP's executive director, emphasizes that real change is slow and hard, but it does happen. However, the increase in women's representation is not uniform across all levels in law firms. While women made up 27.76% of all partners in 2023, the largest year-over-year increase recorded by NALP, they still represent less than half the percentage of female associates, highlighting a significant gender gap at higher levels.The survey also indicates improvements in racial diversity within law firms. In 2023, associates of color represented 30.15%, a record increase, and non-white partners increased to 12.1%. Despite these gains, women of color still account for less than 5% of all partners, although Black and Latina women surpassed 1% of partners for the first time in 2023.However, there's a potential concern for future diversity as the percentage of minority students in summer associate internships dropped in 2023 for the first time since 2017. This decline might signal a slowdown in the diversity shift among associates, considering the role of summer programs as a pipeline to full-time positions in law firms.Most US law firm associates were women in 2023, survey shows | ReutersSteve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Inc., is challenging the limits of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in a case against YouTube. This federal law acts as a liability shield for online platforms from lawsuits regarding third-party content. The case, argued before California's Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal, centers on YouTube's role in a scam involving doctored footage of Wozniak and other tech figures to promote a fake Bitcoin giveaway.Wozniak's legal team argues that YouTube contributed to the scam's credibility by awarding verification badges, indicated by check marks, to accounts that posted the fraudulent videos. These badges are typically seen as symbols of authenticity. The justices are probing whether these badges, requested by users, constitute YouTube's own content or are simply enhancements of third-party content, which would then be protected under Section 230.YouTube's attorney, Mark Yohalem, referenced a precedent case, Gentry v. eBay, Inc., to argue that platforms are not liable for labels like “power sellers” given to third-party users, drawing a parallel to YouTube's verification badges. Yohalem asserts that promoting visibility of third-party content falls under the definition of publishing, and hence, is protected under Section 230.Wozniak's attorney, Brian Danitz, contends that YouTube's profit from the hoax should exclude it from Section 230's liability shield. He also seeks to investigate YouTube's processes for creating targeted ads and verification badges.The case, Wozniak v. YouTube, highlights a growing debate among federal appellate judges and justices over the expansive interpretations of Section 230, which was originally intended to foster internet growth. This lawsuit also involves the misuse of videos of other celebrities like Elon Musk and Bill Gates in the hoax. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the liability of online platforms in cases of third-party content misuse.If you have any interest in learning more about Section 230, we have a separate Max Min episode on just that topic. Steve Wozniak Case Cues Test of Internet Liability Shield LimitThe first trial among dozens of activists charged with conspiring to halt the construction of an Atlanta police training center, commonly referred to as "Cop City," is set to commence. Ayla King, a 19-year-old from Worcester, Massachusetts, faces charges under Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a state law modeled after the federal law originally intended to combat organized crime.King is accused of being part of "Defend the Atlanta Forest," a group that has allegedly occupied the site of the proposed $90 million Atlanta Public Safety Training Center. This center, which includes a mock city and emergency vehicle course, is opposed by protesters for reasons including increased police militarization and environmental concerns.The case is notable as it's the first time Georgia has applied the RICO Act to a protest group, according to Chris Timmons, a law teacher at Georgia State University. He points out that prosecutors are wielding a powerful law that might transform some misdemeanors into more serious charges. If proven that the group's actions extended beyond protest to criminal activity, it could justify the use of the RICO Act.King, who has been released on a $15,000 bond and pleaded not guilty, is specifically charged with participating in a riot at the construction site. Her trial is separate as she requested a speedy trial, and her outcome won't directly affect the other cases, though it might influence plea deal negotiations.A gag order has been issued in the case, limiting public statements by defense attorneys and prosecutors. King's attorney argues that there is no evidence linking her to the group that damaged construction equipment.Christopher Bruce, policy director for the ACLU of Georgia, criticized the broad application of Georgia's RICO Act in this context, stating it was meant for organized crime and is now being used to target government dissenters. The trial is a significant test case for the use of the RICO Act against protest groups and has broader implications for how such laws are applied to social and environmental activism.First conspiracy trial over Atlanta 'Cop City' protests set to begin | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Kristen Collin interviews James Goodrich on data monopolies and the neo-Brandeis movement. They begin their conversation by addressing the political nature of algorithmic bias and how we define data property rights. They discuss