Hermes Birkin Bag Lawsuit - Ep. 47
Download MP3Welcome litigation nation. I'm your host, Danessa Watkins, here with my
Danessa Watkins:my co host, Jack Sanker.
Danessa Watkins:As a reminder, this is the show where we do a roundup of the litigation and legal news that are as making headlines across the country. So what do we have today, Jack?
Jack Sanker:There's a recent class action against luxury good maker, Hermes, for the alleged anti competitive business practices regarding the sale of their much sought after Birkin bags.
Danessa Watkins:And I'm gonna cover the recent bill that was signed into law in Florida that is the US's most restrictive social media ban to date and also the US Department of Justice's recent antitrust lawsuit filed against Apple along with 16 states and the District of Columbia. Since we're doing a few antitrust cases, I thought it might be helpful for our viewers to just give a quick overview of what antitrust law is. So this area law applies to nearly all of the industries in the country. The purpose is to ensure that fair competition exists in the market and also to protect consumers. So we have laws like the Sherman Act that prohibit a variety of practices that would trade, including price fixing, anticompetitive corporate mergers, and various predatory acts that are really designed to achieve or maintain monopoly power.
Danessa Watkins:So, essentially, antitrust laws prevent companies from profiting by playing dirty. And the idea is that without these laws in place, consumers wouldn't have the choices that they do and they would be forced to potentially pay higher in order to get the goods and services that they require. So oftentimes, we have businesses that can sue another business for anti competitive behavior, but the government may also step in at times to stop businesses from establishing monopolies. Here's what you need to know.
Jack Sanker:So with that primer on antitrust law generally, there's an interesting class action that was filed in the Northern District of California for violation of the Sherman Act and, the some state laws in California for unfair competition, things like that against Hermes International, which is a maker of all sorts of luxury good goods, but in this particular case, the Hermes Birkin bag. So some background if you don't know, some luxury brands do this. It's happening more and more, really. Basically, retailers will straight up refuse to sell you a luxury good unless you demonstrate to the retailer what they call, quote, sales history. So basically, you wanna buy this rare luxury good.
Jack Sanker:In this case, it's the famous Birkin bag from Hermes. Rolex also does this, and a lot of watch companies do as well. You'll get put on, like, a waiting list, which is basically forever unless you have a sales history. And what that means practically is if you wanna be able to buy this thing, this Birkin bag or this Rolex or whatever it is, you'll have to purchase from the retailer a bunch of other stuff first, which can then put you higher on this list and will give you the privilege of paying many 1,000 of dollars for the one thing that you do want. So put another way, you have to buy a bunch of other crap you may not actually want just to move up on the list.
Jack Sanker:And this is, I know, kind of a first world problem. Don't get me wrong here. But that is what Hermes does for its Birkin bags, and it's an interesting case out of California that's worth talking about. According to my wife, Birkin bags can cost tens of 1,000 of dollars but are totally worth it. They're allegedly really high quality, whatever.
Jack Sanker:And, here's what the plaintiffs describe, happened to them in this when they attempted to buy the Hermes bags, the Birkin bags, and their complaint. So quoting from the complaint, Birkin handbags cannot be purchased from defendants through the website. Instead, consumers can only purchase Birkin handbags from defendants by physically going to an a Hermes retail store. However, unlike most consumer products and most other products sold by defendants, and they're talking about Hermes there, consumers cannot simply walk into an Hermes retail store, pick out a Birkin handbag they want and purchase it. Birkin handbags are never publicly displayed for sale at Hermes retail stores.
Jack Sanker:Indeed, it is often the case that there are no Birkin handbags at all in Hermes retail stores, or if there are, there are only 1, 2, or, at most, 3 Birkin handbags. But even if there are Birkin handbags at the particular Hermes retail store, the handbags will not be displayed on the sales floor for the general public. In fact, most consumers will never be shown a Birkin handbag at the Hermes retail store. Typically, only those consumers who are deemed worthy of purchasing a Birkin handbag will be shown a Birkin handbag in a private room. The chosen consumer will be given the opportunity to purchase the specific Birkin handbag handbag, which they are shown.
Jack Sanker:Consumers cannot order a Birkin handbag at the retail location. For all practical purposes, there is no way to order a bag in the style, size, color, leather, and hardware that the consumer wants. Now Hermes sales associates are tasked by defendants with selecting these consumers who are qualified to purchase Birkin handbags. The sales associates are directed by defendants to only offer Birkin handbags to consumers who have established a sufficient complaint quotes here purchase history or purchase profile with defendant's or defendant's ancillary products such as shoes, belts, scarves, jewelry, and home goods. Only once a consumer has sufficient purchase history or purchase profile with will the consumer be offered the opportunity to purchase a Birkin handbag, unquote.
