Tech CEOs testify at House hearing on Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon | 7/27 (FULL LIVE STREAM)

7 7 >>> TODAY'S A $5 TRILLION DAY IN CONGRESS, THE CEOS OF APPLE, FACEBOOK, GOOGLE, VIEWERS AROUND THE WORLD WILL BE WATCHING JUST LIKE YOU, THOSE WERE COMPANIES REPRESENT AT LEAST $5 TRILLION, NEARLY, AND TO THE CONTROL ENOUGH OF THE -- TOO MUCH OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY, WELCOME TO LIVE COVERAGE FROM THE WASHINGTON POST, THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT FOCUSES ON ANTITRUST REGULATION, BEGINNING WITH OPENING STATEMENTS FROM LEADERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THESE 4 WITNESSES, JEFF B

EZOS, SUNDAR PICHAI, TIM COOK, MARK ZUCKERBERG, WILL BRING THEIR PREPARED REMARKS, JOIN ME THIS MORNING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT TO EXPECT, WHICH IMPOSED SENIOR TECH POLICY REPORTER, AND SILICON VALLEY CORRESPONDENT, WELCOME TO BOTH OF YOU THANKS FOR BEING HERE, I'M SURE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE BEEN DYING TO TALK TO THESE CEOS, JEFF BEZOS HAS NEVER TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS BEFORE, BUT THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOCUSED ON ANTITRUST REGULATION, TONY, WHY THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND WHY NOW? BECAUSE THIS

IS THE PRIMARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON ISSUES RELATED TO COMPETITION, AND TO UNDERSTAND, YOU HAVE TO REWIND TO ABOUT A YEAR AGO, WHEN HOUSE LAWMAKERS BEGIN THE PROCESS OF INVESTIGATING, APPLE, AMAZON, FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE, TO GET A SENSE OF WHETHER THEY WERE HARMING COMPETITION, AND HIGHER PRICES AND WORSE SERVICES FOR CONSUMERS. WHAT WE SAW FROM LAWMAKERS WAS FIVE HEARINGS, TODAY BEING THE SIX, ONE .3 MILLION DOCUMENTS 1.3. HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF INTERVIEWS WITH SOME OF THE COMPANIES THAT COMPETE

WITH THEM AND SO FORTH, AND THE GRILLING YOU WILL SEE TODAY, I THINK YOU CAN EXPECT TO HEAR QUESTIONS ON COMPETITION, BUT I JUST THOUGHT, BUT EVERYTHING THEY HAVE DONE WRONG OVER THE BETTER PART OF THE PAST FEW YEARS. >> SO OFTEN YOU SEE THEM GO EVERYWHERE AND OFF THE TRACKS PRETTY FAST, WHEN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS COME WITH A KEY MISSION OR AGENDA, YOU CAN OFTEN GET DERAILED, FOR A LOT OF REASONS, THE WITNESSES MAY TAKE WITH A SINGLE IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS, BUT REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS OF

TEN HAVE VERY DIFFERENT AGENDAS, CAN YOU BREAK DOWN FOR US HOW THEY ARE GOING TO FOCUS ON ANTITRUST REGULATION AND MAYBE SOME OF THE OTHER TOPICS THEY'RE GUARANTEED TO ASK ABOUT, WE KNOW THEY WON'T LEAVE IT AT ARE YOU TOO BIG AND POWERFUL. >> YES, AND THEY HAVE GONE OFF THE RAILS, THE FIRST TIME THAT MARK ZUCKERBERG TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS IN 2018, THE LAWMAKERS DID NOT COME OFF LOOKING GREAT, MANY OF THEM WERE ASKING PRETTY NAÏVE QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW FACEBOOK WORKS, AND ZUCKERBERG LOOK LIKE

HE WOULD BE IN A LOW PUT HISTORY BUT HE LOOKED LIKE OKAY, I COULD BE A SEASONED PRO AT THIS, I COULD GO BACK, EVEN THOUGH HE DIDN'T LIKE IT, I THINK ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WILL BE ASKED IS AROUND CONSERVATIVE BIAS AND THE COMPANY'S RELATIONSHIPS WITH TRUMP, PARTICULARLY WITH FACEBOOK, THEY'VE HAD MAJOR QUESTIONS, AS A SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY, ABOUT WHETHER THEY TILT THE SCALES IN ANY DIRECTION, BECAUSE THEY ARE A COMPANY RUN BY LIBERALS WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS, DO THEY TILT AGAINST CONSERVA

TIVES, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF THAT, BUT CONSERVATIVES IN CONGRESS HAVE BEEN HAMMERING AT THAT FOR YEARS, AND EXECUTIVE ORDER AGAINST SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES, PENALIZING THEM FOR BIAS AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL COME UP. >> I REMEMBER THAT HERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, CONGRESS SEEMED OUT OF TOUCH AND ANTIQUATED, BECAUSE THEY WERE ASKING QUESTIONS LIKE HOW FACEBOOK MAKES MONEY, AND YOU MIGHT MEMBER THAT WE SELL ADS, IT FELT LIKE THEY WERE QUITE UP ON THEIR HOMEWORK, AND I'M INTERESTED IN T

HE FACT THAT THIS IS THIS ONGOING INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS, DO WE EXPECT TO HEAR THEM A LOT MORE VERSED AND PREPARED TO FOCUS IN ON THE THINGS THEY NEED ANSWERS TO? >> I THINK WHAT'S HAPPENED IS, WE HAVE A COUPLE MORE YEARS OF EVIDENCE THAN WHEN MARK SODERBERGH FIRST TESTIFIED, THIS IS ALL THE FIRST TIME ALSO THE FIRST TIME THAT JEFF BEZOS IS IT'S FINE, WE CAN FOCUS ON AMAZON AND GOOGLE, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF REPORTS ABOUT HOW THEIR ANTICOMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR, THAT THEY CAN DRAW FROM, PARTIC

ULARLY WITH AMAZON PUSHING ITS OWN PRODUCTS AND HURTING SMALLER SELLERS, AND WITH GOOGLE AS WELL, PRIORITIZING GOOGLE SEARCHES AND GOOGLE RESULTS AND GOOGLE'S OWN APPS IN THE LISTINGS, I THINK THERE'S A LEVEL AT WHICH THE TIDE HAS TURNED AGAINST THE TECH COMPANIES, A LOT MORE EVIDENCES COME OUT IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS THAT THEY CAN DISCUSS WITH THE COMPANIES. >> YOU MADE THIS IMPORTANT PARALLEL, TWO OTHER MOMENTS IN HISTORY WHEN CONGRESS HAS STEPPED IN, BIG TOBACCO, THE FINANCIAL CRISIS

