Trump Appeals & FTC Studies Surveillance Pricing

Published Jul 25, 2024, 12:59 AM

Bloomberg legal reporter Erik Larson discusses Donald Trump appealing the nearly $500 million civil fraud judgment against him. Abbe Smith, director of Georgetown Law’s Criminal Defense and Prisoner Advocacy Clinic, discusses the fallout from the Alaska judge scandal. Bloomberg antitrust reporter Leah Nylen, discusses the FTC examining “surveillance pricing.” June Grasso hosts.

This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio, fresh on victories in other legal cases. Donald Trump is now asking a New York appeals court to overturn the nearly five hundred million dollars civil fraud judgment against him after a trial. Judge Arthur and Goren found in February that Trump, his company, and top executives, including his sons, schemed for years to inflate his wealth on financial statements used to secure loans and make deals. In the appeal, Trump's lawyers called the judge's decisions legally bereft and untethered to the law or to commercial reality, raising several arguments, many that echoed the gripes that Trump complained about over and over during the trial.

There were no victims because the banks made a lot of money. They made one hundred million dollars and by the way, I paid three hundred million dollars in taxes.

Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson, who has been covering the New York Trump trials. Eric, before we talk about the appeal, tell us about the judge's decision.

Sure, so this is now several months later after Trump was found libel for fraud and the civil fraud case brought against him by the New York Attorney General. Of course, this stems from his asset valuations of all of his various assets that the State of New York alleged had been wildly inflated in order to get Trump better terms on loans from banks for over a decade. And so the state won this trial. It was a non jury trial, and in that time, of course, the former president had vowed to appeal, and this was his appeal brief filed with an intermediate appeals court, which really spelled out his case for trying to overturn the verdict and the five hundred and fifty four million dollar penalty last him.

He raises a lot of arguments here, one being that there were no victims and no losses right.

That is one of the top arguments that Trump makes in this filing. He argues that the New York Attorney General, Letitia James, didn't have any right to bring this case under the New York executive law, in part because there were no victims. This is a consumer fraud type case. They're saying, where are the victims? Where are the consumers who are hurt by this. Of course, we will get a full response from the Attorney General to this argument and others in the brief, but she has previously responded to this, and I should note that all of these arguments in this brief have sort of been made before by Trump. But the Attorney General says that she had a right to sue because it's up to the state to make sure that documents used in financial transactions, like the loan documents at issue in this case, have to be accurate and they can't knowingly contain false information. So while the banks didn't come out and say, hey, we were defrauded here, the idea for Leticia James is is that you have to prevent future violations by other individuals and companies by showing that they do enforce the law here when there's obvious violations according to the state.

And we have heard this point since the very beginning that the Attorney General is politically motivated.

Right, So that's another one of the arguments spelled out in this brief. They say that the only reason that Leticia James brought this case is because she campaigned as a Democrat on going after Trump, and that she had promised to do that, And in a sense, Trump is arguing here that this entire investigation and the lawsuit was sort of pretextual, that she had to come up with something in order to please the voters who voted for her. As with some of the other arguments, you know, Trump made this argument repeatedly before this ever went to trial, and the judge shot that down repeatedly and allowed the case to go to trial. So that's kind of kind of a tough one there for Trump to be because I believe the appeals court has already kind of heard this argument before as well.

Yes, they heard a lot of these arguments, because Trump's lawyers went to the Appellate Division at least ten times to challenge the judge's rulings, including during the trial. Most of those appeals were, of course unsuccessful. And yet another argument that has resurfaced was based on the Statute of limitations.

Right. So Trump makes a big point in this filing of saying that the last time the appeals court heard this case, I believe it was when the motion to dismiss was denied and the appeals court reviewed that decision. It reversed the judge, the trial judge on a few things. First, it granted dismissal for Ivanka Trump. Of course left the claims pending against Donald Trump and his two sons, Don Junior and Eric Trump. But they did reverse on Ivanka Trump in part because of the statute of limitations, and the court said, you can't go as far back as you wanted to in looking at these documents, these transactions. So the appeals court didn't say exactly what the trial judge had to do with that information and left it to the judge to sort of decide himself what to do with it. And the judge, Arthur Engron, decided that even with that statute of limitations determination, that the older documents that were too old had been used repeatedly as the years went on to verify Trump's finances and the company's finances as the loans continued. So that's how he kept the claims alive to go to trial. And Trump argues in this document that he never should have done that and claims that the judge, you know, just ignored the appeals court order for no apparent reason. So that's kind of what that part of the argument boils down to.

