College Football Under Fire: NIL, NCAA & Antitrust Lawsuits with FL Assistant AG Danielle Kelley

Ajouté : 2026-05-22

[00:00:00]Hello and welcome to another edition of the take on the college football mafia network. I'm your host Nathan Bomber Brown and with me tonight right here is the queen. One of the first people that ever sat down with us to talk legal stuff. Boy, that was three years ago now. Danielle, can you believe that?

[00:00:16]>> I can't. It's been a while. It's been a wild ride, hasn't it?

[00:00:20]>> It it absolutely has. Danielle Kelly happens to be and I'm going to get this title right. Assistant Attorney General for the state of Florida with the antirust enforcement division. Now, that's a long title. That really means what?

[00:00:35]>> It really means that um well, the AG's office here in Tallahassee, well, and statewide. We have offices everywhere else, too. We have a lot of different divisions ranging from criminal appeals to consumer protection. I just happen to be in the antitrust division um up there up here in Tallahassee. So work with a great group of colleagues and other attorneys in this area. So it's fascinating stuff.

[00:01:00]>> Uh when we first talked, you were representing athletes. You were looking at NIL stuff. You were sort of transitioning out in the world of sports and and legislation. How has the world changed since you and I first met three years ago?

[00:01:16]>> Oh goodness. House the House case. That changed a whole bunch. um to start off there. Uh you know, going back to when, you know, we were doing shows and we were still coming off the Austin decision and things that were, you know, going on kind of the Wild Wild West and everybody thought that, you know, eventually things would level out. Uh I know the House case definitely promised some hope there for people. Um, we'll get into, I guess, whether or not that's true, but uh, yeah, so, you know, things have dramatically changed in that sense with the College Sports Commission and things along those lines. Um, you know, other than that, uh, you know, speaking, I know we used to talk about football teams, too. I can't say much about mine right now, so I'm going to hush about that. We'll just stick to the law. How about that?

[00:02:03]>> We'll talk law.

[00:02:05]>> Florida State's on the comeup. I always am the picking Florida State to win games. So, I'm sure it's just right around the corner.

[00:02:12]>> I hope so. I hope so. Truly, truly.

[00:02:15]>> All right. So, I only have By the way, welcome everybody. Appreciate you being here tonight. Make sure you follow us and subscribe. Give us the like button and then leave a comment or question.

[00:02:24]Let us know how we're doing. Uh Danielle Kelly is with us tonight. Um and is now on the state side, states rights, however else you want to look at that looking at all things college sports.

[00:02:38]What is the biggest challenge you see right now with the state of Florida? You can talk national as well, but what is your primary focus when it comes to college sports? Is it uh protecting the athletes? Is it protecting your state institutions? Obviously, Florida State being one of those. Uh is it more national leaning? You know, are you looking at more things like House versus uh the NCA and also the College Sports Commission? kind of what is your area that you guys focus in on that's probably the most important that everybody needs to be aware of that to me I think 911 might be paying players.

[00:03:17]Uh I I'm I'm in the big I'm a big play paying players proponent and representation but at the state level nobody ever really talks about that.

[00:03:26]>> Yeah. And I just want to clarify for everybody my views are my views. I've always held them. Um just uh they're not necessarily the views of my office. it doesn't indicate anything we're doing or going on up there. Um, but speaking from a state perspective, I I've stayed the same. It's take a, you know, bottom up approach with it. The athletes first are the most important to me. Of course, uh, state institutions being second. And then, of course, the national impacts that this has because what happened in Austin was groundbreaking. I mean, it was a huge case that was decided by the Supreme Court. It unraveled in a legal system. I know I've caught flack for saying that on Twitter, but it wasn't a legal system. Um, they made that very clear in the Austin decision. I think I have Justice Kavanaaugh's concurring opinion pretty much memorized by this point, but um, you know, the points he made with it, but it's always going to be about the players. Uh, I think because you know for so long we would hear the arguments, well they're getting a free education or you know this and that not realizing they're out there risking injury and they're out there risking you know so much and you know I I went to school I I graduated with Peter Warick. know, I I've seen what these guys have gone through and knowing what they've gone through and what they've sacrificed to provide money to um corporations to use broadcasting rights and stuff. And I've always said, you know, because people get on this, oh, athletes are just being greedy and this and that. I want everybody to remember this started over an EA Sports game.