how certain firms have a sort of monopoly power over behavioral data gathering and converse on consumer welfare and market morality, the neo-Brandeis antitrust movement, the Sherman Act, the right to exclude, data as being nonrivalrous, concerns for privacy, cautions regarding the use of unvetted AI, and more!James Goodrich is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a member of UW-Madison's interdisciplinary cluster in the ethics of computing, data, and information. He works primarily in normative ethics and the interdisciplinary field of philosophy, politics, and economics. He is an alum of the Mercatus Adam Smith Fellowship.Read more work from Kristen Collins.References and related works to this episode: Sanjukta Paul's "Recovering the Moral Economy Foundations of the Sherman Act," Linda Khan's "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox," Robert Bork's The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself, and “The Fallacy of AI Functionality” by Inioluwa Deborah Raji, I. Elizabeth Kumar, Aaron Horowitx, and Andrew D. Selbst.If you like the show, please subscribe, leave a 5-star review, and tell others about the show! We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, and wherever you get your podcasts.Follow the Hayek Program on Twitter: @HayekProgramLearn more about Academic & Student ProgramsFollow the Mercatus Center on Twitter: @mercatus

This Day in Legal History: President Lincoln Offers Amnesty to Confederates On this day in legal history, December 8 marks a significant moment during the American Civil War era. In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln initiated a groundbreaking approach towards reconciliation and reconstruction of the nation torn by civil strife. He issued a Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction, extending an olive branch to those who had participated in the Confederate cause. This proclamation invited all Confederate citizens, except for certain excluded classes, to swear allegiance to the United States and its Constitution, thereby offering them a chance to reintegrate into the Union.However, the initial rollout of this amnesty program encountered logistical and administrative challenges, particularly regarding the process of administering the oath of allegiance. To address these complications, President Lincoln released a subsequent proclamation on March 26, 1864. This second directive expanded the authority to administer the oath, allowing any commissioned officer, whether civil, military, or naval, in the service of the United States to do so. Furthermore, it extended this authority to officials in territories not actively involved in the insurrection, provided they were legally qualified to administer oaths.It's noteworthy that while these proclamations opened the door for many Confederates to rejoin the Union, they explicitly excluded certain groups. These included military prisoners and individuals detained for offenses against the United States. However, an interesting exception was made for Confederate deserters, who were permitted to volunteer for the oath and thus become eligible for amnesty.This dual-proclamation strategy by Lincoln was a pivotal step in the United States' journey towards healing and unification after the Civil War, reflecting a balance between justice and mercy in a period marked by deep national divisions.Seven states, led by Ohio, have filed a lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) challenging its Transfer Eligibility Rule as anti-competitive. This rule restricts student athletes from competing for a year if they transfer between Division I schools. The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, alleges that the rule violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits trade restraints. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, one of the participants in the lawsuit, criticizes the rule for its minimal connection to academic or athletic amateurism and argues that it harms both college athletes and consumers.The lawsuit was prompted, in part, by the NCAA's denial of a transfer waiver for athlete RaeQuan Battle, who sought to play basketball for West Virginia University after transferring from Montana State University. The NCAA's transfer rules require student athletes to obtain permission for transfers, usually only granted under specific circumstances like health or urgent needs.The complaint argues that the transfer rule unfairly restricts players' mobility and opportunities, ironically under the guise of protecting their welfare. It prevents athletes from optimizing their own welfare by making them choose between immediate ineligibility and transferring to a better-suited school.Additionally, this lawsuit is among several recent legal challenges against the NCAA. These include lawsuits by student athletes over fair compensation for their name, image, and likeness, and by NCAA volunteer coaches alleging a conspiracy to avoid paying them. Recently, college athletes gained class action status in a lawsuit against the NCAA for denying compensation for the use of their likenesses, potentially leading to damages up to $4.5 billion. Another class action in California challenges the NCAA's cap on athlete compensation.NCAA Transfer Rule Challenged by States as Anti-Competitive (1)The Los Angeles trial court system is experimenting with an artificial intelligence (AI) tool designed to redact minors' personal information from court records. This initiative, led by Accenture PLC, involves using AI to identify and remove sensitive data such as social security numbers, addresses, and medical information from minors' case files. This is part of an effort to enhance privacy and efficiency in handling court documents.Los Angeles Superior Court Presiding Judge