IN AIRLINE SAFETY, CAN YOU CONTEXTUALIZE THIS IN THOSE TERMS, THOSE WERE SUCH CONTENTIOUS MOMENTS, AND HOW THEY FLEX POWER BUT ALSO HOW THE INDUSTRIES CAN FUNCTION? >> WE HAVE A STRONG TRADITION IN THIS COUNTRY OF CONGRESS USING THE OVERSIGHT POWER TO GET THINGS DONE WHEN IT WANTS TO USE THE OVERSIGHT POWER, WHETHER IT IS THE HEARINGS WITH THE TOBACCO EXECUTIVES OR THOSE INVOLVING BASEBALL PLAYERS, THEY ARE NOT JUST HAPPENING FOR THE SAKE OF HEADLINES, THEY HAVE TENDED TO RESULT IN REGUL

ATIONS IN AREAS WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN LAX UP TO NOW, OR PUT PRESSURE ON INDUSTRIES TO CHANGE ON THEIR OWN, AND THE FINANCIAL CRISIS, ULTIMATELY LEADING TO ACTIONS THEY TOOK TO REGULATE THE FINANCIAL SECTOR, AND OTHER AREAS, BASEBALL, ON HIS OWN TO IMPLEMENT ADDITIONAL TESTING AROUND DOPING, IT IS THAT TRADITION THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO WATCH THIS, WITH APPLE, AMAZON, FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE, WHAT'S NEXT, THE CHAIRMAN, DAVID CICILLINE, BIPARTISAN BACKING, THE CHAIRMAN, AND CONGRESS MAY ACT ON IT,

AND THE WAY THAT OFTEN THINGS OF GONE WITH THIS CONGRESS, IT RESULTS IN A LOT OF PARTISAN BICKERING, WE JUST END UP WITH YEARS AND YEARS OF YELLING WITHOUT CHANGES, SO IT IS NOT JUST FOR THE INDUSTRY, FIELDING QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IT DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT, IT IS ALSO A TEST FOR CONGRESS, WORKING ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOMPLISHING THINGS GOING FORWARD . >>> LET'S BRING ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES, TECH POLICY REPORTER AND AUTHOR OF THE TECHNOLOGY 202 NEWSLETTER, SO KAT, TAKE US THROUGH WHAT'S H

APPENING ON CAPITOL HILL VERSUS WHAT'S HAPPENING VIRTUALLY BECAUSE OF COVID-19. >> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT, THIS WILL BE A VERY DIFFERENT HEARING, I'M ON PHONE RIGHT NOW, I'VE GOT A MASK ON, THERE IS HAND SANITIZER AND PEOPLE ARE REALLY DISTANCED, WE ARE ONLY GOING TO SEE PEOPLE IN PERSON, WE WILL BE TURNING IN VIRTUALLY VIA WEBEX. >> HOW DIFFERENT IS IT HAVING THE CEOS ATTENDING VIRTUALLY VERSES IN PERSON, BECAUSE THERE REALLY IS THAT VISUAL, YOU HEAR THE CAMERAS CLICKING, IN THE HEARING ROOM

, THEY WILL BE SITTING IN THEIR OWN DESIGN SPACE, MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE, NOT HAVING TO PHYSICALLY BE THERE IN THE HEARING ROOM? >> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT, IT'S MORE CHALLENGING FOR THE LAWMAKERS, IT'S A BIT DIFFICULT, WE KNOW HOW CHALLENGING VIDEOCONFERENCING CALLS CAN SOMETIMES BE, SO TO CREATE THOSE FIREWORKS AND PIN DOWN EXECUTIVES ON TOPICS, IT'S MUCH MORE DIFFICULT VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE, ONE OF THE BIG CHALLENGES, AND MIGHT BE AN ADVANTAGE TO THE CEOS WERE TESTIFYING, BECAUSE PART OF W

HAT WE TIMIDLY SEE AT THESE HEARINGS IS THE PRESSURE THAT COMES WITH LAWMAKERS BEARING DOWN ON A CEO UNDER THE HOT LIGHTS, WITH THE CAMERAS FLASHING AROUND THEM, IT'S A MUCH DIFFERENT THING TO DO IT FROM YOUR HOME OFFICE OR LIVING ROOM, AND CERTAINLY MORE COMFORTABLE. >> WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT HOW THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARING FOR THIS DAY, THE CEOS? >> THEY ARE GOING TO BE EXTREMELY WELL REHEARSED FOR THIS HEARING. AS WE SAW THE PREVIOUS HEARINGS WITH TECH CEOS, LIKE MARK ZUCKERBERG, THEY'VE GO

NE THROUGH EXTENSIVE QUESTIONING, WITH THEIR STAFF, LOBBYISTS TRYING TO CONTROL WHAT TOPICS COME UP, THEY WILL BE VERY WELL PREPARED, AND LESS STRESS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ON THE HILL, BUT IT IS DIFFICULT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FOR MANY HOURS AS WE EXPECT THIS TO GO TODAY, A CHALLENGE FOR THEM EVEN THOUGH IT IS TOWARDS THREE OR FOUR HOURS. >> WE ARE GOING TO SEE 15 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS GET TO DO THE QUESTIONING, 13 MEMBERS OF THE ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE AND THE CHAIRMAN AND THE RANKING MEMBER O

F THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THE UMBRELLA OVER THE SUBCOMMITTEE, WHO WILL YOU BE WATCHING, EITHER TO HAVE A POWERFUL Q AND DAY, OR TAKE IT ANY DIRECTION WE DON'T EXPECT QUICK >> THE CHAIRMAN, DAVID CICILLINE, WHO HAS BEEN AT THE CENTER OF THIS OVER THE TECH COMPANIES, CLOSELY LOOKING INTO THE COMPANIES, IF THERE ARE ANY BIG REVEALS OF EVIDENCE, THAT THEY HAVE GATHERED DURING THIS PROCESS OF THE INVESTIGATION, IT COULD COME FROM HIM, AND VAL DEMINGS, THE DEMOCRAT FROM FLORIDA, VERY MUCH IN THE

RUNNING TO BE JOE BIDEN'S RUNNING MATE, SO FOR SOMEONE LIKE HER, WHO IS TRYING TO HAVE A HIGH-PROFILE HEARING LIKE THIS, COULD BE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY SET THE STAGE, AND WITH REPUBLICANS, WILL BE CLOSELY WATCHING THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE RANKING REPUBLICAN JIM JORDAN, HOW HIS TONE DIFFERS FROM THE DEMOCRATS, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A BROAD BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS IN WASHINGTON, THAT THESE COMPANIES ARE TOO POWERFUL, LAWMAKERS HAVE DIFFERENT REASONS WHY THEY BELIEVE THAT. AND WE MIGHT SEE THA

T. >> THANK YOU, AUTHOR OF THE TECHNOLOGY 202 NEWSLETTER, WHICH HAS BEEN DOING GREAT PREVIEWING ABOUT WHAT TO EXPECT TODAY, AND I'M SURE WE WILL GROUP -- READ A GREAT ROUNDUP. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> LET'S FOLLOW UP WITH THE QUESTIONS OF WHAT REPUBLICANS WILL BRING TO THE TABLE, HOW UNITED ARE THEY WITH THE DEMOCRATS IN THIS QUICK >> I THINK SHE PUT IT WELL, THERE'S CONCERN ABOUT POWER, BUT THE DIRECTION THEY TAKE IT IS DIFFERENT, DEMOCRATS ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE EFFECT ON COMPETITION G

