The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 3.21 The Truth About Shohei Ohtani, Josh Peck & Drake Bell, DOJ vs Apple, Realtor Commissions & More

Episode Date: March 21, 2024

Click here https://airup.link/defranco to get your air up bottle and scented pods today and use promo code phil10 for 10% off your entire order! Go to https://get.aspr.app/SH9Gz to get 50% off your first order of Sundays for Dogs!  ==== New drop now available at https://BeautifulBastard.com and text 813-213-4423 for secret alerts. ====✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ – 00:00 - Drake Bell Defends Josh Peck Amid Backlash 05:00 - Conservatives Boycott Planet Fitness Over Bathroom Video Controversy 06:41 - U.K. Man Becomes First Person Sentenced to Prison For Unsolicited Pictures 08:01 - LA Dodgers Fire Interpreter of Star Shohei Ohtani After $4.5M Theft Allegations 10:28 - Sponsored by Air Up 11:26 - Kate Middleton’s Medical Records Potentially Breached by Clinic Staff 14:45 - Chicago Suing Glock For Failing to Prevent Modifications 16:22 - North Dakota Ballot Measure Would Impose Age Limits on Congress Members 19:30 - US Accuses Apple of Monopolizing Smartphone Market in Landmark Lawsuit 23:01 - Sponsored by Sunday for Dogs 24:00 - The US Housing Market Is About to Change Forever 29:32 - Your Thoughts on Yesterday’s Show ——————————   Produced by: Cory Ray Edited by: James Girardier, Maxwell Enright, Julie Goldberg, Christian Meeks Art Department: William Crespo Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Brian Espinoza, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Star Pralle, Chris Tolve, Jared Paolino Associate Producer on Real Estate Market: Brian Espinoza  ———————————— #DeFranco #DrakeBell #ShoheiOhtani ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup, you beautiful bastards. You're watching the Philip DeFranco Show. It is a beautiful, actually, one second. Honestly, kind of ugly Thursday. That makes it a great day to be here in my filming dungeon. Because there is so much news. There is so much happening. So just buckle up, hit that like button to let YouTube know

you'd like these big daily dives into the news. And let's talk about it. This is a news show. In entertainment and fallout news, we should talk about Drake and Josh. Because you've got a lot of people right now accusing Josh Peck of taunting Drake Bell for being a victim. Right? All of this, of course, is amid the fallout and conversation around the Quiet on Set documentary. But you know, we talked about a few days ago that the doc explores the horrific things that allegedly went down behind the scenes at Nickelodeon.

Are we talking about sexism, racism, child actors being put into inappropriate situations, making inappropriate jokes, and in the worst instances, working with child predators? With Drake Bell there notably coming forward as a survivor and saying that he was the victim of a dialogue coach who was previously convicted of sexual assault. So understandably, that's been one of the most talked about aspects. But also with that, Josh Peck has gotten some backlash

for not publicly addressing it. People saying that he should 100% speak out since he was Drake's co-star on Drake and Josh. So there was no shortage of people calling him out online, condemning him for his silence. You know, you also had others looking at his latest TikTok because it was posted after the documentary aired. Many think Josh was insulting Drake, which in that notably he didn't actually address him in the video at all. Instead, it was just him doing a lip dub video to an audio that said, I haven't talked to you since 2023. Take that as a sign that you don't exist to me

anymore. Damn, you bug. You got sprayed with the raid. Bye. See you in that burp. So he had many saying that it was intentional, that he was trying to send some message. Other people say, no, this is probably just scheduled. It's horrible timing. But also very notably, as people had their pitch forks out, they were storming the castle. Drake actually came out to defend Josh. I just want to let you guys know that this is really, you know, processing this and going through this is a really emotional time and a lot of it's very, very difficult. So not everything is put out to the public. But I just want you guys to know that he has reached out to me and it's, it's been very sensitive, but he has reached out to,

to talk with me and help me work through this and, and has been really, really great. So I just wanted to let you guys know that and to take it a little easy on him. Josh then addressing the situation himself on Instagram this afternoon, writing that he watched Quiet On Set, but it took him a few days to process. Adding that he reached out to Drake and gives his support for the survivors who were brave enough to share their stories. Also acknowledging that this is hard to relive publicly, but he hopes that it will bring healing and change. But also with that, you know, that's not where the debate on who should be publicly speaking out ends. Because

if you look online, there's also a ton of people saying Amanda Bynes needs to speak out. And not just on random corners of the internet, like on her actual Instagram profile. Because as you see in the documentary, a lot of it's focused on her career and the role that Dan Schneider played in that. Though there, it is very much worth noting that we don't really know many details of anything that did or did not happen there. Though there is no shortage of people filling in the blank. So that's also part of the reason why we saw so many people out speaking in support of Amanda. People saying things like there's a reason why she's not commenting on it. Perhaps not everyone wants to be forced to talk about the most traumatic experiences of their lives, as well as reminder that Amanda Bynes doesn't know anyone in