Jack Sanker:So here's a pretty interesting part, that I really didn't know, and this is the part that mostly implicates Hermes the corporation. This is regarding the structure of the compensation for Hermes salespeople in the actual stores. Quoting it from the complaint, quote, the commission rates paid by defendants to sales associates differ based on the type of products sold. Sales associates are paid 3% on ancillary products such as shoes, scarves, belts, jewelry, and home goods. They're paid 1.5 commission on non Birkin handbags, and they receive no commission whatsoever on the sale of Birkin handbags.
Jack Sanker:Although Hermes sales associates receive no commission on the most valuable and sought after products sold by their employer, they are instructed by defendants to use Birkin handbags as a way to coerce consumers to purchase ancillary products sold by defendants for which the sales associates receive a 3% commission in order to build up the purchase history required to be offered a Birkin handbag. In this way, defendants are able to use their sales associates to implement defendant's illegal tying arrangement. So let's pause here for a minute. What what is a tying arrangement? What what even, you know, really is the basis of this lawsuit?
Jack Sanker:And a moment ago, you heard from Vanessa about the Sherman Act and broad strokes anti, monopoly and antitrust laws in the United States. This idea of a tying arrangement. It's t y I n g. Going from the FTC website and, my general knowledge about this, I'm not an antitrust lawyer. We do have some good ones at the firm, and I, didn't get a chance to talk to them before recording today, but maybe we can have one them on to explain this a little better than I can.
Jack Sanker:I'll quote from a recent write up on the definition of tying, quote, for competitive purposes, a monopolist may use forced buying or tie in sales to gain sales in other markets where it is not dominant and to make it more difficult for rivals in those markets to obtain sales. This may limit consumer choice for buyers wanting to purchase 1, quote, tying product by forcing might so, or may prefer to get from a different seller. If the seller offering the tied product has sufficient market power in the tying product, these arrangements can violate antitrust laws, unquote. So the kind of crux of this Hermes case is that Hermes is engaged in a tying arrangement by forcing customers who want a Birkin bag to buy a bunch of less desirable, but probably still expensive Hermes stuff first. Here, one of the plaintiffs alleges that she spent tens of 1,000 at Hermes and finally asked to be permitted to buy a saying you need to spend more money on other Hermes stuff before we sell you the Bergen.
Danessa Watkins:So it's pretty vague then.
Jack Sanker:Seems like it's, vague but also understood. You don't get to buy the Birkin unless you've dropped some amount.
Danessa Watkins:Sir, a certain amount, but they don't specify what that amount is.
Jack Sanker:They won't tell you what it is Okay. Which probably keeps you buying.
Danessa Watkins:Right. Exactly.
Jack Sanker:And you there's a whole sunk cost aspect of it. If you spend $5,000 and and they tell you you only need to spend another 5,000, that's all you'll spend. But if they, you know, they keep it vague, maybe you come in and spend $20,000 or whatever. Mhmm. I don't know.
Danessa Watkins:And who are the plaintiffs in this suit?
Jack Sanker:People that wanted to buy Birkin bags and weren't allowed to. Okay. Yeah. Interesting.
Danessa Watkins:Because I could see the the competitors bringing this suit also.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. You would think. Although, I don't know if there is a competitor of Well For the the scarcity level, I had to look alright. I don't know anything about Hermes bags. Okay?
Jack Sanker:But I looked into it, and, apparently, they're like like, sasquatch level rare. Like, they don't exist. You know? It's like a it's like an urban myth. Like, you can't get them.
Danessa Watkins:Right.
Jack Sanker:And so to have one is an immense, status symbol, and, basically, people will do anything to get them. But I think from Hermes' perspective, if they just, you know, price them in such a way that would be maybe the word would be gauche, you know, If it was, like this this leather bag is $400,000 or whatever. Like, that you know? And maybe that would be kinda tacky. Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:But maybe don't know. I'm I'm speculating. But so the plaintiffs in this case are alleging that Hermes is illegally tying the sale of their Birkin bags to other products through this payment structure of their salespeople, which I think is interesting because the salespeople are incentivized to push the other products. And, really, they're not incentivized to sell Birkin bags at all because they get no commission on it. But the only purpose of the Birkin bag then is to sell the less desirable stuff, scarves and shoes and whatnot.
