Latest / Bloomberg Law / Weekend Law: TikTok Ban, Transgender Ban & Rap Battle

Transcript

Weekend Law: TikTok Ban, Transgender Ban & Rap Battle · Bloomberg Law

• 0:03
  Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grosso. TikTok
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: may disappear in the US next month after an appellate
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: court upholds a band. Transgender writes at a legal crossroad
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: as the Supreme Court's conservatives seem ready to uphold a
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: Tennessee band on gender affirming treatments for miners, and the
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: rap battle between superstar rappers Drake and Kendrick Lamar ends
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: up in court sort of.
• 0:38
  Speaker 2: For all of those that want to save TikTok in America,
• 0:41
  Speaker 2: vote for Trump.
• 0:42
  Speaker 3: The other side's closing it up. But I'm now a
• 0:46
  Speaker 3: big star on TikTok.
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: Present elect Donald Trump campaigned on saving TikTok as he
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: courted younger Americans despite trying to force its sale during
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: his first term. But on Friday, the DC Circuit Court
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: of Appeals unanimously upheld the new US law which bans
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: TikTok unless it divests from Chinese ownership, ruling that the
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: ban doesn't violate free speech rights. The ban will kick
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: in on January nineteenth, the day before Trump is inaugurated,
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: and in any event, it's unclear what Trump could do
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: at this point. The only hope for TikTok, and it's
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: more than one hundred seventy million American users, appears to
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: be the Supreme Court, and the company says it will
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: appeal the decision to the court. Joining me is Eric Goleman,
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: a professor at Santa Clara University Law School and co
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: director of the High Tech Law Institute. So, Eric, this
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: three judge panel unanimously upheld the law banning TikTok. How
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: did they reach that conclusion?
• 1:49
  Speaker 4: The majority's view is that the TikTok band satisfied the
• 1:53
  Speaker 4: highest levels of constitutional scrutiny, that even if it was
• 1:58
  Speaker 4: conceived as a restriction on speech, that the government's national
• 2:04
  Speaker 4: security interests were compelling enough to justify the speech restrictive effects.
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: Did they acknowledge the First Amendment interests at stake here?
• 2:14
  Speaker 4: Yes, they did. And the majority in fact applied the
• 2:17
  Speaker 4: highest level of protection that's available for free speech and
• 2:21
  Speaker 4: still said that this was a justifiable and its intervention.
• 2:24
  Speaker 4: And that's a rare outcome when a court says that
• 2:27
  Speaker 4: a law survives that highest level of scrutiny, and usually
• 2:30
  Speaker 4: it's a sign that the Court is either not actually
• 2:33
  Speaker 4: taking that test seriously, or that they are bending the
• 2:37
  Speaker 4: factors in the way that lead to a very unexpected outcome.
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: The US government didn't offer evidence that China had used
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: the app to influence US citizens or steal data. Yet
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: the Court wrote here the government acted solely to protect
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: the adversary's ability to gather data on people in the
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: United States. But there was no evidence of that.
• 3:03
  Speaker 4: The Court essentially was willing to accept the government's hypothetical
• 3:09
  Speaker 4: concerns that there could be some adverse outcome to US
• 3:13
  Speaker 4: democracy should China in the future, at some point choose
• 3:18
  Speaker 4: to take advantage of whatever leverage it has to manipulate
• 3:23
  Speaker 4: the content on TikTok. Normally, that kind of hypothetical concern
• 3:28
  Speaker 4: is too abstract to be recognized by a court. There's
• 3:31
  Speaker 4: a lot of things that could happen in the future.
• 3:33
  Speaker 4: We can't use all of those possibilities to justify something
• 3:37
  Speaker 4: as serious as an incursion on our free speech rights.
• 3:40
  Speaker 4: So the fact that the Court was one to entertain
• 3:43
  Speaker 4: that hypothetical is part of how they reached a really
• 3:46
  Speaker 4: surprising outcome that this law survived the highest level of
• 3:50
  Speaker 4: the scrutiny. They should not have given as much weight
• 3:53
  Speaker 4: to that potential hypothetical that had not yet happened.
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: A part of the government's information was redacted and hidden
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: from the public as well as the companies TikTok and
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: Byte Dance, so they had to fight the ban without
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: all the information.
• 4:10
  Speaker 4: So there has been a lot of discussion about confidential
• 4:15
  Speaker 4: or sensitive information regarding TikTok's behavior that has not seen
• 4:19
  Speaker 4: the light of public day. This court chose to ignore
• 4:23
  Speaker 4: that data, and it claimed that it was ruling solely
• 4:26
  Speaker 4: based on publicly available information. They were saying that what's
• 4:30
  Speaker 4: available in the public was enough to justify the government's intervention.
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: And this panel consisted of the chief judge, who's a
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: Barack Obama appointee, a Trump appointee, and a Ronald Reagan appointee,
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: so it cut across political.
• 4:46
  Speaker 4: Lines, that's correct. You know, I don't look at this
• 4:49
  Speaker 4: opinion as a partisan opinion and a deal of course,
• 4:54
  Speaker 4: the opinions are never partisan, but we sometimes question that,
• 4:58
  Speaker 4: and of course the efforts to be and TikTok have
• 5:00
  Speaker 4: been bipartisan. That Day's come from both a Republican president,
• 5:05
  Speaker 4: a democratic president, and got bipartisan support in Congress, so
• 5:10
  Speaker 4: I don't really think that the partisan angle really helps here.
• 5:13
  Speaker 4: I do think that the senophobia, the ongoing relentless criticism
• 5:19
  Speaker 4: of the Chinese government really carry the day in a
• 5:22
  Speaker 4: lot of respects for all sides.
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: So the ban kicks in the day before President elect
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump is inaugurated, his Justice Department would have to
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: enforce it. And even though he tried to ban TikTok
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: during his first term, he said during the most recent
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: presidential campaign that he's now against a TikTok ban and
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: would work to save the social media platform. Where does
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: that all fit in?
• 5:50
  Speaker 4: I don't know what President Trump is going to do.