explanation. Stop harassing her to speak up on her traumatizing childhood. She deserves to live a peaceful adulthood. Also, while we're seeing that playing out, there are other debates happening online about footage that was included in the documentary, because the documentary actually included tons of clips from the Nickelodeon shows and web series where actors were doing jokes that sexualized them, which is why you had places like IndieWire asking that if in doing this, the documentary just recirculated the exploitative material, it was meant to stop, saying that it inadvertently raises an important ethical conundrum. In the name of exposing and confronting objectionable material, is it acceptable to air it again, even in documentary? Very notably there, you had Alexa Nicholas, who was actually on Zoey 101 and has since become an activist against child

predators in entertainment, speaking to the outlet, saying, it's a complicated question. I don't like that footage and I don't think it should exist. It never should have been created. But then adding, at the same time, I think when you do show the material that Dan made, it does hit a little bit differently. And I feel like the documentary creators knew that the combination of the testimony and the actual footage itself would be most powerful back to back. Though an important thing that she also added is that if someone from those clips said, hey, please stop recirculating these, we should respect their wishes. And personally, I find myself agreeing with Alexa, but also understanding that it is a it's kind of a morally messy question because I see why those clips are included. You hear about the story, you're like, that sounds pretty fucked up.

You watch the videos, you go, oh, this is undeniable. The footage was already public. I mean, it was on national television. And now what we're seeing is all the context and all the behind the scenes stuff that's associated with it. And I also agree with Alexa that if any of the victims here

don't want this footage out there, then yeah, let's pull it. And while that ends up kind of being clean, there is still like the morally, here's a hypothetical. If we found out that Ariana Grande was very uncomfortable, did not like that these clips of her were resurfaced, even if it was to help expose a Dan Schneider, do you or do you not have an issue with it being included in the documentary? And I really love to know your thoughts and feelings and opinions on that. And then, so Planet Fitness

has found itself in a bit of a controversy, with it all starting from this one woman's complaint on Facebook. I just came out of Planet Fitness and there is a man shaving in a woman's bathroom. I realize he wants to be a woman. He gets to be a woman. I love him in Christ, but I'm not comfortable with him shaving in my bathroom.

I took a picture of him and I asked him, why are you there? And he justified by saying, I'm queer, LGB. Well, I left. So apparently the person that she's talking about is a trans woman. And there are photos of this person online. I won't be showing them in this video

because they were taken in the privacy of a locker room, but they are out there. And as far as this woman who's making these videos, that's Patricia Silva. She's a member of a gym in Alaska. And her posts actually got enough traction that it resulted in a response from Planet Fitness. But it didn't go really, really viral

until what happened next. Because for some context, the gym's policy lets people use bathrooms that align with their quote, "'Sincere, self-reported gender identity.'" With the company adding that, if it is confirmed that a member is acting in bad faith and improperly asserts a gender identity, they may be asked to leave

and their membership may be terminated. So in this case, the trans woman ended up keeping her membership because they said she did nothing wrong. Silva, on the other hand, they said did actually break a rule because according to Planet Fitness, you're not allowed to photograph or record other people in the bathroom. Planet Fitness ended up revoking Patricia's membership. And as soon as that news broke out, it spread like wildfire through the right-wing media sphere. The likes of Libs of

TikTok and Elon Musk sharing it to their millions of followers, prompting calls for a boycott, then more mainstream outlets like the New York Post writing up articles about it, referring to the trans woman as a man in their headlines. With all this happening, we saw Planet Fitness's stock price dropping. As of recording right now, we're seeing it bounce back. And as of right now, Planet Fitness has just held its ground, continuing to defend its policy against critics. But for now, that's where we are. And we'll have to wait to see what happens from here, right? Is this kind of a momentary thing or is Planet Fitness about to get the full bud light treatment? And then there is yet another reason to not send people unsolicited nudes,

something that 39-year-old Nicholas Hawks over in the UK just learned, because he just became the first person to be sentenced under a new law that took effect this year in England and Wales, making it a crime to send unwanted explicit pictures, also called cyber flashing. Right, and that law, called the Online Safety Act,

aims to address online harassment by making cyber flashing punishable by up to two years in prison. In fact, officials announced that Hawks was sentenced to 66 weeks in prison after he pleaded guilty to sending unwanted dick pics to a 15-year-old girl and an adult woman on WhatsApp. Also, very notably here, part of the reason for Hawks' specific prison term is because he was already convicted as a sex offender last year for sexual activity with a child under 16 and exposure, with him getting 52 weeks for cyber flashing and another 14 weeks for violating a previous