Jack Sanker:So there's certain claims for violation of California state laws. Then, of course, there's the Sherman Act claims. I think it's interesting because it's also very common for imported, you know, what you would call luxury cars and also, luxury watches too. So, like, if there's a a dealership that happens to sell Lamborghinis, you know, they don't they're not often just selling Lamborghinis. Lamborghinis.
Jack Sanker:Maybe they're also selling Audis. Maybe they're also selling, you know, something else along those lines. And, you walk in there and you're like, I I want the, you know, a brand new Lamborghini, and they're like, well, no. You know? You have to buy 2 other cars from us first.
Jack Sanker:You have to buy, like, you know, this Audi that's been on the lot for 18 months that we're trying to get rid of and something else before they'll even entertain the idea of selling you what it is. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that when it's coming from the manufacturer, the manufacturer controls the price. So, like, you see this with you'll see this with Birkin bags, and of course you'll see this with Rolexes big time and with, you know, if you were to resell a new Lamborghini or whatever, where the resale value, after you actually get it in your hand is way higher than the MSRP. So, like, you know, a $10,000 watch from Rolex. Rolex tells their dealers you cannot sell this watch for more than $10,000.
Jack Sanker:Right?
Danessa Watkins:Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:And, and they're like, okay. So we can only make x amount of dollars on it. But if you buy that watch from Rolex and then and then go put it up online, you could sell it for $20,000, like, because they're so hard to get. So the I think the dealers are feeling like they're not they're getting screwed on that margin because they can't just sell it at the market price. And I guess to claw back some of that, they're, like, making you buy a bunch of other stuff you didn't want.
Jack Sanker:So the so Rolex dealership will make you buy, you know, 2 to 3 other items or some jewelry or whatever, just before they even sell you what you want.
Danessa Watkins:That's interesting. I didn't even know that those practices existed. Clearly, I'm not buying the high end Lamborghini. The high
Danessa Watkins:end Lamborghini. I mean, I'm
Jack Sanker:not buying either, but, Rolex is notorious for this. But also, shoemakers, car dealers, anyone who's selling anything that's, like, collectible, this seems to be something that you're seeing more and more of. But what's unique in the Hermes case is that the tying is not being done by a third party. It's Hermes that's doing it. So for example, if someone were to bring this case against, you know, say, Rolex or, certain luxury car dealers or whatever, Rolex and car manufacturers are using, affiliated third party sellers, like, so an authorized dealer or car dealership or whatever you wanna call it.
Jack Sanker:They're not being run by, like, Rolex company stores or, you know, or Lamborghini company stores or whatever. They're being run by, you know, this local dealer. So you can't or I mean, maybe you could, but it would be hard to, directly go after Rolex for the anticompetitive practice when it's really happening at the lower level distribution. Here, Hermes Hermes owns and runs all of these stores themselves. So if there is liability, it's going to be imputed directly onto, you know, Hermes, proper corporation, you know, theoretically, you know, be on the hook here.
Jack Sanker:And, I mean, I'm not saying that you and I should head over to the Oak Street, Hermes here in Chicago and ask for a Birkin bag just so that we can get turned down and join this class. I'm not saying anyone listening should do that either. It's an interesting case nonetheless. And applying this the Sherman Act and some of the other anti, competitive statues, both at the federal level and state level, to, the way in which a lot of these luxury brands are operating today, you know, a 130 years after these laws were passed, kinda does show you that, you know, there's nothing new under the sun. People were still doing the same things they were in the 18 nineties.
Danessa Watkins:And I wonder for the plaintiffs in this case if they need to show a certain level of, you know, money already spent or yeah. On certain products?
Danessa Watkins:So, you
Jack Sanker:know, they don't spell it out super well in the complaint because that's what I was looking for too, but I I do think that's what I would that's what I would claim. I'd be like, look. I didn't want this scarf for these shoes or whatever. I was being induced to buy them so that I could buy the Birkin bag, and now they won't sell me the bag. I I I've been damaged in the amount of money that I've spent, you know, or something along those lines, which I still think is kinda tenuous because, like, you did pay for the shoes, and you received the shoes.
Jack Sanker:Right? And to your point earlier, it is all it's all implicit. It's not spelled out. And so that may be, difficult. Although I think everyone knows the game here, and I think, it's it's common enough in luxury dealers that everyone understands you don't even get to look at this stuff.