• 5:52
  Speaker 4: Again is statements are wildly and consistent with each other.
• 5:56
  Speaker 4: The last official act he has taken on this topic
• 5:58
  Speaker 4: he attempted to ban to so he might have had
• 6:02
  Speaker 4: a change of part, but we will only know based
• 6:04
  Speaker 4: on an action. I think the bigger question is will
• 6:07
  Speaker 4: the Supreme Court have a chance to weigh in before
• 6:10
  Speaker 4: the deadline that was set in the statute, which seems
• 6:13
  Speaker 4: highly unlikely, and it would be I think logical for
• 6:18
  Speaker 4: President Biden to extend the band's implementation until the Supreme
• 6:22
  Speaker 4: Court has had a chance to weigh in. Of course,
• 6:25
  Speaker 4: if President Biden does that, then that would the issue
• 6:28
  Speaker 4: over to President Trump for whatever chaos am I into.
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: Yeah, so President Biden can grant a ninety day extension
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: if there's progress toward divestiture. So let's say that Biden
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: does grant the extension and the Supreme Court does hear
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: the case on an emergency basis, how likely are they
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: to block the law at least temporarily.
• 6:51
  Speaker 4: One of the options available to the Supreme Court will
• 6:53
  Speaker 4: be to delay the effectiveness of the Act until it
• 6:56
  Speaker 4: completes this review, And I don't know if they're going
• 6:59
  Speaker 4: to choose to do that or not. They might be
• 7:01
  Speaker 4: that is solely an executive function where the government doesn't
• 7:04
  Speaker 4: have to pursue implementation until the Supreme Court has weighed in.
• 7:08
  Speaker 4: So the Supreme Court's responses to emergency requests like that
• 7:14
  Speaker 4: have been somewhat chaotic, and so I'm not sure what
• 7:17
  Speaker 4: they would do this time.
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: If the merits question gets to them. Do you have
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: any feel for how they would view it?
• 7:23
  Speaker 4: So I do. The TikTok ban really cuts across traditional lines.
• 7:28
  Speaker 4: It pulls together as a coalition of adherents or supporters
• 7:33
  Speaker 4: who might otherwise not come together. Whether that's because of
• 7:36
  Speaker 4: the fears of China or the concerns about national security
• 7:41
  Speaker 4: or the lack of interest in free speech. The coalitions
• 7:44
  Speaker 4: just look different when it comes to a TikTok ban
• 7:47
  Speaker 4: than maybe other kinds of government restrictions. But in July,
• 7:51
  Speaker 4: the Supreme Court was quite clear that if we are
• 7:54
  Speaker 4: concerned about bias on social media, the government does not
• 7:59
  Speaker 4: have right to intervene to de biased or unbiased social media.
• 8:04
  Speaker 4: It's very explicit in the opinion that the solution to
• 8:08
  Speaker 4: concerns about editorial discussion on social media is not government censorship.
• 8:12
  Speaker 4: And the DC Circuits opinion seemed to disregard that. They
• 8:18
  Speaker 4: didn't really acknowledge that very express concern that was on
• 8:22
  Speaker 4: the minds of the Supreme Court. So if the Supreme
• 8:25
  Speaker 4: Court continues at logic, I think there's good reason to
• 8:27
  Speaker 4: question whether or not the TikTok ban can survive because
• 8:31
  Speaker 4: the government is in fact trying to de biased the
• 8:35
  Speaker 4: social media through government intervention. But we don't know if
• 8:39
  Speaker 4: the Supreme Court really met we said, or they will
• 8:41
  Speaker 4: see this as a qualitatively different circumstance for your favorite reason.
• 8:45
  Speaker 4: So it's really hard to particut where the Supreme Court
• 8:48
  Speaker 4: might come out. And it's even more troubling if they
• 8:51
  Speaker 4: try to do a rush job. They're going to do
• 8:53
  Speaker 4: a rush job then don't have the time and flexibility
• 8:56
  Speaker 4: to really try to even get in sync with each
• 8:58
  Speaker 4: other and coordinate their statements of justifications.
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: So what actually happens on January nineteenth on the deadline
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: for TikTok?
• 9:10
  Speaker 4: So the main thing is that on that day we
• 9:13
  Speaker 4: would assume that the app stores will take TikTok out
• 9:15
  Speaker 4: of their offerings. The app stores are really a key
• 9:18
  Speaker 4: player in this conversation, and they're essentially invisible in the
• 9:22
  Speaker 4: court's opinion and in public discussion. The app stores didn't
• 9:25
  Speaker 4: weigh in, for example, on the bands. They're just sitting
• 9:28
  Speaker 4: silently waiting for people to tell them what to do.
• 9:31
  Speaker 4: So if the government tells the app stores to kick
• 9:33
  Speaker 4: TikTok out of its app stores, that's going to be
• 9:35
  Speaker 4: the first step in the shrinking of TikTok's user base.
• 9:40
  Speaker 4: There may be ways to get TikTok installed otherwise, and
• 9:44
  Speaker 4: you know, I'm sure some people will try, but over time,
• 9:46
  Speaker 4: if it's really hard to install an app that app
• 9:48
  Speaker 4: starts to wither away. Whether or not there will be
• 9:51
  Speaker 4: any further destructions to the enjoyment of TikTok by people
• 9:55
  Speaker 4: who have it already installed is unclear to me. We'll
• 9:58
  Speaker 4: have to see. But if an app isn't growing like TikTok,
• 10:02
  Speaker 4: you know, its futures already filed or faded. Of course,
• 10:06
  Speaker 4: there's a possibility TikTok will try to find some kind
• 10:08
  Speaker 4: of last ditch sale, and that, of course would solve
• 10:12
  Speaker 4: the problem, but it's something that TikTok has repeated says
• 10:14
  Speaker 4: that they cannot do. So we're like living in terra nova.
• 10:17
  Speaker 4: That way, we don't really know what the world looks
• 10:19
  Speaker 4: like when a government like ours decides to just.
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: Ban an app, an out that one hundred and seventy
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: million Americans.
