Weekend Law: Luigi Pleads, Meta's $1.4 Trillion Trial & NFL Antitrust

0:00June Grasso:So there's a lot of noise about AI, but time's too tight for more promises. So let's talk about results. At IBM, we work with our employees to integrate technology right into the systems they need. Now, a global workforce of 300 ,000 can use AI to fill their HR questions, resolving 94 % of common questions. Not noise. Proof of how we can help 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. When you're running a business, the best days are the ones where priorities stay on track. For midsize and large companies, that isn't always easy.

0:38Risk can touch multiple parts of an organization at the same time, often in ways that aren't immediately obvious. It might involve property, liability, or cyber. It could stem from regulatory requirements or challenges tied to a specific industry or the scale of an operation. At that level, managing risk becomes an ongoing discipline, not a one-time decision. At the Hartford, the focus is on helping businesses manage risk before it turns into something more disruptive. That means working with companies to identify where they're exposed, decide what matters most, and put practical standards in place so risk is managed as part of day-to-day operations.

1:14And when losses do happen, the Hartford can pair that risk control work with insurance coverage grounded in underwriting, risk engineering, and claims experience developed over time. Learn more at thehartford.com slash risk mitigation. As industries evolve faster than ever, companies need an environment that accelerates strategic growth. And Michigan delivers on that promise. From emerging startups to global enterprises, Michigan offers what executives value most, a resilient, innovative ecosystem. Diverse communities that attract top talent and a quality of life that supports work-life balance.

1:48With our unified Team Michigan approach, businesses scale faster and compete at the highest level. Michigan, pure opportunity. Seize your opportunity at michiganbusiness.org. This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. This was not a spontaneous act of violence. It was deliberate, calculated, and premeditated. Luigi Mangione pleaded guilty on Friday to two federal stalking charges in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, admitting matter-of-factly that he trailed the executive to an investor conference and gunned him down on a New York City street in 2024. After the plea, Mangione's attorney, Karen Friedman Agnifolo, echoed what he had said in his allocution to the court, that he endured years of severe pain from a broken back while struggling to navigate the obstacles of the health care system.

2:52Like the thousands of people who have reached out since this tragedy to share their own experiences, he believed that the system had failed him and destroyed his life. Mangione's state trial on murder and weapons charges is set to start on September 8th, but his lawyers have filed a motion to dismiss the state trial under New York's double jeopardy statute. It was a single tragic event, yet he's being prosecuted twice for the same conduct. Federal prosecutors didn't give Mangione any deal or incentive to plead guilty. In fact, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Jamie McDonald said that they'll ask for a sentence of life in prison when he's sentenced on December 18th.

3:35There are no accommodations or concessions, and we are free to seek the maximum penalty under the law. My guest is criminal defense attorney Jeremy Saland, a former Manhattan prosecutor. Jeremy, it's not often you see a defendant pleading guilty to every charge without a plea deal in place. If you're going to plead to an entire indictment, you can do so. It's exceedingly rare unless you find yourself in a bind, which he did here. The way I break this down, at least internally, and I think it's a fair assessment, Ivan Mangioni and his defense team, I recognize that my defenses are limited. There was at one point an effort to pursue extreme emotional distress that died on the proverbial vine.

4:16Didn't go anywhere. We look at the evidence and we lost our hearing upon the defense for the most part. So the evidence that was the most damning still came in. So if we don't have that extreme emotional distress, and the evidence is pretty damning, what is our defense? And if our defense is hoping to get a secret Manchurian candidate type juror, then that's a pretty bad defense. Because even if you are successful in round one, you know the state is going to prosecute at round two. And you know that the feds are there waiting in the wings, although they clearly did not wait. So he was really stuck.

4:49And I'd rather be doing my time in a federal penitentiary than in Attica or Sing Sing or Greenhaven. And for those who do not know, you should visit from the outside. They are scary, scary places. So do you think that the evidence was so overwhelming, as we've heard it described, that the only real choice was federal prison over state prison? The evidence is overwhelming. And if you lack those, you know, the mental health defense, extreme emotional distress, or some other insanity type play. There's no question of identity. And all that damning evidence, motive, intent came in with, you know, things were written and video and all of that.