They're also questioning the size of the judgment, calling it disproportionate and saying that it violates state and US constitutional guarantees against excessive punishments.

Right, So this seems like a little bit more of a typical type of thing he might see in an appeal where a huge judgment is going to be scrutinized by an appeals court and they're going to look at whether or not the Attorney General calculated these damages correctly. Of course, a lot of that includes interest. So we saw a lot of arguments back and forth between the parties just leading up to the final award being handed down, and the Attorney General is confidence. She says she's confident that they calculated all of this correctly. They're clawing back what they say was the profit that Trump made off of two deals in particular, including the old post office, that luxury hotel in DC, and also saying that if they hadn't had that money, that profit in Trump's bank account, then he wouldn't have been able to do additional deals. So they're sort of like clawing back what they say was an illegal profit or an improper profit that Trump got by lying about the value of his assets and getting a better terms on his loans, and then, of course, as I said, a lot of that is interest as well. So I'm sure we'll see the appeals court scrutinize this a lot and perhaps come up with a different poculation. But you know, who knows at this point.

Now, there are some things that you don't normally see in appeals Reef sounds sort of like campaigning or Trump outside the courthouse that the verdict would be a disaster for New York as businesses flee from an attorney general targeting victimless transactions, and also talking about him as among the most visionary and iconic real estate developers in American history. Was there a lot of fluff? I'll call it fluff.

Well, yes, you could probably call it that, because I don't I don't know that the appeals court judges care about that in terms of determining whether or not this was all correctly done here. But actually that did form a big part of the defense case. At trial, his lawyers put on a big presentation, you know, a PowerPoint looking presentation that went on for quite some time, detailing essentially every deal that Trump had ever done, starting from the beginning of his career up to the you know, the old post office in DC, and you know, putting it in these these terms of him being such an impressive real estate businessman. But then also they say this to make the point that the banks that did business with him were eager to do business with him, that he was seen as visionary by these lenders that fought for his business, and they did put up that kind of testimony during the trial to show to make the point again, as we said earlier, about there not being any victims. So yeah, I mean, it's sort of inevitable that you see stuff like that pop up in Trump's filings. But I noticed that when he said that, you know, businesses were fleeing New York as a result of Letitia James's enforcement of this law, that there was no footnote there. It didn't lead to any examples of other businesses that were fleeing the state as a result of this case and this trial. And I remember that after the verdict was handed down, Trump had a press conference in which he's said that Exxon Mobile had fled New York as a result of a lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General, a case that actually the Attorney General lost, but at any rate. He said that that excellent had fled and that's that's actually just not true.

Trump had a problem coming up with the cash or the money for the appealed bond. Remind us what happened there.

Yeah, So in order to put that judgment on hold during his appeal, he had to put up an appeal bond about one hundred and seventy five million dollars. Initially, the state wanted an appeal bond of the full amounts and plus i think an extra twenty percent, which they said that they were entitled to because Trump couldn't be trusted to pay up if his appeal failed. But the courts did not agree and lowered the size of the appeal bond. And of course Trump was able to do that by finding a company that provides these bonds based out of California, that a Trump supporter essentially owns the company and agreed to do that for him. There was still some contention between the parties over whether or not that company could pay up if necessary, but for all intents and purposes that that debate was sort of put to rest and the judgment is on hold. Trump's assets were not seized, as the Attorney General is threatening to do if he didn't pay up. So that bit of drama is over, and now it's sort of turning to the actual appeals court case, which itself could potentially drag on for quite some time.

Eric Trump's sentencing for his conviction in the hush money case has been put off because he's asking the judge to toss out his conviction due to the controversial Supreme Court opinion on presidential immunity. Where does that stand?

So, of course, Trump lost his first criminal trial here in New York, the so called hush money case over the falsified records that hid his hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels. And even though that verdict was handed down by a jury before this Supreme Court's immunity ruling, Trump has circled back and said, hey, this has to be tossed out. He has asked the judge to do so, and the Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg is to file his response to that request today. We may not necessarily see it right away today, but we can expect that the prosecutors are going to urge the court to uphold the verdicts and say, hey, even though some of this evidence in testimony potentially could be impacted by the immunity ruling from the Supreme Court. All of the other evidence in testimony in the case justify this verdict. I think that's probably what we can expect to hear from the district attorney.