• 10:26
  Speaker 4: Use, and many of them are incredibly passionate about their use.
• 10:30
  Speaker 4: And when I talk to my students about this, and
• 10:32
  Speaker 4: at the beginning of the semester in the Internet Law,
• 10:34
  Speaker 4: they were shocked about the fact that Congress had banned
• 10:37
  Speaker 4: the app. They can't imagine that Congress would do something
• 10:39
  Speaker 4: that was so contrary to their interests. And I think
• 10:42
  Speaker 4: many of those one hundred and seventy million users are
• 10:44
  Speaker 4: in for a very big surprise very soon if the
• 10:48
  Speaker 4: Supreme Court doesn't reach a different conclusion.
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: Theoretically, suppose the Trump administration decides it's not going to
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: enforce it, it's not going to tell the apps to
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: remove TikTok. I mean, is that possible.
• 10:59
  Speaker 4: It's possible, but it's unclear that that solves any problem.
• 11:03
  Speaker 4: If the US government were to issue a statement to
• 11:08
  Speaker 4: the app stores that they're free to continue carrying TikTok
• 11:12
  Speaker 4: without fear of government prosecution, you could imagine app stores
• 11:15
  Speaker 4: feeling like that's a sufficiently credible statement to rely upon it.
• 11:20
  Speaker 4: But if it comes from the Trump administration, which is
• 11:23
  Speaker 4: notorious for flip flopping on policy matters, I can't see
• 11:27
  Speaker 4: how that would give any app store any confidence. If
• 11:30
  Speaker 4: it were by decision, knowing that there's severe sanctions for violation,
• 11:35
  Speaker 4: knowing that that gives leverage to a mercurial government, I
• 11:39
  Speaker 4: wouldn't play by those rules.
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: Does it seem like Meta and Google have the most
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: to gain from a TikTok ban?
• 11:46
  Speaker 4: Well, we know that Facebook ran its own quote influence
• 11:50
  Speaker 4: operation painting TikTok for many years, they spent millions of
• 11:54
  Speaker 4: dollars trying to portray TikTok as an evil actor in Washington,
• 11:59
  Speaker 4: d c. And so in that respect, not only do
• 12:03
  Speaker 4: they seem to see some financial benefit to knocking TikTok
• 12:06
  Speaker 4: out of the market, but it seems like, I guess
• 12:08
  Speaker 4: working so far. So you know, we could certainly see
• 12:12
  Speaker 4: why Facebook might view this as a net win for it.
• 12:16
  Speaker 4: From my perspective, if the government can choose winners and
• 12:19
  Speaker 4: losers in the speech marketplace, there's no reasonably Facebook is
• 12:22
  Speaker 4: going to avoid that. So they're playing with fire. But
• 12:25
  Speaker 4: Facebook has chosen to play with fire, and so far
• 12:28
  Speaker 4: it seems to be working for them.
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: Well, it seemed to work. On Friday, the day of
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: the Court's decision, Meta shares surged as much as three
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: point four percent to an intra day record. Google was
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: up as much as one point four percent. Thanks so
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: much for your inside Eric. That's professor Eric Goleman of
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: Santa Clara University Law School, coming up next on the
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. It's the most high profile case of
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court term so far, and the Court's conservative
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: justices seem ready to uphold a Tennessee lawn gender affirming
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: treatments for miners. We'll talk to counsel for the transgender
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: teenagers and their parents who are challenging the law. I'm
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
• 13:12
  Speaker 5: Tennessee claims the sex base mind drawing is justified to
• 13:16
  Speaker 5: protect children, but SB one has taken away the only
• 13:20
  Speaker 5: treatment that relieved years of suffering for each of the
• 13:24
  Speaker 5: adolescent plaintiffs.
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: It was a historic day at the Supreme Court on Wednesday,
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: as ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio became the first transgender attorney
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: ever to argue a case at the Court. Three transgender
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: teenagers and their families are challenging a Tennessee law that
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: bans doctors from prescribing puberty blockers and hormone treatments to
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: miners with gender dysphoria, arguing that the law unconstitutionally discriminates
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: against transgender people based on their sex. The Court's three
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: liberal justices, like Elena Kagan, were pointed in their criticism
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: of the law and Tennessee's argument that the laws bans
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: are based on medical purposes and not sex.
• 14:08
  Speaker 6: It's a dodge to say that this is not based
• 14:11
  Speaker 6: on sex.
• 14:11
  Speaker 3: It's based on medical purpose.
• 14:13
  Speaker 5: When the medical purpose is utterly and entirely about sex.
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: However, the conservative justice is, like Chief Justice John Roberts
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, expressed reluctance to get into the
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: middle of the medical and policy debate and second guess
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: the judgments of state lawmakers.
• 14:32
  Speaker 2: You know, we may think that we're you know, we
• 14:34
  Speaker 2: can do just as good a job with respect to
• 14:38
  Speaker 2: the evidence here as you know, Tennessee or anybody else.
• 14:43
  Speaker 2: But my understanding is that the Constitution leaves that question
• 14:47
  Speaker 2: to the people's representatives rather than to nine people, none
• 14:53
  Speaker 2: of whom is a doctor.
• 14:54
  Speaker 6: If the Constitution doesn't take sides, if they're strong, forceful
• 14:59
  Speaker 6: scientific policy arguments on both sides, in a situation like this,
• 15:05
  Speaker 6: why isn't it best to leave it to the democratic process?
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: Liberal Justice Sonya Sotomayor had the answer, noting that transgender
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: people make up less than one percent of the US population.
• 15:17
  Speaker 7: When you're one percent of the population or less, very
• 15:21
  Speaker 7: hard to see how the democratic.
• 15:23
  Speaker 2: Process is going to protect you.
• 15:25
  Speaker 7: Well, you, blacks were a much larger part of the population,
• 15:29
  Speaker 7: and it didn't protect them. It didn't protect women for
• 15:34
  Speaker 7: whole centuries.
