UNBIASED - Debt Ceiling Negotiations, Judge Rules Against Major Airlines, Meta's €1.2B Fine, NAACP Travel Advisory for Florida

Episode Date: May 23, 2023

1. Brief Update Re: Debt Ceiling Negotiations (1:31) (Update: No Agreement Reached After Monday Meeting)2. Judge Orders JetBlue and American Airlines to End Northeast Alliance Within 30 Days (3:21)3. Europe Fines Meta Record €1.2 Billion; Not Meta's First Fine From Europe (10:16)4. NAACP Issues Travel Advisory For African Americans, People of Color, and LGBTQ+ Community Traveling to Florida (15:31)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!Follow Jordan on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube.All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario Helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

You are listening to the Jordan Is My Lawyer podcast, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Enjoy the show. Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. Happy Tuesday. I have four stories for you today. The first story is going to be relatively short, just a quick update on debt ceiling negotiations. The second story is about the American Airlines JetBlue merger, so to speak, that a judge just said has to end in the next 30 days. The third story is a meta being fined 1.3 billion euros by Europe. And the last story is about the travel advisory that the NAACP issued for African Americans,

people of color, and the LGBTQ plus community traveling to Florida. Before we get into the stories, let me just remind you to please leave me a review on whatever platform you listen. It really helps support my show and lets other people know why you guys love my show so much. And if you could also share my show with your family, friends, colleagues, whoever it might be that appreciate nonpartisan news, just the facts, no opinions. So with that being said, let's get into today's stories. President Biden cut an overseas trip short to meet with McCarthy Monday evening regarding the potential default.

And just so you know, this update is going to be as of 7 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Monday evening. So their talks or their meeting, if you will, started at 530. By 7 p.m., there was no update. So I will cover if there's an agreement reached. I will cover that in more detail on Friday's episode. But what you need to know for this update is that going into the meeting, President Biden and McCarthy both said that they were hopeful that they would come to some sort of agreement. So on Friday, it wasn't looking like they were very hopeful. But come Sunday and Monday, they both had said that they're optimistic they'll find a resolution. So going into the meeting, President Biden said in part that he and McCarthy are optimistic we may be able to make some progress. We both talked about the need for bipartisan agreement. We have to be in a position where we can sell it to our constituencies. We're pretty well divided in the House, almost down the middle, and it's not that different in the Senate. So we've got to get something we can sell to both sides. The president also addressed areas of disagreement, saying we need to cut spending, but here's the disagreement. We should be looking at tax loopholes and make sure the wealthy pay

their fair share. I think revenue matters, as long as you're not taxing anybody under $400,000, end quote. McCarthy, on the other hand, said in part, quote, I think we, on a 50-year average, we're having more revenue than any time coming in, but I think we both on a 50-year average, were having more revenue than any time coming in. But I think we both agree that we need to change the trajectory, that our debt is too large, and I think at the end of the day, we can find common ground. So that is your update as of 7 p.m. on Monday. Again, should they reach an agreement, I will cover it in more detail on Friday. But that brings us into our second story. On Friday, a federal judge ruled that American

Airlines and JetBlue have 30 days to end their partnership on Northeast US flight routes. This decision stems from a lawsuit filed by the DOJ, the states of Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, as well as Washington DC. And what they allege is that American Airlines and JetBlue formed this alliance, which well as Washington, D.C. And what they allege is that American Airlines and JetBlue formed this alliance, which was a, quote, unprecedented and anti-competitive pact, end quote. What the complaint says is that these two airlines agreed to share their revenues, coordinate which routes to fly, when to fly them, who will fly them, and what size planes to use. Their agreement specifically targeted four major airports, Boston Logan, JFK, La will fly them, and what size planes to use. Their agreement specifically targeted

four major airports, Boston Logan, JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark, which is why this agreement has come to be known as the Northeast Alliance. Now, why would the airlines do this? Well, according to the complaint, by consolidating their businesses, they effectively merged their operations on flights to and from these four airports. These four airports account for two-thirds of JetBlue's business. So what happened was JetBlue was this smaller but disruptive airline. They came in, offered low fares, good service, and in turn kept these other airlines in check with their fares and services. This is actually known in the industry as the JetBlue effect. And the JetBlue effect was mostly seen in the