5:26Again, you see the writing on the wall. If you lack the defense, why am I going to have two trials? Why am I going to risk being in a state penitentiary? Why am I going to risk life in prison with the state? So I think if I had to choose, I would rather be with the feds. and at least I have a chance, albeit a small one, to limit my exposure on the back end in terms of that sentence from the court. But I don't see how the court does that, meaning give him much, if anything, less than that life without parole. I mean, a little bit, potentially, certainly. But you're a young man, you know, 20, 30 years in prison, you get paroled is still a long time.

6:00The judge asked the federal prosecutors about the advisory guidelines. They said the guideline range was between 24 to 36 years in prison. So why wouldn't the judge follow those guidelines instead of sentencing him to life? Because if a statute authorizes you to do that, we know the death penalty is off the table. This is sort of a rhetorical question, and I think we can all answer it differently. But what's the value of a life, meaning taking a life and the punishment and the deterrent factor? So I think all things are on the table for the court. You know, I would not have been surprised if when he was allocuting and asked questions about, you know, whether you understand your rights and you're giving a right to a trial and the opportunity to discuss with your attorney and all those different things, he was asked, you know, if he was under the influence of any drugs.

6:47And I think the only medication he said he had taken was a sleeping pill, which really is counter to the argument that my client is mentally ill and suffers from all of these issues. So by not saying anything, either he's going to claim later on he really was, and his attorney's told him to shut his mouth, and therefore I didn't get my truth out. or he's really not. And now you've lost the opportunity to argue that in large part in your sentencing. That sounds like real defense attorney thinking. So all along, the defense attorneys have been arguing that the state and federal prosecutions constitute double jeopardy.

7:19And right after the plea, the defense attorneys came out and said they just filed a motion seeking dismissal of the state's case, arguing that New York law prohibits defendants from being prosecuted twice for the same crime. So that was the real plan then to get the state case dismissed. Yeah, June, of course, you know, to the point I started off with, if you can limit it to one and give yourself an argument as best as possible to avoid the maximum time incarcerated, and you could find yourself in a federal prison, which is no cakewalk, don't get me wrong, as opposed to a state prison, win would be an overstatement, but it's better than the alternative.

7:59So tell us what the defense double jeopardy argument is and what their chances are of getting the state case dismissed. So generally speaking, there is a rule of sovereignty that says you can have two parallel proceedings, even if they stem from really the same incident, meaning federal and state. New York has its own rules, and that limits the ability for the state to prosecute if the underlying criminal transaction and offense is the same. That in part was changed and made it even tighter with Paul Manafort when New York prosecuted him for what was really the same crimes, the same transactions, even more so than this.

8:41Court said, no, you can't prosecute Paul Manafort. So that rule applies here too. But I think there is some color for the prosecution to push back whether they're going to be successful as a different animal, but they do have some arguments to make. For example, in court today, as I understand, Mangione admitted to shooting Mr. Thompson and putting him in fear of his safety or something to that effect, but he did not admit to intentionally murdering Thompson. That wasn't required as part of the stalking plea. Now, setting aside whether that's justice, where you're getting to plea to something else on a homicide, intentional murder to stalking, that's a separate question and I think a valuable one.

9:17But the elements are different in these crimes, and the allocution is important here. Also, the stalking, the harm intended by the stalking statue, you know, is different than that of the murder, too. So there is some color there to argue, but I still think it's a tough lift. One other thing, anything he said in that courtroom, remember, under oath, is usable against him for sure. And that state prosecution, if it ever were to rear its head and be able to be pursued. So Mangione read from a prepared statement during the hearing, and part of it talked about years of enduring severe pain from a broken back and having to navigate the obstacles of the health care system.

9:56His attorney also mentioned that when she spoke outside the courthouse. Does that tell us they're going to use that in his sentencing to try to mitigate the severity of his sentence? Everything that Karen and Mark Ignifolo stated and said was intentional and deliberate. And they're both phenomenal attorneys. So we should expect they're laying the foundation. My response to that is very simply, that is neither here nor there. If I'm the judge, it does not give you the right to take a man's life and strip his family of his love and compassion and partnership. Take a hike, Mr. Mangione. Your day is done.

