Loading summary
Transcript53 lines
- [00:01]
Elliot Stein
The thing about AI for business? It may not automatically fit the way your business works. At IBM, we've seen this firsthand. But by embedding AI across hr, IT and procurement processes, we've reduced costs by millions, slash repetitive tasks, and freed thousands of hours for strategic work. Now we're helping companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business.
- [00:29]
IBM Narrator
IBM when you're running a business, the best days are the ones where priorities stay on track. For midsize and large companies, that isn't always easy. Risk can touch multiple parts of an organization at the same time, often in ways that aren't immediately obvious. It might involve property liability or cyber. It could stem from regulatory requirements or challenges tied to a specific industry or the scale of an operation. At that level, managing risk becomes an ongoing discipline, not a one time decision. the Hartford, the focus is on helping businesses manage risk before it turns into something more disruptive. That means working with companies to identify where they're exposed, decide what matters most, and put practical standards in place so risk is managed as part of day to day operations. And when losses do happen, the Hartford can pair that risk control work with insurance coverage grounded in underwriting, risk engineering and claims experience developed over time. Learn more@theheartford.com RiskMitigation wise is the smart
- [01:30]
Wise Narrator
way to manage the currencies you need around the globe. When you send money abroad using your bank, you could get hit with hidden fees and exchange rate markups. There's a better way, Try Wise. Wise uses the exchange rate you'd usually find on Google, with no unwelcome surprises. Plus, most transfers happen in under 20 seconds, which means your money arrives in less time than you've been listening to me. It's simple and free to sign up when you download the Wise app. Be Smart, Get Wise, Tease it sees a.
- [02:14]
Elliot Stein
Hello and welcome to the Votes and Verdicts podcast hosted by the Litigation and policy team at Bloomberg Intelligence, the investment research platform of Bloomberg LP. On the Bloomberg Terminal, Bloomberg Intelligence has 500 analysts and strategists working across the globe and focused on all major markets. Our coverage includes over 2,000 equities and credits, and we have outlooks on more than 90 industries and 100 market indices, currencies and commodities. This podcast series examines the intersection of business policy and law. My name's Elliot Stein. I'm an analyst with BI covering litigation in the financial sector, and I'm delighted today to be joined as always, by several of my BI colleagues just to timestamp this. Today is July 16, 2026. It's about 10:00am here in New York. And this is our weekly look at some of the most important litigation and policy catalysts that our team is watching and that we think will impact companies across a number of different sectors in the coming weeks. As always, you can find all of our research on the Bloomberg terminal at bi Go. You can find our litigation and policy dashboard on the terminal at bi FBI Laws. Go. And with that, let's get going. Nathan Dean, our chief policy analyst down in D.C. let's bring you in. How you doing, Nathan? I know you were off last week. You, Rick, you.
- [03:32]
Nathan Dean
Yeah.
- [03:34]
Elliot Stein
You recovered? Recovered from vacation as much as can
- [03:37]
Nathan Dean
be recovered when it's 102 degrees outside.
- [03:39]
Elliot Stein
So, yeah, bands looked a little, although,
- [03:42]
Nathan Dean
because Tamlin is on the call, I'll say 102 degrees in the United States with aircon is a lot better than 35 degrees in London without air conditioning.
- [03:51]
Elliot Stein
So this is true. This is true. One of our great inventions, air conditioning. Okay, Nathan. So the big news out of D.C. last weekend was the unexpected passing of Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Graham's sister is going to serve the remainder of his term this year. There's going to be a special primary election this summer, I believe, for Republicans to name a nominee for the general election in November, since Senator Graham was up for reelection this year. But with all that in mind, let's talk about what this means for President Trump's legislative agenda. What are you thinking there?
- [04:27]
Nathan Dean
Yeah. So, you know, I hate to say the word lame duck.
- [04:31]
Elliot Stein
You know, you just said it.