court order. But regardless, this first sentencing under the new UK law, it's big news, especially because it comes as part of a broader trend that we're seeing. Because while here in the States, there's no federal laws preventing cyber flashing, some States have taken the matter in their own hands, such as in California, which passed a law back in 2022. And that law allowing people who receive unsolicited and obscene digital materials to get as much as $30,000 in civil damages from the person who sent the content. Also, Texas has a law that makes cyber flashing a crime, classifying it as a Class C misdemeanor punishable with fines of $500. Though it will be interesting to see if more countries pass laws where all of a sudden you could actually get prison time. But while we wait to see what happens in the UK and internationally, what are your

thoughts here? When it comes to possible prison time for sending unsolicited nudes, do you think that makes sense? Do you think it's too far? What do you think? And then this Shohei Ohtani situation, it's sketchy. Something smells. Because the main narrative right now is that baseball's biggest star has been betrayed. For those that don't watch the sport, Shohei Ohtani is amazing. Arguably the most impressive athlete the MLB has ever seen. A top tier pitcher and a top tier hitter. That just doesn't happen. So being that level of athlete, he just signed this ridiculously big deal with the Los Angeles Dodgers. Now, everything's really messy.

Because there are allegations that Shohei Ohtani's longtime friend, his longtime interpreter, Ipe Mitsuhara, that he stole millions of dollars from his friends to place bets with a bookmaker already under investigation by the federal government. I want to stress this before we really dive in. This is a developing story. The LA Times, right, the ones who first reported this story, saying that both Ohtani and Mutsuhara had not replied to a request for comment. Meanwhile, Dodgers manager Dave Roberts replying to any questions on the matter like this. On that, can't comment. Anything with that, the meeting, can't comment. Again, can't say anything. Not gonna comment, guys. With that said, a loose chain of events has sort of started to come

together. So basically, the Times first reported that Ohtani's name had surfaced in a federal investigation of a bookie by the name of Matthew Boyer, who reportedly bragged to associates in Las Vegas that he had a connection with Ohtani. But then, a source said Boyer was just throwing around Ohtani's name for clout, with his lawyer saying Matthew Boyer never met, spoke with, or texted, or had contact in any way with Shohei Ohtani. But then, a spokesperson for Ohtani told ESPN that the baseball player was, in fact, helping his friend Mitsuhara pay off gambling debts to Boyer.

And in an interview, Mitsuhara repeated this claim, also adding that Ohtani had zeroPN that the baseball player was in fact helping his friend Mitsuhara pay off gambling debts to Boyer. And in an interview, Mitsuhara repeated this claim. Also adding that Otani had zero involvement in the betting. Right, notably at this point, this would already be a violation by Mitsuhara. Because MLB gambling policy prohibits any player, umpire, or club, or league official or employee from betting on sports. But there's also more. Because yesterday, seemingly out of nowhere, Otani's law firm released a statement saying, Shohei has been the victim of a massive theft and we are turning the matter over to the authorities. With two sources telling the LA Times that the amount of money involved was in the millions of dollars.

And on the same day, Mitsuhara walked back on what he had previously told ESPN, saying Ohtani had no knowledge at all of his gambling activities or his efforts to repay the debt. And he was also fired that day. And so because the stories have already changed, you have people going, okay, what's real? Because one of the narratives is this is just like the ultimate betrayal. Ohtani and Mitsuhara, like, they's real? Because one of the narratives is this is just like the ultimate betrayal. Otani and Mitsuhara, like they're more than colleagues. Otani is incredibly private and Mitsuhara has just kind of always been there. Like the two show up to the ballpark together. They are rarely seen away from each other. But that's also why we've seen kind of increased

speculation that Otani and Mitsuhara maybe were in bed together. Gambling wise, I mean, that maybe Mitsuhara is just kind of the fall guy. Again, all of this is still developing, and so we're gonna have to wait to see how this plays out, what comes out. And then, I found a really cool product to make drinking water more exciting. Especially speaking to you folks out there who can't stand the taste or no taste of water. What I found really cool is the way the fantastic sponsor of today's show, Aera, figured out how to get us to drink water with delicious flavor with zero additives, sugars, or absorbing anything unnatural. By sucking the water through the straw, a slipstream is created, and that transports water and air through the scented pod into your mouth. That's when the scent-based taste kicks in, or the

technical term for smelling through the back of your nose. Essentially, smelling in your mouth. It's a hydration revolution that makes plain water taste like something from a water bottle. They have like 15 different flavored scent pods, ranging from wild berry to cherry cola. You can choose from their steel bottle or plastic. What I also find cool is that you can use flat or bubbly water. It's your choice. And it's easy to use. You just attach the scent pod to the mouthpiece and lift up to activate. I use mine while riding my bike, hiking, or just to get more water in my body. Air Up also allows you to drink more plain water, which is flavored only through scent-based tastes. Again, no sugar or unnatural flavors or chemicals. Just go to airup.link slash DeFranco and use code

