Weekend Law: Big Oil Seeks Climate Lawsuit Reprieve; States Sue RFK Jr

10:52Justin Daniels:It could certainly give a shield to big oil, and it could be a very significant shield. Now, with dozens of suits out there, there might be other kind of legal approaches that could go forward. Even the oil companies are saying that Colorado could still press a very, very narrow claim about pollution that happened within Colorado affecting people in Colorado. But the Boulder is trying to do much, much more than that. Again, just the complications of all this litigation means that there probably will still be some avenues even if the oil companies win here for claims to go forward. There's always the potential that, you know, say a new administration could come in in a few years and, you know, make some changes that allow suit to go forward.

11:41Justin Daniels:New legislation could be passed. So it wouldn't necessarily cut it off for all times, but it would certainly be a significant shield for oil companies if the Supreme Court says Boulder can't sue.

11:52Jessica Nix:Yeah, I was going to ask. That would add another layer of, let's say it again, complication to this particular case if a new administration were to come in and start changing rules to allow or disallow things to happen.

12:03Justin Daniels:Yeah, I don't think there's any question. So one of the kind of sub issues in this case is what the Clean Air Act says about allowing lawsuits. And, you know, certainly a new Congress could come in and say, we want to make the Clean Air Act much more specific about climate change, both to empower the EPA to do things and to explicitly say states can can file lawsuits. I – that's at least pretty likely that that could be done, whether it actually happens as a matter of politics and priorities is another question.

12:42Jessica Nix:Where do things stand now and what are you watching for in the next few weeks?

12:48Justin Daniels:So the Supreme Court is going to hear arguments. The arguments are not going to be until next term, so probably October or November. Briefs will be filed. That's sort of the next thing that will be happening over the next few weeks. And one thing I'll be looking for, I didn't even sort of give you one of the complicating factors here, is that when the Supreme Court agreed to hear this case, they said we want briefing on yet another tricky question, which is whether we, the Supreme Court, have any business in this case at all right now. So up until now, this has been handled through the Colorado courts and the Colorado Supreme Court said the lawsuit could go forward.

13:29Justin Daniels:And one argument that Boulder is making is that normally the U.S. Supreme Court can't jump into a state court lawsuit until there's a final judgment. And we don't have a final judgment in this case. And so that – those arguments haven't really been developed in the briefing all that much yet. But the Supreme Court said we want to hear more about that. So the question will be is there a chance the Supreme Court will basically say, you know what? we can't decide this issue right now. We don't have jurisdiction until it plays out more in the Colorado courts. Therefore, this big fight we've been talking about, this potential shield for the oil industry, that's going to have to wait for another case or further down the road in this one.

14:13Justin Daniels:All right.

14:13Jessica Nix:Thanks so much, Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Storr. Thank you for taking the time and for boiling it down for us. Appreciate it. My pleasure. Coming up, we turn to the legal challenges facing RFK Jr.'s overhaul of vaccine policy. You're listening to Bloomberg Law. I'm Amy Morris, in for June Grosso, and this is Bloomberg.

14:34The thing about AI for business, it may not automatically fit the way your business works.

14:40Justin Daniels: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, IBM. Support for the show comes from Public. Public is an investing platform that offers access to stocks, options, bonds, and crypto. And they've also integrated AI with tools that can assist investors in building customized portfolios. One of these tools is called Generated Assets.

15:20Justin Daniels:It allows you to turn your ideas into investable indexes. So let's say you're interested in something specific like biotech companies with high R &D spend, small cap stocks with improving operating margins, or the S &P 500 minus high debt companies. Chances are there isn't an ETF that fits your exact criteria. But on public, you just type in a prompt and their AI screens thousands of stocks and build a one-of-a-kind index. You can even backtest it against the S &P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Go to public.com slash market and earn an uncapped 1 % bonus when you transfer your portfolio.

15:56Justin Daniels:That's public.com slash market.

16:14Justin Daniels:at public.com slash disclosures.