Samantha Jessner supports the use of AI for good, believing that this tool can improve efficiency in managing similar tasks. Currently, the court employs software akin to Microsoft Word's find-and-replace feature, requiring manual input by court staff.Fordham University School of Law Associate Professor Chinmayi Sharma sees potential in this AI tool to alleviate long wait times and backlogs, particularly in family court proceedings. However, the tool is still in development, and it's uncertain whether the Los Angeles Superior Court will ultimately implement it.The Court Technology Services division plans to manage access to the tool. Clerks will feed documents into the system for redaction, and logged-in users will be able to view the redacted documents. The staff will review these redactions to ensure accuracy.Sharma notes that human oversight is crucial, as the tool's suggestions are subject to final approval by a person. If errors are identified, documents can be taken down, corrected, and republished.Concerns exist regarding potential AI biases, especially since AI models often perform better with data associated with more represented demographics like white people. However, if the AI relies solely on court documents for training, which more accurately reflect the court's demographics, the likelihood of bias might be reduced.David Evan Harris, a scholar at the University of California, Berkeley, emphasizes the need for public scrutiny, bias testing, and transparency regarding the vendor. He also stresses the importance of considering the overall ecosystem surrounding the tool, including user interface ease and staff workload.Sharma warns of the risks of over-reliance on the AI system by employees, drawing parallels to law firm associates who might trust AI-generated sources without thorough verification. This highlights the need for careful checks even as AI assists in the redaction process.AI Tool to Redact Minors' Info in Testing for Los Angeles CourtDonald Trump is launching an appeal that could reach the Supreme Court, representing his best chance to avoid a trial next year over criminal charges related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Legal experts suggest that the appeal might not succeed on its merits but could delay the trial, allowing Trump to continue his campaign against President Joe Biden. His lawyers are appealing a ruling by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., which rejected Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution for actions taken while president.The trial is scheduled to begin in March, but this appeal could significantly postpone it. Trump's legal team has requested to halt all proceedings before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan while the appeal is pending. Special Counsel Jack Smith's office has accused Trump of consistently attempting to delay and disrupt the trial.Trump faces charges of defrauding the United States and obstructing Congress through schemes to halt the transfer of power after losing the 2020 election. He has pleaded not guilty and argued that prosecuting former presidents for official actions would weaken the presidency, an argument dismissed by Judge Chutkan.The timeline for the appeal process is uncertain. The D.C. Circuit court could expedite its review, possibly maintaining the current trial schedule. However, if the appeals process is prolonged and the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, the March trial date becomes highly unlikely, potentially delaying the case for months.Trump's appeal strategy could impact his simultaneous criminal prosecutions in other cases. Any significant delay could affect the timing of these trials, especially as the 2024 election approaches. Trump has consistently denied all charges, labeling them a "witch hunt."Trump immunity appeal offers best chance to stave off 2020 election trial | ReutersGene Levoff, Apple's former top corporate lawyer, has been sentenced to probation after pleading guilty to U.S. insider trading charges. U.S. District Judge William Martini in Newark, New Jersey, handed down a sentence of four years of probation and 2,000 hours of community service. Additionally, Levoff was ordered to pay a $30,000 fine and forfeit $604,000, the amount he gained illegally through insider trading.Levoff admitted to six counts of securities fraud, each of which could have carried a maximum 20-year prison term and a $5 million fine. His lawyer, Kevin Marino, expressed satisfaction with the sentencing, considering it fair and appropriate.Prosecutors revealed that Levoff used his positions at Apple, including corporate secretary, head of corporate law, and co-chair of a committee reviewing the company's financial results, to make illegal trades. He gained $604,000 from trading over $14 million between 2011 and 2016, exploiting confidential information and ignoring Apple's "blackout periods" that prohibit trading before financial results are publicized.Levoff was also responsible for enforcing Apple's insider trading policy, which he violated. Apple, headquartered in Cupertino, California, terminated Levoff in September 2018, five months before he faced criminal charges.Ex-Apple lawyer sentenced to probation for insider trading | ReutersA lawsuit has been filed in a Chicago federal court against major video game developers, including Activision Blizzard Inc., Epic Games Inc., Roblox Corp., and other companies, alleging that their games have led to addiction in a 9-year-old. The child, identified as D.G. in the complaint, reportedly suffers from severe emotional distress, diminished social interactions, loss of friends, poor hygiene, and withdrawal symptoms such as rage and anger due to playing games like Fortnite, Call of Duty, and Grand Theft Auto for six to eight