PHIL10 to get 10% off and get your bottle today. And then, have people taken the Kate Middleton conspiracies and this whole situation too far? That's a question that we've seen emerge more and more, especially over the past few days. Because while there's been all this weirdness and all this mystery, it's a question that's being asked as we're learning that there was a potential breach of her medical records now. With the UK's Information Commissioner's Office saying, we can confirm that we have received a breach report and are assessing the information provided. Though they didn't give more details about the nature of the alleged now. With the UK's Information Commissioner's Office saying, "'We can confirm that we have received a breach report "'and are assessing the information provided.'" Though they didn't give more details

about the nature of the alleged breach. With this, you have the Washington Post saying that at least one staffer at the London Clinic tried to access Kate's records, but also the Mirror reporting that it was as many as three people. And all that as the clinic itself hasn't said too much. Its CEO just saying in a statement yesterday,

"'Everyone at the London Clinic is acutely aware "'of our individual, professional, ethical, "'and legal duties with regards to patient confidentiality. There is no place at our hospital for those who intentionally breach the trust of any of our patients or colleagues. Right, but also, it should be understood, this is not a, like, shame on you, you've been bad situation, right? This is a crime for healthcare workers to access a patient's medical records without permission. Also, for those of you that are not chronically online, maybe you're watching this video over someone else's shoulder. Part of the reason some might be interested in her medical records is because the royal family

said that Kate underwent abdominal surgery back in January. But since then, there's just been this ongoing series of strange events that have caused the public to doubt that and launch conspiracies and memes galore. Which actually, on that note, we're also seeing some celebrities get some backlash for joking about it. For example, a few days ago, you had Kim Kardashian posting a series of photos of herself alongside the caption, on my way to go find Kate. Which, considering the absolutely crazy stuff out there, kind of a tame joke but over the past few days she's been getting heat for this people saying things like I'm actually embarrassed for you this is terrible and there's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other and

Kim imagine being trolled and made fun of after you got robbed in Paris girl take this insensitive post down she's also not alone we saw Blake Lively getting some heat she used a photoshop picture to promote her drink line or with that being an obvious nod to the whole edited photo debacle. But also, as we're seeing that backlash, we're still seeing most people still on the conspiracy and speculation train, which again, none of this was really helped by the way that Buckingham Palace has handled this situation. I mean, it's been such a shit show on their end that literally Kate could go around the world and shake hands with almost fucking everybody. And half those people would be like, I don't know, man. Maybe it's her. I don't know. Swab my hand.

Let's do a DNA test. Right? And all of this is we officially entered the phase of this saga where the New York Times is comparing Kate to Britney Spears. So going back to the note of the royal family's comms and PR teams. If you want, if you're up for the job, you might actually be able to help them out. It turns out they're hiring.

But I'm recently putting out a hiring notice for a communications assistant who would work at Buckingham Palace. You'd produce content, respond to the ever-mounting media inquiries, provide administrative and logistical support to various teams, and travel to visits and engagements. So there might be a few of you out there going, this sounds delicious. I'm about to make bank. I am great at PR. I'm going to do PR for the world's biggest PR family. Give me my bag. Except there is no bag to be had. That job pays 25,642 pounds a year, or for the Americans, $33,000. Which, oh my God, I think I solved the mystery

on why their PR sucks so much. That's insane. How is anyone working in PR for the biggest PR family in the world making less than someone working at a McDonald's in California? Like, are y'all hoping the 20% off at the Royal Collection trust shops

and complimentary admission tickets makes up the difference? But ultimately that is where we are with the situation right now. I will say, hopefully this, this ends by Easter. I believe that's supposed to be her like first official public appearance again. Cause honestly, I'd love to go back to a hundred percent not caring about any member of the Royal family, especially cause it feels like we're at the point where it's not just like online speculation. Like it sounds like people are actually committing crimes now And then we gotta talk about Glock Because the gun maker is most well known for its signature handgun

It's one of the most popular in America Right now it's being sued by the city of Chicago for failing to prevent criminals from modifying its weapons Because reportedly Glock pistols are uniquely easy to modify with one particular device the size of a quarter That goes by several different names A Glock switch, a Giggle switch, an auto sear Something that can be illegally bought online for as cheap as $20 or simply 3D printed at home, with it essentially turning a semi-automatic pistol into a fully automatic machine gun. So your gun goes from this to this. Truck month is on at Chevrolet. Get 0% financing for up to

72 months on a 2025 Silverado 1500 Custom Blackout or Custom Trail Boss. With Custom Trail Bosses available, class-exclusive Duramax 3-liter diesel engine and Z71 off-road package with a 2-inch factory suspension lift, you get both on-road confidence and off-road capability. Dirt road ahead? Let's go! Truck month is awesome! Ask your Chevrolet dealer for details. What's better than a well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue?

A well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue that was carefully selected by an Instacart shopper and delivered to your door. A well-marbled ribeye you ordered without even leaving the kiddie pool. Whatever groceries your summer calls for, Instacart has you covered. Download the Instacart app and enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart. Groceries that over-deliver. So in principle, while nothing has that capacity, it could fire at 1,200 rounds per minute.