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: An indication of how the arguments were going. Liberal Justice
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: Katanji Brown Jackson said she was worried that the court
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: would undermine bedrock principles of equal protection analysis and the
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: legal basis of landmark constitutional rulings like Loving versus Virginia,
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: which struck down Virginia's ban on interracial marriage in nineteen
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: sixty seven.
• 15:59
  Speaker 8: And I guess, Mike, real concern and I maybe I'll
• 16:01
  Speaker 8: just ask you to react to my Loving parallel, because
• 16:04
  Speaker 8: I'm getting kind of nervous. Is that in Loving, those
• 16:08
  Speaker 8: same kinds of scientific arguments were made.
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: Joining me is the counsel for the transgender teenagers and
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: their families in this case, David Cole, a professor at
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: Georgetown Law who was until recently the national legal director
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: for the American Civil Liberties Union. David, I know you're
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: in the courtroom with the teenagers and their families for
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: the oral arguments. What's your general impression of the arguments?
• 16:33
  Speaker 3: Well, it was a spirited argument. It was an argument
• 16:37
  Speaker 3: in which I think a number of the conservative justices
• 16:40
  Speaker 3: expressed concern about how they are supposed to review a
• 16:45
  Speaker 3: judgment that involves medical scientific evidence and uncertainty, but also
• 16:52
  Speaker 3: where you know, there was really no good response to
• 16:55
  Speaker 3: the contention, our contention that the law discriminates on the
• 16:59
  Speaker 3: base of sex. It allows medical treatment if it is
• 17:03
  Speaker 3: consistent with the sex that one is assigned at birth.
• 17:06
  Speaker 3: It bars the treatment if it is inconsistent with your
• 17:11
  Speaker 3: sex assigned at birth. When you tell someone that you
• 17:13
  Speaker 3: can do something only if it's consistent with your sex,
• 17:16
  Speaker 3: that is a sex based classification. If you told people
• 17:19
  Speaker 3: you can only pursue careers that are consistent with your sex,
• 17:22
  Speaker 3: everyone recognized, but that's a sex based classification. So while
• 17:26
  Speaker 3: some of the conservative members are concerned about the medical
• 17:28
  Speaker 3: issues that underlie this case, the question in the case
• 17:33
  Speaker 3: was simply what is the proper standard of review and
• 17:36
  Speaker 3: is this actually sex discrimination?
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: It seemed to me like the liberal justices discussed that,
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: but the Conservatives stayed away from that issue. The Tennessee
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: Attorney General argued that the law restricts the use of
• 17:47
  Speaker 1: drugs based on medical purpose, not based on sex.
• 17:51
  Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what he says. But if you read the
• 17:53
  Speaker 3: law on its face, you can get medical treatment if
• 17:57
  Speaker 3: it is consistent with your sex assigned at birth. You
• 18:00
  Speaker 3: can't get the same treatment if it allows you to
• 18:03
  Speaker 3: live or identify inconsistent with your sex assign it birth,
• 18:07
  Speaker 3: and that is a sex classification is enforcing particular, you know,
• 18:11
  Speaker 3: sexual stereotypes on people. If you have a birth sex
• 18:15
  Speaker 3: of male, you can get treatment if you want to masculinize,
• 18:18
  Speaker 3: but you can't get treatment if you want to feminize.
• 18:21
  Speaker 3: And the opposite rule applies to birth sex female. That's
• 18:24
  Speaker 3: treating boys and girls differently by seeking to enforce gender conformity.
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: Some of the conservative justices, particularly the Chief Justice and
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: Justice Kavanaugh, said that you know, we're judges, we're not doctors.
• 18:38
  Speaker 1: Let's leave it up to the lawmakers. They don't always
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: leave it up to the lawmakers.
• 18:43
  Speaker 3: Right, you leave certain things up to the lawmakers, But
• 18:45
  Speaker 3: you don't leave equal protection of the law up to
• 18:48
  Speaker 3: the lawmakers. You don't leave constitutional rights up to the lawmakers.
• 18:52
  Speaker 3: And those same conservative justices were quite willing and ready
• 18:57
  Speaker 3: to review COVID regulations which were imposed for public health
• 19:02
  Speaker 3: reasons at a time when people were dying by the
• 19:05
  Speaker 3: tens of thousands, and to strike down those regulations that
• 19:09
  Speaker 3: they felt interfered with religious free exercise rights. The same
• 19:14
  Speaker 3: thing is true here. Yes, it's in the area of
• 19:16
  Speaker 3: medical regulation. Yes, that's something that judges don't ordinarily do.
• 19:21
  Speaker 3: But when you discriminate on the basis of sex, as
• 19:24
  Speaker 3: this statute does on its face, the Court's obligation is
• 19:27
  Speaker 3: to make sure that the state has demonstrated that this
• 19:31
  Speaker 3: span a categorical ban is necessary to further the interest
• 19:35
  Speaker 3: that they assert. That's what the Constitution demands, and there's
• 19:39
  Speaker 3: no exception for medical treatment that says you can discriminate
• 19:43
  Speaker 3: on the basis of sex when you're engaged in medical treatment.
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: Towards the end of the oral arguments, Justice Katanji Brown
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: Jackson said she was worried and nervous. I've never heard
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: of justice say anything like that in an oral argument before.
• 19:58
  Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I think she was acting to many of
• 20:01
  Speaker 3: her conservative colleagues who seem to not want to engage
• 20:06
  Speaker 3: with the principal question in the case, whether it's sex discrimination,
• 20:11
  Speaker 3: and instead wanted to engage on whether there's medical uncertainty
• 20:15
  Speaker 3: and what the evidence shows, questions that are really not
• 20:19
  Speaker 3: before them, and with the suggestion that if it's a
• 20:22
  Speaker 3: hard question and if there's medical uncertainty, we ought to
• 20:26
  Speaker 3: accept a law that discriminates on its face as sex
• 20:30
  Speaker 3: base and accept it as somehow sex neutral. And you
• 20:33
  Speaker 3: know she was concerned because those kinds of arguments were
• 20:36
  Speaker 3: made by the State of Virginia in Loving versus Virginia,
• 20:40
  Speaker 3: in defending a law that prohibited interracial marriage. The state said,
• 20:45
  Speaker 3: and she quoted it in court, that there's a scientific
• 20:48
  Speaker 3: evidence that supports prohibiting people from marrying across races, and
• 20:53
  Speaker 3: this is not a race classification because it applies to
• 20:57
  Speaker 3: whites and blacks equally. The Court rejected that and said, no,
• 21:01
  Speaker 3: when it determines what you can do based on your race,
• 21:03
  Speaker 3: that's a race classification. Same thing here. When the law
• 21:07
  Speaker 3: determines what you can do based on your sex, and
• 21:09
  Speaker 3: whether you are acting in a way that the State
• 21:11
  Speaker 3: of Tennessee thinks is consistent with how it thinks people
• 21:15
  Speaker 3: of your sex should act, that's a sex classification.
