>> from the heart of where innovation, money, and power collide, in silicon valley and beyond. this is bloomberg. ♪

technology. emily: i am emily chang in san francisco and this is "bloomberg technology." coming up, pinterest shares soaring after-hours. a forecast for modest growth in the coming quarter. more on the future of pinterest in the social and e-commerce landscape under its new ceo in a moment. the future of big tech antitrust may be getting closer. over the next hour we will explore the american innovation and choice act, and how this could be the bill that gets enough bipartisan support to put big tech in its place. and how do you balance innovation and regulation when it comes to crypto? we ask the former assistant doj attorney general where he weighs in on this rapidly evolving debate. first i want to get a look at the markets. another big earnings surprise after hours. ed ludlow is here with the after our numbers from pinterest. ed: i see you rubbing your eyes,

do not adjust your tv set. pinterest is up 20% in after-hours. a modest beat on users in the quarter, a modest beat on the top line, and they are forecasting low to mid single digit growth in the current quarter, which is not where we were expecting given the pain of the likes of snap and meta. the big piece of news is confirmation. it's now the single biggest shareholder in pinterest. what seems to be pushing the stock higher in after-hours is the idea that elliott is bullish on this company. they see them as a significant potential for growth play, and that seems to be a big and tripping factor, pushing shares higher. it was a pretty muted start to the week on monday. the nasdaq 100 basically flat, down slightly. it rose in each of the last three sessions. significant pullback in yields that continues, u.s. treasury yield down to below 2.6%. bitcoin is also pulling back.

it trades 24/7 and over the weekend we saw declines back towards $23,000 u.s. per token. i am not quite sure what is happening. july was an astonishing month for technology stocks and the nasdaq 100. you see that green bar on the far right-hand side of your screen, the best month we have had since april of 2020. stocks were pushed higher on speculation that the fed was going to get towards the end of its rate cycle, that inflation was being tamed. so i don't know what happened. i went to bed friday night and that is what the vibe of the market was. i woke up on monday and we changed our mind. we are still worried that the fed will have to induce a recession to bring that inflation under control. there are also some stories within that, especially on megacap's pulling in different directions. apple plans to sell $5.5 billion u.s. of bonds according to a source. the demand has been quite high in terms of the auto book. 40 year duration bond could

yield 118 basis points over treasuries, which makes it an attractive offer. but this is apple fluxing. the stock down -- flexing. meta, one of the better performers, up .5%, and one of the biggest point leaders on the nasdaq 100. tuesday will be fascinating. emily: for more i want to bring in rohit kulkarni, mkm partners managing director. is this where we are, where pinterest forecasts moderate -- modest growth that shares go bonkers? rohit: it's a function of two things. one is the fundamentals, and equally important is elliott's press release. expectations were low, they were getting lower. pinterest was trading as if it was going out of business, to be honest. now they jumped over a very low bar. the most important thing here is third quarter revenue outlook.

facebook is telling us sequential declines. snap is telling us sequential declines in revenues. and pinterest comes along and says ok, we might grow sequentially. this is not what people expected. on top of that, elliott gives you this press release of pinterest, then being the largest shareholder in pinterest. so i think a lot of bad news was priced in, and here we are, up 20%. emily: you of course have a big leadership change that happened at pinterest. the cofounder and longtime ceo, ou. -- out. how do you see pinterest's challenges different from what is facing facebook and snap? rohit: pinterest has always been a tweener. there is always a debate between, are they are social media company, or just focused on a single person's hobbies and needs, and funneling what they

want to buy and put ads in front of them. as we go down the final, pinterest is -- funnel, pinterest is doing what they knew to do. putting payments, tagging along some bells and whistles along with it. they have been doing it very slowly. bill has a very complementary skill set. he was at venmo briefly, now google commerce. he has been a very commerce-oriented skill set, and that is probably something to be excited about and we will be watching it from the sidelines. emily: pinterest of course is a much smaller player than meta, even snap and twitter. do you see what is happening here as some sort of broader signal about what is happening in the broader economy or with digital ad spend? rohit: broadly, we're quite certain that digital ad spend is shifting slowly downwards. in the pie, market share is shifting. we think that google is getting

