Bloomberg LawBloomberg Supreme Court Reporter Greg Stohr discusses the court ruling upholding regulations for ghost guns. Collin Walke, a partner and head of the cybersecurity and data privacy practice at Hall Estill, discusses the implications of the bankruptcy of 23andMe. Pat Parenteau, an environmental law professor at the Vermont Law & Graduate School, discusses a jury verdict that could bankrupt Greenpeace. June Grasso hosts.
This is Bloomberg Law with June grosseol from Bloomberg Radio.
In a seven to two decision, the Supreme Court today upheld the federal regulation of build at home ghost gun kits. The decision keeps in force a twenty twenty two rule put in place during the Biden administration that subjects commercially sold gunkits to the same requirements as fully assembled firearms, requiring serial numbers and background checks. Joining me is Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store Greg This wasn't a Second Amendment case. What was the issue here?
The issue is whether federal regulators, in particular the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, had the authority to regulate these so called ghost gun kits under the existing gun laws. So, the existing gun laws give the government power to put regulations like background checks, things like that on fully bold firearms. And the question is, well, what if they're not fully assembled?
And Justice Neil Gorsich wrote for the majority, the seven justices in the majority, what was the basis of his opinion?
Yeah, so it was a pretty technical opinion. And looking he's very much a textualis likes to look at the text of the law, and so he looked at the text of the nineteen sixty eight Gun Control Act, and he said that the regulation that ATF had put in place to regulate these kids met within the definition of a firearm in that nineteen sixty eight law.
Not surprising there were descents from Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Yeah, so, at least on the surface, they were mostly focused on the language, and Justice Thomas disagreed with Justice Gorsich on what that nineteen sixty eight law allows. Justice thomas Is dissent was twenty six pages, so it too was very very technical. Justice Alito added his own descent that was a bit shorter and sort of focused on some of the procedural aspects of the case, including criticism that the way the Court decided the case as a so called facial challenge to this regulation wasn't exactly the way it was argued.
So is a ruling in favor of gun regulations from this court a surprise to any extent.
And it is perhaps a mild surprise, the argument suggested this might be the outcome. But if you go back just a term ago, a similar kind of argument, again having to do a statute or interpretation, not the Second Amendment. The court struck down the Trump administration's ban on so called bump stocks, those devices that convert a semi automatic weapon into something akin to a machine gun, so that decision perhaps voted poorly for this to the extent, both were actually focused on the extent of the federal government's authority over to regulate guns. But there are different statutes and different provisions, and so the cases came out differently.
It was also a bit surprising considering that the Court has been so skeptical in the last couple of years of administrative agency powers, and I would say, particularly Justice.
Gorsag, yes, he has been. And certainly if you look at that big decision from last term where the Court said we're no longer going to defer to agencies on the meaning of ambiguous statutes, that sort of thing does suggest that, you know, the Court isn't going to let agencies have their way in cases like this. But again, this is about this particular statute, and looking at the words of the statue, a majority of the Court said that, you know, just because a kit isn't fully assembled, if it still has the components of an ir arm, that's that's enough.
Do we know how the Trump administration is going to handle this, because this is a rule from the Biden administration and he signed in order requiring the AG to review gun regulations. So is it sort of up in the air.
Yeah, that's a really good point, and we don't know. Yes, indeed, it is up in the air. The Trump administration didn't take a position on this. The challengers to this regulation have called on the Attorney General, Pam Bondy, to take another look at this issue and toss out the regulation, and the Justice Department, when I asked them for comment, just said we support people's Second Amendment rights, which of course isn't what this case is about. So we really don't know what they're.
Going to do.
This was a reversal of the Fifth Circuit, the most conservative circuit in the country, and the oral arguments today regarding the FCC may also result in an overturning of the Fifth Circuit.
It might well. The arguments to today are about this program known as the Universal Service Fund, which is a program eight billion dollar program run by the SEC that imposes a charge on your phone bill and uses that money to cover to subsidize phone and internet service for poor people, folks who live in rural areas, schools, libraries, rural hospitals, things like that, And it was a constitutional challenge saying that essentially the core of it was that Congress had delegated too much of its authority, too much of its taxing authority to the FCC to determine how big this fee is on your phone bill. And based on the argument today, it sounds like the Supreme Court isn't buying that that they are going to uphold this program.