Northeast, Boston and New York specifically, which is why American decided to take on these four airports as part of their alliance, because they figured if they can partner with JetBlue, then they'll no longer have to keep up with JetBlue's lower fares. And in turn, they'll offer JetBlue a benefit, which is that JetBlue will be able to offer more flights and potentially bring in more revenue because they're going to be revenue sharing. So the complaint says that American knew an outright merger between the two would almost certainly invite a challenge under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which prohibits mergers and acquisitions where the effect substantially lessens competition or tends to create a monopoly. So rather than them outright merging with each other, the complaint says American was a little bit more discreet in the sense that they just went for a partnership or an alliance, if you will, not an official merger. And the United States says, no, no, no, you can't do this. This is a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Section 1 of the Sherman Act is very vague. It's very broad. But if I were to explain it in a

couple of sentences, it's when at least two people, or in this case, two entities, get together and they say, hey, let's do this thing together and benefit one another. And that thing that they decide they're going to do together unreasonably restrains trade or competition, and it affects commerce either within the states or abroad. And this can be done through an actual contract or just by way of conspiracy. But if we apply that definition to this situation, the U.S. is saying American and JetBlue have effectively merged, though not officially, and their operations in Boston and New York City have eliminated competition. And this elimination of competition has put the consumers at a disadvantage. Therefore, this is a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman

Act. And some examples of their various agreements are the following. So they had the Northeast Alliance Agreement, which commits American and JetBlue to combine revenues and coordinate on all aspects of network planning at these four major airports. This includes, like I said before, deciding which routes to fly, when to fly them, who flies them, and what size planes to use. Another agreement is the Mutual Growth Incentive Agreement. And what that says is that American Airlines and JetBlue apportion the combined revenues earned on flights from these four airports in a way that each airline earns the same revenues regardless of whether

a passenger flies a JetBlue flight or an American flight. And the goal of this is to ensure that each carrier is indifferent about whether a passenger flies American or JetBlue because they're making the same amount of money. So those are some of the examples that the complaint gives about this alliance. Per usual, I do have the complaint linked for you on my website, as well as some Department of Justice press releases. But I want to get into the judge's decision. So this case went to trial in September of last year, and it lasted into December. And the judge just released his ruling on Friday.

So he ruled in favor of the Department of Justice. And what he found was that the pact is an unreasonable restraint on trade. And it is a violation of the Sherman Act. And he gave the airlines 30 days to end their partnership. In part, his ruling states, quote, It is abundantly clear to the court that the defendant's primary motivation in establishing the NEA, which is the Northeast Alliance, was to strengthen their own competitive positions against Delta and, to a lesser extent, United in both Boston and New York, end quote. He also said that the coordination and optimization between these two carriers has led to not only decreased capacity,

but also lower frequencies and reduced consumer choices on multiple routes, including some routes that are very heavily traveled. Notably, American Airlines and JetBlue argued that their collaboration benefits the consumer, but the judge said that the airlines produced minimal objectively credible proof to support that claim. Following the decision, Attorney General Garland said in a statement, in part, today's decision is a win for Americans who rely on competition between airlines to travel affordably, end quote. Both American and JetBlue are unsurprisingly disappointed in the court's decision, with American Airlines saying, in part, quote,

we made clear at trial that the NEA has been a huge win for customers. Through the NEA, JetBlue has been able to significantly grow in constrained Northeast airports, bringing the airline's low fares and great service to more routes than would have been possible otherwise, end quote. This decision will likely be appealed, but what happens now is that American and JetBlue end their partnership within the next 30 days, and JetBlue, being that low fare airline, will now resume its competitive pricing. So they'll price lower, as they did before, and as they still do in other cities outside of the Northeast region,

and in turn, it'll help other carriers to also reduce their prices. The European Data Protection Board and Irish Data Protection Commission have handed Meta a record 1.2 billion euro fine, which is equivalent to 1.3 billion dollars, over its handling of European user data. This decision also gives Meta five months to stop transferring users' data to the United States. Now, a couple of things to note before we get into the basis of this decision, or some background, if you will, is that there's two entities involved here, the European Data Protection Board and the Irish Data Protection Commission. The European Data Protection Board has authority over the Irish Data Protection

Commission because it encompasses other countries other than Ireland. So these other countries have a say in Ireland's decisions. I'll put this all into perspective at the end of this story, and it'll all make a little bit more sense. But the basis of this fine that we're covering in this story, the 1.2 billion euro fine, sounds a little like America's TikTok controversy with China. So let's talk about it. We got to take this back to 2013 when Edward Snowden disclosed the fact that American authorities had repeatedly accessed people's information via big tech companies. Around that time, there was an Austrian activist named Max Schrems who filed a lawsuit against