a little bit of extra market share away from some social media platforms. search tends to do better in recessions and when advertisers get very cautious about spend. that's what is happening. but pinterest is a very small player. he could just be a play on, ok, what you think suburban moms are thinking about holiday shopping? that would be they are not completely pessimistic about it. if you look at engagement on pinterest, that might be the only leading indicator but it is still too small for us to make a macro call. emily: you do cover uber and left and we expect their earnings out later this week as well. what are you looking for there? rohit: in terms of uber, we prefer uber over lyft, but both companies should have earnings that exceed excitations. there are two question marks. do high gas prices way on

drivers? we think yes. that's been a big debate and that will weigh on the stock tomorrow for uber. the second question is with inflation, with consumer discretionary spend, with rising rideshare prices, how does that -- we think that is very resilient. for that we give them a question mark for driver incentives but we like uber heading into earnings tomorrow. emily: all right. rohit kulkarni, thank you so much for joining us. we will be across uber, lyft, and many more companies reporting this week. coming up, amazon and many other companies are beefing up prisons in washington as the antitrust bill is making its way through congress, a big one. we will have all the details. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> we compete hard. we compete fairly. we try to be the best. >> we have fierce competition on the developer side and a customer side. >> see vigorous competition. >> our business model is advertising and we face intense competition. >> we don't have a dominant share in any market. >> we have a policy against using individual seller data to compete with our private label. >> i would describe it as a street fight for market share. >> it would not surprise me if alexa sometimes promotes our own products. >> competition drives us to innovate. >> history shows us if we don't keep innovating, someone will

replace every company her today. emily: mark zuckerberg, and more, just two years ago testifying -- two years later, regulators and lawmakers are still considering rules that will reign in big tech's biggest players to protect consumers. the american innovation and choice online act would bar major platforms from giving advantages to their own products over those of rivals. this is the legislation proposed by senators klobuchar and grassley last year. date -- joining me now, david kirkpatrick, and emily birnbaum. emily, set the stage for us. there have been so many competing bills and approaches here. but this one seems to be gaining steam. talk to us about what klobuchar and grassley have been proposed. emily b.: there was a wide relay of tech-related antitrust bills

that passed the house last year. since then the conversation has coalesced around this legislation you're talking about, the american innovation and choice online act. it would prevent companies from giving preference to their own products. emphasis on amazon e-commerce platform, it could not privilege its own products over small businesses that rely on its platform. there was a huge amount of momentum behind this legislation. there was serious talk that this legislation was going to get a vote this summer and chuck schumer himself had pledged to put it on the floor in the early summer. it did not happen. now we have a week until august recess. it will not be happening this week, his office has confirmed, and we reported recently it would not happen. but now people are looking to the fall, potentially in

september, this legislation might come to a vote. that is a very unusual time for a bill to be considered at the midterms. so it is all up in the air right now. emily: a searching, dave -- interesting, david, that big tech could become a real issue for voters in the november midterms, after so many years of figuring out how to regulate them. what do you make of this particular bill and how it could impact these companies? david: first of all, i love the or montage at the beginning of the segment. it was quite amusing. to be honest, even though surveys show that most consumers/voters do feel that tech companies are too powerful, i don't think that this kind of issue is anywhere near the top of the agenda for voters in general. so i think legislators do have to be careful, as they are taking actions that might seem based on hearings they have had,

etc., to be rational ones, that they don't annoy the voters who put them in office. because the problem with regulating amazon, apple, google, meta, etc., is these services are essentially as present in people's lives as government itself. so, you don't want to mess with them lightly. now, i do think many of the things that were demonstrated in especially the house hearings were egregious, the quote from bezos just based on reporting we have seen elsewhere and some of the evidence at the hearing is flat wrong. they do preference their own products at amazon. so, some things need to be fixed. but i just worry that we have a sledgehammer here and maybe we need a very fine toothed nail. a fine nail and a very little hammer. emily: emily, what do you make of that? and talk to us about how it sentiment towards big tech has changed since 2020. we're two long years now away from that, a lot has changed,

and it does not look good for tech. emily b.: yeah. sentiment soured on the big tech companies. it started souring in 2016, mostly related to concerns around then-facebook, now-meta. it's only become more and more politically potent to put yourself in opposition to the major tech companies, as part of a broader, anticorporate push during the biden administration and during the biden presidency. so, at this point, the major message that is being pushed by the tech companies is this is not what your voters care about. they are running tens of millions of dollars worth of ads. this week they have spent $120 million on advertising, essentially trying to convince voters congress is trying to