That would be another win for a federal agency in this term. I'm keeping track. I'm also trying to keep track of the Justice Department fast tracking cases over Trump's efforts to push the boundaries of executive power. Because today they asked for the Supreme Court to intervene in a case. They had already asked for the Supreme Court to intervene in another case on Monday. These are all being done on an emergency basis. Are they up to about six emergency requests in a little over two months.
By my countage five times what they're asking for this week. Well, the most recent case has to do with teacher training programs. So the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to lift a lower court order, a district disorder that temporarily requires the government, the Education Department, to keep funding teacher training projects in eight states. The Education Department had said that it's canceling one hundred and four out of one hundred and nine grands. A US district judge said that the challengers to that are likely to succeed, that the cancelations are arbitrary and capricious, and so that judge issued a temporary restraining order saying you got got to keep paying those for now, and the Trump administration is now here asking the Supreme Court to lift that order so they can freeze those payments. The one earlier in the week on Monday had to do with efforts to fire a number of people in six different federal agencies, and the Justice Apartment is asking the Supreme Court to let it go ahead and fire those people, or at least not actually bring them back to the workplace, at least to just put them on administratively. This is a case out of California that is similar to another one in Maryland. The Supreme Court so far has not done anything with that one. And I say that they haven't even asked for a response from the nonprofit groups that are challenging this. And it maybe that the Supreme Court in that case wants to hold its fire because there's actually something still pending before the Ninth Circuit in that case. So a lot of stuff going on here.
Are the justices perhaps getting numb to these emergency requests? You say five in a little over two months. I mean, has any other administration made so many emergency requests to the court in such a short period of time, and they're calling issues like birthright citizenship and emergency.
Certainly, we've never seen anything like this, and of course we've never seen anything like the flurry of Trump executive orders that sparked an awful lot of this. The one thing I would say about the Supreme Court so far is it's pretty clear they are in no rest to get involved. The way they have handled cases up until now has been to sort of kick the can down the road, and I think we see that with you mentioned birthright citizenship. That's the case where the administration came here and said, hey, we need an emergency order at least limiting these lower court injunctions so that we can impose our new birthright citizenship restrictions in much of the country. The administrations that we need an emergency order, and then the Supreme Court gave an unusually long time for the folks on the other side to file a response, gave them three weeks. And that comes on top of some other some earlier stuff that really indicated the Court did not want to dive into these very contentious issues until it absolutely has to.
One thing is certain, Greg, you are going to be very very busy over the next few years. Thanks so much for joining me tonight. That's Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg store Well.
Our journeys in life are all slightly different. My DNA journey started here with twenty three and meters, and it was all so simple.
It may have been simple then, but it's getting complicated now as twenty three and meter file for bankruptcy, raising concerns about the future use of the genetic data it's collected from more than fifteen million customers. The laws provide very little protection for customers, and any future buyer of the trove of genetic data will likely have the last say on how they use it. My guest is Colin Walkee, a partner at hall Estel and leader of the firm cybersecurity and data privacy practice. Before we even get to what's happening now. In September, the company agreed to pay thirty million dollars to settle a class action lawsuit for a data breach that affected six point nine million of its users. Has a lot of their information already been compromised?
Yes, And so here's the concerning part about the statistic you just gave about the data breach. That data breach affected roughly six million individuals. However, the vast majority of those individuals were of Osconazi Jewish descent or Chinese descent, meaning that it appears to have been a targeted attack in order to identify who is of Oscanazi heritage or who is of Chinese heritage. And so, yes, those six million individuals information is certainly out there somewhere. The remaining people who.
Know twenty three and me's in bankruptcy. So is all the information it has, All the personal and genetic information nation going to be sold with the company.
Well, that's the plan as of right now, is that they are looking for a buyer of that. And here's the reality is that our data is an asset, and that's why bought and sold with data brokers, and you know, openly traded. And so the consequence is those assets have value, Our data has values. And so yes, the plan is that in the bankruptcy proceeding, either twenty three and meters gets bought out as a whole entity, or perhaps the assets themselves get purchased, and then only the assets survive bankruptcy, not the entity itself.