- [04:34]
Nathan Dean
But what I'll say is, is that, you know, when you think of President Trump, think of legislative lame duck, because President Trump's going to do a lot of things outside of legislation that, you know, are not going to mean that he is a lame duck. But when it comes to legislation, in the passing of Senator Graham, this is really where it's going to impact is the reconciliation 3.0 debate. So, you know, obviously, let's just get back real quickly. The reason why Senator elect now Senator Graham, you know, Senator Darlene Graham, is in place is because essentially as a caretaker role, the primary election in South Carolina is on August 11th. There are a lot of people in the House who wants this seat. But Speaker Johnson essentially told Governor McMaster, Please don't pick anybody from the House because when you only have about 219 to 212 at the moment, every seat matters. And so those individuals who want to go from the House to the Senate are going to have to go into the primary election, and then they'll go into the regular election, and then next year you'll have a new senator. But getting Back to reconciliation 3.0, the reason why this matters is because for all the things that Senator Graham, the former Senator Graham, was doing as Chairman of the Senate budget committee, reconciliation 3.0 was going to be his thing that he was going to put out there. Now it's starting in the House. So just this week, the House Republicans released their resolution plan. It's around $95 billion in spending. It's about $60 billion for the Department of Defense for the Iranian war. And most of that would actually go towards weapons and ammunition. So if you're trying to look at this from a modeling perspective, if you're looking at the defense contractors, you're. You're getting a little bit additional bump for those companies like Northrop Grumman and Boeing and so forth like that. In addition to the appropriations process, which is going outside of that, you get $13 billion for intelligence, you get $12 billion for farm aid. Now, if you're looking at this from the investment point of view, there's really no companies here. This is going to go to mom and pop farmers, and a lot of this is going to be for fertilizer and seeds. So if you're trying to model the economic impact of how that get back to those companies, you're essentially going to have to look at those companies that are involved in the actual planting of crops, because. Cause that's where a lot of this money is gonna go for. And then you got $10 billion that actually tries to implement the Save America Act. Now, this is the bill that President Trump's been pushing for a lot. This is the bill that would put citizenship requirements on voting. And if you're listening to us from outside the United States, just as a friendly reminder, voting rights in the United States are largely determined by the states. Sorry, voting laws are largely determined by the states, not at the federal level. Now, what the $10 billion here would do would actually give states who implement a version of the Save America act grants. So it's a way to incentivize the Save America act and actually to try and get it through the Senate parliamentarian. Because if you were just to incorporate Save America act, right, as it is, into reconciliation, the Senate parliamentarian is going to say, no, you can't do that. So where does this go from here? So the House is actually going to leave town today. They are going to try and have a vote on this before the August recess. There's going to be a lot of challenge here. I'm not going to say it's not going to happen, but I would just say is there's going to be a lot of headwinds and I'll have my updated odds for the terminal client next week on this. But it is going to be very difficult because the $95 billion here, there's no offsets, which means the fiscal hawks are like, why are you going to increase the deficit by $95 billion? There's no tax changes in here. Which is very, if you're the Jason Smith, the House Ways and Means Committee chairman, you wanted tax changes in here, there's no tax changes in here. And then finally the Senate is involved, there isn't involved. And so when it gets to the Senate, Susan Collins, who's running for reelection, think about it this way. There are three votes in here. There's a vote for farm aid, there's a vote for the Iranian war, and there's a vote for the Save America Act. All that is included in this bill. Farm aid is popular. Everybody should be okay with that. Iranian war, not popular. So a lot of Republicans are going to feel a little uneasy about voting for increased funding right before an election. And then you got to vote on the Save America act, which a lot of the senators will say can't fly through the Senate parliamentarian. Anyway, long story short is that if the Senate were to take this up, it's going to be in September. So we have a lot of times to figure it out. But right now I'm still thinking it's
- [08:49]
Elliot Stein
not going to pass, is there? I mean, could they just do the farm aid piece and not the other two?
- [08:55]
Nathan Dean
Yeah, they could. Honestly, they could. But, you know, the reason why they included it in here was just that there are very few. It was anticipated that it would go through the farm bill. The Democrats are opposing the farm bill as it is right now, and it's just another vehicle to get it to the president's desk, which doesn't allow for to take up floor time. So that's why, that's why it's included in here.