10:38Mangione's attorney said that he's been treated differently from every other defendant charged in New York with the same crime. And has successfully fought off terrorism charges and the death penalty, while also fighting at the same time two simultaneous prosecutions in two jurisdictions. Do you think he's been treated differently? Absolutely. 100 percent. And they are unequivocally correct. And I hope those in charge from the U.S. attorney of the Southern District of New York on up recognize they had no place in this prosecution. They had no place seeking the death penalty. And what I mean by that is not that it didn't warrant a potential death penalty if you believe in the death penalty.

11:25That's not my point. My point is, when I start seeing and you start seeing, June, an average New Yorker starts seeing them going after domestic abusers who cross state lines with guns and kill their intimate partners with the same fortitude and intention and zealousness as it did Mangione, then we can have a different conversation. But they don't. They don't. They don't. This is all about ego. It's all about the arrogance of the Southern District. and also a piece of this is, I think, retribution against Alvin Bragg for prosecuting Donald Trump. It may not have started that way because it started under Biden, but it also was, we're going to wait for the prosecution in the state to go through, and it devolved into, let's seek the death penalty and let's brush the state aside.

12:09And if you want more proof of that, I would bet my career on the fact that Alvin Bragg and the prosecutors in Manhattan did not know that the defense and the federal prosecutors are in conversation about a plea, hence this apparent spur of the moment, on Friday, let's get it in there and let's get a plea. That's not judicial economy doing the right thing for the court system because it's overburdened. There's a lot of people warranting that attention. The prosecutors have other homicides and horrible sex crimes, violent crimes that demand their attention. The financial equity, the emotional equity, the capital put into this, it's a disgusting injustice.

12:48not injustice in the sense that by far and away, June, obviously a man was murdered and his name is lost. His name is Brian Thompson, in case we forget. It's not Mangione. He is dead and his family is traumatized. That's not what the Southern District cared about. They wanted this prosecution. They landed on an aircraft carrier, had fireworks going off and they took Mangione and brought him into custody. That's what this was about. And that's disappointing because this deserved the attention of the state prosecutors, which it did. And in the end, if this is the last thing that stands, is he convicted of murder?

13:19Did he plead to intentionally murdering Brian Thompson? No. That's terrible to me. While Mangione may yet be tried for murder in state court, Bragg's office said they're prepared to litigate the defense motions. Thanks so much, Jeremy. That's criminal defense attorney Jeremy Saland. Coming up next, state attorneys general are demanding$1.4 trillion in damages from Meta over youth social media addiction. I'm June Grosso, and this is Bloomberg. The thing about AI for business, it may not automatically fit the way your business works.

13:56June Grasso: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. Let's talk about healthcare for a second. It doesn't always work the way people expect it to. If you've ever waited on a prescription refill or had a hard time getting the care you needed, you know the feeling. The system should just work better for everyone.

14:33That's exactly what the people at Optum are trying to do every day. They're a healthcare company linking patient care and pharmacy services and using data and technology to drive the whole system so care is connected, not complicated, for patients and providers. Things like making it easier to get care that looks at the whole person, from primary care doctors to mental health support and even in-home care, and then using technology to make sure they all work together. technology designed to help doctors spend less time on busy work and more time with their patients. And those prescriptions? Optum is working to bring costs down, save patients money, and make it easier to get refills.

15:12Little by little, Optum is helping make healthcare work as one for everyone. Head to business.optum.com to see how. As industries evolve faster than ever, companies need an environment that accelerates strategic growth, and Michigan delivers on that promise. From emerging startups to global enterprises, Michigan offers what executives value most, a resilient, innovative ecosystem, diverse communities that attract top talent, and a quality of life that supports work-life balance. With our unified Team Michigan approach, businesses scale faster and compete at the highest level. Michigan, pure opportunity.