meddle in your phone while so many other important things are going on. inflation, and gas prices that affect you. why are they looking at this? so, it is yet to be seen if that is a winning argument, but it was definitely potent enough that schumer did not put the bills up for a vote. emily: david, i want to get your thoughts on this latest action from the ftc, suing meta over its attempt to buy this fairly small vr company. the ftc is now challenging this, and we have learned the ftc filed this lawsuit because lina khan wanted to do it, even though her staff disagreed. what do you make of this, that it seems the ftc, or at least lina khan, is determined to not let meta by acquisition like it did with instagram and whatsapp? david: really good question, but before i want to make it clear, i do not intend to echo industry talking points about this big

bill. i do think the industry has made enormous errors, and there is huge resentment against tech, big corporate generally, as the other emily said. i just think it is very risky to go after these companies wholesale the way they doing it. but back to meta and within. at the moment i think that meta has made so many mistakes and gotten so many people angry that there is going to be support for almost any pushback against that particular company, and to some extent, i think even on the other bill, one of the reasons so many legislators are so willing to go after the entire group of countries -- companies is because meta/facebook's crimes are so vividly obvious it seems justified to go after quote-unquote, big tech. i think it will be very hard for zuckerberg to get any kind of significant acquisition through with lina khan in there.

maybe he will even succeed in ultimately achieving this acquisition. but everything is going to encounter pushback. one other point i want to make, let's not forget what is happening in europe with the digital markets act, digital services act, which is parallel to what is happening in the u.s. and is further along, legislatively. emily: absolutely. europe is a whole other hou r-long show. what are the chances the ftc can stop this latest meta deal, even though it is smaller scale? emily b.: i think a lot of experts looking at this particular lawsuit by the ftc are saying this is a very novel theory. because essentially they are not saying meta is currently a monopoly in the virtual reality space, and saying this acquisition could set the stage for them enough allies and get another market. this is sort of an untested and new way of approaching acquisitions.

so, there's a lot of people who are skeptical about how winning this argument could be under current antitrust laws. but it is not even about blocking this particular acquisition. it is more a show of force by lina khan's ftc. she said you have to bring cases even if you are not going to win them because that is how you change practices within particular industries and that is how you put fear in companies if they make these types of acquisitions. emily: certainly an interesting step by the ftc and we will watch to see how that is out. emily birnbaum, thank you, along with david kirkpatrick. so much to continue to discuss over months, and i am sure, years. meantime, the white house has urged china to not escalate tensions with the u.s. in response to house speaker nancy pelosi's expected visit to taiwan, signaling that the biden administration is preparing for beijing to retaliate.

a visit would be a landmark move by u.s. official, and raise the risk of a military confrontation, given china's view that taiwan is part of its territory. the white house detailed possible actions china could take in response, including firing missiles and to be taiwan strait. pelosi's office has yet to officially confirm the visit. coming up, activision results also out. where does its deal with microsoft stand? we will give you an update on that, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

how will your business adapt to change? you could hire an office full of peyton mannings. what's up, peyton? good morning, peyton. hold for peyton. they'd huddle.... welcome to the peytonverse. such a visionary. game plan... you go. no, you go! and call audibles... double our investment in omaha! omaha! omaha! omaha! or you could use workday. omaha. the finance, hr and planning system used by over half of the fortune 500. for a be-agile-like-an-mvp world. workday. for a changing world. emily: let's get back to earnings and shares of activision blizzard a touch higher after the videogame maker posted sales that beat expectations, but had little to

say about his pending deal with microsoft. ed ludlow is here with the top lines. let's talk about the numbers first. ed: better-than-expected revenue, $1.46 billion. but context, down 15% from a year ago, earnings half of what they were a year ago. it is a weird situation for activision blizzard, with the pending acquisition. the reality is the videogames industry is not as strong right now as it was last year. vanguard which came out in the fall has performed poorly. and frankly, we are not all at home anymore. and some competitors like halo have just done better to grab what interest there is. emily: how much of this has to do with uncertainty around the deal? this would be the biggest acquisition of the last year at least, and we don't know if it will happen or not. ed: a specialist we spoke to said the odds of going through 70%. it will be tough but ultimately go through. if you look at the stock, it has