16:17Greg Stohr:Small businesses are the pulse of every community. They bring people together, create opportunities and drive growth. With a widespread presence in communities across the country, Chase for Business supports small business owners at a local level. That makes it possible for you to connect, learn from each other and grow together. There's a real commitment to seeing small businesses succeed. The Chase for Business team has knowledge and expertise that span a wide range of financial areas. They can help you make more informed decisions as you navigate the complexities of running your business. They'll help your business grow with individual guidance and convenient digital tools all in one place.

16:54Greg Stohr:With that guidance and your determination, you can take your business farther and help build a brighter future for your community. Learn more at chase.com slash business. Chase for business. Make more of what's yours. The Chase mobile app is available for select mobile devices. Message and data rates may apply. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., member FDIC. Copyright 2026, JPMorgan Chase and Company.

17:20Justin Daniels:You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

17:26Jessica Nix:Thank you for listening to the weekend edition of Bloomberg Law. I'm Amy Morris in for June Grosso. Over this past year, RFK Jr. has made his mark as Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Trump administration, especially when it comes to vaccine policy. He's reshaped a key advisory panel and made some big changes to the national vaccine schedule for children. Those moves are facing pushback now from 15 states led by Arizona and California. Joining us now, Bloomberg News health reporter Jessica Nix. She's going to fill us in on the latest with this. Now, Jessica, first of all, let's talk about the challenge to the overhaul.

18:03Jessica Nix:Where's this challenge coming from? What's it based on?

18:06Greg Stohr:Absolutely. Thank you so much for having me. This is really based on something that RFK Jr. did on January 5th. His administration at Health and Human Services issued this new CDC immunization schedule. They called it the decision memo. What basically they did is they took the existing childhood immunization schedule and part it down to a list of 11 diseases and down from 17. So now we have shots covering just 11 diseases, no longer the 17 that we saw before. Some of the shots that were on the chopping block included longstanding recommendations for RSV, for influenza, for COVID even, including pneumococcal disease was on there as well, hepatitis B, hepatitis A.

18:52Greg Stohr:So it was a drastic change from what we have seen in the U.S. for the national schedule. So that happened on January 5th.

19:01Jessica Nix:So is that the full extent of the overhaul, just basically changing the schedules, changing what the vaccines are that kids are going to be getting? And really, how is that going to impact then the states, the families, the kids? Are they calling this an overreach?

19:19Greg Stohr:They are. I think when you think about RFK's time at HHS, it's been this crusade against vaccination policy. Before coming in, he was really criticized as being somebody who was skeptical of vaccines, an anti-vaxxer even he was called. He's constantly pushed back and said, you know, I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I'm pro safety. I'm pro looking at vaccinations. So there was this worry when he came into office that he was going to overhaul the vaccine schedule. The first thing he started to do last year in the spring was overhaul the recommendations for COVID shots for healthy kids and pregnant women.

19:54Greg Stohr:A few weeks after that, in June, he fired the entire panel of this group called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices out of the CDC. It's an advisory panel of experts who always meet a few times a year to discuss recommendations for vaccines. They're really influential in that they talk about vaccinations and what can be added to the schedule changed for schedules, whether it's for children or for adults. But they also decide insurance coverage for vaccines and whether federal insurance is going to be covering those vaccines or if they're offered for free under this program called the Vaccines for Children program.

20:29Greg Stohr:That program offers free vaccinations to over half of America's kids. So in June of last year, RFK fired the entire 17-member panel, and then he replaced them with people who were largely seen as vaccine skeptics or people with conflicts of interest to vaccinations and to some vaccine makers. There were notably two people he put on who testified against Merck on their vaccine called Gardasil for HPV. So that panel started meeting last year. meetings were filled with misinformation. A lot of times members didn't know the consequences of their votes or what they were actually voting on. So these meetings were taking up a lot of headlines.

