US Congressional act
POPULARITY
8 episodes with sherman act
5 episodes with sherman act
5 episodes with sherman act
2 episodes with sherman act
2 episodes with sherman act
2 episodes with sherman act
2 episodes with sherman act
2 episodes with sherman act
2 episodes with sherman act
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
Locked On Big 12 - Daily College Football & Basketball Podcast
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)
US v AU Optronics, or, the LCD screens case, is one of the most important price-fixing cartel cases of the last 25 years. Now, for the first time, co-hosts Anant Raut and Anna Pletcher bring together lawyers from the prosecution, defense, and presiding Judge Susan Illston to recount some of the case's historic firsts, including the size of the financial harm, the extraterritorial reach of the Sherman Act, and the unique sentencing imposed. Get an inside take on the litigation strategies, the legal arguments, and the view from the bench in a one-of-its-kind account of this watershed case! With special guests: Hon. Susan Illston, Senior Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Heather Nyong'o, Partner, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Brent Snyder, Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, and Patrick Robbins, former Partner, Shearman & Sterling LLP Related Links: United States' Sentencing Memorandum Hosted by: Anant Raut and Anna Pletcher
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
Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 1069, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: A Trip To The Islands 1: This 2,200-square-mile Canadian island was named for a son of George III. Prince Edward Island. 2: The "Big Island" of the Tierra del Fuego archipelago is shared between Argentina and this country. Chile. 3: The migration of the red crabs is an annual spectacle on this Indian Ocean island named for a holiday. Christmas Island. 4: An island called the Phantom Ship rises from the water inside a volcanic caldera in this Oregon national park. Crater Lake. 5: On this Greek island you can soak up the sun on Elafonisi Beach or tour the ruins of the ancient palace of Knossos. Crete. Round 2. Category: The Name Of The Board Game 1: Rhinoplasty or appendectomy, for example. Operation. 2: The USS Missouri is an Iowa-class one. Battleship. 3: The Sherman Act of 1890 was meant to combat this type of business. Monopoly. 4: Slang for a tornado. Twister. 5: Nixon's spaniel. Checkers. Round 3. Category: My Name Is Earl Warren 1: In Reynolds v. Sims I said that representation in legislatures must be based mostly on population: one man, one this. vote. 2: I am interred at this national cemetery. Arlington. 3: I was a 3-term governor of this state, 1943-1953. California. 4: On June 23, 1969 I swore in this man as Chief Justice of the U.S.. Warren Burger. 5: I ruled that public school segregation was unconstitutional in this landmark 1954 case. Brown v. Board of Education. Round 4. Category: Make Light Work 1: Around noon on some days, Germany gets close to half its power from this source. solar power. 2: The light type of this is a basic tool of cell biology, magnifying specimens hundreds of times. a microscope. 3: Take a mind-expanding journey at the live show called Paramount's Laser Spectacular, with the music of this "Dark Side" band. Pink Floyd. 4: 10 projectors show astronomical wonders in the USA's largest of these facilities, at a Jersey City science center. a planetarium. 5: John Alcott and Emmanuel Lubezki, people in this profession, are noted for creative use of natural light. cinematographers. Round 5. Category: Inca Hoots? 1: When in Peru, don't forget to check out the cute pygmy owls named for these mountains. the Andes. 2: The name of this city taken by Pizarro in 1533 is derived from Quechuan words meaning "rock of the owl". Cuzco. 3: After listening to its piercing cry, you'll know why this west Peruvian owl is so named. the screech-owl. 4: Peru's ferruginous pygmy owls are the color of this, which is formed by oxidation. rust. 5: A long-whiskered owlet was seen in Peru in 2007; it's so rare it has its own genus, Xenoglaux, meaning this "owl". foreign (or strange). Thanks for listening! Come back tomorrow for more exciting trivia!Special thanks to https://blog.feedspot.com/trivia_podcasts/ AI Voices used
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
After Senator Elizabeth Warren of twas mildly mocked after posting a series of complaints about a proposed merger of two sub sandwich chains. In this discussion, Taxpayer Protection Alliance president Pat Hedger reacts to the tweets and the bigger picture of the government's role in regulating (some would say micromanaging) free market decisions. * this discussion originally aired on NewsTalk STL in St Louis
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
On this day in legal history, October 19, 1765, the Stamp Act Congress convened in New York City, adopting resolutions that played a crucial role in shaping American constitutional theory and paving the way for the American Revolution. The Congress, comprised of delegates from nine American colonies, was formed as a united response to the Stamp Act of 1765. The act had imposed "internal" taxes on a wide range of legal and commercial documents, as well as other printed materials. Ostensibly, the tax aimed to cover the expenses for British troops stationed in the American colonies following the French and Indian War. However, the colonists argued that not only had they already paid their share of war expenses, but the tax also seemed more like a form of British patronage for surplus military officers.The Stamp Act ignited widespread animosity among the colonists, who saw it as a violation of their rights as Englishmen. The overarching sentiment was encapsulated in the slogan "No taxation without representation," asserting that only the colonial legislatures could grant consent to taxation. The Stamp Act Congress was the first significant joint colonial action in response to British measures, and its resolutions petitioned both Parliament and the King.Debate over representation also flared up in the British Parliament. One argument claimed that the American colonists were "virtually represented" just like the majority of Britons who didn't own property and couldn't vote. However, this notion was sharply refuted by Daniel Dulany, a Maryland attorney, who contended that the connection between Americans and English electors was too weak to constitute proper representation.Local protest groups, often led by the Sons of Liberty, established Committees of Correspondence, thereby creating a loose coalition that extended from New England to Maryland. Widespread demonstrations, sometimes involving the hanging of effigies, successfully pressured all stamp tax distributors into resigning, rendering the tax uncollectible.While opposition to the Stamp Act was strong in the colonies, it also faced significant resistance in Britain. British merchants, suffering due to American boycotts, lobbied for its repeal, which occurred on March 18, 1766. Although repealed, the British Parliament simultaneously passed the Declaratory Act, reasserting its right to legislate for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever." This continued a chain of events that further strained the colonial relationship with Britain, contributing to the 27 grievances stated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and eventually leading to the American Revolution in 1775.Today, the resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress remain an enduring testament to the early American commitment to principles of self-governance and constitutional integrity, serving as a prelude to the foundational documents that would follow.The Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, supporting an effort to end Major League Baseball's (MLB) antitrust exemption. This move comes in support of a petition from minor league teams, including the Tri-City ValleyCats of upstate New York, who were removed from the minor leagues by MLB. The MLBPA is advocating for the Supreme Court to overturn its previous rulings that have maintained the exemption. The exemption itself dates back to a 1922 Supreme Court decision, which held that baseball did not fall under the 1890 Sherman Act and was therefore exempt from antitrust laws. In its brief, the MLBPA argues that the exemption negatively affects not only players but also fans, cities, states, and other businesses. The union has consistently maintained that the exemption should be eliminated. I have written on this topic somewhat extensively, and a link to my Baseball Prospectus primer on the issue follows. Baseball Players Union Supports End to MLB Antitrust ExemptionBaseball's Antitrust Exemption: A Brief PrimerThe White House is reviewing a State Department rule aimed at establishing a domestic visa renewal pilot program for certain H-1B specialty occupation workers. Currently, these workers are required to travel abroad to renew their visas, leading to delays and challenges, particularly due to pandemic-related bottlenecks at consular offices. The rule has been sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review, which is the final step before new regulations are made public. Domestic visa renewals were halted nearly two decades ago because the State Department said it couldn't meet post-9/11 biometric data collection requirements. Immigration lawyers and employer groups have been advocating for the reinstatement of domestic renewals, citing the prolonged wait times and logistical issues that have affected workers and employers alike.Stateside H-1B Visa Renewal Pilot Rule Under White House ReviewU.S. Bankruptcy Judge David Jones, known for overseeing more major Chapter 11 cases than any other U.S. judge, has abruptly resigned, leading to the reassignment of about 3,500 bankruptcy cases. Jones' resignation comes days after a federal appeals court initiated an ethics investigation into his failure to disclose a long-term romantic relationship with an attorney whose firm had numerous cases before his court. His departure is a significant blow to the Houston bankruptcy court, which is a top venue for large Chapter 11 filings in the U.S. Jones had managed high-profile bankruptcies like JC Penney and Nieman Marcus and had overseen 17% of cases with more than $1 billion in liabilities since 2020.Judges Marvin Isgur and Christopher Lopez, who are among the busiest bankruptcy judges in the U.S., will divide Jones' large-company case load between them. They will also handle all new large Chapter 11 cases filed in Houston. The reassignment is considered a massive workload for already busy judges and could create chaos, especially since Jones had more than 1,100 commercial cases on his docket.Jones' undisclosed relationship could also raise concerns in cases where rulings were made but not decided or where participants might object to past decisions. The relationship was with bankruptcy attorney Elizabeth Freeman, a partner at a law firm that had many debtors in Jones' court. The firm, Jackson Walker, has said it consulted with outside ethics experts and instructed Freeman not to work on any cases before Jones.The situation has also prompted scrutiny of Houston's practice of directing all "complex" Chapter 11 cases to just two judges, a practice some say invites "forum shopping" and undermines public confidence in the U.S. bankruptcy system. However, Chief U.S. Judge Randy Crane defended the practice, saying it allows for the efficient handling of difficult cases. Isgur, described as a "very bright individual" by Crane, is expected to be a good replacement for Jones, and Crane anticipates no long-term effects on the venue's popularity for large bankruptcies. Editorial note here, if you're talking about a venue's “popularity” for bankruptcies, the forum shopping ship has already sailed. Bankruptcy judge's sudden resignation causes 3,500 cases to be reassigned | ReutersJohn Eastman, an attorney associated with former President Donald Trump, testified in a California State Bar Court trial concerning his efforts to convince Vice President Mike Pence to reject or delay the counting of electoral votes. Eastman is facing the possibility of disbarment, charged with 11 counts including violating ethics rules and state law. He stated that had he known Pence had already decided not to follow his advice, he would not have pursued meetings and discussions on the issue. Gregory F. Jacob, Pence's counsel, previously testified that Eastman's theories lacked legal or historical basis.Eastman claimed he wasn't aware that Pence had already rejected his arguments until Jacob's testimony. Defense witnesses in the trial have tried to establish that Eastman believed there were election irregularities that could have affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential race, a claim that has been widely discredited. Eastman continues to dispute Jacob's characterization of their discussions, and insists that he was offering constitutional recommendations.Eastman, along with some scholars, argues that the Electoral Count Act is unconstitutional and that the Vice President, as the president of the Senate, should have an active role in counting electoral votes. No court has yet ruled on the constitutionality of the Electoral Count Act. The judge, Yvette Roland, has 90 days to issue a recommendation after the close of oral arguments, which can be appealed. The final decision on Eastman's discipline, including potential disbarment, will be made by the California Supreme Court. The trial is set to continue at least through October 20, with additional trial dates likely.Eastman Explains Why He Pressed Pence on Electoral Vote Counting Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
On this day in legal history, October 17, 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed Public Law 95-79, a bill that retroactively restored the U.S. citizenship of Jefferson Davis, the former President of the Confederate States of America. The restoration of his citizenship by Carter, a Southern Democrat, was seen by some as a symbolic gesture aimed at post-Civil Rights Era reconciliation.Debates surrounding the restoration of Jefferson Davis's citizenship have a long history dating back to the 1870s. In 1872, the Civil Rights Act of 1872 or the Third Enforcement Act aimed to ensure civil rights and equal protection for African Americans in the post-Civil War era. The Act barred high-ranking Confederate officials, such as Davis, from voting or holding public office. Davis had declared during his lifetime that he would not seek a pardon to regain these rights, underscoring his unwavering commitment to the Confederate cause. In 1884, for instance, Davis maintained his unyielding stance on the Civil War, saying, "Remember as I must all which has been lost, disappointed hopes, and crushed aspirations, yet I deliberately say, If I were to do it over again, I would do just as I did in 1861.”The legal significance of this action lies in its demonstration of presidential authority to grant or restore citizenship. This event also raised questions about the legal and moral implications of forgiving and rehabilitating former Confederate leaders who had been involved in the secession and war against the United States. Major U.S. food companies, including a Kraft Heinz Co. unit, Kellogg Co., General Mills Inc., and Nestle USA Inc. are heading to trial to address antitrust allegations against egg producers Cal-Maine Foods Inc. and Rose Acre Farms Inc. Kraft and company claim that the egg producers conspired to inflate egg prices from the late 1990s through at least 2008, leading to increased costs for egg products used in popular foods like cake mix, cereal, and waffles. The trial, set in an Illinois federal court, is the third attempt to prove these antitrust claims after two previous attempts failed.The plaintiffs argue that egg producers manipulated the supply and artificially increased prices, reflecting broader concerns about the market power held by large food producers. The case is significant because it underscores the consolidation of the food industry, potentially leading to price increases and production control that impact consumers, particularly during a period of high inflation.The success of the plaintiffs will depend on whether the judge instructs the jury to decide the case under the less rigorous "per se" rule in antitrust law, which presumes anticompetitive effects, giving the plaintiffs an advantage. The case moved forward after it was determined that the defendants had conspired to restrain trade in violation of the Sherman Act. While the case relates to past conduct, it reflects concerns about collusion and the power of major food producers over the U.S. food supply.The trial signifies an ongoing debate surrounding antitrust issues in the food industry, mirroring broader regulatory and congressional scrutiny of the market power held by major corporations.Kraft, Kellogg Go After Egg Producers for Price-Fixing SchemeSenator Amy Klobuchar, along with Senators Chris Coons, Thom Tillis, and Marsha Blackburn released the discussion draft of the No Fakes Act. This bipartisan discussion draft, aims to introduce federal protections against AI-generated deepfakes featuring celebrities and performers. This legislation establishes a federal right of publicity, allowing individuals to control their own image and voice. The bill targets concerns raised by public figures like MrBeast and Tom Hanks, who warned about AI-created deepfake ads falsely depicting them endorsing products. The proposed law would cover digital replicas of an individual's "image, voice, or visual likeness" and provide protection for 70 years post-death. Violators, including platforms knowingly sharing these deepfakes, could face fines and economic damages.However, the bill has raised questions about its potential impact on free speech and its interaction with existing intellectual property laws. It introduces exceptions for news, documentaries, and parodies but could still conflict with the First Amendment. The bill could also incentivize legal threats from companies, leading to potential abuses of the law. The legislation's focus on post-mortem rights has raised concerns about prioritizing commercial gain over combating nonconsensual deepfake usage. Furthermore, it might affect how social media platforms handle legal liability, as it doesn't align with existing laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The creative industry, including artists and entertainment companies, supports the legislation due to concerns about AI exploiting their creative work and livelihoods. However, further revisions and discussions are expected as the bill progresses through Congress.AI Deepfakes Bill Pushes Publicity Rights, Spurs Speech ConcernsBinance's U.S. affiliate has suspended the withdrawal of dollars from its platform, according to updated terms. This move follows a previous suspension of dollar deposits in early June, prompted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking to freeze Binance's assets. Customers looking to withdraw U.S. dollars are now required to convert them into stablecoins or other digital assets before withdrawal. The SEC had filed a lawsuit against Binance, its CEO Changpeng Zhao, and Binance.US in June, accusing the company of various charges, including inflating trading volumes and misusing customer funds. Crypto giant Binance's US affiliate halts direct dollar withdrawals | ReutersU.S. drugstore chain Rite Aid has filed for bankruptcy protection due to its heavy debt burden, declining revenues, increased competition, and opioid-related litigation. The company, founded in 1962, plans to close underperforming stores and sell its pharmacy benefit subsidiary, Elixir. Rite Aid also aims to resolve lawsuits linked to its sale of addictive opioid medications. Despite facing these challenges, the company intends to remain operational during the bankruptcy process.In fiscal year 2023, Rite Aid reported $24 billion in revenue but also incurred $750 million in losses due to mounting litigation costs. The U.S. government has accused Rite Aid of disregarding "red flags" while dispensing illegal opioid prescriptions, and the company faces approximately 1,600 other opioid-related lawsuits. Rite Aid, while denying wrongdoing, hopes to reach an equitable settlement in bankruptcy.Rite Aid's financial situation includes $4 billion in debt, $8.6 billion in total liabilities, and $7.65 billion in assets. The company plans to fund its restructuring with a $3.45 billion bankruptcy loan from existing lenders.Rite Aid has received a $575 million offer from pharmacy benefit firm MedImpact Healthcare Systems for Elixir but will seek higher offers for this business. The company is also considering the sale of some or all of its retail business. However, Rite Aid's bankruptcy announcement has led to a dispute with drug distributor McKesson, which supplies 98% of the prescription medicines sold by Rite Aid. The company is suing McKesson to prevent the termination of its drug supply agreement over a $700 million debt. Rite Aid expects to close more stores as its Chapter 11 case progresses and has appointed Jeffrey Stein as its CEO and chief restructuring officer, replacing interim CEO Elizabeth Burr.Rite Aid files for bankruptcy faced with high debt, opioid lawsuits | ReutersIn his latest column at Bloomberg, my co-host Andrew Leahey argues that the US should adopt a carbon border tax to address climate change. The EU recently introduced a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), a tax on carbon at the border, aiming to offset carbon evasion by producers. This policy sets a precedent for other nations to follow suit, including the United States. Leahey argues that the US should adopt a similar CBAM, aligning its climate efforts with the EU to encourage countries without effective carbon pricing systems to implement policies addressing carbon emissions during production.In the past, attempts to pass a US CBAM were hindered by political challenges, but with the growing focus on climate change, there's renewed potential for success. The EU's CBAM offers the US both motivation and a blueprint for a carbon pricing system that can garner bipartisan support. By framing the policy as a means to protect domestic production while addressing climate change, the US can find common ground.Despite potential legal obstacles involving the World Trade Organization and trade agreements, the adoption of a US CBAM could protect domestic industries, prevent carbon leakage, and prompt other countries to implement carbon pricing systems. Leahey writes that the EU's move presents an opportunity for the US to take meaningful action in the fight against climate change and protect its economic interests.US Should Adopt Carbon Border Tax to Address Climate Change Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
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.
In the spring of 2018, Kenny Katzgrau, CEO of Broadstreet, a SaaS ad management company designed for media companies and direct sales teams, penned and published an online 34-page white paper entitled “10 Advantages That Small Publishers Have Over Tech Giants in Selling Ads.” His purpose for the document was to offer encouragement and advice to smaller news publishers on how they can use some of their competitive advantages to gain back some of the 70%+ of local ad dollars captured by big tech companies like Google and Meta (Facebook). Katzgrau lists these opportunities as: Community Support & Affinity The Direct Relationship Autonomy, Flexibility and Creativity (Compelling Creatives) Section Sponsorships The Ability to Tell a Compelling Story with Sponsored Content Sustainable and Sensible Pricing Newsletter Sponsorships Optimal Placement Transparent Reporting Better Overall Performance But it was a specific section of the document entitled: “KNOW YOUR ENEMY, PART II: The Key Weaknesses of Google, Facebook & Networks,” that would wind up more than three years later having Katzgrau subpoenaed to appear as a witness for the defense, in Google's pending January 2023 lawsuit filed by the US Justice Department, along with the Attorneys General of California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Virginia, charging the tech giant for monopolizing multiple digital advertising technology products in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The specific section of Katzgrau's paper that caught Google's law firm's attention was where he stated, "Small publishers can retain and regain business that was once theirs by closely examining the weaknesses inherent with all networks of scale. Just as Google and Facebook's strengths map to a small publisher's weaknesses, their weaknesses map back to a small publisher's greatest strengths." It can only be assumed that he will be "called to the stand" due to his expertise of more than 15 years as a media software engineer (that included two years at Yahoo!), to try to prove that Google may not be as overpowering as media companies claim. The irony is that, at best, Katzgrau will be a hostile witness since he has written several op-eds and spoken at numerous conferences about how important it is for big tech not to maintain its monopolistic hold over the media industry. On July 17th, 2023, Katzgrau wrote for his local news publishing website, which he recently became publisher, RedBankGreen.com, an op-ed entitled “Livin' On a Prayer: “So, Google — you mindless and largely indifferent collective: I hope the DOJ helps chop you up into thousands of unrecognizable pieces. Google à la Bell.” In this episode of "E&P Reports," we explore the recent Google Antitrust suit filed by the DOJ through one of the witnesses for the defense, news media industry digital ad software provider Kenny Katzgrau, CEO of Broadstreet. Katzgrau, who wrote an op-ed three years ago offering advice to small news publishers on how they can compete with big-tech local media advertising dollars, now finds that his words will likely become evidence presented by Google that they may be a less-dominant media giant than has been reported. Katzgrau, a local news publisher, discusses how even though he believes that Google is a powerful, dominant, monopolistic player in the local ad space, he may find himself sitting on a stand offering evidence for the defense.