15:48Seize your opportunity at michiganbusiness.org. Now they must pay the price for the choice that they made to put profits over children's safety. In a landmark decision this month, New Mexico's attorney general won a$942 million judgment against Meta after a jury found the social media giant knowingly harmed children's mental health. That verdict may pale in comparison to the potential verdict Meta is facing at a federal trial where a coalition of 29 state attorneys general accused the company of engaging in deceptive business practices that exploit and manipulate young users, leading to a mental health crisis.

16:36My guest is an expert in Internet law, Professor Eric Goldman of Santa Clara University Law School. Eric, tell us about the stakes in this trial. In this trial, the state attorneys general are pursuing the social media defendants for a number of claims, including claiming that they are a public nuisance. The state attorneys general have asked for$1.4 trillion worth of damages, which, if issued, would represent a major chunk of the overall value that those entities are worth. The case also potentially puts in play structural remedies that would change how social media services operate. So between the damages of words and the possibility of structural reform, it's possible that these cases will change social media structurally.

17:27The state attorneys general are saying that Meta designed the platforms to get children and teenagers hooked. Tell us more about the allegations here. There's a lot of allegations, so it's a little hard to summarize. You hinted at one of them. The state attorneys general are arguing that social media services were designed to be addictive, in fact, addicted the users, and that addiction caused harm. They've also claimed, for example, that the social media services knew about that addictive attributes and harm and failed to disclose it to the public. And they're also claiming that the consequences of this addiction are harming society generally.

18:07Obviously, Meta denies the allegations. What specifically has it said? The social media defendants are defending on a wide range of grounds that the claims that are being advanced against them simply don't fit the facts that what the social media services have done is not illegal. And therefore, there should be no remedy for it. They have argued that the First Amendment applies to their decisions, that they're acting like publishers making editorial decisions, and basing liability on those editorial decisions is inconsistent with the First Amendment. And they're claiming that Section 230 applies.

18:44Section 230 says websites aren't liable for third-party content. And a lot of the arguments about addiction are ultimately about the delivery of third-party content. And therefore, the social media defendants argue that Section 230 should preempt those claims. The trial is expected to last about seven weeks. What kind of witnesses will the state AGs likely call to try to prove their case? I think that they'll use a variety of different experts who will try to bolster the argument that the social media services engaged in addictive practices and, in fact, caused harm. Both of those propositions are not scientifically established.

19:27The state agencies will have to make a case for them. I would assume that we will hear from individual victims. We might also hear from former company employees who have inside information and maybe others. The damages of $1.4 trillion, Meta's market cap is$1.5 trillion. I mean, where does that number come from? The number might have a little bit of fiction to it. It might be a fantasy land computation, but it doesn't really matter if that number is the right number. It really is more the order of magnitude of the state attorney's general position. They are saying that if the social media services are causing as much or more damage as their market cap, they literally shouldn't exist.

20:18They're basically trying to drive the value of those companies to near zero. And so that's why I think that the number is so helpful at crystallizing the stakes of this case. It's a reminder that the arguments that state agencies are advancing potentially make social media services untenable, not profitable, and maybe no longer a viable market. They're also demanding changes besides this staggering sum. The changes to the platforms that the state agencies are asking for, would they change, you know, the very essence of the way these companies' social media platforms work? Unquestionably, the structural remedies that are being ordered by courts and also mandated by legislatures will change how social media operates.

21:08What's less clear today is if they're going to change it in a way that will materially affect our willingness to use them. And I'm going to give you an example because I think it's so helpful. The New Mexico judge set a cap on the number of hours that a user could use the service in a month. Now, that cap was pretty generous. That's a lot of hours. I think it was 90. But imagine that a different judge, based on some other assessment of the science, such that any of these decisions are based on that, decides that the number is much, much lower. It says that only five hours a month is permissible.