Facebook for failing to protect his rights. And the lawsuit was filed with the Ireland Data Protection Commission, since Ireland is where Facebook has its European headquarters. And his lawsuit was basically seeking to prohibit Facebook from further transferring any data from Ireland to the United States. Well, in 2020, seven years after this lawsuit is filed, Europe's highest court invalidated an EU-US data transfer pact. This pact was called the Privacy Shield Agreement. And roughly 5,000 companies relied on this Privacy Shield Agreement to kind of tell them how to transfer information across borders. But despite invalidating this Privacy Shield Agreement, the court in Europe left the door open for companies to use

standard contractual clauses. And what the court said was that the transfer of data to any country outside of Europe was valid as long as the company ensured an adequate level of data protection. Well, that can be pretty vague. It can be pretty broad. So this became a little bit tricky for companies because they weren't sure how to handle data the right way. They didn't have a specific framework. And it wasn't until March of this year when a new framework was released called the data privacy framework. But you have from 2020 until now where these companies were kind of left without a specific framework. So the damage had already been done per se. There had been, you know, nearly three years of transferring data without a specific framework in play. So that's where the fine at issue in this story stems from. Now, I was saying

previously how there's two entities here, right? You have the Irish Data Protection Commission and the European Data Protection Board, which has authority over the Irish Data Protection Commission. So what happened is that prior to this fine, this 1.2 billion euro fine, the Irish Data Protection Commission had already fined Meta on multiple occasions for very similar violations regarding the transfer of user data. But this most recent fine, the 1.2 billion euro fine, the Irish Data Protection Commission actually didn't agree with. And what they said is that one, this fine is disproportionate to the violation considering they've already been fined over a billion dollars in total since 2018 already, not including this

most recent fine. And two, the fine could be looked at as discriminatory because Google, who had committed similar violations, hadn't faced a penalty like this. However, just because the Irish Data Protection Commission didn't agree with handing Meta another fine, they were forced to anyway by the European Data Protection Board. So what happened was Ireland made an initial decision and it didn't call for any fines. They just blocked Meta from sending user data from Europe to the United States. However, this decision was then challenged by four of its peer regulators in Europe, those being Germany, France, Spain, and Austria. And ultimately, these four peer regulators overruled Ireland's decision.

And what they found was that Meta committed the infringement at least with the highest degree of negligence. And because of that, they were to be fined again. So although the Irish Data Protection Commission didn't agree with issuing the fine, they had no choice because they were overruled. Now, Meta says that it will be appealing this fine. They had no choice because they were overruled. Now, Meta says that it will be appealing this fine. And Meta's president of global affairs and Meta's chief legal officer said together in a joint statement that the European Data Protection Board chose to disregard the clear progress that policymakers are making to resolve this underlying issue and that the decision is flawed, unjustified, and it sets a

dangerous precedent for the countless other companies transferring data between the EU and the U.S. So that takes us into our fourth and final story, which is that on Saturday, the NAACP issued a travel advisory for the state of Florida for African Americans, people of color, and LGBTQ plus individuals. The NAACP's advisory comes one month after Equality Florida, another civil rights group, issued a travel advisory for the LGBTQ community following laws which Equality Florida calls hostile to the LGBTQ community. So the NAACP's press release reads in part, and I'm just going to read it to you directly from the press release. It says, under its current governor, the state of Florida has engaged in an all-out attack on Black Americans, accurate Black history, voting rights,

members of the LGBTQ plus community, immigrants, women's reproductive rights, and free speech, while simultaneously embracing a culture of fear, bullying, and intimidation by public officials. In an effort to rewrite American history to exclude the voices, contributions of African Americans, and the challenges they overcame despite the systemic racism that African Americans have faced since first arriving in this country, Governor DeSantis has signed various controversial anti-civil rights measures into law, including the Combating Violence, Disorder, and Looting and Law Enforcement Protection Act, Stop Wrongs Against Our Kids and Employees Act,

Constitutional Carry Act, Florida Senate Bill 266, and Florida Bill 7066. Please be advised that Florida is openly hostile towards African Americans, people of color, and LGBTQ plus individuals. Before traveling to Florida, please understand that the state of Florida devalues and marginalizes the contributions of and the challenges faced by African Americans and other minorities. And these are the advisories that were put into place. Some of them at at least, says if you decide to travel to Florida, please be advised that Florida public schools will not teach your children accurate African-American history, which includes a history of enslavement, segregation, racial injustice and systemic racism. Says please be advised that the state of Florida does not value diversity, equity and inclusion in Florida schools, colleges and universities. Please be advised that the state of Florida does not welcome the contributions of African Americans and people of color.

