FINALLY: Trump MEETS HIS MATCH in LEGAL update

I'm joined now by the attorney general. of California, Rob Bont. Thanks for. joining me. >> My pleasure. Good to see you, Brian. >> So, news just broke that Paramount will. be merging with Warner Brothers. Discovery, beating out Netflix for this. merger, and it consolidates a lot of the. media under um the proTrump Ellison. family. Obviously, this is what Trump. wanted. he seemed hellbent on making. sure that Netflix didn't get this uh. didn't get this deal that it would be uh. Larry Ellison and David Ellison who. actually got this deal so that they can. turn CNN for example into what they've. turned CBS into which is a proTrump.

media outlet. Recognizing that this. isn't going to face any push back at the. hands of the DOJ or the FTC who. obviously wants this deal and they exist. as appendages of Trump himself, there. still exists the possibility that state. attorneys general can have some impact. here and nobody has more standing uh in. terms of these two movie studios uh uh. merging than California. And so as the. attorney general of California, can you. give us some insight into the standing.

that you might have uh in terms of. stopping this from happening? >> Absolutely. And first I'll say this is. not a done deal. To those who think it. is, I say not so fast. They are there. are regulatory hurdles including my. office's overview and review and on you. know pending current investigation that. need to be completed. And so we are. looking at this merger and whether it. violates antitrust law, whether it has. whether it's anti-competitive, whether. it is going to raise prices and lower. wages for workers and reduce competition.

and uh quality and choice uh all part of. the analysis. And we have independent. authority as a state and there are other. states who are interested in conducting. a review as well. Um, regardless of what. the United States uh federal government. does, regardless of what the US DOJ. does, if the US DOJ uh approves the. merger, we still have an opportunity to. block the merger if we wish. You know, we have to finish the investigation and. come to some final conclusions about. what action is appropriate. Maybe we.

will agree that the merger uh can go. through. Maybe we we think it should be. blocked or maybe something in between. But the main point is we have. independent authority and we're going to. exercise that authority. We're going to. do it right. uh no politics, just. looking at the law, looking at the. facts, looking at the impacts um that. are appropriate to look at under an. antitrust analysis. Uh get our experts. under the hood um and u make a decision. So, uh we're engaged in that process now. and we will complete that process and. make a final decision.

>> In in the event that you do find that. this is a violation of antitrust law, who's the arbiter of whether or not. that's that's true? Is it the California. state system or is it the federal court. system? This is usually in in federal. court, but uh when we bring cases with. the federal government or multi-states. and we're asserting something under. federal law like the Sherman Act or or. the Clayton Act, often we're in federal. court. Um not always. We have a case. right now against Amazon where we have a.

state law antirust claim under the. Cartright Act only and we're in San. Francisco Superior Court in state court. But more often than not, uh particularly. when it's a multi-state action and when. federal there's a what we call a federal. question, um a federal uh statute at. issue again, uh the the Clayton Act or. the or the Sherman Act, then we are in. federal court, federal district court. >> I asked that question because the end of. the line for the federal court system is. obviously the US Supreme Court, which is. a political actor. I mean, they might.

claim that there's some neutral arbiter, but it is a political actor. And so does. that play any um role in in the. decision-m process as to where this. whole um case is going to end up? Like. could that play some role in terms of. whether uh whether you look into. violations of state versus federal law. when you're determining where and and. how to bring this case? >> Generally not. Um you know, it's. something that we're not unaware of. Um,

I will say recently some big victories. for California. Um, and massive. embarrassing losses for Trump in front. of the US Supreme Court where he has. three of his appointed justices serving. whether it be the National Guard case. out of Illinois, the recent terrorist. case last Friday, you know, his. centerpiece economic policy or or Prop. 50, California's lawful um partisan. redistricting measure. We want all those. in front of the US Supreme Court. and. Trump very much wanted the uh opposite.

outcome. So I think the Supreme Court uh. can be a place where uh when we bring. the law in the facts and we bring in a. compelling case as we did in all those. cases, we can we can prevail. But um. where we have like our our live nation. uh ticket master case in the district of. New New Jersey. Um uh our Amazon case is. really unique in being in superior. court. So it's more likely than not that. we'd be in federal court. And these. cases don't often get to the US Supreme. Court. They're they're usually uh. addressed at the district court level.