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: I found it odd that Justice Neil Gorsich, who wrote
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court's landmark decision that protected LGBTQ people from
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: discrimination in the workplace, was silent during two and a
• 21:32
  Speaker 1: half hours of arguments, didn't ask one question.
• 21:36
  Speaker 3: Yeah, now, that was odd. And I argued the boss
• 21:38
  Speaker 3: Stock case, in which behalf of Amy Stevens transgender woman
• 21:42
  Speaker 3: who was fired from a funeral home when she came
• 21:45
  Speaker 3: out as transgender, and he was very active in that case.
• 21:48
  Speaker 3: You know, I read that as he may be uncertain
• 21:50
  Speaker 3: about where he is in this case, and so he
• 21:53
  Speaker 3: wanted to sit back and listen and hear what other
• 21:55
  Speaker 3: people said rather than speak up, especially because he wrote
• 22:00
  Speaker 3: the boss Stock decision. But you know, the Bosstock decision
• 22:03
  Speaker 3: said that when you discriminate against someone because they are transgender,
• 22:06
  Speaker 3: that is, by definition, as a matter of logic, discriminating
• 22:10
  Speaker 3: against them because of their sex, treating them differently because
• 22:13
  Speaker 3: of their sex. If that's the case, then certainly a
• 22:16
  Speaker 3: law that on its face says you can get treatment
• 22:19
  Speaker 3: if you do it consistent with your sex, and you
• 22:21
  Speaker 3: can't get treatment if you do it inconsistent with your
• 22:24
  Speaker 3: sex should also be subject to heightened scrutiny as sex discrimination.
• 22:28
  Speaker 3: So we'll see how he votes, but he gave no indication.
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: So there seems to be a consensus among the legal
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: pundits and Supreme Court reporters that there are five votes
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: to uphold Tennessee's ban. Do you agree with that?
• 22:44
  Speaker 3: I think the five conservatives who spoke all expressed some
• 22:49
  Speaker 3: unease with recognizing that this sex discrimination. You know, maybe
• 22:54
  Speaker 3: that when they go back into their conference and they
• 22:57
  Speaker 3: study the matter further, they may decide, you know, a
• 23:01
  Speaker 3: law that on its face defines what can be done
• 23:03
  Speaker 3: and what can't be done based on whether it's consistent
• 23:05
  Speaker 3: with sex or inconsistent with sex, is sex based, and
• 23:09
  Speaker 3: it would be ludicrous to suggest it's not. It may
• 23:12
  Speaker 3: be that the law could satisfy heightened scrutiny on remand,
• 23:16
  Speaker 3: and they could say, you know, that heightened scrutiny should
• 23:19
  Speaker 3: apply with a softer touch when you're dealing with issues
• 23:22
  Speaker 3: of medical uncertainty. So I don't think it's absolutely clear
• 23:26
  Speaker 3: that our side lost, but certainly five justices expressed some
• 23:30
  Speaker 3: discomfort with ruling in our favor.
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: This is a fraught time for transgender Americans. Donald Trump
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: campaigned on a pledge to roll back transgender rights. If
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: the Justice is affirm the Tennessee ban, what does that
• 23:46
  Speaker 1: mean for transgender rights in this country.
• 23:49
  Speaker 3: You're absolutely right that this is a time where one
• 23:52
  Speaker 3: side of the aisle is targeting trans people for political exploitation.
• 23:57
  Speaker 3: For the Court to sort of allow that to happen
• 24:00
  Speaker 3: and to say that a law of this type that
• 24:03
  Speaker 3: is facially sex based, is somehow sex neutral, and can
• 24:07
  Speaker 3: be upheld without any searching inquiry into whether the state
• 24:12
  Speaker 3: has a legitimate interest in whether it is furthering it
• 24:14
  Speaker 3: in the tailored way. Would just open the door to
• 24:18
  Speaker 3: rampant anti transdiscrimination across the country. And as was pointed
• 24:23
  Speaker 3: out at argument, if it's okay for Tennessee to do this,
• 24:26
  Speaker 3: then it would be okay for the entire country for
• 24:29
  Speaker 3: Congress to do this, to deny to every trans youth
• 24:33
  Speaker 3: and every parent of every trans youth who has determined
• 24:36
  Speaker 3: that this treatment is medically necessary with their doctors, to
• 24:41
  Speaker 3: deny them the ability to get it anywhere in this country.
• 24:45
  Speaker 3: There would be no bar to such a draconian policy.
• 24:48
  Speaker 3: So I think that would be a terrible, terrible result
• 24:52
  Speaker 3: for trans people.
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: How did your clients, particularly the three transgender teenagers, how
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: did they feel after these arguments?
• 25:01
  Speaker 3: Well, I think they look to us, but they also
• 25:03
  Speaker 3: can hear the concerns and I think, you know, some
• 25:06
  Speaker 3: of the concerns that were articulated were pretty hostile to
• 25:09
  Speaker 3: who they are, to the plight that they face, to
• 25:12
  Speaker 3: the really really difficult decisions that you know, parents and
• 25:15
  Speaker 3: families have to make in these situations, and to hear,
• 25:19
  Speaker 3: you know, the justices say, well, it's too complicated, it's
• 25:22
  Speaker 3: too difficult for us to address, even where a statute
• 25:26
  Speaker 3: on its face discriminates on the basis of sex. Very disappointing,
• 25:30
  Speaker 3: very disappointing.