So the board chair issued a statement saying that twenty three in me is committed to continuing to safeguard customer data and being transparent about the management of user data going forward. Quote, any buyer of twenty three and meter will be required to comply with applicable law with respect to the treatment of customer data. What does that really mean?
Not a lot in today's world. And the reason is is, as everyone's been discussing, there really isn't a federal law that governs this sort of circumstance. Even though we're talking about health information. HIPPA is not applicable because.
Twenty three and me is not what's called a covered entity. Twenty three and meters is not required to abide by HIPPO rules. And regulations, then you have to ask yourself, Okay, well, what are the state requirements? And as a state requirements first and foremost, not every single state has a data privacy law. So, for example, in Oklahoma, I literally have no right to my data that may be housed within twenty three and me. There is no law that compels them to do anything that I asked them to do. And if I lived in a state, for example, like California, I don't necessarily have to give my consent in advance to the collection of my sensitive information. Versus a state like Colorado, I do have to give my affirmative consent for the collection of my sensitive data. But it then begs the question, if twenty three and me is purchased, do I have to give my consent again? And here's the other really truly concerning part about twenty three and meters statements. The biggest concern has to do with, for example, their terms of service, which they state can be changed at any time. And the same thing applies to their medical record privacy node, which they say may change from time to time. And so for an individual to come out and say that twenty three and meters is still going to continue to comply with the law. It begs the question with the law because in certain circumstances there aren't any laws that govern how they can use our data.
Tell us a few ways in which this data could be used against customers in the future.
So the biggest concern right now has to do with deep sakes, and we all know about AI technology and those sorts of things. And if an individual is able to identify someone's family tree through the genetic information that's been held by twenty three and meters, then that individual has a better ability to do a deep fake. Not only do I know your name, your address is so security number, but I now know your entire family tree. And so this type of information can be used for what we call synthetic fraud, where there's a real human being but is utilizing fake information. That's one of the major concerns. Another major concern again going back to targeted, hacked and AI. If you think back to the hacking of twenty three and meters in which the six million records were lost, they are identifying individuals with particular racial traits. So we have to be concerned not just about bad actors who have this information, but even quote unquote good actors like insurance companies, healthcare providers, school, any type of governmental agency or private agency. If they're wanting to evaluate you as a human being for credit worthiness, to get a house, to get a loan, one of the things they may look to is your information here genetic data. Do you have, for example, genes that might lead you to get ald time, Do you have genes that will lead to some sort of disease that in the future is going to cost an insurance company a ton of money and therefore they decline to ensure you base solely off of this genetic information. So there's a lot of discriminatory aspects to this, as well as targeted fishing attacks that can result from someone acquiring this data and information.
So attorneys general in California, New York, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida to have sent out alerts warning that customers data could be sold in the proceedings and advising customers to delete their accounts and ask for their genetic samples back. So doing that with that you or the problem that customers may face when the information is sold.
I would say that it certainly goes a very long way, because if you have asked them to delete their data, and again they're obligated either through their own contractual obligations or a state law to delete that data. That certainly goes a long way. One of the questions, though, that is bagged, is how they actually store that data and that information. So, for example, they may get Colin Walkee's genetic information because I voluntarily supplied it, and then they stored it in what we call an anonymized or to be more accurate, pseudonymized fashion, And what that means is is they block out all of Colin's phi, you know, identifiers to link back to Colin Walkie directly, and then you just have a data set sitting there. The question then is if I have another data set that doesn't have genetic information, right, but if I have a zip code or an address or something along those lines, can I re link that data back to Calin walking specifically, And that's something we don't know. So you may have your information deleted, but on their servers, they still retain a copy that is, for all intents and purposes anonymized. You look at it, you can't see anything. But if you link it to another data set, that might have some additional information, you could potentially reidentify individuals. So it certainly goes a long way. It may not cure the entire problem, but it's certainly the first and best steps to pay.
Most states have health information exchanges. Do people have to worry about that as well?