And in the lawsuit, police say that they recovered 1,100 Glocks like that in the past two years alone, including one with a drum magazine that contained a hell of a lot of bullets. And you know, those are just the ones that they've gotten in. Like, who knows what else is out there? Also, the suit detailed deadly incidents involving modified Glocks in recent years, including some where you had cops armed with semi-automatic pistols facing off against criminals wielding fully automatic machine guns. But what's really key here is that last year, Illinois passed a law that makes gun manufacturers

responsible for public harm caused by actions or inaction from their sales and marketing practices. So this case is the first ever to invoke that new law. The city's lawsuit here is seeking not only money from Glock, but a court order to stop sales of the company's handguns. That is, at least until it can change its pistol design to make modifications harder. The executive director of Everytown Law, which is also a plaintiff, telling Fox News, they've known about this problem for years. They can fix it. They've made a business decision to put profits over public safety.

And then with this, on the other side, you have the Illinois State Rifle Association telling NBC. Block modifies your firearm. Somebody will just find another way to modify it. With all that said, you know, this is the beginning of a long legal road, and it's going to be interesting to watch. And then we're seeing a war on the olds playing out in North Dakota right now, and I say good. Also, it's not really a war on the olds. It's really what I just think is common sense reform, because North Dakota could become the first state

to impose age limits on Congress members. Because this summer, North Dakota's gonna vote on a ballot measure that would ban people from running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives or the Senate if they turn 81 before the last three days of their term. And while notably, this would not apply to presidential candidates because we have two olds right now, with in fact Biden and Trump being the oldest major party candidates in history,

it does come as the issue of aging politicians has been a major discussion point, especially after Dianne Feinstein died while still in office at 90 years old. And I mean, the time leading up to that, there was a question of if she was really mentally there still. But you know, the big question with this North Dakota measure isn't whether or not it's even legal. Because states are allowed to put restrictions on candidates for state office, and some have actually done so, including California. Also, North Dakota voters approved term limits for their governor and state legislators in the last election. But many experts say that states do not have the power to set these kinds of restrictions for federal offices under the Constitution. Notably, there's a Supreme Court precedent to back that up.

Right back in 1995, the Supreme Court blocked Arkansas from setting term limits on its U.S. senators and representatives, with the justices there ruling that states can't set new limitations for federal political candidates that weren't already listed in the Constitution, which is why some have speculated that this ballot measure is really just a broader effort to make a test case for the Supreme Court, right? See, if the current justices agree with past precedent, because notably here, it doesn't even look like it would really impact North Dakota. Their delegation consists of two senators and a representative, and the oldest is 67. So it very much appears to be a test case.

And in fact, if the Supreme Court, they surprised us. They go, yeah, good to go. There could be an actual tangible impact. Because right now, if you look at Congress, 11 House members were 80 or older when they took office last year. 21 in total were born during or before 1945. So those not yet 80 will hit that birthday by 2025. And then with the Senate, while just four senators of the 118th Congress

were 80 or older, an entire third of the Senate was between 70 and 79 years old. And because they serve six-year terms, many are gonna be over 80 by the time their next terms end. Though with all this, you do have some experts saying that even if states or even the federal government were able to set term limits,

that it might not actually be in the best interest of the public. With Jeremy Paul, a law professor at the Northeastern University School of Law, drawing a parallel to the top sports coaches, saying if they had the kind of term limits that people are now talking about putting on Congress, they would have won no championships

because it took them a while to figure out what they were doing. But also the counter to that, and hear me out here, we're talking about the real world where lives are at stake, not an 11 on 11 game where you win a trophy. Because you know what you're also allowed to do to coaches? Fire them before their contracts up without having to

jump through crazy hoops. And I know I'm not alone here, not just because I have a gut feeling, but a Pew survey last year found that nearly eight in 10 Americans back age limits for federal legislators, while about three fourths support the same for Supreme Court justices. With another poll showing that a majority of Americans explicitly said that the benefits of seniority and experience were outweighed by concerns that elected officials might be out of touch or unable to do their jobs past 75. And while in no way is it limited to this one thing, I think it becomes like the most obvious when you see people that were like 45, 50 years old when the fucking internet started talking about legislation related to that or even things like fucking AI. And as far as I'm

concerned, there are already age limits for someone being too young for a job. There should also be, you are too old for this job. I just think it's common sense. And then there's some big allegations getting thrown Apple's way right now. And I have to say as an Apple shareholder, my baby did nothing wrong. I don't even need to look at the facts.