[00:04:59]>> Yep.

[00:05:00]>> Because literally, we all wanted NCA football. I loved playing it, too. But we couldn't have it because there was a fight over whether or not minuscule amounts would get paid to athletes to use their name, image, and likeness. And the NCAA threw a fit and that started all this and their greed did them in.

[00:05:18]Um, so it's always going to be with the athletes. Then the state institutions I feel bad for uh because they're navigating this process and it's hard especially with the House decision.

[00:05:28]Everybody's kind of handling everything differently. Everything's kind of in limbo right now. Um the college sports commission is trying to find their footing uh which I don't think they have any that's a subject for another day but and then of course the national impacts on antirust litigation that is very important not just to this case but to every case that comes across my desk that I deal with with corporations and you know dealing with conspiracies or contracts that restrain trade or monopolies or things of that nature.

[00:05:58]>> So I'm and I'm just typing this so I apologize. Uh, I wanted to get this up there. This is something I think that is a big deal. You and I again have an affinity. We've always agreed on that side with the athletes and wanting them to get representation, legal support, anything they need to be successful. At the same time, we want our schools and institutions to be empowered. But the CSC, I mean, the minute I can't even remember if you remember this, but I was even before the agreement was announced, I thought CSC really was never going to get off the ground. I just don't think they didn't put an enforcement mechanism in to start. It was negotiated around probably because nobody could agree what that would look like. And now we come back full circle and is this is the CSSE ever going to be practicable?

[00:06:47]>> I think I don't Okay, personally I don't think so. I agree with you. I think eventually we're going to have to deal with this. What the CSC what the House settlement did is these two words we use binding arbitration. Um, and I'm gonna A lot of people like to respond to me on Twitter fancy and and stuff like that. I used to talk fancy, too, when I was in law school to sound cool. I don't do that anymore. I want to explain the law in the way that the public understands it. I'm not, you know, Reese Witherspoon at the guy's trailer talking about men's rhea um, and Legally Blonde. I'm explaining it so the public can understand it. When the House decision was done um, and the settlement was done, we have these words, binding arbitration. Come on, you've all seen Aaron Brockovich. You know, binding arbitration can become a problem. Um, binding arbitration is what corporations like to use to get away with bad things and not necessarily get slammed in court by a judge or a jury. Um, not saying arbitrators aren't impartial because they are. And and in binding arbitration is great in some context, but check your cell phone contracts. Take a look at those. You've most of you have agreed to binding arbitration without even realizing it. And that gives the corporation a a less public forum, you know, less of the pressure on the jury or the judge to make a point. Um, and they can hide behind that binding arbitration. So, that is a big thing with this um with the Nebraska CSC case that people are seeing as a win.

[00:08:12]However, binding arbitration is not necessary necessarily presidential value that's going to be used in other contexts. It's not a case we have decided on an appellet level or a Supreme Court level that we're going to side in briefs or argue in front of the court. So, it's going to be it's more of a peace meal. We're just handling this one situation this time for Nebraska.

[00:08:33]Now, are they going to treat the University of Alabama the same? Are they going to treat other schools the same?

[00:08:39]That's ultimately going to be the question. And if they don't, if they treat them differently, then you're back to square one because that's what the NCAA was doing all those years anyway.

[00:08:48]Let's face it, they were letting schools get away with things that they shouldn't have been doing and and then penalizing others. So, >> well, now everything's exposed, right?

[00:08:57]The rock has been turned over. Now, everybody's seeing the underbelly of college sports, which has always been there.