gained 20% since the deal was announced, trading at a significant discount to the $95 a share that was offered, but it is a megadeal. we always thought there would be regulatory scrutiny. investors seem confident, but anything could happen with a deal this size. emily: activision has also been dealing with cultural issues. questions about whether the ceo bobby kotick stays on. ed: what analysts would point to his microsoft went into the deal with their eyes open. they bought the company, or said they would buy the company at a time that was going through. the biggest wildcard is lina khan, we were just discussing, who has a general appetite to look at big tech deals. in the first quarter the ftc asked both sides for evidence. we thought we would get responses on monday as part of earnings, but in the earnings statement they just said as is normal, we are pending a deal, sorry, cannot comment. maybe by the fourth quarter is

what bloomberg intelligence thinks we will get more detail. emily: it is interesting to see lina khan scrutinizing a much smaller deal between mehta and a small the our company, and not to have the same kind of scrutiny of microsoft and aqua vision yet. ed: that we know of yet. the deal was on track to close in june 2023, which given the new cycle seems a very long way away. this is not just a u.s. story. the u.k. announced they are looking at this. activision has partners in china, it will get a lot of attention. emily: a lot at stake. ed ludlow, thank you for that update. coming up, a debate on the best way to regulate big tech, and why. we are going to go even deeper. adam kovacevich of the chamber of progress we joining us along with charlotte slaiman of public knowledge. we will have all sides of this issue covered. that is next. this is bloomberg. ♪

(annoenough with the calorie counting, carb cutting, diet fatigue, and stress. just taking one golo release capsule with three balanced meals a day has been clinically proven to repair metabolism, optimize insulin levels, and balance the hormones that make weight loss easy. release works with your body, not against it, so you can put dieting behind you and go live your life. head to golo.com now to join the over 2 million people who have found the right way to lose weight and get healthier with golo.

>> i think simply because you have been successful in a few different businesses does not somehow mean that you have natural market power. it just means you have been

successful in a couple different experiences. >> i look at the opportunity to provide. i look at the skills people are learning through youtube. i feel it everywhere when i go talk to people. and providing access to information and knowledge i think will end up being on the right side of history as well. >> i don't think big by itself is bad, but competition is good, and every business, and particularly businesses that are large and have high scale, the unintended large consequences of the scale cannot be dealt with after the fact, they have to be dealt with while you are scaling. >> inflation will have -- regulation will be an important role to play. regulation will be important. emily: some thoughts from my interviews with various big tech ceo's in the last 18 months, as big tech regulation is still pending in washington. can congress rein in these major platforms? the american innovation and choice online act is congress's first major effort to regulate big tech since the inception of the internet, and it has

bipartisan support. here's the bill's leading democratic sponsor, senator amy klobuchar. >> at some point if there is no competition, these companies are allowed to become these monopolistic, dominant providers. and in the case of at&t, no one wanted to destroy at&t, they just wanted to make sure that new competitors can develop. emily: votes could come before novembers midterms and if it passes, what does it mean for big tech really? let's discuss that and more with the chamber of progress founder and ceo adam kovacevich, longtime former google executive, and charlotte slaiman , director at public knowledge, an organization that works to promote freedom of expression and open internet. what is your sense of this bill? does it go far enough? charlotte: yes, i think it would be a huge step forward. of course there is a lot more that we are hoping can happen in the future, but being able to

stop the anti-competitive discrimination that these companies are engaging in to prevent small competitors from getting a fair shot would make a huge difference towards promoting competition and making sure that consumers actually have access to the best products. emily: adam, would you agree, or does this bill go too far? adam: respectfully disagree. i have great respect for charlotte but we disagree on this one. this bill is languishing for a simple reason, which is what it's proposing to do is not that popular. if you look at drugs in contrast, congress is on the verge of passing an extremely popular regulatory change. that's something voters have been clamoring for for decades. they have asked editors about it at town hall meetings. tech regulation is not that. polls show people favor regulation of big tech in general but this bill does something that is not popular, banning big tech from offering