ENERALLY, WHEREAS REPUBLICANS ARE REALLY FOCUSED ON THIS ISSUE OF CONSERVATIVE BIAS, AND WE GOT A BIT OF AN IDEA OF WHERE REPUBLICANS WOODHEAD, A 40 PAGE MEMO PREPARED BY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE STAFF AGAIN TO MAKE THE ROUNDS, IT WAS POINT AFTER POINT OF THIS TOPIC OF CONSERVATIVE BIAS, SAYING THEY ARE PUTTING THEIR FEARS AND THE SKILLS, SUPPRESSING CONSERVATIVES, AND THEIR WEBSITES, AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT BIAS IN SILICON VALLEY, BUT IT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT REPUBLICANS PLAN

TO BRING UP YOUR AND THE OTHER ARGUMENT THAT YOU'RE LIKELY TO HEAR, IS THAT TAKING TOO HEAVY-HANDED OF AN APPROACH AGAINST THE TECH INDUSTRY WILL END UP HURTING THE UNITED STATES, THE MEMO WAS RIDDLED WITH COMMENTS AFTER COMMENTS ABOUT HOW THESE TECH COMPANIES ARE AMERICAN SUCCESS STORIES, AND TO DO ANYTHING THAT AFFECTS THEIR BUSINESS WOULD EMBOLDEN COMPETITORS IN CHINA, THIS LOOKS ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE U.S. AND CHINA OVER TECH SUPREMACY, AND EVEN TECH CEOS, LIKE MARK ZUCKERBERG, HAS

SAID THAT, IT WOULD EMBOLDEN CHINESE TECH FIRMS THAT VIEW THE WORLD DIFFERENTLY THAN U.S. TECH FIRMS, SO MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, YOU'RE LIKELY TO HEAR THEM TAKE A MUCH DIFFERENT APPROACH WITH THE TECH CEOS. >> J GREENE, COVERING THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST, AND TONY, ELIZABETH, WE'VE GOT ALL PARTS OF THE COUNTRY HERE, GEOGRAPHICALLY REPRESENTED, J, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME FOR JEFF PAZO'S -- BEZOS, HE OWNS THE WASHINGTON POST AS WELL AS AMAZON, HOW BIG IS IT TO SEE HIM TESTIFYING TODAY? >> IT IS HUGE

, THE FIRST TIME HE HAS BEEN CALLED TO TASK IN FRONT OF CONGRESS, MAKING THE CASE, MAYBE NOT AS SUCCESSFULLY AS SOME, BUT THE FACT THAT HE IS APPEARING BEFORE CONGRESS, SWEARING AN OATH, THAT'S A BIG DEAL, AN IMAGE THAT IS INDELIBLE, AND AS TONY SAID, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE GOING TO GO AFTER HIM, THEY HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS TO ASK, THERE WAS A HEARING BEFORE THIS VERY COMMITTEE, ONE OF THE COUNCIL FOR AMAZON WAS REPEATEDLY GRILLED ABOUT ISSUES ABOUT COMPETITION, HOW THEY ARE MAKING IT

UNFAIR FOR THIRD-PARTY SELLERS TO SELL ITEMS IN THE MARKETPLACE. >> WHAT IS ON THE LINE, AT STAKE FOR THE CEOS, IN PERSON, THEY OFTEN ARE ABLE TO SEND SOMEONE ELSE TO REPRESENT THE COMMENTARY -- COMPANY. >> IT IS THE VISUAL, THEY'VE BEEN GOING OVER HOW TO PRESENT THEMSELVES FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS AT LEAST, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY MIGHT SLIP UP, THAT IS UNLIKELY, BUT AS I SAID, THERE WILL BE THOSE IMAGES OF THOSE GUYS SWEARING AN OATH, IF THERE IS A SLIP-UP THAT WILL REMAIN THE PUBLIC

CONSCIOUSNESS, BUT A LOT OF IT WILL BE THE POLITICIANS MAKING THEIR STATEMENTS IN THEIR CASE, TONY TALKED ABOUT CONSERVATIVES TALKING ABOUT BIAS AGAINST THEM ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS. THAT'S GOING TO BE A BIG PIECE OF IT, BUT IN REGARDS TO AMAZON, YOU WILL GET SOME INCENDIARY COMMENTARY ABOUT HOW AMAZON IS MAKING THE PLATFORM UNFAIR FOR THIRD-PARTY SELLERS AND THAT WORSENING BE IN THE PUBLIC CONSCIOUSNESS FOR A WIRE -- A WHILE. >> AND DIFFERENT HAVING THEM PHYSICALLY TOGETHER IN A ROOM,

WE WON'T SEE THAT, THEY WILL BE BROUGHT IN REMOTELY TO THE HEARING, HOW MUCH DO THEY NEED TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE IN TERMS OF THEIR MESSAGING, AND SHOW THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS THAT THEY DON'T NEED REGULATION, OR MORE REGULATION, THEY CAN ACT IN GOOD FAITH WITHOUT SEEING GOVERNMENT TAKE A BIGGER ROLE? >> THAT'S IN INTERESTING QUESTION, BECAUSE YOU CAN ALREADY SEE YOU WEDGES AMONG AND BETWEEN THE COMPANIES. ONE AREA THEY COULD BE UNITED, FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE, WILL BE AROUND THIS QUESTION OF

CHINA, AND IT IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION, THE RELEASES TESTIMONY YESTERDAY AFTER SOME LEEKS, ZUCKERBERG'S TESTIMONY WAS FOCUSED ON WE ARE AN AMERICAN COMPANY, AND I'VE NEVER HEARD HIM SAY STRIDENTLY SO MANY TIMES, WE ARE AN AMERICAN COMPANY, I THINK THEY WILL KEEP SAYING THAT, THE QUESTION OF CHINA LOOMING OVER THE HEARING IS IMPORTANT, EVEN IF A BIT HYPOCRITICAL, BECAUSE THESE COMPANIES HAVE TRIED EVERYTHING TO BE IN CHINA, MARK ZUCKERBERG OFFERED TO ALLOW THE CHINESE PREMIER TO NAME HIS UN

BORN CHILD IN A WAY TO CURRY FAVOR TO GET INTO CHINA, BUT THEY WILL SAY IF YOU CURTAIL OUR BUSINESS PRACTICES, IF YOU MAKE US SMALLER, THERE IS A WHOLE WORLD OF TECH GIANTS, THERE IS A CHINESE GOOGLE AND ALI BABA, THEY COMPETE WITH US GLOBALLY, THEY ARE GOING TO ASSERT DOMINANCE AND SAY SILICON VALLEY, WE ARE AN AMERICAN COMPANY, WE HAVE PROJECTS THAT AND PRODUCTS THAT TOUCH THE ENTIRE WORLD, FOR US TO BE PENALIZED, IT ONLY HELPS AMERICA'S COMPETITORS. AND IT IS AN INTERESTING ARGUMENT, E