• 25:32
  Speaker 1: It must be such a difficult position for teenagers to
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: be in. I really appreciate your coming on the show, David.
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: That's Professor David Cole of Georgetown Law coming up next
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: on the Bloomberg Law Show. A rap battle in court
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: sort of. I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg,
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: I see people.
• 25:55
  Speaker 4: I mean I Master Hono Depot.
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: That's hip hop superstar Kendrick Lamar's wildly popular track. Not
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: like us Lamar's track. This is another hip hop superstar, Drake.
• 26:11
  Speaker 4: Hey Drake, I.
• 26:12
  Speaker 6: Hate you like I'm young. You better have a go
• 26:14
  Speaker 6: to sell black one.
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: But Drake has taken their bitter rap feud to a
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: new level, and it may be the first time someone
• 26:22
  Speaker 1: in a rap battle ran to a court for help.
• 26:25
  Speaker 1: Drake has filed legal actions in New York and Texas
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: against Universal Music Group, the parent company of the labels,
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: for both artists. The theory is that Universal artificially promoted
• 26:38
  Speaker 1: the song of one of its artists, Kendrick Lamar, that
• 26:41
  Speaker 1: damaged the reputation and earning potential of Drake, another of
• 26:45
  Speaker 1: its artists. It seems to be a rather unique approach
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: in the music industry. Joining me is entertainment attorney Ron Beanstock,
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: a partner at Scrency hollandeck Ron. These aren't lawsuits yet.
• 26:58
  Speaker 1: Tell us about the first filed in New York, which
• 27:01
  Speaker 1: is a civil rico preaction suit.
• 27:04
  Speaker 9: Yeah, so we've got actually parallel pre complaint filings known
• 27:09
  Speaker 9: as petitions, one in New York, one in Texas. The
• 27:12
  Speaker 9: pre complaint, if you will, in New York, is based
• 27:15
  Speaker 9: upon the relationship between Universal and Spotify. Spotify is the
• 27:20
  Speaker 9: number one streaming service in the world, where Universal is
• 27:23
  Speaker 9: one of the three major giant music business powerhouses, both
• 27:27
  Speaker 9: with records publishing interests, and have both artists Kendrick Lamar
• 27:31
  Speaker 9: and Drake through two different divisions signed to Universal Music Group,
• 27:35
  Speaker 9: which makes it even more confusing. But the petitions are
• 27:39
  Speaker 9: looking for depositions and information to establish a full complaint
• 27:46
  Speaker 9: cause of action against these defendants for in New York,
• 27:50
  Speaker 9: specifically payola, which is a nineteen thirty four law. I
• 27:55
  Speaker 9: once said payola to some people under thirty. They thought
• 27:58
  Speaker 9: I was making that word up. Pola is the illegal
• 28:01
  Speaker 9: payment to a radio station or could be any other
• 28:05
  Speaker 9: now in the digital age, another platform to play a
• 28:08
  Speaker 9: specific artist or specific piece of music. So in New
• 28:12
  Speaker 9: York it involves Spotify. In Texas it involves iHeart Radio.
• 28:16
  Speaker 9: There's some fascinating facts about this New York petition. New
• 28:20
  Speaker 9: Music Universal Music owns three point two seven percent of Spotify.
• 28:25
  Speaker 9: That would have been something we wouldn't have seen in
• 28:27
  Speaker 9: the past, but the majors all have an interest now
• 28:29
  Speaker 9: in Spotify, and that Spotify pays annually in terms of
• 28:34
  Speaker 9: streaming and other download income, but mostly streaming income, over
• 28:37
  Speaker 9: two point five billion dollars to New music. So this
• 28:39
  Speaker 9: is a huge relationship. When you switch to the Texas action,
• 28:44
  Speaker 9: that really involves iHeart Radio, the number one radio station
• 28:47
  Speaker 9: in the country, and there's been as a pre complaint says,
• 28:50
  Speaker 9: a syndiotic relationship between new music and iHeartRadio. New music
• 28:55
  Speaker 9: controls a vast number of hits of the last decade,
• 28:59
  Speaker 9: and so if you want to have access to those
• 29:01
  Speaker 9: h you're going to be close to the company it
• 29:04
  Speaker 9: supplies that content to you.
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: So break it down for us. What does the first
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: petition in New York claim?
• 29:11
  Speaker 9: So the first petition in New York says, effectively, hey,
• 29:14
  Speaker 9: you favored Kendrick Lamar in this now sort of infamous
• 29:18
  Speaker 9: rap beef as we would call this relatively new phenomena,
• 29:23
  Speaker 9: if you will, not this East coast West coast thing,
• 29:25
  Speaker 9: but this very specific rapper versus rapper beef, which are
• 29:28
  Speaker 9: both on the same label. The New York petition says,
• 29:31
  Speaker 9: you favored Kendrick Lamar. You boosted his song versus mine
• 29:36
  Speaker 9: in this dispute. We're having, this musical dispute we're having,
• 29:39
  Speaker 9: and you favored him on it, and you paid someone
• 29:42
  Speaker 9: in terms of Spotify to stream more of it, and
• 29:45
  Speaker 9: you took advantage of what you could take advantage of
• 29:48
  Speaker 9: to give this artist's favor over me.
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: So what's the point of a preaction suit. What are
• 29:54
  Speaker 1: they looking for?
• 29:55
  Speaker 9: They're looking for discovery. It's kind of like saying information
• 29:58
  Speaker 9: and belief. They're saying, Hey, we think we've got some proof,
• 30:01
  Speaker 9: but we don't have the exact verbiage we need. We
• 30:05
  Speaker 9: need some facts. So to prove our facts that we
• 30:07
  Speaker 9: can go and file a formal complaint with a litany
• 30:11
  Speaker 9: of issues. Here, we want to have pre complaint discovery
• 30:15
  Speaker 9: kind of like an expedited discovery, both in New York
• 30:19
  Speaker 9: involving Spotify and new music, and then in Texas a
• 30:23
  Speaker 9: very similar theory where we're saying there was Payola committed
• 30:26
  Speaker 9: again with the iHeart Radio station, the national chain station.
