Return to Transcripts main page

Quest Means Business

Masked Individual Seen Obstructing Camera At Guthrie's Home; Trump Threatens To Block Opening Of New U.S.-Canada Bridge; U.S. Commerce Secretary Confirms 2012 Visit To Epstein Island; E.U. Proposes Free Extra Cabin Bags For Plane Passengers; Rise In Crypto-Linked Kidnappings Across France; Meta And YouTube Accused Of Addicting Kids To Their Platforms. Aired 4-4:45p ET

Aired February 10, 2026 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[16:00:15]

RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": And there you have it, the closing bell is now ringing on Wall Street as trading

comes to an end. Interesting sort of day. We've given back the gains of the day. There were some strong ones earlier on which just basically, I think

shows the unease that there is in the market at the moment.

And a good strong gavel! Trading is over! The day is done. Those are the markets and the events that we are talking about tonight.

Awful, chilling new photographs and video shows a masked person at Nancy Guthrie's home the night that she disappeared. We will talk about that.

U.S. lawmakers are calling on the U.S. Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, to resign after he admitted to visiting Jeffrey Epstein's island with his

family.

And the E.U. is waging a war with low-cost airlines over carry-on luggage rules. The head of Europe's consumer watchdog on whether or not we should

be allowed to take on board more baggage.

We are live in New York, Tuesday, it is February the 10th. I am Richard Quest and I mean business.

Good evening.

We begin tonight with the new video that shows the moment a masked person arrived at the home of 84-year-old Nancy Guthrie's house on the night that

she disappeared. The FBI has released this surveillance footage from outside Guthrie's front door. It shows what the agency is calling an armed

individual.

The FBI Director, Kash Patel, says the person is shown tampering with the door's camera.

Nancy Guthrie is the mother of the NBC "Today" show anchor and host, Savannah Guthrie and Mrs. Guthrie, senior, has been missing for 10 days

now.

CNN's Jake Tapper and Ed Lavandera are on the scene in Tucson, and earlier they pointed out that this could be a major turning point in the case.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: One of the things that's going on here is this is hope. This represents hope because this idea, this image represents the

first tangible lead that anybody has had in this case.

ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And I think, it is also important to point out, is that even though we only see one person in this

video, I think there are some questions -- there has been some question, is this something that just one person is responsible for or are there

multiple people responsible for it?

We see one person here. It doesn't mean that there is not a second person in a car. Clearly, there had to have been some sort of vehicle here for

them to leave the scene. So, I mean that's a question I bring up, but we don't really have the answer for at this point.

But I mean, this is monumental. I did not think we were going to see this picture from this particular scene.

TAPPER: It is a lot closer. We should remember that this could be a break in the case. I mean, the idea that there is now this image, there are

people out there who know who this individual is, who recognize this individual based on his body type, based on the clothing he has, based on

the gloves or the hat or the backpack, based on his outfit -- there are individuals.

And while the Guthrie family has had had little reason to hope beyond their religious faith, this does represent a possible break in the case, and we

have seen in recent years images like this lead to the discovery of the perpetrator, whether Luigi Mangione, the alleged killer of the

UnitedHealthcare executive or the individual who assassinated Charlie Kirk.

It is images like this, actually not even as good as this one that have led to that kind of information. So, that is why this photograph comes -- these

photographs, and again, we are expecting others according to a source I have at the FBI, that is why these photographs could really be important

for everybody out there in the public.

And we saw Savannah Guthrie yesterday taking to social media, pleading with the public not only to offer their prayers, but to offer any tips they

might have.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

QUEST: We will obviously continue to follow that story and bring you the latest details as and when we get it, but we thought tonight it was the

most important thing to bring to your attention.

And so to our nightly business agenda and our conversation on trade and negotiations -- trade negotiations usually involve building bridges with

your partners. Well, tonight the Trump administration is threatening to block one instead.

President Trump says he won't allow a new bridge between Ontario, Canada and Michigan in the United States to open until the U.S. is fully

compensated.

The White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt doubled down on that threat earlier.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The fact that Canada will control what crosses the Gordie Howe Bridge and owns the land on both sides

is unacceptable to the President. It is also unacceptable that more of this bridge isn't being built with more American made materials, even more so

than what President Barack Obama committed to with the Canadians at the time, at the start of the project.