VEN IF ARGUMENT -- CONGRESS DOES NOTHING FOR A WHILE, THE CEOS, NOT JUST A FACEBOOK, THE CHAIRMAN OF GOOGLE, TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE VISION OF A CHINESE INTERNET, AND COMPANIES WERE THERE IS MAY BE COMPANY INVOLVEMENT, CENSORSHIP PERMITTED, DO YOU WANT THAT VERSION OF THE INTERNET TO BE THE INTERNET THAT PEOPLE USE, WHERE PEOPLE CAN BE SPIED UPON POTENTIALLY BY GOVERNMENTS, THAT IS A VERY LIGHT QUESTION, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE RISE OF TIKTOK IS A COMPETITOR TO FACEBOOK AND YOUTUBE. >> DO Y

OU EXPECT TIKTOK TO COME UP IN THE HEARING BY THE CEOS THEMSELVES? WE ARE SEEING TIKTOK TRYING TO OFFER MORE TRANSPARENCY ALL OF A SUDDEN, CERTAINLY AWARE I'M SURE THAT IT'S UNDER THE MICROSCOPE AS WELL THIS MOMENT QUICK >> I DO, TIKTOK IS UNDER THE MICROSCOPE, FACING THEIR OWN FEDERAL INVESTIGATION, AND REPORTS THAT THEY THEMSELVES ARE TRYING TO BREAK UP THE COMPANY SO THAT IT APPEARS A LITTLE BIT LESS DOMINATED BY CHINA, THE HARD THIS EXECUTIVE FROM DISNEY, TO ESSENTIALLY RUN THE COMPA

NY IN THE U.S. THE APPEARANCE OF THE COMPANY, EVEN THOUGH IT IS A CHINESE COMPANY, BUT THESE TECH CEOS ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT TIKTOK FOR COMPETITION, RAISING THE QUESTION OF ANTITRUST, THIS ARGUMENT THAT THESE PLATFORMS HAVE GOTTEN SO DOMINANT THAT NEW ENTRANTS CANNOT COME INTO THE MARKET. THAT WOULD BE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THEY ARE MONOPOLIES IN THE MARKET, CAN NEW PLAYERS COME IN? TWO YEARS AGO PEOPLE BARELY KNEW WHAT TIKTOK WAS, AND TODAY AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE, THERE ARE SOME REP

ORTS THAT IT IS OCCUPYING AS MUCH SHARE POWER EQUAL SHARE TIME TO KIDS UNDER 18 AS YOUTUBE. AND THAT IS EXTRAORDINARY, AND CERTAINLY A THREAT, THE CEO OF YOUTUBE, ASTER IF SHE SAID IT WAS A THREAT AND SHE SAID YES, AND MARK ZUCKERBERG SEASON IS A HUGE THREAT. SO THERE IS A QUESTION, THERE IS EVIDENCE OF NEW ENTRANTS, AND IT IS EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS A COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE, AND I DON'T THINK THAT HAS BEEN RESOLVED, FOR MONOPOLIES, FOR AMAZON AND GOOGLE, DOMINATING PRODUCT SEARCHES AND SEA

RCHES FOR INFORMATION, I THINK THERE IS MORE OF AN ARGUMENT THAT THEY CAN TILT THE SKILLS, BUT SOCIAL MEDIA, I DO SEE A COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE EVEN THOUGH IT IS DIFFICULT TO COMPETE WITH FACEBOOK. >> TONY, SO MANY PEOPLE WILL BE WATCHING THIS CLOSELY, THERE ARE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS ABOUT HOW SMALLER PLAYERS MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET IN, AND WE KNOW SOME COMPANIES THAT WE DON'T THINK OF AS SMALL, BUT FAMILIAR TO US, HAVE BEEN LOBBYING AND PUSHING TO MAKE SURE QUESTIONS ARE ASKED OF THE BIG FOU

R AND GIVE SOME INSIGHTS OR PUT THEM ON THE DEFENSIVE ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS FOR SOMEWHAT SMALLER COMPANIES HOW IMPORTANT IS THIS TO OTHERS? >> INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT, TO GO BACK TO TIKTOK, THEY ANNOUNCED A SERIES OF TRANSPARENCY STEPS, TO ADDRESS REGULATORS, AND TOOK A SERIES OF SHOTS AT FACEBOOK FOR TRYING TO COPY SOME OF THE FEATURES THAT MAKE TIKTOK SO POPULAR. THE MESSAGE THAT TIKTOK GAVE TO LAWMAKERS, WE WANT TO COMPETE AND BELIEVE THE MARKETPLACE, CONGRESS SHOULD ACT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT

IS COMPETITIVE, A SLIGHT JAB TO MAYBE HAVE THEM RAISE THOSE ISSUES AT THE HEARING. WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF COMPANIES DO, AND THE COMPANIES ARE VERY VARIED, A HEARING IN BOULDER, COLORADO, LAWMAKERS HEADED WESTWARD TO HEAR FROM COMPANIES, WHO MAY BE ARE KNOWN WASHINGTON, ABOUT THE TROUBLE WITH BIG TED, ONE CALLED PYLE, TILE, IN ORDER TO FIND YOUR KEYS, THEY SAID THE CHANGES TO THE I WAS, THAT RUNS ON YOUR PHONE, THAT MAKES IT HARDER FOR THEM TO OFFER THEIR PRODUCT. AND POP SOC

KET, THE DEVICE IN THE BACK OF YOUR PHONE TO MAKE A STAND OF, AND THEY SAID IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO OFFER THEIR PRODUCTS, A WHOLE SAGA AT LEAST FOR TIME WAS NOT SELLING THE PRODUCTS USING AMAZON THREE POPULAR MARKETPLACE. AND WE'VE HEARD THIS, TENDER, THE COMPANY BEHIND FORTNIGHT, SPOTIFY, PUBLIC AND ONE OF BRANDS THAT HAVE BEEN CRITICAL IN THEY HAVE SHARED INFORMATION WITH THE COMMITTEE, PART OF THE 1.3 MILLION DOCUMENTS, THAT HAVE BEEN SHARED. IT'S NOT JUST THE SMALL COMPANIES BUT

THE BIG COMPANIES HAVE BEEN WORKING THE SCENES HERE, TELLING LAWMAKERS TO LOOK AT US, GO LOOK AT THAT GUY. FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE, TO EACH OTHER TO DIRECT THE ATTENTION, AWAY FROM THEM. THE POLITICS AT PLAY HERE. >> AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE MIGHT HEAR, FROM JEFF BEZOS, SPECIFICALLY AS HE DEFENDS AMAZON'S ROLE, LIKELY FOCUSING ON RETAIL MORE BROADLY, OF JUST ONLINE, YES, JEFF BEZOS DOES ON THE WASHINGTON POST, HE IS THE CEO OF AMAZON, HE IS WERE SO MUCH MONEY, AND WHAT HE SAYS TODA