• 30:32
  Speaker 9: We want to have expedited discovery so we can go
• 30:35
  Speaker 9: find out the facts. We want to talk to people
• 30:37
  Speaker 9: from New Music. We want to talk to people from
• 30:39
  Speaker 9: iHeartRadio to get the facts so we can have a
• 30:42
  Speaker 9: more formal complaint file.
• 30:44
  Speaker 1: So just focusing on New York for a moment, do
• 30:47
  Speaker 1: you think that they'll be able to get that.
• 30:49
  Speaker 9: It's a tough hurdle to get over here saying we
• 30:53
  Speaker 9: don't have enough, but we want you as the core
• 30:56
  Speaker 9: system to provide us the right to go and do this.
• 30:59
  Speaker 9: I don't know they've established enough initially with this pre
• 31:03
  Speaker 9: complaint petition. It will be really up to the court
• 31:05
  Speaker 9: to allow some limited scope of discovery. Maybe they'll do that.
• 31:09
  Speaker 9: I don't think this is going to be some wide
• 31:10
  Speaker 9: open fields. Get to talk to anyone you want. I
• 31:12
  Speaker 9: think they're going to be very narrow to grasp some
• 31:15
  Speaker 9: of those facts to see if they can get to
• 31:17
  Speaker 9: the complaint stage. Remember, we're in state court or not
• 31:19
  Speaker 9: in federal court, so a lot of the dismissal issues
• 31:22
  Speaker 9: and the standards for dismissal are slightly different in New
• 31:25
  Speaker 9: York and in Texas.
• 31:26
  Speaker 1: Now is the Texas action about defamation.
• 31:30
  Speaker 9: It's a combination. It is again a Payola plane saying
• 31:35
  Speaker 9: you favored Kendrick Lamar versus me, Drake. You favored this artist,
• 31:40
  Speaker 9: and you took advantage of your relationship and the power
• 31:43
  Speaker 9: you yield as a powerhouse, major record company and content owner,
• 31:49
  Speaker 9: and you took advantage of that, and you preferred getting
• 31:52
  Speaker 9: this guy boosted versus me, and you did it through iHeartRadio.
• 31:56
  Speaker 9: Then there's this defammatory language which kind of runs through
• 32:00
  Speaker 9: both of the petitions, but more specifically in Texas says
• 32:05
  Speaker 9: you knew what he was saying could be false or
• 32:09
  Speaker 9: was false, and you allowed him to put that into lyrics.
• 32:12
  Speaker 9: This all took place this year, and you allowed him
• 32:15
  Speaker 9: to put this into lyrics, and you let that into
• 32:18
  Speaker 9: the marketplace. There's a side moment, and I wanted to
• 32:21
  Speaker 9: bring this one issue up. I don't have Kendrick Lamar's
• 32:23
  Speaker 9: recording agreement because that's going to be confidential. But generally
• 32:26
  Speaker 9: with record labels, the artist has a warranty and representation
• 32:32
  Speaker 9: that they won't the fame, that they won't infringe on
• 32:35
  Speaker 9: someone else's copyright and things of this nature, and if
• 32:38
  Speaker 9: they do, they will have to indemnify the record company. Now,
• 32:41
  Speaker 9: I haven't seen anybody bring this up yet because maybe
• 32:44
  Speaker 9: we just don't know. And this is purely speculative because
• 32:47
  Speaker 9: Drake has not sued Kendrick Lamar personally in either of
• 32:51
  Speaker 9: these pre complaint petitions. But if he's looking to get
• 32:56
  Speaker 9: some fiscal come up in this may be the way.
• 33:00
  Speaker 9: Because of Kendrick Lamar's accused of defamatory lyrics, then he
• 33:04
  Speaker 9: may have to defend by indemnifying your music against any
• 33:09
  Speaker 9: of these future lawsuits.
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: Why is he not suing or bringing these petitions against
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: Kendrick Lamar.
• 33:16
  Speaker 9: Question of the day is it because I mean, we're
• 33:20
  Speaker 9: going to speculate, Well, it's infamatory, so we're saying, hey,
• 33:24
  Speaker 9: you claim these things are defamatory, but truth is the
• 33:26
  Speaker 9: absolute defense. So if Kendrick Lamar has proof or knows
• 33:29
  Speaker 9: these things to be true and can show that that's
• 33:32
  Speaker 9: not going to carry the day. That's not a good
• 33:34
  Speaker 9: idea for Drake. So I think that there's a lot
• 33:38
  Speaker 9: of personal issues going back and forth, but in the
• 33:41
  Speaker 9: guise of a business petition lawsuit where we are looking
• 33:45
  Speaker 9: to make ourselves get even with somebody in a clear
• 33:50
  Speaker 9: battle of entertainment stalwarts kingpins, if you will, where one
• 33:55
  Speaker 9: did not get to success the other did. Perhaps there
• 33:59
  Speaker 9: was you played unfair as new music. The winner here
• 34:03
  Speaker 9: is Universal Music, unless they of course are going to
• 34:06
  Speaker 9: eventually have to pay out. And if there's a decision
• 34:09
  Speaker 9: against them, but they win both ways, you know it's
• 34:11
  Speaker 9: going to happen. All of these songs are boosted by
• 34:13
  Speaker 9: these lawsuits. People go right back and start listening again.
• 34:16
  Speaker 9: And there's all kinds of other issues that took place.
• 34:18
  Speaker 9: I mean, Drake sold a portion of this catalog this year.
• 34:21
  Speaker 9: There's one hundred and fifty million dollars buy up in October.
• 34:23
  Speaker 9: All this is taking place now, and there's also this
• 34:26
  Speaker 9: prior lawsuit that's copyright infringement involving Drake and the producer
• 34:30
  Speaker 9: Chris Brown. So Drake has some real experience here in
• 34:35
  Speaker 9: the courtroom in this last year, lots of filings and
• 34:39
  Speaker 9: lots of accusations, a lot of things going on. It's
• 34:42
  Speaker 9: a lot to keep track of.
