2481 - The Cases That Could Break Up Google & Facebook + Trump's Pentagon Implosion

Summary

The Majority Report with Sam Seder: Episode 2481 Summary

Title: The Cases That Could Break Up Google & Facebook + Trump's Pentagon Implosion
Host: Sam Seder
Release Date: April 22, 2025

---

Introduction

In Episode 2481 of The Majority Report with Sam Seder, host Sam Seder delves into significant antitrust battles threatening to reshape the tech landscape by potentially breaking up two of the world's most influential companies: Google and Facebook (now Meta). Additionally, the episode touches on political turbulence within the Pentagon under former President Donald Trump's administration.

---

Antitrust Cases Against Google

Liability Phase Victory ([33:50] - [35:13])
Brendan Benedict, an antitrust and commercial litigation lawyer covering cases for the blog Big Tech on Trial, explains that Google recently lost two major federal antitrust cases at the liability phase. The first case challenges Google's dominance in the advertising technology platform sector in the Eastern District of Virginia, where the court found Google guilty of maintaining a monopoly in an uncompetitive manner.

Remedies Phase and Potential Breakup ([35:13] - [40:44])
As the proceedings move into the remedies phase, the government seeks to dismantle Google's monopolistic practices. Sam Seder asks Benedict about the proposed remedies, to which Benedict responds:

“The headline grabber is that Google should divest the Chrome browser because that makes up a large portion of access for maintaining the monopoly in Google search... [Google’s remedy] also includes preventing Google from entering into exclusive agreements to use only Google search to the exclusion of competing search engines.”
- [35:50] Brendan Benedict

Benedict highlights that the remedies aim not only to halt Google's current monopolistic behavior but also to foster a competitive environment, especially in the burgeoning field of artificial intelligence (AI). The government is particularly concerned that Google's extensive search data provides an overwhelming advantage in developing AI products like its Gemini AI, potentially stifling innovation.

AI and Competitive Innovation ([38:15] - [39:45])
The discussion emphasizes the importance of ensuring that new players can compete in the AI sector without being sidelined by Google's entrenched position. Benedict notes:

“The government is very much focused on ensuring that the next generation of innovators can compete against the big players who are now scrambling on AI.”
- [37:08] Brendan Benedict

This focus underscores the broader implications of the antitrust case, aiming to prevent monopolistic practices from hindering technological advancements and fair competition.

---

Antitrust Cases Against Facebook (Meta)

Meta’s Monopolistic Practices and Acquisitions ([40:44] - [50:08])
The conversation shifts to Meta, currently embroiled in a federal antitrust trial. The FTC's case asserts that Meta holds a monopoly in the personal social networking market and unlawfully maintained this monopoly through strategic acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 for $1 billion and WhatsApp in 2014 for $19 billion.

Benedict elaborates on the evidence presented, including internal communications from Mark Zuckerberg expressing concern over these acquisitions potentially neutralizing competitors:

“Mark Zuckerberg, in emails, expressed worries about Instagram and WhatsApp becoming competitors to Facebook, indicating a clear intent to maintain market dominance.”
- [45:36] Emma Vigland

These communications are pivotal in establishing Meta's intent to stifle competition, a key factor in antitrust litigation.

Legal Strategies and Market Definitions ([50:42] - [55:39])
Meta contends that it no longer operates solely as a personal social network but has expanded into various functions like Facebook Marketplace and Reels, thereby differentiating itself from competitors like TikTok. However, the FTC argues that Meta's market share remains excessively high, making it a monopolist regardless of diversified services.

“Meta aims to redefine itself to escape the monopoly label by showcasing its varied functionalities, but the FTC maintains that its dominant market share still qualifies it as a monopolist.”
- [53:04] Emma Vigland

The trial examines whether Meta's expanded services dilute its monopoly or if the core social networking dominance remains unchallenged.

Trial Proceedings and Future Implications ([55:39] - [63:20])
The trial, still in its early stages, is expected to continue for about five to six weeks, with significant testimony and evidence presentation. Benedict anticipates that the remedy phase will explore potential divestitures and measures to ensure competitive practices in the evolving tech landscape.

“Both cases against Google and Meta are closely contested, with each side presenting substantial evidence. The outcome could significantly impact how these tech giants operate and compete in future markets.”
- [58:16] Emma Vigland

---

Political Turbulence: Trump’s Pentagon Chaos

Trump’s Pentagon and Political Instability ([24:02] - [31:38])
Sam Seder briefly touches upon political instability within the Pentagon during Trump's administration, highlighting chaos and controversial decisions affecting national security and military operations. Although not delved into deeply, this segment underscores ongoing governmental challenges and shifts in political power dynamics.

---

Republican Strategies on Medicaid Funding

Medicaid Cuts via FMAP Reduction ([25:46] - [31:38])
The discussion also covers Republican efforts to pass a reconciliation bill aimed at providing substantial tax cuts for the wealthy by cutting $800 billion from Medicaid funding. Representative Austin Scott explains the strategy to lower the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) from 90% to ranges between 50% and 80%, effectively forcing states to shoulder more of Medicaid costs.

“By reducing FMAP, Republicans aim to cut Medicaid funding indirectly, leading to potential loss of coverage for millions if states cannot compensate for the reduced federal support.”
- [25:46] Austin Scott

This maneuver is anticipated to trigger automatic cuts in several states with existing trigger laws, potentially dismantling the Medicaid expansions that have significantly reduced uninsured rates since their implementation.

“Over 20 million people gained Medicaid under ACA expansion. Reducing FMAP threatens the loss of coverage for these vulnerable populations.”
- [30:03] Sam Seder

---

Conclusion

Episode 2481 of The Majority Report provides an incisive examination of major antitrust cases that could lead to the dismantling of tech giants Google and Meta, aiming to restore competitive balance in the digital marketplace. Additionally, the episode highlights significant political maneuvers impacting healthcare funding and governmental stability. Through expert analysis and detailed discussions, Sam Seder offers listeners a comprehensive understanding of these pivotal issues shaping the economic and political landscape.

---

Notable Quotes

• Brendan Benedict on Google's Remedies ([35:50]):

  “Google should divest the Chrome browser because that makes up a large portion of access for maintaining the monopoly in Google search...”

• Brendan Benedict on AI Competition ([37:08]):

  “The government is very much focused on ensuring that the next generation of innovators can compete against the big players who are now scrambling on AI.”

• Emma Vigland on Mark Zuckerberg's Intent ([45:36]):

  “Mark Zuckerberg, in emails, expressed worries about Instagram and WhatsApp becoming competitors to Facebook, indicating a clear intent to maintain market dominance.”

• Sam Seder on Medicaid Cuts ([30:03]):

  “Over 20 million people gained Medicaid under ACA expansion. Reducing FMAP threatens the loss of coverage for these vulnerable populations.”

---

This comprehensive summary encapsulates the critical discussions and insights from Episode 2481, offering a clear and engaging overview for those unfamiliar with the original podcast.

Transcript

[Sam Seder]

Hey folks, big news. You have about 12. Well, I. Almost exactly. Well, 11 hours and 56 minutes to take advantage of this offer. 420 has come and gone. But that does not mean that our [e-mail] are done celebrating. I mean really, they, they're always celebrating. I have a feeling they celebrate quite a bit.