Thanks so much for coming on the show.

Eric.

That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show. The fallout continues in the Alaska judge scandal. Just how many cases might be reversed. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Federal prosecutors in Alaska have identified nearly two dozen criminal cases with potentially undisclosed conflicts of interest involving former federal judge Joshua Kindred and the attorneys who worked on cases before him. The Trump appointee resigned this month amid allegation of sexual misconduct. A judiciary investigation found that Kindred had an inappropriate relationship with a female clerk who later worked for the US Attorney's office in Alaska. The battle also found the judge created a hostile work environment, including by discussing his romantic life in the workplace and lied about his conduct to judiciary officials conducting the inquiry. The Federal Public Defender's Office is undertaking its own review. Federal Defender Jamie McGrady has said she believes the number of potentially conflicted cases is higher than the twenty three identified by prosecutors. The inquiry could lead to the reopening of multiple criminal cases that came before Kindred during his more than four years on the bench. Joining me is Abby Smith, director of Georgetown Law's Criminal Defense and Prisoner Advocacy Clinic. The US Attorney is conducting an investigation. The Federal Public Defender is conducting an investigation to identify potential conflicts of interest. Would it be any case in which the judge had a relationship with the attorney? Would it be more than that?

Well, any investigation would start with the judge having a relationship with a prosecutor in an ongoing case in which the prosecutor is one of counsel. That needed to have been disclosed at the very least, and it was you know, up to either side could have asked for recusal or disqualification. But I think this case goes beyond that. I mean, it sounds like there is a pattern of misbehavior on the part of the judge that some would or you made him an unfit judge while he was presiding over cases period. You know, the case that came to mind for me when I read about what's happening in Alaska is it's a little different, but it led to the dismissal of several dozen cases. It involved a judge who had been confronted by the FBI for having taken bribes from a leading union in Philadelphia, and they offered her a chance to be an informant to earn some mitigation and you know, perhaps non prosecution. Anyhow, she wore a wire and proceeded to start talking to a bunch of other judges as she's a sitting judge presiding over cases and basically in the pocket of the FBI, and with a deep need to ingratiate herself with the government so that she not be prosecuted. So she was wearing many hats. And the challenge to all of the cases that she ruled upon during that time period was a couple of things. As you know, broadly, a problem under the due process clause of the US Constitution is this good and fair behavior. There were also questions about separation of powers. Can you be both a judge and essentially a prosecutorial agent at the same time. You know, the idea that she was attempting to curry favor, that is, she needed to be the best informant she could be meant that some of that was going to go down hard on the defendants appearing before, so she would be more and more appealing to the prosecution. So here's this judge in Alaska who, according to what I've read, and one of the more troubling aspects of the case is that he was found to applied to the higher court investigating him, that he had engaged in widespread misconduct, you know, an improper relationship with one currently employed prosecutor and being wildly inappropriate, engaging in what probably would be hostile workplace environment behavior, maybe sexual harassment with others. You know, I'm interested in whether there could be a challenge as to general unfitness.

Is it a no brainer that those cases involving the prosecutor he was having the sexual relationship with, or the one who sent him the nude photos, will those cases easily be reversed?

Yes, it seems to be. That's the that's the low hanging fruit. That should be pretty easy. But the question is who's going to start that process. So, just to give you the defense perspective, depends. You know, quite often it's useful to challenge any and all convictions because it's harder to prove a case the more time goes by. So arguably there's some strategic advantage and kind of always if you get a second bite of the apple, to go for it. On the other hand, I don't know. You know, maybe this judge was a fairly lenient sentence, or maybe you know, there was a plea before him, and a better that the defendant be sentenced by this judge, no matter how corrupt or bizarre his behavior, than the luck of the draw the next time around. So you know, I guess question number one will be who brings the challenge? Will the federal defenders seek to undo every conviction that came before this judge? Will the prosecution, which has an ethical responsibility to do justice, will they, on their own accord, you know, move to dismiss those cases or somehow seeks the ability to not prost those cases after the fact. I don't know, and I don't want to paint this too broadly, because Alaska's a relatively small jurisdiction as jurisdictions go, and you know, the people tend to know each other in courthouses, the criminal bar tends to know each other. It's not unheard of that a judge is married to a prosecutor, or to a defense lawyer, or a prosecutor is married to a defense lawyer, because that's the society they keep. But it needs to be disclosed, and the prudent course would be to not have that person appear before you ever if you're married to them. You know, I'm not saying that like it doesn't happen. I don't need to sound like a Pollyanna about it. But it's just that there needs to be disclosure, and the people involved need to be wise about ensuring fairness to other people, including to the public, because that's the thing about judges and prosecutors. Appearance of proprieties the most important thing, because that has to do with people regarding the system as legitimate.