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
26 June, 2023 - In every aspect of life, it is invaluable to know and understand the causes of things. Antitrust and competition law and policy is no exception to this rule. In his recent book, "Monopoly in America", a follow on project of his previous one, "Antitrust and Competition Laws", our guest today, Prof. Barry Hawk, sheds invaluable light to the better understanding of current law and policy, as well as the institutions of competition law in the US. Studying the history of the evolution of competition law and policy helps to understand the present, as well as to imagine and build the future. Revisiting the historical origins of many of the institutions and legal figures of competition law, help to better understand the reason for things, their foundation and, on many occasions, what should be their specific application in a specific case. "Monopoly in America" largely fulfills this objective. American history did not begin in 1890 and American attitudes toward monopoly did not begin with the Sherman Act. Colonial Americans did not need instruction from Louis Brandeis to oppose monopolies. Americans have always hated monopoly―both public and private. At the same time, Americans have accepted government grants to incentivize production and innovation. And private monopolies resulting exclusively from skill, foresight and industry have been viewed as welcome entrepreneurial success. "Monopoly in America" offers a tour of the American experience with the notion of monopoly, including Prof. Hawk's three kinds of monopoly from a historical perspective that he divides in four eras. While doing so, he examines the American antimonopoly tradition from its inception in the early 1600s to the present debate about the effectiveness of antitrust laws to deal with today's monopolies. Barry Hawk is a leading expert in antitrust law; former partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Former Director of the Fordham Competition Law Institute, 1974-2015. Former Professor of U.S. and international antitrust law at Fordham Law School, Michigan Law School, Monash University Law School (Melbourne), New York University Law School and University of Paris V. Author of many books and articles on antitrust and competition law and policy, including the annual volumes of the Fordham Competition Law Institute. Barry is also a member of IDC's International Advisory Board. If you wish to enjoy the conversation we had on 17th June, 2020, with Prof. Eleanor Fox and Ian Forrester KC on Prof. Barry Hawk's previous book Antitrust and Competition Laws, please click here.
Part II of our conversation, Daniel Glad, (Director of the Procurement Collusion Strike Force, Department of Justice) offers captivating stories from his career in law, the second part of the Sherman Act, and more!#procurement #state #education #NASPOPulsePodcast #SupplierInterviews #GovernmentProcurementFollow & subscribe to stay up-to-date on NASPO!naspo.org | Pulse Blog | LinkedIn | Twitter | Youtube | Facebook
Guest Host, Megan Smyth (Director of Legal Education and Sr. Legal Counsel at NASPO) Joins the Pulse to speak with Daniel Glad, Director of the Procurement Collusion Strike Force, Department of Justice. Daniel explains the origins and mission of the PCSF, its role in combating collusion in procurement, and the importance of the Sherman Act. Stay tuned for Part II!#procurement #state #education #NASPOPulsePodcast #SupplierInterviews #GovernmentProcurementFollow & subscribe to stay up-to-date on NASPO!naspo.org | Pulse Blog | LinkedIn | Twitter | Youtube | Facebook
Kent Thiry is one of the most admired and accomplished leaders in the country. For many years he was CEO and Board Chair of Davita - and now he is a philanthropist, a friend and a trusted advisor to high potential CEOs, politicians, environmental activists, and rising stars. Thiry also works closely with top private equity firms including KKR and Partners Group. During this conversation, Thiry is completely vulnerable and comfortable in his own skin - sharing with us crucible experiences - that both tested and shaped his leadership mettle. For example, Thiry shares with us his recent horrifying experience with the U.S. Government which accused him of conspiracy - violating the Sherman Act - charges which he was completely and quickly exonerated. Importantly, Thiry explains what he learned from this agonizing experience, and imparts wisdom for any aspiring leader who will themselves inevitably confront terrifying challenges - and who will need to dig deep, develop resilience, and lean into their core values. This is what leadership in today's unpredictable world requires - and there is simply no better mentor or sounding board than today's guest. www.imperfectleaders.com
Kent Thiry is one of the most admired and accomplished leaders in the country. For many years he was CEO and Board Chair of Davita - and now he is a philanthropist, a friend and a trusted advisor to high potential CEOs, politicians, environmental activists, and rising stars. Thiry also works closely with top private equity firms including KKR and Partners Group. During this conversation, Thiry is completely vulnerable and comfortable in his own skin - sharing with us crucible experiences - that both tested and shaped his leadership mettle. For example, Thiry shares with us his recent horrifying experience with the U.S. Government which accused him of conspiracy - violating the Sherman Act - charges which he was completely and quickly exonerated. Importantly, Thiry explains what he learned from this agonizing experience, and imparts wisdom for any aspiring leader who will themselves inevitably confront terrifying challenges - and who will need to dig deep, develop resilience, and lean into their core values. This is what leadership in today's unpredictable world requires - and there is simply no better mentor or sounding board than today's guest. www.imperfectleaders.com
Do you know who controls the digital tools that almost every website publisher uses to sell ads on their sites? It's Google. Recently, Google is in hot water as the Justice Department and eight state Attorneys General filed a civil antitrust suit against the tech giant. The suit alleges that Google has violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing multiple digital advertising technology products, which is harmful to publishers and advertisers. The Justice Department and state Attorneys General are seeking to restore competition in the market and obtain equitable and monetary relief on behalf of the American public. In this episode, we'll dive into the details of the suit, the impact on digital advertising, and the potential outcomes for Google.Let BZ Consultants Inspect What Should Be Expected
In the third episode of a three-part series on U.S. antitrust enforcement, host Nick Levy interviews Cleary Gottlieb colleagues Bruce Hoffman and Leah Brannon about the U.S. enforcement environment for Big Tech, the agencies' application of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and the prospects for legislative change.
In recent congressional testimony, FTC Chair Lina Khan definitively declared that there is no ESG antitrust exemption. How can companies avoid violating the antitrust laws while still complying with demands from their shareholders and other constituents to conduct business consistent with policies that are environmentally and socially sensitive, and promote good public policy? David Shaw, a partner at Morrison & Foerster, and Derek Jackson, an associate at Cohen & Gresser, join Christina Ma and Melissa Maxman to discuss the intersection between ESG and the Sherman Act. Listen to this episode to learn more about whether existing antitrust exemptions, such as Noerr-Pennington, can affect business decisions about ESG. With special guests: David J. Shaw, Partner, Morrison & Foerster and Derek Jackson, Associate, Cohen & Gresser LLP Related Links: Jens Hackl, Sustainability and Antitrust – What Companies Need to Know About Sustainability Collaborations in Europe (Feb. 28, 2022) The ESG Movement and Its Impact on Antitrust Compliance (July 7, 2022) Oversight of Federal Enforcement of the Antitrust Laws, Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights, Senate Judiciary Committee (Sept. 20, 2022) (note that discussion of ESG starts with questions from Sen. Hawley at 1:58:54 through 2:00:02 and picks up again with questions from Sen. Cotton at 2:02:42 through 2:05:35.) 3rd Circ. Won't Revive Shell Egg Buyers' Antitrust Suit Hosted by: Christina C. Ma, Partner, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and Melissa H. Maxman, Partner, Cohen & Gresser, LLP
Commissioner Noah Phillips joins the show for a wide-ranging discussion about the Federal Trade Commission. Topics include “unfair methods of competition” rulemaking, the history of the FTC, merger guidelines, the consumer-welfare standard and free-of-charge products, administrative tribunals, the history of the Sherman Act, and neo-Brandeisian antitrust in a time of inflation.
In March 2022, the U.S. DOJ made headlines with the announcement it is considering bringing criminal monopolization cases under Section 2 of the Sherman Act for the first time in nearly fifty years. But is there any precedent that can help us understand what criminal prosecution of monopolization conduct would look like? Tiffany Rider and James Hunsberger of Axinn join John Roberti and Jaclyn Phillips to walk us through the decades-old case law and lay out the challenges DOJ might face trying to bring these cases under the modern antitrust framework. Listen to this episode to learn about whether the past can tell us anything about what DOJ will do in the future. With special guests: Tiffany Rider, Partner, Axinn and James Hunsberger, Counsel, Axinn Related Link: Axinn Antitrust Insight: DOJ Officials Raise Specter of Criminal Monopolization Prosecutions Hosted by: John Roberti, Partner, Cohen & Gresser and Jaclyn Phillips, Associate, White & Case LLP
No poaching allowed! No, you have not wandered into a Hunter's Safety Forum, but rather an in depth discourse regarding the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division's recent criminal investigations and prosecutions of “No Poach” conduct. These agreements, which generally establish that Company A will not hire Company B's employees and in exchange Company B agrees to do the same, have been in the DOJ crosshairs since 2016, but only in the last year have they been specifically referenced in public charging documents. DOJ's decision to now criminally prosecute “no poach” agreements has resulted in approximately six charged cases from January 2021 to the present. The criminal antitrust defense bar, as well as some academics, have cried foul given that from their perspective the DOJ has created a new form of criminal antitrust conduct out of whole cloth and is prosecuting individuals and corporations who had no intent to violate the law nor had any indication that discussing employment concerns with another company was unlawful. The enforcers have responded just as forcefully and argue that it has always been criminal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act to allocate markets and “no poach” is nothing more than the allocation of the market for employees. Amidst this backdrop, our panel will examine the evolution of “no poach” from the DOJ's 2016 Guidance for Human Resource Professionals to the cases that are currently pending before judges and at least one jury. Our panel will include former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Barry Nigro, Co-Chair of the ABA Antitrust Section's Cartel & Criminal Practice Committee Lindsey Vaala, former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Zach Terwilliger, and Pepper Crutcher, chair of the Labor and Employment practice group at the Federalist Society and partner at Balch & Bingham, who will wrangle our panel and serve as moderator.Featuring:-- Barry Nigro, Partner, Fried Frank, and former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust-- Lindsey Vaala, Counsel, Vinson & Elkins, and Co-Chair, ABA Antitrust Section's Cartel and Criminal Practice Committee-- Zach Terwilliger, Partner, Vinson & Elkins, and former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia-- Moderator: Pepper Crutcher, Partner, Balch & Bingham and Chairman, Labor & Employment Practice Group at the Federalist Society
Let's keep this nugget in mind when we talk about the civil complaint being leveled against Boxrfec, the Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC) and MTK Global, et al: "Former interim middleweight world titlist Avtandil Khurtsidze was found guilty on Tuesday in New York federal court of racketeering, wire fraud and other charges in connection with a sprawling and violent criminal ring," in a story reported by ESPN in 2018. "He faces up to 40 years in prison." To make matters worse, within the 100+ page lawsuit, serious allegations are made within the lawsuit, such as "309. BoxRec, acting under color of state law, as a result of the authority supposed given to it by the ABC, acts like a Gestapo and routinely violates Promoters' and fighter civil rights without any repercussion to it and without any recourse for the Promoters or fighters, including plaintiffs." The core issue is complex but involves the plaintiffs' complaint of the suppression of competition, as a result of the co-conspirators' monopolies, violating US Boxing Acts, leading to a situation today whereby it is contended that "BoxRec is placed in a position of absolute power to decide whose results it should accept in its database as opposed to being a record keeper that simply includes records that can be verified as accurate...". With respect, therefore, of paragraphs 1 through 358 in the lawsuit, the plaintiffs contend "a monopoly in boxing is in violation of the Sherman Act." #TalkinFight #BoxingNews #Boxrec
Most farm equipment is manufactured by a very few industry giants like John Deere. Shutting farmers out of the ability to fix their equipment themselves or locally costs millions of dollars in lost opportunity, not to mention heightened costs for farmers. Right to repair has an impact on all of us, not just farmers. Learn more with Kevin O'Reilly, Director of the Right to Repair Campaign at US PIRG.Heritage Radio Network is a listener supported nonprofit podcast network. Support What Doesn't Kill You by becoming a member!What Doesn't Kill You is Powered by Simplecast.
Most farm equipment is manufactured by a very few industry giants like John Deere. Shutting farmers out of the ability to fix their equipment themselves or locally costs millions of dollars in lost opportunity, not to mention heightened costs for farmers. Right to repair has an impact on all of us, not just farmers. Learn more with Kevin O'Reilly, Director of the Right to Repair Campaign at US PIRG.Heritage Radio Network is a listener supported nonprofit podcast network. Support What Doesn't Kill You by becoming a member!What Doesn't Kill You is Powered by Simplecast.
Antitrust laws have been part of U.S. legislation since the Sherman Act of 1890, and the Clayton and Federal Trade Commission Acts of 1914. Does existing legislation provide a useful framework to check anti-competitive practices today? This week on EconoFact Chats, Dan Richards discusses the many forms of monopoly and monopsony power, how U.S. regulatory attitudes towards anti-trust have shifted, and what tools are available to address monopolistic practices today. Dan is a Professor of Economics at Tufts University.
Antitrust laws have been part of U.S. legislation since the Sherman Act of 1890, and the Clayton and Federal Trade Commission Acts of 1914. Does existing legislation provide a useful framework to check anti-competitive practices today? This week on EconoFact Chats, Dan Richards discusses the many forms of monopoly and monopsony power, how U.S. regulatory attitudes towards anti-trust have shifted, and what tools are available to address monopolistic practices today. Dan is a Professor of Economics at Tufts University.
Compliance into the Weeds is the only weekly podcast which takes a deep dive into a compliance related topic, literally going into the weeds to more fully explore a subject. This week, Matt and Tom are pleased to host Mike Volkov, host of the Corruption Crime and Compliance podcast on the Compliance Podcast Network. Mike formerly worked in the DOJ, Antitrust Division. We consider the current evolution of antitrust enforcement by the DOJ and FTC and how it might impact the Microsoft acquisition of Activision Blizzard. Some of the issues we consider include: · Is the focus of antitrust enforcement changing from consumers to others? · What is a Section 2 Sherman Act claim? · What are structural v. behavioral remedies? · Have partial divestitures fallen out of favor? · How might all this play out in the Microsoft acquisition of Activision Blizzard? · What is the role of compliance going forward? Resources Matt in Radical Compliance Mike Volkov in Corruption Crime and Compliance Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I do not want to say that losing a lot of money on a trade is as good as making a lot of money on a trade. It is not. For one thing, if you make a lot... Goldman Sachs commandmentthe London Whalewritten beforegot not only themselves but 25% of the company firedearnings callgo years without a down daywrote down its inventory of housessaid at the timewritinga lotfew weekshave writtenhave writtenthatThey still do ithas a good column today10.4% in the second quarter9.8% in the first quarterfound on the internetsays Bloomberg Newsstolemoneyreported Matt Novaknow-disappeared white paperdiamond handsHODLgoes by the name “(3,3),”weirdest thingI think aboutnot really allowedbelieve optimistic SPAC projectionsdid it wrongPapa John Net Zerogreen pledgesGreenwashingnet zerothe Sherman ActPenguin Random House’sPerelman’s Family TrustManaging Director ClassGet Women on BoardsYOLO Tradingpolishing clothMark Zuckerberg aestheticMingles With CEOs, Rappersdrove his car on the sidewalksubscribe at this linkherethe Seeking Alpha transcriptsaid in 2011not especially dogmatic about itlast quarter’s 10-Q
The Justice Department's Antitrust Division has targeted collusion in labor markets for criminal prosecution. This was not unexpected. Indeed, the Antitrust Division gave plenty of warning to the high-tech industry and other companies that criminal prosecutions were on the horizon.DOJ handled initial prosecutions of labor market collusion in the high-tech sector by civil prosecutions and resolutions. Out of an abundance of caution, DOJ recognized that it wanted to provide “fair warning” of its intention. While it may not have been clear that the Sherman Act prohibition on cartel activity applied to labor markets, DOJ and the private sector should have realized that collusion, wage-fixing and agreements not to compete were illegal collusion agreements. It is hard (if not impossible) to identify procompetitive justifications for such blatant anti-competitive conduct. In this Episode, Michael Volkov outlines antitrust risks and compliance strategies to avoid DOJ enforcement actions in the labor market.