That's a very interesting question. I'm glad you brought that up, because health information exchanges are governed by HIPPA. The problem, however, is that many, if not most, if not all, are actually owned by third party right and so for example, idahos HIE a few years ago declared Chapter eleven bankruptcy and they fortunately worked out a plan, but they were kind of in twenty three and me's situation. And for individuals who don't know what an HIE is, it is a database where every time you go to see your doctor, your healthcare information is uploaded into this HIE. And in theory this is good because in theory that means that if you're in one part of the state where your primary care provider is not and you into an accident, well, whoever's taking care of you just logs into the HIE and is able to determine whether or not you have any sort of medical conditions or reactions or something like that, even though they've never treated you. The problem, however, is it increases the threat service for individuals to do cyber attacks. And if you have all four million Oklahomas information sitting in an HIE database, that's a very valuable database to get a hold up. And so hiees have a little bit more protection for consumers because of the Hippo compliance requirement, but they're just as dangerous because they're being held by third parties that are susceptible to hacks just like everybody else.
So twenty three and meters has proposed a May fourteenth auction to sell its assets. Will the bankruptcy court be monitoring any aspects of the sale of the genetic.
Data that depends. I could certainly see the situation in which, as part of the deal, an agreement is reached to comply with some sort of privacy law, whether that be Hippo or otherwise, and that the court signs off on. However, I don't know that a court can unilaterally make that decision and say you're going to treat the data this way. However, of twenty three and meters is serious about them abiding by the law and that they're going to do everything about board. Then there ought to be an agreement enter into a judicial order as to how these assets are going to be transferred and dealt with in the future. But absence in an agreement, I don't know that the court has the authority to then order them to do certain things with that healthcare data other than comply with state laws.
After the assets are sold to a different company. Could the FTC step in or state attorneys general to monitor what's happening.
Yes, I absolutely think so. Part of the problem with the state attorney general approach is just funding, right, I mean, if you think about how many tech companies are out there and trying to make sure they're complying with privacy regulations, well, I mean, good luck, right, I mean, we understand that's going to be a huge heavy load. But the flip side of that point is is that they still have to comply with the laws. The question, though, is how so, for example, in Colorado, that you have to get consent in order to process sensitive data such as your genetic information. Okay, twenty three and me got that consent, and now I purchased twenty three and me, do I have to get that consent. Again, it's still the same incity. Probably not if I just buy the asset, just buy the genetic information, well, maybe then I do have to get consent to utilize and further process that data. That's kind of an unknown at this day, but I certainly think that the AGS will have scrutiny, especially over anyone who purchases this. But again, out of the twenty six million people's information that's in that data set, do tell me how many of them live in state or countries with data privacy laws.
So let's say someone is still interested in genetic testing, is there anything that they can do if they decide to sign up with one of these companies? Is there anything they can do to protect their data?
No, because once you transfer your data into the hands of the third party, absent regulation, they're free to do whatever the heck do they want to with that data. It is truly the wild West, which is why Congress and the states need to get serious about enforcement, because the reality is even the laws on the books are not very strong laws. Every single law on the books is what's called opt out, which means that unless you tell them, don't collect and sell my information. That's what they're doing. And so here, yes, we're dealing with sensitive information. But aside from Colorado and a few other handfuls of tape, there's no rules on what individuals have to do. Just like Fitbit. How many people wear fitbit and are sharing their you know, sensitive biomedical information with fitbit. Millions of people are doing this on a daily basis, and I don't think that people appreciate the harm and the exposures that come from that type of to be frank, cavalier behavior. I appreciate that we all have, you know, an interest in our history and our camelin trees and those sorts of things, but I strongly encourage individuals to be careful with that type of data, to be frank with any of their data. But since we're talking twenty three and me, especially the genetic data, because unlike your social security numbers, unlike your name, unlike pretty much everything else about you, you cannot change your genetics. And if somebody gets a hold of that information, that is something that is immutable and cannot be changed.
So this may end up being a sort of wake up call for people.
I'm afraid that we've gotten to the point in our country where we care more about convenience than we do about our personal safety. And we see that all the time with the apps that we download and those sorts of things. And I don't think that individuals appreciate how susceptible that makes them to both personal, physical and financial harms. And so anybody that's listening to this, whether it's twenty three and me or wearing a fitbit, I strongly encourage you to rethink whether you truly need that, because it is being bought, sold and bartered on the open market without your knowledge or consent, and all of it is being bought, sold and bartered in order to exploit you until fee your privacy for profits. So this is a day and age that people need to wake up and realize we're being exploited and we need to take control.