[00:09:03]>> Uh, paying players and doing things under the table is it's endemic. It's been going on since before I was born, right? So, I totally understand why that can be sort of eye opening for the general public. Uh, but along those regards, let's quickly talk about and I'm g I know I'm going to run long. I could do this for hours with you, but I'm going to try to get to a few quick hitters and see if we can't get through with some of these today issues that we've got going on right now. Uh, antitrust exemption for the NCAA.

[00:09:33]Um, do they do they deserve it? And if they do, does it have to be tied to some sort of CBA or some other protections for the athletes?

[00:09:44]I if there were one, it would have to be tied to something to protect the athlete. Uh, however, I do not believe they are entitled to an exemption. And here is the thing, and I know I realized last night a lot of people on Twitter want an exemption because I think the public is really fed up with the whole NIL and everybody keeps saying college sports is ruined and this and this and that and but the question is how to fix it. Do you fix it by giving the NCAA get out of jail free card?

[00:10:12]>> Exactly. I'm gonna be, you know, our um attorney general here in Florida is came out with four other states and uh DC opposing the SCORE Act uh last year, you know, very clear. And I'm proud of that fact. Very proud of um that fact because >> to me it's essentially giving a cartel a get out of jail free card. You messed up the system.

[00:10:37]>> You messed up the system so badly. But we're going to say, "Hey, you can go mess it up even more." That is absolutely insane. And I understand people want quick fixes and that will definitely provide one. That'll let them go back.

[00:10:51]But the issue of it of it being there's a couple of problems with that. There is presidential value in US juristprudence, of course, that Congress cannot pass a law and turning a Supreme Court decision. So they can pass an exemption, but I could see lawyers arguing that angle as well. So Um the and I'm glad boy I'm so glad you hit up on the fact that it is a get out of jail free card.

[00:11:16]There is absolutely no doubt that the the conferences and the NCAA are both dy responsible for all of the issues that we've been dealing with recently. But the idea is you beg beg Congress for a please save us, we'll never do it again type thing. Uh without people understanding that if you provide that now all of a sudden they can be revious, right? they can roll things back. They can say no longer are we going to do this for the athletes. No longer are we going to pay for that. Um I don't Is there a way to square that circle >> there? I mean there really is and I think the Supreme Court laid it out in Austin clearly what we need to do. You will notice that they keep mentioning the word labor over and over and over and they're calling it what it is. And I think that the public has a last grasp of I don't want to be the NFL and I don't want college football ruined and I I want to go back to just complaining that they're getting a free education.

[00:12:11]The genie's out of the bottle. You're not putting it back in. So, we have to deal with it as it comes. The only way out of this and unless it Okay, because people want price caps, right? People don't want to hear about an athlete getting $13 million. People don't want to hear about this. You want price caps.

[00:12:28]is essentially what you're you're asking for in house the settlement. You have price caps. Why did you get price caps?

[00:12:35]Because the athletes had a voice. They had legal counsel. They were part of the process and they had to agree to the settlement. Okay. Now, you're dealing with the NIL collectives and the CSC and these deals they're approving. The athletes have no voice. They're not employees. They're not engaging in collective bargaining or unionizing or any of these things to set price caps.

[00:12:57]You're asking for regulation without doing what is necessary to regulate the area. To regulate the area, you have to call them what they are, their employees. And I understand, you know, I I I've asked people, is it just the fact that you guys are so scared it's going to be the NFL? And and James Coleman, my former co-host, former FSU player, raised a good argument. He said, a lot of it has to do with workers comp claims. They don't want to deal with that. And I hate and I hate to say this and I know a lot of people are going to disagree with me, but it's like Justice Kavanaaugh said when he was dealing with the price fixing issue with the NCAA in Austin. He said price fixing labor is price fixing labor. In any other industry, this would be illegal. Flatly illegal. That is like a group of law firms and legal entities getting together and saying, "I'm only going to we're only going to pay lawyers 60,000 a year." Period. Across the board. I have no say. So I don't get to come in and say, "But I work I build 180 hours on this case or I work, you know, 90 hours a week." I don't get to say anything. I have no say so whatsoever. That's illegal. You cannot do that. So you know, and if I get if I'm providing an entertainment value or I'm providing labor that is allowing corporations to market me and get rich and I get injured, then guess what? In any other industry, workers comp pays the bill. I don't know why in college athletics and you know I'm not talking about just separated shoulders or things of that nature. I watched you know our star quarterback's leg literally get snapped in half against University of North Alabama. Yeah.