I mean, it seems like the US Attorney's office could also be at faull Tier. Yes, three of the lawyers were from that office, and apparently the office was aware of a conflict.

Yes, they should have disclosed. They should have said on the record so the events could at least consider it and want to reveal for the record that or disclosed for the record that you know. I have a colleague who's currently involved in a relationship with a judge. Here's what happens pretty commonly, and I just don't understand why this is a problem, because it's so ordinary for judges who've had law clerks who then either join the local prosecutor's office or the local public defender office or haines a shingle. It's usually an arrangement where that judge doesn't take cases involving that lawyer who was so recently a judge's clerk. Now, depending upon the size of the jurisdiction and the years that go by, that could change. But I think that's the kind of prudent thing to do. And if the judge forgets, then the lawyer should you reveal that that's the relationship. It's a little trickier when you're defense counsel because defense because our ethical obligation is to pursue our client's interests, and there's no ethical rule that says you have to disclose that you had some sort of relationships with a judge, you know. I mean, there are some rules that have to do with what proper relationships you know, exist between lawyer and client. But frankly, the ethical rules don't have a whole lot to say about relationships among lawyers or judges. But the US Attorney's office should have disclosed and the judge should have disclosed apparently period.

One of the attorneys of the potential conflict is a defense lawyer.

Well, that, you know, the judge needed to have disclosed. So do you understand what I'm saying about The defense is in a really different position. I'm not gonna you know, I might have a I might have a counseling session with my client where I say, look, I have this, you know, particular relationtionship with this judge. I want you to know that, and if you're uncomfortable with that, you know, let's talk. That's true. I mean, you might have a conversation, and you probably should have a conversation with your clients. But defense lawyer doesn't have to disclose having any sort of social relationship with a judge. That would be for the judge to do unless the lawyer does that, because it serves the client's interest. I mean, I've had judges say, you know, I'm a law professor who else appears in court. One time, I was at some very large fundraising event in Washington, d C. There are probably several hundred people there, and I ran into a judge who I sometimes appear before. I'm not friends with this judge. I've never socialized with this judge. I wouldn't even characterize our contact at the event as having a drink together. It didn't go that far. It's more like a little small suck. Then the next time I appear in court, the judges, I, you know, I feel compelled to disclose that that Miss Smith and I, you know, are are social acquaintances or something. And I thought, oh my god, it's going to hurt my reputation. I'm not good friends with this judge, trust me. But no judges do that. And I think careful judges would err on the side of overdisclosure and let the party stuff it out. But I can't believe this judge was keeping it secret. And if the US Attorney's office knew, that's really bad for him. I'm sure that smart people in the local federal defender are thinking of all kinds of creative motions to get a second crack in some of those cases that were decided by that US Attorney's office and that judge.

Do you think that it will take years for this to unwind all the repercussions.

I don't know, because I betshit things move more quickly in Alaska. I don't think the docket is his. If this was, you know, the Southern District of New York, then I would say could take a long time. But I'm not sure it will take that long a time. It's really interesting that the judge was not very few judges, especially so junior and their tenure, would give up a lifetime appointment. There must be dirt there. So you know, I think investigation is wise. We may only have the tip of the icebergs.

Let's say you're a defense lawyer looking at this. Your client had a case before this judge involving the prosecutor, but your client got a light sentence. How do you weigh whether to retry the case. I mean, that seems like it's a tough decision.