hours daily.The lawsuit claims that video game addiction is a national epidemic affecting youth, driven by feedback loops, reward systems, and microtransactions in games. These microtransactions allow users to spend real money on in-game perks, exploiting psychological mechanisms and neuroscience, particularly impacting vulnerable groups like minors.D.G. plays across various platforms, including Xbox, PS4, iPhone, and Android devices. The complaint also points to patents owned by the gaming companies that allegedly encourage in-game spending, thereby deceiving and harming children while benefitting the companies financially.The Entertainment Software Association, a video game trade group, responded to the lawsuit, stating that the industry prioritizes positive experiences for players and provides tools for managing gameplay aspects. The trade group argues that billions of people globally enjoy video games healthily and responsibly, and claims to the contrary are not fact-based.The lawsuit also names Apple Inc., Google LLC, Microsoft Corp., and Nintendo of America Inc. as defendants. Activision, Epic, Video Game Developers Face Addiction Suit (1) Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Today's episode is a deep dive into a topic that's been making waves in the real estate world—the National Association of Realtors Lawsuit.The National Association of Realtors (NAR), a powerful organization with a significant lobbying influence, is at the center of a groundbreaking lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that NAR, along with other major players in the real estate market, violated the Sherman Act, the first antitrust law enacted in 1890 to prevent monopolistic practices.Listen in as we share our hot take on the lawsuit, examining both sides of the argument.--To learn more about our full-service turnkey operations, check us out online at www.spartaninvest.comConnect with Spartan!Facebook: @spartaninvestInstagram: @spartaninvestTwitter: @spartaninvestConnect with Lindsay!Facebook: @spartanlindsaydavisInstagram: @spartanlindsaydavis

On October 10, 2023 Andre Elijah Immersive filed a $353 million dollar lawsuit against Meta Platforms Technologies and Alo LLC (PDF & Exhibits via UploadVR) claiming both a breach of contract for how Meta terminated a fitness application that it was funding, but also for a broader pattern of anti-competitive behaviors and Sherman Act violations. Elijah is claiming that Meta is giving preference to their own first-party fitness application of Supernatural after the FTC failed to block the acquisition of Within in February 2023. Elijah says that Meta was hedging their bets in the fitness space by investing in other XR apps by taking an ownership stake in different XR projects like the yoga and pilates mixed reality fitness app that he was developing in collaboration Alo LLC. But after the Within sale finally went through, then Elijah claims that Meta found a way to kill off his app in way that breached their contract and represented a broader pattern of anti-competitive practices. The US Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) attempted to sue Meta for alleged anti-competitive behaviors of their 2012 Instagram acquisition, but it was 8 years after the fact in 2020. At the time were a number of indie VR developers who were claiming that Meta was still deploying different anti-competitive practices in how the VR ecosystem was developing. This included BigScreenVR's Darshan Shankar claiming that Meta was preventing his business model of movie screenings in VR while at the same time not preventing their own potential aspirations to do the same. Guy Goodin was forced to remove SteamVR streaming features from his Virtual Desktop application when Meta was working on their own competing product, and Cix Liv claimed that Meta was blocking his application from the app store when Meta had a competing first-party application. Then Meta changed their name from Facebook, and then a day later Meta announced they were acquiring popular fitness application Supernatural made by Within. Then the FTC announced on July 27, 2022 that they're seeking to "Block Virtual Reality Giant Meta's Acquisition of Popular App Creator Within." It wasn't until February 1, 2023 that Bloomberg reported that "US District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California, denied the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction to block the proposed transaction." This cleared the way for the Within acquisition to finally go through, and this sets the broader context for Elijah's interactions with Meta in the context of the fitness application space. I had a chance to sit down with Elijah to get a bit more context for what happened, why he believes that Meta is at a minimum in breach of their contract, but also why he's invoking the Sherman Act and alleging some deeper patterns of anti-competitive behaviors. This is a listener-supported podcast through the Voices of VR Patreon. Music: Fatality

In this episode we discuss that when working as a Realtor®, to talk with another Realtor® outside of your organization about your commission structure, is considered to be a violation of the Sherman Act and is an antitrust violation. Each agent is allowed to charge any rate that they see fit for their services based on the agreement they have with their client. After that there is also the possibility of having all different commission splits structures with their broker. Working for a buyer you may have an exclusive buyers agency agreement where you have a contract to be paid all or some of the commission by your buyer. You may also be collecting commissions offered by the listing agent known as cooperating compensation which was used by the sellers to attract a buyer through a buyer's agent.