[00:14:32]>> I mean >> is it so bad that we would honor workers comp claims against them? I mean the thing about it is people want regulation without doing what is necessary to have the regulation. If you want price caps, then you need to go ahead and call this what it is because there's no other way under antitrust law you're going to get away from it unless they get that exemption from Congress with the SCORE Act. Um, which I think is extremely dangerous. Uh, I know I raised the argument about a slippery slope. It would create everybody's going to run to Congress and want an exemption at that point for anything. But you have to think about it in the context people are thinking narrow-minded in college football on that. You have to think about it in the context of what we deal with as antitrust lawyers reviewing mergers. Let's pretend Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile all decide tonight they're going to posy up and get together and become one company. What's going to happen to your cell phone bill? You know, but we're cell phone carriers. We provide a service that everybody needs and and we're doing this to help the public. Please give us an exemption.

[00:15:35]That could happen. I mean, those kind of things could happen. And so you you can't start creating carveouts uh for this. It's not deliberately target. Sherman was worried about railroads. He was not worried about college football. But the same principle applies today and the NCAA had to face it. And I don't see why we would reward them for creating this mess to start with.

[00:15:58]>> Well, because people want the shortcut.

[00:16:00]Nobody wants to do the hard work. I mean, we know the answer. As as parents, you know that with your own family, right? You don't want to reward bad behavior. Let's talk about another one.

[00:16:09]Uh because this is this is absolutely just crazy to me. Brendan Sorsby has requested a temporary restraining order to play college football and he wants two things. He wants his $5 million NIL MMR package. Uh which is more than he might make as a 15th or 16th pick in the NFL. And two, he he's asking for sorry I I made a mistake. No big deal. I'll just move along, do therapy, and I'm not trying to make make that silly. Saying you have therapy and going through and then using a therapist as an example.

[00:16:44]Yes, I'm a fire bug, but I want to be put back in the force to make more fires. It absolutely makes no sense to me. So, from your standpoint, if this was in front of you and you were looking to make get a temporary restraining order or to fight it, where does this make any sense for him?

[00:17:01]>> It it doesn't. I mean, honestly, gambling in sports is already a danger because you're involved with the very thing you're gambling on. So, um, that's been a kind of a twist that's made me think, you know, gosh, I really wish we did have a board that could regulate things and not just worry about whether or not to pay athletes. Uh, you know, it's kind of it's begged that question with me, but we're so concerned about, you know, paying athletes overall. Um but yeah, that that's a separate issue to me in that uh you know what he did um yeah raises some definite concerns. So >> I'm for the empathy. I was one of the first people out there that saw the initial report and said let's not judge, right? He's if you have an addiction, health, mental health, whatever that is, that should be treated seriously. I am not being tried about that at all. I just don't know how anybody that's reasonable can sit back and say it. The way to fix something is to put you right back in the middle of it just in case you might have gotten over the problem.

[00:18:03]>> That's ex that would be like me saying I completely agree and addiction is awful and I agree with you. Um but that would be like me saying I'm an alcoholic and you take me to a bar. I mean that's just it doesn't it doesn't make sense to me.

[00:18:16]So um yeah, I'm kind of a little different on that issue. Uh it would be nice if we had a regulatory board that you know would provide um you know say sorry you have to pay for what you did and set out but we want to help you but like I said right now we're all fighting over paying athletes or not. So we can't even get to the mental health issues right now.