- [09:18]
Elliot Stein
Got it. All right. Anything else you're watching this week in, in D.C. or just as you know,
- [09:26]
Nathan Dean
tonight, President Trump is addressing the nation. That address is most likely going to do with voter elections from the 2000s, so not really much of an investing impact. So if you're listening to this afterwards and it's changed, you know, obviously give us a Call, but I don't think it's going to be much of an impact on the markets.
- [09:43]
Elliot Stein
Got it. All right, good stuff, Nathan. Thanks. All right, let's bring in Tamlin Basin, who Tamlin covers many things. He covers some software companies and he covers EU regulations in the tech sector and he also covers IP litigation in the tech sector in the US primarily. So, Tamlin, the other big news this weekend or this past weekend, I think came on Friday actually was Apple suing OpenAI, accusing OpenAI and a couple of its senior executives of stealing trade secrets from Apple. I think on the heels of that, this week we heard that OpenAI plans to introduce its first consumer device, which is going to be some sort of like smart speaker, I think. So Tamlin, tell us more about the lawsuit. I know it's very early in the litigation, but, you know, give us a sense of what's at stake and how you see it playing out.
- [10:34]
Tamlin Basin
Yeah, sure, Elliot. Yeah. So on July 10, and it was Friday evening, Apple did sue OpenAI. And this was in the Northern District of California federal court. And you're right, it was alleging trade secret misappropriation, both against OpenAI as well as against some executives. Now, some of those executives came over to OpenAI when OpenAI acquired a company called IO for about $6.5 billion in 2025. Now this was a company that was really intending to help jumpstart its sort of inroads into developing hardware, so hardware, AI devices. That, that is sort of a growth area that OpenAI has been talking about for a while. I o was, was in turn founded by former Apple executives. So quite a bit of melodrama here. One of those executives was Jony I've who sort of, sort of a rock star in terms of helping to design the Apple phone and other high profile, well loved consumer facing devices. So essentially what OpenAI has been accused of is one, they have allegedly hired over 400 Apple executives. One of those IO co founders, another former Apple exec, is currently the hardware leader at OpenAI. And the allegations in the complaint are that OpenAI is sort of methodically targeting Apple engineers, asking them to come to interviews. So poaching, of course, not against the law, but what Apple is accusing OpenAI of doing is encouraging these potential employees to bring Apple devices they're working on to bring knowledge about their sort of supply chain, really to go over the line in terms of what is allowable in sort of under the federal trade secret law. So Apple has sort of filed this lawsuit and they are, I think, going to be following this up with a request for a preliminary injunction. I think that's where the most notable and near term risk to OpenAI is, is if the corporate it grants that preliminary injunction and I think probably it will. You did you mentioned this, the speaker in OpenAI has sort of the reporting on this was that they think it's different enough from anything that Apple has put out that it should be clear. I think Apple is probably going to have a different stance on that. And I think what Apple is going to be asking the judge to do is to really look into this, find out what materials may have been misappropriated from Apple, put sort of a guardrails around those so that OpenAI cannot use those in any of its hardware development and sort of freeze things as they are until this litigation plays out. It's a bit of a surprising case in that Apple is not often one to assert ip. I think there's a notable exception and that was when it went after Samsung and this is litigation that was initiated by Steve jobs back in 2011 I believe and that was over design patents related to the iPhone. So when Apple does go after other companies, usually on ip, it does so in a way that it thinks will protect its moat. And I think this is another case here where it's really, it feels like it was wrong and it wants to put a stop to what it thinks is some unfair practices by OpenAI.
- [13:52]
Elliot Stein
Did the complaint specify like the types of devices at issue? I mean did it talk about the smart speaker or did it not get into that?
- [14:00]
Tamlin Basin
It didn't get into that necessarily. Again, OpenAI hasn't put anything on to market yet and I think that's something that weighs in favor of issuing the injunction. Now, the preliminary injunction now there's nothing out there. So the irreparable harm probably is going to be in Apple's favor on a lot of these devices. Just again, because you're not asking an open AI to pull anything off the market. What you are saying is pause development, let's see where this IP came from. If it is tied to us, then we need to put an end to it. Now that makes this whole thing going forward a bit easier from judicial perspective. And that's why I think the judge is probably going to be inclined to grant some form of preliminary relief to Apple.