Ürünlerin, fikirlerin, teorilerin yarıştığı bir piyasalar dünyasındayız. Eğer bir yerde israf varsa, verimsizlik varsa, doktorlar hemen teşhisi koyuyorlar: Daha fazla rekabet, daha şeffaf piyasalar! Epey popüler bir din. Madem öyle biraz kafirlik yapıp soralım: İdeal şartlar altında dahi, ekonomik rekabetin ilaçtan ziyade zehir olduğu durumlar var mı?Konular:(00:04) Hayatımdaki ilk münazara(02:00) Sherman Act(03:40) Sperm Rekabeti(07:27) İnsanın rekabeti ehlileştirmesi(08:31) "Race to the bottom"(09:53) Sosyal fayda: Spor(11:03) Sosyal zarar: Akademik dil(12:35) Sosyal zarar: Uydu kirliliği(13:21) Sosyal zarar: Sürü bağışıklığı(14:10) "Tragedy of the commons"(16:20) Çare: Düzenleme(16:52) Çare: Özelleştirme(18:07) Çare: Fiyatların içselleştirilmesi(19:01) Eğitim şart değil!(20:08) Keynesian Güzellik Yarışı(21:05) 2/3 oyunu(23:18) Medeniyete dönüş ve teşekkürler.Kaynaklar:Yazı: Why Are 250 Million Sperm Cells Released During Sex?Haber: China Surges Ahead of U.S. in STEM PhDsHaber: Carbon Credit Market SizeMakale: Is competition always good?Makale: The Tragedy of the Commons (1968)Makale (PDF): Human competition is not lower if competing is socially wastefulSperm rekabeti konusu hakkında uzman bir arkadaşın önerdiği teknik olmayan kaynaklar:Wild Sex - Carin Bondar (Türkce cevirisi mevcut: Seksin Doğası)The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature - Matt RidleyBitch: What does it mean to be female? - Lucy CookeThe evolution of beauty – Richard Prum------- Podbee Sunar ------- Bu podcast techcareer.net hakkında reklam içerir. Ücretsiz bootcamplere katılmak, eğitimlerle seviye atlamak veya teknoloji alanında iş bulmak istiyorsan, hemen şimdi buradan techcareer.net'e üye ol, kariyerini yükselt.Bu podcast, Lavita hakkında reklam içerir.Eğer günlük beslenmenizi 70'ten fazla doğal meyve, sebze ve bitki özü içeren mikro besin konsantresi LaVita ile desteklemek istiyorsanız, hemen şimdi buradaki linkten FULARSIZ20 kodunu kullanarak %20 indirim fırsatını değerlendirin ve Dünya dalış rekortmeni Cenk Devrim Ulusoy'dan online nefes egzersizi eğitimini kaçırmayın!Açıklama: Nefes egzersizi eğitimi 8 Ekim 2023 tarihinde online bir webinar olarak düzenlenecektir. Ürünü indirim koduyla satın alan müşterilere firma tarafından bilgilendirme e-postası gönderilecek ve olası bir tarih değişikliği durumunda da bilgilendirme yapılacaktır.*Neuroendocrinology. 2015 Eyl; 36(4): 337-347. Yönetmen: Prof. Dr. Mosgöller, Viyana Üniversitesi"See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Biotech founder and investor Martin Shkreli joins Erik Torenberg and his co-host Jesse Genet on In The Arena podcast to dissect his controversies and crises through the lens of leadership. Martin goes deep into the leadership decisions and regulatory environment that led to him serving time in prison, the lessons he took away about tech and founding startups, and how he believes there is a hero's journey arc up ahead. If you're looking for an ERP platform, check out our sponsor, NetSuite: http://netsuite.com/upstream In The Arena is a part of the Turpentine podcast network. If you loved listening, subscribe at the podcast platform of your choice: https://link.chtbl.com/MwjyhPC5 Upstream and In The Arena are part of the Turpentine podcast network. Learn more: www.turpentine.co RECOMMENDED PODCAST:  Every week investor and writer of the popular newsletter The Diff, Byrne Hobart, and co-host Erik Torenberg discuss today's major inflection points in technology, business, and markets – and help listeners build a diversified portfolio of trends and ideas for the future. Subscribe to “The Riff” with Byrne Hobart and Erik Torenberg: https://link.chtbl.com/theriff TIMESTAMPS: (00:00) Episode Preview (01:52) Reliving Martin's most stressful moment (06:09) How the lawsuit impacted Martin's team (09:52) How the government handled Shkreli's case (11:22) The day Martin was taken by authorities (14:28) Sponsor: NetSuite (19:10) Hedge funds' relationships with the law compared with venture (25:57) The price hike and pharma industry norms (32:22) Explanation of charges (41:15) The new CEO (44:36) New trope of private equity pharma (48:57) The demise of trust in the media and Pharma Bro (57:11) Regrets and anger (59:45) The epidemic of criminal injustice (01:02:58) Being sued by the FTC under the Sherman Act (monopoly law) (01:06:03) Shkreli and Silicon Valley (01:08:31) Entrepreneurship post-indictment (01:15:40) Martin's time in prison (01:21:48) Martin reflects on being a repeat founder, and where his passions lie now. X / TWITTER: @wagieeacc (Martin) @jessegenet (Jesse) @eriktorenberg (Erik) @inthearena_pod Please support our sponsors: Shopify Shopify: https://shopify.com/torenberg for a $1/month trial period Shopify is the global commerce platform that helps you sell at every stage of your business. Shopify powers 10% of all ecommerce in the US. And Shopify's the global force behind Allbirds, Rothy's, and Brooklinen, and 1,000,000s of other entrepreneurs across 175 countries. From their all-in-one ecommerce platform, to their in-person POS system – wherever and whatever you're selling, Shopify's got you covered. Sign up for $1/month trial period: https://shopify.com/torenberg.