[00:18:39]>> Not at all. I want to reset really quick. Tonight's guest with me on the sitdown on College Football Mafia Network is Daniel Kelly who happens to be the assistant attorney general for the state of Florida with the antirust enforcement division. So let's talk states rights versus federal rights.

[00:18:55]Right now there's a conflict between state state legislation which says we're going to protect people's um we're going to keep everything anonymous. We're not going to publish NIL and MMR dollar amounts. uh you you're not accountable to a larger entity like the CSC uh versus federal which is trying to drive downwards and say this is the blanket now here's the bad like h how do you square that circle as a state's res representative >> great subject really great subject because I will say Florida and Tennessee got a jump on this early by passing legislation they could see what was coming you know down the pike eventually uh the two two of the many states that tried to, you know, deal with this at the outset because here's the issue. Um, and we're going to get a little constitutional on this. It affects interstate commerce and we know how cases are handled under the commerce clause. Um, if if Congress uh passes a law, they have to prove significantly that it affects interstate com it affects interstate commerce. I think those findings would be there with college football. Absolutely.

[00:20:05]However, you have the issue of states rights and the states rights to you're dealing with public universities um that are funded by these states. So, you would be passing a law essentially directing the states on how to run and fund their own public institutions. That would be a very very very curious case to go up to the Supreme Court under the commerce clause. I would venture to guess um they would find enough impact on interstate commerce that uh the uh Supreme Court could, you know, would would potentially go along with the national government on that. However, um like I said, states have already gotten a good jump on this. Uh even before the House settlement, there were consent orders and injunctions from states um you know, prohibiting certain things going on. So yeah, that's a very curious question as to how that would end up. It we would have to depend on Congress to pass a law and not completely botch it up. Uh and I'll keep my opinions to myself on that. But >> is that is that possible? I I don't know about that.

[00:21:10]>> They can't agree on much these days. So um but you would have to have significant findings on interstate commerce of course and like I you know because college football does that and then you're also involving regional angles with it with the conferences. So right it's a big mess. Um I've long thought since day one before House even came about that this was going to end up as a commerce clause challenge uh eventually to the to the Supreme Court.

[00:21:35]And this may if Congress steps in and acts this may be how we finally get there.

[00:21:39]>> I was just going to mention the the um nine justices in Washington DC but you mentioned it so I'm not going to bring it up myself. Uh, let me ask you about a couple quick hitters that just come out of the news last few days. Uh, University of Oregon is suing a former player for $10,000.

[00:21:58]>> I don't even know. I've heard about that one yet. I'm sorry.

[00:22:03]>> It the question is general. It's not about that particular case. My question is I if Florida State uh felt injured in some way and they wanted to recoup X dollars back because money they paid out to a guy and then he took off, right?

[00:22:20]Went to Tahiti or something. Is what is the point of the lawsuit? It can't be chasing five or six digit wins. Is it Isn't something Isn't there a bigger question there? There's got to be a bigger question there um than just the because they the Oregon certainly doesn't need the money from just one guy. Um it's it's it's probably some type of type of a test case to establish uh and here's where we're going to go back to are they employees or not. Um most definitely. But uh yeah to you know a test case to establish some kind of precedent in that area uh regarding you know whether or not schools can sue because now you're getting into a lot of money with the now that the house settlement is allowing the universities to directly pay these players. Um that is actually a case that you could it's probably going to pop up more often rather than not. So that's a very curious question. And then you're going to get into athletes also wanting to sue uh universities and the reverse of course. Um and >> that brings in the 11th amendment sovereign immunity. So you have a whole another I mean with all this you could just pretty much take the first you know 11 amendments and deal with all of it.

[00:23:32]So that's pretty much how it goes. So, if Danielle Kelly was the god of all things college athletics, would you continue to try to band-aid the current system, or would you just tell everybody, "Let's hold where we are right now.