21:43At that point, then, many users will no longer be able to engage in the community the way they're currently engaging. And it'll just starve the ecosystem for the engagement that's been driving it. There'll be less people there. There'll be contributing less. There'll be less people to consume it. And as a result, the ecosystem goes into a death spiral. It just, you know, can no longer function as the kind of vibrant conversation that we've assumed. Now, I'm just giving you a speculative scenario. I don't know if that scenario is going to play out. But it's helpful to show how one small product change ordered by a court or legislature could easily trigger a downward spiral and multiply that by the dozens, if not hundreds of different product changes that courts could issue or that legislatures have already mandated.

22:32And we can see that the ecosystem is under extraordinary pressure and may not survive it. Eric, Mehta has not fared well so far before juries in these youth social media trials. You had the New Mexico case and then the California case, where a jury awarded a single plaintiff, a young woman,$6 million. The cases are not going well for Mehta or, for that matter, for other social media defendants. The judges and the juries have generally looked disfavorably on the arguments that they're making. However, these cases are all going to go up on appeal, and there's no reason to believe that the jury or judge verdicts are going to survive intact.

23:18There are a number of good arguments that the defendants will make on appeal, and if they can succeed on any one of those arguments, it's possible that some or all of the lower court rulings will be undone. So I haven't put a lot of stock in where we stand today other than its data points. The juries are sending a message that they do hold social media services culpable for harming their users. Whether or not the law recognizes that harm and upholds the legal consequences that have been assigned to it remains to be seen on appeal. Is the strongest argument on appeal that the social media platforms have had immunity from prosecution over the content that users post and states are trying to sidestep that by going after the product design features?

24:07I think there are several strong arguments that will be advanced on appeal in this case and in, frankly, all of the cases. Section 230 is one of those. Section 230 says that the services can't be responsible for third-party content. And ultimately, given that their basic business is the delivery of third-party content, Section 230 clearly casts a long shadow. But I think the First Amendment arguments are even more obvious and, in some respects, even more troubling. In the end, social media services are engaging in publication of content, whether it's third-party content or first-party content.

24:45The First Amendment applies equally in that circumstance. As a result, to the extent that social media defendants are being held legally liable for their editorial decisions, that sounds like a problem. And that sounds like the kind of thing that an appellate court will pay attention to. It seems like the allegations and the defenses in these social media trials are pretty much the same. Do you think that Meta has learned from its losses at trial and it may change its tactics here? Meta seems impervious to the feedback that it has been getting for a very long time about the concerns that people have with its decision making.

25:24It seems to be making the same basic mistakes over and over again, both in terms of how it treats its users and also how it's been approaching the legal risk that it faces. So I don't think Meta is likely to learn any lesson from any particular development. The most likely way that Meta would change its tune is when the investors start putting pressure on it. Meta isn't delivering the kind of equity returns that its investors respect. That will catch their attention. I think everything else is unlikely to change who they are. A settlement is always a possibility. And Bloomberg Intelligence estimates that a settlement would most likely land in the low single digit billions, perhaps somewhere between four and seven billion, considering that Meta settle with the FTC for$5 billion and Amazon settle with the FTC for$2.5 billion.

26:24What do you think? To be honest, I think if Meta thought it could settle this case for$7 billion and avoid all future liability, it'd probably write that check happily. But I'm guessing that both the state AGs and the other plaintiffs, including individual plaintiffs, have much higher numbers in mind. And remember, though, in the Bellwether trial, I believe that the one plaintiff in the first Bellwether asked for$100 million. She ended up with not that much, though. The verdict was$6 million. Right. So going back to the evaluation, you know, how much is each case worth? And I will note that if there are 3 ,000 victims who are in either the state or federal consolidated cases, if the number is 3 ,000, which might be a little overstated, but work with me, if the number is 3 ,000 victims and each was worth$6 million, which is the number we got from the first Bellwood trial, that's actually closer to$20 billion.

27:19That's just for the individual victims, not the CDGs, not the Native American tribes. A single digit billion number is probably quite low if the parties are going to settle, but I don't think that they're likely to settle, and there's two reasons why. I'm guessing social media defendants are hopeful that they can knock out big chunks of the case on appeal. And also, a settlement would need to be global in nature. It would have to deal with all victims who might have a claim. And there's not a clear path by which the social media defendants can put all potential victims into a single settlement.