How a landmark verdict could reshape social media

[0:02] Hi, Terms of Service listeners. Welcome back. I am CNN tech [0:05] reporter Claire Duffy. So usually we take these episodes a [0:09] couple of weeks out, but I am here today. It is Thursday, [0:12] March 26. You will be listening to this episode on Tuesday in [0:15] just a few days. And we are doing this sort of crash episode [0:19] because we wanted to discuss some very big news. A jury in [0:23] California has just found Meta and YouTube liable on all [0:27] counts in a landmark social media addiction trial, ordering [0:30] them to pay $6 million in damages. That decision came one [0:35] day after a jury in New Mexico found meta liable for failing to [0:39] protect young people from sexual predators. And this is the first [0:43] time that juries of regular Americans have been asked to [0:46] render decisions on youth safety on social media. And they found [0:50] that these companies knew that their platforms were risky and [0:53] posed real harms to young people. These are just the first [0:57] two of many lawsuits to come. And the question now is, will [1:00] this lead to real change for social media platforms? And what [1:04] do parents need to know about what we've learned during these [1:07] trials? Today, I am joined by two advocates and moms themselves, [1:12] Nikki Petrosi, who hosts the podcast scrolling to death, you [1:15] have heard her here on the show before, and Sarah Gardner, CEO [1:19] and founder of the advocacy organization, the heat [1:21] initiative. Together, they have been hosting another podcast [1:25] called the heat is on big tech on trial closely tracking this [1:28] case. And they have very kindly been [1:30] on call to come on the show and break this all down as soon as we [1:33] got a verdict. Nikki, Sarah, thank you so much for being [1:36] here. Thank you, Claire. Thank you for having us. So Nikki, [1:41] I'll start with you because you have been inside of the [1:44] courtroom almost every day of this trial over the last nine [1:47] weeks. What did it feel like yesterday finally getting this [1:51] verdict? [1:52] It was so surreal. And I Sarah and I were talking about this [1:55] earlier, like I never imagined that we would get all yeses on [2:00] the verdict form. [2:01] We didn't get to the damages form. In bellwether cases like [2:05] this, the first case is typically considered a test case, [2:09] we're going to learn from it, we're probably going to lose and [2:11] then we're going to move on and improve the arguments. But so I [2:15] was just really shocked and also overwhelmed because there was [2:18] several parents survivors who've lost their own children to social [2:21] media harms, sitting directly in front of me and with every Yes, [2:26] there was a jolt of energy throughout their bodies, and [2:29] they were reaching for each other. [2:31] And there was tears coming down. And so it was just an [2:34] overwhelming moment for everyone and really felt a lot of joy and [2:38] validation in that moment, too. [2:41] Yeah, Sarah, there were photos of both you and Nikki on the [2:44] courthouse steps after this decision celebrating with many [2:48] of those parents. And for people listening, these are not parents [2:50] who were directly involved in this case. But parents who say [2:54] their children were harmed or died as a result of social [2:57] media. Sarah, tell us a little bit about who was there. And [3:01] why they made the effort to travel to LA to be there [3:04] yesterday. [3:05] Absolutely. These survivor parents are warriors of the [3:09] strongest kind. And to your point, they all care about each [3:13] other. And they care about all families that have been harmed [3:16] by technology companies because they share this belief and the [3:20] understanding that the tech companies have been lying to us. [3:23] And so they want to be there to support each other. And they [3:25] talked about that a lot throughout the trial that they [3:27] wanted to be there to support the plaintiff Kaylee and her family as they [3:32] tried to get justice for the first time in a court of law. [3:35] And just as a reminder of how important and landmark this [3:39] trial was so many people have said for years, this was [3:42] impossible that it was impossible to sue social media [3:45] companies for harms against children. And so to be sitting [3:50] next to them when we found out was an experience and a feeling [3:54] I will never forget. [3:55] I want to back up a little bit for a minute for people who are [3:58] unfamiliar or haven't been closely following this case. [4:01] Nikki, [4:01] will you just give us the [4:02] overview of this case and who this plaintiff Kaylee is? [4:04] Sure. Kaylee is a now 20 year old young woman who began using YouTube at [4:10] age six and Instagram at age nine and also had a tough family life at [4:16] times. And so she did suffer mental health issues and even suicidal [4:21] ideation as she grew older. And what the allegations were is that [4:26] Meta and YouTube played a substantial role in causing her mental health [4:31] harms. [4:31] Not that it was the only [4:32] issue that led to those harms, but that it either started there [4:37] or it amplified the issues she was dealing with. And so that [4:40] was what they needed to prove. And that is what they were [4:43] successful in proving. [4:44] Talk a little bit about what we heard and what we learned from [4:49] this trial. I would love to just hear from each of you what you [4:52] thought were the highlights that are important for people to [4:54] know. Maybe Sarah, I'll start with you. [4:56] Yeah. I mean, firstly, I just wanted to jump in and say that [5:00] I had this moment a few weeks into the trial where I realized [5:03] the plaintiff's attorneys were demonstrating how addictive and harmful meta and youtube were [5:09] with documents with re you know experts researchers and meta and youtube were not disproving that they [5:16] were addictive they were attacking kaylee and her family as being a bad family and so the trial was [5:23] sort of this weird two-tracked thing where one side was actually demonstrating the allegation [5:30] that they were harmful and addictive and the other side was just like showing how she didn't [5:34] show up to school at times it felt like really disjointed and it felt like they were unprepared [5:40] quite frankly yeah it was it was so interesting to hear mark lanier plaintiff's attorney comment [5:44] on that on the steps yesterday saying that they brought their a-game these are such well-resourced [5:49] companies they could bring in the best some of the best lawyers in the world and yet the plaintiffs [5:55] still won this case and i think you know sort of to your point like [5:59] kind of [6:00] a referendum on how so many americans are feeling about big tech right now obviously this was only [6:05] a jury of 12 people 10 of them you know said yes on all of the relevant questions here but i still [6:10] think it says a lot about how much people trust these companies nikki highlights for you from [6:15] this trial highlights for me is kind of in line with what sarah was saying [6:21] i don't think that they could argue that they didn't build their platforms to be addictive [6:25] because the documents were very clear that that's what they were doing and then hiding it [6:30] from us and discontinuing research that proved it and so that for me was the highlight is seeing [6:36] the internal documents that said just that and then also hearing [6:41] mark zuckerberg and adam assari head of instagram try to talk their way around that and try to [6:47] explain away decisions that they knew were going to harm children and move forward anyways and so [6:53] they couldn't argue against what we could actually see with our own eyes [6:56] yeah one of the moments that stands out to me was mark zuckerberg getting asked about his own change [7:00] about this internal study that meta did where they asked 18 independent experts about the impact of [7:06] beauty filters on young people and all of those experts said this has the potential to cause [7:12] serious harm and yet meta allows those filters on instagram anyways and zuckerberg tried to say [7:18] well it's a free speech issue and we think that people shouldn't be restricted from accessing [7:22] these things but just so interesting the way that they've had internal research showing these harms [7:30] and have gone in another direction and the jury validated that so as we said the jury found both [7:36] meta and youtube liable on all counts and i saw the video that you two did outside of the courthouse [7:41] yesterday reading the verdict form which i thought was so powerful to hear and i'm just going to kind [7:46] of recreate that briefly for our listeners here there were separate questionnaires for meta and [7:51] youtube but the results were the same so i'm going to squish them together were the companies [7:55] negligent yes was their negligence a substantial factor in causing harm to kaylee yes [8:00] yes did the companies know their design was dangerous yes did the companies know that users [8:04] would not realize the danger yes did the companies fail to warn of the danger yes would a reasonable [8:10] platform have warned yes was their failure to warn a substantial factor in causing harm to kaylee [8:15] yes you mentioned that you were kind of surprised by this decision because this was a test case [8:20] expand on that a little bit i was just told over and over that it was just so unlikely that we will [8:28] win and then we had some questions and issues from [8:31] coming up from the jury through the deliberation period where that they were [8:35] deadlocked like they were having some disagreement on some of the questions and [8:39] you know it's just so hard to gauge and there was a lot of guesstimating going on on how they're [8:43] feeling and so i you just don't let your mind go to the the best possible scenario it's sort of [8:50] like we're gonna have to meet them halfway and any yes is gonna be a win so it just wasn't even [8:56] in my mind at least that we would hear yes on every single question and it was just a [9:01] dumb experience for me at that point which was very [9:20] so meta and youtube say they respectfully disagree with the jury's decision in los angeles and do [9:27] plan to appeal i'll read you what a meta spokesperson told me following the decision they said quote [9:31] which is a responsibly built streaming platform, [9:33] not a social media site. [9:35] Meta also plans to appeal [9:37] that New Mexico jury decision I mentioned. [9:39] And these companies say they have already invested heavily [9:42] in safety features such as parental control tools, [9:45] take a break reminders, [9:46] and default privacy and content restrictions for teens. [9:51] But these companies are facing pressure to do more [9:53] and many more lawsuits, [9:55] some of which will go to trial [9:56] as those appeals are playing out. [9:59] So when we come back from the break, [10:00] Sarah and Nikki and I discuss what Kayleigh's case [10:03] could mean for those other lawsuits [10:05] and also for how we all engage with social media. [10:09] We'll be right back. [10:09] So Kayleigh's was the first of more than 1,500 [10:16] similar cases to go to trial to have been talking about. [10:19] Hers was the Bellwether case [10:21] for this consolidated litigation, [10:23] which is different from a class action. [10:26] I think it's important to note for people [10:27] that just because she won, [10:29] all of those cases don't automatically go the same way. [10:31] They have to be tried on their merits. [10:33] Potentially some of them will settle. [10:34] Depending on how this all goes. [10:36] But talk a little bit about what this case could mean [10:39] for those other suits, Sarah. [10:42] Yeah, so I think it's important to think about the fact [10:46] that in the court of public opinion, [10:49] we were gonna have a win no matter what. [10:51] So those documents being a public record, [10:55] the reporting you and so many others now have done, [10:57] showing the internal discussions and conversation [11:00] around the knowledge of harming kids. [11:03] We felt like no matter what, [11:05] the verdict was going to be, [11:07] the win coming out of this was the bad press [11:11] that Mark and Meta and YouTube got as a result of this case. [11:15] So I think that's something [11:17] that we're very much focused on right now as a movement, [11:20] because this validates for parents. [11:21] It also gives them a lot to stand on then [11:24] when telling their kid, [11:25] no, I'm not gonna let you go on Instagram [11:28] or I'm gonna delay the phone. [11:30] I think in terms of the other cases, [11:33] you mentioned settling. [11:35] People have talked about, [11:36] oh, it was only $6 million. [11:37] Well, multiply that by thousands. [11:39] And all of a sudden you're looking at a different reality [11:41] for the companies. [11:42] And yes, they can withstand hundreds of millions of dollars. [11:45] But to your point, you mentioned [11:47] there's a multi-district litigation process happening. [11:50] There's AGs bringing different cases against them. [11:53] So they're looking at like a wave of lawsuits now, [11:56] and this is creating a legal quagmire [11:59] about how much they wanna invest in all of this [12:01] and how they're gonna repair their brand after this. [12:04] So that to me, each case, yes, is important. [12:08] And also there's a larger sort of arc or tide changing [12:11] that's happening that's really exciting to see. [12:13] Yeah, it's my understanding too, [12:15] and you both sort of touched on this, [12:17] that because this was a test case, [12:20] this gives the plaintiff's attorneys more information [12:23] to build their strategy for the next cases, [12:25] more information about what documents are gonna be useful [12:28] and appeal to the jury. [12:30] And obviously there'll be a different jury in the next case. [12:32] And the same is true for the companies in some ways, [12:34] they'll have a better sense of how to build their defense. [12:36] But in that way, I think looking at this [12:39] as a true test case is really interesting. [12:42] On that point, the jury's awarded, [12:46] you mentioned in this case, $6 million to Cayley, [12:48] a lot of money certainly for a 20-year-old young woman [12:51] whose life has been really difficult, [12:54] not a lot of money for these companies. [12:57] What is it really going to take in your mind [12:59] to get these companies to make real changes [13:02] to their platforms? [13:03] Nikki, maybe I'll start with you. [13:05] Yeah, so with these individual cases brought by families, [13:09] there's not typically injunctive relief included, [13:12] meaning a forcing of the company [13:14] to change their business practices to be safer, [13:17] because who's going to enforce that? [13:18] Not the family. [13:19] And so what we're gonna see coming from the school districts [13:22] and the state attorneys general [13:24] is hopefully injunctive relief, [13:26] which we can then follow up on [13:28] and make sure that these companies [13:29] are doing a better job protecting children. [13:33] And so that's where, that's where we're gonna see [13:35] that's where the real change is gonna happen. [13:37] But every individual family case as well [13:39] gets us further along that road. [13:41] I will say that we will also use this momentum [13:44] and moment to push for legislation. [13:47] It's much harder as a legislator [13:50] to have a bunch of families walk in now with this win [13:52] and say, this was just proven in a court of law [13:55] that this is addictive. [13:56] How can we not pass legislation [13:58] that says they can't make addictive products? [14:00] So I think that it gives the legislative, [14:05] movement a huge boost. [14:08] Sarah, you also touched on this, [14:10] but the other really important piece about Cayley's case [14:13] is it tested a new legal theory. [14:16] These companies for a long time [14:17] have avoided legal accountability [14:19] because of this law known as Section 230, [14:21] which says that they can't be held accountable [14:23] for the content that third parties, [14:25] that users post on their platforms. [14:27] But what Cayley's case did [14:29] and that New Mexico case did as well [14:31] is to say these companies can [14:33] and should be held accountable [14:35] for the design decisions [14:36] and the operations of their platforms. [14:39] How crucial is that going forward? [14:42] This is the brilliance of the trial lawyers [14:45] and so many of the lawyers [14:46] at the Social Media Victims Law Center. [14:49] They were some of the early adopters [14:51] and creators of this theory [14:53] of product effectiveness versus content. [14:56] Because as you said, [14:58] going up against Section 230 [15:00] was just like running into a brick wall for 10, 15 years. [15:04] And the companies really, [15:06] truly had convinced the public, [15:08] families that this was impossible, [15:10] that they could not be litigated against. [15:12] And so the innovativeness [15:14] to think about the social media platforms as a product, [15:18] like the same way you would think of a toy [15:20] or something else that you were literally handing a kid [15:22] that they could have in their hand and interact with [15:25] versus anything to do with what they encounter [15:28] once they go on it, [15:30] is the reason that we're here today celebrating this win. [15:33] Because without that visionary, [15:35] sort of, [15:36] new line of thinking [15:37] of how we could hold these companies accountable, [15:39] it just wouldn't be happening. [15:41] Yeah, I think that was a question [15:42] that I imagine listeners might have is like, [15:45] there's a sense that like, [15:46] we've all kind of known this, right? [15:48] Like, it happens to me, [15:49] I go on Instagram to look at one thing or to post something [15:52] and all of a sudden I've lost a half an hour of my life [15:54] and I'm like, what was I just looking at? [15:57] And it was five years ago that I covered Francis Haugen [16:00] blowing the whistle on what Meta has known [16:02] about the risks its platforms pose to young people. [16:05] Why is this only going to court now? [16:09] That is so funny. [16:10] I kept saying that through the trial, [16:11] like I can't believe we're even here [16:13] because doesn't everyone already know this? [16:14] And so I think they just stubbornly hid [16:18] behind that Section 230 immunity [16:20] and we just didn't have the approach yet [16:25] of the product liability cases that have come out really [16:29] from the Social Media Victims Law Center. [16:31] Yeah, absolutely. [16:32] I think the other thing I would add to that is, [16:36] there is a difference also [16:37] between being addicted yourself as an adult [16:40] and what it's done to kids. [16:43] Absolutely. [16:44] And I think we have this sort of first generation [16:47] of young people, [16:48] and young people have been a huge part of this. [16:50] You know, they also showed up in front of the courthouse [16:52] many times to advocate. [16:54] They often talk about how they were like the guinea pigs [16:57] of these tech overlords, you know, crazy science experiment. [17:03] And so I think it was also, [17:06] that generation kind of taking back their power [17:08] and realizing, oh, something was actually done to me. [17:12] This isn't just the way it's supposed to be. [17:15] I wouldn't necessarily feel this depressed or anxious [17:18] or disconnected from society. [17:20] They unknowingly were using a product [17:23] that was addicting them. [17:24] So parents are mad that happened. [17:26] Young people are mad it happened to them. [17:28] And then parents of our generation, [17:30] Nikki and I are three kids, [17:31] are the exact same age, 10, eight and six, [17:33] are like, well, we refuse to let that happen [17:35] to our kids. [17:36] So I think the anger around that has shifted [17:40] in the last few years. [17:41] And it's been more clear that that was really harmful [17:44] and bad and people are more mad about it [17:46] than they were before. [17:47] Yeah, well, and it's not like it was some personal failing [17:50] on the part of young people or their parents [17:53] that this has happened. [17:54] Yeah, it's not our fault. [17:56] You touched on the fact that there is hope [17:58] that this is going to lead to finally federal legislators [18:02] passing more guardrails for these tech companies. [18:04] We have heard, [18:06] countless times, these executives called to Capitol Hill, [18:09] asked questionable questions about how their platforms work. [18:14] How optimistic are you that we will really get [18:17] some federal legislation here? [18:19] I'm more optimistic than I've been. [18:22] It's still gonna be a fight. [18:24] These are the moments where, again, [18:25] that playing field can kind of be leveled out a little bit [18:28] and it's harder as those members, constituents, [18:32] go into those offices and say, look at the proof. [18:35] Look at the proof. [18:35] To say, no, I'm not gonna back something [18:38] to hold these companies accountable. [18:39] So I'm excited to see what happens next. [18:42] But also, it's a journey. [18:44] Legislation takes a long time and it will still be difficult, [18:48] but more possible today. [18:50] We've seen a number of states pass legislation [18:53] in the absence of federal laws. [18:55] Are there any of those state laws [18:56] that you think are a good model? [18:58] Yes, the Kids Design Code is incredible. [19:02] It's a really comprehensive approach [19:05] to design and making sure that products are designed safely. [19:09] It's passed in Maryland. [19:10] It's passed in California. [19:11] It's passed in Vermont. [19:13] And so that Kids Safety by Design Code [19:16] is something that should be touted and then also taken [19:19] to the federal level and passed nationally. [19:22] If you could snap your fingers and get immediate change, [19:25] what would social media look like? [19:27] Nikki, you first. [19:31] I think that I do like raising the age limit, but also making [19:36] sure that companies are required to make [19:39] safe products that can be accessed by children. [19:43] So both of those things, I think, need to happen [19:46] and be forced through legislation. [19:49] Anything addictive should be off limits for any minors. [19:53] And that includes Snapchats, Snapstreak, [19:56] and all of these different little functions [19:58] that do a lot to keep kids coming back every day. [20:01] And so those are the big things that I would say now, [20:04] but there's a lot more to be done. [20:05] So what you're saying [20:06] is age limit, yes, but given the fact that kids always [20:11] find a way around these age limits, [20:13] the platform should be safe, even if they do. [20:15] Yes, both, yes. [20:16] Sarah? [20:18] I mean, the app stores also need better rules and regulations, [20:22] too. [20:22] They get so forgotten in this, but they [20:24] are the gateway to the download. [20:27] And they do not follow their own standards about what [20:31] the age ratings should be. [20:33] So there should be more dialogue between the app stores [20:36] and the app developers. [20:37] Mm-hmm. [20:37] And the app developers of what an appropriate age should be. [20:40] I think that there is a way to design social media that [20:44] is so different from anything that we're all experiencing [20:47] now. [20:48] And it really actually models Facebook [20:50] like in the 2008s, where you were just using it [20:54] as almost like a messaging board to connect with people locally [20:58] to go out and do things. [20:59] And I understand that teenagers need a way [21:02] to communicate with each other. [21:03] And I think we can't even imagine anymore [21:05] what that can look like. [21:07] Because we're so, you know, we're [21:10] in this battle of to like fight for our lives [21:13] against these addictive platforms that trying [21:16] to imagine what sort of healthy social media looks like [21:19] is almost a challenge in and of itself. [21:21] I do think it's achievable. [21:23] I would like to see the market move there. [21:26] We need an alternative to Instagram. [21:28] I mean, part of the calculus here on Mark's part [21:31] is he can take these hits because he knows that like women my age [21:35] are going to stay on Instagram. [21:37] And he's not wrong, because we have nowhere else to go. [21:43] So having some alternatives pop up [21:46] in the market that are healthier, safer environments, [21:49] even for adults to go first, would be ideal. [21:52] And then us managing kids' relationships, [21:55] delaying, and some sort of age assurance, like Nikki said, [21:58] is a close follow behind. [22:00] Yeah, I do think about like Instagram in 2012, 2013, [22:05] where it was like, just your friends. [22:07] They're posting a photo of their brunch. [22:09] And maybe that's silly. [22:10] And then you scroll through whatever people posted [22:12] that day in chronological order. [22:14] And then you get to the end. [22:15] And there's nothing more to look at. [22:17] You put it down. [22:18] How crazy. [22:20] Obviously, this case underscores the fact [22:21] that parents are facing an uphill battle when trying [22:24] to protect their kids on social media. [22:27] But given the fact that change is not going to come [22:30] immediately, I want to leave parents [22:32] with some advice, some takeaways here. [22:35] What should parents take away from this? [22:37] And what can they learn to better protect their kids [22:40] on social media right now? [22:43] I will say that this is a great opportunity [22:45] to start talking to your kids, if you haven't already, [22:48] about how these products are designed. [22:51] Now we have proof and validation that they're [22:54] built to be addictive. [22:55] And so that's a backup on, first of all, [22:57] why we should be delaying and restricting, [23:00] but also bringing your kids into that conversation [23:03] and making sure they understand the why so they can spread [23:06] that information around to their friends. [23:07] And that they're on board with those restrictions, [23:10] that it's going to make them feel better [23:12] to not be on products that are built to addict them. [23:16] And so for me, it's always about talking to your kids about it, [23:19] because we don't always have control [23:21] over what they can get access to, [23:23] even if we restrict devices in our own homes. [23:26] Yeah, in a similar way, one of my proudest moments [23:29] was my kids saying, my mom works to make sure [23:33] that the companies don't take advantage of me, [23:36] and they want my money, and they want my eyes. [23:40] But that was so heartening, because I [23:42] think instead of it being this desirable thing that then you [23:46] can't have, because we know that that model with younger kids [23:50] is hard of this is the thing you get when you're older, [23:54] and then they want it even more. [23:56] I think it's more about telling them the truth, [23:58] that these tech companies are looking to pollute your mind. [24:02] They want your attention. [24:03] They want your time. [24:04] They want you to give you money. [24:06] And they then have almost a more empowered stance. [24:11] Even as little people, they get it. [24:13] And I will also say, my kids call me out on my own phone, [24:17] and they're like, mom, you've got to put your phone down. [24:20] And so you want to get them in a place of feeling educated on it, [24:26] where they're able to see its true colors for what it really [24:31] is, and then they can also just have more agency about what [24:34] they're going to do or not do. [24:36] OK. [24:36] We lost Nikki because of tech issues [24:38] in an episode about tech issues. [24:40] But Sarah, Nikki, thank you so much for doing this. [24:43] I really appreciate it. [24:45] Thank you. [24:45] And thank you for your coverage of the trial [24:48] and also just tech accountability as a whole. [24:51] We really feel like we're breaking through [24:53] to the public. [24:54] I can't tell you how many people on a plane in a mall [24:58] that I've met have a reference, a frame of reference [25:01] for this trial. [25:01] And that is a huge difference, and we're [25:04] excited to keep the momentum going. [25:06] And keep putting heat on the companies. [25:08] Thank you so much to Nikki and Sarah for that conversation. [25:14] So big changes to social media platforms [25:17] may still take some time if they come at all, [25:20] but this moment is a turning point, [25:22] proving that these companies are not [25:24] immune from being held accountable for the safety [25:27] of the users on their platforms. [25:29] In the meantime, there are steps that you [25:31] can take if you're a parent who's [25:32] trying to keep your kids safer on social media. [25:35] You could listen to the previous episode I did with Nikki. [25:37] We walked through it. [25:38] We walked through some of these features and tools. [25:40] I also did a video for CNN that shows you [25:44] where to find some of these features on the app. [25:47] So we'll link that in the show notes. [25:49] If you want to hear even more about this topic, [25:51] I did an interview on another CNN podcast, [25:53] One Thing with the Great David Rind. [25:56] In that episode, he also spoke to another plaintiff [25:59] who was waiting for her case against the social media [26:01] companies to go to trial. [26:03] She's a young woman who alleges she developed an eating [26:05] disorder as a teenager after being served [26:08] extreme dieting content on Instagram and TikTok. [26:11] She talked about what this verdict means to her. [26:14] Thank you so much for listening to this week's episode [26:16] of Terms of Service. [26:18] I'm Claire Duffy. [26:19] Talk to you next week.