Y WILL BE UNDER SUCH SCRUTINY, TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS. TELLS ABOUT THE EXPECTED MESSAGE? >> IT'S INTERESTING, IN THEM, HE WANTS CONGRESS TO THINK OF THE MARKET FORMER BROADWAY THAN WHAT YOU ARE I MIGHT THINK OF IT, LOOKING STRICTLY AT THE U.S. IN e-COMMERCE MARKET, ONLINE SALES, INDEPENDENT FOLKSY AMAZON OWNS ABOUT 38% OF, HE SAYS YOU SHOULD LOOK MORE BROADLY AT THE OVERALL RETAIL MARKET, OF WHICH AMAZON ACCOUNTS FOR 4%, SO THE ANTITRUST LAW, HOW YOU DEFINE THE MARKET MATTERS, IF YOU

DEFINE IT AS ONLINE e-COMMERCE, AMAZON HAS A MUCH LARGER SHARE, VERSUS ALL OF COMMERCE OR RETAIL, SO JEFF BEZOS WILL MAKE THAT POINT SEVERAL TIMES I SUSPECT. AND THE OTHER ONE IS, GOOGLE, TALKING ABOUT THE AMERICAN COMPANY THE AMERICAN COMPANY, THEY LOOKED AT IT, THE UNIQUE AMERICAN STORY OF AMAZON'S FOUNDING, AMERICA WELCOMES THE RISKTAKERS, AND WE TOOK THIS RISK. AS WELL. >> WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE QUESTION OF BIAS, FACEBOOK IN PARTICULAR, JUST IN THE LAST 24 HOURS, THE BIG NEWS DURIN

G THE LAST 24 HOURS, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS SHARING A VIDEO AND SOCIAL MEDIA, ABOUT VIRUS, A DOCTOR THAT HAS BEEN DISCREDITED, STATEMENTS TALK ABOUT DEMONS, HAVING SEX WITH DEMONS CAUSES MISCARRIAGES, CLEARLY NOT A DOCTOR WITH A FIRM MEDICAL STANDING, SO THE TECH COMPANIES HAVE TRIED TO TAKE IT DOWN, FACEBOOK, GOOGLE, REMOVED VARIOUS VERSIONS, THAT SOMETHING THE DEMOCRATS MIGHT WANT TO GET AT, THE NEW YORK TIMES DID A REALLY GOOD JOB OF TRACKING JUST HOW MANY CONSERVATIVE VIDEOS ON FACEBOOK

ARE WIDELY REACHED BY THE VIEWERSHIP, TO DEMOCRATS OF QUESTIONS TO ASK AS WELL? >> YES, ON THE QUESTION OF CONSERVATIVE BIAS, WE'VE BEEN WATCHING IT PLAY OUT FOR YEARS, AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS WIDESPREAD BIAS AGAINST CONSERVATIVE VOICES ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS, PRESIDENT TRUMP, HIS SUPPORTERS AND CONSERVATIVE VOICES AS YOU POINTED OUT ARE SOME OF THE LEADING MEGAPHONES ON SOCIAL MEDIA, THEY HAVE SOME OF THE LARGEST AUDIENCES AND STORIES ABOUT THEM, OR RIGHT -- RIGHT-LEANIN

G PLATFORMS WERE POSTERS DOMINATE ON FACEBOOK, HAD TO DO WITH THE WAY THE ALGORITHMS WORK IN THE WAY THAT THE COMPANY IS STARTING TO SKEW TOWARDS OLDER USERS, AS YOUNGER USERS MIGRATE TO PLACES LIKE TIKTOK. AND YOUTUBE. SO I THINK THIS QUESTION ABOUT THE VIDEO THAT TRUMP SHARED, AND THAT WAS ALSO SHARED BY HIS SON DONALD TRUMP JR. AND OTHERS, I THINK LAWMAKERS WILL RAISE THE QUESTION OF HOW THE PLATFORMS HAVE ENABLED MISINFORMATION TO SPREAD, AND ONE THING THAT YOU WILL SEE COME ON THE

HEARING, THE COMPANY IS TALKING A LOT ABOUT THE GOOD THAT THEY DO IN SOCIETY, WE GIVE EVERYONE A VOICE, ON CORONAVIRUS, MARK ZUCKERBERG WILL SAY SO MANY AMERICANS ARE HOME, LOCKS DOWN, THAT LEAVING THEIR HOUSES, AND WITHOUT SERVICES LIKE OURS, THEY COULDN'T COMMUNICATE, SMALL BUSINESSES GETTING A LIFELINE BECAUSE OF US, BUT THEN AT THE SAME TIME, MANY AMERICANS ARE MISINFORMED ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE VIRUS IN THE NATURE OF WEARING MASS, IT IS REALLY A CATASTROPHE, RESEARCHERS CALL IT A I

NFODEMIC, NOT JUST A PANDEMIC, THE WAY THAT PEOPLE ARE LACKING BASIC FACTS, PRESIDENT TRUMP ALONG WITH THE SURROGATES AND SUPPORTERS, HAVE PROMULGATED FALSE OR MISLEADING INFORMATION AROUND THE PANDEMIC. AND THAT INFORMATION HAS GONE VIRAL. WHAT HAPPENED 2 NIGHTS AGO WITH THE VIDEO, IT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT HE IS SHARED INFORMATION, MISLEADING INFORMATION ABOUT HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE, OR WEARING MASS OR PUBLIC GATHERINGS, YOU WOULD EXPECT THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO TAKE THEM TO TASK FOR

THE HARM THEY HAVE CAUSED TO SOCIETY OR DEBATE, THERE ARE SUCH DEEP QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW YOU WANT TO REIN IN THE TECH COMPANIES, AND SUCH DEEP DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT THE PARTIES, YOU SEEN THE CEOS, THEY'VE CALLED FORWARD IN RECENT YEARS, THEY KNOW VERY WELL, THE PROBLEMS THEY DO HOW WILL YOU REGULATE THEM, WOULD YOU LIMIT THE ALGORITHMS AND TURN THEM INTO A NEWS PUBLISHER JUST LIKE THE WASHINGTON POST? >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, IF YOU'RE JUST TUNING IN, GETTING READY, THE ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE OF

THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THE 4 CEOS TESTIFYING, REMOTELY, AND THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS BEING A MIX OF REMOTE AND IN PERSON, JIM JORDAN IS THE TOP REPUBLICAN ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, HIS COUNTERPART, JERRY NADLER, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL BE HERE TODAY MAKE STATEMENTS AND ASKING QUESTIONS, AND THEY ARE THE ONLY MEMBERS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE WHO ARE NOT ON THE SUB BUDDY WHO WILL BE THERE, BECAUSE OF THE RANKINGS STATUS. OTHERWISE, 13 MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT I'V

E BEEN INVESTIGATING THESE COMPANIES IN A LONG PROCESS, ESSENTIALLY THE SIXTH HEARING IN THIS SERIES, AND THE OTHER FIVE NOT GETTING AS MUCH ATTENTION. PART OF AN ONGOING PROCESS, DAVID CICILLINE, THE TOP REPUBLICAN ON THE COMMITTEE, JIM SENSENBRENNER. AND YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT HOW DAVID CICILLINE HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS INTENSIVELY, WE KNOW THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING ON DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION, COULD THERE BE SOME AHA OVER EXPLOSIVE MOMENTS ABOUT WHAT THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO LEARN? >> THAT'S THE