Jack Sanker:Like, go to a Rolex dealer and and, you know, ask if they'll sell you, you, you know, a a Submariner or whatever. They'll just if they don't know you, they'll slap at you. They're like, absolutely not, which is crazy because even if you're like, I'll pay for the item. I'll pay they're just like, that's not where we make our money. We make our money
Danessa Watkins:on all the
Jack Sanker:crap we make you purchase before we sell you the item. Yeah. So, it's, it'll be interesting to see if this one sticks around. I don't know how big the class can can be. I mean, how many people have have gone through the trouble of building a sales history with with Hermes to then be denied the holy grail Birkin bag.
Jack Sanker:I mean, dozens maybe if that
Danessa Watkins:And clearly, there's an employee whistleblower that's giving all the inside information about
Jack Sanker:The commission aspect of it is what's very interesting. Yeah. For sure. It which I think does, imply that Hermes knows what's going on. It's not just, you know
Danessa Watkins:Yeah.
Jack Sanker:Employees on the floor doing it. Right. So
Danessa Watkins:Interesting. Alright. So moving on to this antitrust suit against Apple. So on March 21, 2024, the US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Apple along with 16 states and the District of Columbia, alleging that Apple is using anticompetitive practices in order to maintain its monopoly in the smartphone market. Now the basic theory of this lawsuit is that Apple is squelching the development of apps, these so called super apps that are essentially a gateway to a variety of other services and apps.
Danessa Watkins:So think cloud streaming, gaming apps, messaging apps, but but particularly financial services such as digital wallets. That's a big one that came up in this lawsuit. And then accessories such as smartwatches and, things of that nature. So the idea is that Apple is insulating the iPhone from the rise of potential competitors. Now the the DOJ is claiming that Apple's practices are intended to keep customers reliant on iPhones and less likely to switch to other devices.
Danessa Watkins:So I don't think it's any secret that the iPhone is certainly the most profitable product that Apple has put out. And just to give you a sense of that, in 2022, the App Store generated a 104,000,000,000 in digital sales. Alright. Now some of the anticompetitive behaviors that the DOJ is alleging includes making it easier for users to connect iPhones to Apple products, such as smartphones or excuse me, such as smartwatches and laptops, preventing the creation of digital wallet alternatives by limiting finance finance companies access to the iPhone's payment chip and also Bluetooth trackers from tapping into its location service feature. There's also allegations of blocking cloud streaming apps and then undermining messaging across smartphone prices and less innovation.
Danessa Watkins:Now I found some quotes from a professor from the University of Virginia School of Law. This is Thomas b Nachbar, and he weighed in on this lawsuit and the impact that it's going to have. So first, he started by finding some similarities between this case and the lawsuit that the government brought against Microsoft in the late 19 nineties. So in that case, the Department of Justice and 20 different states filed an antitrust claim against Microsoft to determine ruling in that Microsoft case was that there were violations of the Sherman Act and a district court ordered Microsoft to divide the company in half. Certainly, we know that didn't happen.
Danessa Watkins:Microsoft appealed and they ended up settling with the DOJ. So they didn't have to break up their company, but they did agree to share computing interfaces with other companies. So professor Nackbar says, quote, the Microsoft case itself offers a lot of guidance here. In that case, the court ruled that the plaintiff has to show that there is anti competitive effect and then the defendant has to provide a pro competitive justification. Then if the plaintiff can rebut that justification, the court should balance the pro competitive and the anti competitive effects.
Danessa Watkins:Much of the conduct the government is complaining of in this case, he's referring to the Apple case, are things that Apple says it does in order to either protect its users or to provide them a distinctive customer experience. And those types of justifications were largely accepted by the court in the Microsoft case. So it will likely come down to the facts. How credible Apple's claims are that its conduct provides a distinct product or improve security. Credibility was a major problem for Microsoft in its case with some very damning email traffic featuring prominently in the case, end quote.
Danessa Watkins:Now what's interesting about what that professor notes from the Microsoft case is that in the Apple complaint, it's an 88 page complaint, but they start by giving quotes from what may turn out to be very damning emails between, Apple executives. So this is quoting the first paragraph of the complaint. In 2010, a top Apple executive emailed Apple's then CEO about an ad for the new Kindle e reader. The ad began with a woman who was using her iPhone to buy and read books on the Kindle app. She then switches to an Android smartphone and continues to read her books using the same Kindle app.
Danessa Watkins:The executive wrote to Jobs, Steve Jobs. 1 quote message that can't be missed is that it is easy to switch from iPhone to Android. Not fun to watch, end quote. Jobs was clear in his response. Apple would force developers to use its payment system to lock in both developers and users on its platform.