And if you do decide to go to the state of Florida, please be aware of the open hostility towards African Americans and people of color. And the rest asks for advocacy should people decide to go to Florida. So basically just says if you do decide to go to Florida, please advocate for this, this and this. And that is the travel advisory in sum. Now I do want to talk a little bit about the laws referenced in the travel advisory. So the first one was combating violence, disorder and looting and Law Enforcement Protection Act. This was a piece of legislation enacted in 2020. That actually is not in effect because it was struck down by courts, which we'll get into, but it was directed at protests. So it was after the George Floyd protests, and in part, it both created and increased penalties for certain

crimes. So I'll give you a few examples. For one, it created a third-degree felony when seven or more people are involved in an assembly and cause damage to property or injury to other people. It created a third degree felony to obstruct traffic during an unpermitted protest, demonstration, or violent or disorderly assembly. It also said that a driver is not liable for injury or death caused if fleeing for safety from a mob. It created a second degree felony to destroy public property during a violent or disorderly assembly, and it created a first degree misdemeanor for participating in a violent or disorderly assembly. The penalties that were increased under this law included striking a law enforcement officer during a violent or

disorderly assembly, which also includes throwing something at a law enforcement officer. And under the law, that action came with a six-month mandatory minimum jail sentence. However, soon after this law was passed, multiple civil rights organizations filed suit, arguing that the law infringed on the ability of individuals to exercise their First Amendment rights. They were seeking a preliminary injunction, which, as you guys know by now, stops a law from being enforced. The preliminary injunction was granted in September of 2021. The ruling was then appealed to the 11th Circuit by the state of Florida. Oral arguments were heard in March of last year, and this past January, the 11th Circuit agreed with the district court to leave the preliminary injunction in place, but stated in its ruling that the Florida

Supreme Court should have the opportunity to provide an authoritative interpretation of the law before the 11th Circuit officially rules on the constitutionality of the law. All of this to say, the law is still under review. However, it is not currently being enforced due to that preliminary injunction. The next law that the travel advisory cites to is the Stop Wrongs Against Our Kids and Employees Act. This is a piece of 2021 legislation, and it's actually called the Individual Freedom Act, but it's been given the name Stop Wrongs Against Our Kids and Employees Act. Kind of a similar situation, actually very similar situation to the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act,

which was given the name Don't Say Gay. So it's same situation. The actual name of the act is the Individual Freedom Act, but it was given the name Stop Wrongs Against Our Kids and Employees Act because it stands for Stop woke act what this piece of legislation did is it regulated the instruction and training in schools and workplaces so a few examples the law prohibited instruction that individuals share responsibility for others past actions by virtue of their race sex or national origin so what does this look like it prohibited teaching critical race theory in grades K through 12. It also prohibited school districts and state universities from hiring critical race consultants. And obviously, the law did a lot more than that. I'm just trying to give

you guys some examples. But this law was ruled unconstitutional by a district court judge in August of 2022. So just last year, the judge wrote in the ruling in part, quote, if Florida truly believes we live in a post-racial society, then let it make its case, but it cannot win the argument by muzzling its opponents, end quote. DeSantis, state of Florida, then appealed this case to the appellate court asking for the law to be able to be enforced pending a final resolution of the case, which the appellate court denied. So again, another law that's not in effect. The NAACP also cited to the Constitutional Carry Act, which in short allows Floridians to carry concealed weapons without a

permit. This takes effect on July 1st of this year. The advisory also cited to Senate Bill 266, which is the most recent piece of legislation that was cited to, and it prohibits state colleges and universities from using state or federal funding to further diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. And then the last piece of legislation that the advisory cites to is Florida Senate Bill 7066. And this was also ruled unconstitutional back in 2020, but basically what it did is it required citizens who had felony convictions to pay all court fines, fees, and restitution that was assessed by the court at the time of their sentencing before they were able to vote. And this was signed just a few months after Florida passed Amendment 4, which restored voting rights to most citizens with past felony convictions. So basically,

Florida granted the right to two individuals with past felony convictions to vote again. And then DeSantis signed into law this law that said, OK, you guys can vote, but first you have to pay all of your court fines, court fees and restitution. So that was Florida Senate Bill 7066, which again was ruled unconstitutional. While DeSantis himself had not made a comment about the NAACP's travel advisory at the time that I was recording this episode, his press secretary did say one short thing about it and said that the advisory was nothing more than a stunt. That concludes this episode. Thank you so much for tuning in to the Jordan Is My Lawyer podcast.

Please don't forget to review my show and share it with whoever you feel appreciates unbiased news. And I will talk to you on Friday.