- [14:40]
Elliot Stein
That makes sense. And I know, I mean I didn't read the complaint, I just read the news articles about it, but I know you read the complaint. Some of the emails that the articles allude to, you know, don't sound great for OpenAI?
- [14:53]
Tamlin Basin
No, I mean, of all IP cases, trade secret ones are the ones that are always the most melodramatic just by their nature. It's much more intriguing to read about, you know, executives contemplating on what they may bring with them rather than, you know, technical patent infringement claims. But certainly some of the, some of the allegations that Apple OpenAI executives who still had access to Apple's system were encouraged to go in there. There was claims that it was sort of a bug. So it gets kind of close to sort of hacking allegations. And I think, you know, those, those certainly don't look favorable. And that's sort of the other large risk I think OpenAI is facing. And that's sort of a reputational risk. This is a company that's trying to make the argument to the markets that it has strong governance, that it can go public, that you don't have to worry too much about what's under the hood and when you're being sued. Incidentally, they were also sued by Elon Musk xai on trade secret misappropriation claims. Those claims were entirely dismissed because there was no nexus. There was some executives who left XAI went over into OpenAI, but the complaint did nothing to sort of tie their alleged wrongdoing to the complaint. I think Apple's complaint does a much better job of alleging that nexus between the parent company and the allegations. So I think it's an unfortunate timing for OpenAI's perspective to be hit with this lawsuit from Apple which is a fairly large and well respected company globally.
- [16:25]
Elliot Stein
Well, going to be a super interesting case to follow. I look forward to your updates in this melodrama. All right, thanks, Tamlin. All right, Holly Frome, let's bring you in. Let's turn to some litigation that you've been following. There was an important appeals court ruling from earlier this week in lawsuits against Johnson and Johnson and its Ken View spin off in cases alleging that Tylenol causes autism and adhd. You'll tell us more about it. But I think just to summarize, the court, I think reinstated some of plaintiff's experts who had been dismissed previously. So tell us more about the ruling and why it's important for this litigation.
- [17:06]
Holly Frome
Okay, thanks, Elliot. So Johnson and Johnson and its Consumer Health Unit, as you mentioned, canview, they've been sued over claims that prenatal Tylenol usage causes autism and adhd. So in order to prove these cases, the first thing that the, besides, you know, proving that they use Tylenol, the consumers have to show that this could generally cause ADHD and, or, or autism. And so in order to do that, they need an expert, because a Lehman juror would not be able to decide whether this causes ADHD or autism without expert testimony. So plaintiffs need to have admissible expert testimony. But the federal courts and courts in most jurisdictions are charged with a gatekeeping function. In federal court, it's called, like, it's consistent with the Daubert doctrine. And in, in federal court, the judges have to make sure that the experts are reliable. And if they are not reliable, then they can't, cannot testify. Because there is a concern that, you know, experts who have, you know, doctorates or some kind of degrees will sway the jury. And if they are not relying on reliable studies or doing what other experts in the field would do, then they don't want jurors just accepting their testimony, so they won't even allow them to testify. So what happened in these cases is In December of 2023, the lower court presiding over pretrial proceedings in federal court granted the defendant's Daubert motions, the company's Daubert motions, and found all five of plaintiff's experts were unreliable and barred them from testifying. Plaintiffs tried to introduce a new expert to address the deficiencies that the judge highlighted in her Daubert decision. But in 2024, she dismissed that expert as well. So on July 13th of this year, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court as to three of the experts, and they said that they should have been admitted. The court substituted its judgment for the judgment of the jury. And the flaws that she found go to the weight of the evidence, not admissibility. So the appellate court reversed as to those three experts in point, importantly, one of those experts is an epidemiologist. And epidemiologist testifies to the incidence of disease and people exposed to the substances as opposed to those not exposed. And plaintiff's expert will be allowed to testify that based on studies he reviewed, he thinks there's an increased risk of ADHD and autism in people whose mother's taken Tylenol during pregnancy. But the court upheld the exclusion of two witnesses and vacated as to the final witness and