It's the day we've long waited for. The "Epic vs Apple" decision is in...and it's 185 pages long. Who won? Who lost? As it turns out, reasonable minds (and some unreasonable ones) can differ even there. So dust off that knowledge of antitrust law, the Sherman Act, Rules of Reason, intellectual property commissions, relevant markets, illegal restraints, anti-steering and more, and BUCKLE IN. CHECK OUT THE VIDEO (AND LINKS) AT: https://youtu.be/43CMV8KIs3E We're going feature length...in Virtual Legality. #Epic #Apple #Lawsuit *** SUPPORT THE CHANNEL PATREON - https://www.patreon.com/VirtualLegality STREAMLABS - https://streamlabs.com/richardhoeg STORE - https://teespring.com/stores/hoeg-law-store *** CHAPTERS 00:00 Introduction (A Look Back) 02:13 Headline Headscratchers 04:30 The Court on Commissions 08:45 The Decision - Overview 15:20 PART I - FINDINGS OF FACT 16:28 Epic and Fortnite 24:46 Apple and the DPLA 34:59 The Relevant Market 45:51 What is a Video Game? 1:01:52 Market Share and Market Power 1:06:53 Anticompetitive Effects 1:18:17 Procompetitive Justifications 1:35:37 PART II - APPLICATION OF LAW 1:45:15 Apple DOES NOT VIOLATE Federal Antitrust Law 2:00:09 Apple DOES NOT VIOLATE California Antitrust Law 2:02:07 Anti-Steering Rules VIOLATE California Unfair Competition Law (Injunction) 2:16:01 Epic IS LIABLE for Breach of Contract 2:21:32 Conclusion (Responses) *** "Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law). CHECK OUT THE REST OF VIRTUAL LEGALITY HERE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy9YAU61GoW-00K0TJOGnPCo DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL. *** Twitter: @hoeglaw Web: hoeglaw.com
National Collegiate Athletic Association v Alston, (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the compensation of collegiate athletes within the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). It followed from a previous case, O'Bannon v NCAA, in which it was found that the NCAA was profiting from the namesake and likenesses of college athletes. The case dealt with the NCAA's restrictions on providing college athletes with non-cash compensation for academic-related purposes, such as computers and internships, which the NCAA maintained was to prevent the appearance that the student athletes were being paid to play or treated as professional athletes. Lower courts had ruled that these restrictions were in violation of antitrust law, which the Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous ruling in June 2021. Background. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) oversees rules related to student athletes that play in their athletics programs. These athletic programs are generally seen as revenue generation for the individual school, particularly for the popular college football and basketball programs which are widely televised and marketed. Because the school benefits from the performance of the players, the NCAA had established rules to limit the type of compensation that the school could give to student athletes as to distinguish college athletics from professional sports. This had included disallowing "non-cash education-related benefits" such as scholarships and internships so that there is no apparent "pay to play" aspect. In 2014, a class-action lawsuit O'Bannon v NCAA was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs, numerous college athletes, asserted that the NCAA and its colleges were profiting off their names and likeness in works related to the college athletic programs such as in video games but none of the athletes were receiving any compensation for that pay, in violation of the Sherman Act and antitrust law. District Court judge Claudia Ann Wilken found for the plaintiffs, a decision upheld in part by the Ninth Circuit. In review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, the NCAA agreed to allow student athletes to receive full scholarships for academics. Subsequently, the NCAA had started review of its policies related to how to compensate players for names and likenesses, as well as the impact of California's Fair Pay to Play Act passed in October 2019 and due for enforcement in 2023 which would allow students to have more control on their names and likenesses for sponsorships and endorsements beyond the NCAA's control. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app
Good Morning, Colorado, you're listening to the Daily Sun-Up with the Colorado Sun. It's Friday July 16th. Some areas of Colorado's Front Range have been hit harder than others by COVID-19. In many cases, those neighborhoods are communities of color or made up of low-income households. Today we take a look at new research that's reinforcing the disparities we've seen during the pandemic. But before we begin, let's go back in time with some Colorado history adapted from historian Derek R Everett's book “Colorado Day by Day”: Today, we take you back to July 16th, 1945 when scientists with the top secret Manhattan Project successfully tested the first atomic bomb in New Mexico. It was fuel from western Colorado, in part, that made this terrifying new weapon possible. Prospectors had discovered radioactive minerals in several Colorado counties back in the 1890's. Now, our feature story. All of Colorado's Front Range has been affected by the coronavirus pandemic, but some neighborhoods have been hit harder than others. In many cases, those hardest-hit neighborhoods are communities of color or made up of low-income households. In Denver, the pandemic has been particularly relentless in a cluster of poor neighborhoods within a region known as the “inverted L,” where health impacts of many types have l been notably worse than in more affluent parts of the city. As Colorado Sun health care reporter John Ingold tells Erica Breunlin, new research is reinforcing the glaring disparities behind COVID-19. To read more about how the pandemic has affected neighborhoods in the Front Range differently, visit coloradosun.com. And Before we go, here are a few stories that you should know about today: A federal grand jury has indicted Denver-based DaVita Inc. and the dialysis company's former CEO Kent Thiry on charges that they conspired with competing companies not to try to hire certain employees. DaVita and Thiry are accused of two counts of violating the Sherman Act, which involves antitrust law. They are due in court on July 20 for their initial appearance. If convicted, DaVita could face a maximum penalty of a $100 million fine per count. Thiry would face a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine per count. Thiry has denied the accusations. Although COVID-19 restrictions slowed business across Colorado, the struggle wasn't as terrible as many feared it would be. Some chambers of commerce report having retained most of their members during the pandemic and even signing on new ones. State data shows that operating businesses are keeping steady, and new business filings jumped 32.2% in the first quarter compared to a year ago. Still, many businesses did not persevere through the recession caused by the pandemic. Those that have prevailed are no longer focused on surviving but rather on re-emerging problems, like finding enough workers. The American West is enduring extreme heat and drought, suffering some of the consequences of climate change, scientists say. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. has set 585 new heat records that in the past month. The average daily high temperature for the region from the Rockies and to the west in June was 85.7 degrees, 1.3 degrees warmer than the previous record. Additionally, close to 60% of the West is in exceptional or extreme drought, according to the University of Nebraska's Drought Monitor. That represents the highest percentage in the monitor's 20-year history. Meanwhile, soil moisture levels have plummeted to some of the lowest recorded levels in many Western states while 68 large fires are actively burning, torching more than 1 million acres, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. For more information on all of these stories, visit our website, www.coloradosun.com. And don't forget to tune in again tomorrow for a special holiday episode. Now, a quick message from our editor. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Das Internet wurde als ein dezentrales Netz entworfen, das jedermann nutzen kann, um schnell und ohne Erlaubnis innovative Protokolle und Anwendungen entwerfen und nutzen zu können. Ob das im heutigen Internet noch immer so ist wird in dieser Episode beleuchtet. Mehr zu Neulich im Netz auf https://www.neulich-im.net/ music by scottholmesmusic.com Quellen: "Cloud companies are paying for a growing share of internet infrastructure"-Artikel, Geoff Houston über den Sherman Act, Geoff Houston über die eigenen Regeln der Tech-Giganten, Geoff Houston über Data Privacy, Daten sind Rohstoffe des 21. Jahrhunderts, CDU-Sprecher: Datenschutzstruktur als größte Bremse der Digitalisierung, Geoff Houston über die Rolle der Gesellschaft, Geoff Houston über die Rolle der Websuche, Geoff Houston über Macht und Bedrohung der Tech-Giganten, Dominique Lazanski über Konsolidierung der Protokolle und Dienste, Henning Schulzrinne über das verschwinden vieler Dienstanbieter, Geoff Houston über den Aufstieg der Plattformen, Vint Cerf über permissionless innovation, Geoff Houston über Apps und deren Drang alles zu übernehmen, Geoff Houston über die veränderte Sicherheitslage im Internet, Henning Schulzrinne über die nicht veränderbare Stellung der Tech-Giganten, Cory Doctorow, "Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor", Henning Schulzrinne über Techno-Optimismus, Dominique Lazanski über die Einstellung des Nutzers, Henning Schulzrinne über den Einfluss der Chicago School of Economics Chicagoer Schule, Geoff Houston über die Rolle des Gesetzgebers, Geoff Houson über das Ende des "einen" Internets, Dominique Lazanski über Ereignisse in der ITU-T --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/neulich-im-netz/message
EP265 - News and Listener Questions Amazon News Amazon acquisition of MGM DC attorney general sues Amazon on antitrust grounds Amazon limited FBA access Amazon addressing review fraud Amazon Prime Day likely June 21 and 22 Other News Perch (from Episode 252) raises $775M Walmart testing a new livestream format Fedex struggling with late deliveries and adding higher surchages Retail Q1 Earnings Ulta – US Comps up 65.9% (up 7% from 2YA) Costco – US Comps up 18.2%, e-commerce up 41.2% Dollar General – US Comps down 4.6%; (up 17.1% from 2YA) Best Buy – US Comps up 37.9%, e-commerce up 7.6% (online revenue was 33.2% versus 42.2% last year) Burlington – Comps up 20% (shutdown e-commerce Q1 2020) Gap – Comps up 28% (up 13% vs 2YA). Digital up 82% vs 2 YA. Digital now 40% of total sales. Episode 265 of the Jason & Scot show was recorded on Thursday May 27, 2021. Join your hosts Jason "Retailgeek" Goldberg, Chief Commerce Strategy Officer at Publicis, and Scot Wingo, CEO of GetSpiffy and Co-Founder of ChannelAdvisor as they discuss the latest news and trends in the world of e-commerce and digital shopper marketing. Transcript Jason: [0:24] Welcome to the Jason and Scot show this is episode 265 being recorded on Thursday May 27th 2021 I’m your host Jason retailgeek Goldberg and as usual I’m here with your co-host Scot Wingo. Scot: [0:41] Hey Jason and welcome back Jason Scott show listeners, Jason before we jump into some juicy news and we got a couple listener questions I wanted to send a big congrats to Chris Bell if that name is familiar to listeners he is the CEO of perch one of those quote unquote F be a Amazon Seller roll up companies and he was here on a pisode 252. Jason: [1:07] Yeah I heard him he did a small raise this week did you you get the details of that at all. Scot: [1:15] I did and you know in the The Venture Capital World which I am. I guess involved in to some degree you have your seed round and you’re a around and your B and your C so they just did there are around and what’s kind of special about it is usually you’ll do something like you know maybe couple hundred thousand to a cup small millions in a seed round and Silicon Valley they the seeds are pretty large the you’ll do an AR around maybe five to ten million and a be around 20 to 30 or 40 Etc they are around they did 775 million so so it’s they proclaimed their the fastest company to achieve profitable unicorn status unicorn says means you have a billion-dollar valuation and then they said they have been profitable since Inception which is interesting because, if you. [2:14] Keep it so that then what that means is they’re probably just going out and using all this Capital to acquire profitable companies and therefore as an entity from an ebitda perspective there there there’s an accounting trick where they’re profitable but the the the Goodwill of those Acquisitions is kind of below the line then it’s the largest series a Ever Raised by a consumer goods company by a factor of over four so I think the previous record was something like a hundred hundred and twenty-five so yeah that is a crazy rays and you know I think we’ve previously talked about I think it’s 3 billion in the US and five globally raised for these types of companies and and this obviously text about another billion on there and then I think a song article that this cause other people to reload their War chest as well so it’s it’s a very active segment and it’s exciting to see / qu as a friend of the show really really start to scale up. Jason: [3:13] Yeah yeah I had two immediate thoughts number one clearly it’s an advantage to get on the Jason and Scot show before doing your raised because it seems like there’s about a four x multiple you get just for being on the show. And no. Scot: [3:28] Yeah that was in the footnotes of the press release. Jason: [3:30] Yeah and number two it’s going to be ugly when they show up on Shark Tank and try to do an up round because mr. wonderful is going to cream them on this valuation. Scot: [3:40] Mr. wonderful is going to just like tap out in the first five seconds he’s the bottom feeder he’s not going to like like this one. Jason: [3:49] Yeah they’re only going to get a royalty deal from him. Scot: [3:52] Small loan that they pay back in 5 minutes. With thirty percent interest compounded every every 3 seconds, okay so this week we have some listener questions as I mentioned before we get to that there was some pretty big. Jason: [4:17] News your margin is there opportunity. Scot: [4:24] Yeah I like to say it wouldn’t be a Jason Scott show if we didn’t talk a little bit about Amazon and they made a really big play this week they announced that they are going they’ve entered a negotiation or a see an agreement to by MGM for 8.45 billion I have a theory here that Jeff wants to own the James Bond franchise so he can put himself in there I think he fancies himself in his current situation of a single Bachelor that’s gotten pretty buff as maybe the next James Bond but maybe that’s off a little bit what did you think about this when Jason. Jason: [5:06] Yeah well a couple of That’s So a whether Jeff realize it is it or not he could only is the bond villain in this scenario. Scot: [5:14] It’s got a Lex Luthor vibes. Jason: [5:17] Yeah the crazy bald super buff guy that owns his own rocket ship and then buys the company James Bond works for like I think that’s the theme for like a James Bond movies. Scot: [5:29] Yeah and finally had a cat that he maybe he does who knows maybe has a cat that he sits there and pets while he’s planning his next moose. Jason: [5:37] Yeah I don’t know you know people have been asking me about this in the. To me the acquisition makes perfect sense it’s not even very surprising and pretty consistent with a lot of other tactics we’ve seen. Amazon follow I like the open question is whether that’s a good valuation for him GM or not but. [5:59] Yo big picture Amazon is this platform and and we’re all familiar with the flywheel but in essence. The more reasons Amazon has for people that join Prime the more money they make on this whole ecosystem of services around Prime and it’s. It’s one of their biggest competitive advantages versus other. Content Publishers that are contents indicators that might have been interested in him GM is. Amazon can sell James Bond merchandise on Amazon they can make Amazon TV shows for Amazon Prime those Amazon, those people that join Amazon Prime in order to see the new James Bond movie will spend more money on the third-party Marketplace and will be open to more ads from, the Amazon ad Network and all all of these Services sort of. Lean into each other and so it means a Matata Amazon’s better able to monetize an eyeball than almost anyone else so then buying em Jim for. P point for doesn’t even seem that surprising I think they’ve they’re spending over a billion to make the Lord of the Rings. Series alone so like it. Scot: [7:17] Just a license it I think I think there’s just a license. Jason: [7:20] Oh my god well yeah so. Scot: [7:22] Yeah there’s hundreds of millions of dollars in the licensing of the Tolkien estate. Jason: [7:26] Yeah so and I mean the NFL was a billion dollars a year for 15 years or something so so this seems I get totally fits there are people that are saying that in gym that this is too high evaluation and that Amazon may have like had to reach. But I guess time will tell on that. Scot: [7:50] A couple fun facts so this is their second biggest acquisition, the only one bigger than this one was Whole Foods 13.7 billion in this one’s about 8.45 and it’s important to note that in today’s environment what you do is you you kind of you get everything all your eyes dotted and your t’s crossed you you filed to do that position and then you have to go through this process where you work with the government to see if they’re going to let it happen or not there’s what’s its I know it’s called H hart-scott-rodino hurts Scott Regina something like that H RH s g human do better idea, but there’s this one approval that you get there but then also increasingly you know Amazon’s under the antitrust microscope and there is a lot of senators tweeting their dislike of this deal, and I’ll turn to you for that before we do it is interesting in the media segment you’ve got Netflix as kind of the king disruptor and they’re causing a lot of a lot of different things to happen one of the big ones was AT&T who thought it would be clever to buy a bunch of content to put through their pipes in the form of Time Warner they are shedding Time Warner and what’s called Warner media and that’s going to be married with Discovery to create a try to have a mass of. [9:14] New and Library content to kind of go up against peacock Disney plus the 80 different new streaming services were all thinking about you know should we subscribe to those or not so it’s definitely kind of a little bit of a musical chairs thing and it makes a ton of sense for Amazon to really build a war chest and I think they’re buying it mostly for the catalog and then when you get that IP you could come out with you know all kinds of. James Bond merch there’s a lot of really good IP inside of that catalog so I think that’s what’s driving driving a lot of it. Jason: [9:50] Yeah no for sure there is a fun or more silly theory about the acquisition, MGM owns a bunch of movies that are in this catalog but they have even more rights to TV series and one of the TV series in that portfolio is a show you may be familiar with called The Apprentice. And so there are people that are like did Jeff Bezos just by MGM so that he could like release all the the unaired you know behind the scene footage from The Apprentice to embarrass anyone that might have been on that show. Scot: [10:29] Yeah could be. Jason: [10:30] I doubt it but yeah. Scot: [10:31] We’ll see I doubt it that’s a big that’s a big price to pay to bearson ex-president. Jason: [10:36] I mean yeah it is funny to think about but yeah. Yeah so yeah it’s going to be interesting. Famous Last Words I’ll probably be dead wrong I doubt so anytime you do a merger or an acquisition of this size like you do have to get regulatory approval, I kind of don’t think this is gonna be that tough because Amazon doesn’t have a lot of. [11:09] Like meaningful Network content versus HBO or Disney or Netflix at the moment like which is how this would have to be looked at so we’ll have to see but I think the, the claws you referring to is the hart-scott-rodino which is a law yeah so so. Like remember most antitrust law in the United States is like a hundred years old so it’s super relevant to today’s business circumstances and I say that entirely sarcastically, um but this. [11:42] In 1960 76 we passed this like minor update to The Clayton Act which is one of the big antitrust laws and it was this hart-scott-rodino improved antitrust improvements Act, in one of the things that it did is it used to be that if, even acquisition was going to trigger some antitrust concerns the government had to notice it and had to sue you and they made it. From sort of a opt-in to an opt-out kind of situation where if you do an acquisition over a certain size. You have to proactively get the government’s approval before the merger can go through and so now all these big Acquisitions have to be proactively. Approved and and this one will have to go through that process as well a minor fun fact there. All companies have to comply with antitrust law whether the deal is big enough to trigger the the HSR or not it just did your, over that size you have to do it proactively, and so there’s been one antitrust action against a company that was too small for this act and it was in the e-commerce space it was bizarre Voice versus the Department of Justice when. Bizarre voice pot power abuse. Scot: [13:00] Yeah they didn’t file for it and then the government flipped out and said you didn’t do it and then they said we didn’t have to and then the government said you did undo undo that. Jason: [13:08] Was so I don’t even yeah I don’t even think they said you you you had to proactively file but they said it’s still an antitrust violation and we’re going to prove it in the government won in court and broke them up. Scot: [13:22] Yep boom and you are an expert witness. Jason: [13:25] I was an expert witness in the case and then and I lost because I represent a bizarre voice and then fun fact, so power reviews got split backup and power views later hired my wife to run their marketing so losing that case got my wife a job. Scot: [13:42] Boom there you go what goes around Good Karma you put dark Good Karma into the road. Jason: [13:46] It’s a small world and I wouldn’t want to paint it exactly. Scot: [13:51] Cool also in the category of antitrust the the DC attorney general is going after Amazon and what’s interesting is you know the. Can’t put a quote here he’s alleging that not only are the fees they Amazon charges sellers responsible for higher prices across the web then we can talk about that that kind of ties to price parity which Jason Del Rey spent a lot of time on and is Amazon podcast series but also Amazon Rewards sellers who use FBA to the detriment of sellers who don’t but have lower prices and you know fact check, true on how the algorithm works I’m not sure you know I think what Amazon would say on that second part we can talk about price parity next is it’s a better customer experience to get your products fast and free and that that ties into it as well as the, consideration not just the price so yeah so it’s gonna be interesting to see how that one comes out because I think Amazon has a good good position there if you can’t think about the overall customer experience but the other one is a little trickier which is the price parity in your kind of a more of an expert on that one if you want to run through that one. Jason: [15:14] Yeah well so and it’s interesting to so that the AG actually filed the suit so there’s a real lawsuit that Amazon is going to have to respond to and that, that triggers Discovery and all kinds of other things that make all this antitrust talk a lot more real and so sort of two things there’s the outcome of this exact lawsuit and whether Amazon. Can defend itself and win whether loses and has to take some some. Remedy or whether they somehow settle right which often happens in these cases so that’s the outcome of this suit which we’ll talk about in just a second but there’s a bigger implication. Um even the process of Defending themselves or settling this suit they. Can like get some stuff on the record that then helps trigger other antitrust actions so there’s a that’s a. Kind of a real risk here so the the specific thing that I think the DC eiji is alleging that somewhat problematic for Amazon is. Amazon has used to have a price parity Clause with a lot of their vendors and so essentially it said you’re not allowed to sell your product. Cheaper somewhere else than you sell it on Amazon. [16:44] And I think Amazon would say that they stop doing that process in like 2019 but the, the Attorney General a can sue them for behavior before 2019 so that that alone doesn’t save you, and then I think that the Attorney General also alleged that while they may have discontinued that process in 2019. They’re still enforcing other Clauses that essentially. Have the same outcome so so that the hypothesis here is if you’re selling and I think this would apply to both first party and third party but and I don’t know I give if the Attorney General had a specific. Um example in in their suit like like the whole text of the suit isn’t available yet but. So we’ll assume it’s third party for a second I’m selling some widget on Amazon I promise Amazon I won’t sell that same widget cheaper on Walmart. And so what the Attorney General is arguing is hey Walmart’s bigger than you like Walmart might have been able to negotiate a lower price which would be good for consumers we’re not for the fact that you artificially. Stop that vendor from offering Walmart a lower price and that that is. [18:07] A violation of the Sherman Act and so like you’re you’re guilty of antitrust for doing that so that’s the. The argument Amazon’s far from the only big player out there with price parity policies not that that defends you from a lawsuit but so that’s going to be. Interesting to see how that all plays out there some really smart antitrust people that have pointed to that as one of Amazon’s biggest vulnerabilities. The I don’t know like. [18:38] The it’s unlikely that that alone caught would if Amazon were to lose that case entirely that it would force Amazon to break up. It would probably force them to pay some fine and promise not to. Do that that business practice anymore and maybe you know they would have to agree to some kind of. You know more careful monitoring than they would otherwise like so. We’ll see how that all plays out but the reason this case is super interesting to me is there’s two things you have to worry about an anti trust you it’s anti doing anti-competitive things is not illegal. Um it’s illegal to be a monopoly and then use that Monopoly to do these anti-competitive things so the Amazon enforcing the price parity thing is only, a problem if Amazon meets the strict antitrust definition of a monopoly and. It sounds like that should be pretty pretty easy to know there are over fifty percent of something you’re a monopoly but the problem is. The of something which is what we call the relevant market right so if you’re the the DC attorney general what what they said in their announcement was that the relevant Market is e-commerce. [20:00] So they’re going to say Amazon’s more is a majority of e-commerce which a is probably not true. Um by most people’s counts there in the like 30 to 40 percent of. Of us e-commerce sales so they’re not even majority of all e-commerce and by the way those numbers wildly undercount certain flavors of e-commerce that like are you know people like to discount but our e-commerce right so. People like to take out ticket sales or events sales. People like to take out restaurant sales and you know over 50 percent of all restaurant sales in the last year were e-commerce thanks to Door – and there’s huge e-commerce categories like. Pornography that nobody puts in their numbers right so so if you’re Amazon you’re going to argue that you’re not a monopoly, um and that you’re not over 50% of e-commerce and then they’re also going to say even if we were over 50 percent of e-commerce eCommerce isn’t a relevant Market because the definition of a relevant Market is. The consumers can’t. Um are stuck in a market and don’t have another alternative and so they actually use this test called the snip test which is means like. [21:16] Could someone make a small but significant price increase, and you know would customers be forced to pay that because they didn’t have some alternative place to go and Amazon’s going to say e-commerce is not a relevant Market doesn’t pass the snip test because if we raised our prices people would just drive to Walmart and buy stuff at the store, and so the market is is retail right so that that’s going to be a huge fight that’s going to you know people are gonna spend millions of dollars on both sides fighting, but the reason that’s going to be interesting is is in the process of litigating this case if a relevant Market gets defined of effective a judge rules that something’s relevant Market. Then suddenly that’s going to open up all kinds of other. Other doors to either Amazon being potentially vulnerable or not being vulnerable to further antitrust actions so. It’s the first step in a long process but it’s going to be fun to watch as a non-financial Observer. Scot: [22:16] Yeah and I’ve been following the Apple epic case and a lot of interesting things come out of the due diligence where you know the CEO of Epic could emailed Tim Cook and Tim Cook’s answer was who is this guy. For service this string itself where the he was kind of his kind of arguing this the the Epic I was arguing with Tim Cook of why they the store is really long intricate email and as if he intended like known each other and they’d met several times Tim’s like it’s those like his internal answer to the whole thing as class, but the guy like six hours and you know five million dollars of lawyer fees to write that email looks like. [23:10] Yeah yes no one wants all their emails out in the public but that’s what’s interesting about these things whoa. Jason: [23:17] Oh my gosh yeah it’ll be a great jobs program for lawyers for the next 10 years. Scot: [23:22] Yeah my favorite Amazon news this week is that the sum of the press has leaked the Amazon Prime day and it’s going to be June 21 and 22 or at least that’s the rumor it hasn’t been been. Officially announced by Amazon but looks like we got a latest June Prime Day this year so that’s exciting I am actually low on some charging cords and some other things so I’m looking forward to stocking up on some, some some accessories. Jason: [23:51] I don’t think my wife will allow a single more additional cord to come into our home so I that could be problematic for me, always excited for Prime day like again Amazon hasn’t confirmed this but it certainly fits everything we know, so what has been interesting this is always a challenge out Amazon always wants to keep it kind of secret and Under Wraps, it’s such a big deal and Amazon wants to encourage everyone to lean into it that like all the third party merchants. I need time to prepare for Prime day so it’s always kind of a this tricky Balancing Act of Amazon not telling us when it is but wanting everyone to be ready for it. [24:34] And what has already happened since since has been pretty obvious that Prime day is going to be in late June some time is that Merchants are starting to panic because. A common phenomenon right now is Merchants are getting their their FBA quotas cut by Amazon and what that means is, last quarter you were selling red widgets on Amazon via FBA and Amazon allowed you to put 35,000 units in the FBA system and and, there now you’re getting a letter saying you’re only allowed to have 20,000 units or 10,000 units or in some cases no more units and so all of these, these Merchants are getting their their allocation in the FBA warehouses cut, and that’s a huge bummer leading up to Prime day because it just means you’re not going to be able to sell as much. Scot: [25:30] Yeah and looking at Prime day over time. Amazon selling more and more of their stuff right so it’s the things that get the biggest discounts are the echo this the Kendall dad and and increasingly as they it’s almost become an Amazon Gadget day for Amazon’s owned Brands as you like to say so ring is in there and now they’ve got zero and so that that seems to be the bulk of what’s going on and I imagine Amazon needs more room for that stuff and that’s kind of why there. Clearing the floor for their own Goods to be sold on Prime day. Jason: [26:09] Yeah I mean it’s I feel like. It’s the flywheel in action like all these good things are happening for Amazon and then of course the pandemic you know dramatically accelerated people’s use of e-commerce which means that everyone wants more inventory and e-commerce warehouses which also means more sellers want to come to Amazon right and now we have all these International sellers coming to Amazon as a good way to access the US market and so if you’re an existing seller, you’re competing for FB a space with way more other sellers than you ever were before and other products than you ever were before and while amazonite is scaling their fulfillment capacity at you know frankly a mind-boggling rate like I feel like demand is even faster and so I think Amazon’s having to make some hard decisions about, how much room they give everyone and it it doesn’t feel good if you’re one of the towers that feel like you could make more money if you had more room. Scot: [27:09] Okay so then the other one that’s been in the news and kind of a lot of chatter on quote Amazon