This case certainly raises a lot of concerns. Thanks so much for being on the show, Colin. That's Colin Walkee, a partner at Hall of Still. A North Dakota jury has found the environmental group Greenpeace liable for defamation, conspiracy, and other claims over its participation in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests that lasted from twenty sixteen to twenty seventeen. The jury awarded the pipeline company, Energy Transfer six hundred and sixty million dollars in damages. Greenpeace says it will appeal, and environmentalists warned that the verdict could chill free speech. I mean's environmental law professor Pat Parento of the Vermont Law and Graduate School. Pat give us the background of this case.
So, this was one of the largest protests of a fossil fuel infrastructure project, the Code Access pipeline in the nation's history. In fact, it drew well over I think it was four hundred tribes, not only from the United States, but from Canada, from Mexico, and from other countries. There was a massive protest, and the concern was the impact of the pipeline on the Standing Rock Suit tribes water supply. Pipeline was going to go across the Missouri River right above the intake for their water supply. That's the thing that originally motivated the protests. And then all these other tribes joined with the Standing Rock tribe in solidarity, and Standing Rock reached out to Green Peak for help in figuring out how do we conduct a protest. The demonstration that doesn't run a foul of the law, or at least understand where are the lines that we shouldn't cross. And green Peace agreed to provide that training on civil disobedience. They provided some money, I think about fifteen thousand dollars. They provided solar panels to provide some power to the encampment because you know, they erected tents, they occupied the area where the pipeline was being built. There's allegations that they actually encroached on the right of way as part of Energy transfers property, and you know that gets into the whole trespass issue. So it was a multi year massive protest. There were violence. There were incidents where the security firm hired by Energy Transfer got into confrontations with the protesters, not so much with green Peace itself, but with tribal members and other, you know, people that showed up and supported the tribe. There was incidents of damage to equipment and so forth. So you know that's the backdrop to the case.
So Energy Transfer, the pipeline company, sued Greenpeace for defamation, trespassed nuisance, civil conspiracy, and other acts. During the trial, the company's attorney argued that Greenpeace had paid outsiders to come into the area and protest, sent blockade supplies, organized or led protester trainings, and made untrue statements about the project. The jury's verdict on the defamation claims are what many people have been focusing on in this case.
Yeah, that's the central claim and the one that probably resulted in the largest award. I mean, this was a astronomical verdict six and sixty seven million dollars against three Greenpeace entities, Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace Fund, and green Peace International. The lion's share of the damage is awarded against Greenpeace USA. And obviously an amount like that would if it was upheld on a field, would bankrupt many times over green Peace, even though greenpieace is a major organization. So defamation was the heart of it, and it came down to nine statements. Of course, you know, to prove a defamation case, you have to show that the defendant in this case, Greenpeace, made statements that were published to a third party. And obviously green Peace had it on their website and in press releases, and so there was broad distribution. So you have to have a materially false statement. That's the key. It's got to be false and it's got to be material that actually causes damage. And because Energy Transfer is considered a public entity because it's a sort of a high profile company under New York Times versus Sullivan, you have to prove actual malice, not only that the statements are false materially false, but that they were made with actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth and the consequences to the reputation of Energy Transfer. So these are really really high standards that you have to meet for a defamation case. And here's the real kicker. If the statements in question, even if they were false, were privileged in any way. And there are a variety of privileges, the most important of which, of course, is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the right of free speech, the right of assembly, the right of petitioning government, the right to object and oppose projects that you disapprove of whatever reason. Opinion can't be the subject of a defamation action, and protected speech cannot be the subject of an action for damages. Where it gets tricky, of course, is what's protected speech versus what's defamation in this case, because all the statements in question were written, the underlying legal doctrine is liable. So it's the kind of a stupot of different issues and factors that go into calculating was this protected speech? If not, was it materially did it green Peace know it was false? And did green Peace with malice make a materially false statement?
The jury in this case agreed with energy Transfer.
What was Greenpeace's defense that it was true, that it wasn't malicious, that it didn't meet the standard.