[Emma Vigland]

But.

[Sam Seder]

But for this next 12 hours, there's only 12 hours left. When you check out with the code 420, you're going to save 30% site wide hemp flour, gummies, coffee tinctures, even their new VAP culture cartridges, all for 30% off. Even better, when you spend over 100 bucks, they throw in a jar of 20 count of their microdose vibe gummies for free. Microdose of attache. Here's the best part. 4.2% of the sales will be donated to the Last Prisoner Project which is an organization dedicated to reforming the nation's unjust cannabis laws and supporting those who've been negatively impacted by prohibition. And the Majority Report is going to match that. So ultimately 8.4% of the sales. I did that all over my head. Of the sales from this sale are going to go towards supporting the Last Prisoner Project. This is a great time to check out their goodnight oil tincture which I use on a nightly basis to help me go to sleep or, or some of their pre rolls or flour that you can mix with other things that you might enjoy. For me, a pre roll after a big dinner, you know, like on a night out, that's for someone, that's for someone like me. A big treat. But they have all sorts of great products. Salves, lotions, focus gummies, relaxed gummies, all of it. And right now you can try it and see what you like. 30% off. Head right over to Sunset Lake. Sabade.com use the coupon code 420. You'll save 30% sitewide. The sale ends tonight at midnight Eastern Time. That's April 22nd at Eastern at midnight. See their site for additional terms and restrictions. And now time for the show the Majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Tuesday, April 22, 2025. My name is Sam Seder. This is the five time award winning Majority Report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, usa. On the program today, Brendan Benedict, antitrust and commercial litigation lawyer who's covering antitrust cases for the blog Big Tech on Trial. About Big Tech on trial. The cases that could break up Google and Facebook or Meta Meanwhile, chaos reigns at the Pentagon as it's revealed Hexit's party chat info came from a general secure message.

[Brendan Benedict]

Never drunk text.

[Sam Seder]

Meanwhile ICE detaining a Harvard scientist who may have a key to changing cancer diagnostics. Trump attacks Jerome Powell and sinks the Dow to Great Depression style one day drop. Speaking of dropping, Trump's approval rating continues its fall. Bukele proposes a prisoner swap with Maduro for Venezuelan deportees. Mahmoud Khalil's wife gives birth while he remains in ICE detention for absolutely no reason. Got Salmonella. FDA suspends milk tests amid Doge cuts the DoE to refer all loan student loan defaults to debt collection seeking wage garnishment of up to 5.3 million Americans.

[Brendan Benedict]

This is right wing economic populism for.

[Sam Seder]

You EPA to cancel grants protecting children from the toxic chemicals. That's called Maha. And Mississippi declares April 2025 as Confederate Heritage Month. All this and more on today's Majority Report. As soon as I they didn't do it until I left the state.

[Brendan Benedict]

Oh, that's good.

[Sam Seder]

Yep.

[Brendan Benedict]

They waited it out.

[Sam Seder]

Yep. Welcome ladies and gentlemen. It is news day Tuesday, Newsday Tuesday. And we're going to be talking to Brendan Menneket who is actually in the Facebook or the meta trial right now and he'll pump pop out to give us an update on what's happened with Google. They lost an antitrust case last week on their on their ad tech and they have moved into the second part of their their ads, their search monopoly case which they lost in terms of liability and they're moving on to the remedy which could mean Google is broken up and the FTC is looking for a similar thing. One suspects with Facebook. We'll be talking to this attorney about that. In the meantime, still have four House Democrats in El Salvador seeking Abrego Garcia's release. And here is one of those congressmen is he, I think he is live in El Salvador. Maxwell Frost on with Will Kane. Kane I think is either in the Fox studios or.

[Brendan Benedict]

Home studio is a total possibility.

[Sam Seder]

Oh I was actually thinking in wherever it is where you bring what you owe for your Faustian bargain. I'm not sure where that is. I don't know if you actually got to go to hell or do you go to like there's a drive up window where you can just deposit whatever your soul or whatever it is.

[Will Kane]

Right.

[Sam Seder]

But here is Will Kane with Maxwell Frost.

[Maxwell Frost]

Before we move forward, I have to stop down with what you just said. Donald Trump's made a statement about wanting to deport American citizens. Do you have that in front of you? I've not seen that statement. Can you please quote where that comes from? That he would like to deport American citizens? He said it in Oval Office. He said he wants to go for homegrown snacks. People born and raised in the United States. Do you have anything. And then do you have anything besides your word on that? I have. I have not seen. I have not seen that. So beyond your word, do you have.

[Sam Seder]

A source of that?

[Maxwell Frost]

I would love to see that clip or that transcript of him saying he wants to deport American citizens. There is a clip online.

[Sam Seder]

I encourage people to pause it right now. I'll tell you what's happening. If Frost is down there with any aides, which I imagine he's there probably traveling with one person from his office, that person is right now on their phone sending the producer a, a clip. Because the idea that, that this comes as some sort of shock to, I mean, just even an average person, but. But a news person. This gives you just a slight insight into what they are shoveling over at Fox. Yeah, I mean, the idea that you don't know this. There are multiple on the record, on video versions of Trump saying this and the idea that Will Cain is oblivious to this. And I genuinely think he is oblivious because you can tell how cocky he's getting about it.

[Brendan Benedict]

Yeah.

[Sam Seder]

Oh, okay. That's your word.

[Brendan Benedict]

You're being a little bit hysterical. Do you have Trump derangement syndrome? Repeating the words that have come out of Donald Trump's mouth multiple times?

[Sam Seder]

I notice you're sitting there talking. Is there any chance that maybe piece pieces of paper have come out of your mouth that will show a citation or something like that? Why don't I see a floating footnote that's clickable in front of your face? Dude, you're the news guy.

[Brendan Benedict]

You should know that.

[Sam Seder]

You're the guy working at a multimillion dollar news organization.

[Michael]

Are the people that are supposed to be speaking into his earpiece, are they at lunch or something?

[Sam Seder]

Exactly. Will, wait a second.

[Brendan Benedict]

Will, hold on.

[Sam Seder]

Sorry. Eating a sandwich. Good.

[Maxwell Frost]

I would love to see that clip or that transcript of him saying he wants to deport American citizens. There is a clip online. I encourage people to just Google Donald Trump homegrown deporting homegrown criminals. It is something he said in the Oval Office. Well, you understand how television works. We have these fancy earpieces. I like to hit very few instructions from my staff while you and I have a conversation. But we are in search of that clip. As we speak. So as you and I have this conversation in the next several minutes, we'll be. We'll be looking for that clip, but let's keep digging it.

[Brendan Benedict]

You know what he's saying there is that they're in his earpiece saying, get off this, get off this. We do have it. Because when he's saying, I want to be able to conduct this interview without hearing all this noise 100%, that is.

[Sam Seder]

Him whining like a little baby. Yeah, Overwhelmed. It's your fault. It's your fault.

[Brendan Benedict]

Too many senses. I can't hear. I'm sensitive to that kind of thing. Hearing two different audio streams, it can be very overwhelming.

[Sam Seder]

Stop calling me and idiot.

[Brendan Benedict]

If you're dealing an idiot of like, getting something so wrong on air to a member of Congress.