Um sometimes with appeals, but um. usually, you know, we we have a judge. assigned to the case and um you know, we. get to an outcome on liability and then, you know, we move to damages and. potentially injunctive relief. And the. US Supreme Court doesn't usually have a. role to play. >> And I do want to talk about those other. cases that you have going on right now, including the case uh against Amazon and. the case against Ticket Master. Obviously, the the latter is um a highly. publicized one because everybody knows. what it's like to try and buy tickets. these days, but I I want to um stick.

with the Paramount Warner Brothers. Discovery merger for just another. moment. >> In terms of the consolidation of these. major media conglomerates, when we've. seen other media companies merge. together, what kind of an impact has. that had on price? Because obviously, you know, the point of these antitrust. laws is to make sure that that that. it doesn't result in higher prices for. consumers. It it would it would lend. itself to reason that when these, you. know, that when an already dwindling. number of movie studios or media.

companies merge, they then have the. ability to raise the raise prices. And. so, I'm just curious in in navigating. this question right off the bat, in. previous mergers, have you seen that. exact behavior happen? because that. might lend some insight into whether or. not what we're going to see right now. could be legal or illegal. >> Yes. Um we have seen this before. Generally, when you have corporate. consolidation, prices go up, quality. goes down, uh wages get lower. Um choice. is decreased. Uh um and so, you know,

there's less competition. We want uh. high competition. Uh we want uh. affordable prices. Um we want choice for. the consumer. And so corporate. consolidation is antithetical to all. those things. Uh it could still be. lawful. Uh that's why we have to look. Uh but there are some real red flags. here based on the size of these as you. mentioned these uh corporate. conglomerates. Uh they they they operate. in multiple markets. They're not just. studios. They also operate in in the.

streaming market as you mentioned. They. also operate specifically in um in news. And so there are massive impacts across. multiple markets of a potential merger. here. But generally, yes, when you see. corporate consolidation, you also see. prices going up along with it. Okay. So. I want to zoom out to the other to. include the other cases that you spoke. about. But before we get into the. specifics on Amazon and. LiveNation/Ticketmaster, why is it the responsibility of.

attorneys general like yourself to take. this on when you know, isn't this. exactly what the FTC should be doing at. the federal level? Like, isn't it their. job to make sure that, especially in an. administration that beat its chest about. affordability, that they're not creating. anti-competitive behavior that only, to. your exact point, raises the prices for. consumers by allowing mergers like we're. seeing right now? >> A very astute question. Yes, the federal. government has traditionally played this. role to uh enforce antitrust law,

whether it be the United States. Department of Justice or the FTC, as you. mentioned, both have big offices, big. teams. uh that have been able to to do. this work. This these are high resource. cases. Uh they require economists and. experts and uh large trial teams to. present the case and apply the law. And. uh traditionally the federal government. has been a central player if not the. central player in in these in these uh. cases. uh in in addition to the tariffs.

which raise prices for consumers across. uh our nation uh not enforcing antitrust. law is uh perhaps the the you know just. as powerful uh or an additionally. powerful driver of costs for a that the. president is allowing for a president. who said he was going to reduce costs on. day one. So, if he didn't have his. unlawful tariffs and just let them be. struck down uh by the Supreme Court and. never implemented unlawful tariffs in. the first place, and if he just did what.

every other uh antirust federal. antitrust division uh uh did at the US. DOJ and and through the FTC and enforce. the law, he would reduce prices, but. he's going the opposite way. Cost costs. are going up. So, in the absence of the. federal government doing their role, doing their job, states need to step up. and fill that role and fill that gap. California is the largest state. department of justice in the nation. Uh. the only Department of Justice larger. than us is the US DOJ. Uh we have a big. team that we focus on and prioritize.

antitrust work and we're prepared to do. our due diligence on these cases, complete our investigations um for the. ones we're investigating. Uh you know, go to trial if necessary uh or or. resolve the case in a way that's. consistent with our demands um if if. we're going to settle on all these. cases. And we will. And we're not uh. likely going to be operating alone. You. know, we our our ticket master um Live. Nation case is already a multi-state. case with multiple states in it. And uh. I know there's interest from other. states in um Paramount Warner Brothers.

as well. >> Can you talk about those two outstanding. cases, the Ticket Master uh Live Nation. case and the Amazon case? >> Sure. I mean, we have uh a we filed a. suit already. We being um the federal. government and multiple states in the. district court of New Jersey against. Live Nation Ticket Master for violating. federal antitrust laws, specifically the. the Sherman Act. Uh. >> so this one actually includes the DOJ. along with the state a AGS. Is that. correct? >> It does. It does. And it started under.