things like google maps, amazon basics. it has always been clear why smaller companies would benefit the senators have seen for themselves over the last couple months no voters are marching on washington to demand big changes to google search results were amazon prime, and that is just the reality. emily: charlotte, how do you respond to that? charlotte: i think it may not yet be a household discussion about competition and antitrust, but i think what people notice that these products are not serving them. they might not know that that is because of a lack of competition, because these gatekeepers don't have to face the new entrepreneurs who sometimes have better ideas, and that is why we are stuck with the same old products. so i think people are learning, and that is part of the effort of advocacy for this legislation. people are learning what the root cause is and it is a lack of competition. but i think people are very familiar with the results of

that petition because they see it every day in these products that are no longer innovating in the way that really should see in this space. emily: adam, we have seen big tech stepping up its efforts to lobby lawmakers, as this bill inches closer. you have amazon today eyring atop republican congressional aide on its lobbying side, you have apple spending more on antitrust lobbying than ever so far this year. tim cook himself personally going to washington. just how scared is big tech of this particular bill? adam: it is not something they love. again, there is a pretty simple reason, which is that if you look at the number of people in this country who are happy and satisfied with their iphone, with their google search results, with amazon, we are talking about hundreds of millions of people. i do think there is something about politics that sort of rewards the vocal activist few over the happy many. and i think that is one of the dynamics of this debate. there are a lot of people who

are not paying attention to this debate at all but who i think would be pretty upset if those products changed. so i think in some ways the companies are indisposition -- and it is awkward but they are indisposition defending themselves, but they are also defending their happy customers at this time. emily: what do you make of that argument, charlotte, that supporters of big tech, regular people would not want these things to be happening if they understood what is, to be fair, a very complicated set of issues? charlotte: i don't think that is right. i think the reason the tech companies don't like this legislation is it is much easier for them if they don't have to face fair competition. right now they can rest on their laurels and use anti-competitive tools to prevent competition from getting a fair shot against them, and that is a lot easier for them, i understand that. but i think consumers would really be served thereby better competition and by making sure that those alternatives that are out there, or in some cases are unable to get funded, making

sure those alternatives get a chance to thrive. consumers will really benefit from these new innovations that we would see if there is fair competition in this space. emily: on that note, i am curious what you both think of the ftc challenging meta's attempts to buy this vr company, unlimited. sounds like lina khan will move forward with the challenge despite her staff recommending against it. adam, is the ftc trying to prevent facebook/meta from resting on his laurels and not innovating and trying to innovate by buying instead of building? adam: i think the case is more rooted in politics and the laws. you said her staff attorneys recommended against this case. this is coming on a week where meta, their revenue was down. everybody knows they are facing pretty existential competition from tiktok. so, i think one of the things you see in this new case is the ftc had to draw a very narrow

rocket definition in order to make its argument that meta was monopolizing. they said meta was monopolizing what they call the market for vr fitness apps. and they did send -- and it did something similar in their case against meta over the instagram and whatsapp deals, and the judge in that case said they failed to prove market definition. i think in this case, i predict the judge will say they drew the market too nearly. a little bit like saying froot loops has monopolized the market for rainbow colored fruity cereal. that is not its own market. it competes against frosted flakes and bagels and english muffins, and judges know that. this case i think is likely to fall into a similar trap of defining a market too nearly. emily: charlotte, what do you think about this ftc challenge? it certainly has a ring of some skeptics who think maybe the instagram and whatsapp deals should never have happened. charlotte: so, first, i really

don't think we should read too much into this idea that the staff were overruled. i worked at the ftc, i know that there are usually many staff involved in an investigation like this. i think it is not at all clear from these artificial leaks what the view of the staff was. and there are a lot of staff with their name on this complaint, so i think they stand behind it. and i think it is a strong argument. i am so glad to see that the ftc is not waiting to see, not letting this one go by, as they have so many times before. i imagine 10 years from now maybe we will be so glad that this was the merger where the ftc decided to step in. it is a situation of uncertainty, and part of what i think is really needed to improve antitrust enforcement today is bringing those cases and situations of uncertainty, especially in tech markets. we're not always going to be

completely sure. but what economists have seen is that the prior strategy of wait-and-see and not bringing a case in situations of uncertainty really led to so many more mergers going through than should have. and the economic theory that new competitors were going to come in and compete away those monopolies was just not right. that is not what happened. it turns out that the cost of inaction are much higher than the cost of action. so i think they are actually making the right decision here and i was glad to see it. emily: interesting. now, there are some potential big concessions that big tech could make. we have seen some concessions over the last several weeks, potentially to divert the spotlight. but one of those is google potentially offering to spinoff its ad business to fend off antitrust scrutiny. how likely is that? adam: i don't know how likely that is. i think one of the things that has come up in this context of this doj investigation