Danessa Watkins:Over many years, Apple has repeatedly responded to competitive threats like this one by making it harder or more expensive for its users and developers to leave than by making it more attractive for them to stay. And that's end quote from that first paragraph. So certainly the DOJ is starting out this complaint by showing or attempting to show a a clear intent to create a monopoly by Apple's then CEO and the higher ups.
Danessa Watkins:I think to interject here just on the
Jack Sanker:the amount of money that app Apple rakes in on this, from almost everyone, I there's, like, there's, like, rumors of certain apps getting a special deal with Apple. But for almost everyone, it's a sliding scale of 15 to to 30. But for small guys, you know, you a small app or whatever, is, you know, if you have an app that is doing, you know, $10,000,000 in sales or whatever and you want it to be on the App Store, you have to be paying Apple between 1.53 $1,000,000 just to be on for the privilege of being in allowed on the App Store. Yeah. So it's a it's a it's a serious amount of money from their perspective.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. That's interesting. And I'm I'm sure that there are going to be a lot more stories like that, of situations where Apple has, you know, or is raking in money because people know that iPhone is the most successful smartphone out there.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. I think Apple's justification, which we'll see you in whatever they filed in response to the
Jack Sanker:DOJ complaint, it is typically been, we are interested in the privacy, of our consumers' data and in protecting them from, you know, bad products or whatever. So so, you know, I hate to say it, but the App Store experience and can in the apps that are on the App Store, there is a certain amount of, trust that you can sort of have in those apps versus the more open, like, Android store, at least in my experience. But with that comes, you know, the amount of control that Apple has over, you know, how those apps are presented and everything else. But that's Apple's typically their responses. You know?
Jack Sanker:We're Right. We're protecting our consumers against, you know, harmful downloads or whatever they wanna call it. And whereas the competitors are saying, no. You're just, to your point, building a moat.
Danessa Watkins:Right. And, like professor Nachbar said, it it's ultimately gonna come down to a judge having to weigh what are these these competitive behaviors versus the the consumer protections that, that Apple says it's trying to put into
Jack Sanker:place. And I I don't have the date offhand, but I I do know I think I remember this from law school. But the, the, Microsoft
Danessa Watkins:government on this one. I mean, they have a sizable business that they need to protect and that they're gonna fight for. So, I don't think we'll have any decisions in this case for a while for a number of years. And even then, there could be appeals, but this is one that's probably gonna set some real precedent going forward for antitrust law, and, I've read a few articles in particular that was saying that, the government currently is is putting a lot of money into research into potential monopolies and, spending a lot of litigation against them too. So
Jack Sanker:Yeah. The problem is that Apple can I mean, this is not this is a a blip on their radar in terms of expenses? You know, they can they can have 100 of lawyers billing effectively 24 hours a day for the next 10 years and really not even feel it. You know? Yeah.
Jack Sanker:And, like, eventually, the DOJ will.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. Certainly. And so it's funny. And looking into this story, I found an interesting article on wired.com, which actually touched on the very reason that I personally switched to an iPhone, and that is the stigma of the green bubble.
Jack Sanker:Oh, yeah.
Danessa Watkins:And this is actually addressed in the complaint. It says Apple affirmatively undermines the quality of rival smartphones. So because messages sent between iPhones via Apple's proprietary network appear appear in blue bubbles, but those from Android phones appear in green and are excluded from any of the Imessage features. Apple has signaled to consumers that rival phones are of less quality, the suit alleges. And I had that too.
Danessa Watkins:You know, you're in a group chat, and you're you're turning the chat from blue to green. And
Jack Sanker:It's it's a scarlet letter of texting. Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:Absolutely.
Jack Sanker:Green bubble. You're just like, man, come on.
Danessa Watkins:And, of course, you know, you've got younger and younger consumers that are getting, smartphones now. And we've talked on previous shows how peer pressure affects this generation differently, you know, the cohort of juveniles. So those types of things where you're gonna have kids that, you know, don't have the iPhone. They're gonna feel more pressured and bug their parents more for the iPhone to get the the blue bubbles. So it's just, you know, one of many issues that are raised in the complaint about why they think, iPhone is engaging in this anti competitive behavior.
Danessa Watkins:And then we found actually, it was wired.com that also touched on some of the damning evidence that could potentially come out in this case. I'm quoting now from that article. So back in 2022 at the annual Code Conference where tech luminaries submit to on stage interviews, an audience member asked Apple CEO Tim Cook for some tech support. Quote, I can't send my mom certain videos, end quote, he said. She used an app an Android device, which means she can't access Apple's Imessage.