Biotech founder and investor Martin Shkreli joins Jesse Genet and Erik Torenberg on In The Arena to dissect his controversies and crises through the lens of leadership. Martin goes deep into the decisions, mindset, and unforeseen logistics that led to him serving time in prison, the lessons he took away about tech and founding startups, and how he believes there is a hero's journey arc up ahead.  RECOMMENDED PODCAST: The HR industry is at a crossroads. What will it take to construct the next generation of incredible businesses – and where can people leaders have the most business impact? Hosts Nolan Church and Kelli Dragovich have been through it all, the highs and the lows – IPOs, layoffs, executive turnover, board meetings, culture changes, and more. With a lineup of industry vets and experts, Nolan and Kelli break down the nitty-gritty details, trade offs, and dynamics of constructing high performing companies. Through unfiltered conversations that can only happen between seasoned practitioners, Kelli and Nolan dive deep into the kind of leadership-level strategy that often happens behind closed doors. Check out the first episode with the architect of Netflix's culture deck Patty McCord. https://link.chtbl.com/hrheretics In The Arena is a part of the Turpentine podcast network. Learn more: www.turpentine.co RECOMMENDED PODCAST: Econ 102 with Noah Smith and Erik Torenberg Economist and Substack writers Noah Smith and Erik Torenberg make sense of what's happening in the news, technology, business, and beyond, through the lens of economics. Subscribe to the show: https://link.chtbl.com/Econ102 TIMESTAMPS: (00:00) Episode preview (03:55) Perceptions of the media (06:00) How the lawsuit impacted Martin's team (09:40) How the government handled Shkreli's case (12:50) The day Martin was taken by authorities (15:30) Hedge funds' relationships with the law compared with venture (24:15 The price hike and pharma industry norms (29:45) Explanation of charges (38:30) The new CEO (41:00) New trope of private equity pharma (47:30) The demise of the trust in the media (54:20) Regrets and anger (58:15) The epidemic of criminal injustice (1:00:00) Being sued under the Sherman Act (monopoly law) (1:03:26) Shkreli and Silicon Valley (1:05:45) Entrepreneurship post-indictment (1:13:00) Martin's time in prison (1:19:10) Martin reflects on being a repeat founder and where his passions lie now. TWITTER:  @wagieeacc (Martin) @jessegenet (Jesse) @eriktorenberg (Erik) @inthearena_pod 

In the latest episode of Second Request, Teddy interviews Bob Lande on the impact of textualism on merger analysis. Bob Lande is Venable Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Baltimore School of Law and a board member for the American Antitrust Institute who has written about the use of textualism in antitrust enforcement and the way it affects statutory interpretation in a recent article for the Utah Law Review and a presentation to the FTC.Due to its emphasis on “precise language,” Bob argues that rather than leading to more conservative antitrust decision making by the courts, textualism should lead to the exact opposite: “Textualism should lead, if anything, to more aggressive antitrust enforcement….This is because the Sherman Act, the FTC Act and the Clayton Act are all products of the progressive era. It's not surprising that their precise language is very pro-consumer and very anti-monopoly.”Listen to the podcast to hear Teddy and Bob discuss:• Section 7 language• The express efficiencies defense• Monopolization