remanded for the lower court to reconsider exclusion of that witness. So three of the experts will now be admitted and the cases are reinstated. They'll go back to the lower court, and the next step probably will be the court will hear plaintiff's motions to bar the experts of defendants. She didn't hear those motions because she denied them as moot once she barred plaintiff's experts, so now she has to decide those. And if those motions aren't denied, the judge could still find that after she considers all the expert testimony, that there are no fact disputes, and no reasonable juror could find that based on the evidence, the scientific evidence presented, that this causes ADHD and autism. But I think that would be very difficult for the judge to find. So if summary judgment based on general causation is denied, which I think it will be, the next step that consumers have to pass is to get their specific causation experts admitted. And specific causation experts testify that the general causation experts say this can generally cause ADHD or Tylenol or autism. But. But the specific causation experts say this caused the autism or ADHD in this specific baby plaintiff. And in order to. And usually what they do is like what's called a differential diagnosis, which means that they go through other risk factors that could have caused autism or ADHD and explain why they don't think those cause the autism or adhd. They think it was Tylenol. So if the judge denies Dalbert motions on the specific causation, then experts, the next step will be trial. And I think in terms of timing, I think that hearings on specific causation experts will be held before 4Q or 2027.
- [21:26]
Elliot Stein
So do you think this case goes to trial?
- [21:27]
Holly Frome
I think it will, yeah.
- [21:28]
Elliot Stein
Oh, wow. And what's the time? When do they have a trial date?
- [21:31]
Holly Frome
There's no trial date. They still have to get through this. Specific causation experts. I don't think that that will happen. You know, the brief, they have to do briefing, and then they have to have a hearing, and then there has to be decisions. So I don't think that the specific causation experts will be admitted before 2027.
- [21:47]
Elliot Stein
Wow. Okay. So relatively long timeline. But you think. I mean, settlement's always an option. Of course. But you think this case goes to trial before any sort of settlement, if there's any.
- [21:57]
Holly Frome
Yeah, I mean, typically, companies won't settle until some bellwethers are held, so they don't usually settle until some trials are held. I mean, there are exceptions to that. There have been exceptions. I've seen cases where the judge doesn't decide the Daubert motions, and then the parties settle during that time. And sometimes the judges really want cases to settle, so they won't decide Daubert, and they just kind of let it linger. But if, you know, this judge, I think, was relatively quick in terms of Deciding things. So if she does decide the Daubert motions, I think that they will go to trial and I think that the companies are not going to want to settle until they see how they do at trial.
- [22:38]
Elliot Stein
Right. So we've had no bellwether trials here. Are there, Are there? You've been talking about federal cases, which I assume they're all consolidated, or are there multiple different cases going on and are there some state cases, too?
- [22:51]
Holly Frome
The federal cases are consolidated before the one judge in the Southern District of New York, that was the judge that dismissed the experts. There were about 500 cases when she dismissed the experts. And there may be some state cases, but we just don't know.
- [23:07]
Elliot Stein
Oh, interesting. And, and sort of my last question is how much is at stake here for Ken View?
- [23:12]
Holly Frome
Well, I've said, you know, we don't know how many plaintiffs there will be.
- [23:16]
Elliot Stein
Right.
- [23:17]
Holly Frome
But you know, based on the number of plaintiffs that we think may file, we've, we said between 3 and 10 billion.
- [23:24]
Elliot Stein
Wow. And, and that's like damages, exposure or potential settlement.
- [23:29]
Holly Frome
That settlement value. Yeah.
- [23:30]
Elliot Stein
Okay. Well. Okay. High stakes litigation. All right, Holly, thanks as always for simplifying what are otherwise very complex cases. All right, we are going to turn to Justin Teresi now. Justin, welcome back. Well, last week you were on this episode on this podcast talking about legislature in New York passing a one year moratorium on data centers. This past week it sounds like Governor Hochul signed an executive order to the same effect, maybe stealing the thunder from the legislature. But my question to you is, does that change anything, that she signed an EO instead of having the legislation take effect. And you've also written that, you know, New York is the first state to have this kind of moratorium on data centers, but it might not be the last. So what are you thinking there as well?