21:13Greg Stohr:They were getting a lot of traction in the public health world. And then by December, the most drastic action that committee took is that they removed the hepatitis B recommendation for all newborns. Previously, all newborns were required to get the hepatitis B dose within 24 hours of birth to be able to protect them from a severe liver infection that could also lead to death later in life if they caught it. So the committee walked that back and rolled it back in December. A month after that is when we saw RFK Jr. come out with the decision memo where he revamped the entire childhood vaccine schedule.

21:51Greg Stohr:So that's really what's at issue here. It's all of these steps that he's taken to be able to reach this point of redoing the childhood vaccination schedule, which a lot of public health experts have said this new schedule is incredibly dangerous. It's not looking at the entire U.S. health care system to be able to say these are the vaccinations that we need to make sure that we're covering our kids who may be exposed to different diseases, who may not have access to health insurance or health care or access to a hospital nearby if they do get sick.

22:21Jessica Nix:All right, let's break that down. Let's talk about what this does and does not allow parents to do. If you are a concerned parent, you can still get your child vaccinated. Like the vaccines still exist, right? The schedule is what's changed.

22:35Greg Stohr:Absolutely. You as a parent could still walk into your pediatrician's office and ask for those vaccines if you want them. What they did on the schedule is they moved the vaccines from what's called recommended to something called shared clinical decision making. It's just a term that really talks about whether insurance is going to cover a vaccine or not. Now, insurance companies have said they are still going to cover these vaccines. But as a parent, you can still get them if you want them. It's just adding to this layer of confusion around vaccines.

23:04Jessica Nix:Also, schools still have requirements for vaccinations, right? So if these aren't as readily available or as easily available, they still have to be done, right?

23:15Greg Stohr:Yes, schools still have their own schedules. But again, those are going to be public schools that have those schedules. Private schools are going to do something a little bit different or home schools. So public schools will still be recommending these shots and making sure that you are up to date on immunizations. But there's another thing that's happening here. That's the national schedule that they overhauled last year. States still have their own vaccine schedules. Last year, when RFK started revamping the advisory committee, some Democratic states started banding together to create their own public health coalitions, to start creating their own vaccine schedules and codifying their vaccine schedules to no longer be tied to the CDC one.

23:54Greg Stohr:So now we're seeing this piecemeal vaccine policy between blue states and red states across the U.S. And so if you're in New York, for instance, your vaccine schedule for your kid who's going to be in public school is going to be just the same as it was last year. If you're in another state, that's going to be up for question.

24:12Jessica Nix:You said something earlier in this interview. I want to be clear that I understood what you were saying, you're talking about the new panel, the new board that the Secretary of Health has put into place. And you talked a little bit about the misinformation that they were receiving. One of the things you said was, is that some of the members of the board don't even realize what they are voting for in some circumstances. What do you mean by that?

24:35Greg Stohr:We really saw that play out in September in a meeting where they were discussing the hepatitis B vaccine. As they were discussing it, members didn't really understand what the voting questions were. And this is the typical cadence of these meetings that we see where members will discuss a vaccine. Companies are able to come with their own comment about the vaccine and about the data that's being presented. Medical groups are able to comment. There's a public comment period. And at the end, the members then decide on a vote of whether to add something to the schedule, to change the schedule, to change their recommendation on the dosage or whatever have you is the issue.

25:16Greg Stohr:Back in September, we saw members didn't really understand what was going on with the hepatitis B voting language. Some of the language, even on COVID shots, was being amended like in real time. They ended up punting the hepatitis B discussion to another day. It's incredibly complicated. And obviously these members were confused on what they were voting on, the voting language. the implications of their votes too, and how this would play out for insurance coverage.

25:45Jessica Nix:Okay, so now there are lawsuits in place, pushed back from 15 states. Are there 15 different lawsuits? Is it all one big lawsuit? How is that working out?

25:54Greg Stohr:It's one big lawsuit. It's being led by the attorneys in Arizona and in California. It's mostly Democratic states that we're seeing. It's 14 different attorneys general. We're also seeing the governor of Pennsylvania has added his name to the suit as well. So they're all pushing back against this vaccine schedule. It is important to remember, these are different states that have joined these public health coalitions and come up with their own vaccine schedules that are different from that national schedule that RFK revamped, RFK Jr. revamped. However, they're arguing that even though their schedules may be different, they're still having to deal with the economic fallouts and the misinformation that comes with this revamp that has been pushed by the administration.