[16:05:26]

He also believes that the U.S. should own at least half of the bridge, have shared authority over what passes across it, and participate in the

economic benefits generated by its use.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: The Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, says he spoke to President Trump about the bridge insisting it will be resolved. It was expected to

open this year after a period of testing.

Alayna Treene is at The White House.

Do we know what really is behind this? I mean, it is a bridge. It was a bridge apparently paid for primarily by the Canadians. It is going to have

economic benefits on both sides. What is the President meaning when he talks about they want to be fully compensated?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes, it has been very confusing and I think from just what we've been seeing from the reaction,

particularly from you know, lawmakers like Governor Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, on the Michigan side Obviously, we've heard from the Prime

Minister of Canada, Mark Carney. A lot of them surprised about what exactly the President means.

And also, if he is even able to get in the way of this bridge opening, like he is insisting on social media, but I think this goes back to really the,

you know, the dissolving of the relationship really, between President Trump and the Prime Minister Mark Carney, really just -- it has kind of

bottomed out in recent months, despite them getting off to a good start when carney first came into office, it has really deteriorated, Richard.

And I think that's what we are really seeing with this, and we actually did see the President, you know, he blamed a couple of things when he said that

U.S. Steel wasn't used in the making of this bridge. He talked about, again, not wanting the -- his belief that America isn't getting enough

money from this.

But then he also brought up things that are completely unrelated, like the idea of Canada, he said, not putting U.S. liquor -- American made liquor on

their shelves, things that are completely unrelated to this bridge.

It is also somewhat, you know, perplexing -- you know, kind of brought up this idea of China and Canada coming together to make some sort of trade

agreement, him saying that that means China is in many ways going to control how Canada operates. That's something also raising a lot of

eyebrows.

So, it is not exactly clear to answer your question about what the President is looking for here, but it comes, of course, as we've really

seen him, you know push back on countries that he believes he does not have a good relationship with.

QUEST: Alayna, thank you for putting the position as seen from The White House. Now to the other side, caught in the crossfire is Windsor, Ontario,

where a different bridge called the Ambassador Bridge already connects the two cities. It is the busiest border crossing in North America.

It is crucial to Windsor's operations, bearing in mind the amount of automobile traffic and autos in the industry, 40,000 people cross the

bridge, $323 million worth of goods.

Now, this new bridge was meant to be another economic link between the two countries. The mayor of Windsor, Drew Dilkens who has joined us on QUEST

MEANS BUSINESS back in March talking about the impact of new auto tariffs, and the mayor is back now.

Mayor Dilkens, I am glad to have you with us. What do you think is behind this? Because it is a bridge, a bridge primarily paid for by Canada, but

where there is considerable U.S. steel, considerable U.S. involvement. What is going on here really?

MAYOR DREW DILKENS, ONTARIO, CANADA: Yes, I wouldn't believe any of the nonsense in the post with respect to no U.S. building products or steel

used, half the bridge was constructed with U.S. steel. All of the port of entry on the U.S. side was U.S. steel. In fact, of the 15,000 men and women

that helped build that bridge, 8,000 came from the United States, Richard.

And so what is behind it? Donald Trump likes to cherry pick issue by issue. He likes to take softwood lumber, dairy, steel, aluminum, auto and have a

negotiation on each issue separately in a year that we are actually supposed to sit down and have a comprehensive renegotiation of USMCA and

CUSMA.

And so, I suspect this is just a cherry picking of this particular issue to try and, you know, gain some leverage and use that as a currency of some

form.

QUEST: If we look at the history of these disputes with the President, we know they get sorted out and something is given, something is not, and the

only thing that really seems to rise is one's blood pressure as you have to deal with it.

But what it does prove is that you can't really do anything with the United States without worrying about it going off the rails, pardon the pun, since

it is a bridge, but you know what I mean.

[16:10:07]

DILKENS: Yes, and it is unfortunate because this is the type of generational infrastructure investment, five billion U.S. dollars to build

this bridge in the ports of entry. In any normal world, you would have a U.S. President and a Canadian Prime Minister come to the bridge, cut the

ribbon, shake hands in the middle and celebrate this binational relationship that we have.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump has waged a trade war with every country around the world including his largest trading partner here in Canada. And really,

Richard, not opening this bridge and delaying the opening of the bridge, yes, it serves to -- it is a disservice to Canadians for sure. But

actually, the folks who live in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky whose livelihoods rely on smooth and efficient trade with Canada are going to be

equally disserved by this move.

QUEST: So, let's just talk about -- since we have you, Mr. Mayor, let's just talk about the current state of play between Windsor and Detroit,

particularly vis-a-vis the automobile industry. Clearly, USMCA means that its sort of unaffected, but the reality is that it is affected because we

know that USMCA may not survive, and there are already holes being picked in it.

So, how worried are you?

DILKENS: Well listen, we take nothing by chance here or nothing for granted, we would like to renegotiate and have an agreement that is good

for all countries who are party to the trade agreement. Clearly, on the auto front in Windsor and Detroit, Detroit being the Motor City, Windsor

being the Auto Capital of Canada, we have built up supply chains over the course of decades here that are seamless, that are friction free.

This bridge is going to be the bridge with the best technology for border crossings between our two countries. It will remove most of the friction,

and the auto industry, that's really good because they work on a just-in- time delivery basis, and so, of course, we are concerned.

QUEST: Can I just jump in there, sir?

DILKENS: But the narrative that affects --

QUEST: Because I just wanted to get a feel -- sorry to interrupt you, but I just want to take on that point that you've just said about those supply

chains that have been put in place.

Are those supply chains still existing? Are they robust or are they starting to fray as a result of these tensions?

DILKENS: No, I still think they are robust. I think folks in the business world may be hedging their bets a little bit trying to see what they can do

if the situation, you know, falls off the rails but they can't pivot as quickly as I think the President thinks they may be able to pivot to move

supply chains to serve the industry.

And if they can, it is going to cost more, Richard, it is going to cost more which means people are going to pay more for the price of every

vehicle that they buy, and so we've got to be really cognizant of the fact that the trade agreements that we have worked on for decades and decades

serve to keep costs low and allow business to operate efficiently.

QUEST: How much animus is there now in Windsor? Not against individuals in Detroit or in Michigan, but against the United States government, against

the U.S.? To quote a sort of an Olympic athlete from the U.S., the Winter Olympics, "mixed emotions" I am sure, but if you take the temperature on

the Main Street in Windsor, what would I find?

DILKENS: You would find a lot of folks who are staying home, not going across the border to spend their money because they don't want to support

the U.S. economy at a time where they feel the President is attacking our country. Fundamentally, though, let me be really clear, Canadians love

Americans.

We see what is going on here. We are not fools. We see what is going on. We understand the lay of the land and that Donald Trump throws out tweets and,

you know lights little fires everywhere. So, we have no animus against Americans as a whole. We love you guys.

We just need to figure out the pathway that, you know, hopefully gets us to the midterms and perhaps there will be a change. And if not, we need to

figure out the pathway that gets us through the next three years of the term of this President.

QUEST: I am grateful, Mayor. Thank you, I promised last time and I promise again, next time we meet, it will be in Windsor, a lovely place. I've been

there many times.

Many thanks, sir. Thank you for joining us.

Now, one of the world's biggest pop stars is parting ways with her talent agency after its chief exec was named in the Epstein files. The revelation

is shocking, in a moment, in those e-mails, and also of course, the U.S. Commerce Secretary. What has he got about all of this? In a moment. QUEST

MEANS BUSINESS.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:16:56]

QUEST: So the fallout continues over the Epstein files. Now, some U.S. lawmakers are calling for the Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, this time

to step down.

His name has appeared in documents recently released by the Justice Department. Facing questions at a Senate Subcommittee today, Howard Lutnick

confirmed he and his family had lunch with Jeffrey Epstein on the convicted sex offender's private island in 2012. But Lutnick insists the two did not

have a relationship.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOWARD LUTNICK, U.S. COMMERCE SECRETARY: I did have lunch with him as I was on a boat going across on a family vacation. My wife was with me, as were

my four children and nannies.

I had another couple with -- they were there as well with their children, and we had lunch on the island. That is true for an hour and we left with

all of my children, with my nannies and my wife all together. We were on a family vacation. We were not apart.

To suggest there was anything untoward about that in 2012, I don't -- I don't recall why we did it, but --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: Manu is with me, Manu Raju on Capitol Hill.

Look, let us be grown up about this. Nothing is wrong with going -- I mean there is nothing wrong going for lunch on that island with Jeffrey Epstein.

It is not a crime, there is nothing wrong except when put in context -- when put in context that he had said some years earlier, he and his wife

had been in Epstein's New York house, seen the massage table in the middle of the room, and vowed never to set foot in that house again.

Now people have a right to change their mind. They have a right to go and visit people who they want. It is the inconsistency and whiff of hypocrisy

that seems to be getting people.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, look, he said that just a few months ago, Richard, that he had severed ties with Jeffrey

Epstein in 2005 and we had learned that this happened several years later. And in fact, this meeting that happened on Epstein's island happened after

he had pleaded guilty to sex crimes, soliciting prostitution from a minor. That of course, happened back in 2008.

And this meeting, this lunch meeting while he said it was with his family and his kids there happened after that. So, raising a lot of questions

about why he continued to have this relationship despite this sex crime that Epstein himself pleaded guilty to and despite what Lutnick has said

publicly, that's a question that lawmakers, particularly Democrats had today.

I caught up with Senator Chris Van Hollen, who was the one questioning Lutnick about that meeting, and this is what he told me.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: What was your reaction to Lutnick saying that he had lunch in the island for an hour and left?

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Well look, the issue here is that he totally misled the American public, the survivors, the Congress, when he said that

2005, he and his wife went to Epstein's apartment.

[16:20:06]

They went away thinking he was a disgusting guy because of sexual innuendo around the massage table, and he clearly left the country with the

impression that he had no further contact with Jeffrey Epstein. That just out not to be true, which completely undermines his credibility and to

later, you know, take kids and nannies to the Epstein island, when at that time, Epstein had actually been convicted of soliciting a minor for

prostitution.

Obviously, you know, it is extremely bad judgment. But it also goes back to this credibility issue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: So, Manu, look, at the time when all of this is going on, he is head of Cantor. He could do what he likes. He is a CEO of a business. If his

shareholders, if his investors don't mind, that's fine.

The issue now of course, he is a Cabinet Secretary, and that's where this is the problem for him, not only for a lack of judgment arguably, but also

for the way he has portrayed the story.

In Europe, people are suffering consequences. It doesn't seem to be that Howard Lutnick will. Is that true?

RAJU: That seems absolutely true, Richard. In fact, The White House today, the Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said that the President still stands

behind Howard Lutnick, and that has confidence for the job that he is doing, and then she pivoted on to a discussion about how she thinks the

media should be covering the good news coming from this administration, trying to deflect questions about Lutnick.

And I even asked the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, about this today. I said what about these calls to resign? We've heard Democrats calling on

Lutnick to resign. We've only had one Republican member of the House, that's Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who told me on Sunday that he thinks

Lutnick should resign, but he is one who has been very critical of Trump, particularly on this issue of the handling of the Epstein files. He is the

one who forced the disclosure of the Epstein files from this legislation, but that's about it.

Johnson would not go that far. In fact, he defended Howard Lutnick, he criticized Thomas Massie. And then I asked him, what about any concerns you

have with Howard Lutnick's ties to Jeffrey Epstein, and Richard, he said that I don't know anything about that, but I trust Howard Lutnick's

judgment, and that's really what we are hearing from Republican leader after Republican leader and from The White House, which shows you there

probably are not going to be many, if any consequences, despite some of these revelations.

QUEST: Manu, we need to talk more about this, you and I. Thank you very much for joining us.

The Grammy winner, Chappell Roan, is the latest artist to part ways with a talent agency, Wasserman. It is after e-mails released by the Justice

Department show that the chief executive, Casey Wasserman exchanged flirtatious messages with Epstein's partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, you know of

course, is serving 20 years in prison at the moment.

Wasserman is also head of the Coordinating Committee for the 2028 Olympic Games, again no criminal wrongdoing, nothing that one would say is worthy

of arrest et cetera, et cetera. Wasserman has apologized for his past communications, denies ever having had a personal or business relationship

with Epstein himself, puts out his communication with Maxwell took place years before she was convicted with conspiring with Epstein to abuse

minors.

Brian Stelter is with me.

Brian, you and I have talked about this, and it is a question of whether it is a direct association leading to an error of judgment, poor judgment, or

whether nobody could have foreseen this and actually, there is really, you know -- we are making a mountain out of a molehill, which is it?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: This is the sort of situation where there are multiple layers to it. Theres one trip that Wasserman went on

with Epstein more than 20 years ago. He says that was the only time he ever met Epstein and was not ever around when there was anything inappropriate

and then there are these salacious e-mails with Maxwell.

Some of those e-mails are flirty, some of them are just the two of them joking back and forth. It was right around the time he was about to have

his first child with his wife. So, there is some personal embarrassment as a result of these e-mails that have been newly released.

And Wasserman is not just a mogul running a talent agency, he is also the Chairman of the L.A. Olympics venture in 2028. He is the one in charge of

putting on the Olympics in L.A. At the moment, it seems the Organizing Committee still is supporting Wasserman, but you have some agents at his

firm that are trying to push him out.

They are trying to take their clients elsewhere or get Wasserman to step aside. So, there is real pressure inside the talent agency and Chappell

Roan stepping aside is one example, but she is not the only artist. There are other artists who may do the same thing -- Richard.

QUEST: But what is the fundamental complaint? You know, if we are not to expect -- look, there is a difference. We are not expecting people to act

as a saint or a member of the clergy in a sense.

[16:30:07]

What is the complaint here of what he is supposed to have done?

STELTER: Well, here is the quote from Chappell Roan in her own words, she said: "No artist, agency or employee should be expected to defend or

overlook actions that conflicts so deeply with our own moral values."

So, she is saying she wants to have distance. She should be able to have distance from Wasserman, but your point is well taken, and I think your

point is being echoed by many others. If there is an error in judgment from many years ago, if there is embarrassing e-mails that you wish you had

never sent from, I don't know, a decade ago, more than a decade ago at this point --

QUEST: Right.

STELTER: Should that be the kind of thing that takes your agency down? And in some ways, this reminds me of the early era of the #MeToo movement, the

early chapters of the #MeToo Movement, where there were some understandable reactions, and then there were some counter-reactions. You know, there is

always the backlash and then there is the backlash to the backlash -- Richard.

QUEST: With #MeToo, what we eventually got to was a situation where you know, the baby and the bathwater, where we -- it got to an extent where the

really serious stuff was sort of being conflated with stuff that wasn't, in a sense, and that's what the critics here are saying.

Just because you had any -- I am not saying in this particular case of Chappell Roan, because it could be -- I haven't read the e-mails in any

great detail, but you see where I am going with this, Brian. The danger is that -- the overreaction --

STELTER: Of course, yes.

QUEST: -- misses the point of what the real damage was.

STELTER: And then ultimately, everybody ends up suffering as a result. You know, in this case with the L.A. Olympics, a very big deal to have this guy

under pressure. Maybe there are other factors as well. But when you look at the e-mails, yes, embarrassing. Yes, I am sure he regrets sending them, but

he is far from the only male who is a powerful guy in Hollywood to ever send embarrassing flirty e-mails, if you catch my drift.

QUEST: Unfortunately, I do, yes. Thank you. Thank you, Brian.

Brian Stelter with good honest stuff.

Now, if you're bringing look -- this, look at this -- look at this. What do you think you should be allowed to take on board as part of your ticket

price? Now, should you be allowed this, which is just the backpack? Or should this automatically be included?

Well, as you can imagine, there is a lot of dispute about this. I've got my finger trapped. But now Europeans say no. Some Europeans say you should be

allowed to take this automatically on board, in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:30:43]

QUEST: It is the battle of the baggage. So what's the difference between bringing this on a flight, which is your personal item, and bringing this

on, which of course is a cabin baggage, which is a lot heavier, a lot bigger, and depending on your airline can have a variety of different

restrictions and could cost you a great deal more than the price of your ticket assuming -- hang on a second. Oh, hang on, I've got caught. That

could have been rather nasty.

Now take this EasyJet flight from London to Barcelona. We just picked EasyJet. I don't -- we're not beating up on them. For the backpack, the

fare is 36 quid, $49. Add your rollaboard bag and it goes up to $102. The E.U. parliament says passengers have a right to carry both for free. The

budget airlines, of course, like Ryanair and EasyJet, are pushing back. They feel the baggage fees drive revenues and EasyJet's chief executive has

called the E.U. proposal a lunatic idea.

The European consumer watchdog BEUC has backed the parliament's proposal. The director is Augustine Reyna. He joins me now.

Look, I can see the argument, but the truth is, you know what you're doing. I mean, you know, if you've got a backpack and you have to pay for a bag,

you pay for a bag, and this generation or the next generation is well used to it. So what's wrong with it?

AGUSTIN REYNA, DIRECTOR GENERAL, EUROPEAN CONSUMER ORGANISATION: Well, the situation is that consumers should be already be able to bring a hand

luggage for free or including the price. The situation is that airlines in Europe have been breaching these rules, which have been already endorsed by

the European Court of Justice, and now what the European parliament is trying to do is to put some order here, basically to define more concretely

what should be the size of this hand luggage that should be included in the price of the ticket.

From our perspective it needs to be something that is reasonable for someone that is traveling.

QUEST: Why?

REYNA: And therefore the --

QUEST: Why? Why? Why should --

(CROSSTALK)

REYNA: It seemed --

QUEST: No, let me finish. Why should airlines choose, you know, have to let you take a piece of hand baggage on board? If you don't like that airline

you go to another one or a full service carrier that includes it in the price. That's what the free market is all about.

REYNA: Yes, but it's also about competition in the markets. And there are many, many routes where you don't have that alternative. And on top of

that, bringing a personal item on board and your luggage is part of a basic service. One could also argue that airlines could also charge you to go to

the toilet and no one would accept that.

And when we have asked consumers what is the level of expectations about what they can bring on board, that includes a small item like a purse, for

example, but also a carry-on luggage, something that you can bring with you. Put it under the seat or in the over seat compartments. So this is

part basically of the minimum expectations that the consumers and customers will have when traveling.

QUEST: Right. Well, we did a comparison of the various airlines. And, you know, obviously the full service carriers, their definition of hand baggage

is slightly larger than the definition of low cost carriers. And the U.S. carriers have an even bigger definition of what happens. What do you think

is a valid size for somebody to be legitimately allowed to take on board?

REYNA: So it depends, of course, on the aircraft. And it needs to comply with a minimum security requirements. Of course, we have nothing against

that. It has something to be reasonable. So for example, we can talk about personal items of 40 centimeters for 20 centimeters. And then a hand

luggage that could go up to 10 kilos. In the European parliament they are discussing about seven kilos, which could fit in a space of 50 centimeters

or 45 centimeters.

QUEST: Right.

REYNA: So of course this depends on the different aircrafts and sizes. But the problem that we are facing is that this is imposed unilaterally by

airlines.

[16:35:04]

So consumers actually get confused because from airline to airline, depending on where you go, you might be able to bring your hand luggage

with you or not, or you might discover at the moment actually of boarding, and then you will have to pay a much higher fee.

QUEST: All right. So the airlines complain frequently. And you know this particularly about E.U. 261 which they say needs dramatic revision. Now I'm

not hugely sympathetic to this because 261 sort of does work. And except it is cost, you know if you've paid 5 euros for your ticket and you're now

getting to compensation for something that's quasi not the airline's fault because of the European various rulings. The airlines basically say that

the commission, the parliament has never met a regulation it didn't like.

REYNA: But the reality is that, you know, these rules aim also, this reform aims to put in order in this situation, we have a lot of case law, which is

calls established to advance on this consumer and passenger rights. And the idea with this reform is basically to set the clear rights that consumers

and passengers have. So from that regard, I think it's in the benefit of the industry actually to have these clear rules because otherwise they are

exposed to more litigation.

And perhaps it's worth also mentioning that thanks to the fact that Europe provides for this protection to passengers, flights in Europe much more on

time than flights, let's say, in the U.S. And this is because or partly because of the framework protection that consumers have in the E.U.

QUEST: I'm grateful for your time, sir. We'll talk more about it. It's a one that'll run and run as they say. Thank you.

French police have arrested six suspects in connection with the kidnaping of a magistrate and her elderly mother. The case involved alleged ransom

notes demanding millions in bitcoin.

CNN's Saskya Vandoorne explains what's driving the rise in crypto-linked kidnappings.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SASKYA VANDOORNE, CNN SENIOR PRODUCER (voice-over): A daring kidnapping attempt gone wrong. This attack last year on the daughter and grandson of a

cryptocurrency executive stopped by a passerby who chased the would-be kidnappers off.

It was a warning of what was to come, a string of attacks of the past 12 months. The latest this month, the targets, once again the family of a

partner in a crypto venture. Attackers targeted a 35-year-old magistrate and her mother, eventually dragging the women into one of these garages.

Then came the demand, a ransom to be paid in cryptocurrency and a threat to mutilate them both if it wasn't paid.

THIERRY DRAN, LYON PROSECUTOR (through translator): They were able to take advantage of the absence of their captor to free themselves, to call for

help, in particular by banging forcefully on the garage door.

VANDOORNE (voice-over): A passerby heard the sounds and helped free the mother and daughter.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I just came to take my car when I heard women hitting and screaming. I opened the door and two women came

out. They were a little dirty. I was happy. They said, thank you.

VANDOORNE (voice-over): A chance encounter that may have saved their lives.

DRAN (through translator): After their release, and it's important to say this, no ransom was paid.

VANDOORNE (voice-over): Police officers have made six arrests in this case, with one being a minor.

So, what is the crypto connection? And why are kidnappers increasingly demanding in Bitcoin or other currencies instead of cash? Some say it's the

belief that crypto is untraceable, anonymous, a perfect vehicle for moving stolen money across borders without detection.

RENAUD LIFCHITZ, IT SECURITY EXPERT: It's very hard to spend the crypto once it is stolen because crypto works on a blockchain, and a blockchain is

a public registry where everything is visible, everything is trackable.

VANDOORNE (voice-over): Every Bitcoin transaction is recorded on a public ledger. Every movement of money leaves a digital fingerprint. Law

enforcement can see it. Blockchain analysts can trace it. The reality is the opposite of what the kidnappers assumed. In the meantime, French

authorities continue to confront a rising threat.

Saskya Vandoorne, CNN, Paris.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

QUEST: Now a high stakes trial in Los Angeles, has put against the world's biggest tech companies under the microscope, a 20-year-old plaintiff is

accusing Instagram and YouTube of designing addictive apps that she says damaged her mental health.

CNN's Clare Duffy has been following the case.

CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH CORRESPONDENT: Right. We got opening statements yesterday from the lawyers for both the plaintiff and Meta, and we're

expecting to get YouTube's opening statement today. So we're starting to get a sense of how all of these parties will be building their argument in

this trial that is really a test of whether social media platforms can be held accountable for these claims that we've heard for years that these

platforms harm the mental health of young users.

[16:40:03]

This case, of course, centers on 20-year-old Kaylee who claims that she started using Instagram and YouTube at a very young age, and who also had a

difficult childhood. Her lawyer has talked about the fact that her father was abusive, that her mother raised Kaylee and her two siblings, mostly as

a single mom, and her lawyer argued yesterday in court that that made Kaylee an especially vulnerable target to what they're calling these

addictive features of social media.

These features like the endlessly scrolling feeds and frequent notifications. He compared Instagram and YouTube yesterday to digital

casinos for young people. He also brought in internal documents from both Meta and YouTube that he said indicated these companies have gone to

significant lengths to attract and retain teens and young users.

Now Meta's lawyer argued yesterday that it was Kaylee's difficult childhood and not Instagram, that caused her mental health challenges like anxiety

and suicidal ideation. He brought in pretrial testimony from two therapists who worked with Kaylee, neither of whom believed that Instagram played a

major role in those mental health challenges. He also brought in testimony from Kaylee herself, saying that Instagram was a creative outlet. And he

talked about these features that Meta has rolled out like parental control tools and content restrictions to try to protect young users.

Now again, we do expect to hear YouTube's opening statement today. The company has previously said that it believes the allegations in this

lawsuit are simply not true. But importantly, we're going to continue to learn a lot more information as this trial progresses. We are expecting to

get testimony from Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and YouTube CEO Neal Mohan, as well as from Kaylee herself.

So lots more to watch here as this trial progresses. But again, starting to get an early sense of how these parties will be building their arguments in

this trial.

Back to you.

WHITFIELD: Clare Duffy reporting tonight. A quick "Profitable Moment" for you, this idea of what you can bring on board.

So the law in Europe does allow you to take a small, reasonably weight piece of luggage on board into the cabin. The issue is what size is that.

When it gets bigger, the airlines start charging you for it, when you take more than one, they start charging you for it. And this new proposal

basically wants to codify what the size should be.

And there is some good justification for it because the airlines have very different sizes one way or the other, but I don't think that's going to

solve the problem, because at the end of the day Ryanair to EasyJet to British Airways to Air France, it's not that hugely different about the

size. It is the whether or not you can take it on board.

At what point does the airline require you to pay more for a bag than the law currently allows? Clarify that and I think you'll want a winner.

And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for tonight. I'm Richard Quest in New York. Whatever you're up during the hours ahead, I hope it's profitable.

"CONNECTING AFRICA" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:45:48]

(CONNECTING AFRICA)

END