- [24:23]
Justin Teresi
Yeah, I mean, a lot can change in a week. That's, that's definitely a lesson to take away from this one. But look, I think this is a massive power play by Governor Hochul here. Right. We, we predicted last week actually that, you know, that it could be some executive action taken by the governor between now and the elections in the fall. She's up for reelection. You know, she was already having a little bit happening in terms of rate making at the state Public Service Commission around these larger load customers like data centers and what they should be paying, paying for their own fair share of the grid resources they were consuming or planning to consume. This went much further, I think, than we were even anticipating she would go in terms of Executive action this past week and really establishes this moratorium on new data centers for at least a year long period through virtue of that executive order. So definitely stepping on the legislature's toes a little bit here, I'd say. But look, this is an incredible, incredibly big issue in upstate New York. She trends a lot weaker in upstate New York, even though she comes from the Buffalo area. And this really, I think, is an opportunity to really ensure that stronger footing that she has in the gubernatorial election as well against Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman. So lots of reasons why I think we saw this happen, but that really seems to be electoral politics at play.
- [25:44]
Elliot Stein
But it's just a moratorium on new data centers, right? Does it do anything to existing data centers?
- [25:52]
Justin Teresi
It doesn't, unless they're seeking to expand. So it does cover expansion of existing centers if they want to want to step forward here and really grow their grid consumption from what they're currently doing. There's a couple of large centers outside of Rochester right now upstate that I think that this is really, you know, targeting that, that kind of build too, if you will. There's a lot of opposition. I think there's a third one proposed in that area right now. So, you know, it's not a, not a non issue. There are certainly things in the pipeline that fall into the ambit of this particular EO as well. But look, I think in terms of timing and what this looks like rolling out, I think this has the potential to really drag on for more than a year. And I think this is also a blueprint that could really be followed by other states. But what's basically happened is that there's only so much can happen through the EO without the agency stepping in and doing some notice and comment rulemaking. So I think depending on how that rolls out, depending on the rule and factors that really come into play here from that rulemaking as to what should be considered for permitting, we could really be looking at longer than a year here in terms of a moratorium and how long that lasts. I think it really depends on who gets involved, what that implementation looks like. And really I think it could go for quite a while. I mean, if we look at a list of environmental factors to be considered that are 10, 15 factors long, that really has the potential to delay these things for longer than longer than a year. I think when all of that is
- [27:12]
Elliot Stein
really being figured out and have any other states talked about doing this for a straight moratorium?
- [27:18]
Justin Teresi
Nothing this consequential. Maine tried to pass one earlier this year. It was vetoed by the governor there, interestingly enough. But a lot of the state activity so far has really focused on these tax incentives and rolling back these tax incentives to get these data centers to come in. So I think it's really going to see this really, I think, lays a foundation for other states to follow. Most state legislatures, again, they're adjourned now until next January in most places. So we could see similar executive action I think in other places. But so far, this really is a first of its kind of action here with a moratorium and all new large data center applications.
- [27:55]
Elliot Stein
Wait, most state legislatures are adjourned until the new year? Like, when do these people work?
- [28:00]
Nathan Dean
Yeah, yeah.
- [28:00]
Justin Teresi
You know, I never knew this until I worked in them. But interestingly enough, even in New York rural in session from January to June every year unless something kind of comes up that really requires a special session. But some of these states only meet for a couple weeks every two years. It's really something most folks aren't aware of, but it really varies state to state. And for whatever reason, all that work seems to happen in the first six months of the year in most places, if it happens at all. So, yeah, definitely something to keep in mind on the timeline here, too.
- [28:30]
Elliot Stein
Yeah, that's really interesting. I mean, something to keep in mind in terms of we should talk to management and see if we can get a schedule like that for us.
- [28:37]
Justin Teresi
I would love it. Sounds great. Yeah.