It is. That's a really good question. I would go out and see the client say, look, all hell is broken loose. This judge is now resigned, you know, under a cloud, and we may have an opportunity to seek to revisit your case to maybe get the conviction set aside and or get you resentenced. But let's think about this. Let's look at the other judges that you could appear before for sentencing. Here's the sentence you got. Is it worth the risk? Is this what you want to do? Or should we consider ourselves having cut our losses. That's the kind of discussion any good defense lawyer would have that even though in the initial moment of kind of surprise and maybe even hilarity about a judge, you know, blowing up the way this one did. You know, you may want to say, oh, let's bring every single case, but you know, let's challenge every single case that this judge had a hand in. Might not be good for the client. You got to take each case individually.

It's really interesting seeing it from the defense point of view. Thanks so much, Abby. That's Abby Smith, director of Georgetown Laws, Criminal Defense and Prisoner Advocacy Clinic. Coming up next on The Bloomberg Lawn Show, the Federal Trade Commission is looking into what it calls the opaque market of surveillance pricing, using consumer data to charge different customers different prices for the same goods. I'm June Grasso, and this is Bloomberg. Federal regulators are examined how companies including MasterCard, JP, Morgan Chase, and McKinsey provide clients with algorithms that use consumers personal data to set prices based on a shopper's individual characteristics. The Federal Trade Commission said it was seeking to better understand the opaque market of surveillance pricing practices using consumer data including credit information, location, and browsing history, to charge different customers different prices for the same goods. To do this, the agency noted third party intermediaries claimed to use advanced algorithms, artificial intelligence and other technology. FTC chair Lina Khan said, quote firms that harvest Americans' personal data can't put people's privacy at risk. Now, firms could be exploiting this vast trove of personal information to charge people higher prices. Joining me is Bloomberg? Anti trust reporter Leah Nylan exactly is surveillance pricing?

Surveillance pricing is something that goes under a lot of different names. Sometimes people call it price discrimination. Sometimes they call it online pricing, dynamic pricing, a couple different things. Essentially, the idea is that the price isn't one thing. It changes based on who is buying it and when they're buying it. The best example of this probably airline pricing. You know, people are very familiar with the idea that the price of the airline ticket changes depending on when you're buying it, like how close to the flight it is, and sometimes whether you're logged in or not. So whether it knows that you have like rewards or status with that particular airline, it might change the price.

Does it also happen with like consumer products? Let's say I don't know, vacuum cleaners. People are used to hearing that about airlines, you know, when you book makes a difference, et cetera. But what about like consumer products.

Yeah, So that's why that FTC is conducting the study because they have heard from a lot of people that companies are now sort of using these types of pricing techniques on more and more consumer products. So one of the biggest examples that people know about also is McDonald's. For example, if you walk up to the counter or go through the drive through at McDonald's, you're actually probably going to be paying a little bit more money than if you ordered a head through the apps because McDonald's often gives out different types of rewards or you know, price discounts if you're ordering through the app. So it is becoming more and more common for these types of consumer products to have some kind of dynamic pricing elements to them, and they're very interested in how companies are deciding when they want to use these types of discounts or price hikes, and whether they might be using information about individuals that's not technically allowed, so things like you know your gender, your race, things like that that are prevented by various discrimination laws.

Are they allowed to use the consumers online footprint?

So that's another thing that FEC is going to be looking at, how much are these companies using your online footprint? Because, for example, when you go online, a lot of that is tracked through your browser history, and it's not that hard sometimes for companies to like figure out maybe you were looking at this pair of shoes online, so maybe they should when you go into the store offer you a discount or maybe a price hike on it. You see it in different types of things like surge pricing on Uber. There was a really interesting study that found if your phone battery is low, Uber is much more likely to put surge pricing on a particular fare because you really know that you really need to get where you're going before your phone dies. So that's outrageous to me. Yeah, they found, like, there was a study that had a few people at the same place ask for a ride to the same location, and then they looked at how much they were charging those people if they had a full battery versus if they had a really low battery, and the person with a really low battery was often getting a much higher fare because Uber sort of knew that they had more urgency and sort of getting to the location before their phone died. So these are the sorts of things that the SEC is looking at, Like, how are companies determining the prices when they're when they're doing these sorts of surge pricing or dynamic pricing options.

An app like that knows the strength of your battery.

