Law, disrupted｜法律访谈

John is joined by Jeffrey L. Kessler, Co-Executive Chairman of Winston & Strawn LLP. They discuss the remarkable antitrust trial Jeff won involving Live Nation and Ticketmaster. In that case, the Department of Justice, 33 states, and the District of Columbia sued Live Nation and Ticketmaster, only for the DOJ to settle and withdraw from the case one week into the trial. The remaining states continued litigating and brought in Jeff as their new lead trial lawyer midway through the proceedings, an unprecedented action in major antitrust litigation. This required Jeff’s team to enter a complex jury trial with almost no preparation time, review a massive evidentiary record with the assistance of AI, coordinate with dozens of state attorneys general, and quickly reorganize witness presentations and trial themes. The case centered on allegations that Live Nation and Ticketmaster unlawfully maintained monopoly power through long-term exclusive agreements, threats to withhold concert talent from venues using rival ticketing companies, and other conduct designed to block competition in ticket sales. The plaintiffs highlighted damaging internal company documents, including references to “boiling the frogs,” “digging a moat around the castle,” and using a “velvet hammer” to pressure venues, all of which became powerful evidence supporting claims of anti-competitive intent. The plaintiffs also relied on economic testimony and evidence showing that the companies internally acknowledged serious service and quality problems while publicly claiming their products were superior. Jeff’s trial strategy included simplifying complicated antitrust theories for jurors, narrowing claims, reducing witnesses, and using AI tools to rapidly analyze deposition transcripts and evidence. After a lengthy trial and four days of jury deliberations, the plaintiffs secured a major verdict against Live Nation and Ticketmaster, with further proceedings still pending regarding damages and possible structural remedies, including the separation of Ticketmaster from Live Nation.

John is joined by John Bash, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Austin office. They discuss a proposed California ballot initiative that would impose a one-time 5% wealth tax on individuals with net worth, including certain trusts, exceeding one billion dollars, if they are California residents as of January 1, 2026, with the tax calculated based on wealth as of December 31, 2026. The measure would amend the state constitution and apply broadly to both tangible and intangible assets. Several categories of assets would be exempt, including real estate, some out-of-state tangible property, and certain amounts held in retirement plans. The proposal raises immediate practical concerns, particularly the difficulty of valuing illiquid assets such as privately held companies, intellectual property, or art, as well as the challenge of paying a substantial tax without readily available liquid assets. There is little to no historical precedent in the United States for a comprehensive wealth tax of this kind. The initiative targets a very small group of taxpayers. Reports suggest that some high-net-worth individuals have already relocated in anticipation of the measure. The proposal is sponsored by a union and is framed as a response to perceived recent federal tax breaks which benefited wealthy individuals but harmed ordinary California voters because of reductions in healthcare benefits. Critics argue it may be both administratively unworkable and economically counterproductive. Procedurally, the measure must qualify for the ballot through a signature-gathering process and, if approved by voters, would likely face immediate legal challenges. The proposal itself anticipates litigation and creates an expedited mechanism for facial challenges in Sacramento state court, direct appeals to the California Supreme Court and, ultimately, appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court for federal issues. The tax would not be enforced while these challenges are pending. It also provides that the legislature may only amend the proposal with a two-thirds vote and includes severability provisions designed to preserve portions of the law if others are struck down.

John is joined by Shon Morgan and Jack Baumann, both partners in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office. They discuss the growing legal tension surrounding the aggregation and commercialization of publicly available information. It focuses on when compiling public data into structured, searchable databases creates a protectable property interest, and when such activity exposes companies to legal risk. One recent series of cases involves disputes over whether entities that invest substantial resources to digitize, index, and organize public records may prevent others from accessing and reusing that enhanced data. In these cases, courts often recognize a distinction between underlying public records, which remain freely accessible, and value-added compilations created through private investment, which may be entitled to protection. A team led by Jack recently won one of these cases on behalf of Ancestry.com, a genealogy company that invested heavily in digitizing and organizing historical public records. Ancestry partnered with state records archives to convert paper and microfiche records into digital formats, adding searchable indexes and metadata that transformed otherwise difficult to use materials into accessible databases. Although the underlying records remained public and available to anyone willing to retrieve them manually, the company’s financial and technical investments significantly enhanced the utility of these public records. The dispute arose when an individual sought to obtain not the original public records, but the company’s digitized and indexed versions, through a public records request for Ancestry’s work directed at one state’s archive. The request effectively attempted to appropriate the company’s value-added work product without incurring the costs required to create it. An administrative body initially ruled that the materials should be disclosed, reasoning that the company had acted as an extension of the government in performing a public function. On appeal, however, a higher tribunal rejected that view, concluding that the digitized and organized database was materially different from the original records and not subject to compulsory disclosure. A second series of cases have been brought by individuals whose personal information appears in these searchable databases such as ZoomInfo, Spokeo, or Whitepages.com. Plaintiffs in these cases often assert privacy or right of publicity claims, arguing that even if the data originated from public sources, companies should not profit from compiling and monetizing that data without their consent. Although many of these claims face challenges similar to claims in data breach cases, especially in demonstrating actual harm or the inherent value of ordinary personal information. Some courts have allowed these cases to proceed past the dismissal stage, creating significant potential exposure for companies due to the prospect of class-wide liability and statutory damages. While raw public data remains freely accessible, significant private investment in organizing and enhancing that data may often generate a protectable interest. However, individuals may argue that while their information may be publicly available, they never agreed that third parties could profit from it. This tension remains unsettled and will likely evolve as courts confront similar disputes in other contexts involving large-scale data aggregation.

John is joined by Mark Wu, Henry L. Stimson Professor at Harvard Law School. They discuss the rapidly evolving legal and policy landscape surrounding U.S. tariffs following the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating the President’s reliance on emergency economic powers to impose broad tariffs. That ruling removed a significant set of tariffs but did not eliminate the overall tariff regime. Instead, the administration quickly pivoted to alternative statutory authorities, particularly Section 122, which permits temporary tariffs for up to 150 days, as well as longer-term mechanisms such as Section 301 and Section 232 investigations. These alternative mechanisms allow the executive branch to impose targeted tariffs based on findings related to unfair trade practices or national security concerns, with less immediate need for congressional approval. As a result, the tariff environment has shifted from sweeping, across-the-board measures to a more fragmented and dynamic system, requiring analysis on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis. Ongoing investigations into issues such as excess capacity and forced labor are likely to produce additional tariffs that may persist longer than the temporary measures currently in place. Meanwhile, legal challenges continue, including lawsuits by states arguing that the executive branch has exceeded delegated authority and violated statutory constraints. These challenges may be overtaken by the expiration of temporary tariffs and the emergence of new ones. One major issue involves refunds for tariffs previously collected under the invalidated emergency economic powers authority. Courts have indicated that refunds are warranted and administratively feasible, even at large scale, although timing remains uncertain due to potential appeals and implementation delays. Importers’ entitlement to refunds from the government does not depend on whether they passed tariff costs on to customers, as the focus is on the legality of the government’s action rather than downstream economic effects. Downstream purchasers who claim that invalidated tariffs were passed on to them must pursue contractual remedies rather than recovery from the government.