[Michael]

So this is after the break.

[Sam Seder]

Okay, so they go to break, but before they do, okay, they go to break. And apparently somebody at Fox has the Internet and they know how to use it, folks. So watch out.

[Maxwell Frost]

I challenged him, by the way, on the idea that President Trump wanted to deport homegrown citizens. Here is the clip referenced by Maxwell Frost from the Oval Office of President Trump talking about homegrown criminals.

[Mahmoud Khalil]

I'd like to go a step further. I mean, I say. I said it to Pam. I don't know what the laws are. We always have to obey the laws, but we also have homegrown criminals that push people into subways that hit elderly ladies on the back of the head with a baseball bat when they're not looking.

[Sam Seder]

That are. I saw that incident, incidentally. I saw that in. Oh, shoot. What was the name of that? Warriors. It was a documentary about New York City called Warriors. And one of them out there get, warriors come out to play, and they. Then they hit a lady with the baseball bat. It's one thing to hit a lady.

[Michael]

With a baseball bat when she's looking, but when you don't even give her.

[Sam Seder]

A chance to react right from behind. Go ahead.

[Mahmoud Khalil]

That push people into subways that hit elderly ladies on the back of the head with a baseball bat when they're not looking, that are absolute monsters. I'd like to include them in the group of people to get them out of the country.

[Maxwell Frost]

He goes on right after that to say, but we have to obey the law. It will always be to obey the law. After years of very fine people, among other hoaxes, I'm suspicious of any Democrat quoting President Trump in full context. And I make no apologies, none, on not being able to know or recall that specific Clip. Because it doesn't reinforce my fever dream Handmaid's Tale vision of America where Lilly, who reads the bulwark on the Upper west side, is about to be deported right after Kilmar Brago Garcia. President Donald Trump was clearly talking about obeying the law. I'm doubtful the law would allow him to deport homegrown criminals, but it's a far cry again from the Handmaid tail vision of the next afternoon. Is you.

[Sam Seder]

Well, I like the fact that he became indignant because he was actually shown to be 100% wrong. But he's more than 100% wrong. He's at least 200% wrong. Because here's the second time in the Oval Office. Like, I don't know how much more like. And we also know Donald Trump in the Handmaid's Tale, Donald Trump would never attempt to do anything that was against the law except for ignore a court's order to turn the plane around. From the last group of people, Garcia being one of them, sent El Salvador.

[Brendan Benedict]

Except for the illegal thing that he's saying he wants to do in that very sentence. That's the fun thing. He wants to follow the law except for the words that are coming out of his mouth, which is in clear violation of the Constitution.

[Michael]

And the whole reason Bukele was there in the first place was because they're saying, actually we're not going to follow up on that law.

[Sam Seder]

Here is Bukele right now, or I should say in this clip with Donald Trump where Donald Trump, and I'm sure you will hear the words as long as it's in the law.

[Mahmoud Khalil]

They said homegrowns are next. The homegrowns. You got to build five more places.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah, yeah, the homegrowns are next.

[Brendan Benedict]

That was on a hot mic you get.

[Sam Seder]

Well, no, but he turns to the, to the, to the, to the press and says homegrown.

[Brendan Benedict]

Oh, I guess that's right.

[Sam Seder]

Homegrowns next. Yeah, you got to build five more prisons. And then of course, we have really cleverly cut out the part where he said, of course that's subject to whatever the law is in this country. I love the Constitution so much. I mean, we have, I think there's another clip. He said it in another interview, but only if it's, you know, within the law. But I keep bringing it up. It's weird. It's weird. I think there's some questions about the law also. I'm only going to run for a third term in office if it's within the law or Actually, maybe I actually won the 2020 election in a legal way. Exactly. Amazing.

[Brendan Benedict]

It's pretty great. Good on Maxwell Frost. Good on. I think it's Robert Garcia, the representative from California, who went down there also and is speaking specifically about the hairdresser who I think is a teenager still who was taken from California. So I was wondering, like, where is Adam Schiff? Where's Alex Padilla on this? The senators from California, I mean. Yes. Where are they? But at least they have a representative from California going down there to. To stand up for their. His constituent. And we should be seeing that across the board for pro Palestine political detainees as well.

[Sam Seder]

Let me just do one more point about Will Kaine, which was fascinating. Understand what we just watched. I mean, aside from the fact that like, you know, the substance of the clip. But we watched him there indignantly question whether Frost was telling the truth. Because what Frost was suggesting was so out of bounds, was so in line with some Handmaid's Tale version of reality. I want to make it clear that Frost has no idea what he's talking about. He's completely making this up because it's. That would be so out of bounds. And then he comes back and he.

[Brendan Benedict]

Goes on the break despite the fact.

[Sam Seder]

That the reality was 180 degrees from what I said. Yeah. And they only showed one clip. They could have shown three because there's three on record. And we know that they've also had conversations. But there's been other reporting aside from the fact that Trump has said it out loud. He still then says, like, just the fact that that exists proves my point. Right. That they're completely out of their mind.

[Michael]

It's actually your fault. I was incredulous about this thing that happened in the news that everyone saw.

[Brendan Benedict]

Because of the Trump derangement syndrome. Everyone there is inherently hysterical, regardless of what we.

[Sam Seder]

The third clip I'm being told was on. What's that? Stop talking in my ear. Air Force One.

[Brendan Benedict]

Ah.

[Sam Seder]

In a couple of minutes we're going to be talking to Brendan Benedict on the cases that may break up. Google and Facebook Meta. Apple may have a problem too. But first, one of our sponsors today is Nutrafol. Years ago we had some Nutrafol in the office because they want to know if we were interested in them sponsoring the program. We don't sponsor products that we don't use or we don't. We don't have people sponsor the show if we don't use the product or. I guess that's basically it. Right. And so we didn't I had asked I I didn't feel like I needed I had an issue with thinning hair. Michael I thought did but he did not. I was disagreement about that. That's okay. He didn't want to take it. And then several years ago I started taking it. It was around the office. I bought some more and they came back and they wanted to sponsor us and I was like this time? Yeah. Neutrophil is the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand trusted by over one and a half million people. You can see thicker, stronger, faster growing hair with less shedding in just three to six months with neutral fall thinning hair different for men and women. So one size fits all approach to hair growth doesn't cut it. Neutropol has multiple formulas for men and women that are tailored to different life stages such as postpartum or menopause lifestyle factors such as plant based lifestyle or aging, which is something I have and we both know women who have used Neutrophil with great results. It's physician formulated, 100% drug free ingredients. Nutrafol supports healthy hair growth from within by targeting key root causes of thinning, no pun intended, stress hormones, aging, like I say, nutrition, lifestyle metabolism through whole body health. Start your hair growth journey with Nutrafol. For a limited time, Nutrafol offering our listeners ten bucks off your first month subscription and free shipping. When you go to Nutrafol.com enter the promo code TMR10. That's TMR10. Find out why over 4,500 healthcare professionals and stylists recommend Nutrafol for healthier hair. Nutrafol.com spelled N U T R a F O L.com promo code TMR10 that's Nutrafol.com promo code TMR10. We'll put the link in the podcast and YouTube description. Also sponsoring the program today, another product that I've been using for years and years and that is Fast Growing Trees. And I have trees from Fast Growing Trees that are now actually quite large and provide apples.