Yeah, in terms of your phone, like there's actually a lot of when you open an app, it knows a lot of information about your phone. It knows you know, what your battery level is. It might know some of your contacts. They might know some other apps that you've gone to on the phone. So for example, if you open up the Uber app and then you open up the Lift app, sometimes it might, you know, change the price that's available because it knows that you might be like checking between the two, sort of triaging the price.

So I do that all the time.

Yeah, I don't know if you've ever if you've ever the food delivery app. This happens to me all the time. Like if I open one of the food delivery apps, all of a sudden, I start getting pop ups from the other ones being like hungry, try this offer.

We're laughing, but it's scary that so much of your personal information is exposed by an app.

Yeah, and that's part of what the FEC is trying to look at here, they said, you know, they're not necessarily implying that companies have done anything wrong, but they do want to know how often companies are using these types of information, what information is sort of going into these types of algorithms that are determining price. A lot of the companies that they sent these inquiries to, some of them you've heard of like MasterCard and Jason Morgan, but a lot of them are probably companies. You never heard of something called Reveonics, Task Group Pros, but they actually work for a lot of very household names. Taskworks for Starbucks and McDonald's. Pros works for Luftanza the airline, and Neshleie Revionics works for home Depot. Like all sorts of companies are doing this more and more a sort of trying to personalize pricing. You know, maybe you've gone to Home Depot and they know that you're working on some home projects, so like the next time you come in, maybe they'll try and offer you a discount on you know, whatever it is that you're working on, or maybe they know that you're much more likely to like really need that, so they might hike the price on something. It's very interesting, we're in this new world sort of with pricing because they now know a lot more about you and maybe what you're more willing to pay for.

So they send subpoenas. What kind of information are they asking for?

Yes, this is an FTP study, so they are allowed to compel the companies to provide information, but they ask them for a lot of details about one the services that they offer with software. So some of these companies call it like price optimization or search pricing. They have a lot of different terms for what they do. So they're asking them what specifically do you offer and how would you describe it? And then what sort of information goes into that sort of algorithm because often this is done by computer algorithms, So they want to know what are the inputs into that, so that they would want to know, for example, are they looking at the phone battery to determine this, Are they looking at you know, your contacts and what other things you've looked at? And then, as I said, are they looking at your browsing history? And then they wanted to know how they choose which offers because they do have some concerns that maybe companies are sort of targeting richer consumers to give lots of price hikes and not giving them to, you know, more low income consumers, which might be potentially discriminatory. Whenever you have your phone, it has some information about where you're located, and geography could be going into this. Perhaps if you're located in a lower income area, you're not as likely to get some of these offers as you are if you live in a rich suburb, So they really want to know all of the inputs that are going into how they decide what the offers are and who gets them.

You know, we think of the FTC, I think most of us in a different way. They're doing this under the so called six B Authority.

Yeah, so the FDC is an enforcement agency, but it also has this really interesting research arm. Congress gave it the ability to do these six PE studies. They're sort of like market studies and they're allowed to compel information from companies to sort of do a deep dive into specific areas of the economy or areas of the market. So they've done some of these on all sorts of things. They've done them on pharmaceutical benefit managers, which are sort of the drug middlemen who come up with pharmaceutical pricing between the pharma companies and the health insurance. They've done them on patentrols and like how much those were impacting innovation. They've been doing ones on pricing of online Internet pricing. That was one that came up sort of during the pandemic. And they did one on supply chains, like what caused some of the supply chain crises of the pandemic. So the idea behind these studies is that, like the SPC really does a deep dive into what is really happening, and then they publish a study with the information and that can help Congress as it is considering new laws, or if the STC finds something that's a little bit questionable, it can lead them to open an investigation into something related to it.

How long do these studies usually take?

These studies do you tend to take a little bit of time. Oftentimes when they start them, it takes like maybe six months or so for the companies to send them the information and then usually they spend a little bit of time looking at it. So it's not unusual for it to be a year or two before the SPC publishes its findings.

Well, this has really opened my eyes about being tracked by apps on your phone. Thanks so much, Leah. That's Bloomberg Anti Trust reporter Leah Nylan And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can always get the latest legal news by subscribing and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg dot com, Slash Podcast, Slash Law. I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg.

Bloomberg Law

Host June Grasso speaks with prominent attorneys and legal scholars, analyzing major legal issues an 
Social links
Follow podcast
Recent clips
Browse 2,289 clip(s)