My baby boy, Tim Apple is a good boy and I don't appreciate you lying on his name. I dare you make my Apple position drop 3.6%. But, I will say, joking aside, this is pretty big news. Because you have the U.S. Justice Department, 15 states, and the District of Columbia saying in a lawsuit that they filed this morning that Apple has been illegally maintaining a monopoly in the smartphone market. A move that some have called the federal government's most significant challenge to the reach and influence of Apple. And this possibly landmark case comes after years of allegations that Apple is engaged in anti-competitive behavior. Or rather, you should just hear it from the horse's mouth. This is how Attorney General Merrick Garland explained it. For consumers, that has

meant fewer choices, higher prices and fees, lower quality smartphones, apps and accessories, and less innovation from Apple and its competitors. For developers, that has meant being forced to play by rules that insulate Apple from competition. Right. And before we unpack more of what Garland said, I think it's important to say that this isn't happening like in a vacuum. You know, it's part of a broader trend of regulators that are trying to put a check on these big tech companies that have so much influence on our lives. We've seen federal agencies opening antitrust inquiries into Google, Meta, Amazon, and Apple way back in 2019, with Apple now being the last of these big tech

companies to face a federal lawsuit. But there are also specific things about this specific case that make it a big deal, because this case focuses on Apple's entire ecosystem of products and services, rather than just the App Store, which was the case with past lawsuits brought against Apple in Europe and in the US

by Fortnite developer Epic Games. Well, we're not gonna hit every point of this lawsuit, because it's almost 100 pages. Garland summed up their main arguments pretty well this morning. Apple carries out its exclusionary anti-competitive conduct in two principle ways. First, Apple imposes contractual restrictions and fees

that limit the features and functionality that developers can offer iPhone users. Second, Apple selectively restricts access to the points of connection between third-party apps and the iPhone's operating system, degrading the functionality of non-Apple apps and accessories. Not to be a dick, not a great public speaker. Like, I know that's not the main part of the job, but ideally when you're explaining your case, like, you don't want people to go to sleep. I feel like I'm in a business class I didn't want to take, but I needed to graduate.

Gee, Doug, this is how I would say it. Apple's whole system, Apple's whole way of doing business is based off of walls, chains, and weights. I'll even do it without jump cuts because that's cheating. Apple carries out its exclusionary and uncompetitive conduct in two principal ways. The first, Apple imposes contractual restrictions and fees that limit the features and functionality that developers can offer iPhone users. And second, Apple selectively restricts access to the points of connection between third-party apps and the iPhone's operating system, degrading the functionality of non-Apple apps and accessories. Hire me. Actually, don't. People on TikTok already think I'm a fed. But basically,

what Garland's talking about here, it's laid out in the text of the lawsuit. The first point being about Apple's restriction on cloud streaming apps and so-called super apps being a way to ensure user dependence on the iPhone. The second point being about Apple's restriction of third-party access to things like the iPhone's payment chip as a way of hamstringing alternative messaging, smartwatch, and digital wallet technology. Right, and so with that, one of the arguments that Apple typically makes here in defense of all these policies is that they're a way of making iPhones more secure than other smartphones. And in fact, a spokesperson said just that in a statement this morning, saying the lawsuit threatens who Apple is as a company,

and adding that if successful, it would hinder Apple's ability to create the kind of technology people expect from it, where hardware, software, and services intersect. Though notably, with all this, we're not gonna see a resolution for years, probably. And at this point, it's unclear exactly how this lawsuit would affect Apple or consumers. Force changes, fines, a public spanking of Tim Apple. Also, yes, I know his name's Tim Cook.

Let me have this. But for now, we'll have to wait and see what happens beyond, oh, good, it's down 3.68% now. And then, as most of you know, my dogs are a huge part of our family, and nutrition is very important for their life and well-being. But y'all, it can also get costly. So I want to thank the fantastic sponsor of today's show, Sundaes. Because Sundaes is a fresh dog food co-founded by a practicing veterinarian made from a short list of human grade ingredients containing 90% meat, 10% veggies, and zero synthetic nutrients. And I'm not

exaggerating when I tell you that our dogs are obsessed with this food. They see the box and it is the same response as when we give them treats. We love feeding them quality food, but the convenience of home delivery is really where it's at for us. Because I think we've all been in that position of, oh no, the food's gone. You have to resort to like bread, cheese, whatever's dog-friendly in the pantry. Sundaes also uses an air-dry process. So unlike other fresh dog food, it doesn't require refrigeration. You just pour and you serve. And it's super easy to store. And not only does Sundays cost 40% less than other healthy dog food brands, but dog parents have reported noticeable health improvements in their pups, including softer fur, fresher breath, better poops, and more energy when switching to Sundays.

So click the link in the description to get 50% off your first order of Sundays. That's 50% off your first order of dog food with human-grade ingredients. And then things actually just got better for everyone in the American housing market. Or this is a complete nightmare, depending on who you ask. Because you have a lot of realtors right now saying this is a nightmare. And everyone else that's like, this is great.