[Brendan Benedict]

Ooh, which kind?

[Sam Seder]

Arkansas Black.

[Brendan Benedict]

Very nice.

[Sam Seder]

I think I got some. The Crisp Honey Crisp. Honey Crisp put you on the spot. I know. I may also have some Pixie Crunch. Did you know Fast Growing Trees is the biggest online nursery in the U.S. with more than 10,000 different kinds of plants and over 2 million happy customers in the U.S. here's the thing with Fast Growing trees, they will ship you. I don't know if the trees actually grow faster, but they will ship you like trees that are 5, 6ft tall and sometimes will actually bear fruit within that season if you plant them. But you get such a huge variety of trees, of shrubs, of grass, of bushes, they've got it all. And you no longer have to put it in the back of your Subaru, get dirt all over the place. You don't have to go to a big box store and get like, you know, two different varieties of apples. It's amazing. And the best thing is you don't need to have a yard or a lot of space. You can grow a lemon tree, you can grow an avocado tree, you can grow an olive tree or a fig tree, which I highly recommend. Very easy to propagate too, once you get one inside your home. On top of a wide variety of houseplants that are available, the experts at Fast Growing Trees curate thousands of plants so you can find the perfect fit for your specific climate. You all have a growing zone. In fact, you have a growing zone that has an A, B and C to it. And it's probably changed over the past 10 years. You don't have to drive around to nurseries frass growing trees makes it easy to order online. Your plants are shipped to your door in one to two days. Doesn't matter whether you're looking to add privacy or shade or natural beauty for your yard. Fast growing trees has in house experts that'll help you make the right decision. And they'll give you growing and care advice available 24, 7. They'll talk to you about soil type. They'll talk to you about landscape design, how to take care of your plants, all of it. You don't need a green thumb for this. This spring they have the best deals online, up to half on select plants and other deals. Listeners to our show get an additional 15% off their first purchase when using the code Majority at checkout. That's an additional 15% off at fast growing trees.com using the code majority at checkout. Fast growing trees.com code majority offer valid for a limited time, terms and conditions may applied. Check it out. The fast growing refers to the speed at which they arrive at your home. That's interesting. Okay, we'll put that description in the podcast and YouTube description. No word. Okay. We're still waiting on Brendan Benedict. He's actually literally in the, in the court, in the courthouse as we speak. So we will check that out. Let's go to this for a moment in the background humming against this backdrop of all of the Trump immigration, authoritarian fascist moves that his thugs are making at Ice in the background of the Pentagon in total chaos because of Foster Brooks. Pete Hegseth, who is the Nobody knows who Foster Brooks is anymore. The secretary of Defense. Google it. You'll see. That was funny.

[Brendan Benedict]

I told you I watched some old school stuff back in the day.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah, exactly. So Dennis Miller's retired, so I'm doing that. What is also happening on Capitol Hill is the Republicans are attempting to figure out how they are going to pass a bill in reconciliation, which means that you can't filibuster it in the Senate. How they're going to pass a bill that is going to provide trillions of dollars of tax cuts over the next 10 years to wealthy people. And the way they're going to be able to do that, if they can do it, is to find enough cuts in the budget that will satisfy their desire to offset. And they have to, if they're going to use reconciliation, offset these tax cuts. Now, one of the things that they've done, if they decided they're going to try anyways to call the baseline where the tax cuts are now as opposed to where there will be if there is no legislation, these tax cuts run out. That's the law. They don't exist past 2026 or the end of 2025. And that's the law. Usually when they calculate these things, they have to go back to where it's going to be before the new law is passed. They're attempting to change that accounting trick. The other thing they got to do is figure out how they're going to cut in one instance $800 billion from the under the auspices of the committee that oversees Medicaid. And here is a clue.

[Austin Scott]

FMAP is the federal medical assistance percentage and it ranges from 50% in the country to 76.9%. Now when the when the Dems expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Affordable Care act, they made that percentage match 9010 so the federal government is paying 90% of the Medicaid expansion. And so what we have talked about is moving that 90% level of the expansion back towards the more traditional levels of 50 to approximately 80% instead of the 90 10, 90% being federal, 10% being state match. And nobody would be kicked off of Medicaid as long as the governors decided that they wanted to continue to fund the program. And so we are going to ask the states to pick up and pay some additional percentage of the Medicaid percentage.

[Sam Seder]

Okay. So I just want people to understand what Austin Scott, this is a representative from Georgia is referencing here when Medicaid is a federally funded program where states have the ability to deploy that money in a way that they want to. When the ACA passed, part of it was an expansion of Medicaid beyond up to 133% of poverty. So you can make one third more than what the federal poverty line is. And I think the federal poverty line is moved up, but I have a feeling it's somewhere around $18,000 per individ. I don't remember exactly what it is for a family. Maybe you can look that up. And 33% more. Now, you'll recall the Supreme Court said not all states are forced to take it, which is absurd.

[Brendan Benedict]

Yep.

[Sam Seder]

And the argument that all the Republican states that balked against it was, well, we're only paying, you know, like the federal government is only picking up 95, 90%.

[Brendan Benedict]

90%, yeah.

[Sam Seder]

Well, in some instances, I think it's the first couple of years with 95% and then it dropped to 90% percent of the cost of this expansion. So we're not interested in it now. Over time, most of those states, I think we still have like five or six extant.

[Brendan Benedict]

Forty states have expanded, I believe Medicaid under the Affordable Care act, maybe it's 10. And what was incredible about that is that the uninsured rates basically were halved by the expansion of Medicaid. So it was something like 14%. And then when it down to, went down to 7.5% and so.

[Sam Seder]

And so the, the federal government picks up the, the vast majority of that tap. But what's happening now when they, when they drop it to 90%, this guy's trying to play it off like it's. Well, it's going to be up to the governors.

[Brendan Benedict]

Right.

[Sam Seder]

And so they will have to deal with the politics of cutting their own Medicaid if they don't want to add that money. But Emma has done a little research and has found that it's not always going to be the case.

[Brendan Benedict]

It wasn't. Yeah, I mean, the Democrats are saying this too, but there are a lot of states that have trigger laws that if basically the federal matching drops below 90%, that cuts automatically start to happen. That includes Arkansas, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, Utah. In Arizona, if the federal match drops below 80%, which could be their target, that also triggers those automatic cuts. This could also affect people in Virginia and North Carolina and other states as well. But the Affordable Care act expansion, Medicaid expansion just hit 40 states. And if this affects, say, I don't know, it gives the excuse for red state Governors like in Texas and in Florida and in Georgia, around three quarters of adults that are in the, the coverage gap are concentrated in those states, although I'm not sure if they expanded. So give me a second on that front. But the point is, is that this is a backdoor way to cut Medicaid expansion.

[Sam Seder]

And again, this is the way that they're going to cut Medicaid.

[Brendan Benedict]

Yeah.

[Sam Seder]

And they're going to kick people off of Medicaid. Right.

[Brendan Benedict]

That's just I myself, those are the people that's where most of the uninsured people are in those states. So those states haven't expanded. But for the states I listed before that, those are the ones that, where there could be that automatic cut that's.