supposedly of google's ad tech business, one of the things interesting to me about that is the texas attorney general already has a lawsuit that is pretty advanced against google over the same topic. and so, it is interesting to me to see that kind of happening in parallel. i don't know what to make in terms of how that will unfold, but we will see if the doj takes that step, given the texas a.g. is prosecuting. sometimes enforcers say that is an issue another agency is already tackling, so maybe we focus on some other issue in our investigations. emily: well, much here to continue to discuss, but thank you both for weighing in. adam kovacevich of the chamber of progress, as well as charlotte slaiman, public knowledge. appreciate it. coming up, the regulation that could be coming to crypto. makan delrahim is with us, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> instead of doing this regulation by enforcement, we should be looking at the legislative process. >> you raise money from the public and that public is anticipating, based on your efforts, some profit, that comes into the securities laws. >> the laws around determining what a security are is very complex. >> i was talking to industry groups, we need to self-regulate or the regulators are coming. and, when you look back, there was very little self-regulation.

>> we want to make sure that we have thoughtful regulatory frameworks so that these industries can survive and thrive. emily: let's take a view on another versioning tech industry that is primed for more regulation, and that is crypto. i want to bring in makan delrahim now, partner at los them and walk ins and former assistant attorney general for the dinner justice department. he oversaw the -- he played a vital role in building the antitrust division's engagement with its international counterparts. makan, thank you so much for joining us. i have wanted to interview you for a long time. i am so curious what you make of the debate in the crypto universe right now about how to balance innovation and regulation. obviously there has been a ton of volatility in this space, there has been chrissy's, but also a ton -- bankruptcies, but also a tone of enthusiasm. what is the balance? makan: thank you for having me. whenever you have a foundational

technology that can disrupt incumbent technology -- players, there is a big debate. and the legislative process is a very slow process because you need a lot of education. you need to educate policy members, the policymakers, members of congress and others, about exactly what it does, and what should they be afraid of to get in there. of course i think the less regulation you have, especially in the infancy of a new technology, the greater the innovation that is going to be surrounding that. of course that is one regular should should come in, but not to come in at the early stages of developing a new foundational technology like blockchain. and so you have seen a lot of changes in the marketplace of course that is largely related to cryptocurrencies rather than the broader space of blockchain that has many applications. emily: president biden's crypto executive order, what is your

view on that from an antitrust perspective? makan: one of the very positive things about the executive order, it brings the whole of government, it gets the views of different folks, looks at competition areas that i am very much concerned about. making sure that regulation is not put in place where you have static regulation that puts shackles on the engineers and the business models, rather than letting it develop into its full potential. and what i am hoping is that different aspects of the government -- is of course there is a very important role for the sec and the ftc and those types of agencies that regulate it from an investment standpoint, but there is also an important role of the department of commerce and debarment of justice in particular, the antitrust division, to ensure the regulations will allow maximum competition and provide the greatest incentives for

further innovation. this is a technology that i think has infinite potential to really disrupt many areas and provide efficiencies that ultimately benefit consumers, such as lowering transaction costs. emily: now, we have seen firms like ftx take on a lot more of the market, striking deals left and right. is that something that we should be worried about from an antitrust perspective, or are there other red flags that you see? makan: look, this is a market that is just developing, so there are going to be some winners and losers, and it is going to develop. you are probably not old enough, like i am, to remember back in 2000, right at the height of the internet bubble where you had -- you plop a name, add dot-com to it, and suddenly it is a billion-dollar company. not all of them survived.