And that's because the National Association of Realtors just agreed to settle several cases for $418 million. And while each lawsuit had its own specifics, the main thing that they all complained about was how the NAR essentially fixed realtor commission prices at five to 6%, which most out there felt was just way too high. Also, if any of this sounds familiar, it's because last fall, a federal court handed a landmark $1.5 billion decision down against the NAR as part of these lawsuits. And what's different now is that as

part of an agreement to have a smaller settlement, the NAR renounced any right to appeal the decision, with the interim CEO of NAR claiming that the settlement was the best the group could do, saying ultimately continuing to litigate would have hurt members and their small businesses, and adding while there could be no perfect outcome, this agreement is the best outcome we could achieve in the circumstances. And so assuming that a judge approves a settlement, which is almost not even a hurdle, this is a final, final thing. And it's widely expected that we will see a major fallout all across the industry, most of which will be good for buyers and sellers. With this really only expected to have a negative impact on realtors.

But the easiest difference to spot being home prices, with realtors no longer able to force a 5% to 6% commission on the final sale price. And if you've never purchased or sold, like if the buyer also has a realtor, then the two of them usually split it 50-50 between them. And while to some, you know, 6% doesn't maybe sound like a lot. 6% of $100, $6. But when you scale those numbers up, you suddenly realize how big those commissions can get. Take, for example, a million dollar home. You're talking about $60,000. Also, before some

of you hit me with a million dollar home is an outrageous example. First off, in some of the most populous places in the country, that's around the norm. But also, fine, let's scale it down to the average home price across America. That's about $417,000. That's a hit of $25,000. And the real kicker is that you needed to agree to this commission rate if you wanted your home listed on NAR's multiple listing service, right? Which is this massive database that has homes for sale all over the country and is the easiest way for realtors to connect buyers and sellers. And I cannot undersell how big of a deal this is. That database and NAR, actually, I'm going to just start calling it NAR. Makes me feel Australian. R-NAR. Fuck you. I find it funny. That database and NAR's... Fuck. That database and NAR's other connections resulted in nine out of 10 homes in America being sold by a NAR-affiliated realtor. And that

database is actually its own can of worms and the source of another lawsuit NAR is facing. Because let's say you wanted to avoid using a realtor at all and just do it yourself. You know, you'd save a ton of money and you'd only really need to hire an attorney for some of the paperwork. However, you wouldn't be able to list your home on MLS, meaning that it's borderline invisible to realtors all over the country, which in turn makes it that much more difficult to sell your home. NAR essentially made a little ecosystem that sellers and buyers have to agree to in order to really have a chance of finding a home. And MLS is such a problem that it's actually facing other lawsuits over the database. And in general, the entire scheme to fix the price of commissions for sellers to raise the prices of

their homes to compensate, especially as it's not like you had a lot of room to negotiate with them either. The NAR literally fixed the commission price for the 1.5 million realtors it represents, which for context is very high. Up in Canada, for example, the average price is about 4%, about 2% per agent. Although notably, that's also going down as rates get more competitive. And even then, Canadians are complaining that the rates they have are so high. And so the change that we're seeing now, it's believed that it's going to reduce commission prices by 25 to 50%.

And in total, it's expected that the $100 billion a year that realtors are paid will shrink by about a third. Or it might even upend how homes are sold altogether. One major thing that the lawsuits pushed for was a change to who pays for the commission, with them arguing that it should be the buyer who pays, not the seller. Although with this change, it'll likely make it so that some kind of negotiation takes place. And so because of that, there's also a huge opening for other ways of buying and selling homes, such as using flat fees or fee-based. There's also a good chance that this could affect home prices in other ways, like availability. The stocks of home builders bumped since the announcement, with Leonard jumping 2.4%, Toll Brothers rising 1.8%, and Pulse Group getting about a 1% boost. All the winter signs

that investors think that they'll have their work cut out for them. And so as great as all this sounds for the vast majority of people, of course, this is not without some critics. Obviously, realtors are upset that they've lost their racket. And to be fair to them, it's not like most realtors don't do anything. They definitely handle a lot of paperwork. They show the homes. They act as a liaison between a seller and a buyer. But there was definitely a very real question of, do these services add up to the cost? But there was a very real question of, were you overpaying for what was being done? Whether you're talking about the $25,000 on average and or is there a meaningful difference when you sell things that are higher? Is there a meaningful difference in what a realtor

has to do to sell a $417,000 home, a $1 million home, a $5 million home, one of these $10 million McMansion things they throw up out here, which with the way things were would warrant a $600,000 commission. And so you have people saying, you could theoretically do all of this yourself and just hire a lawyer to do the paperwork for far, far less. So the drawback there is that you got to do more work yourself. And all of this is some companies are very wary of this news. Like Zillow, for example, which heavily relies on how the industry currently operates. They're dooming about what could happen next. In a 10K filing last month, it warned that, quote, if agent commissions are meaningfully impacted, it could reduce the marketing budgets of real estate partners or

reduce the number of real estate partners participating in the industry, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. And other companies have already seen the effect with Redfin stock dropping about 5%. And all of this is there are a few analysts who aren't convinced that this is actually going to have a noticeable effect on home prices saying, yeah, it'll have the impact of reducing commission costs for sellers and possibly to the detriment of buyers. But sellers don't set home prices based on what their closing costs will be. The market sets home prices. You also have companies like LendingTree warning that people should have muted expectations from the decision, saying, yes, it is a major change to the industry, but it's not like the effects

are going to be noticed overnight. Not to mention that there are bigger issues when it comes to buying a home, such as interest rates, which I mean, just in the last few years, there's such a difference that a $25,000 commission or however much it is, might be relatively small in comparison to the other money impacts. But with all that, no matter who you are, whether you're someone that's bought, you've sold, you're a realtor yourself, you're someone that just goes on Zillow and goes, that would be nice.

