Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
Justices Rule Lisa Cook Can Remain At Fed For Now; U.S. Official: U.S. And Iran Will Stand Down For Now; Aftershocks Strike Venezuela as Search Efforts Go On; NBCUniversal, Sky To Separate From Parent Company; Garfield A.I. Won Claim Over Unpaid Fees Following A Trial. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired June 29, 2026 - 16:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:20]
PAULA NEWTON, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Another record on the Dow. You see it there, holding well above 52,000. Everyone is on to this bull market lest
they get trampled. If we have a look at the S&P and the NASDAQ, this totally bypassed me this afternoon. Look at the NASDAQ up better than two
percent. We will discuss that.
These markets right now can't be beat. Those are the markets and these are the main events.
The U.S. Supreme Court releases a batch of crucial decisions, including one that has big implications for the Federal Reserve.
Comcast says it is spinning off NBC, Universal and Sky. It appears the age of media consolidation has turned into something a little more nuanced.
A British law firm, meantime, that uses A.I. to prepare legal claims, has won a case in court. The CEO of Garfield A.I. joins us live and live from
New York. It is Monday, June 29th. I am Paula Newton, in for Richard Quest and this is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.
Tonight a win for Fed independence at the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices ruled Fed Governor Lisa Cook can in fact remain in her position for now.
Members of the five to four majority highlighted the Fed's unique role in their decision.
Still, President Trump vowed further action against Governor Cook. He called the ruling procedural and said he would take immediate action. He
also celebrated a ruling backing his firing of a member of the Federal Trade Commission. That decision significantly expands the powers of the
Executive.
Joan Biskupic is with me, and you were in the Supreme Court once again for these monumental decisions. Can you explain how and why the court ruled
that, you know, the Fed independence one was okay for now, but as the President, we just heard him, right? Boasted about this. The Supreme Court
again increased the scope of presidential power.
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Right. It is a good question and it is great to see you. Okay. It is because of the nature of
the two different cases, and let me do the Federal Reserve one first, because I think that has drawn a lot of international interest here.
Lisa Cook's case came up in kind of a discrete way. She was trying to hold on to her position, stay in her job while the litigation continued over
whether President Trump had any right to fire her at all. And what the court said was that it had President Trump had not given her sufficient
notice, sufficient explanation why he wanted her to -- why he felt like he could remove her.
You might vaguely remember that the President had claimed that Lisa Cook had filled out two sets of mortgages, claiming each home was going to be
her primary residence and potentially getting a bit of a break on interest rates. You know, she has denied any kind of wrongdoing. But the point from
the Supreme Court was that she had never had an opportunity to really understand and be heard from this complaint.
But while they did their ruling, they had enough suggestions about the Federal Reserve's independence and they reiterated that in the larger
ruling, Paula, the larger ruling, which was the one that involved the Federal Trade Commission.
Lisa Cook lives to fight another day. There certainly is enough signals that the Federal Reserve is independent. So that's where we are with that
one, but it is really midstream.
The other one involves all sorts of other regulatory agencies that are supposed to be independent, and the Supreme Court ruled six to three that
despite what Congress had tried to do to set them up to be independent, President Trump still had the ability to remove the heads of those agencies
and that was in the situation brought by a woman by the name of Rebecca Slaughter, who was a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission.
This ruling is going to sweep much wider and have repercussions for all sorts of independent agencies that oversee, you know, consumer protection,
health and safety boards, things that are, you know, part of the vast bureaucracy that, for better or for worse, tries to work for the common
good and what the Supreme Court said was that the President, as part of the executive authority vested in him by the Constitution, has to be able to
not just appoint people to these boards, but to be able to fire them, to remove them, because that goes to the core of his accountability.
[16:05:08]
NEWTON: Joan, you were in court. I am wondering what you heard, especially when Justice Sotomayor, again, in a dissent and I am quoting her now, said
that the result of this ruling is a president who emerges with far greater power than ever before.
BISKUPIC: You know, I think she nailed it at the end and I don't think the majority is not against that. This majority, led by Chief Justice John
Roberts, wants the President, maybe not so much this president, but they want the Office of the President to have very robust power and Justice
Sotomayor is exactly right.
Before the court ruled today, you know, Donald Trump had already been given vast powers by this court, including in 2024, when they gave him
substantial immunity from criminal prosecution. But in this case, now he has much more authority and other presidents down the line are going to
have much more authority to control the direction of these regulatory agencies. So, she was correct.
And, you know, Chief Justice John Roberts was just sitting there at the center of the bench and I don't think he was fazed or bothered by what she
said at all, because that's exactly what he wants, is more presidential authority here.
NEWTON: Yes, they truly believe in this and now have the opportunity to implement it across so many rulings.
Joan Biskupic you will be busy. There will be more cases that you will bring tomorrow --
BISKUPIC: One more day.
NEWTON: One more day. So stay tuned. Very important cases like birthright citizenship --
BISKUPIC: Exactly!
NEWTON: -- which of course is of huge interest to all of our audiences. Thanks so much. I really appreciate it.
BISKUPIC: Thank you.
NEWTON: President Trump highlighted the historic nature as we were just talking about, of that Slaughter case in a separate Truth Social post.
Now, in the first he called it a big win and said it was a power sought by presidents since the 1930s. He posted again about it, later, saying it is
the greatest increase in presidential power in the last 100 years.
Corey Brettschneider is a Professor of Political Science at Brown University. He is also the author of "The Presidents and The People: Five
Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens who Fought to Defend it" and he joins me now.
I do want to get a little bit more to the larger repercussions of this. But first, you know, you argue that Lisa Cook cannot be separated from the
Slaughter case, we were just indicating, you know, I can't make too fine of a point of this with that slaughter ruling.
Am I right or wrong? The Supreme Court threw out decades of settled law here and that when we talk about independent agencies, it now means that
basically they serve at the pleasure of the President and they may defer to whoever is in office in terms of actually regulating any of these agencies.
COREY BRETTSCHNEIDER, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, BROWN UNIVERSITY: It is nothing less than a radical upending of the way that we've understood
the federal government. The very idea of an independent agency is defined by the fact that it is independent, because the President cant engage in
political firing of the head of the FTC or the FEC, I mean, we could go through the long list and that has been true for you know, about a century.
And what the Supreme Court said here is, no, that's all wrong. That what the Constitution gives the president is really, for any reason at-will
firing of the head of these agencies. So, to the extent that we even use this vocabulary of independent agencies, it doesn't make any sense anymore.
They are now dependent on the President.
And I think that's some of the reporting is about to catch up to that: How radical an opinion this is, and what does it mean? It means that this
President, who wants to engage in political firing, and as you noted, he was stopped in the Fed case. But aside from that, he has just been given a
greenlight, and we have a long tradition of saying, look, Congress has powers to not just the President, the power to pass laws, to create
agencies that are then protected in their job, to carry out our laws, and the Supreme Court just wiped that all away today.
NEWTON: You know, you've dovetailed so nicely into my next question. I am going to put this point on repeat for everyone. Remember, this power will
rest not just with this Republican President, but any president for now and that includes a Democratic one.
I am confused, Corey, let us know, is there any way for Congress to right this role, to actually interject here and bring this back to the whole
nature of having an independent agency?
BRETTSCHNEIDER: Well, there is no way to do it through ordinary legislation, because what the Constitution says, according to the Supreme
Court and I should emphasize, I think they are making this up, that they are completely wrong about the history and the logic, but they have the
word here, and this is what they have said. They've said that Congress no longer has the ability to create these independent agencies.
That's why it is so radical. So what the Congress does in enabling legislation, for instance, creating the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission,
which is what this case is about, is it says, look, that the role of this agency in protecting our laws, for instance, anti-competition laws, is so
important that we are not going to allow the President of the United States any party to engage in political firing.
[16:10:19]
And this Supreme Court just took that law and said no more that Article II, which creates and limits the presidency, actually means that these
independent agencies can exist because they limit the vesting power, the executive power of the President of the United States.
So, no, Congress couldn't just come back and say, you're wrong. Through a Constitutional Amendment, we might be able to do this and you know, that
might be something that we start to talk about in the coming days, but really, we've upended it.
I will say one other thing, which is, look, if you have a benign president who is using power, you know, in not a radical way or not a way to try to
destroy democracy, this wouldn't be a big deal. But this president is intent on authoritarian power and has repeatedly said that. So it really
isn't any president and any ruling. It is really a massive increase, as Trump has said rightly, of presidential power in the face of somebody who
really sees himself as unlimited in his power and with authoritarian ambitions, to say the least.
NEWTON: Yes, I totally understand where you're coming from on the unfettered power. I will argue, though, that we may never see a benign
president again, whether Democratic or otherwise. I am sure many presidents would be tempted to use these powers saying that it is just to rectify
whatever had gone before.
Corey, we have to leave it there for now. But suffice to say, historic is not hyperbole here. Thanks for being with us. Really appreciate it.
Up next for us, after a weekend of strikes between the U.S. and Iran, there is new uncertainty on the diplomatic front. We look at exactly what's going
on. We will try and figure it out.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEWTON: Iranian state media is denying that Tehran is about to take part in new talks with the United States. President Trump posted this earlier,
saying "Iran has requested a meeting that will take place in Doha tomorrow." Now, Iran's IRIB outlet says there will be no such negotiations,
but that a delegation is instead following up on the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding.
And all of this comes after a dramatic escalation in strikes over the weekend. U.S. officials say Washington and Tehran are standing down for
now, but Iran's position on that is not clear.
Kristen Holmes is at The White House, and she will attempt to clear all of this up for us.
I mean, look, I've lost track. What I will say, though, that it seems that whatever Tehran is saying, sometimes the complete opposite happens within
24 hours.
[16:15:21]
So as far as The White House knows, what is taking place this week in terms of negotiations.
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, even just a few seconds ago, we saw President Trump in the Oval Office doubling down that
these talks were happening. He essentially said that Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, the two people who have been leading these
conversations with Iran, these negotiations were on the way, or at least about to be leaving for Doha.
I mean, he also said in a very Trumpian fashion that the meeting in Doha is perhaps important, but perhaps not, so unclear what exactly the
conversation is going to be there. But President Trump, the administration, these officials all seem to believe that there are going to be talks in
Doha between these top officials, including Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, and they anticipate that Iranian officials will be there as well
as they work towards this peace deal and as they work on kind of clarifying this Memorandum of Understanding.
One of the things that I will point to as we talk about Iran seeking to clarify the MOU, is what we heard from Vice President J.D. Vance last
Friday, when, in fact, Iran had struck a commercial vessel. The U.S. said that that was a clear breach of the ceasefire, and then began its own
attacks on Iran.
One of the things J.D. Vance said is if you have some kind of misunderstanding or questions about the implementation of the MOU, pick up
the phone and call us because violence will be met with violence. And the idea there, of course, was about the Strait of Hormuz and what exactly the
terms were, because Iran was telling everyone that they could only transmit through the Strait of Hormuz if they used the routes that Tehran had given
them.
Then when this ship did not use this, those strikes occurred. Iran taking attack on the ship.
The U.S. though, and the MOU just for the language itself, simply states that the U.S. will remove the naval blockade in exchange for Iran helping
commercial vehicles get through safely through the Strait of Hormuz safely.
So how exactly these two line up, it does certainly seem as though Iran has some questions about what is in the MOU. We are still, though, and I think
this is important to note, we are still discussing what is in the MOU and how to implement the MOU, how are they moving forward in terms of these
negotiations, which are allegedly going to have a deal within 60 days. It certainly seems as though they are still kind of stuck in what they have
already done and not quite moving forward.
NEWTON: Yes. If they could just quit the kinetic activity though on the Strait and around the Strait, I think that would go a long way to figuring
out where they go next.
Kristen Holmes for us. Thanks for the update. Appreciate it.
More than 1,700 deaths have been confirmed so far in Venezuela after last week's devastating series of earthquakes.
The new video of a rescue over the weekend shows crews saving a mother and her baby from a collapsed building. The baby, just 18 days old.
Aftershocks, meantime, are striking the country as captured by this video from today. This, as a doctor, tells CNN that hospitals in the capital,
Caracas are absolutely overwhelmed.
Stefano Pozzebon is in Caracas with more.
Stefano, I know that you felt some of those aftershocks as well, and it must be so destabilizing as people try so hard to try and find people under
the rubble.
STEFANO POZZEBON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I mean, I think that listen, Paula, let me show you some very destabilizing images here. We are with a group of the
relatives and the family of some of the people that are still trapped, never to be found from that pile of rubble. You can see that they are here
speaking with local media and urging the local authorities to still continue the search and rescue operation, even though it has been more than
five days actually, since that devastating double earthquake.
The golden window for finding someone alive and being able to bring it to rescue is really closing down fast down here and these people, of course,
are not going to give up their hope.
We spent the last couple of days down in La Guaira, Paula, that is the disaster zone where most of the damages are confined and located. We wanted
to bring you this dispatch that we filmed just yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
POZZEBON (voice over): Rescue workers are digging their way through rubble and dust to locate survivors in La Guaira, trapped for days under a pile of
collapsed homes.
The port city is Ground Zero for the Venezuelan earthquake search and rescue operation. This elite rescue team from the U.S. believe they've
heard a tap-tap from under the debris.
POZZEBON (on camera): They try to communicate with them with sound, and this is why this is truly a race against time, but it is a race against
time that is happening in utter silence. Nobody dares to speak. Nobody dares to shout because a sound could mean a life saved.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is an elevator too, right?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Next to the stairs? Was it the true center for us --
POZZEBON: Now, all of this is happening as the relatives of the people trapped inside and other survivors are staying here. They are waiting. They
are watching.
It is an excruciating wait for someone who has a seven-year-old son trapped beneath the rubble.
POZZEBON (voice over): Ronald Pinaroa (ph) has not slept since Wednesday. He was out when the quakes hit. His son was with his grandmother at home.
(RONALD PINAROA speaking in foreign language.)
POZZEBON: "I will find my son today," he says. "I know I will."
It is now or never for thousands of people who are still missing. Most earthquake survivors are rescued within 72 hours. These rescue workers say
they will continue to dig until everyone is accounted for.
The Venezuelan government estimates more than 12,000 people have been displaced. They all need a place to sleep and eat.
POZZEBON (on camera): We have just arrived to a fast food. It is a fried chicken restaurant, but they've been turned into a community kitchen.
Basically, all of these people are now working in a chain to bring out 1,500 ready meals. It is fried chicken and fries, but that will fuel both
displaced and volunteers that are trying to help.
POZZEBON (voice over): At these restaurants, everyone lives in La Guaira. Everyone has lived through the double earthquake, but nobody wants to rest.
It is the strength of a community who refuses to give up, despite the reality.
By sunset, the search stopped. Ronald's son was found along with his grandmother, under the rubble, the latest victim in a tragedy that's
already taken more than 1,400 lives. It will still take days to recover their remains, but the pain will stay forever.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
POZZEBON (on camera): And Paula, unfortunately, we need to update you that according to the latest figures just released by the Venezuelan government,
the death toll of this tragedy has now climbed to 1,719 people killed and countless of still missing people, people that have been displaced and of
course, injured.
There is an entire population that is currently looking for a place to stay, for example, in the nights because they don't have a home anymore,
and because, of course, the trauma of the earthquakes still all too present because the ground is still shaking here in Venezuela, we heard -- we felt
the tremor just in the morning today, and we feel that this could stay on for a very long time -- Paula.
NEWTON: Stefano, I am so sorry for the father there. He began the day with such hope, and unfortunately, to understand that his family members have
been added to the victim count here.
Stefano, it is good to have you on the ground as they try and recover anyone that they can from those devastated areas.
Stefano Pozzebon for us on the ground in Caracas.
Now, thousands of migrants fearing for their lives, are attempting to flee South Africa just hours ahead of an arbitrary deadline set by anti-
immigrant groups. Demonstrations are planned for Tuesday, with one group calling for mass deportations of foreigners who are there illegally.
Anti-migrant sentiment has been building in South Africa for months. Our Larry Madowo has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LARRY MADOWO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They only have two buses here, so at best, maybe 70 to 80 people in a bus, so they will take less than 200 people to
get them onto Malawi. But here at the Malawi Consulate in Johannesburg, they had about 700 people this morning and the numbers have been swelling
throughout the day. So they will need a lot more buses.
Many of the people we spoke to tell us they are scared to go back to the communities they have been living in here in South Africa, because they
were told in one case, if you don't leave right now, you will go back in a coffin.
They were kicked out of their jobs, kicked out of their homes by their landlords and their employers. And so the only way for them is to go back
to Malawi. Some of them have been here ten or 15 years, and now, they are getting on a bus to begin that long journey home and it is a relief for
them because they've been sleeping out here rough in the winter cold for the past few days since this is the only place they felt safe, they could
not stay in their communities. They have come here and hope that they can get this transport back to their country.
Because South Africa is an economic magnet for so many people. South Africa is the strongest economy and when they can't find jobs in Zimbabwe or in
Botswana, in Lesotho, in Zambia, in Malawi, they come here to South Africa, and many of them are undocumented.
[16:25:24]
And it has become a huge issue here in the country, which is why you see this round of protests and that deadline for June 30th, where these anti-
immigrant groups have said, it is time for you to leave South Africa and go back to your own countries, and fix your countries.
AMINA CHIWOKO, ZIMBABWEAN MIGRANT: I leave my property and some of my money now. I didn't get paid because of this thing. We couldn't go to our bosses
to collect our money.
EBRAHIM MOSSA, MALAWIAN MIGRANT (through translator): We are scared because you never know what people are planning to do to you. It is not right to
wait and see what will happen. As long as we know that June 30th, we must act.
MADOWO: It is not right. It is not safe for them. We were at a protest in Soweto earlier today where the message is very clear, you have until
tomorrow to leave South Africa because they feel like these foreigners, many of them Africans are -- have taken over their country and it is time
for them to go away, so that's the journey for many of these people.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: Thanks to Larry there, and we will continue to follow that story tomorrow.
Coming up for us now, Comcast says it is spinning off NBC Universal. Analysts say more M&A action could be on the horizon.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEWTON: Hello, I am Paula Newton, and there is more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS in a moment when Comcast is spinning off both NBC Universal and Sky. We will
discuss the wide-ranging implications.
A British law firm that uses A.I. to prepare claims has won a case in what is believed to be a world first. We will have more on that. But first, the
headlines this hour.
A flurry of significant decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court today.
[16:30:00]
The justices ruled on Mr. Trump's ability to fire federal officials, saying, he can fire a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, but the
Court said the independence of the Federal Reserve is a different matter. It ruled the president cannot fire a Fed governor without showing proper
cause.
Following the recent sizzle in Europe, extreme heat will blast the eastern half of the United States, peaking on Friday, but lasting through the July
4th holiday weekend.
In some areas, high humidity will push feels-like temperatures to 43 degrees Celsius. That's about 110 degrees Fahrenheit. Dozens of record high
temperatures are threatened as over 100 million Americans face major or extreme heat warnings.
Police say six people are dead and three people are being held after a shooting in Germany. The attack happened at a youth facility near Hamburg.
Authorities have identified the main suspect in custody as a 45-year-old man, and say his motives may be related to his family.
So, Comcast shares surged after announcing it would spin off its media content business. Shares closed 4.5 percent higher. It said, it would
separate NBCUniversal, along with its movie studios, theme parks, and that Peacock streaming surface service, leaving Comcast with its Internet,
cable, and broadband.
That's the latest in a series of mergers, acquisitions, and spin-offs in the media industry. Only our Brian Stelter can keep up with this. I'm
telling you, it is crazy to try and figure this out.
Brian, good to see you. I'm going to try this one out on you.
First, it was the octopus play. Right? We are going to spread, expand, buy, as much as we can. Now, we are lazy -- laser focused. We are like a shark,
one business stream.
So, what is going on here?
(CROSSTALK)
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Yes, yes.
NEWTON: Why this breakup, and why now?
STELTER: I would say the octopus approach is not being rewarded by investors. It's not being rewarded by Wall Street, but the shark approach
is. And increasingly, insiders and executives and bankers are wondering if the octopus approach was ever right at all, or if content and distribution
did not really need to come together.
Because 15 years ago, when NBC and Comcast were put together, when Comcast said it was going to own the programs you were watching, as well as the
pipe it was delivered on.
And then, AT&T went out and bought what became Warner Media, CNN's parent. When those deals were happening, Netflix was out there on the West Coast
building the dominant streaming platform of our era.
So, you have the likes of Comcast now, of course, trying to catch up, trying to keep up, and I think, that's why you are seeing this unwinding
now. The big picture is that these media companies, they are still big, they are still influential, but they know their lunch is being eaten, being
devoured by the tech industry, and so now, you have a company like Comcast trying to position itself so that if somebody comes along wanting to buy
either the content wing or the distribution wing, the company will be in a better position to be acquired in the future.
NEWTON: Right. It's neater. And that's why this mergers and acquisitions may continue for some time. And I am wondering about the knock-on effect
for other media companies.
You know, the parent company here, it's still pending, and the Paramount Skydance, Warner Discovery merger. There is obviously this question about
what companies like Netflix or other tech players might do. I mean, what do you see happening in this space in the next few months?
STELTER: Right, that Paramount WBD may take effect in the coming weeks. It still needs regulatory sign off in Europe, and the state A.G.s -- Attorney
Generals in the United States, are probably going to sue to try to block it.
So, there are still some legal steps for Paramount to deal with, but you look at Paramount deal. Paramount trying to get much bigger by gobbling up
content, but not trying to be in the broadband business or the wireless business.
So, that's actually really another example of this content pure play company. Disney, the same way.
Disney, a lot like NBC Universal, but bigger, with theme parks and broadcast channels and cable channels and streamers and all the rest.
So, it becomes a question of who, if anybody wants to buy an asset like NBCUniversal? Is it an Apple or Amazon or Netflix? Are they going to have a
hunger to own a studio, to own another streamer in the future? And then, of course, will regulators allow that to happen? Those are the big question
marks out of this deal.
And for Comcast, it'll take about a year for all this to unwind. So, there is some time to figure that out.
But I think today, what we're seeing is a glimmer of what might happen next in the media M&A market. It's not going to happen right away, most likely,
but you are probably starting to see what the next wave of consolidation might look like, and the big question mark is what tech company or other
company would be a buyer?
NEWTON: Understood. And we are all waiting to see where this ends, and as you point out, it may not be several months, even a year or two, before we
figure out what that new media landscape looks like.
STELTER: Right.
NEWTON: Thanks for playing along with the octopus and the shark.
[16:35:01]
STELTER: Thanks.
NEWTON: I like it. We'll stay with it. Thanks, Brian. Appreciate it.
Now, the deal could also have implications for the European media landscape. Sky is currently set to remain with NBCUniversal's U.S. assets.
Analysts say that company would be a takeover target, and executives had admitted their own thinking on integration has changed over time.
Ian Whitaker is managing director of Liberty Sky Advisors, an advisory for the tech, media, and telecom sector, and he joins us now.
Thanks for being with us as we try and parse this deal. And I do want to start with that Comcast CEO, Mike Cavanagh, who said, look, he is just
saying plainly. Right? Where we previously believe that scale and the diversification benefits warranted operating these businesses as one
company. We have now simply changed our mind about that. That's his quote.
It's pretty blunt. How do you see this playing out in Europe specifically?
IAN WHITTAKER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, LIBERTY SKY ADVISORS: Well, I think, it's quite interesting if you -- if you look at Comcast scales of assets. I
mean, they -- you know, going back to that octopus and that shark analogy. I mean, they were quite sprawling as they were.
I think, in Europe, it's quite interesting. the crux of Comcast operations has been Sky, but also, as well, it's got other interests in Europe as
well. You have got assets, for example, such as Free Will, which deals in the sort of ad tech space.
You've also, as well, got some of the NBCUniversal channels that obviously have exposure in Europe, as indeed do the films.
I wouldn't say that there's going to be a huge amount of change over the short term in Europe. I think, yes, there is commentary about, for example,
what would happen with Sky. Sky is pretty much integrated into some Comcast assets and has been increasingly over the past couple of years.
Now, it is possible a separate NBCUniversal entity may decide that actually they want to hive off Sky, sort of return it sort of to its listed entity,
or indeed sell it to another party.
If they do sell it to another party, of course, you've got to have a buyer. If you do actually spin it off, then, of course, that means a lot more
disclosure in terms of the information that you provide, and the question mark is sort of, we just don't know, sort of what the Sky numbers look like
at the moment, and whether they would be attracted to a shareholder or not.
Also, as well, you have got a slightly sort of also interesting angle here is that Sky, at the moment, is buying the broadcasting business of ITV,
which is the largest commercial broadcaster in the U.K. space.
So, I think in the short term, don't expect any impact when it comes to the European media landscape. When it comes from this deal, I think over the
medium to longer term, sort of obviously, you would look for what happens with Sky, and whether new NBC Universal entity decides that Sky really is
still remaining a fit for its business, because there is an argument that it could have actually stayed with the Comcast business, the connectivity
business.
Sky has a significant broadband and telephone business in the U.K. I think, one point that I would say about this though is that it does look as though
and this is talking about the entire transaction has really been driven by shareholder pressure.
Comcast shares obviously, sort of they have been down around 30 percent in the past 12 months. Obviously, shareholders reacted positive to the news.
It feels as though this has been very much driven by Wall Street sentiment.
NEWTON: And I take your point on that. I don't have a lot of time left, but I do want to ask you, where do you see this going for Europe, though, to
continue to be part of these U.S. assets are spinning off.
I mean, the content companies are becoming larger and larger, and then, you add the component of all of those sporting rights that can be amortized
over so many different properties.
WHITTAKER: Well, in Europe, you've got a different landscape. I mean, the thing with Europe is that essentially, while Europe is a continent, looks
big in terms of population, its television markets tend to be very nationally focused.
So, what, for example, works in the U.K. doesn't necessarily work in Germany and France, and so forth. If you actually look at what's happened
in the European landscape, the major U.S. tech platforms did actually try to buy up sporting rights here. So, the Premier League rights, your horse
(PH) as well in markets such as France. But the economics don't work because the scale benefits are not there as they would be in the U.S.
market.
So, I think, you have got this factor here as well. What works in the U.S. doesn't necessarily work in Europe. Europe is its own ecosystem. Most
people sort of are still very much wedded to the free to air channels in Europe, sort of, it's a different television structure than you have in the
United States.
And also, as well, the sort of advertising mechanics also somewhat different as well. So, I think, it can be very dangerous to take what
happens in the U.S. and just extrapolate that to Europe.
NEWTON: You don't have to leave it there for now, but some good perspective there, because we wanted to make sure we hit the other elements of this
proposed spin out.
[16:40:04]
Ian Whittaker, for us. Thanks so much, appreciate it.
WHITTAKER: Thank you.
NEWTON: Now, legal first, the law company, which used A.I. to prepare a case and won. We speak with its co-founder.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEWTON: Every day, we hear about the potential risks and opportunities of Artificial Intelligence. Our next guest, though, saw how it could help
solve a much more immediate problem. What do you do when a customer won't pay up?
Philip Young set up Garfield A.I. when he realized how difficult it was for his brother-in-law to recover unpaid invoices.
Last week, the company reached a milestone when it won a trial in an English court, recovering thousands for a freelancer. It's believed to be
the first time a case has successfully gone to trial with the legal work prepared by A.I.
The founder and CEO of Garfield A.I., Philip Young, joins us now from London. Good to see you. And I have to say, I love the origin story here.
Right? Small claims.
So many people have these claims. You started this company because of the problem your brother-in-law had. He was actually a plumber. I am wondering,
though, how do you believe this will work in the future for the so-called little guy?
PHILIP YOUNG, FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GARFIELD A.I.: Well, good evening, Paula. And good evening to all of your viewers. We see this
sort of technology as transformational for access to justice, because what it does is it unlocks an entire area of legal rights that historically have
been uneconomic to pursue.
What it does, basically, is it enables what you would call the small guy, the Davids, to take on the Goliaths a lot more effectively.
NEWTON: When you say effectively, and you say A.I., can you explain exactly -- when we say A.I., was complete A.I.? Because I do know you had to hire a
human barrister to actually go to court, right?
YOUNG: Yes, that's right. So, you can think of Garfield as doing everything that historically a human law firm would do. So, we are a regulated law
firm, we just are very unusual because we've only got one regulated human lawyer in the firm, and that's me, and the rest of the team are developers,
and for the work that we are presently doing, which is small claims work in the English county courts, it is not actually necessary to hire a human
advocate to go to trial. The system is set up such that people are supposed to be able to represent themselves, but often sometimes that is
intimidating, particularly for people with no experience of legal process.
[16:45:08]
And so, for example, in this most recent trial, which we fought, and has made the headlines, our user there decided we think wisely to take away a
bit of the stress for herself by hiring a barrister to represent her at the hearing. And what the barrister did was he took over the case on the
doorstep of the Court, Garfield having prepared all the documents, and then, went into the trial, which was a three-hour trial, and then, did the
all submissions and also the cross examination.
NEWTON: How -- what would be the cost compared to actually taking it on? I know it's hard to compare, but what would be the cost differential? Even if
you give me a percentage.
YOUNG: Oh, it's an enormous cost differential. So, last autumn, one of our terrestrial T.V. channels, Channel Four, did an experiment where they
contrasted using Garfield on a real case versus using a human lawyer, and the human lawyer was about -- it took about 20 times as long as Garfield,
and was about 10 times the amount of cost.
So, just on those metrics, Garfield is 10 times cheaper and 20 times faster. And if anything, we think that's probably an underestimate, and
certainly, the direction of the technology is improving so rapidly that, of course, it's going to become more and more capable as the years roll on,
which will increase the disparity between what the technology can do and what humans can do.
NEWTON: So, I'm not sure if your intention here is to unemployed a bunch of lawyers. I am wondering, where do you see this going, because you are
seeing it from the inside, and also, understanding that in many countries, there is a barrier in the legal system by regulatory expectations. So, how
do you see it developing?
YOUNG: Well, first of all, it's certainly not my intention to make a lot of lawyers unemployed. I mean, I am a lawyer myself and professionally
(INAUDIBLE) itself.
NEWTON: I know.
YOUNG: I mean, and if you look at the trial we just fought, rather than reduce the number of lawyers, we actually increased the workload for
lawyers, because that case would not have been brought absent Garfield, and what it did was create defense work for the law firm that represented the
defendant, who, of course, lost at trial, but if they got that work and worked for two barristers on both sides.
So, absent Garfield, there wouldn't have been any of that work.
So, the way we see it is that it's not a -- it's not a product that will mean less work for lawyers. What it will mean is greater access to justice.
So, for people that have got smaller claims, and at the moment we started with debts, but in due course we'll move on to other sorts of claims as
well. It will mean that those people that presently are unable to vindicate their rights and access a court system will be able to do so. And that, of
course, is a good thing for society.
NEWTON: Philip Young, an excellent test case to bring to our viewers. Really appreciate it, and we'll continue to follow how this develops in the
coming months. Appreciate it.
YOUNG: Thank you very much.
NEWTON: Coming up for us, tourism and tax. Ireland debates introducing a nightly charge for holiday makers in line with its European neighbors. We
speak to the former Lord Mayor of Dublin, who was behind the bill.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:50:42]
NEWTON: From scenic coastal drives to cozy pubs serving pints of Guinness, Ireland attracts millions of visitors each and every year. But it doesn't
feel like you want to get there now soon. However, tourists could face an additional charge.
On Wednesday, ministers will debate a proposal to give local authorities the power to introduce a levy on overnight stays.
In Europe, a number of cities have already introduced a so-called tourism tax. It's believed the measure could raise millions in revenue each and
every year. Paul McAuliffe is a member of the Irish parliament and former Lord Mayor of Dublin, and he has proposed this tax, and he joins us now
live from Dublin. Good day to you. How are you? Or good evening, I should say. Thanks so much for being with the program.
PAUL MCAULIFFE, IRISH MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT: Yes. Good evening, Paula.
NEWTON: Now, this proposal would enable local authorities to levy this so- called, you know, bed tax -- hotel bed tax. How would this work, and how much potential revenue could it generate? And more than numbers, I'm
looking to figure out, will it may actually make a difference to the budgets of cities and towns?
MCAULIFFE: Yes. Look, I love my city, and I love welcoming people to this city. In many ways, tourism is what makes Dublin a really great place, both
for Dubliners and for those people who are visiting. And many, millions of people come to our city to enjoy the kind of events, cultural and sporting
that we put on in the city. Millions of Americans coming for our St. Patrick's Day Festival, for the college football games, and for our local
literary and historical festivals. And we want to keep investing in those events.
But at the moment, a hundred percent of the cost of all of that falls on Dubliners, and that does have an impact on other services that the council
can provide.
Now, having been on this city council for 10 years, I came to the parliament determined to give councils more power, because for many years,
powers have been taken away, and I believe this power will enable Dublin City, and we are proposing that each of the four councils in Dublin would
make their own decision, but it would enable Dublin City to raise over 12 million euro in a year for a very modest levy.
We are not talking about the kind of high levies that other European cities are imposing to dissuade tourism. What we are talking about here is
investing in the great tourism product that we have.
You brought up an interesting problem and it is shocking how much local taxpayers end up footing the bill sometimes for these local events. Of
course, those events boost the economy in general, and that's why this happens.
But, you know, you were pointing out that during a Taylor Swift concert, for instance, there was no extra money raised to even clean up the garbage,
even though, of course, promoters and the concert goers, they end up paying for the extra security and things like that.
How do you believe this will change the equation when it comes to the actual taxpayers themselves? I mean, all of us, homeowners, pay taxes in
one way or the other, and yes, you just see those tax bills going up, and you wonder what you get out of these city events.
MCAULIFFE: Yes, and look, nobody, certainly, no politician wants to be proposing new taxes. But what I think this will do is it will enable the
city to continue to have those great events, but it will take the benefit of all that tourism and allow us invest in a ring-fenced fund, and that's
really important.
Any money raised under this levy is ring-fenced, the councils will have to publish what they spend it on each year. It will have to be audited and
announced, and they will have to engage with businesses and residents in the city before they introduce it.
As you say, with a Taylor Swift concert, somebody might spend $200-$250 on a hotel room, a $100, a $150 on a concert ticket.
And we are saying that a small fee of between one and two euro per night is a small amount, but it'll bring a great benefit for the city.
As I say, there are cities like Amsterdam or Barcelona, where they are proposing a charge of something like 12.5 percent. Now, that's not
something we want to see. We don't have a problem with over tourism here in Dublin. But we do want to keep investing in it, so that more events, more
great products that people can enjoy are happening in our city. We could do that, as I say, with a ring-fence fund, and it will make local councilors
have the power to do what they want with that funds.
[16:55:02]
NEWTON: No, I know you said that Dublin right now is not suffering from any over tourism. I'm sure that's correct throughout the year, but maybe there
are certain pinpoint -- pinch points. I would say, depending on when people want to go to Dublin. And it is a controversial question, right? Do you
worry that a surtax like this, and I understand that you are saying it's modest, might lead to a bit of tourist fatigue, or is that sometimes a good
thing. Right? That it is better to get more revenue from tourism dollars, that it's stable, but perhaps have fewer people visiting, especially during
those really popular times.
MCAULIFFE: Yes, look, I really don't think this is about reducing the number of tourists, and I think that's really important to say to those
people who are abroad and want to come here, and it's certainly not a case of us having too much tourism in the city.
I believe we can cope with that, and I believe that the infrastructure is here. What we want to do is keep investing in that infrastructure, in our
parks, in our streets, in the public domain of the city.
And, as I say, we can do that with a small charge. Now, I know there are people in the tourism sector that might be concerned about this. But what I
would say is the small risk, and I believe it is small of a charge is significantly outweighed by a failure to invest in infrastructure over
time.
NEWTON: Well, we are showing beautiful pictures of Dublin right now, Mr. McAuliffe. You'll be glad to hear that. So, I'm sure many people are
wondering when they can plan that next trip to Dublin, and as you said, if this does go through, it's modest, and I'm sure there are lots of smaller
counties and cities that also could use some of the financial backup.
Paul McAuliffe for us, thanks for being with us. I appreciate it.
Now, Wall Street rose today after President Trump announced new talks with Iran, although, Tehran, as we were saying earlier, does deny that. The Dow
gained 300 points, closing above 52,000 for the first time ever. The index is up nearly eight percent year to date.
Now, that Dow record-setting Dow got a boost from Alphabet, the company's first day on the blue-chip index. The Google parent company closed the day
up almost five percent. You see it there, and that would be reversing the losses from last week's tech sell-off.
That is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. I am Paula Newton. "THE LEAD" with Jake Tapper starts now.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