Biden there in in the live music, the. live concert industry. Uh ticket master. live nation operates uh tickets um. promotion and venue all of them and they. they leverage them against each other. They require sort of tying arrangements. so that you have to use all three and. they stifle competition and they they. jack up prices. You know as you. mentioned this is an area where people. who have been you know have their own.

personal experience with ticket master. know that these prices are just way too. high and and it doesn't make sense. So. there's a lot of public sentiment behind. uh this this legal case. Um it's moving. towards trial now. Uh we. believe uh that the the federal. government might be um not acting as we. hope they would in staying strong and. staying firm and and having strong. demands and a strong position for. settlement. And if and if we can't get. that in settlement, they're going to. trial. So it's looking more and more.

unfortunately like the states are going. to have to carry the load, which we can. and we will. Um but it is to your point. very unfortunate that the federal. government is um asleep at the wheel. when it comes to enforcing antitrust law. and protecting consumers um and. protecting anti-competitive conduct by. these big corporations. >> And then and then the Amazon case. >> Yes, Amazon is a case we brought on our. own. uh just California uh we are the. only plaintiff we're suing in California. um superior court in in San Francisco.

and we assert essentially a a price. fixing scheme where Amazon claims that. they have the lowest price on their. platform. Uh but what they do is they. actually raise prices. Uh when there is. a uh a vendor on their platform has uh. the same product on a on another. platform, another retailer's site at a. lower price, they demand that the vendor. raise the price on the other platform. So it's the same as the higher price on. Amazon. And Amazon can then claim it's.

the it's the lowest it's the you know. there's no lower price offered. But it's. because they price fixed and raised. prices um across different retailer. platforms. uh they might also ask the. vendor to take their product off the. other platform. Uh so there so there's. no um uh comparison price uh and in this. way Amazon raises prices instead of. lowers them uh by using their their. power, their leverage um their um their. their conduct to really squeeze these.

vendors who need uh Amazon to be able to. sell their product and be able to be. successful. So we this just this week we. filed a preliminary injunction motion. During the course of our investigation. we found additional evidence supporting. uh this scheme uh and providing. additional docu documentary evidence um. to to support it and we are moving. immediately to have uh that action and. that conduct stopped. If you want to. talk about uh you know lowering prices. this you know so many people use Amazon.

and Amazon is raising their prices. through this illegal price fixing scheme. and we think that this can make a real. difference in everyday Americans lives. and it's unlawful. In the event that. California is successful, is there a way. that other state ags could copy the. exact case that you've brought against. Amazon and, you know, replicate it 49. other times so that they can either, you. know, put Amazon in a situation where. they're going to lose 49 other times or.

recognize that if they're going to um. engage in monopolistic behavior or. anti-competitive behavior that that it's. going to cost them a lot more money and. so that might force them into a position. where they preemptively change their. ways so that they're not, you know, so. that there's some deterrent effect. basically. >> Yeah. You know, California drives. markets a lot. Uh large, you know, fourth largest market in in the nation, of course, fourth largest economy in the. world if we were a nation. So, it might. be that Amazon, should we prevail here. and and uh secure the relief that that.

that that we believe is warranted, that. they could change their their practices. throughout the United States of America. Don't know that, but that's not. impossible. Um if not, then yes, we we. do provide a sort of blueprint and a um. a guide uh book for how others might. pursue similar cases. They'll need to. have a a similar law like our cartright. act here. We have our own anti- um uh. antitrust law here in the state of. California under state law. Uh I don't. think all states have that. Uh so they.

would need they would need to have the. the the appropriate tool. But yeah, >> yes, either we uh are able to deliver. the result nationwide on our own or. other states could join in the effort. >> And and that's that's a good point to. other states to consider adopting. legislation like the Cartright Act so. that in in the event we have a. Republican party in power that is. perfectly content to engage in the. cronyism that we're seeing right now, at. least there is some bull work at the. state level like the one that um that. we're lucky enough to take advantage of. here in in our home state of California.

So, with that said, uh, Attorney General. Bont, as always, I appreciate the time. >> I appreciate it, too. Thanks, Brian. Good to see you.