Twitter is Amazon has really been cracking down on a bunch of these Chinese sellers that have had questionable review policies so there’s a lot of folks you’ll see a lot of US based sellers make accusations about Chinese sellers that there either buying reviews or you know doing some this gray hat black hat kind of review stuff and there seemed to be a pretty big cleansing if you will of a lot of this going on I saw the New York Times had an article calling it The Great Purge so a lot of the US base sellers we’re kind of celebrating the CID kind of finally seen the light of day and come home to roost did you dig into that one. Jason: [28:00] A little bit there’s a couple interesting things so Amazon kicked a couple of and we don’t know if it’s permanent or not but like delisted a couple of very significant Sellers from the platform and so one that’s very familiar in my drawers is called aqui a UK ey I think, which is kind of a similar company to Anchor with a lot of like interesting charger Technologies and cables and things. [28:30] And so they’ve been a very popular seller on Amazon for him primarily use the Amazon platform for a while and Amazon took them off right and and whether it’s true or not Amazon’s kind of spinning it as. Hey we’re. We take all of the credibility of the of the ratings and review system super seriously and anyone that violates it no matter how big are significant to us is going in the Penalty Box and so we proactively took this action, and a lot of other people are saying. Yeah don’t really buy it you know the Attorney General of several States like uncovered some of this in the various behavior and only after they like brought it to Amazon’s attention and insisted Amazon take action. Um did Amazon Deal s these guys so there’s some. Dispute over over the sequence of events and then you know there that New York Times article highlighted a lot of kind of. Accusations of. They’re being kind of a to class system that if you’re a really big seller on Amazon with significant volume that you get the benefit of the doubt from all these review things and they only take action if there’s. You know a huge violation versus if you’re a smaller cell or in your just accused of some bad behavior you get put in the Penalty Box and you have to kind of fight your way out. [29:54] Don’t don’t know what the truth is but certainly is interesting and it certainly. Um got a lot of traction in the new cycle last. [30:07] There were a couple of other news items and some earnings from this week that we want to cover really quickly we’re recording this on Thursday night the 27th as I mentioned in the opening, and earlier tonight Walmart launched a surprise event they had what they call Walmart shop along, I’ll call it a live stream Commerce event that they hosted on Walmart.com. So we’ve covered in the past a couple of interesting social media things Walmart’s done where they partnered with Tick Tock to do some, some live streaming video Commerce but this time instead of doing it on Tik-Tok they did it on Walmart.com so they launched a new URL, Walmart shop live.com, and this first event featured this woman and Marie Ray Drummond who’s more commonly known as The Pioneer Woman and Scot will be super familiar with Hershey’s, like the number 22 on Forbes list of top influencers and so she’s like kind of a part cook part, you know apparel part home decor, influencer and so she has a bunch of exclusive products that are sold through Walmart and they did a live stream event and sold a bunch of products live off of the video feed tonight. Did you get anything. Scot: [31:34] I actually do hook know who this is I am not a fan, My Heart Belongs only to the Kardashian’s those are the only influencers I pay attention to so I don’t I stop at number one and two on the list and I don’t go down to the 22s, but yeah it is it so having you know I know you’re big on live streaming, how does it compare to what some of the Chinese folks are doing is it is it kind of in that genre where you know you can buy light right from the stream and it’s got like a little bit of a QVC feel but kind of a different energy like. What’s it look like. Jason: [32:11] The so so the most popular live streaming in China is our very bite-size nuggets so a it’s not so much, this the the retail platform is doing a live stream like it’s not Ali Baba’s livestream it’s, it’s thousands of third-party sellers that are each doing their own live streams and each live stream in China you know they tend to be these like two minute long segments about a particular product right so so think of them as kind of commercial sized livestreams. The QVC and HSN historically do these like 30-minute programs where they have one personality, in a particular genre selling a bunch of products over half an hour and so the Walmart livestream felt a lot more like a traditional, Q VC style program I want to say, tonight’s program was like 45 minutes long and it was just Ray and her two daughters. [33:10] Talking about a wide variety of merchandise all from her that was for sale for 45 minutes but the. There was very like seamless Commerce integration with the video so. If you watched it on a browser like there’s a big window that has the video and she’s wearing all these items and demoing them it’s a three column interface on the left hand side was a chat box so there’s a, like why live commentary from from Shoppers and they can interact with her and she very obviously could see all other comments because. She responded to a lot of the comments in real time and then the third column had like product tiles for everything she was talking about so, when she was talking about a dress she’s wearing the dress but there’s a product I’ll for the dress on this right-hand column and you could click on it and immediately add it to your cart and checkout of you wanted. And you could scroll back to see any of the previous tile so it is. It seemed like the Commerce interface and the chat was all pretty well done I don’t know what American consumers are going to want in terms of live streaming but this. This did feel a lot more like the pretty traditional American version of a. [34:26] Of a TV show infomercial than these kind of bite-sized. Um Commerce experiences that are that are really taking off on taobao live for example which is like a platform for all these individual sellers selling stuff. Scot: [34:42] You think they built their own platform for this for others is there like a vendor out there that’s licensing always these retailers this kind of stuff. Jason: [34:50] A little of both so a there was some complaint about some technical problems so it sounded like and I think Walmart even, like a Walmart moderator even said a couple times hey some of you on mobile are having a problem we’re working on it and. It seemed like it wasn’t not everyone had a problem that it seemed like some people did it definitely seemed like. A completely white labeled platform for Walmart a bunch of us kind of dug underneath the. The covers and there’s a popular content management system out there for sort of codeless web development called webflow, and it appears that this site was built on webflow, which is interesting to me for a couple of reasons and sorry there’s a another vendor that specializes in actual video streams, and they’re called be live and there and so it looks like they were using web flow as the. The the rapper for all this and they were streaming the video through be wife. [35:56] Number one these are very popular tools that I’d recommend generally to someone that needed to build something quick and prototype something but they’re not necessarily. The scalable robust Enterprise tools that you would expect. Walmart to be using if they thought they were going to be putting 10 billion dollars of Revenue through it and so. That’s fine to me that says that this is kind of a pilot for them or a minimum viable product and that. They built something to test the experience instead of something that would. Scale to the ultimate size it could it could achieve for Walmart so that was interesting but fun fact web flow is hosted exclusively on Amazon ec2 so, I don’t I don’t know this for a fact maybe Walmart was able to negotiate some special hosting Arrangement but the likelihood is, that this the this thing was actually running on Amazon. Scot: [36:53] You picture someone at Amazon with the cause of mobile problem button ready to go. Jason: [37:00] Yeah yeah exactly don’t ya don’t don’t know about that either but I am pretty confident if this became something that that was going to be a recurring thing at Walmart that it would probably be a not hosted on an on Amazon solution. And they are pretty robust it chops at the show at this point so I don’t know to me I actually take that as a positive sign that maybe there, they’re doing fast agile stuff and not trying to perfectly engineer everything in order to just test whether users are going to like something or not. Scot: [37:33] Yeah I love it I love when big companies do MVPs and kind of do the spirit of the MVP where yeah just put something together pretty quick and put it out there and get some feedback and then iterate so it would be cool to see how that goes. Jason: [37:45] Yeah and that doesn’t that feels like the spirit of Walmart lately they’ve done the these Tick-Tock Pilots now they’re doing a pilot on their own platform so yeah props like and. [37:57] We’ll be interested to hear what results they share with us. Um a couple of other random things the we’re going to jump into some more earnings because there were a bunch of retail earnings calls this week and, spoiler where they’re all across the board like for companies that did, really well in the pandemic like they’re their comps this quarter a little soft because they’re starting to comp against how well they did in the pandemic, and if their company that like you know traditionally wasn’t graded e-commerce then their e-commerce exploded last year which meant their e-commerce comps this year aren’t as good so, so they’re kind of all across the board and as a result of all these earnings you’re starting to see all these articles being written about how. Oh man you know the luster is wearing off of e-commerce and people are going back to stores and we’re starting to see store comps go up and and the rate of e-commerce growth slowed down, and I find those articles a little annoying because they’re mostly written by people that don’t seem to understand like, the difference between a a sales rate and a. Change in sales rate right so they’re you know they’re they’re interpreting like hey retail sales went from up 4% to up 6% and e-commerce slow down from up a hundred percent to up 50%. [39:22] Um therefore, customers are stop stopping e-commerce and going in the stores and there’s like no way more people bought something online for the first time last quarter than ever before right like gets they’re just not under fundamental it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of rates of change and one of the things I still like to remind people and inconvenient. [39:46] Truth about the whole pandemic and Retail as well in United States things are trending in the right direction they feel good, Pete things are opening up with gas masks retailers are rebounding all these good things are happening, , most of the data on store traffic is still that that there are way less people in the store today than we’re in the store two years ago, so Nationwide according to Shopper track we are still have 20% less traffic than we did in 2019, and that’s been kind of consistently true for the last twenty four weeks so and by the way that makes the US, more recovered than most countries like a lot of places in Europe like traffic is still down fifty percent from two years ago so it is still true a lot less people are walking in the stores, and a lot more people are buying stuff online than ever before so, you know interpret all these numbers listen to all these numbers but don’t don’t you know overreact to these these articles that are saying like e-commerce has kind of. Tailing. Scot: [40:57] Yeah and you were you called it you predicted a lot of folks are going to talk about the two year ago metric and it looks like it’s starting to come to fruition. Jason: [41:04] Oh my God yeah the the if I had a dollar for every time someone said Roaring 20s or two years ago in an earnings call I would I would have raised almost as much money as perch. So let’s jump into those those earnings real real quickly a wide variety of retailers so the first one I saw and most of these are from today so like our podcast is nothing if not Timely, Alta which is one of the two big specialty Beauty companies reported, and this is a perfect example so they’re their comps for stores in the United States were up 65.9% from this quarter a year ago. So that’s you know. A year ago the quarter would have been partly impacted by covid but so being up 65% is is a big number that, but what that probably just means is that they took a huge hit a year ago, and have you if you look at Ulta has comps from two years ago their up seven their sales are up 7% from where they were this quarter two years ago so so they’re up. Um they probably you know like give if 7% over two years is like you know. [42:22] Modest growth it’s but it’s not astronomical growth so so that was Ulta then Costco us comp and by the way Ultra does not break out there e-commerce separately, Costco us comps were up 18.2%, so that’s healthy but again Costco problem never had to close for the pandemic and Costco is probably a net winner in the, um pandemic visits and so when they’re up 18% that’s pretty impressive and then their e-commerce was way up which is. Kind of against most of the trends because last a year ago was such a good quarter for e-commerce that most companies aren’t comping that well against, against the last year’s e-commerce numbers but Costco’s was up 41% did that surprise you at all Scott. Scot: [43:13] It does because Costco yeah they’ve definitely super embraced e-commerce it must be it must be I’m gonna guess it’s instacart is it like some delivery thing that. Jason: [43:26] Is partly instacart so it’s complicated so Costco have like shelf-stable products which they do sell via their own e-commerce on have for a while, but for your point they don’t do it enthusiastically and a lot of Costco execs still like have Fame uh as much as recently as a year ago we’re saying why would we ever encourage anyone not to walk in a store. And then the perishables you couldn’t get via e-commerce at all and Costco partnered with instacart so now you can get some of the Frozen and perishables. E-commerce and so you’re exactly right like when someone has a big e-commerce quarter right now what I say is that they left money on the table a year ago and because Costco. [44:10] Is a hugely successful retailer in spite of not leaning into digital they you know we’re not prepared for the spike in demand for e-commerce they didn’t have a good fresh and frozen solution for e-commerce which is a big chunk of their sales, so flip side Dollar General comps are down 4.6 percent in this is a perfect example of a company that like. Did pretty well in the pandemic which is interesting because you know, they both had something going for them and something going against them like people were worried about their finances in the pandemic and so that certainly worked in favor of Dollar General, but they were not considered essential goods and so had to close a lot of stores so being down four percent versus last year, is interesting now I will say. People all have slightly different definitions like most when I’m saying comps that’s comparable store sales and so. We take out of that stores that opened and closed but it is possible that Dollar General is only comping open stores against open stores. [45:27] I don’t know but kind of put this in a an overall perspective their comps versus two years ago are up 17% so generally. Going in a good direction. [45:41] And so then Best Buy which I was most interested in Best Buys in a really interesting category there’s a lot of evidence that. Like some parts of electronics killed it in the pandemic everyone needed a laptop. The that a lot of electronics products didn’t do that well in the pandemic and so it’s kind of like a mixed bag and then the overall Electronics category actually didn’t do phenomenally well and yet Best Buy reported good numbers every quarter, and they did again so their comps were up 38% 37.9% which is very strong the. Then e-commerce like was very modest up only seven percent and that’s reflective of them having a monster e-commerce growth. [46:27] During during the pandemic that they’re now lapping and so that the interesting number to me at Best Buy is, for this last quarter 33 percent of all their sales were online so almost a third of their sales were online and that’s down a little bit at the peak of the pandemic last year when a bunch of stores were forced to close because they were non-essential, forty-two percent of Best Buy sales where online so there was a. The overall consumer electronics category a lot of people are reporting that it’s fifty percent online which is mostly thanks to Amazon, so it’s empty you know best by being at 40 last year you could have imagined that they would just build on that but it does appear that as people are going back to the stores. The next earnings is a cautionary tale for me is that Burlington Coat Factory said they had good comps this quarter of their come swept 20% in general apparel company comps this quarter our monster because. Apparel like nobody bought any apparel a year ago, um and so 20% I would actually argue doesn’t feel that big and then I can’t give you an e-commerce number because Burlington Coat Factory turned off their website a month before the panda. [47:48] Yeah which is at the time I felt like a bad decision but then in hindsight it looks like a really bad decision and then insult to injury, um profitability was down on their 20 percent comp and you go we’ll gosh Jason why we’re was profitability down oh well they had a bunch of expenses related to closing their website. Scot: [48:07] That’s nice. Jason: [48:10] Can’t be fun to mention in the in the shareholder meeting and then the last earnings which. I think was also today is the gap and they’re much more typical of what what I’m seeing in apparel companies their overall comps were up 20%, um and they’re they’re digital was up 82 percent which that is impressive that’s. You know we are seeing the the rate of growth of most e-commerce dip Gap was are really a good e-commerce operator with significant e-commerce sales so for them to be up 82 percent, that to me says that a bunch of people like are are the the e-commerce habit for closes. And to kind of put this in perspective in this quarter when people were welcome to walk into a Gap Store e-commerce still representing 40 percent of Gap sales so so you know they’re they’re almost a digital first retailer this. Scot: [49:09] Sidebar did I see some news out it was kind of a head scratcher and it kind of was watching seen between the background and I just kind of heard it in passing that the Gap is going to be selling in Walmart. Jason: [49:20] Yeah so that is interesting not. Scot: [49:24] How does that work does it like a micro store thing. Jason: [49:26] Not exactly so Walmart launched a New Home Goods line that is a gap partnership Gap designed. Um and so you can think of this like in the past like Gap has had home good or I’m sorry Walmart is had home goods from Drew Barrymore and so you know they’ve hired influencers that have a good reputation so this time they hired the gap. To design these products and I’m not certain of this but. I don’t think that these products are going to be for sale in the Gap I think they might exclusively be at Walmart so this, Gap kind of acting like a brand as opposed to a retailer and making an exclusive product line for Walmart right and you know we’ve seen a lot of Brands successfully do that with Target. And surprise and Delight Target guest by you know having a product that traditionally you wouldn’t expect to see in Target in Target and in that feels a little bit like what this play is, and Scott you and I have a good friend who used to run home goods for Walmart and is now at the Gap so. It wouldn’t surprise me if she had a hand in this particular program. Scot: [50:42] Causation or correlation we don’t know what to see if she’ll come on the shown give us all the details. Jason: [50:47] That’s a great idea yeah so that was a lot of news for what we thought was going to be a slow news week. Scot: [50:56] Yeah yeah thanks for covering the tail end of those results I think that ties in nicely with what we covered last time but let’s jump into listener questions. Jason: [51:12] Question question question question their. Scot: [51:17] Our first listener question comes from one of the longtime friends of the show Michelle Grant at the small software company called Salesforce or something like that and her question was what has been the impact of apples IDF a update and I’m going to sneak my answer in here Jason because I know you’re more of a guru on this I think it’s a little too early to call because this is just pretty brand-new and I think the most interesting. Shareholder call is going to be Facebook’s Q2 results and I’m kind of, on pins and needles to see see what they say about it because I think I think that and Shopify could be the two places where we if there’s gonna be an impact, that we kind of hear about it and get some information about it so so those are two that I’m keeping an eye on I did see, Revolution clothing Revolution apparel they they kind of signaled in their q1 that guidance for Q2 that, they felt like there could be some softness in the way the way they announced it they already had some data that showed it was having an impact so those are the those are kind of my brief thoughts where you seeing out there and in retailgeek land. Jason: [52:34] Yeah I would say like Top Line is you’re exactly right too early to tell it is the the IDF a changes are making their way into a lot of. [52:45] Earnings, like Q and A sessions at this point but like it doesn’t seem like they’re most retailers are claiming they have data that they’re being impacted their just like management teams are speculating that it is having an impact. Um pretty quickly after the the new update kicked in there was a lot of Buzz going around about these really low opt-in rates right so again, in all the world everyone had a unique number on their mobile phone and and so advertisers could use that number to see what apps you installed on your phone, in the new world you have to agree to let each app see your license plate if you will, and so there’s this requester that pops up and you have to say yes they can have this data or no they can’t have this data so that’s the opt-in rate are the people that said yes and there are all these articles coming out that like. A tiny fraction of users are opting in that like opt-in rates are like four percent for example was a common. Stat that came out and there are you know these, these third-party companies that track app installs and that and a lot of these numbers were coming from them and so a couple of things to know those app companies don’t actually have any way to know what the. [54:09] Rate is like this is people like running surveys and asking consumers if they accepted the opt-ins or not, um which customers can’t reliably answer and might not accurately answer so don’t put a lot of stock in those numbers and then as as things have progressed a few more weeks, the numbers are now varying wildly like one company will say 4% and another company will say 38 percent. And one thing that’s emerging is something that seems really simple like calculating an opt-in rate it turns out all these companies have found ways to too. Mess with the numbers so we can’t even agree on what an opt-in rate is right so a lot of. You know again in theory you have to opt into every app so so Scott like if you opted into three of the apps and out of seven of the apps. In theory each app should have a different opt-in rate right and then you know that the average should be across all 10, but a lot of these companies are reporting like if you opted out of anything you’re an opt-out and so that you know caused an artificially low number that you know fit in narrative that a lot of people wanted to. I think the real thing is we don’t. Scot: [55:24] Doesn’t it at the OS level don’t I tell isn’t there setting. Jason: [55:28] There is also a setting that’s a global setting at the OS level that a requester did not pop up asking you to make a global preference. So you would have to proactively go find that setting some people are finding it and again how should you count them in these numbers, another thing that came up and I tweeted some examples of this is. Different companies did a dip a better or worse job coding the the opt-in request, and so you know Apple use some some pretty inflammatory language and their requester but then each app gets an opportunity to explain why it’s to a consumers benefit. To opt-in right and so you kind of got to make your case. And at least for me on Facebook the way Facebook coded there a. They made a case for why I should want to give them that data, um but the way they coded the app the the Apple window with the inflammatory language popped up on top of their tests and it was modal I had to answer before I could get it out of the way so I could never see Facebook’s. Which is wild if you think about it that they that you know a kept company with as much at stake as Facebook wouldn’t have a perfect you know best case execution is somewhat surprising. Scot: [56:52] I feel like behind the scenes there’s this measures countermeasures counter counter measures going on between the companies. Jason: [56:59] Yeah all of these things are interesting what you know the most tangible thing is there definitely are some advertisers that are saying like it feels like CPAs are going up so that the. The cost to regen audience is going up now is that like because of other market conditions or is that because some of these ads are less effective because or you know harder to measure because of the idea of a changes again. Too early to tell you know definitely companies that aren’t performing well are mentioning that as one of the factors that might be negatively influencing them. It might by the way also show up later in the Epic case right so. We’ll have to like yeah so that could be a place where we get better visibility in the some of this data if it comes up. Scot: [57:48] Awesome so Michelle stay tuned we this is kind of both of our favorite topic right now so we’re going to keep our ear to the ground and keep reporting on this, [58:00] okay our second question comes from Sean mcginnes and he asked when will supply chains return to normal lead times what’s causing the issues were experiencing today, yeah so you want me to take her for a shot at this one or do you. Jason: [58:14] Yeah yeah hit me Scott. Scot: [58:16] All right so so to foundational things here so we you know. Most of the products that we would talk about in e-commerce world have a supply chain of their manufactured usually not in the United States so usually in China Taiwan maybe India Singapore usually it’s coming out of Asia so that’s part of the supply chain then it frequently to be economical has to get your on a boat, and then it has to get offloaded at a port and then transported somewhere at least once usually two or three times until it makes it into fulfillment centers or retail stores where it’s sold. [58:59] So then so that’s the foundation number one is how the kind of links in the chain then number two is let’s think about some of the disruptions we’ve had number one covid know to we’ve had the Suez Canal number 3 we’ve got a really weird unemployment situation in the United States right now where it is it is near impossible to hire people and we can talk about the root cause of that I don’t know where you come out on that one Jason but we’re you know I’m pretty squarely in the camp that it’s this unemployment insurance stuff is made it very hard to hire, folks especially you know kind of at that hourly labor level but that that is a factor so if we kind of think about that you know so covid hit and a lot of these factories shut down and then they back up and then the demand coming into them whipsawed because we’re their biggest the United States is the biggest consumer that stuff and you know imagine you were making I don’t know apparel and then you probably wound down the Factory and then suddenly you know I think a lot of people are surprised by how fast things have come back and how fast the vaccines came out and now this now that factory is having spent so that that’s part of the. [1:00:17] Problem in that part of the chain and then the canal caused it to be very a backup of boats coming over the slow boats from China and you know there have been very long lines also at the ports because there’s so much coming in and this huge surge of demand that that it’s hard to unload those things because it’s hard to find dockworkers now and it’s hard to find truck drivers and it’s hard to find warehouse workers and it’s hard to find you know people at FedEx to hire and it’s so so you know I think I think it’s probably not going to clear up until in September is one of these unemployment benefits run out there are some, things on the books to look to the extend that that I’m crossing my fingers don’t happen so I could see this you know being a all the way through October problem and that’s it there’s no more shocks to the system so we’ll have to see there there’s been so many shocks to the system that it feels like there could be more coming, what do you think Jason. Jason: [1:01:25] Yeah no I generally so I would agree with all of that I’ll confess early on when people are talking about, the unemployment benefits impacting labor I was a little skeptical but I feel like the evidence is pretty clear at this point that it is and especially. You can compare some states that have more generous unemployment benefits than others and the the ability to attract low-wage labor in the states with more generous benefits as harder. [1:01:54] And then a bunch of retailers open up and get busier and retailers are fighting tooth and nail right now to hire hourly employees and having the Rays there, their wages and all those sorts of things so I think that those are all those factors are true the the labor shortage is definitely true odds of retailers are feeling it I would add just to other things, aside from. The ability to deliver inventory like obviously most brands and retailers were conservative in the inventory they ordered a year ago not knowing like that vaccines would work. And where we’d be in the pandemic and so they you know there is the inventory is low right now partly because. Everyone was conservative in what they ordered and so a byproduct of that is. People are having a discount less than they usually do and they’re actually making slightly more profit on their sales than they usually do, because the discount rates are lower but I do suspect that people are kind of you know trying to Goose those orders now and and you know we’ll probably see him and Charlie levels get get higher as we get closer to Holiday. And then one other long-term impact on this whole supply chain is the fact that. [1:03:12] A bigger percentage of total sales is happening through e-commerce is we talked about via ship again another things on the show. The demand for shipping Parcels was Far doubt exceeding the capacity to ship parcels and that’s happening even more now right so. You know I think there’s some data this year that. That FedEx is in particular like you know having degraded delivery times because and they just announced some additional surge pricing so, you know they have a certain amount of parcels they can deliver and they want to maximize the profit for each of those Parcels so I think that problem. Is going to be a longer term problem that’s going to be with us all through holiday that as a you know a higher percentage of all sales happen in e-commerce we’ve got to figure out the ability to fulfill all of those packages. Scot: [1:04:07] Yeah it was interesting because I was talking to someone that all say is in the logistics kind of you know category that has a lot of these type of hourly drivers and they said Amazon came in and got really aggressive and offered him all $18 an hour and basically sucked up all the drivers and kind of this Raleigh-Durham area where I am so that was, yeah that’s interesting this is this kind of like land war going on this last mile area that’s part of that supply chain that that I’m sure the FedEx is in the UPS’s the world are starting to feel and Amazon seems to be super aggressive it’s kind of counterintuitive because you also hear all these stories about how badly the drivers are treat being treated but, you know what what what I found is that that hourly type worker they’re not super loyal very coin operated which I have a lot of respect for and Amazon is offering more coins and it may not be you know you don’t get as much breaks or anything like that but the hourly rate is really good and they are soaking up a lot of those those kinds of last mile delivery people so it could also be the case that that it’s not evenly distributed supply chain problems that may be Amazon’s in a bit of a better position. Jason: [1:05:26] Yeah no for sure and Scott that’s going to be a good place to leave it because it’s happened again we have blown through a perfectly good hour of our listeners time so as always if you enjoyed the show we sure would appreciate that five star review on iTunes. Scot: [1:05:43] Thanks everybody and. Jason: [1:05:45] Until next time happy Commercing.