All of that. The key one that really crystallizes the frux of this case has to do with the following scenario. The pipeline was crossing historic Sioux Nation lands. Of course, these lands have since been transferred by a variety of mechanisms, some of which have been found to be illegal to private ownership, including energy transfers ownership of the right of way. So in crossing these traditionally native lands, the tribal Historic Preservation officer This is an official position. It's recognized under federal law under the National Historic Preservation Act, and it exists to review projects that require federal and the pipeline does require federal permits, including a permit from the corp of Engineers for the crossing of the Missouri River with the pipeline. So the tribal historic preservation officers said, whoa Energy Transfer, You're crossing areas that have native graves. We don't know exactly where they are, but we know from our tradition, both oral and written, that these areas were occupied by our people, that people were buried there. And we also know that some of the areas that you're crossing have historic archaeological remains that are protected under federal law. So stop the construction so that we can do a careful inventory of where these cultural resources might be and what needs to be done to either avoid them ideally or mitigate, you know, recover them and protect them. Within days of the communication from the tribal Historic Preservation officer, Energy Transfer sent the bulldozers out and bulldozed the right of way. So green Peace made nine specific statements that the court identified as the source of defamation by my count I looked at them. Four of them dealt with this specific instance of bulldozing these cultural resources. So it appeared to me, and of course I wasn't in the court room. In fact, you know, the court refused to televise the trial even though you know, life streaming of trials in North Dakota is allowed, so by my you know understanding, it's true that Energy Transfer sent the bulldozers in after they were told not to do it. So at a minimum, you have to say, you know, did green Peace, relying on the tribe's historic preservation officer, knowingly make a false statement. They could have been wrong about that, but they were relying on the information they were being given by the tribe. And secondly, even if they were negligent, that's not enough in a case like this. You have to show actual malice, not just negligence. So in addition to being deliberate, you have to say they did it just to be malicious, and that's pretty hard to prove.
Of course, since neither of us were in the courtroom during the course of the trial, we don't know what evidence the jury saw, but it was enough to make them come back with a whopping verdict against Greenpeace. So Greenpeace says it's going to appeal, but one wonders what its chances are on appeal.
I'm sure they're thinking positively, but they can't be sanguine about it because there's another point. Green Sea's obviously moved to transfer this case this case was being heard in Mandan, right in the middle of where the protests were occurring. In the Va Deer process of questioning the jurors, that came out that most of their nine jurors in this particular case, most of them had some connection to the oil and gas industry. Either they worked for them, or family members work for them. This comes out in questioning, right, or they have some kind of economic interest in what's going on. This is a major backbone of the economy of this part of North Dakota. This is the Bakan, you know, where all of this crude oil is that's been exported. So you have the fact that the people on the panel on the jury had to live with these protests for almost two years. That couldn't have been an enjoyable experience, right, thousands of people occupying their community and protesting. So you know, the sensible thing would have been to transfer the case to Fargo, take it all the way almost to Minnesota, right, get it out of the community that was most affected. But that was refused all the way up to the North Dakota Supreme Court, which refused to transfer the case. So that tells me, you know, you're not going into a particularly friendly forum with this appeal. Lots of grounds for the appeal, for sure rulings on evidence in the case that went against screenpiece and in favor of energy transfer, jury instructions that did not call out the First Amendment issues at all. I looked at them. It didn't instruct the jury on what exactly is protective speech. That's actually a question that the court itself should have decided. But certainly the jury can't be left to wonder is what was said here actually protected by our US Constitution? So lots of ground for appeal.
Would paying this verdict really bankrupt green Peace?
Oh many times over. I mean, it's a major organization, but it doesn't have six hundred and sixty seven million dollars lying around, and even if it's cut in half, it's going to bankrupt them. This is a high stakes case, not just for Greenpeace, but obviously the implications here, the chilling effect of this kind of verdict. I mean, if you were an NGO, would you seriously consider protesting and demonstrating against fossil fuel industry after this?
Boy?
You'd have to think long and hard about that, wouldn't you. I mean, would you put your own entire organization at risk. Even if you're an Audubon Society or National Wildlife Federation. They can't afford to risk a judgment like this. And just the cost of litigation, again, two different lawsuits that Green Piece has had to defend. Just the cost of that alone is something that most organizations couldn't absorb. They did have some pro bono help in the case, or they probably couldn't have mounted a defense at all. But I think the chilling effect of this magnitude of verdict is hard to measure, but potentially seismic.
Thanks Pat. That's Professor Pat Parento of Theirmont Law and Graduate School. And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law, And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg
