Or caveat in their statements. So it would be easy for them to say something like Google wins because of section two 30 and if they stop right there, that could actually be an okay opinion. But what they're likely to do is then say, because of the following facts. And if those facts were different, we might reach a different outcome. Well, as you can imagine, every single plaintiff is going to pick up on the caveat and say, well, I think I can make a claim where I can allege the facts that I said might make a difference. And so we're going to just initiate this huge groundswell of new litigation to explore any caveat or qualification of Supreme Court puts in. And I don't think they can help themselves to do that. Let's turn to the Twitter case for a moment, which is not about section two 30. The case stems from a 2017 terrorist shooting in an Istanbul nightclub, and a concerns the boundaries of the federal anti terrorism law. Just to be clear, so the case involves section two 30, which is a defense immunity from liability that covers a wide range of potential claims. The Twitter case only evolved the anti terrorism act. One of the many possible claims I might be covered by section two 30. Now in the anti terrorism act, the question is what constitutes aiding and abetting a terrorist organization. And the aid in abetting question is just a morass of confusion and ambiguity. Every plaintiff can allege that social media or other websites help some bad actor. That's the whole nature of talking to each other online. And section two there is taking that away when we open up that door and look at it like we did with the Twitter case to justices don't know what to do. That's just judicial anarchy. Could the justices use the Twitter case as a potential off ramp to sidestep any questions about the fate of section two 30? Justice Amy Coney Barrett's suggested that in the Google arguments on Tuesday. So they're both relying on the same aiding and abetting theory. So if you lose tomorrow, do we even have to reach the section two 30 question here? Would you concede that you would lose on that ground here? Yes, that is a possibility for the court to decide that the decision and Twitter could affect the decision in the case. I don't know if they want to do that. They've already geared up to hear the cases and do all the analysis. And then they would be basically putting all that work into the garbage. So I would be surprised if they want to go that route, but on the other hand, I could see why they would choose to do that because in the end, they know that whatever they say about sex or two there is going to have huge consequences and if they feel like they're not ready to apply upon it, they do have that potential exit around. Well, we'll find out by June, thanks so much, Eric. That's professor Eric Goldman of the Santa Clara university school of law. Coming up next, why the prosecution lowered the charges against Alec Baldwin. I'm June grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Bloomberg radio on demand and in your podcast feed. On the latest edition of the Bloomberg business week podcast, a conversation with David Musto, CEO of a census on retirement planning. You know, you talked about people's accounts being down and that's true, but really the important takeaway is we need to be consistently saving over time and increasing our saving over time to really set ourselves up for a successful retirement. One of the things that's been great to see is that there's been a lot of consistency and resiliency in the American saver. So despite all of the headwinds, despite everything that's going on in the environment. So even through the pandemic, as well. Even through the pandemic, the average contribution to 401k plans has remained stable. We haven't seen very high numbers of people taking loans. We haven't seen significant increases in the people taking hardship withdrawals. There have been some slight increases, but on the margin, you're talking about one to 2% of participants and plans. Is it because a lot of people who have 401k plans through their work, a lot of those people stayed employed. A lot of those people stayed employed and we've been well trained to think about the last couple of decades, right? Dot com bubble bursts, 2008, 2009 financial crisis. People have been learning that staying put being consistent continuing to save over time is the best way to see through those difficult periods. So it's really good news. Now, the bad news is we have 25% of Americans that don't have any retirement savings. Right. About 40% that would say they're not on track to a successful retirement. And guess what? That number is probably low. There's probably more people that truly are on track. It's 55 million Americans that don't have access to a workplace retirement program. Here the food conversation on the latest edition of a Bloomberg businessweek podcast. Subscribe on Apple Spotify and anywhere else you get your