Today’s word of the day is ‘no regrets’ as in Mark Cuban as in the owner of the Dallas Mavericks realized he made a big uh oh too late. Players are not happy with the new play-in tournament in the NBA Playoffs. (11:40) So You Wanna Talk To Samson!? Someone asked me about antitrust, the Sherman Act, the Republican effort to do away with this because of the All-Star Game being moved. Can the Minnesota Timberwolves move? Are the NBA rules the same as MLB? (26:12) NPPOD. (32:06) Review: Godzilla vs Kong. (35:56) Buffalo Bills fans will need to be vaccinated if they want to go to games. People are not happy. People are happy. Let’s discuss. (42:15) The Denver Broncos, Seattle Seahawks, and Tampa Bay Buccaneers players will not attend OTAs… Why is this news? Why do we need a statement? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I had the chance to sit down and speak with Ashley Baker, an expert in antitrust. We discussed antitrust and big tech, and how conservatives should fight back against tech. Ashley is the Policy Director for the Committee for Justice, Expert at the Regulatory Transparency Project, and works with the Alliance on Antitrust. So, she knows what she's talking about, and it shows. Dive into the conversation below to learn more about these issues and what Ashley recommends. What is Antitrust? Antitrust is basically a set of legal principles, laws, and precedents that inform us on how to handle anti-competition behaviors of companies. Big businesses may work with other organizations to undermine competition in the economic landscape, which is what antitrust seeks to prevent. Since businesses are built to beat their competition, they can hinder their competition's ability to succeed. However, they cannot work to destroy competition itself. And, that is where antitrust comes into play. There are many examples of antitrust violations we can point to, but the basics of antitrust is that we want to promote a competitive environment. Antitrust Laws and How They Relate to Big Tech You may be familiar with antitrust laws like the Federal Trade Commission Act, which gave us the FTC, or the Sherman Act. But, antitrust law is much more than a couple acts passed by Congress. In fact, much of what governs antitrust policy is precedent, and that's where conservatives have to be careful. If we are to regulate big tech companies through antitrust policy, we need to beware of how it'll effect other aspects of law. That's why I am so grateful to Ashley for coming on to discuss the antitrust efforts and big tech. She shows how antitrust cases inform our laws, and how we might apply that to Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon. Antitrust and Big Tech We must do something about big tech need, but what? First we must understand a few things. Are big tech companies monopolies? Does big tech violate antitrust law in the United States? What can we do to regulate big tech? We'll find the answers to each of these questions in the particulars. There's no simple answer. Rather, the devil is in the details. How Conservatives Should Fight Back Against Big Tech Our politics leans towards slogans and partisanship, rather than real solutions. The answer to this problem won't fit neatly in a 10-point plan or some ideology. Instead, we have to grapple with the principles at play and the particulars of the situation. Through prudence, we can find a solution. Check out this episode: Antitrust and Big Tech | Why Conservatives Should Tread Carefully Subscribe to the Conversation of Our Generationersation of Our Generation Podcast here Check out the YouTube video here --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/conofourgen/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/conofourgen/support
U.S. merger enforcement has been active in recent years, involving legal challenges pursued under some newer theories. But can it go too far to bring certain challenges under Section 2 of the Sherman Act? Koren Wong-Ervin, partner at Axinn, Veltrop, & Harkrider LLP, and a recognized thought leader in the antitrust bar, speaks with Anora Wang and John Roberti on the critical differences and issues involved in merger challenges brought under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, as compared to Section 7 of the Clayton Act. Listen to this episode to learn about the most recent development in U.S. merger enforcement. Related Links: Douglas H. Ginsburg & Koren Wong-Ervin, Challenging Consummated Mergers Under Section 2, Competition Policy International (May 2020) Our Curious Amalgam, #69 Another Way to Unring the Bell? Private Litigation Challenging Consummated Merger Hosted by: Anora Wang, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP and John Roberti, Allen & Overy LLP
Louis Avallone and Stephen Parr talk about the importance of paying attention to the definition of words (as stated in established dictionaries), the importance of how things are said (meaning the context and tone in which they are said), and what possible political motivations could be behind what is actually being said (such as desires for personal wealth at the expense of the American People or quests for absolute power over The American People).Cumulus Media, which owns 416 radio stations and is headquartered an Atlanta, GA, hosts many well-known conservative talk show personalities, including Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, and Dan Bongino. It has sent out a memo to all of its talk show hosts essentially warning them to “tone down” discussions about the election. The memo was clear that not complying with Cumulus Media’s demands could result in their shows being dropped from their radio broadcast platforms. What if other businesses do something similar to Conservatives?Our American Mamas, Denise Arthur, talks about how people have become so intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them, to the point it is affecting friendships and families. The media has been feeding this deception of truth until viewers and listeners have reached a “boiling over” point.It took just 48 hours for Amazon, Google, and Apple to destroy one of its growing competitors, Parler. The problem is not that these are considered “private companies” (even though they are bought and sold on the public stock market). The problem is they were using monopolistic power to destroy competition. Furthermore, the “justifications” given by Amazon, Google, and Apple for banning Parler are happening and being ignored for Twitter.This is corporate totalitarianism, which is the reason Federal Anti-Trust Laws were passed (the Sherman Act in 1890, and Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC), and the Clayton Act in 1914).On January 11, 1989, President Ronald Reagan gave his Farewell Address to the Nation just before leaving office. In that speech, he talked about how our Nation did not seem to be doing a good enough job of teaching American History, American Values, and American Pride to our students of the day. As we now know since those children are now our voting adults, he was correct. We still need to be doing a better job of teaching concepts so critical to our Nation going forward today.
In 2019, the Federal Trade Commission began an antitrust investigation against Facebook. And now the federal government and nearly 50 U.S. states are suing Facebook in an antitrust lawsuit. They claim that the social media conglomerate squashes competition, making it a monopoly. Facebook, which could lose ownership of Instagram and WhatsApp, says that people choose to use the site because they place high value on it. Several laws - the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act - that were written over 100 years ago (long before social media was a glimmer in the world’s eye) will influence the court’s decision. We talk about the contentious space Facebook occupies, possible implications of whatever the outcome is, and how this could impact other powerful tech-related companies that have also been accused of having problematic ethical issues.Article: Facebook must be broken up, the US government says in a groundbreaking lawsuithttps://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/tech/facebook-antitrust-lawsuit-ftc-attorney-generals/index.html *Audio mix is a bit off this week. Sorry!Music Provided by:Intro - https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Jahzzar/Tumbling_Dishes_Like_Old-Mans_Wishes/Green_Lights Outro - https://audionautix.com/
Philosopher Stefan Molyneux - who spent 15 years as a tech entrepreneur, building a successful environmental company - takes you through the history and current status of the anti-trust action brought against Google by the Department of Justice.From https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/20/doj-antitrust-lawsuit-against-google.htmlGoogle now faces its first antitrust lawsuit by the Federal government as the Department of Justice announced charges against the tech giant. Eleven Republican state attorneys general have joined the DOJ as plaintiffs. Google’s search and advertising businesses are key areas of interest for antitrust regulators.The Justice Department filed its long-expected antitrust lawsuit against Google on Tuesday alleging the company has unlawfully maintained a monopoly in search by cutting off rivals from key distribution channels.Eleven Republican state attorneys general have joined the DOJ as plaintiffs.Google’s stock barely moved following news of the suit. Shares were up more than 2% during afternoon trading.The DOJ and states are bringing the complaint under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, alleging Google has unlawfully maintained monopolies in markets for “general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising.”“Google is the gateway to the internet and a search advertising behemoth,” U.S. Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen said. “It has maintained its monopoly power through exclusionary practices that are harmful to competition.”The states in the lawsuit are Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina and Texas.▶️ Donate Now: https://www.freedomain.com/donate▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: https://www.fdrurl.com/newsletterYour support is essential to Freedomain, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: www.freedomain.com/donate▶️ 1. Donate: https://www.freedomain.com/donate▶️ 2. Newsletter Sign-Up: https://www.fdrurl.com/newsletter▶️ 3. Subscribe to the Freedomain Podcast: https://www.fdrpodcasts.com▶️ 4. Follow Freedomain on Alternative Platforms:Video:🔴 DLive Livestream: https://dlive.tv/freedomain🔴 Bitchute: https://bitchute.com/freedomainradio🔴 Rumble: https://rumble.com/freedomain🔴 LBRY: https://open.lbry.com/@freedomain:b🔴 Streamanity: https://fdrurl.com/streamanity🔴 Locals: https://freedomain.locals.com🔴 Brighteon: https://brighteon.com/channels/freedomain🔴 DailyMotion: https://dailymotion.com/FreedomainRadio🔴 Parler: https://parler.com/profile/stefanmolyneux🔴 Minds: https://minds.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Steemit: https://steemit.com/@stefan.molyneux🔴 Gab: https://gab.ai/stefanmolyneux🔴 Instagram: https://instagram.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 PocketNet: https://pocketnet.app/freedomain🔴 MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/freedomain🔴 Twetch: https://www.fdrurl.com/twetch🔴 Thinkspot: https://www.fdrurl.com/thinkspot🔴 Flote: https://flote.app/freedomain🔴 Pinterest: www.pinterest.com/stefanfreedomainSources:https://www.libertarianism.org/topics/antitrusthttps://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?entryid=1157https://www.cnet.com/news/40-year-old-ibm-antitrust-case-ends/https://www.cnet.com/news/ibm-and-microsoft-antitrust-then-and-now/https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/strategy/microsoft-antitrust-case/https://todayheadline.co/how-microsofts-antitrust-case-compares-to-googles-antitrust-case/https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-microsoft-antitrust-case-history-outcome-2020-7https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/06/google-overwhelmingly-dominates-search-market-house-committee-finds.htmlhttps://junto.digital/blog/seo-stats/ https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/20/doj-antitrust-lawsuit-against-google.htmlhttps://www.geekwire.com/2020/google-learn-microsoft-new-antitrust-case-hearkens-back-landmark-dispute/https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/response-doj
*After a 16-month investigation, the government says Google is violating the Sherman Act through its search and search-advertising businesses.* *Today's Stocks & Topics: STRA - Strategic Education Inc., NASDAQ, ABBV - AbbVie Inc., The Fed Beige Book, Clinton Stocks vs. Trump Stocks, Re-balancing, MPW - Medical Properties Trust Inc., Common Shares and Warrants, MGIC - Magic Software Enterprises Ltd., Cash or I-R-A.* Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/investtalk-investment-in-stock-market-financial-planning/donations Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands
Rich talks with Anti-Trust expert and scholar, Professor Daniel Crane from the University of Michigan about big tech, privacy, and the impact of neglecting current antitrust laws that have been on the books since the time of Taft, McKinley and Roosevelt.Support the show (https://RichardHelppie.com)
In January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. The FTC alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology. Among other things, the FTC claimed that Qualcomm had maintained its market position by requiring chip customers to license their chips separately (known as the “no license, no chips” policy) and had refused to license its standard-essential patents (SEPs) to competitors. Judge Lucy Koh held a bench trial in January 2019 and issued a decision in favor of the FTC in May 2019. In a lengthy opinion, the court determined that Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy violated antitrust law and that Qualcomm had a separate antitrust duty to deal with its competitors. Judge Koh then issued an injunction that, among other things, prohibited Qualcomm from conditioning the supply of chips on a customer’s patent-license status and required Qualcomm to negotiate and make available licenses on FRAND terms. Qualcomm appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In August 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued an order partially staying Judge Koh’s injunction. According to the Ninth Circuit, “Qualcomm has shown, at a minimum, the presence of serious questions on the merits” of the district court’s opinion. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit needs to decide whether the district court’s “order and injunction represent a trailblazing application of the antitrust laws, or instead an improper excursion beyond the outer limits of the Sherman Act.”While these issues alone would be interesting, this case is even more intriguing because the Department of Justice (DOJ) has intervened in the case – in favor of Qualcomm. The DOJ filed an amicus brief in favor of the stay of injunction, as well as an amicus brief on the merits. The Ninth Circuit has also granted DOJ’s request for five minutes of oral argument time. Oral argument in the Ninth Circuit is set for February 13, 2020.This episode will recap the district court’s decision, discuss the arguments likely to be made on appeal, and explore the bigger issues this case brings up for antitrust policy.Featuring:- Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law and Director, Planning and Publications, Center for Law, Economics, & Finance, George Washington University Law School- Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
In January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. The FTC alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology. Among other things, the FTC claimed that Qualcomm had maintained its market position by requiring chip customers to license their chips separately (known as the “no license, no chips” policy) and had refused to license its standard-essential patents (SEPs) to competitors. Judge Lucy Koh held a bench trial in January 2019 and issued a decision in favor of the FTC in May 2019. In a lengthy opinion, the court determined that Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy violated antitrust law and that Qualcomm had a separate antitrust duty to deal with its competitors. Judge Koh then issued an injunction that, among other things, prohibited Qualcomm from conditioning the supply of chips on a customer’s patent-license status and required Qualcomm to negotiate and make available licenses on FRAND terms. Qualcomm appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In August 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued an order partially staying Judge Koh’s injunction. According to the Ninth Circuit, “Qualcomm has shown, at a minimum, the presence of serious questions on the merits” of the district court’s opinion. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit needs to decide whether the district court’s “order and injunction represent a trailblazing application of the antitrust laws, or instead an improper excursion beyond the outer limits of the Sherman Act.”While these issues alone would be interesting, this case is even more intriguing because the Department of Justice (DOJ) has intervened in the case – in favor of Qualcomm. The DOJ filed an amicus brief in favor of the stay of injunction, as well as an amicus brief on the merits. The Ninth Circuit has also granted DOJ’s request for five minutes of oral argument time. Oral argument in the Ninth Circuit is set for February 13, 2020.This episode will recap the district court’s decision, discuss the arguments likely to be made on appeal, and explore the bigger issues this case brings up for antitrust policy.Featuring:- Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law and Director, Planning and Publications, Center for Law, Economics, & Finance, George Washington University Law School- Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
In January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. The FTC alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology. Among other things, the FTC claimed that Qualcomm had maintained its market position by requiring chip customers to license their chips separately (known as the “no license, no chips” policy) and had refused to license its standard-essential patents (SEPs) to competitors. Judge Lucy Koh held a bench trial in January 2019 and issued a decision in favor of the FTC in May 2019. In a lengthy opinion, the court determined that Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy violated antitrust law and that Qualcomm had a separate antitrust duty to deal with its competitors. Judge Koh then issued an injunction that, among other things, prohibited Qualcomm from conditioning the supply of chips on a customer’s patent-license status and required Qualcomm to negotiate and make available licenses on FRAND terms. Qualcomm appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In August 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued an order partially staying Judge Koh’s injunction. According to the Ninth Circuit, “Qualcomm has shown, at a minimum, the presence of serious questions on the merits” of the district court’s opinion. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit needs to decide whether the district court’s “order and injunction represent a trailblazing application of the antitrust laws, or instead an improper excursion beyond the outer limits of the Sherman Act.”While these issues alone would be interesting, this case is even more intriguing because the Department of Justice (DOJ) has intervened in the case – in favor of Qualcomm. The DOJ filed an amicus brief in favor of the stay of injunction, as well as an amicus brief on the merits. The Ninth Circuit has also granted DOJ’s request for five minutes of oral argument time. Oral argument in the Ninth Circuit is set for February 13, 2020.This Litigation Update teleforum will recap the district court’s decision, discuss the arguments likely to be made on appeal, and explore the bigger issues this case brings up for antitrust policy.Featuring:-- Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law and Director, Planning and Publications, Center for Law, Economics, & Finance, George Washington University Law School-- Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law
In January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. The FTC alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology. Among other things, the FTC claimed that Qualcomm had maintained its market position by requiring chip customers to license their chips separately (known as the “no license, no chips” policy) and had refused to license its standard-essential patents (SEPs) to competitors. Judge Lucy Koh held a bench trial in January 2019 and issued a decision in favor of the FTC in May 2019. In a lengthy opinion, the court determined that Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy violated antitrust law and that Qualcomm had a separate antitrust duty to deal with its competitors. Judge Koh then issued an injunction that, among other things, prohibited Qualcomm from conditioning the supply of chips on a customer’s patent-license status and required Qualcomm to negotiate and make available licenses on FRAND terms. Qualcomm appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In August 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued an order partially staying Judge Koh’s injunction. According to the Ninth Circuit, “Qualcomm has shown, at a minimum, the presence of serious questions on the merits” of the district court’s opinion. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit needs to decide whether the district court’s “order and injunction represent a trailblazing application of the antitrust laws, or instead an improper excursion beyond the outer limits of the Sherman Act.”While these issues alone would be interesting, this case is even more intriguing because the Department of Justice (DOJ) has intervened in the case – in favor of Qualcomm. The DOJ filed an amicus brief in favor of the stay of injunction, as well as an amicus brief on the merits. The Ninth Circuit has also granted DOJ’s request for five minutes of oral argument time. Oral argument in the Ninth Circuit is set for February 13, 2020.This Litigation Update teleforum will recap the district court’s decision, discuss the arguments likely to be made on appeal, and explore the bigger issues this case brings up for antitrust policy.Featuring:-- Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law and Director, Planning and Publications, Center for Law, Economics, & Finance, George Washington University Law School-- Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law
As the conversation around antitrust regulation continues to grow, especially given the current political climate and the growth of technology companies, now more than ever, multinationals must pay attention to evolving trends in this space. Nate Soderstrom is a Senior Editor at the Capitol Forum, an online publication covering topics including consumer protection, antitrust enforcement, and government contracts. Nate leads the Forum’s mergers and acquisitions coverage. He joined the Capitol Forum after five years as an associate in the Antitrust & Competition department of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, where he advised clients in antitrust matters relating to mergers and acquisitions, complex antitrust litigation, and government investigations. What We Discussed in This Episode: Has antitrust become a bipartisan issue? How has antitrust evolved over the last decade? Has the focus of conversation about antitrust shifted to price and consumer welfare instead of bigness and concentration of power? Where does the current trend and desire to take on big tech companies stem from? Are big tech companies seen as a threat to our political system if they go unregulated? Is there tension between the First amendment and the regulation of big tech platforms? What is the real fear when it comes to leaving big tech companies unregulated? What is an appropriate response to regulating big tech companies? Would issuing a fine suffice? Is breaking up the companies necessary? How is Section 2 of the Sherman Act being used to challenge mergers? Have antitrust regulations always been political? Contact Information: nsoderstrom@thecapitolforum.com (202) 601-2297 www.thecapitolforum.com Thank you for listening! Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every Wednesday. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Stitcher Radio, Google Play, or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. Be sure to connect with us and reach out with any questions/concerns: LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Sheppard Mullin website This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.