[00:23:48]Let's take a step back and let's take two years to build something that actually will work in the future.

[00:23:54]>> No more band-aids. No more band-aids."

[00:23:56]People want quick fixes. They want band-aids. and they don't realize, you know, and that's one thing with the College Sports Commission, and I know some people have differing opinions.

[00:24:04]People consider it a big win. Uh it definitely was a big win for the College Sports Commission. Uh most definitely.

[00:24:10]However, you like you have brought up so many issues uh that that are going to be impacted by that federalism versus states rights, you know, on down the line. Um and eventually it's going to get challenged. So, do you want to keep doing these band-aids? And then this goes back before the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court says, "You're doing the same thing you did before. You're just calling it something else." Now, it's not the NCAA, it's the CSC.

[00:24:34]>> The CSC does have a a a settlement authority behind them, though. That's a little different because that has more teeth.

[00:24:41]>> But what happens when lawyers actually start filing in in the suit in California for enforcement of, you know, the House rules? Um because you have a judge with enforcement authority. We've yelled for years the NCAA has no enforcement authority. College Sports Commission really doesn't either outside of binding arbitration. But I mean what's going to happen? This judge does.

[00:25:02]I mean and I mean what do you do when you go back and and you file some kind of motion or whatever motion to enforce or whatever gets filed and and eventually you know we either water down the settlement or we throw the whole thing out completely. Um because here's the thing, the conferences don't really another angle lawyers are arguing and I'm seeing that I would argue is if you look at the conferences that have have joined the house settlement obviously you kind of had to you kind of didn't have a choice um in order to be able to play and if you've taken away the choice for them to be able to play now you're getting into my area of law uh again.

[00:25:42]And so that's the point. you're going to keep doing these little band-aid fixes to where you're coming back to the same premise that you're violating the law and eventually a court of law is going to tell you that and then you're going to be back to square one anyway. So, take two years and fix it. Build a system that actually works, that protects the athletes and doesn't ruin college football, contrary to everybody's opinion. Um, because it is it is completely doable. It's completely doable.

[00:26:09]>> I I know you're not speaking for the place you work. Let's assume you lived in Utah and you got a you had a lawsuit or a challenge that you could possibly pursue against the CSC or the House settlement as well. Is that something a state like Florida would invest in or are you guys just going to let sort of sleeping dogs lie, not really get involved? Maybe you can't even answer that question.

[00:26:35]>> Well, I mean, I can't I if there's anything that's actually going on, I can't talk about it, but um of course of course.

[00:26:41]>> Yeah, of course. But um I I can say publicly um and that doesn't mean anything is going on just by the way guys. Um I can say publicly that our attorney general has come out strong against the score act. So yeah and definitely you know he's monitoring and he's paying attention to what's going on and um do I believe that Florida would Florida has actually been more proactive in this area like I said along with Tennessee and some other states. So, I think if it came down to it, Florida would um you know, potentially do what they needed to do to protect their interest here in their public um universities and athletes. So, uh like I said, it affects interstate commerce and uh Florida has a vast economy um with, you know, great institutions here in the state. Um I have to admit UF and Miami are included in that, but um but um yeah, so he is a great AG. He's been very proactive in everything he's done. So I and I was very pleased that he was one of the ones that came out with the other four states and DC against the score act last year. So that doesn't surprise me at all. He is very in tune with what's going on and very in tune with um enforcing, you know, what needs to be enforced.

[00:27:57]>> I love that so much. I love that absolutely so much. It's great to hear.

[00:28:00]I wish Utah did more of that. They've done some stuff to uh curtail the viewability of their NIL and MMR deals and whatnot, but they haven't put their foot in the ground and said, "No, you know what? For from a baser level, we got real issues here. It's not so much about expediency." Okay, I've got one last question for you and take you an extra couple minutes. Um, let's let's talk about the Big 10 and the SEC potentially breaking away. I just wanted to set the table that I don't think there's enough political muscle to pull that off. I know it's what they want to do and I I think it's what they're trying to intimidate people making threats and saying they'll go silo and all these other things. Do what is your thought on that? Is there enough u political capital uh that those what is that 33 34 schools whatever that is has enough muscle to go out on their own do you think?

