all about who is to blame for inciting violence so joining me now to discuss is policy analyst molly barrows contributor with america's lawyer now molly of what is the goal of this congressional hearing. well supposedly on its face lawmakers really want answers from these big tech c.e.o.'s to face that google and twitter wanting to know what they knew about their role if any in citing violence whether it was the congressional or excuse me the riot the attack that we saw the capitol in january that is the impetus of what led lawmakers to call for this hearing back in february and i think they're really just trying to pin them down on real answers whether or not they'll get them it's been a lot of what we've heard before pointing the finger sharing the blame if you will but really what needs to happen is laws need to change instead of all this hunkering down getting into the weeds of who knew what and when we know it's a problem fixed it you know yeah that's an excellent point and now it's interesting because whenever we talk about facebook and twitter we always seem to hear about section $230

administration legal analyst molly barrows contributor with america's lawyer is here with more molly what does this lawsuit say. well basically little current technology brand is due in the u.s. this week saying hey we want to be removed from this blacklist if we're not starting march 15th conk stocks are going to be banned from being owned or traded by american investors and in fact all investors must invest by 2021 so that's going to hit him pretty hard in the pocketbook and looking says this ban is going to hurt the company's ability to get capital from investors as well as their relationships with u.s. banks so there's going to be a lot of ripple effects including the software company's chief technology officer who is an american citizen owns a 1000000 shares of the business so they said they tried to work with the government tried to find out what the basis of this designation is by the u.s. defense department had no luck finding out how to get off of it so this isn't even the only lawsuit brain you had smartphone maker me they also sued the u.s. government january for the same

for the tech giant argue that facebook hasn't broken any laws so joining me now to discuss is molly barrows contributor with america's lawyer now molly it's no surprise here that facebook is denying these allegations of abuse of power but what exactly is the company's defense. you've heard from other big tech companies that essentially they sort of fall through the cracks of the regulations that their company doesn't fall under the existing definitions of what a monopoly might look like so i think there's some need for updating regulatory language if you will and regulatory laws and we can get into that and admit that you know just to recap these 2 lawsuits basically make similar claims that facebook bought instagram and whatsapp in order to squash what they thought was competition that could pose a threat to the company the attorney general accused facebook of using their market dominance to stifle that the f.t.c. also wanted them to unload instagram and whatsapp and become separate companies again so in response to those claims facebook's basically alleging that those 2 apps weren't exact

has proven to be a powerful measure that could be replicated in other states legal journalist molly barrows contributor with america's lawyer is the following the story and joins us with more molly i want to start right off here what did facebook do that violated the illinois privacy law will basically illinois says they violated the law by not asking users for their consent when they basically stored their data and they store their data it's part of that facial recognition software that they use in order to be able to recognize people to tag them in photos facebook will is scan a days and then they'll say hey this person might be so and so and they'll suggest to the name may be but that data is stored and so basically the violation came in when they were storing that data from users in illinois and they weren't asking their permission 1st because consent is definitely important part of that illinois biometric privacy law that is so landmark they basically have to show that they have asked for permission to use their data and they did not in this case in the federal judge ruled in favor of

labor union in the southern state could have big implications across the country legal analyst molly barrows contributor with american lawyers here now with more on what's at stake molly what do you know supporters actually hope to accomplish at this a passivity. well obviously the union the retail wholesale and department store union brant says if these workers will just join them they're going to push for better working conditions better pay more respect and if they succeed this will actually be the 1st amazon workplace to actually unionize so that's a big deal as you know supporters and amazon know what's at stake amazon employees gosh almost a 1000000 people form part time just in america alone and much more if you count worldwide so if this passes in alabama other facilities obviously could be considering doing the same thing that's why you've seen so much press reporting about it on both sides they've been pushing their p.r. message to sway the $6000.00 or so workers at this warehouse in bessemer alabama and amazon of course arguing against any allegations that their workers aren't get