KEY, WHETHER THEY ARE ABLE TO PUT FORWARD A SMOKING GUN HERE, AND IF YOU DON'T GET IT FROM THIS HEARING, THERE COULD BE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WHEN THE LAWMAKERS PRODUCE A REPORT, WE COULD HAVE BY THE FALL, BUT THE TIMELINE JEAN -- KEEPS CHANGING BECAUSE OF CORONAVIRUS. TALKING TO THE LAWMAKERS ON THE COMMITTEE A FEW DAYS AGO, THE SENSE THAT I GOT IS THAT THEY HAVE EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THE VERY BROAD WAY THAT THE TALK ABOUT MAKING ACQUISITIONS, AND KILLING SMALLER COMPETITORS, THEY DIDN'T OF

FER A SPECIFIC NAME BUT IT SOUNDS A LITTLE BIT LIKE WHAT THEY MIGHT BE TALKING ABOUT WITH FACEBOOK IN PARTICULAR, THERE ARE INSTANCES IN WHICH THE COMMITTEE HAS THAT FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE AND OTHERS, TURNING OVER TO OTHER INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES, IN ADDITION TO EXECUTIVE LEVEL COMMUNICATIONS, SENT BY PEOPLE WITHIN GOOGLE AND WITH AN APPLE AND SO FORTH, THAT MIGHT FURTHER SHED LIGHT ON HOW THEY OPERATE. THE REAL? HERE, IS NOT SO MUCH WITH THE SMOKING GUN TODAY. WITH ULTIMATELY FEDERAL LAW

ENFORCEMENT, THE BIG WILD CARD, THERE ARE PROBES UNDER WAY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL THAT COULD PUNISH THEM FOR THEIR BEHAVIOR, THEY HAVE AN INSIGHT AS TO WHETHER THE COMPANIES WERE ACTING IN A IN A NONCOMPETITIVE WE'RE NOT. >> WHO HAD OVERVIEW OF THE INVESTIGATION. >> WHO DOESN'T HAVE AN INVESTIGATION AT THIS POINT IS WHERE WE ARE [ LAUGHTER ] ALL FOUR COMPANIES TESTIFYING ARE UNDER SOME FORM OF INVESTIGATION. APPLE IS BEING LOOKED AT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AMAZON, THE FTC, FACEBOOK AN

D GOOGLE ARE ALSO BEING LOOKED AT, AND GOOGLE IN PARTICULAR, WE ARE EXPECTING TO SEE A LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST THE COMPANY PERHAPS AS SOON AS THIS SUMMER, BUT COULD COME FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WHICH HAS BEEN TAKING A LOOK AT THE ADVERTISING BUSINESS AS WELL AS NEARLY EVERY STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, SIGNING ONTO THE PROBE YEAR AGO, BIG ANNOUNCEMENTS, OUTSIDE THE STEPS OF THE SUPREME COURT, THAT'S JUST IN THE UNITED STATES BY THE WAY, A NUMBER OF SIMILAR HAPPENING INTERNATIONALLY, APPLE B

EING UNDER INVESTIGATION THE EUROPEAN UNION, MORE THAN $9 BILLION OF SIGNS IN THE PAST THREE YEARS, AN INVESTIGATION BY THE EU INTO AMAZON IS EXPECTED TO WRAP UP PROBABLY WITHIN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS. THIS HEARING IS A VERY PUBLIC DISPLAY OF WHAT COULD BE BROAD BIPARTISAN FRUSTRATIONS WITH THE COMPANIES, NOT EVEN THE ONLY ARE THE BIGGEST THREAT THAT THE COMPANIES FACE. >> WATCHING LIVE COVERAGE FROM THE WASHINGTON POST, WE EXPECT THE TAKE HEARING TO GET UNDERWAY SHORTLY, AND TREMENDOUS OPPORTUN

ITY, TO TALK TO THE CEOS, FACEBOOK, GOOGLE, APPLE AND AMAZON. >>> WHAT COULD BE THE OUTCOME HERE? WHAT DO CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, BUT ESPECIALLY LIKE CHAIRMAN CICILLINE, WHAT DO THEY EXPECT TO SEE, WITH THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS? >> AS TONY SAID, THERE ARE ACTIVE INVESTIGATIONS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW THAT MAY HAVE A MUCH BIGGER EFFECT ON THE TECH PLATFORM IN THE U.S. AND EUROPE THEN ANYTHING THAT COMES OUT OF THIS HEARING. BUT I DO THINK THAT THESE HEARINGS HAVE AWAY, NOW THAT

I'VE SEEN A COUPLE, THEY HAVE A WAY OF SOLIDIFYING A STORY ABOUT THE POLITICAL MOMENT AND THE RULE OF THE INDUSTRY, THE PUBLIC CONSCIOUSNESS. BEING CELEBRATED, INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS OF THE WORLD, THERE IS THIS MOMENT -- A LOT OF THE CEOS, THEY NEVER BE TOO UNSCRIPTED FORMS, OR RARELY, BUT YOU ARE ABLE TO SEE WHO THEY ARE, ALTOGETHER, THERE'S A MOMENT WHERE PEOPLE COME OUT OF IT WITH A CERTAIN IDEA ABOUT THE COMPANIES, PEOPLE ON SOME LEVEL, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WILL BE SO MUCH POLITIC

IZATION AND FALSE CLAIMS, THERE'LL BE A CHANCE TO AIR OUT SOME OF THE MOST PRESSING QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE ROLE IS OF TECHNOLOGY, THE TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY PLAYING IN OUR SOCIETY FOR CONSUMERS AND THE ECONOMY ON THE WORLD STAGE. AND PEOPLE WILL WALK OUT WITH A CERTAIN VIEW, I'M INTERESTED IN WHETHER I WALK OUT WITH A VIEW, WHEN I LISTEN TO THIS, AM I GOING TO FEEL DIFFERENTLY ABOUT HOW WE SHOULD COVER THE TECH COMPANIES, WILL I THINK DIFFERENTLY ABOUT THEM, WHO WON, WHO WAS MORE PERSUASIVE.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO BRING BACK KAT, TECHNOLOGY 202 NEWSLETTER, I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A DELAY? >> THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT, THERE IS A HEARING GOING ON JUST BEFORE THIS, IN THE SAME ROOM, AND THAT WENT A LITTLE OVER, WE ARE HEARING FROM THE COMMITTEE THAT THE HEARING MIGHT BE ABOUT 30-45 MINUTES DELAYED GETTING STARTED. >> IT DOES SHOW THE POWER OF CONGRESS, I'M SURE THE CEOS ARE REALLY KEPT WAITING FOR A MEETING, IT SHOW YOU -- SHOWS YOU THE CONGRESS WORSEN ITS OWN TIMEFRAME, THE HEARING WILL