the industry is going through some changes and transactions are very good because it allows for some technologies or some engineers and other talent to be absorbed into another entity that could be productive. so i think every transaction needs to be looked at on its own specific facts and merits, and that is what the antitrust laws do. they don't look at it holistically about a bunch of acquisitions, whether they are bad or good. we look at the effects of that transaction. emily: what is your view on the klobuchar, grassley bill designed to reign in big tech? is that the correct framework by which big tech should be regulated? makan: look, i think it is a difficult one, because there's existing law and there are a number of litigations that are ongoing, both in the united states and abroad. i will not comment on that. but the legislative process, whenever you are going to impact

ahead of time, this is really industrial policy. this is not really antitrust laws that are being proposed. you are making a policy judgment call about certain businesses. there's going to be some harms because you're going to lose some efficiencies in those business practices are precluded. and those are judgment calls that policymakers are making. there is going to be some harm to consumers i some aspects of these bills. for example, there is another legislation that makes it illegal every merger that is worth over $5 billion. that just does not make a whole lot of sense to me. and some of these bills, they really need to be refined. there needs to be a lot of debate about this. i don't think there is the requisite amount of proper debate and implications of all these bills has been had there in congress yet. emily: ok, then what is your

view on the state of antitrust enforcement berm broadly -- more broadly under the biden administration? makan: look, president biden came in, he issued an executive order to the agencies, and to every regulated industry agency. every executive branch as to look at it for competition purposes. i think that is good. that is fine to look at the competitive effects and impacts of your regulatory actions. what i don't like is if particular industries are just targeted. i don't think that should be the goal, and i hope that the two antitrust enforcement agencies, the federal trade commission and department of justice, look at each case, each transaction, each company, and the effects of the conduct that they have, rather than trying to target you pick your name, big tech, big health, whatever it might be, being in a capitalist system is not bad. big behaving badly is bad, as i

have in a sophomoric way described once. emily: quickly, what is your take on lina khan and her latest approach? we learned about the ftc challenging meta's attempt to acquire unlimited, a vr company. she has made it clear, she wants to take on big tech. quickly, do you think she is going to succeed? makan: well, look, i had an old mentor, jack valenti, was the head of the mpaa and a colorful guy. he told me once you can get a guide to go to hell, getting him there is a whole different story. you can say you can break up any company or industry you want. you have to develop the facts, develop the law, and go prove it in law. that is not always easy to do. i think they have -- they are taking a hard look at some cases, but i think as they have found in the past 1.5 years,

actually bringing specific cases and winning them in court is not as easy as saying so. you know why? because we are a country of laws and their is president of antitrust laws out there. i commend them for pushing the envelope within the boundaries of the law, but i think success will be a challenge unless the facts in the laws are there. emily: that is a metaphor that i will remember, thank you. makan delrahim, former doj assistant attorney general, thank you for weighing in. coming up, the latest on the elon musk, twitter saga. we will tell you the latest twist. ♪

emily: a twitter shareholder hit elon musk with a class-action lawsuit, effectively joining twitter's bid to hold him to a $44 billion deal. he called out musk's quote, lame

rationales for reneging on his contract, accusing the billionaire of fabricating excuses to get out of the buyout. he is seeking a court order compelling musk to consummate that deal. and, that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology ." coming up tomorrow we are going to be sitting down with the uber ceo, talking about earnings and his plans to turn uber into a super app. is it working? i am emily chang in san francisco. this is bloomberg. ♪

millions have made the switch from the big three to xfinity mobile. that means millions are saving hundreds a year on their wireless bill. and all of those millions are on the nation's most reliable 5g network, with the carrier rated #1 in customer satisfaction. that's a whole lot of happy campers out there. and it's never too late to join them. get unlimited data with 5g included for just $30 a line per month when you get 4 lines. switch to xfinity mobile today. so... i know you and george were struggling with the possibility of having to move. how's that going? we found a way to make bathing safer with a kohler walk-in bath. a kohler walk-in bath provides a secure,

spa-like bathing experience in the comfort of your own home. a kohler walk-in bath has one of the lowest step-ins of any walk-in bath for easy entry and exit. it features textured surfaces, convenient handrails for more stability, and a wide door for easier mobility. kohler® walk-in baths include two hydrotherapies— whirlpool jets and our patented bubblemassage™ to help soothe sore muscles in your feet, legs, and back. a kohler-certified installer will install everything quickly and conveniently in as little as a day. they made us feel completely comfortable in our home. and, yes, it's affordable. i wish we would have looked into it sooner. think i might look into one myself. stay in the home and life you've built for years to come. call... to get a free kohler® luxstone® bath wall upgrade. and take advantage of our special offer of no payments for 18 months.

haidi: good morning and welcome to daybreak australia. annabelle: