Chamath Palihapitiya

We need to have federal preemption, meaning the federal government has the right to set the label.

Because all of the cases that have been lost and that are being adjudicated are in state courts where the state has a law, like in California, called a failure to warn law, which means if a manufacturer knows that a product carries a risk, you have to warn the consumer.

And so the lawyers have been arguing that Monsanto or Bayer knew that this product caused cancer and didn't warn the consumer.

And they've been winning cases, they've been losing cases, but they've won enough cases that this has now become a multi-deca-billion-dollar problem.

And so the argument is that the EPA says it doesn't cause cancer and they have federal preemption.

So the EPA has the right to determine.

So that's the one argument.

But then when the other attorney came up, this guy was like literally like watching LeBron James.

And so going in, we were like, oh, 6-3, Bayard's gonna win.

And then the other guy comes up and he was like, well, hey, you guys overturned the Chevron Doctrine last year.

You guys remember that case?

Where basically when the Chevron Doctrine got overturned, it basically said that no longer does the federal agency get to decide.

It has to be a direct reading of the law.

So now, so he's saying like, the states should have a right to read the law themselves.

They shouldn't have to just defer to the EPA.

And that's what this will come down to.

So at the end of it, we were like, oh my God, this could be a 50-50 coin flip, 5-4 either way.

And going into it, we were kind of like trying to say, hey, maybe this could be 6-3.

So honestly, the whole experience was incredible.

The case is interesting.