26:41Jessica Nix:So what are they asking for? Are they asking for him to withdraw the revamp or to exempt their, what do they want?

26:47Greg Stohr:They want two things. They want the childhood immunization schedule to be reversed to April of 2025, which would be before RFK Jr. came in and redid the entire advisory committee at the CDC. And they're arguing that the CDC's advisory committee was illegally constituted. They're saying that that committee has to be a membership that is fairly balanced. And their argument is that these new members were not fairly balanced. They did not follow the right federal guidelines to be able to put these members into place after that 17-member panel was fired. And so they want the panel to be disbanded as its current makeup.

27:30Greg Stohr:And they want the childhood immunization schedule to be reversed to before that decision memo came out on January 5th.

27:37Jessica Nix:How unusual is this lawsuit? Is there any historical precedent that could give us an inkling about which direction this is going to go?

27:45Greg Stohr:This is pretty unprecedented. We've never seen an HHS secretary revamp the entire childhood immunization schedule and really go on a crusade against vaccines like we've seen out of this administration. There is one other lawsuit that is very, very similar to the one that was filed by these 15 states that's currently playing out in Massachusetts. That was filed last summer, led by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other top medical groups. So they originally filed a lawsuit over the changes to that vaccine advisory committee. They've then amended that lawsuit based off of the changes to the hepatitis B vaccine and also to the changes to the childhood immunization schedule from January.

28:29Greg Stohr:So the first hearing for that was earlier in February. They were also arguing for this vaccine committee to not take place in February, where they were originally supposed to meet. That meeting has now been delayed to the middle of March. There's another hearing for that lawsuit in early March, but they are asking the same thing as these 15 states for that vaccine panel to be disbanded and for the childhood immunization schedule to be reversed.

28:57Jessica Nix:Oh, wow. So it could take months for this to actually make its way through the court system.

29:01Greg Stohr:Absolutely. Yeah. Well, this is in for the long haul.

29:03Jessica Nix:So then what are you going to be watching for over the next few months?

29:07Greg Stohr:Well, we're watching especially this vaccine advisory panel to see how much more they could do to the childhood immunization schedule and even to the adult immunization schedule and which vaccines are going to be next on the chopping block. So they've already gone after hepatitis B and rolled back that first recommendation. But we've heard from members of that committee who've said that any vaccine is going to be on the table, that they want to look at everything in terms of safety, in terms of efficacy, and decide which vaccine should really stay on those on those schedules or be changed around for recommendations for ages, for whether something should be still considered a recommended vaccine versus that that shared clinical decision making.

29:50Greg Stohr:language.

29:50Jessica Nix:All right, Jessica, thank you so much for taking the time with us today. We do appreciate it. Thank you for having me. Jessica Nix is a health reporter for Bloomberg News. And just ahead, we'll talk about the social media addiction trial and how jury trials like this one could be used to keep big tech in check. I'm Amy Morris, in for June Grosso. This is Bloomberg.

30:15The thing about AI for business, it may not automatically fit the way your business works.

30:20Justin Daniels: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. IBM. Support for the show comes from Public. Public is an investing platform that offers access to stocks, options, bonds, and crypto. And they've also integrated AI with tools that can assist investors in building customized portfolios. One of these tools is called Generated Assets.

31:00Justin Daniels:It allows you to turn your ideas into investable indexes. So let's say you're interested in something specific like biotech companies with high R &D spend. small cap stocks with improving operating margins, or the S &P 500 minus high debt companies. Chances are there isn't an ETF that fits your exact criteria. But on public, you just type in a prompt and their AI screens thousands of stocks and build a one-of-a-kind index. You can even backtest it against the S &P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Go to public.com slash market and earn an uncapped 1 % bonus when you transfer your portfolio.

31:36Justin Daniels:That's public.com slash market. Add paid for by Public Holdings. Brokered services by Public Investing, member FINRA SIPC. Advisory services by Public Advisors, SEC Registered Advisor. Crypto services by ZeroHash. Sample prompts are for illustrative purposes only, not investment advice. All investing involves risk of loss. See complete disclosures at public.com slash disclosures.

31:57Greg Stohr:Small businesses are the pulse of every community. They bring people together, create opportunities, and drive growth. With a widespread presence in communities across the country, Chase for Business supports small business owners at a local level. That makes it possible for you to connect, learn from each other, and grow together. There's a real commitment to seeing small businesses succeed. The Chase for Business team has knowledge and expertise that span a wide range of financial areas. They can help you make more informed decisions as you navigate the complexities of running your business.

32:29Greg Stohr:They'll help your business grow with individual guidance and convenient digital tools all in one place. With that guidance and your determination, you can take your business farther and help build a brighter future for your community. Learn more at chase.com slash business. Chase for business. Make more of what's yours. The Chase mobile app is available for select mobile devices. Message and data rates may apply. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. Member FDIC. Copyright 2026. JPMorgan Chase and Company.

33:01Justin Daniels:You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

33:07Jessica Nix:You're listening to the weekend edition of Bloomberg Law. I'm Amy Morris filling in for June Grosso. June's off this week. Two of the world's biggest social media platforms are on trial over allegations that they intentionally make their products addictive to young people. A 20-year-old woman says Meta's Instagram and Google's YouTube caused her to suffer anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia. This is the first case of its kind, but probably not the last. Let's look at the latest in this high-profile trial and how this could change the way lawyers handle cases involving big tech. Justin Daniels is a shareholder at Baker Donaldson, a corporate and technology transaction lawyer.

33:45Jessica Nix:He recently wrote about this for Bloomberg Law, and he joins us now. Justin, thank you so much for joining us today.

33:52Justin Daniels:My pleasure.

33:53Jessica Nix:First, let's just go over the parameters of this case. On the face of it, it does seem pretty simple. The social media platforms facing allegations of purposefully creating an addictive product and sort of made me think of cigarettes or tobacco. Is that about right?

34:09Justin Daniels:I think that's a great analogy, and I would include firearms as well.

34:13Jessica Nix:So if it's so simple, why is it so groundbreaking? I think it's groundbreaking because let's step back and look at the regulatory environment.

34:25Justin Daniels:So we have a situation where we don't have any kind of federal laws really governing privacy, cybersecurity, and we're dealing with the big tech companies and regulation around social media platforms, as you know, in some respects is politically constrained or just vague. So in an environment like that, and you're dealing with really important issues around addiction, and if we get younger, a protected class of people, which are children, when you don't have that regulatory guidance, by default, we're going to go to the tort system, and ultimately a jury may step in and be your de facto regulator.

35:10Jessica Nix:So then this would create a new role for juries. Is that new or is this just becoming more popular? It's sort of growing in this way.

35:19Justin Daniels:I don't think it's a new role. It's just understanding that when you are in a regulatory environment that is uncertain, where there aren't guardrails, you have a lot of money at stake when it comes to the big tech companies and their competition with each other for users. And there are concerns out there about harm, such as the ones that you've described. In an environment like that with no regulatory guidance, it shifts to bringing cases under the tort laws and getting in front of juries and seeing what they're going to decide. So I don't think it's anything new, but I do think it really impacts how in-house attorneys have to think about being part of the design team when companies are developing these products, because design trade-offs that get made could end up being exhibits in depositions or at trial.

36:11Jessica Nix:Okay, let's talk about that for a second. Just this week, Anthropic was talking about how it was going to drop its safety pledge. It's a hallmark safety pledge that Anthropic has had. They say they're going to drop it because the policy environment, and I think that's key, shifted toward prioritizing the competitiveness and the economic growth within AI, while those safety-oriented discussions that you just referred to haven't really gotten any traction, especially on the federal level. Again, that sounds like a jury would have to step in if somebody were to decide to sue over some sort of safety issue there.

36:46Jessica Nix:Is that what we are seeing within the big tech community, is that it is so important to be more competitive and to have that economic growth and to show those numbers that to take the time to meet those safety parameters would take too long, and then they're going to mess up their economic growth. And then that's where the jury step in.

37:07Justin Daniels:I think the answer to your question is just look at the actions of the different companies. Go back to the run up to the elections in 2024. Remember how all the AI companies were talking about, hey, we need to be regulated. We recognize we need to be regulated.

37:20Jessica Nix:Yeah.

37:21Justin Daniels:The election happens. Trump wins. Now you're into an environment where he's very supportive of those tech companies. We don't have a lot of regulation. and as I wrote about in the article, if you decide for safety reasons, you're not going to have a design feature, but your competition decides to do it, you can quickly go from market dominance to an also ran. I mean, think about at one point it was chat GPT has the best AI. Then they were saying, no, Gemini has gone past it. And more recently with Claude and Cowork, now Claude's got the advantage. So you've got this race for market share and the companies are focused on that, what are some of the collateral consequences of that when we start having these conversations around safety with what you said about Anthropic being the latest example of that?

38:11Jessica Nix:Something else you wrote on the Bloomberg Terminal that if AI can predict a user's vulnerability, the legal argument is no longer we didn't know, but we built this system designed to know, but we failed to intervene. Is that the crux of all of this?

38:24Justin Daniels:I mean, when I look at it from my vantage point as an attorney, and I look at what could be potential claims in the current regulatory environment, we're talking product liability. And then you get into what was foreseeable from a legal standard standpoint. And if you built something that you know is intended to predict, how do you sit there and then say, well, we didn't know what it was going to do, and you didn't intervene? From a legal perspective, how would that play with a jury in a court case? And that's, to me, the question in-house attorneys need to be asking and why I put in that piece that they need to be part of the design team, not a patch that comes later when these tradeoffs have already been documented.

39:06Jessica Nix:That actually anticipates my next question. Those company attorneys, those in-house attorneys need to be part of this conversation. But you know what? That costs time and money. Is that worth it?

39:18Justin Daniels:Well, in the current regulatory environment, these cases are going to start to put parameters around what that cost might look like.

39:26Jessica Nix:So you see more cases down the road?

39:28Justin Daniels:I think you're going to continue to see that until we start to get some type of regulatory guardrails. And when you look at the overall regulatory environment, nothing's really happening at a federal level. So states are trying to step in. You probably saw a few months back with Trump's executive order trying to say, hey, states, get out of the job of regulating AI. ah, you're stopping innovation, while states are saying, no, we have some real potential harms to our residents that we're not willing to step back and not intervene to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of our states. That's the tension that you're seeing when you peel back from these two particular cases and kind of look at the landscape that's underlying it.

40:10Jessica Nix:Finding a happy medium or finding a release of the tension between the safety and the innovation is not new. Certainly, it can't possibly be new. We've been going through this for hundreds of years as far as innovation versus safety. However, it feels different this time. Why does it feel different this time?

40:30Justin Daniels:Well, I'm going to take off my lawyer hat. I'm going to speak to you from Justin, the dad personal hat.

40:36Jessica Nix:All right.

40:37Justin Daniels:I think it feels different because society is being so shaped now by digital technology, particularly social media, Instagram, Facebook, also AI. And you can see some of the collateral consequences that are happening in our society with tribalism, people going into echo chambers, people, perversely, these are designed to create communities, but they're fracturing communities. And so in my mind, from my personal perspective, particularly when I watch my children interact with technology, I think that's why it just feels different because it feels like it's ever present. It's everywhere and it's influencing things.

41:23Justin Daniels:And the part that's so interesting about it is it's not like tobacco where you could see the cigarette or you could see a firearm or what would happen And here it kind of happens in this opaque, unclear fashion. But the consequences seem to be real.

41:41Jessica Nix:For most of this interview, we've been talking in general about big tech. You just boiled it down to what this case is about, which is social media and kids being involved in social media. And the case, of course, being about the addiction that kids might experience on social media, different types of social media. Specifically, I believe Instagram was named in the case. Do you see this having ramifications for the future of how we as the public interact with social media or how social media platforms present themselves to the public from here on out? I think how people engage with social media will not change until people really understand how it works.

42:26Justin Daniels:And what I mean by that is it's all works based on engagement. They want you to engage. They don't care why you engage, how you engage, but they want people to engage on the platform so they're there a longer time. And so, you know, you can look at advertisement. But the thing is, what typically engages people we know that's been documented in research? It's things that get that draw an emotional response to people. And a lot of that time that saying inflammatory things, saying the kinds of things that if you and I are in the room together, I would never say to you face to face. But when you're online, people seem to feel differently about what they're willing to say and not say.

43:08Justin Daniels:So that to me is what has to change. And then from a company standpoint, I don't know that things are going to change until there's more regulations or requirements in place because it's a race for market share. And from what we're seeing from a decision standpoint in the public is when it comes to safety versus market share, to your point, which one has been winning out consistently with the decisions that companies are making? enter the juries when you have a lack of a regulatory clarity you have a harm and we're dealing with a protected class of people i.e kids where are you going the tort system and the jury

43:52Jessica Nix:but golly social media big tech it's all so huge ai it feels like such a juggernaut It feels a little insurmountable, doesn't it?

44:04Justin Daniels:It can because we're talking about some of the richest, well, the richest companies in human history. And so who steps in and who can step in? I don't know what you do besides regulation because asking the companies to just regulate themselves, does that seem to be working?

44:28Jessica Nix:Well, at the beginning of this interview, you did mention how the companies did come forward and say, hey, we need to be regulated. Where is that at this point? How is that working out?

44:39Justin Daniels:I guess the answer to that is the consequences of the 2024 election and how that has played out, because the current administration seems to be taking a pretty hands-off attitude towards regulation. It appears that there would be now new roles for the juries, the courts, the in-house attorneys, entirely new landscape now until there is some sort of comprehensive regulation in place. I guess what I would say is absent regulation and given the potential harms to protected class such as children, we're shifting the responsibility from regulation to the courtroom and the jury is what I would say.

45:23Jessica Nix:All right. We're going to leave it there, Justin. It has been a pleasure. Thank you so much for enlightening us on this issue. Our thanks to Justin Daniels for joining us, a shareholder at Baker Donaldson. And that does it for this edition of Bloomberg Law. subscribe to the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts so you never miss an episode. I'm Amy Morris, in for June Grosso, and this is Bloomberg.

45:52Justin Daniels:The news doesn't stop on the weekends. Context changes constantly. And now Bloomberg is the place to stay on top of it all. Hi, I'm David Gurra. Join us every Saturday and Sunday for the new Bloomberg This Weekend.

46:04Greg Stohr:I'm Christina Ruffini. We'll bring you the latest headlines, in-depth analysis, and big interviews. All the stories that hit home on your days off. And I'm Lisa Matteo.

46:13Justin Daniels:Watch and listen to Bloomberg This Weekend for thoughtful, enlightening conversations about business, lifestyle, people, and culture. On Saturday mornings, we put the past week's events into context, examining what happened in the markets and the world.

46:26Greg Stohr:Then on Sundays, we speak with journalists, columnists, and key political figures to prepare you for the week ahead.

46:32Justin Daniels:Join us as soon as you wake up and bring us with you wherever your weekend plans take you. Watch us on Bloomberg Television, listen on Bloomberg Radio, stream the show live on the Bloomberg Business app, or listen to the podcast.

46:44Greg Stohr:That's Bloomberg this weekend, Saturdays and Sundays starting at 7 a.m. Eastern.

46:48Justin Daniels:Make us part of your weekend routine on Bloomberg Television, radio, and wherever you get your podcasts.