Are prescription drug prices too high and can antitrust and competition law be used to regulate the “right” price? NYU professor Harry First and Lauren Rackow will talk to John Roberti and Ricardo Woolery about the recent trend of increasing prescription drug prices, whether the “right” price exists, and whether antitrust and competition law have tools to regulate these prices. Listen to this episode to learn more about how competition experts think about high drug prices and calls for greater antitrust and competition law enforcement to regulate them. Related Links: Harry First, Excessive Drug Pricing as an Antitrust Violation, 82 Antitrust Law Journal 701 (2019) U.S. Dep't of Justice, Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, Chapter 1 (2008) A Brief Overview of the Federal Trade Commission's Investigative, Law Enforcement, and Rulemaking Authority, Section II(2) Overview of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Hosted by: John Roberti and Ricardo Woolery
Trump’s Justice Department prepares to eat itself. Turns out Bill Barr’s globetrotting was part of an agenda to prop up right-wing conspiracy theories about the origin of the Russia probe. Look out, Deep State. Looks like Matt Taibbi’s claim from a couple of weeks ago that we are in a “permanent coup,” does not sound so crazy right about now. Republicans pull media stunt to distract media attention from Tuesday’s closed-door testimony by the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Tayor. The House Intelligence Committee was preparing to depose Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary, Laura Cooper, about the expanding Ukraine scandal when over 40 House Republicans burst into the confidential hearing room and made a scene. 14 of those members already had access to the hearing room, making their claims about being excluded a bit rich. Scott Perry was one! Bernie Sander’s gets a huge endorsement from AOC and Michael Moore. His Queens rally last Saturday saw crowds of around 30,000 people...the largest campaign rally of the political season. Then, Sanders tells Ryan Grim of The Intercept that if elected, he would revive criminal prosecutions of Corporate CEOs, using long-neglected provisions of the Sherman Act. Elizabeth Warren joined Chicago teachers on the picket lines this week. Biden’s fundraising atrophies as some in Democratic Party donor class start to beg for a Super PAC they can dump their money into. Biden was a bit distracted this week, though. He and his campaign forgot to buy the web address...and the social media accounts...for his Latinx outreach campaign. Todos con Biden. Now Trump owns it. Now if you go to TodosConBiden.com, it takes you to Latinos for Trump. And a surging Pete Buttigieg hires former Goldman Sachs Exec to run his policy shop. More wildfires erupt in California after a PG&E transmission line broke and set the Sonoma County fire ablaze. Over 50,000 residents have had to evacuate. A judge holds Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, in contempt for forcing students scammed by Corinthian Colleges. The judge orders DeVos to pay a $100,000 fine. Mitch McConnell gets the cold shoulder from a pallbearer at Elijah Cummings’s memorial service. Trump all class once again as he decided to skip the memorial service...not that he was missed. Mack Trucks strike ends this morning. Details of the agreement have not been released, but it looks like workers held the line on keeping jobs in the U.S. It’s groundhogs day at the Charter Appeals Board! The CAB’s dysfunction is so bad it has one charter school asking CAB members to deny their appeal so they can pack up, get out of the board’s purgatory and get their appeal into Commonwealth Court. Senator Mastriano and Representative Borowicz introduced the 6-week abortion ban this week in front of a packed media center. Researchers at Google AI Quantum and researchers at UC Santa Barbara said they achieved a long-hoped-for milestone in quantum computing: “Quantum Supremacy.” Their newly published paper shows that their prototype quantum computer could perform a complex math problem that would take today’s supercomputers about 10,000 years to complete. This morning, NASA Chief Administrator, Jim Bridenstine, took to the LiveStream to talk about the Artemis Moon Mission slated for 2024. Free Will Brewing release news. Last week’s release of their Cranberry Wheat was delayed after the brewmaster said he wanted to give it a little more time. Well, the wait should be worth it. Cranberry Wheat is now available at both locations. Tomorrow will also see the release of the first big stout of the season. Sharing Size - Imperial Oatmeal Stout with chocolate, peanut butter, and milk sugar. A candy stout designed for an adult treat on Halloween. Shareable, or not. 10.4% ABV This Sunday is the October edition of Sour Sunday. They’ll be 12 sours on tap as well as debuting two new offerings in bottles (Carmen Bieranda and Biere'ded Phantom) and a vintage release of an all-time favorite (Blood and Guts).
On this special episode of Inside the Firm Lance is Joined by Bryon McCartney who is a managing partner and the Chief Idea Guy at Archmark which is short for Architect Branding and Marketing, in Estero! Join us as we go back Inside the Firm! Show Notes: Our links Get your free Website Action Audit from Archmark ($397 vlaue) You’ll get a detailed 10-point review of your web presence and action steps for improving it. https://www.archmark.co/marketing-for-architects book-your-intro-call Free 20-minute strategy call with Archmark Let’s dive into a specific branding or marketing issue you are struggling with and help you move forward. https://www.archmark.co/schedule-time-with-us Get a simple overview of your website based on four basic criteria www.grader.com Some links on the AIA’s past restrictions on advertising and marketing: http://averyreview.com/issues/36/sherman-antitrust-act This is very detailed and complete overview of the Sherman Act decision. http://www.modern8.com/architecture-advertising-a-history/ From the article Architects were finally able to distinguish themselves from the competition in the 1970s following an ethics review of multiple industries, including the AIA, by the US Department of Justice. https://archinect.com/features/article/150014677/architecture-firms-tell-us-how-marketing-requires-an-evolved-set-ofsocial- skills From the article: "In the early 20th century, marketing one's practice was actually forbidden by the AIA. Concerned that underbidders would produce something of a lesser quality, the first Principles of Practice adopted in 1909 by the association barred architects from marketing themselves and prohibited firms from knowingly competing with one another by offering to charge less for the same work. Advertising, even proposals and sketches, were prohibited by the professional organization as architects were essentially required to charge the same percentage of construction cost. In 1972, the AIA finally agreed to allow members to submit price quotes, competitive bids, discounts, or free work such as proposals and sketches. As a result, marketing became an increasingly vital part of architecture firms; it helps bring in new clients, adds value to the brand, and helps to attract and retain top talent.”
EP178 - Chewy IPO and Listener Questions Part 2 Recap of Chewy IPO (Chewy S1) Listener Questions Part 2: Q5: Nick Barrett Would be really interested to hear your guys thoughts on how an established e-commerce store should expand into new product categories. Is it a good idea to launch new niche websites through Shopify to do this, or is it better to keep focus within a single e-commerce site and expand within that? Q6 Rebecca Saunders Have you seen any recent data on the costs of customer acquisition online via the various channels, and how these have changed over time? I hear a lot anecdotally but haven’t managed to access any reliable data. Thanks in advance! Love the show btw (all the way from rainy London). Q7 Amit Agarwal Have you ever done some research on e-commerce subscriptions such as amazon subscribe and save or autoship? Also, what is the industry trends for bark box, hello fresh and other bundle subscriptions? Q8: Parker Block Hey Scot, What do you see as likely business implications of rising appetite for anti-trust action (see FTC/DOJ announcement , Lina Khan joining Congress staff, etc ) on platforms which monetize consumer data ? Q9: Baxter Overman How do you put consumers at ease with in-home delivery services? (i.e. Walmart grocery). Wouldn’t drop-off when the customer is home for certain items (or lockers) be easier to sell? Q10 Aakash Gupta What’s your favorite app that you’ve downloaded in the last few months? Q11 Twitter: Natalie Dillon mentioned us as one of her top podcasts – thanks Natalie! Q12 Ted: Mixed use retail entertainment? Q 13 Michelle Grant Thoughts on pricing strategy in an omnichannel world where price transparency is high and filled with bots to find the lowest price Q15 Melissa Burdick The advertising race to the wallet – We’ve seen some big news lately: Target in talks to buy Triad, Walmart who is bringing advertising in house and just made a key hire Suresh as their CTO….where is this going for ads? Is it going to be a war for brands wallet? Is everyone going to take a page from the Amazon playbook, bring ads in house, and move to a self-service performance advertising, PPC world? Where is the $ coming/going to come from? In the chart below, it looks like Amazon is taking from Google. (I asked a big CPG this question and I asked where is this coming from – or are you just getting more $$? Their answer – more $$). How should brands prepare? Q16 Melissa Burdick Is Amazon going to do to walgreens/bartells/CVS what they did to the bookstore (kill the bookstore to build a bookstore) with the acquisition of pill pack + private label (aspirin, etc) and enable the ability to sell mass CPG profitably? Q17 Melissa Burdick Can Scot please update his Amazon Scape – how has it changed? Q18 Melissa Burdick When is Spiffy coming to Seattle? Don’t forget to like our facebook page, and if you enjoyed this episode please write us a review on itunes. Episode 178 of the Jason & Scot show was recorded on Tuesday, June 18th, 2019. http://jasonandscot.com Join your hosts Jason “Retailgeek” Goldberg, Chief Commerce Strategy Officer at Publicis, and Scot Wingo, CEO of GetSpiffy and Founder and Executive Chairman of Channel Advisor as they discuss the latest news and trends in the world of e-commerce and digital shopper marketing. Transcript Jason: [0:24] Welcome to the Jason and Scott show this is episode 178 being recorded on Tuesday June 18th 2019 I’m your host Jason retailgeek Goldberg and as usual I’m here to host Scott Wingo. Scot: [0:38] He Jason and welcome back Jason Scott your listeners well we if you listen to good ol episode 177 we had so many listener questions we could not get to the mall. So this is kind of a episode 2 or continuation of that episode before we jump into a star questions though we a while ago on a new show about 30 days ago now we talked about the chewy S1 and since then she has gone Publix we wanted to give you a quick update on what’s going on with you once you take us to the Jason. Jason: [1:14] So they did their IP aware According to some Tuesday it was Friday do I have that right. And you’ll tell me if this is good or not I think it is the day they had announced a rainy a price range for the offering at like 19 and 21 bucks and they actually came out at $22. That’s a little higher than the range they have a lot of good activity and they closed closed event on Friday it was at 35 bucks which is like 80%. So That seems like a pretty successful offering at least compared with like all the the Uber news or the with news. Scot: [2:07] This is the only been one to one IPO process and you know what would they tell you you’re so far. Knock on wood so what they what they tell you is that the Brain Trust at Goldman Sachs these kind of place is you want to go to one school of thought and this is not with the bankers agree with so you have to kind of navigate your way through all this obviously you got a fox and how so she was here once thought is you price your I get the maximum because that’s what’s best for the company the bankers would tell you to look your building long-term shareholder relationships so you want to give these shareholders that take a risk in your company a little bit of a benefit so you price a little bit lower than kind of where you can look at Newburgh lift they both would be kind of what’s the bankers would say kind of broken IPOs where they traded below their IPO price therefore now if you’re someone that participate in IPO you feel sheepish because you came in it what was a $20 now it’s trading at 18 where is this true IPO performed a lot better in a bottle the bankers would recommend I said if you want to come to clear range up there can a price above that range slightly and then have kind of a good pop and then stay there and then come out with your results and then kind of beet raisin your off the races did you could do. [3:30] Secondary offerings happy happy shareholders by wear stockings all kinds of good things happen at kind of tend to think this is the way to do it and they did really well. Jason: [3:43] Yeah now a couple of things that make it particularly interesting in the the sort of Commerce retail world so folks may remember. Chewy was acquired by PetSmart a couple years ago and it was a big deal at the time I was over three billion dollar. Acquisition. And so a incident PetSmart is now spinning off chewy as a separate public company and so I Like You by. And read my notes correctly that that close kind of values the company at that north of 4 billion dollars. Weather so acquire company for 3 billion ticket public at 14 billion sounds like. Pretty exciting acquisition for acquisition and transaction for PetSmart do I have that right. Scot: [4:42] I guess yeah they’re kind of Phoenix it’s almost like a private Equity, think it’s unusual for a company to do what they did cuz usually you fold it in you. You get rid of the brand overtime you make it your eCommerce brand so so young to the degree they have integrated it you could argue it Kris Russell because you know now I’m Siri chewy could be acquired maybe I do think that they sell and over half so I think they can control that but let’s say they do a secondary in overtime their ownership get step know maybe they need to sell some swimming in debts and then let’s say doomsday scenario Amazon acquires chewy and your PetSmart that’s what’s running your e-commerce site then you can kind of have a you know really bad day for someone at PetSmart to listen to see what happens with that integration now that you have these kind of. The amoeba is being pulled apart here and and how does that work for PetSmart. Jason: [5:42] Yeah so that’s kind of what I was going was like from a pure Financial standpoint if we look at it as a banker like it’s it’s hard not to see this as a win but but for your point. [5:55] PetSmart was not a particularly digitally Savvy brick and mortar retailer prior to this acquisition so I can the time part of this acquisition was to bring more digital competency to PetSmart and once pain the PetSmart team arrived PetSmart like really abdicated digital responsibility to that team so like as far as I understand it. There are fewer. Digital people at PetSmart today than there were before the acquisition so they’ve they’ve essentially made themselves extra dependent on chewy and it’s now not clear. What. [6:36] Responsibility going forward she will have for PetSmart digital footprint like you can imagine they have a deal to run petsmart.com. I haven’t explicitly seen that but that that seems like a logical assumption but you know what happens with all the. The start of omni-channel things and you know when PetSmart wants to launch new services or they want to like Market the Veterinary Service veterinarian services that she doesn’t sell but PetSmart does through their stores. Like they’re certainly isn’t like a really strong digital team at PetSmart to be solving the. The start of Digital customer experiences for PetSmart so it it it does it feels to me like it definitely create some risk. For PetSmart and I’ll be interesting whether they they have like. Chewy braintrust walked up some how or whether they’re going to try to rebuild their own their own capability there I guess I just it’s an interesting. [7:36] I think to follow so I found that interesting and then my assumption is that the kind of felt like they had to do it because. The the one interesting thing about the chewy idea that we haven’t mentioned is that that chewy is losing money, and like despite some like phenomenal hockey stick. Customer acquisition growth and sales growth and they have over three years they went from under a billion dollars to 3.5 billion dollars on sales they still haven’t found their way to profitability so your PetSmart you own this fast-growing money-losing venture. And you used a lot of debt to buy them so like. That they’re not helping you pay down the debt you used to buy them because they’re losing money by doing that idea o u stand up a bunch of cash in my understanding is the whole IPO like. Like tried to raise about a billion dollars and 900 million of that went straight to death from the PetSmart acquisition so for your point like it sounds like going public makes it easier to do subsequent raises. So maybe that. The way to bring more operating cash. Chewy but like there’s not a billion dollars in the bank as a result of this IPO that you can have spend on marketing that they didn’t have last year. [8:58] It’s all very interesting is going to be interesting to watch watch how it all plays out and then I guess the other thing is fun for me and you cover this on a previous show a little bit but like. In the process of going public May disclose a bunch of details that we don’t normally get to see and so I know there’s some interesting metrics that came out. They they do a really good cohort analysis of a evaluate. How sticky their customers are from each year that they acquire them and how valuable those customers are in so they have a like in their filings they have a nice what we call a wedding cake kind of showing. Each of those previous years cohorts. Growing in value over time and have some really favorable long-term metrics our customer retention is amazing a big chunk of their customers are on subscriptions are longer-term customers are continuing to spend more and so like. In general they’re having to spend a lot of money to acquire each new customer but the the lifetime value of those customers like is a significant multiple of that customer acquisition cost, so it just spend together inside peek at a pretty big size e-commerce business. Scot: [10:14] Yeah you know the history of e-commerce is littered with companies that they do all this math off of cackle TV and they’re using kind of known LTV, acquire new customers off that no nail TV and then at some point you get through your lines cut across and that LTD of that new customer surprisingly goes down over time because the early days you’re you’re bring in these these early adopters their Advocates they stick around and then the Slater customers you acquire you know maybe they’re just sampling and that kind of thing so it’ll be interesting to see. At the same time Irwin size applying data science and machine learning all his new technologies to try to fight all this in the sea. How to do another big thing when you go public as you have to decide. Which of these metrics are going to publish Schnitzer it’s pretty tricky thing cuz you kind of you know you kind of have to think well metric out there instructions down that’s bad so you can you can actually have a much different and you should have different kind of TV is you put out this one versus on your quarterly so will cover the first quarterly and no be interesting to see if they if they continue with a really transparent Buick faculty because that’s one they had some really good date on them. Jason: [11:31] Yeah it’ll be fun to see. Scot: [11:33] Cool swell I’m springing this on you but did you have a chance to look at the big Facebook crypto announcement today Libra new crypto-currency. Jason: [11:45] Yeah you should have spring stuff on me cuz you know I did all day so I just rushed to the hotel room to get to chat with you so tell us about. Scot: [11:57] Well I’ll just point point listeners to it the immediate reaction from Regulators was oh heck no so the other side quotes from the EU and both parties in the US saying we’re not really sure we trust Facebook with this so that that’s kind of I’m still adjusting it and it looks like they had a big team here the guy that got from PayPal but they put on chats Dave music. He’s leading this so it’s a big pretty big initiative at Facebook it’s what’s called a constant. Constant coin so it it’s kind of going to an individual value versus versus the US dollar does versus floating around the reason the white paper it looks like it’s going. It’s going after being a payment mechanism, like miles and that kind of thing for people. Within the Facebook Network they do have several people that have signed on to this kind of governing body eBay was announced today is also looking at it location being that the company Side dance this governing body will ultimately takes this currency along with the u.s. dollar other payments down the road so it just feels like it’s the payment thing to watch to see how it goes. Jason: [13:23] So do you think the the Winklevoss twins will be all in in this will be the Zuckerberg Winklevoss reunions. Scot: [13:29] That direction was an article where they have had something to do with it I know that’s compliment you can find them. [13:45] I think that they were asked to apine on it because they they have put a lot of stuff into the crypto thing. Jason: [13:53] I don’t know what we’ll see how it all plays out like superficially. I I simultaneously and surprise and admire Facebook’s ability to sort of ignore their currents. Situation and launching new products so I do I do feel like. Visa V the other big technology giants like Facebook is it the biggest sort of trust deficit of all of them and yet they continue to launch products that like. At the core require like this really strong level of consumer trust for adoption so launching portal and putting like on microphone and camera and everyone’s living room and the launching of cryptocurrencies likes that there’s some hotspot doing those kind of launches when it it it feels like you’re you’re not exactly killing it in terms of earning your user stress. Scot: [14:44] Okay one of our one of our many interns just look this up and they actually it so Facebook had talked to the Zuckerberg they have an exchange called Gemini and they’re not sure they’re to work together but the Winklevoss folks said you know it’s time to let bygones be bygones and waste will probably be Frenemies so if you’re very Millennial wait till dresses. Jason: [15:07] Let’s jump into listener questions. [15:19] Questionnaire questionnaire questionnaire questions. Scot: [15:24] Yes sir we are so we covered for last time so I can start out here with number 5 this was from Nick Barrett and it came through Facebook I believe Nick is from Australia or New Zealand so I don’t know if that puts it in context but there you go I think he works for this company called Mighty ape which is kind of like GameStop it’s like an FYE but an American kind of context to hear your guys thoughts and I’ll and established e-commerce store could expand in a new product categories is it a good idea to launch new Niche websites to Shopify to do this or is it better to keep Focus within a single e-commerce site and expand with a nut I’ll take a stab at this kind of depends so I’ll use a I use a metaphor here of orbits right so so at the at the at the center of this orbit is your existing customer in your existing e-commerce experience I think customers will. Pretty easily let you go one or two orbits out you start to go three or four orbits out then you really need to start thinking about that customers buying experience and the messaging it doesn’t make sense to have it going to tie it to something on a closer orbit to what you’re doing today so use example it looks like a Mighty Eighth the selling games Collectibles those kinds of things so. [16:50] You know another example of a store like yours is ThinkGeek here in the US and you’ll think he did a really good job of starting with your muesli. [17:00] Kind of collectible stuff and then bringing in toys stand life-size figures and then they going deep into categories so then in the store are they and the lion to have a pretty, deep Star Wars category a Harry Potter category Etc and then online and license the brands and then there’s there’s actually extra deep in this category So within the Star Wars world. They did, cleverly came up with a sleeping bag that looks like a tan tan and so they they kind of got so deep into this vertical they’re actually kind of able to come up with their own products around that. But you wouldn’t go in there expecting to find a non geechie pizza oven or something strange like that so so you know. [17:49] Two to the same argument if if you guys wanted to add kind of your you know you’re on private label Collectibles I’ll keep that in the main side what say you wanted to get into something totally out of what you’re doing today like I don’t know Sporting Goods or hammocks or something like that then I do think you know having another e-commerce site is the way to do it you know what. Yeah what you didn’t necessarily but all all kind of kind of keep replying to thread is how do you find what to add in this is where it’s really interesting set a channel advisor we have 3000 customers and the overwhelming majority of them are Supernatural and it’s always fascinating to me to find out how they. Figure out what products to sell a lot of them spend a lot of time date of money so don’t go through comments feedback on products they look at no search results that’s a cool place on your own website to go find things you’re what are people searching for on your website and not fighting that’s really interesting kind of area to learn a lot about consumer Behavior a lot of them use tools like camelcamelcamel this one called jungle Scout and then there you can go look at Amazon’s data my favorite example it won’t surprise listeners is a Star Wars example so these guys are our customer and they like. [19:10] Like kind of a GameStop in FYE Etc solo Star Wars stuff and they’re trying to look for new products they had a license with Lucas sounds do what do they had the image of Han Solo Carbonite that they put on almost everything they did a phone case but it started poking around and using some his tools they win the Star Wars category of Amazon Founders All these people looking for Star Wars beach towels yo when you’re out in your bathing suits on the beach you’re always so obviously want to Star Wars down so they came out with Han Solo in carbonite on a beach towel you are really big one so it looks