[Sam Seder]

Triggered and that's, that's how they're going to find at least a big chunk of their cuts. And they'll know it too, because they're going to drop it to below. Even if they drop it to 89%, maybe they'll drop it to 85%, they'll count that 5%. But you also know that they will, they will count all of the expansion. Right. Because the program in those, what is it, eight states, it's not just like they're going to, you're going to lose essentially a third of the people in those states are all going to immediately lose their, their coverage unless the states affirmatively re up to pay more.

[Brendan Benedict]

Right, right. And it was so hard one to get to even 40 states adopting Medicaid expansion. We still haven't gotten those 10 other states since the passage of the Affordable Care act. And it's been obviously over a decade at this point. So this is a way to roll back the part, some of the best parts of the Affordable care Act. Over 20 million people got Medicaid under ACA expansion and these are broadly lower income adults who have no access to health care otherwise. So.

[Sam Seder]

All right. We're going to take quick break. When we come back, we're going to be talking to Brendan Benedict. We'll be right back after this. We are back. Sam Cedar, Emma Vigland on the Majority Report. Pleasure to welcome to the program. Brendan Benedict, antitrust and commercial litigation lawyer who also covers antitrust cases for the blog Big Tech on Trial. That's a division of Matt Stoller's substack Big, Big Money. I think it is. I just slipped my mind. Brendan, thanks for joining us. I know that you are right now outside of a courthouse, having been sitting in, I think it's on day five of the Meta TRIAL Day six Day six let's, let's start with Google. I know that there's only so much that you can talk about that because you, some of your work has touched on that case a little bit. But let's do some broad strokes on what's happening with Google and then we'll get to, to Metta. There's, there's really. Well, we have two sort of almost concurrent actions against Google and that are at different places in the course of their trials. Why don't you tell us about the first about the ad tech monopoly trial that Google was just found apparently liable of I guess a week ago.

[Will Kane]

Yeah, that's right. And thanks, Sam. Hi, Emmett. Thanks for having me. So there's two big major federal antitrust cases going on against Google and Google's lost both of those cases at the liability phase. The one that you referred to challenges Google's advertising technology platform and that was in the Eastern District of Virginia. And that's the ruling that we got last week that Google monopolized one of the markets that was defined in that case. And then here in the courthouse behind me in Washington D.C. there's a second proceeding starting this week that's going to look at remedies for the Google search case which Google lost earlier.

[Sam Seder]

Okay. So just so that people understand in these type of cases there's, there's essentially two big chapters. One is the liability. That's whether they are essentially guilty, for lack of a better term for me anyways, as a non lawyer, of maintaining a, in this case, Google is guilty of maintaining a monopoly in search and search ads in an uncompetitive manner. And so now the remedy, what is the government's remedy that they have proposed in that case?

[Emma Vigland]

Sure.

[Will Kane]

It's a number of things here in the Google search case, probably the headline grabber is that Google should divest the Chrome browser because that makes up a large point of access for maintaining the monopoly in Google search. About 35% of Google search results, Google searches originate from the Chrome browser. But there's other provisions that go with that too. So preventing Google from entering into exclusive agreements to use only Google search to the exclusion of competing search engines. Also some proposed terms around information sharing so that Google isn't just prohibited from doing the content that it did before, but now it has to do something extra to really remedy its position for marketing. Give it to competitor.

[Sam Seder]

Hold on, it sounds like there's a little bit of a hurricane there. Are you good?

[Will Kane]

Yeah. Can you hear me now?

[Sam Seder]

Yeah. That's much Better. Sorry.

[Will Kane]

So, anyway, we're talking about how there's multiple prongs here to what the government is seeking. Some of it is purely to stop Google from doing the same behavior. But other parts of its proposed remedy go beyond that, to really undo the fruits of it and put competitors in a position where they can actually compete.

[Sam Seder]

How? And just so that we're staying on somewhat of a broad level with Google, because of some of your conflicts, when the government is seeking a remedy in this way, they're looking to undo the original sin. They're looking to undo maybe some of the fruits of that original sin. But largely this is about creating a remedy for. To make sure that these things are not an issue going forward. Can you just sort of flesh that out for us?

[Will Kane]

Sure, yeah. And that's one of the things that's been teed up in the opening statements here in the remedies phase of the Google search trial. So I think Google's view is that, you know, the remedies really have to be matched to specific pieces of conduct that violates the law. But the government has a broader view. Once it's won its liability case, it can get remedies that, if it weren't otherwise ordered by the court, wouldn't be something that violates the antitrust laws. But now that Google did, it really has to suffer the consequences of that to put the market back in a position that it would have been in had competition been allowed. And really, the key thing here is AI. That's what a lot of the proceedings are focused on now. Trying to make sure that the next generation of innovators is able to make it out of the garage, can start up and compete against the big players who are now scrambling on AI. And Google search data gives it a pretty overwhelming advantage in building its AI products. So that's going to have to be part of the remedy so that we can unleash innovation going forward.

[Sam Seder]

How sensitive is the government to the prospect of AI in some way replacing search?

[Will Kane]

I think that's, you know, a big part of this case. I think what's interesting in the case the government is making, and some of this was discovery that actually happened after the Google liability trial. There's been more depositions, hundreds of thousands, if not millions more documents on this subject. So the government is very much focused on it, but it wants to make sure that once you peek under the hood of the AI, that there's actually new players in there. And so Google has an AI product called Gemini. But what the government's opening statement showed is that a lot of what looks like Gemini is actually just Google Search that's been rebranded as Gemini. And so you could see how Google's dominance of the search market then can help it carry forward and now take over this AI market.

[Brendan Benedict]

Could there be retroactive action with the Gemini AI product if it's determined that basically illegal monopolistic practices and data that was culled from that contributed to its growth?

[Emma Vigland]

Yeah, it could be.

[Will Kane]

I'm not totally up to speed on, on how much that's a focus, but I think it's definitely what the parties are disputing. What most of the remedies phases here is focused on products like Gemini and the broader AI space.

[Sam Seder]

Okay, let's turn to. And so how long, I mean, how long will this remedy phase of the, of the first Google monopoly trial last? And then when will the remedy phase of the ad tech monopolization trial begin?

[Will Kane]

So both good questions. I think the remedy phase for Google search, I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, but I would ballpark, you know, probably four or five weeks of testimony. There's a lot of witnesses there. As far as ad tech, I think they're still figuring that out. We just got the liability ruling last week. Google has already signaled that it plans to appeal that ruling, but that appeal probably won't happen until we get further along the Rebbe's phase. So I don't think anything's been scheduled yet in the Google Ad tech case, but we're keeping our eyes peeled for it.

[Sam Seder]

And if I remember correctly, and I wonder, as we pivot to the medicase, Google really tried to not have a lot of information disseminated during this trial. Am I remembering that correctly? And is Meta doing a similar thing?