- [28:40]
Elliot Stein
All right, Justin, good stuff. I know this is going to be a hot topic certainly through the next presidential election, I have to imagine. So looking forward to hearing more from you on this. All right, so another big thing that happened this week, just in the last couple days, is that several states have sued to challenge Paramount's bid for Warner Brothers discovery. Our analyst who covers that is Jen Rhee. She's our antitrust guru. But she's on vacation today, unfortunately. So when she gets back, we'll, we'll have her on to talk about that case. And then just lastly, one thing I'm watching in the coming days is an amended complaint that's due Friday, July 17, which is tomorrow by Trump Family Businesses against Capital One the bank. Just as a reminder for those who don't follow this litigation, several Trump affiliated business units sued Capital One in Florida in March of 2025, accusing the bank of improperly closing accounts without notice for political reasons. Following the events at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, Trump, as probably most people or some people are aware, has also filed a similar lawsuit against JP Morgan, which is also ongoing. But in the Capital One suit, the trial court dismissed the original complaint in March of this year. But it gave the Trump entities a chance to bolster their allegations after giving them an opportunity to collect some evidence. And that amended complaint is due July 17th. Obviously, I haven't seen the new complaint, but my general sense is my general view has been that it's going to be hard for the Trump entities to show that Capital One violated any law or any contract. We think Capital One has strong arguments that its account agreements gave it broad discretion to close accounts and that it acted not because of any political views, but due to concerns after January 6, 2021, which led to Trump's impeachment and prosecution. And moreover, Florida has a law that prevents debanking, but it wasn't enacted until 2024, which is after the events at issue in the litigation. So I think it's unlike, you know, I think it's unlikely that the Trump entities are going to prevail on this. But if Capital One somehow is unable to win its next anticipated motion to dismiss, you know, I can't rule out a settlement at some point in the low double digit millions, probably like we've seen other companies pay Trump to get rid of other lawsuits. But that potential outcome is still a ways away since we haven't even seen the amended claims yet. But that's what I'm going to be looking for tomorrow. So looking forward to having some light reading over the weekend of that complaint and hopefully have an update out early next week. All right, I think with that, we'll wrap up this episode of Votes and Verdicts. As always, thank you for listening. If you have any questions about any of the cases we talked about today, don't hesitate to reach out to us at your convenience with questions. You can email or call us, but the best way to reach us if you have a Bloomberg Terminal is to IB us Instant Bloomberg. As a reminder, you can find all of our research on the Bloomberg Terminal at BI Go. Our litigation and policy dashboard is available at BI LawsGo. We want to thank our producers, Aditya Somani and Mariam Traori, without whom this episode would never publish. Thank you again for listening. Have a great day and we'll see you next week.
- [32:23]
Holly Frome
Healthcare doesn't always work great. If you've ever waited on a refill or couldn't schedule an appointment, you get it. That's the kind of stuff Optum is changing. They're using data and technology to integrate patient care, pharmacy and everything else. So healthcare is connected, not complicated. What's that look like? Cheaper prescriptions that are easier to get and care that looks at the whole person how you need it. Optum is helping make healthcare work as one for everyone. Learn more@business.optum.com these days it seems like
- [32:54]
Wise Narrator
AI agents are just about everywhere you turn every field and every function. But without identity, you can't trust they'll serve your business instead of jeopardizing it. Fortunately, Okta helps you get identity right by securing your AI agents identities, giving you a single layer of control, a single standard of trust. So whether an AI agent supports a single user or your entire enterprise, with Okta you'll turn risk into opportunity. Secure every agent, secure any agent Okta secures. AI Wise is the smart way to manage the currencies you need around the globe. When you send money abroad using your bank, you could get hit with hidden fees and exchange rate markups. There's a better way. Try Wise. Wise uses the exchange rate you'd usually find on Google, with no unwelcome surprises. Plus, most transfers happen in under 20 seconds, which means your money arrives in less time than you've been listening to me. It's simple and free to sign up when you download the Wise app. Be smart. Get Wise T's and C's Apply.