What are your thoughts on the news that we're seeing and why? And then, but then finally, today we have Yesterday Today. We dive into the comments in yesterday's show, see what y'all had to say and talk about it. Which I will say, thank you to everyone that shared and did not go full Elmo trauma dump. Yesterday, one of the things we talked about was the World Happiness Report, and I was interested in your thoughts on just like the general coverage, but also like what your thoughts around happiness these days is. With Westrada saying, as a young person,

I hear regularly, I'll never own a house. Children are beyond unaffordable. One health emergency will lead to bankruptcy. My student loans will be a permanent fixture of my life, and the climate is going to destroy everything in the not too distant-distant future. Kind of hard to feel happy when the universal experience of American youth does not inspire hope. Now to that, I would say I very much understand and connect to a lot of what you're saying, but I think I also just have always had a mindset of like, well, what the fuck else am I supposed to do? Not try? Well, it's definitely changed in my now middle age, right? I'm 38 years old. When I was growing up, I didn't really have much, and that wasn't made better by the fact that I left home early because it was just, it was too

dysfunctional and abusive. And my path, at least one-to-one, is not something that can be replicated very easily. I'm very fortunate. What I've found is the things that strip me of hope, that make me sad, that make me feel, yeah, hopeless. If I turn that into anger, at least then I can like, I can do something with that. Emotions are fuel or they deplete your tank. It's one or the other. And I opted for the highly combustible anger. It's not doing anything as an economy ticket to right where you are or even further back. So while there's no guarantee in life, whether it's you or anyone else that needs to hear

it and can actually do it, I hope that some can convert their kind of like hopelessness and their fucking struggles and their pains into something that they can do something with it. But also, be careful. Too much anger will make you explode. We also had CJ fell down again saying, Hi, I'm a young person. Why does no one in these happiness studies mention money? Every time I see these studies, it's youths are stressed about the climate and political beliefs. True. But the most stressful thing is money. We get paid like shit. How are we even supposed to survive with how freely corporate greed is running free? I can't picture having a financially stable future no matter how hard I work. Weird how they always

leave that piece out. And again, I kind of feel the same thing. I 100% understand your frustrations. I 100% understand where you're coming from. How many times have we talked about like the way that the cost of living has gone up compared to like livable wages? How as time goes on, right, upper management, people with C's in their title for these big corporations, their pay just keeps going up and up and bonuses go up and up. And the general worker pay is like not so much. But I also at the same time don't want people to be blinded that, I mean, as far as like the playing field right now, if you are someone that wants to go out on your own and try to do it, there are tools in so many different fields that make it possible that really weren't there in the past, right? I don't just mean like in the field of online entertainment. Right. This the

thing that I did, it started existing when I started doing it. I was very fortunate with my timing, like the number of people that can just like go into business for themselves. And there are tools like let's say it's like more e-commerce or just commerce in general. The fact that you have like Shopify right there and then with pretty much whatever you do, you have social media where all of a sudden you can get marketing done for free. If you know how to do it right organically, as far as learning skills or specific knowledge, like there are huge depositories online that exist outside of their old school college system. And again, none of this dismisses your or other people's frustrations with the fucking system at large. That is legitimate. But I mentioned all this because my fear, especially when we talk about all the negative, is for people to feel hopeless,

to also realize that there is opportunity. Success is never guaranteed. But again, I stress this because I just don't, I don't want to teach hopelessness. Like, I hope that what comes from this is understanding that you can be a victim of something, but that we don't preach victimhood. Because without a doubt, the system is fucked. There are many ways that it needs to change. And it breaks my heart seeing other comments saying, I've given up on being happy. And so I say all this, you know, while risking that I'm either going to be misunderstood

or I'm not wording things perfectly, because I get horrified by things. Like I just saw this morning that last year, more than 50,000 Americans committed suicide. Broke the record. And I imagine a lot of those people, their path involved a lot of hopelessness. I don't know.

I'm just worried about people. But that is where today's show is gonna end. Bye forever. I'm just kidding. I wanted to keep you on your toes because you know the deal. My name's Philip DeFranco. You've just been filled in.

I love your faces and I'll see you right back here on Monday. You on my mind a lot. Don't need no time to watch. I don't know how I got you in my pocket spot. I'll see you right back here on Monday.