[Will Kane]

Yeah, that's right. So, you know, I could talk about Meta's example, because that just happened a couple weeks ago, where the New York Times actually intervened in the FTC's trial to breakup Meta, seeking a regular disclosure schedule for exhibits that are introduced and shown in open court. Meta fought that they didn't want to agree to the New York Times disclosure schedule. Originally, they took the position that the public shouldn't be able to see entire documents. They should only be able to see the excerpts of documents that are actually spoken aloud in court. So the judge ruled against them on that. And we're getting exhibits now posted to a public Dropbox two days after they're admitted into evidence in court. So that's a good win for access. I still think, you know, under the terms of the order where Meta uploads exhibits, it has been using close to the full 48 hours before it puts exhibits up that it has to. And I think, you know, that's just interesting. If you kind of zoom out and think about what are Meta's odds in this trial. They say they have a really strong case, but it's a case that they don't want to tell the world about and don't want the world to see all the exhibits on. So I think, you know, you have to keep that in mind when you evaluate how good their case is.

[Sam Seder]

What, like, why do they put it up 48 hours? Like, I mean, you know, it seems to me if you're, if you got to put them up, does it really make a difference that it's 48 hours later or is that actually, like, does that actually make a difference? Like people, people just don't. You know, it's one thing to sort of get them in real time so you can come in the next day or at least as a, you know, a citizen, and follow the case and know that these documents are there. Is there an advantage, I guess I should say, to putting them up to 48 hours later as opposed to like mile six hours later?

[Will Kane]

Yeah, I think, you know, the parties agreed to this. It was a stipulation that the court entered. And I think the idea was that this would give them time to evaluate confidentiality. Although, you know, I think a lot of that confidentiality evaluation happens before they're even introduced in court. So, you know, I think the effect of it has been it makes it a little more difficult for reporters and folks like myself who are following along to at least show our readers, you know, this is the actual email that was introduced. So it kind of, you know, messes with the press cycle because we're getting stories out before we have a transcript, before we have copies of the exhibits, and then a couple days later, you know, that cycle has sort of ended and you've moved on to the next day. So it's a little bit frustrating. But I think what the court has done, which is very positive, is it's opened up dedicated media rooms both for the Google search remedies phase and for the FTC Meta trial. And they've been well attended and so folks have been able to report live from the courthouse.

[Sam Seder]

So what is the FTC's contention regarding Meta?

[Emma Vigland]

Sure.

[Will Kane]

So it's really a two part case. You know, the first part is that Meta is a monopolist in what it calls a personal social networking market. And Then the second part of that case is that Meta unlawfully maintained that monopoly with acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.

[Brendan Benedict]

Right. And can you go back a little bit in time to talk about those acquisitions? Because it's been a while, but people may not remember that, like, Instagram, when it was coming up in particular, was a major competitor to Facebook before Facebook. Now Meta acquired it.

[Will Kane]

That's right, yeah. And we've seen a lot of evidence to that effect. So Facebook acquired Instagram in 2012 and acquires WhatsApp in 2014. That's a billion dollars and $19 billion, respectively. So big deals at the time. It does go through a merger review process, and the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of justice, didn't do anything to hold that deal up. Now, that doesn't mean that they can't sue later. And that's part of what the first part of the case was about was, you know, can the government bring this case now that it's been, you know, more than a decade since the deal's closed? And the answer is yes, if you're a monopolist, the government can get an injunction to break you up. And it never signed off on those deals. It just declined to take action back at that time. And to the point about Instagram being a competitor or punitive competitor, we've certainly.

[Emma Vigland]

Seen, you know, a lot of evidence.

[Will Kane]

Early on in the case, especially last week, specifically emails from Mark Zuckerberg himself where he's worried about Instagram and also WhatsApp becoming competitors of Facebook and social networking, sort of building out from their feature set that they had already. And some of the language is pretty incriminating.

[Emma Vigland]

I mean, one of the emails.

[Sam Seder]

Brendan, let me just stop you for one second and ask you just to take a step to your left or to your right, because you're breaking up just a little bit. But I want.

[Brendan Benedict]

And we want to hear this.

[Sam Seder]

I want to hear this. But. And just so that people understand, like, the. The. The evidence that they're showing shows that, like, how much of intent do we need by Zuckerberg to, like, how much. What is the nature of the intent? These emails are going to show that. That. That they're worried about the expansion of. The expansion of Instagram and WhatsApp into sort of, like, areas that may compete with Facebook. What do we need to know from that? To know that there was some type of intent to monopolize? I guess.

[Will Kane]

Yeah. So it's an interesting question about intent, because intent is relevant to the extent that we are considering any competitive Effects from the deal, what actually happened. And Chief Judge Punsberg, who's overseeing this trial, said in an earlier phase of the case at summary judgment that evidence of Facebook's intent to acquire a nascent or upstart competitor would be highly probative of whether there were any competitive effects and whether it was illegally maintaining its monopoly. So emails from Mark Zuckerberg, I mean the one I was thinking about, about Instagram, he says, you know, one of the rationales, quote, to neutralize a potential competitor, end quote. He walks it back in another email saying, oh, I didn't mean to say we're taking out a competitor, but that was sort of his pre, pre edited thought.

[Maxwell Frost]

So wait a second.

[Sam Seder]

So, so wait a second. Give me, give me an idea. Does, does he send that letter email off. And then somebody internally, like they're, you know, in house counsel goes, hey boss, this is probably not good to have a paper trail of this, right?

[Will Kane]

Exactly. We haven't seen the in between that caused him to send his retraction email, but I think we can guess that something like that happened. And we see that a lot where Zuckerberg is just sending.

[Sam Seder]

Brendan, you know what? I think we're gonna, we're gonna ask you to call right back in if you could because we're just, we're still getting that digital breakup. But we think if you call back in, we'll hear, we'll, we'll, it will improve. Would you mind doing that? Just call us back in on that same number. Okay, thanks. All right, bear with us, folks. We're just working on some of our technical issues.

[Michael]

Oh, I didn't mean take out a competitor in an anti competitive fashion.

[Sam Seder]

I'm sorry, did I say.

[Brendan Benedict]

I meant on a date?

[Sam Seder]

Did I say take out a competitor?

[Michael]

We got a grind and up our game.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah, I just, I didn't mean take out a competitor. I just. Okay. Brendan, you back there? We were just doing our impersonations of, of Zuckerberg walking back his saying, take out a competitor in his writing.

[Brendan Benedict]

Yeah, right.

[Will Kane]

Spot on.

[Sam Seder]

So, so we don't. It is there like, I mean, I would imagine an in house lawyer saying, hey, you shouldn't put that in writing. Maybe you should walk it back. Probably didn't deliver that message to Zuckerberg via email. Would they have? Because wouldn't that be subject to disclosure?

[Emma Vigland]

Well, I think might say that that communication is privileged because it's seeking legal advice or it's legal advice being given. So we don't know what happened there. But you know, something, something Caused him to walk that statement back. But there's lots of others. And he makes, you know, a pretty clear and compliant case, using the language of economics, about how, you know, Facebook could face a death spiral if Instagram were successful in getting enough users off the platform. So that was part of the justification, in his view, for doing the deal.

[Sam Seder]

Before we, you know, speculate on potential remedies or the outcomes of this case. Why? I think there are still people. I mean, we've spoken to many, many people, and we've had Stoler on many, many times over the years, and others ranging from Lina Khan back when she was an academic pre ftc. But what in your telling, what's problematic with this? I mean, why don't we just look at this and go like, the guy's just doing business.

[Will Kane]

Right?