like it’s on the beach cuz she’s there. And that became a top selling product on Amazon very quickly and they should develop that product by looking at null search results in finding those little imbalances between supply and demand that people are looking for a date use that create a product extension anchor so ankers electronics company in there is. Picture in China or Taiwan they started mining the Amazon feedback and people would buy. [20:23] Chargers and accessories and Illinois say one glad this has two USB ports but I have 6 devices looking at you Jason and you know I really wish you had a a charge faster and be it had reports. I think a lot of the anchor kind of lease early products were developed off skimming and parsing and really understanding the Amazon product feedback and then saying alright this product at 3 stars why can we develop a product. Our own just got five stars in address to Consumers. Jason: [20:58] Yeah and I mostly agree a side note on anchor like I literally have to have anchor products delivered to a email stop because my wife has banned me from buying Morty. Totally has my number. And one piece of bad news for you Scott I don’t know if you’re aware of this but I think was purchased by GameStop and effective July 2nd they’re shutting it down. Scot: [21:23] Oh man I didn’t know that. Jason: [21:25] Yeah so it’s not going to be a a section of a GameStop versus a separate site so. Scot: [21:32] Mulligan artist closes stores. Jason: [21:35] I don’t know maybe per your point and M4 Next original question again GameStops hoping to. Aggregate that traffic from their side and Think Geek and do more effective cross-selling because they. Basically I agree with your answer but I would almost come to it from the opposite and I would just say, it’s extremely hard there very few businesses that can be very profitable by selling a single item in a car and there are very few businesses that can be profitable by only selling an item once to a customer and so in general you’re looking for businesses where you have multiple products for the customer put in in your reason for the test come back and shot from you multiple times and so to me that means. Looking at your existing existing customer base as you suggested and finding adjacent products that might also appeal to those those customers. In the early days of e-commerce there was this artificial thing. SEO from Google search engine optimization bring much favored keyword stuffing in the URL and so you saw a lot of. [22:48] Individual sites that were selling one item in the name that URL after the item they were selling and that him for a while that that could be very effective Google’s dramatically depreciated the the effect of keywords in the URL so you know it now makes more sense to aggregate as much traffic you as you can on a single URL and sell a bunch of stuff but what I would suggest is having a lot of different content for that different stuff in different landing pages for that different stuff so for your point you’re selling Video Star Wars video games over here at Star Wars beach towels over there you might have separate landing pages for those two and you might have separate like digital marketing campaigns for those two so it kind of feels like a separate site in that sense but once you get there and get that beach towel I can I can try to cross sell you the video games and try to make you up a bigger more valuable. Does I guess that’s that’s the way I would think of. Scot: [23:43] Yeah it’s kind of fun fact two big companies were created off that crazed were you just putting one product on a domain name hayneedle and Wayfair Wayfair had like coffee tables kitchen tables dining chairs that all these Furniture things and you go to dining chairs if you like just dining chairs slice of the things they ended up ruling all that stuff up both of them did and and getting rid of that strategy one. Question number 6 is from Rebecca Saunders have you seen any recent data on the cost of customer acquisition so this is a question which we just kind of chewy online via the various channels and how these are changed over time I hear a lot and it totally but haven’t managed to access any reliable data thanks in advance love the show by the way all the way from rainy London. Jason: [24:34] Well thanks for the question Rebecca on answering from rainy Seattle today good night my SAT answer is. Generally know why there are people that publish short of some industry data on customer acquisition that I would submit to you that it’s almost completely useless because. The variance depending on the specific industry in the specific customer circumstances are so great that looking at these. Averages are are somewhat meaningless and so you know you both have like. Companies that are selling individual packs of Band-Aids you know for $3 online and guess what your customer acquisition cost has to be extremely low when you’re selling a $3 item with free shipping. And you have customer selling $10,000 diamond rings and. Not surprisingly that the customer acquisition cost can be much higher for that if you’re a company that’s already doing billions of dollars in sales right you. To get meaningful growth you have to reach a really broad audience and that tends to be more expensive per user for customer acquisition if you’re a small startup. You can very cost-effectively acquire some really valuable customer so your customer acquisition ends up being a lot lower so. [26:03] As much as I’d love to point you in a particular resource and say hey just check out these numbers. I guess I really don’t feel like other companies numbers are in less than a direct competitor of yours somehow are likely to be that useful to you I will tell you you know what I was digging into that chewy S1 a little bit and for example in 2017 chewy added about 3.7 million new customers in the matted 3.8 million new customers in 2018 but that’s 2017 customers they spent about 60 bucks a customer to acquire around and for this 2018 customers they spent $101 a customer. So there are not a lot of businesses that are much smaller in scale than chewy that could afford that kind of. Customer acquisition cost but if you look at Chuy’s lifetime value and the dispenza previous cohorts if these new cohorts Behavior chewy the way the previous ones that has a Scott sort of alluded to earlier then like even spending $100 a customer could be. A tapered an investment like a it’s a risky one so so we’re going to have to wait and see but I would definitely not look at Chuy’s numbers and go oh gosh for my business I should spend a hundred bucks a customer because it works. Scot: [27:22] Yeah and dumb ass gets in dead to your point the reason it’s hard to compare your business when Elsa’s you’re not only are you different categories you know Supernatural businesses where they essentially say look if I can spend a dollar and make 3 I will I will consider it almost cogs and I will have an unlimited budget. Other people kind of say you’re the kind of come from an advertising View and they took people to come from marketplaces they tend to have that cogs kind of totality cuz they’re looking at it as a percentage of sales people that come at it from the ADI to SeaWorld they’re looking at a return on ad spend the inverse of a Crepes and they’ll say look I’m going to have a budget and demands that budget to a 4X or whatever it is returned my dad stood socially really part of its Theology and and and some of it is other times I’ve seen really big companies for the CEO says I want to be number one to strollers and then you say well that’s insanely. Expensive in your money I want to be number one in strollers and. [28:37] It doesn’t matter cuz when the boss looks at strollers and your shoulders not there you’re going to get fired so you don’t really care what he’s done or you know they are building a Brandt and they don’t really care about a transactional kind of a Roi on on the stent there so it’s a hard hard to nail down. And it does kind of depend in my experience where people come from if they come from that ad world of that Marketplace Road. [29:06] What’s your view on return on that seventies. Jason: [29:10] Yeah I mean I tend to be sort of green eyeshade out of about it I I like to have a pretty short return on ad spend to make the investment the. Because frankly like the more expensive the customer is to acquire the least likely the customer is to be very loyal so in general I like those customers I can earn organically and cultivate a lot more than the customers that I have to go out and by so like you know for sure Mary meters suggestion I’d way rather have some sort of freemium model what I have customers coming to me and find the use my product for free on a limited basis and then turn them into paid customers and and sort of do growth hacking then spend a fortune buying a customer and trying to monetize those that being said I work for a giant ad company and that’s mostly what we. What we do. [30:13] Spend a bunch of money to to acquire customers and it absolutely can work. It’s not again it it’s somewhat related to your risk profile and. And comfort level I will say the one thing one nice thing about being a small company a lot of my clients are very large and and they have to acquire huge audiences and. The markets that have huge audiences that have inventory or tend to be pretty efficient so it’s really hard to get a good deal but one of the nice things about being a small company is you can play in a lot of small customer acquisition formats where the market isn’t very efficient yet and you can. I often get outside return so no being a in early player on Instagram when people weren’t advertising on Instagram was a great way to make money or being a you know a really excellent executor on Pinterest or even like fractional television versus heading to buy Super Bowl spots or different things like that like there are definitely ways to sort of piecemeal together audiences to get an outside return as long as you can get by with a a relatively modest audience size but you know as soon as you get into having a choir or million new customers a year to hit your numbers. You’re you’re pretty much stuck thing the market rate for customer acquisition. Scot: [31:42] Yeah where it where I’ve seen small businesses get upside down on this is day they take care of an Amazon eBay way of looking at things the applied to Google and they kind of think all right eye I just spent 20% took Wireless customer and then what they don’t realize is the next time that customer comes to they’re going to probably come through Google so now and then now you had another drink song that one in so I know what you’re saying is if you think you’re acquiring a customer for a hundred Google and you’re getting a $300 kind of LTD with them they’re heading Google twice more and you’re paying another couple hundred bucks. Upside down you really look like to have to get especially with the CPC stuff and and you have to be real careful with with how your measure know that. [32:28] Question number 7 this is from a bit Agarwal have you ever done some research on e-commerce subscription such as Amazon subscribe and save our auto-ship also what is industry trends for BarkBox hellofresh and other subscriptions. Jason: [32:42] Great question I’ll be curious what Scott’s answer is because I’m always looking for better data in this category than I have in general I would say like there is not a lot of traffic data it’s it’s the usual story like they’re these. Third-party data aggregators that do things that customer surveys and things to try to give us some data or there’s the universe Creek receipt scrapers like 1010data or slice a rocket and they can give us some insight into like. Amazon subscribe and save is performing versus individual products but. Those are like directional it best I haven’t seen awesome data there there’s one of the reasons that you yes one was kind of fun Chuy’s and I ever get with their trade name is for their subscription program. [33:38] 67% of all Chuy’s Revenue comes from the subscription program in as we talked about in one of the previous answers you know the real key to to profitability in an e-commerce business is about. Repeat purchases and customer retention and like there’s no better flavor of customer retention then auto-ship and so like. I’m a big fan of the tactic I haven’t always had the best third-party data to validate that tactic. The second half of your question I will I will say, yeah you asked about some of the the well-known subscription offers out there like BarkBox and hellofresh. [34:21] There’s a general sense. It’s been hard to scale those subscription services and that customer retention hasn’t been awesome and so there’s this phenomenon called subscription fatigue and in general the subscription Services tend to have a lot of churn so they don’t maintain all of last year’s subscriptions and a bunch of new ones and so there’s kind of a dirty little secret amongst the. The companies we tend to think of as subscription companies that are successful and that dirty little secret is most of them have an offering that’s not subscription-based that’s on the man ordering. And the bulk of the revenue tends to come from that on demand order so you know Stitch fix the bulk of their revenue is from. Young people that are ordering a fixes on demand rather than have a a a recurring a box coming all the time and in the. [35:22] My understanding is the BarkBox and Dollar Shave Club and Harry’s have all had like three big turn on their subscription list I think when the hair is got a choir that came to light that 80% of Harry’s Revenue was from there. Their retail deals are people walking in at Target and buying Harry’s Razors rather than being on the the the subscription program so I would say like subscriptions are really valuable thing to try to achieve and there definitely is evidence that Amazon’s program is really potent seems like chewy has a really potent program but you know you probably need to be careful about assuming it’s easy or that you’ll have great great customer retention from doing. Scot: [36:05] Yeah. I think that spot on a couple editions it it seems to work well in anything that’s replenishable I do think it’s kind of jumped the shark like I I see tons of News subscription programs for coffee and beer and wine just feels like we’re probably Pastor the subscription craze. If you’re interested in the topic that you know again one of the nerdy things I recommend is when companies go public and they file that S1. [36:36] That that is like a gold mine of data and it’s if you’re interested in these topics if you can find a company that has Nest one out there it’s really a good read because you’re you’re dealing with these companies that have managed a business cycle were talking about up to the point where it’s at a pretty good scale so so so they’re kind of on Generation 8 thinking and yeah that’s the guy you got started on Generation 1 thinking right live red and really enjoyed Stitch fix I would say you know there is a lot of negative cinnamon around Stitch fix prove the critics pretty wrong with the success they’ve had there is one is a really really good read and then when I when you read an s-1. [37:22] It’s kind of like a poop sandwich so so you know the where the bread is the poop in the good stuff’s on inside you have kind of dig in and find it the the part you want to read on this one and Skip all the way to Management’s discussion and and they’re in the Stitch fix one it’s a textbook on how they think about their cohorts and and how they fight this Trends Jason’s talking about how do you know how do you make the algorithm better and how do you also scale it with with computers instead of just people so I recommend that a good Counterpoint is Blue Apron went public and has not been successful so in a reading their ass one it’s really interesting because you know. [38:08] It’s not as strong and it’s not as clear that they’re actually getting in front of the sky turn problems so that’s a good one and then if you’re interested in the food deliveries area GrubHub is public and I find their public stuff to be very interesting as well. A good reading it going back to this one in either Coeur d’Alene updates her are so it’s hopefully that gives you something to chew on a it is hard to find a lot of like the previous couple folks asked about CAC LTV out there I like reading a case of a prospective cuz it really. Gives you an idea of how these teams are thinking about things and and I learned like a thousand things from repossessed one so I think that’s one of the best areas to go research the subscription program if you’re interested. Jason: [38:59] Yep and it just occurred to me there’s one other point we kind of touched on I’m the last person to call episode that I’ll just reiterate there’s certain segments that are much more mature and subscriptions and so that’s Professional Services and digital subscriptions Regza think Netflix Amazon Prime you know subscriptions to publishing companies Wall Street Journal newspaper all those sorts of things and if you look at how those industry of olives a couple of interesting things have happened. These aggregators have emerged because customers have subscription fatigue and their subscriptions are fragmented everywhere and it’s really annoying so you now have Amazon with a service where you do all your media subscriptions through them and they give you a single dashboard to turn on and off subscriptions and control them. [39:54] Apple just wants to be similar offering the financial institutions have noticed that people locking all the subscriptions they spend a fortune and they don’t tend to use a lot of the subscription so every budgeting tool out there like mint like a big feature that they offer is identifying all these recurring. Cost and continue to turn off all the ones that you probably aren’t using and I think that’s now a national television campaign for. Wells Fargo is they have a feature in their mobile app called control tower which is all about helping people like turn off the. [40:29] The dearth of subscriptions they signed up for not getting value from so like give you. [40:36] Use that as sort of a time machine and you let you know it’s it’s probably unlikely in the future you want a copy subscription with one vendor and a water filter subscription with another vendor and you know and have all these things coming on different schedules and on different payment periods and you know it. To me that’s one of my Amazon subscribe and save the big advantages is there started the de facto everything subscription aggregator for physical Goods. Scot: [41:04] How many active subscriptions do you have Jason. Jason: [41:08] So I’ll be honest I am not the biggest personal fan of that there is huge convenience but I do find that I waste a lot of money when I do their subscriptions and stuff tends to pile up so I’m not a huge fan my my wife does a lot of our household management and she’s way more organized than me so she uses a bunch and I I couldn’t tell you how many she has. Scot: [41:31] Is that work that has like around 20 and he has an Amazon credit card and it says so they’ve gotten every kind of replenishable thing in their house that like kids can I come from Amazon if he’s done some calculus on it and it’s like the optimal savings for a little leverage on the on the Amazon Prime card. Jason: [41:50] Side note taking a deeper dive in this answer than we intended to but the today most of these subscriptions and most Auto replenishment is what I call explicit like you go and sign up for something and you have to ask for it and pull it. And it starts coming until you get around and turning it off but I do think the future for a lot of this physical goods are implicit replenishment where. If if you do most of your spending on Amazon or you do most of your purchases on Walmart like they they just get enough. Data about your habits you proactively. Send you the stuff when you need it without you even having to ask and both Walmart and Amazon have had various packet patents on this this idea of predictive shipping in that it does seem to me that like combination of big data and artificial intelligence in this face that like their there’s going to be in near future when a lot more of this purchasing is autonomous and the reason that’s interesting to me is. You know when you never have to think about ordering toilet paper again or buying toilet paper because your your house just always has the right amount for the paper what do all the physical stores that today have an entire aisle of the grocery store dedicated to toilet paper do that space so it’s like there’s an interesting challenge for brick-and-mortar retailers in the future as Auto replenishment gets more dominant. Scot: [43:16] All right question to break comes from Parker block he always throws curve balls we appreciate that Parker this one came from LinkedIn hey Jason Scott what do you see as likely business implications of rising a Type 4 antitrust action on platforms which monetize consumer data. I think she’s just a little bit in the last episode but a lot of the platform’s especially ones with user-generated content like Facebook Twitter Google search YouTube they rely on the section of law code section 230 which essentially makes thumb the same as a utility like like a phone line if you if you say something on the phone line that could be sheet Suites or something like that you know it’s not AT&T job to monitor that so say since we say we are not a newspaper where I your you have liability around what is it libel in was written once. [44:20] Slander libel and slander you can be sued if you say the wrong thing she actually very careful with what you say that’s why they have fact-checkers they say look this is just a platform we’re just kind of here I am so happens but as they increasingly are kind of changing and and. People offer what they say it is interesting to see should they still be within section 230 so that’s one interesting area another one is Noah senior up get really aggressive with these do not follow laws gdpr and you know all these kinds of things I I do think there’s going to be increasing appetite I’m not hugely political and. The times I had to kind of watch that stuff you always shake your head like when Zuckerberg was in front of Congress and they had like no idea you know the problem is our Representatives have no idea how this stuff works so slow. Do anything that I just I’m not optimistic that it makes any sense what I shall do so I have to see. The other thing I will say is there’s a lot of people Scott Galloway is really big on this on kind of breaking up Amazon and it a lot of people kind of gunning for Amazon it’s not really in the spirit of your question which surround customer day. [45:38] I’m sure Jason has deeper thoughts on that everything about Amazon is a monopoly there has to be someone the consumer being hurt you know usually have Rising prices when you have a monopoly with like the power company or something Amazon is lowered prices so and you know if you look at it. Their ownership of retail it’s very small e-commerce store at 50% so yeah that’s pretty big but you know you have Walmart got to swing an atom if if you if you took antitrust action at Amazon you know most certainly have to Walmart because Walmart has such a big share of much bigger share of offline and I feel like Amazon’s probably be okay and I think Facebook Google Twitter are prime or in the crosshairs because of the section 230 stuff and then the fact he’s ad models are built off of tracking across internet I think they going to have double risk there that will be nurse to watch. Jason: [46:33] Yep this is the way I sort of think of it there’s a couple categories of Regulation like they’re there are business models that various government entities. [46:46] Might want to influence by writing new laws and so that’s what all this privacy stuff is right like they’re you know you’re up isn’t trying to in for some some fifty-year-old privacy law. Against Google and Facebook they wrote a new I called gdpr specifically to change the behavior about how companies collect consumer data and use it the. You know there’s lots of new laws that get proposed for you know regulating energy companies and and how they influence the Earth and all these various things so a lot of these companies have risk that that dries, countries will pass new laws so you’re up obviously passed a Big Lot in the gdpr that as meaningful impact on how I’m we all do data collection for people and personalization there is a proposed law in California called the California consumer privacy act on which is very similar to gdpr and that goes into effect, you know it it’s sort of difficult to treat customers in California wildly different than the rest of the United States in California such a big Market that it could potentially have the effect of having companies serving us consumers behaving very similar to companies that are serving. [48:07] European consumers because they they just won’t want to risk getting Sideways from the the CCPA so. I do think that the biggest impact of those kinds of regulations is companies chains self moderating the their behaviors to not make it a necessity for a legislator to pass these laws and it’s. [48:29] In a legislative bodies aren’t super efficient it’s really hard. That’s why I was frankly and so you know you wouldn’t you wouldn’t have big expectation that like the US Congress is going to you know suddenly the House and Senate are going to agree on a bunch of stuff and pass a bunch of new new regulation and so it’s it’s more that they’re going to threaten regulation in that causes companies to like somewhat moderate their behavior. It is absolutely true that Europe is more aggressive than this right in regulation right now and so like it’s more likely that you that European regulation affects us companies then. Then you know that we’re going to see a huge wave of new u.s. regulation so that’s my long-winded answer on writing new laws and then purr. Scott’s point in the case of companies that whose primary business model is selling stuff that consumers there are t. Is regulation in prokaryotes that’s called the antitrust laws at the Sherman Act and so it’s it’s a less about Congress writing a new law that would have some negative impact on Amazon and more about how the US antitrust laws affect Amazon in first God’s point but the laws are. Like arguably someone outdated you both have to be in Monopoly and despite how big amazon is there really not. [49:53] The majority of very many markets right like they might be that the largest Bookseller in the u.s. I’m so so digital books could be a potential Market. If you could get a court to agree that e-commerce is a market separate from retail then you know you could argue that they’re up for ality even then there be arguments that they really aren’t cuz even though we say they’re 50% of e-commerce that doesn’t include some. Some huge businesses like marketplaces and pouring and all these other things the and in the second prompt per Scott’s point is once you’re a monopolist you you have to do behavior