START WHEN THE HEARING STARTS. >> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. THE SCENE HERE IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE ARE USED TO SEEING, THEY OPEN THE DOORS AND LET REPORTERS INTO THE ROOM AND START TO GET SETTLED, BUT IT IS FAIRLY EMPTY, PEOPLE ARE SITTING VERY SPACED APART, A LOT OF THESE TECH HEARINGS, OR LINING UP TO GET INTO THE ROOM, IT WILL BE VERY DIFFERENT TO TODAY, LOOKING AT THESE BIG SCREENS, THAT THE COMMITTEE IS SET UP, THERE TESTIFYING IN A LITTLE BIT AND THEN THEY WILL GET STARTED. >> C

AT, IT'S INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT TECHNOLOGY IS GETTING EMPLOYED, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN TECHNOLOGIES AT PLAY, WE WILL SEE HOW SMOOTHLY EVERYTHING GOES TODAY. >> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT, THERE WILL BE A HEARING VIA CISCO WEBEX, AND MOST OF THESE COMPANIES MAKE THEIR OWN VIDEOCONFERENCES AND STREAMING APPS, SOME OF THESE POWERFUL CEOS, TUNING IN ON A COMPETITORS PRODUCT, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT EARLIER, IT IS A POSITION THAT REALLY BENEFITS THE CEOS. >> AND A REMINDER THAT CAT IS REPORTING FROM CA

PITOL HILL, IN CASE YOU THINK HER VOICE IS MUFFLED, SHE IS WEARING A MASK TO ENSURE SOME SAFETY PROTOCOLS WHILE SHE REPORTS FROM CAPITOL HILL. CAT, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT SHALL BE WAS LOOKING FOR HOPING FOR TODAY, WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR? >> ANY NEW EVIDENCE FROM THE COMMITTEE, ANOTHER THEY'VE HAD THIS MORE THAN YEAR-LONG INVESTIGATION INTO THE COMPANY, WHERE THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN MORE THAN 1 MILLION DOCUMENTS AND HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF INTERVIEWS WITH SOME OF THE COMPANIES AND

COMPETITORS, AND INTERESTING TO WATCH HOW THE COMPANIES SHAPE THEIR ARGUMENTS, NOW THAT THEY ARE IN THIS LATER STAGE OF THE INVESTIGATION AND WE KNOW REGULATORS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ATLANTIC ARE ZEROING IN ON THESE COMPANIES WITH POTENTIAL ANTITRUST CASES. IT WOULD JUST BE REALLY INTERESTING TO SEE I THINK, HOW THE LAWMAKERS COME AT THOSE QUESTIONS NOW THAT THEY HAVE HAD MANY MORE TECH POLICY HEARINGS IN THE PAST FEW YEARS. AND THEY KNOW A LOT MORE ABOUT THESE ISSUES. >> CAT ZAKRZEWSKI, TH

ANK YOU SO MUCH, STAY SAFE AND WE WILL TALK TO YOU LATER, APPRECIATE IT. >>> LET'S GO BACK TO J GREENE, COVERING TECHNOLOGY IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST IN PARTICULAR, I'M INTERESTED IN THIS QUESTION OF MICROSOFT, WHERE ARE THEY AND WHY NOT HAVE THEM BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION? >> 20 YEARS AGO, MICROSOFT WOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE DISCUSSION, AND BACK IN THE LATE 90s AND EARLY 2000'S, BILL GATES DID TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS OVER ISSUES REGARDING ANTITRUST, AND MICROSOFT HAD THAT DAY, IT IS A DIF

FERENT QUESTION, MICROSOFT IS A HUGE COMPANY, AND ONE OF THE TECH GIANTS, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT A PLEA HERE IS THAT MICROSOFT DOESN'T PLAY IN A BIG WAY IN THE CONSUMER MARKET, THAT'S TYPICALLY WERE REGULATORS TEND TO LOOK, WHILE FOLKS DO USE WINDOWS ON THEIR HOME COMPUTERS, REALLY IT IS A BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, AND I THINK THERE IS SOME BELIEF IN, YOU KNOW, ANTITRUST CIRCLES, THE BUSINESSES ARE PROBABLY BETTER EQUIPPED TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES THAN CONSUMERS. THAT ALL SAID,

LAST WEEK OR THIS WEEK, MAKING A BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS APPLICATION, RAISED COMPLAINTS AGAINST MICROSOFT'S ANTICOMPETITIVE ACTION WITH REGARD TO THAT MARKET IN EUROPE, SO MICROSOFT HAS A CAN PROCEED -- COMPETING SERVICE, A MESSAGING PLATFORM FOR WORKERS, AND THE FOLKS AT SLACK SAID MICROSOFT WAS ACTING IN AN UNCOMPETITIVE WAY BY USING THE DOMINANT OFFICE TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE IT HARDER FOR SLACK TO COMPETE. AND THAT ALL SAID, IT'S NOT A CONSUMER APPLICATION, SO I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG

REASONS WHY YOU DON'T SEE MICROSOFT HERE TODAY. >> J, PAST HEARINGS LIKE WITH MICROSOFT, WHAT ARE THEY THINKING ABOUT WITH THE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT GENERATIONS HAVE GONE THROUGH, APPLE ONE OF THOSE EARLY GENERATION COMPANIES, HOW DO YOU THINK THEY LOOK AT HOW THEY MIGHT BE REGULATED? >> ACTUALLY COVERED THE ANTITRUST HEARING SOME 20 YEARS AGO, I HAD MORE HAIR BACK THEN, THE LESSON THAT I THINK THEY MIGHT TAKE AWAY FROM THE HEARING IS FIGHT LIKE HECK, THEY DELAYED AND PUSH THE CASE OUT IN THE

INTERESTING PHENOMENON, WHEN THE CASE STARTED, YOU HAD AN ADMINISTRATION BACK THEN, THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, WITH JANET RENO, THAT WAS HELL-BENT ON PURSUING MICROSOFT, AND IT ACTUALLY CHANGE THE POLITICS BACK THEN, YOU KNOW, WHEN GEORGE BUSH BECAME PRESIDENT, AND THAT A DEMONSTRATION WASN'T SO INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE CASE, AND MICROSOFT, TO ITS STRENGTH, PLAITED OUT UNTIL HE GOT THE KIND OF SETTLEMENT THAT IT WANTED, AND SO OBVIOUS THE IT'S NOT A COURT, IT'S BEFORE CONGRESS, BUT I

THINK YOU WILL SEE THESE CEOS BE TACTFUL, THEY WILL OFTEN SAY THINGS LIKE THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION CONGRESSMAN OR CONGRESSWOMAN, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL, EVEN IF IT IS A DIFFICULT QUESTION, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO PLAY IT OUT, AND DEFEND THEMSELVES, UNTIL THE LAST MOMENT, I THINK THAT IS A LESSON FROM THE MICROSOFT CASE 20 YEARS AGO. >>> TONY, WE'VE HEARD FROM OTHER GUESTS, WHAT SHOULD BE LISTENED FOR, I WANT TO HEAR WHAT YOU THINK, AND HOW IMPORTANT IS IT THAT THE TECH CEOS COM