[00:28:55]I think they're definitely going to threaten it repeatedly. Um, and I and I don't know if it's stemming from the fact that, you know, see the CSC Nebraska ruling, oh, we're going to be held by the same deals. If it's because I think there's still like $120 million in deals that haven't been approved yet, the majority of which are SEC and and Big 10 deals that come through the CSC, obviously. So, I don't know if it's them throwing a fit because we have to keep in mind there's another legal angle to this. uh the collectives and you know some of the universities have promised these players money that they cannot now pay if the CSC says no to a deal or if it's in excess of the cap that the universities allowed to pay under house.

[00:29:36]So um there's you know the schools are at danger of getting sued as well or the collectives um like I said that would be a sovereign immunity issue with public universities but um I think you know I I I think they're going to threaten it. I I don't know. I mean, the frustration is bad enough right now that I think that, you know, if I I would love to tell you they don't have the political capital that they're the SEC and the Big 10, but I I think everything's in such chaos right now that that would just add more to it. So, I don't think that that would necessarily happen, but it could. I mean, I I I don't put anything past them, especially if you're if you're withholding deals and their athletes are going to suffer. They're not used to, I guess, being on the same playing field as everybody else. And that doesn't mean the CSC is going to run things correctly. I I still feel that some deals may be scrutinized harder than others depending on what university you play for. I'm sorry. That's just it's the NCAA mentality and I don't see the CSC as much different.

[00:30:42]>> Oh my gosh. That was the fastest 31 minutes. I swear Danielle, I am so appreciative that you spent some time with me tonight, we will do this again.

[00:30:51]Uh have to I now that you've put your head up and you started doing stuff again. I'm not going to let you get away. Uh she is Danielle Kelly. She is the assistant attorney general for uh Florida and the antitrust in the antitrust enforcement division. I'm gonna give you the final say. Why don't you tell everybody where to find you on Twitter and kind of what you do with with all this fun stuff?

[00:31:16]>> Well, I'm at DK Kelly21 on Twitter. I actually probably have been posting more on Facebook lately because I do the lengthy posts. Um, but yeah, and I'm old so, you know, that's what my children tell me at least, Facebook. Um, but you know, super excited. I was in private practice for a really long time dealing with this like you said. Uh, super excited to be on the state side of it.

[00:31:38]um and see how everything works. Um you know, of course, all the NIL stuff was happening at at my office before I got there, but um you know, it's it's it's amazing and it's refreshing, like I said again, to see a state like Florida and an attorney general so tuned in and um you know, willing to stand up for our state and what is right always. So, it is a blessing to work there. So, you guys can find me anytime on Twitter or Facebook >> and I attest that she engages. She will talk to us idiots on X and I really really appreciate her for doing that.

[00:32:11]The show's gonna continue after Danielle leaves. We're gonna do call-ins and we're gonna talk to uh the Daniel Gyax.

[00:32:18]But I just really want to thank you so much Danielle for coming on tonight and um there's so many more questions. Not enough time. So we'll do it again soon.

[00:32:26]Okay.

[00:32:26]>> Thank you. Great to see you my friend as always.

[00:32:28]>> You too always. We'll see you later. Bye bye.

[00:32:31]>> Bye bye.

[00:32:32]>> See you. Oh my gosh. That is fantastic.

[00:32:35]I cannot believe how fun that was.

[00:32:38]Danielle Kelly, assistant attorney general for the state of Florida with in the antitrust enforcement division. And I just I just want her to know she can always give me tips. I'm a good I'm a good tip tip person. I don't tell anybody any secrets. Uh I appreciate her being here tonight.