that negatively affects consumers in an amp us antitrust law that behavior is you have to raise prices and so you can’t just make the argument that oh my gosh Amazon’s reducing choice and that is fundamentally bad for consumers in Europe they have antitrust laws like that and so it’s it’s frankly at the moment a lot more likely that. European Regulators like impact how Amazon can grow as they get as big in Europe as they are here than it is that us antitrust law is going to be very effective against Amazon because they just don’t look like a a monopolist and then they they don’t sort of trigger any of the hot atoms of of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Scot: [51:19] Alrighty number 9 this comes from Baxter Overman how do you put super cities within Home Delivery Services IE Walmart grocery wouldn’t drop off when the consumer is home for certain items are lockers be easier to sell. Jason: [51:36] Yeah it was so one service that just got an ounce in the last couple weeks. Involved in last couple weeks is this Walmart delivered a fridge door and that’s kind of what I think of when you asked this question and so that the principle here is hey you order milk from Walmart you don’t want that like sitting on the curb for 8 hours while you’re at work. It’s a Walmart has this offering where we’re like using an electronic lock they have permission to go in your house they go in your kitchen and they have employees that are trained. Put away your groceries for you including putting the perishables in the fridge in the. This was a big deal they made it their shareholders meeting a couple weeks ago and they had a video of Mark Lori doing the first delivery and when they first proposed this service like a year ago the idea was that they would install cameras in the customer’s home in the customer would be able to monitor the delivery guy on the camera this year what the evolution is the delivery guys wear a body Cam and so you can watch everything the delivery guys doing while he’s in your house so they had Mark Lori wearing a body body cam. [52:44] Delivering groceries to Consumers house and I do think some of those tactics like the body can can help. Instill trust like I do think there’s a major trust issue here like I don’t think the Walmart service is going to be a. A huge mainstream service I think there’s some niches where it might appeal to but I always chuckle because. In this Walmart video I’d be intent is seeing marks wearing a body cam so you can trust him so you have nothing to worry about and in my head I’m thinking Mark what is worth like two billion dollars the one guy that’s not likely to steal any of my students. [53:23] He probably didn’t need a camera at like there’s probably nothing in my house that he wants that he doesn’t already have so that that’s my my sarcastic answer. Scot: [53:33] If you hard boil a nurse problem-solve. Jason: [53:36] Yeah yeah so when it’s the. Scot: [53:38] Not enough of them. Jason: [53:39] Exactly I buy Cuban would do some deliveries. Like trust is the big impediment here in in you so you see lots of interim step so I Amazon has this very robust program called Amazon key and it both. As a version where guys can open the Smart Lock and put stuff just inside your door they put stuff inside your door as opposed to all the way in your kitchen so there it’s slightly less invasive and so maybe you press them more but the I’ve been told that the big version of chi that’s really popular is customers aren’t willing to give give Amazon delivery drivers access to their home but they’re willing to give them access to the garage so in a lot more customers have an electronic garage door opener and then have an electronic lock on the front door so there’s a lots of places where the Amazon delivery guy can deliver the packages inside your garage and that’s easier to have trust in there’s also a business-to-business component to key where Amazon installs the Lockers in. [54:42] Commercial buildings and obviously you have a lot more trust giving giving a delivery guy access to your secure Lobby than you do your individual house so I feel like they’re all these different tiers of trust but the one thing I would say is overtime as the services get more popular and more people use them and have good experiences There’s an opportunity for trust to grow and so when. Uber and Lyft first launch trust was a huge impediment I’m I going to get in some random strangers car today we all no lots of other people that successfully use Uber and so it seems less scary and and you know even more so with Airbnb as we have more people in our networks that. Regular use Airbnb and have good outcomes it feels safer to me and so in the same way if Walmart is able to find. A decent-sized niche that’s willing to do this refrigerator delivery service and I have to get out. He’ll probably share that experience with their neighbors and friends and you could see the service grow and get more trustworthy over. Scot: [55:49] Yes I don’t have a beautiful answer. Number 10 also from LinkedIn this Crumbs from Akash Gupta and what’s your favorite app that you downloaded in the last few months. Jason. Jason: [56:10] So my can’t rain answers I don’t like apps that there’s all kinds of data that we like apps have huge abandonment rate and so for most clients I’m actually advocating they build really good mobile websites that replace the functionality of a nap and that’s using a technology called Progressive web app so that’s my sort of boring work answer in my personal life the app that I recently downloaded that I had no idea existed that’s been really useful for me is it’s actually a plug-in for the mobile browsers so it’s a plug-in called screenshots and essentially What it lets me do is when I’m on a mobile web page it lets me take a screenshot of the entire webpage not just the the part that’s visible above the full and so it for work a lot I need. Screenshots of an entire entire page and sewed this was a new fine for me that I tend to be using a lot but. I’m not that can be pretty itchy. Scot: [57:12] It’s good I would say at at spiffy we use this thing called geckoboard and they just updated their app. And up so gives me all my kpi is in one what kind of screen which is nice. Jason: [57:29] What’s the app for the Star Wars experience in Disney if you like that should be our favorite app. Scot: [57:36] Play Galaxy’s Edge I don’t I don’t know if it’s a blister not you so I didn’t download the Amazon go Store app. Okay this is just a comment over on Twitter Natalie Dylan and she is at Maverick witch you like this Jason that’s the VC firm started by Howard Schultz founder of Starbucks to invest in consumer-oriented companies she mentioned just as one of her top podcast that was a typo at first but I’m pretty sure she actually meant us so wow I was speechless. Jason: [58:11] That’s very cool Natalie if you’re listening I’d like to think that I have some partially funded your child’s college education so thank you very much for that. Scot: [58:20] Did the Starbucks usage. Jason: [58:22] Exactly. Scot: [58:22] I think we’re now Pisco effectively at this question number 12 this comes from our friend Ted down in Austin he said make sure Jason talks about mixed-use retail entertainment I don’t know what that is but I’m glad you get to answer. Jason: [58:38] Yeah I mean. In general like in the 1960s when the mall was first invented the the appeal of the mall was there a bunch of sores aggregated that you all wanted to get get tune so you know we built a big building and surrounded it with a giant parking lot and and put a bunch of stores together in overtime we added things to that mall that made it even the game customers another reason to go and spend more time there so for those indoor malls that was things like ice rinks and movie theaters in food courts and as. [59:16] That the collection of the stores has become less and less appealing and it’s been less and less valuable that drive traffic just buy this assortment of stores a lot of these venues have had to get more persuasive with the non-retail things that they put them all so you know the food courts have have often been replaced or augmented with more significant fine dining and today like a mixed-use small almost certainly means like in addition to shopping and entertainment that there’s probably a residential component to and so you know you can live in an apartment building that’s like upstairs from the stores or adjacent to the stores and like I would argue even Hudson yard is a classic example of a mix you space there’s both a significant residential component of these various condo Towers that are adjacent to it like and there’s these entertainment features in it like the Skydeck in the that the stairway installation is named I’m forgetting at the moment and so in general. [1:00:28] New successful shopping destinations 10 to have the this this multi-use component and let’s focus on shopping meme only reason that you’d go visit at so I assume that’s what that’s talking about. You won’t see many new balls built that aren’t like very focused on the the other traffic generation activities on the other revenue streams besides. Scot: [1:00:53] That’s not sorry. Jason: [1:00:55] Well but we haven’t what’s the name of the. Scot: [1:00:57] The Vessel. Jason: [1:00:58] That’s all thank you. Scot: [1:00:59] Yes take a walk in the vessel okay alright Michelle Grant has a twofer one is should Amazon be worried about broken up I feel like we asked and answered that one did you want to comment on that. Jason: [1:01:14] I think we covered it pretty well right based on current US antitrust I think Amazon has very little risk like they I think potentially digital books could be in area where you can see some enforcement or like I might have said like Amazon web services is it greater risk lucky I feel I can Google and Microsoft have made enough action lately that that you know that that probably isn’t immediate in Amazon where to get as big in Europe as they are in the US it would be more interesting question. But I like I’m defending companies in the US I think Amazon has a lot less to worry about from regulation then does a Facebook or do. Scot: [1:01:57] Cool and then this is clearly in your wheelhouse cuz it’s got the O word you’re Jason what are your thoughts on pricing strategy in an omni-channel world where price transparency is high and filled with Bots to find the lowest price. Jason: [1:02:15] Yeah so there is a bunch of controversy about pricing right now like lots of omni-channel retailers don’t have Universal pricing so they might have a different price in every store the online price might be different than the store price you know a complicated retailer like Walmart there could be five prices for every item there to be a store price there to be a ship to home price there could be a ship-to-store price there could be a pickup in-store price and online grocery pick-up price and you know Walmart slogan is is everyday low prices well if they’re 5 prices for everything spoiler alert for them are not alone. [1:03:02] Inside you know most retailers today like have these fragmented pricing models and I believe that trust is such a big deal moving forward and there’s so much information and transparency available as a result of digital in the web that I feel like it’s inevitable that all retailers are going to get forced. To adopt a much more transparent pricing model which generally means so much more Universal pricing model so you’re not going to get away with. Having a different price in the stores then you do online and hoping the customer just doesn’t catch you so in general will see more Universal pricing. But you probably at the same time will see that price change a lot more based on Real World Market circumstances and so you’ll see a lot more Dynamic pricing but it won’t be secret prices that are changing without you knowing it like I think retarded you know tend to be transparent about that and into me the best example today is is Amazon they have a super Dynamic pricing model that changes all the time but if you put something in your cart and the price goes down they don’t just take that extra margin they tell you. And they lower the price of the item in your cart and when you you don’t go to their stores they now have digital prices and all the store so they can show you the same price online that they have in the store so I you know it’s. [1:04:27] It’s very difficult for retailers to make changes like this and break down silos so we’re not going to see it happen overnight but I think we’re we’re already starting to see retail shift in that direction so to me the future is. Universal transparent Dynamic pricing. Scot: [1:04:42] All right most sybaritic had a whole bunch of questions I’m going to lightning around a couple of them when is spiffy coming to Seattle. Stay tuned Ken Scott please update is Amazon scape and how has it changed unfortunately there is an inverse correlation between my time to work on the Amazon scape and your first questions to come to Seattle so position where I don’t have a ton of time to work on that it’s changed a lot so I think Amazon’s probably launched. It’s been a year old I would say two programs a month 24 to 30 programs since I did that so like the Amazon Prime wardrobe isn’t on there 4-star store is not on there there’s a lot not on there one day delivery yes those are not on there. Jason: [1:05:39] Scot I have no cars in Seattle so between those two I’m going to vote for the Amazon scape. Scot: [1:05:44] Maybe maybe I’ll find an internship this one of our many interns can help with this this should be an interesting one is Amazon going to do to Walgreens drug stores what they did to the bookstore with the axis of pill pack and private label enable the ability to sell Massey pg-propyl probably you think there’s one for the drug source. Jason: [1:06:11] I think it is I mean they’re going for everything so it is a market like that they made some Investments and they’ve already like I think had some material effects on valuations for the national companies. [1:06:25] I’m not sure like I mean there’s that Jeff has a equip that I kind of like and agree with Amazon denim put book stores out of business the internet put book stores out of business and I think the same made partly be true for retail pharmacies like I’m sure Amazon’s going to take a go after and take a chunk of the pharmacy business and that will be derogatory to traditional pharmacies but the bigger deal is we’re shifting from picking up prescriptions in store to having prescriptions delivered to our home so increasingly the old wanting majority of all the prescriptions we take R tronic, Africana conditions and returning things and the insurance companies are basically mandating that we all get shipped these bigger quantities of those prescriptions at home so as a smaller percentage of prescriptions get picked up in-store there’s less traffic in those doors the only reason people go to the stores his prescriptions they’re not good retailers if they don’t have prescriptions and so like I feel like that friends that macro-trends. Is really going to dramatically affect the retail pharmacy space now most of the retail pharmacies have already pivoted they own insurance companies and mail-order prescription services so that seems like where they’re putting their big bats well I’m sure Amazon will have some success in Pharmacy in and probably some Innovative products. [1:07:55] I’m not sure that’s why I’m wearing they’re going to capture. Huge market share super fast because there is a bunch of Regulation and Power in the hands of individual insurance companies that that you know are some institutional impediments that make it a harder Market to dominate them say books was not saying they won’t get there but it would take long. Scot: [1:08:19] Yep Mike my take on that is when I go to a drugstore I stand in line and there’s usually. More helpers than customers but there’s only one person to check out the person five people in front of me has a thousand questions and it takes me an hour to get something but she took me 5 minutes so I feel like there’s a huge customer service kind of customer experience got there that the Amazon could definitely fill in in his going to go at it because it’s very clearly something that they can make a huge Improvement. This is a good one Jason how we doing on time. Jason: [1:09:02] I think we are coming up to the end. Scot: [1:09:06] Listen to all your questions about sitting on a big one can you talk about the advertising race to grab the wallet we seen some big news lately Target in talks to buy Triad Walmart Spring advertising and house and made a key hire there where is ever
Josh and Ethan analyze the #Nats19 NSDA Public Forum resolution - "Resolved: The United States federal government should enforce antitrust regulations on technology giants." After a grammatical breakdown, they walk through the Sherman Act, the FTC Act, and the Clayton Act. They describe the current top financial tech companies, and offer thoughts about Pro and Con argumentation strategy. Check it out, and let us know what you think at whatstheres@gmail.com!
In this episode, Amelia Smith Rinehart, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Development at the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law, discusses her article "E. Bement & Sons v. National Harrow Company: The First Skirmish between Patent Law and the Sherman Act," which she wrote for the "Forgotten IP" symposium organized by Shubha Ghosh and Zvi Rosen, and published in the Syracuse Law Review. Rinehart describes the creation of the National Harrow Company in 1890, an early "patent pool," and how the Company's use of its harrow patents brought it into tension with the newly-enacted Sherman Act. She discusses the legal and policy questions at stake in the Supreme Court's opinion finding no Sherman Act violation in Bement, and how they inform the relationship between patent and antitrust law today. Rinehart is on Twitter at @ameliarinehart.Keywords: patent law, trusts, Harrow Trust, patent-antitrust cases See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
In this episode, Professor Ramsi Woodcock of the University of Kentucky College of Law discusses his paper "The Efficient Queue and the Case Against Dynamic Pricing."Keywords: Antitrust, Monopolization, Dynamic Pricing, Consumer Welfare, Sherman Act, Algorithms, Rationing, Technology, Economic Rent See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
In 1978, Judge Robert Bork published the book The Antitrust Paradox. The Antitrust Paradox has become one of the most influential authorities on antitrust policy, changing the landscape of American antitrust law forever. Since its publication, The Antitrust Paradox has been cited by over 100 different United States courts, and its reasoning has often been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Bork argued the original intent of the Sherman Act and other American antitrust laws was to protect competition itself rather than consumers. The result of this flawed approach was certain market practices such as vertical integration and price discrimination, which posed no threat to consumers, were still outlawed in favor of competition, even if this competition lead to an overall harm to the consumer. Instead, Judge Bork advocated for a consumer welfare standard, where violations of antitrust law would be measured solely by their affect on consumers. Jude Bork’s articulation of these principles in The Antitrust Paradox had a lasting impact that can be felt in antitrust law to this day.Featuring: Susan Creighton, Partner, Co-Chair, antitrust practice, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & RosatiAndrew Finch, Principal Deputy Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Department of JusticeCharles (Rick) Rule, Co-Chair, Antitrust Group, Paul|WeissHon. Joshua Wright, Executive Director, Global Antitrust Institute, Antonin Scalia Law schoolModerator: Judge Laurence Silberman, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia
In 1978, Judge Robert Bork published the book The Antitrust Paradox. The Antitrust Paradox has become one of the most influential authorities on antitrust policy, changing the landscape of American antitrust law forever. Since its publication, The Antitrust Paradox has been cited by over 100 different United States courts, and its reasoning has often been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Bork argued the original intent of the Sherman Act and other American antitrust laws was to protect competition itself rather than consumers. The result of this flawed approach was certain market practices such as vertical integration and price discrimination, which posed no threat to consumers, were still outlawed in favor of competition, even if this competition lead to an overall harm to the consumer. Instead, Judge Bork advocated for a consumer welfare standard, where violations of antitrust law would be measured solely by their affect on consumers. Jude Bork’s articulation of these principles in The Antitrust Paradox had a lasting impact that can be felt in antitrust law to this day.Featuring: Susan Creighton, Partner, Co-Chair, antitrust practice, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & RosatiAndrew Finch, Principal Deputy Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Department of JusticeCharles (Rick) Rule, Co-Chair, Antitrust Group, Paul|WeissHon. Joshua Wright, Executive Director, Global Antitrust Institute, Antonin Scalia Law schoolModerator: Judge Laurence Silberman, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia
In 2010, 17 states and the federal government sued three major credit card companies, American Express, Visa, and MasterCard, for unreasonably restraining trade in violation of the Sherman Act. The Petitioners argued the credit card companies had used anti-steering provisions to impermissibly suppress free market competition. Unlike American Express, Visa and Mastercard decided to rescind their anti-steering provisions and not proceed to trial. American Express went on to lose on the district court level but achieved a reversal in the Second Circuit.Today, June 25th, the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s ruling in a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas was joined by Justices Gorsuch, Kennedy, Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts.Oramel Skinner joins us to discuss the Court’s ruling and its implications. Featuring: Oramel Skinner, Chief of Government Accountability & Special Litigation Unit, Arizona Attorney General's Office. Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
In 2010, 17 states and the federal government sued three major credit card companies, American Express, Visa, and MasterCard, for unreasonably restraining trade in violation of the Sherman Act. The Petitioners argued the credit card companies had used anti-steering provisions to impermissibly suppress free market competition. Unlike American Express, Visa and Mastercard decided to rescind their anti-steering provisions and not proceed to trial. American Express went on to lose on the district court level but achieved a reversal in the Second Circuit.Today, June 25th, the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s ruling in a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas was joined by Justices Gorsuch, Kennedy, Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts.Oramel Skinner joins us to discuss the Court’s ruling and its implications. Featuring: Oramel Skinner, Chief of Government Accountability & Special Litigation Unit, Arizona Attorney General's Office. Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
IMLA's 5 things to know for May 14, 2018. Listen to this podcast to learn about the below! • Commandeering states legislative processes unconstitutional • Spot zoning appealable • County liable for Sheriff in Arizona but is the analysis deep? • Hustler Hollywood can’t open next to Chuckie Cheese • Seattle labor law violates Sherman Act
12 October 2015 – It’s true, over the past eight years the Supreme Court has been steadily chipping away at citizen access to Federal courts for civil actions. Not only is the bar to individual access almost impossible to surmount, climbing the mountain of barriers put before those attempting to gain certification for a class action is very nearly impossible. Corporations are people and welcomed into the courts but actual people…not so much. Armando, who is a lawyer, frequent contributor to Daily Kos Radio Kagro in the Morning with David Waldman and a Daily Kos front pager, joined us to walk us through the foundation of citizen access (which was the Sherman Act) the later clarification to access (Conley v Gibson) and then the Roberts’ Court efforts to tear access down through Ashcroft v Iqbal, Bell Atlantic v Twombly, Wal-mart v Dukes and AT&T v Concepcion. I’ll be honest with you, until I hopped on a Twitter link which took me to an article in The Nation, I had absolutely no idea things had become this serious. Essentially, Federal courts are filled to overflowing with criminal cases (many of which should not be there at all) and instead of working to reform the criminal case-load, SCOTUS went after the rest of us and slammed the door of the third branch of government right in our face. The version of “Hopping Mad” which aired, on Netroots Radio, on 12 October, contains the first half of our interview with Armando. The podcast version (player below) has the full length interview so it is, of course, “Extra Mad!” This week Will gets into it on the need for progressives to stay connected to the real world and to create a workable progressive political strategy. He utilizes the current struggle of Jeremy Corbyn and the candidacy of Bernie Sanders as examples. Arliss goes off on de-industrialization and the successful campaign by neoliberal economists to keep us from caring too much. As a final note, we managed to get through the recording of this episode all in one day. We were very excited. I don’t know what Will did with the rest of his weekend but I spent mine gardening, hiking and standing at the paint counter at Home Depot – because my life is precisely that exciting. So here it is, the forth episode of “Hopping Mad”…
The American Economy and the End of Laissez-Faire: 1870 to World War II
The Sherman Act outlawed restraint of trade. The Clayton Act added to that. Anti-Trust hysteria came in the 1940-50s. Whatever you did would be considered monopolistic. The charges didn't come from consumers, they came from whining competitors. It was government-enforced blackmail. The US leather industry was put out of business. The corn starch industry was put out of business. Retail cartels, enforced by the government, imposed artificially higher prices on products. It was the welfare state in action. Claims of economic privilege were whipped up by racial and ethnic claims.Teddy Roosevelt is my least favorite person. He liked killing.Lecture 6 of 13 presented in Fall of 1986 at the New York Polytechnic University.
Recorded at the Reassessing the Presidency seminar; March 2004. (25:41)
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