[Emma Vigland]

Yeah. So we want our markets to be free and fair because we think that the best results are delivered from competition. And I think this is something that, you know, goes back certainly to the time when we passed the antitrust laws in 1890, but longer than that, you know, it was in the Declaration of Independence, complaints about the King's monopolies. And I think there's a long tradition in our history that our political freedom is tied in some way to our economic freedom. And here, even before getting to politics, you have evidence of what the FTC is showing is that Facebook has degraded its quality over time. Users now see more and more advertising. They see more content from people that you don't even follow or you're not connected with. And now Facebook is trying to use sort of that very change in quality in its platform to say that actually we don't even have a personal social networking service anymore. You know, Facebook is just sort of a media app where you look at content that competes against TikTok. And so that kind of strikes me as, you know, kind of too cute. I think the FTC's evidence shows that consumers still want to have that core use case of friends and family sharing, learning what's happening with people in your life. Increasingly they're getting something that just commoditized, where it's incredibly increasingly just ads and junk instead of friends and family.

[Sam Seder]

Okay, so wait, so I just want to be clear here. I mean, so on one hand, the problem with this is in many respects the same reason why we don't want a plutocracy or an oligarchy within the context of our politics. This is intimately tied to the idea of the same type of concentration of wealth and power being used in a really less than democratic way in the marketplace. But you're arguing, or I should say Facebook, you're telling us that Facebook is now arguing that, well, we can't be considered a monopoly within this social media category because we're no longer in that category. We're just a. Well, I guess they wouldn't say they're a publisher, but we're just a platform where people put up content.

[Emma Vigland]

Yeah, that's basically right.

[Sam Seder]

And so their whole defense is just like, we're not what the FTC says we are, and therefore, I mean, could, theoretically, I mean, I could the FTC then come back and go, okay, well, then you're a monopoly of whatever category you want to pretend you are.

[Emma Vigland]

Yeah, they could do that. And I think one of the big arguments in the case is to what extent does meta compete against TikTok? Because if TikTok is in the same market as Meta, then maybe Meta's market shares go down and you need to have a high market share generally to be able to show that a defendant is a monopolist. So that changes the market share, makes it look like Meta is less of a monopolist. But even then, it's not clear that the FTC loses their case because it only takes Meta's market share down, according to meta, to about 60%, which is still enough under the case law to find a monopolist. But it may not end up making all that much difference. And I think, you know, the FTC's best comeback has been to play video testimony we saw last week from V. Pappas, who is the chief operating officer, briefly the interim head of TikTok, who said, TikTok is not a social network. TikTok is just built differently. It's built on a content graph, whereas Meta's apps are built around a social graph of who you're connected to. So, you know, I think Meta is putting a lot of eggs in that basket that it's just a content app like TikTok. And I'm not sure that that's what the evidence shows.

[Brendan Benedict]

It's not any. But. But that completely. That's relying on basically a definition of its services from, like, 12 or 13 years ago. Like, aren't there going to be internal documents that show their financials that contradict that very underpinning of, like, what they're advertising to or what they're saying to the court is their function as a site at this point? Because it's just not the case.

[Emma Vigland]

Yeah, I mean, I think that's what Meta is saying. I think Meta's saying that, you know, Maybe we were 12 years ago focused on this friends and family use case but the platform is just so big now. It does so many different things. There's Facebook Marketplace where you can buy and sell. There's Reels which is a short form video feature that competes with TikTok their stories which is you know, kind of copycat from Snapchat. So now that it's incorporated all these features it's just something different. And most of the time spent on the apps are now watching video. And so Facebook or Meta's argument is, you know, we compete with different video platforms. But that's why I would say kind.

[Sam Seder]

Of if we need my 19 year old daughter to come and testify, I do not think she would think Facebook is a competitor with TikTok at all. But, but be that as it may like, how does I can see what Facebook is doing here is they're trying to sort of like define themselves out of essentially what they're accused of. And I see the point that even. And the idea that if they can place themselves into a different marketplace, I mean it's analogous to my uncle used to years and years ago was a, a car dealer and he had a Chrysler dealership. And I remember when Chrysler bought a the gem electric car company that just sold like basically golf carts and added it to their fleet so that their CAFE standards would all drop. I mean that's what they're trying to do by saying that they're competing with Tick tock, that we just Tick tock exists in the same playing field is us and they have X amount of market share so we can't be considered monopolist. But isn't the idea that they actually have all of these various components and leverage them also sort of a potential, create a potential accusation of a monopoly because they're sort of like vertically or horizontally leveraging their power.

[Emma Vigland]

Yeah, that's right. I mean it's an economic idea that if you're a monopolist you can extend and use that power to move into what are called adjacent product markets. So that doesn't necessarily mean that Facebook doesn't have a social networking feature anymore. It was just so dominant in that feature. But now it has stories like Snapchat, it has rules like TikTok, it's been able to branch out into these other areas. And then the other thing you think about is, you know, a big focus of Meta's case is switching away users who you know, let's say the Maspo, the Meta apps have a blackout they go down, they don't work. Users shift their time to TikTok. But it's sort of a weird experiment.

[Will Kane]

Because you wouldn't really say that like.

[Emma Vigland]

Reading a book competes with Netflix just because you might read a book when you lose your power. Right, but those are the kind of arguments that Met is making.

[Sam Seder]

Let's. I mean, what's your sense at this point of, of, of the case, or is it too early to sort of get a sense of where you think this case is going to end?

[Emma Vigland]

Yeah, I think it's still early days where we're not even a quarter of the way through the witnesses. I do think that, you know, Meta has a very big and good team of lawyers and they're prepared and they're doing a good job, but it's just a really close case. And that's why I think this case is at trial. On TikTok. I mentioned the testimony we heard last week. It's not slam dunk for either side. Both sides, each side gets to score some points here. And I think cases are more likely to go to trial when the evidence is pretty balanced. And that's the kind of case that we have.

[Sam Seder]

Are you surprised as a antitrust lawyer that the Trump administration is continuing these cases in what appears to be the same sort of fervor as the Biden administration did?

[Brendan Benedict]

And while you were out, Sam, last week there was a report that in, I think it was the Wall Street Journal, that Zuckerberg had called the FTC trying to cut a deal now that Lina Khan is out under the Trump administration and offered like a, I think a half a billion dollar settlement. And the government was seeking tens of billions. And he was, according to the Journal, basically laughed off the call.

[Sam Seder]

Well, he probably should have also offered not to wear that necklace that he's wearing around or medallion walking around with the skateboard broccoli haircut. Exactly, yeah.

[Emma Vigland]

So, you know, I think they're good questions. And you have to remember these actions were actually brought by the Trump administration to begin with. Both the Google cases and the Medicase started during the first Trump administration. So there is a little bit of continuity there. And I think, you know, the personnel that the President has put in place here, Gail Slater at DOJ Antitrust and Andrew Ferguson, the new chair of the ftc, you know, they're enforcement minded folks. They, you know, kind of on the more aggressive side of enforcement. So, you know, I think there's continuity there. The Wall Street Journal reporting about Zuckerberg, I thought that was super interesting, especially because the FTC was demanding money and it's not clear to me how they get that money, whether they're trying to assess that as some sort of civil penalty under Section 5 of the FTC Act. There was a Supreme Court case a couple years ago that limited the FTC's ability to get money back when it wins an injunction. So, you know, I do have some concerns too, that whatever that meeting was, whatever the FTC proposal was, didn't actually involve divestment of Instagram and WhatsApp and instead really just saw it, you know, ransom.