• 34:45
  Speaker 1: There's been some speculation that Drake is using this to
• 34:50
  Speaker 1: get information from Universal to somehow get out of his deal.
• 34:55
  Speaker 9: Yeah, that seems one of the most likely outcomes of this.
• 35:00
  Speaker 9: We all know getting out of record deals. Now again,
• 35:02
  Speaker 9: I'm not privy to know the structure of his agreement.
• 35:05
  Speaker 9: People have called a licensed feel in the press. That's
• 35:08
  Speaker 9: a different relationship. That means he owns his masters and
• 35:11
  Speaker 9: he's licensed them. But if you have a long term
• 35:13
  Speaker 9: licensed deeal and you want to pull back the ownership
• 35:16
  Speaker 9: of those masters that you're releasing, this could be one
• 35:20
  Speaker 9: way of doing that. Clearly, he doesn't want to do
• 35:22
  Speaker 9: business with these people anymore, and I would say most
• 35:25
  Speaker 9: likely Universal Music doesn't want to do business with him.
• 35:28
  Speaker 9: So maybe that is the outcome of releases where he
• 35:32
  Speaker 9: can get the return or reversion of all of his masters.
• 35:36
  Speaker 9: That could be part of the game here. I don't
• 35:38
  Speaker 9: want to use the word game because it's serious civil litigation,
• 35:41
  Speaker 9: but that could be part of what he's looking for.
• 35:43
  Speaker 1: A lot of artists are problematic. Do you think that
• 35:46
  Speaker 1: Universal really doesn't want to deal with Drake anymore considering
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: his success?
• 35:52
  Speaker 9: It's a great question, why would you give into this
• 35:55
  Speaker 9: and drop it? But no judge is going to keep
• 35:57
  Speaker 9: two people together it don't get along anymore. Eventually, there's
• 36:00
  Speaker 9: going to be a decision about the ownership of these
• 36:02
  Speaker 9: masters and the reversion. I think that's not in these
• 36:05
  Speaker 9: two suits, but we know that's coming. So if you're
• 36:07
  Speaker 9: not getting along, and if they're just a distributor and
• 36:10
  Speaker 9: promo arm and you don't feel they're doing the job, yeah,
• 36:14
  Speaker 9: you want out. Does that mean he'll get all of
• 36:17
  Speaker 9: the masters back. We don't know. Doesn't mean he'll get
• 36:20
  Speaker 9: prior masters up until this day or the day of
• 36:23
  Speaker 9: the decision stay with Universal for a period of time
• 36:26
  Speaker 9: that remains to be seen. But it could be that
• 36:28
  Speaker 9: this is a methodology for Drake to get himself out
• 36:32
  Speaker 9: of his deal with Universal.
• 36:33
  Speaker 1: I have to say, this is very confusing, So tell
• 36:37
  Speaker 1: me what I missed.
• 36:38
  Speaker 9: There is so much stuff going on. Welcome to the
• 36:42
  Speaker 9: modern digital age, involving paola and bots and other terminology
• 36:48
  Speaker 9: we didn't talk about with CDs and vinyl. It's a
• 36:51
  Speaker 9: different world and This is the twenty twenty four version
• 36:54
  Speaker 9: of what the nineteen thirty four payola was when record
• 36:59
  Speaker 9: companies in the thies and forties put one hundred dollars
• 37:01
  Speaker 9: bill inside the jacket of a vital album cover and
• 37:05
  Speaker 9: gave it to someone at the radio station and wait,
• 37:07
  Speaker 9: not not, please play this, this is your new favorite song.
• 37:10
  Speaker 9: Now it's all done digitally, and now we have OLAI
• 37:14
  Speaker 9: and we have algorithmic ways of doing this, and someone's
• 37:17
  Speaker 9: going to have to prove that.
• 37:19
  Speaker 1: Also if there was, you know, the use of bots
• 37:22
  Speaker 1: and things, and Drake also probably benefited from that at
• 37:25
  Speaker 1: some point.
• 37:26
  Speaker 9: Right, Yeah, he did. He just didn't benefit benefit from
• 37:30
  Speaker 9: it the way he felt he should have. I'm reading
• 37:33
  Speaker 9: these complaints. He's suggesting that it was unfairly weighted against him.
• 37:38
  Speaker 9: That Kendrick Lamar and the numbers on that Kendrick Lamar
• 37:41
  Speaker 9: track is like a billion streams. That's you know, Taylor
• 37:44
  Speaker 9: Swift territory. I mean, Kendrick Lamar and Drake are two
• 37:47
  Speaker 9: of the biggest names in their specific genre in the world.
• 37:50
  Speaker 9: These are pop icons now, and this is real money
• 37:55
  Speaker 9: in the music business. You know, we're talking about substantialing
• 38:00
  Speaker 9: come substantial accusations that could affect other artists and how
• 38:04
  Speaker 9: they're dealt with. If it's true that they are committing
• 38:08
  Speaker 9: payola and they're doing it through the digital versions of
• 38:11
  Speaker 9: the one hundred dollars bill in the record sleeve, maybe
• 38:14
  Speaker 9: people will be less successful in the future. Maybe we
• 38:17
  Speaker 9: won't have the same numbers.
• 38:18
  Speaker 1: We may learn more very soon. A hearing is set
• 38:21
  Speaker 1: for December nineteenth in Texas and January sixteenth in New York.
• 38:26
  Speaker 1: Fascinating almost cases. Thanks so much, Ron. That's Ron Beanstock
• 38:30
  Speaker 1: of Scurrency, Holland Beck. And that's it for this edition
• 38:33
  Speaker 1: of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can always get
• 38:36
  Speaker 1: the latest legal news by subscribing and listening to the
• 38:39
  Speaker 1: show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg dot com,
• 38:43
  Speaker 1: slash podcast, slash Law. I'm June Grosso and this is
• 38:48
  Speaker 1: Bloomberg