Danessa Watkins:Cook's now infamous response, quote, buy your mom an iPhone, end quote.
Danessa Watkins:There you go. Yep. Unquote.
Jack Sanker:There you go. Yep.
Danessa Watkins:So it will be interesting to see how this case develops. I'm sure we're gonna get a motion to dismiss filed by Apple in the next couple weeks or so. So we'll continue to follow-up, and, this could be yours in the making.
Jack Sanker:Lot of content.
Danessa Watkins:Absolutely.
Danessa Watkins:Alright. Now moving on to this new Florida law that, Ron DeSantis just signed in. In a nutshell, this bill is set to take effect, January 1, 2025, and it will ban social media accounts for children under 14 in Florida. It also will require parental permission for 14 15 year olds to use social media. Now what's kind of interesting about this this bill that just got passed is it's actually well, probably not probably not the second.
Danessa Watkins:I'm sure there's been a long line of them. But just a month ago, governor DeSantis actually vetoed a bill that was similar, but it set the ban at 16. So, there must have been some negotiations that were done behind the scenes, because at the time he vetoed it, he did say that a improved bill was coming out, and DeSantis has also said he would never sign into law a bill that he felt would not pass constitutional muster. So, I guess the the negotiations were that were had were giving some parental control back when it, pertained to 14 15 year olds who are accessing social media. So looking a little bit into what the law would prohibit and require.
Danessa Watkins:First, social media platforms have to prohibit minors under 14 from creating new accounts. It requires social media platforms to terminate certain accounts. It authorizes the state to issue and enforce civil investigation under certain circumstances and also providing for civil penalties, and it will allow 14 15 year olds to keep their accounts if a parent or guardian says it's okay. Now this is somewhat similar to to the laws that other states have tried to put through. We mentioned on a prior episode, the CADCA that California tried to put in which a district court recently held as unconstitutional primarily based on first amendment issues.
Danessa Watkins:That is up on appeal, so we will follow-up on that. But certainly, this new law probably is gonna face the same scrutiny, that we have the same First Amendment concerns really that we're setting a hard line at, 16 and limiting access to information for anyone under that. There's also questions about how can a social media company actually verify someone's age? Are we doing censorship and restricting access in a sweeping fashion that really isn't called for. Again, prior restraints on free speech.
Jack Sanker:The termination of accounts also, I think, raises a big red flag. Right? Like, you're compelling the so you're compelling the social media company to take down speech, which is, I think I mean, I'm not an expert. You are. But the the whole section 2 30 aspect of what a publisher is and is obligated to do and isn't obligated to do or whatever seems like it's gonna run afoul of that.
Danessa Watkins:Oh, absolutely. And especially in today's day and age where you have influencers, you know, you have youngsters under the age of 18 that are actually bringing income from things like this. No. I expect that there's gonna be pushback probably from, social media companies and families alike who will be affected by this. And it's hard because, certainly, there are a plethora of studies out there about the negative effects of social media on on young minds.
Danessa Watkins:But, you know, it's it's gonna be hard for lawmakers to to come up with something that balances both First Amendment rights and and the protections that we need for for the youth.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. Especially in light of the past couple of years when I would say that, you know, not to be overtly political, but the the kind of cohort that is, or coalition rather that is, coalition rather that is, like, behind this, if you will, has in many other contexts been all about the expansion of first amendment rights for online speech. You know? The idea of, doing something about, you know, quote, unquote cancel culture or whatever.
Danessa Watkins:Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:So, like and those are different things. You could definitely make, big distinctions between the two things that I'm alluding to here, and, you know, what's going on with, you know, speech of minors. And I and minors also have speech rights compared to adults. Sure. But, nevertheless, this would amount to government down speech restrictions on, on individuals, minors, sure, from the same pea group of people that are, like, in other contexts, you know, we should be able to say anything online.
Jack Sanker:Right. And, that's just something to keep an eye on.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. No. It's it's definitely interesting. A lot of avenues that you can look at this one. So, I'm I'm sure that as as soon as this starts to go into effect, there will be a slew of lawsuits.
Danessa Watkins:So we'll just have to keep an eye on it and and see if Florida fares any better than California. Alright. Well, that's the show for today. Remember to check us out, Apple, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. Leave us comments.
Danessa Watkins:Let us know your thoughts if there's any other topics that you want us to cover or expand upon. And yeah, we'll see you next time.