[Sam Seder]

Right. We may see, we may see it more. If there is any discontinuity, we may see it more in the remedy phase. Ah, yeah, that's right. And is there ever been a remedy where they just force like the owner of a company to buy a bunch of meme coins? Is that ever a remedy?

[Emma Vigland]

Yeah, yeah, we'll be trying that one out.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah. I mean, do you think that Zuckerberg feels, I mean, and this may be outside of your portfolio, but I'm curious, based upon what you've watched so far, that Zuckerberg feels and that reporting from the Wall Street Journal that Zuckerberg feels like, did I go on Joe Rogan for nothing?

[Brendan Benedict]

Right.

[Sam Seder]

I mean, what about all the work I've put in on this?

[Will Kane]

Yeah, you know, and he's doing a.

[Sam Seder]

Lot more than that.

[Emma Vigland]

I mean, Meta donated a million dollars to President Trump's inauguration. Dana White is now on the board of Meta. Meta announced.

[Sam Seder]

Wait a second. What? I did not know that. Oh, well, of course, of course he would be.

[Brendan Benedict]

I mean, he has the expertise.

[Sam Seder]

That's fascinating.

[Will Kane]

He's a big tech guy.

[Emma Vigland]

Yeah.

[Will Kane]

So yeah, it's all kinds of stuff like that.

[Emma Vigland]

And I think Cal Towing to the administration a little bit on content discrimination type policies. So we have to remember, I mean, Meta made the, I think kind of incredible decision to ban the President of the United States while he was still in office from using their platforms. And I think there's still a lot of feelings there about Meta limiting information about mask skepticism during COVID or Hunter Biden's laptop. And that's what Chair Ferguson says at a lot of these events. Talking about the case is undoing the error of censorship. It's not something that's actually that we're hearing about in court because it's not really relevant to the trial, but I do think it's in the background and it's might be driving some of the decision making.

[Sam Seder]

Wendy, how long do you think this trial lasts? The Facebook, I mean the meta one.

[Emma Vigland]

So I would say at least five or six weeks. The judge wants to keep each side to 90 hours. The FTC wanted twice that time. There are some trial days reserved in June and July, so I might be on assignment into the summer, but I think six weeks is a good bet.

[Sam Seder]

All right, well, that's great. People can follow your reporting over at Big Tech on trial. Put a link to that and you're doing dispatches as far as I can tell it every day. And it's fascinating reading. It's going to be interesting to see where this goes. And at the very least it's somewhat encouraging that there is a maintenance of the prosecution. I guess we got some good news at least from the perspective of people who from a remedy phase in the Google, the first Google trial and I guess we'll, we'll have to wait and see whether that's carried through on the second one as well as in the event that Meta loses the liability part of this case in theirs as well. Brendan Benedict, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it.

[Emma Vigland]

Thanks for having me.

[Brendan Benedict]

Thank you.

[Sam Seder]

All right, folks, gonna take a quick break, head into the fun half of the program wherein we'll read some IMs and take your calls and also have fun. Yes, folks, don't forget it's your support that makes this show possible. You can become a member of the majority [e-mail] join themjorityreport.com when you do, you get the free half free of commercials. Then you also get the fun half. Join the MajorityReport.com it is your support that makes this show possible. Left Reckoning, what's happening? Yeah.

[Michael]

Megan, Day writer at Jack event. She's also doing some stuff with Mark Perfect Union on to talk about Doge Trump and the economy tonight, 7:00 Eastern. Patreon.com leftrec Quick break.

[Sam Seder]

Fun half. Three months from now, six months from now, nine months from now. And I don't think it's gonna be the same as it looks like in six months from now. And I don't know if it's necessarily gonna be better six months from now than it is three months from now. But I think around 18 months out, we're gonna look back and go like, wow, what, what is that going on? It's nuts. Wait a second. Hold on, hold on for a second. Emma, welcome to the program. Fun Half. Matt, Fun Hat. What is up, everyone? Fun Hat. Nomi Keen, you did it. Fun Hat.

[Brendan Benedict]

Let's go, Brandon, let's go.

[Sam Seder]

Brandon. Fun hat. Bradley, you want to say hello?

[Michael]

Sorry to disappoint everyone.

[Emma Vigland]

I'm just a random guy.

[Sam Seder]

It's all the boys today. Fundamentally false.

[Brendan Benedict]

No. I'm sorry.

[Sam Seder]

Women. Stop talking for a second. Let me finish.

[Maxwell Frost]

Where is this coming from?

[Brendan Benedict]

Dude.

[Sam Seder]

But.

[Will Kane]

Dude.

[Sam Seder]

You want to smoke this seven egg? Yes. Hi. Me.

[Emma Vigland]

You safe.

[Sam Seder]

Yes.

[Emma Vigland]

It is me. Is it me?

[Sam Seder]

It is you.

[Emma Vigland]

If it's me. Hello, it's me.

[Sam Seder]

I think it is you. Who is you. No sound. Every single freaking day. What's on your mind?

[Brendan Benedict]

Sports. We can discuss free markets.

[Sam Seder]

And we can discuss capitalism.

[Brendan Benedict]

I'm gonna go smart.

[Sam Seder]

Libertarians. They're so stupid. Though common sense says. Of course.

[Brendan Benedict]

Gobbledygook.

[Sam Seder]

We nailed him.

[Brendan Benedict]

So what's 79? 21.

[Sam Seder]

Challenge. Man, I'm positively quivering. I believe 96. I want to say 857. 210. 5,000. One, one half. Three, eight, nine.

[Michael]

11.

[Sam Seder]

For instance.

[Brendan Benedict]

$3,400. $1,900. 54.

[Sam Seder]

$3 trillion. Sold. It's a zero sum game.

[Brendan Benedict]

Actually. You're making me think less.

[Sam Seder]

Wait. But let me say this.

[Emma Vigland]

Poop.

[Sam Seder]

Call it satire. Sam goes satire. On top of it all.

[Emma Vigland]

My favorite part about you is just.

[Sam Seder]

Like every day, all day, like everything you do. Without a doubt. Hey, buddy. We see you. All right, folks, Folks, folks.

[Brendan Benedict]

It's just the week being weeded out. Obviously.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah. Sun's out, guns out. I, I, I don't know.

[Brendan Benedict]

But you should know, people just don't.

[Michael]

Like to entertain ideas anymore.

[Sam Seder]

I have a question. Who cares?

[Michael]

Our chat is enabled, folks.

[Sam Seder]

I love it.

[Brendan Benedict]

I do love that.

[Sam Seder]

Gotta jump. Gotta be quick. I gotta jump. I'm losing it, bro. 2:00. We're already late and the guy's being a dick. So screw them. Sent to a gulag.

[Brendan Benedict]

Outrageous.

[Sam Seder]

Like, what is wrong with you?

[Emma Vigland]

Love you.

[Will Kane]

Bye.

[Sam Seder]

Love you. Bye.