E ACROSS GRACIOUS, HOW IMPORTANT IS IT THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE REALLY ABLE TO LAND SOME PUNCHES HERE? >> FOR CONGRESS IT WILL BE LESS ABOUT LANDING IMMEDIATE PUNCHES AND MORE ABOUT DOING SOMETHING WITH WHATEVER PUNCHES THEY LAND AFTER-THE-FACT. YOU CAN HAVE THESE HEADLINE GRABBING MOMENTS, THAT'S GREAT, THAT'S GOOD FOR PUTTING THIS IN NEWSPAPERS AND GETTING OUR ATTENTION, BUT OVER THE LONG RUN, IF LAWMAKERS WANT TO ACTUALLY HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE TECH INDUSTRY AND CHANGE THE WAY THEY

DO BUSINESS, THEY WILL HAVE TO TRANSLATE THE HEARING INTO SOMETHING MEANINGFUL, AND THAT MEANINGFUL THING IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE REGULATION. SO ONCE THE HEARING IS WELL PAST OVER, WHAT THE REPORT SAYS, AND WHAT KIND OF LEGISLATIONS LAWMAKERS PUT TOGETHER TO CHANGE OR UPDATE ANTITRUST LAW. >> IN TERMS OF WHAT TO LOOK FOR TODAY, WITH APPLE, YOU WILL HEAR A LOT ABOUT THE FEE THAT IT CHARGES DEVELOPERS WHO SELL THROUGH THE APP STORE MIGHT BE A WAY THAT APPLE STIFLES COMPETITION OR HURTS RIVALS

. APPLE OBVIOUSLY SAYS IT DOESN'T DO THAT, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF COMPANIES LIKE SPOTIFY AND OTHERS, ON THAT, YOU MIGHT GET A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON THAT TODAY. >>> FOR AMAZON, SOME PRIOR STATEMENTS THAT AMAZON EXECUTIVES MADE TO CONGRESS, THERE WAS A HEARING EARLIER IN THE PROCESS WHERE AMAZON SAID IT DID NOT LEVERAGE DATA FROM SELLERS ON ITS PLATFORM TO REFINE ITS OWN PRODUCTS, ESSENTIALLY. THERE WAS PUBLIC REPORTING THAT CAST DOUBT ON THOSE STATEMENTS, AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE HEARING T

ODAY, THE FIRST PERSON THAT THE COMMITTEE LOOKED TO CALL TO TESTIFY WAS JEFF BEZOS, BECAUSE THEY WERE CONCERNED THAT PERHAPS AMAZON MISLED THEM WHEN THEY PREVIOUSLY APPEARED ON CAPITOL HILL. AND OVER AMAZON HAD BEEN TRUTHFUL IN THE PAST, THE OWNERSHIP FOR INSTAGRAM, THE PAST ACQUISITIONS BY FACEBOOK HAVE ULTIMATELY SERVED TO REMOVE 2 POTENTIAL RIVALS FROM THE MARKETPLACE. TRACE BUCEY -- FACE PACIFIC TO SAY THAT IT WAS OFFERING A SERVICE, COMPANIES THAT STANDALONE FIRMS WOULD NOT BE ABLE

TO DO ON THEIR OWN, AND GOOGLE, THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES RUN SURGEON ADVERTISING, AND THE SMARTPHONE BUSINESS, BUT THE AD IS OF IT WITH HIS CUT THEIR ATTENTION THE MOST. STATE AND FEDERAL OFFICIALS INVESTIGATING, THAT'S LIKELY TO BE WHERE WE HEAR QUESTIONS TODAY, SUCH A DESIRE TO GET TO THE BOTTOM AS TO WHETHER OR NOT GOOGLE'S AD BUSINESS IS HURTING OTHER PUBLISHERS ON THE INTERNET. >> TONY EXPLAINING WHAT TO EXPECT, AND IF YOU'RE WONDERING WHY THE HEARING HASN'T STARTED YET, BECAUSE THER

E IS A DELAY, A PRIOR HEARING IN THE ROOM RAN LATE, THEY ARE TURNING IT OVER, BUT SHORTLY YOU SHOULD SEE THE 4 CEOS TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS IN A HISTORIC HEARING. AND TONY, THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES TO ASK QUESTIONS, IT IS SIGNIFICANT, AS WE TALKED ABOUT, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE, IT'S NOT THE ENTIRE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, IT'S NOT A BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, ANOTHER BRANCH, IT IS THE ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE, AND WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT TO YOU? >> THERE IS ALWAYS A NEGOTIAT

ION ABOUT THESE, THEY DON'T WANT TO SIT IN FRONT OF THE FULL JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THERE ARE 50 THERE, AND ENSURES THAT IT IS A LONGER HEARING. WHEN MARK ZUCKERBERG TESTIFIED DURING THE CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA HEARING, THERE WAS 10 HOURS OF TESTIMONY OVER 2 DAYS, IF IT DIDN'T PUT PEOPLE TO SLEEP WHILE THEY'RE WATCHING IT, IT WAS WHILE WE WERE COVERING IT, THEY DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT MORE OF A MARATHON THAN IT ALREADY IS, BUT THEY WANT TO ENSURE THERE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTISE

ON THE PART OF LAWMAKERS, BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN THERE FOR FIVE AND NOW SIX HEARINGS FOCUSED ON ANTITRUST ISSUES, SO HOPEFULLY THERE ARE SOME SMART QUESTIONS THERE, GETTING TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER, THE EXTENT TO WHICH CONGRESS IS FULLY PREPARED AND ABLE TO HOLD THESE EXECUTIVES TO ACCOUNT FOR SOME OF THE MORE NUANCED PRACTICES IN THE PART OF THESE COMPANIES, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF FOLKS OUTSIDE OF CAPITOL HILL WHO THINK HISTORICALLY CONGRESS IS NOT DONE A GOOD JOB OF THAT. >> WE HEAR

D EARLIER ABOUT HOW EMBARRASSING IT WAS FOR CONGRESS WHEN THEY HEARD FROM MARK ZUCKERBERG, AND QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW HE WOULD PERFORM, AND HE WAS ABLE TO STAND ON HIS TALKING POINTS AND STAND HIS MESSAGE, WHEREAS THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE WERE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN AND UNDERSTAND THE BASIC TECHNOLOGY THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO ASK MARK ZUCKERBERG ABOUT, SO HE COULD RUN RINGS AROUND THEM. THIS IS A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT HAS BEEN WORKING ON THE ISSUE FOR MANY MONTHS NOW, WE WILL EXPECT THEM TO

HAVE MORE FLUIDITY AND ABLE TO TALK OF THE LEVEL OF THE CEOS SPEAK ON. THAT SEEMS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE SIGNIFICANT, BECAUSE IT SHOWS THAT THESE MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAVE EFFORTS IN PROGRESS, THEY ARE WORKING TOWARDS AN AGENDA, AND NOT JUST BE BULLDOZED BY THESE COMPANIES, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? >> I DO THINK THAT PERHAPS LOTS OF FOLKS WOULD SAY WE PUT TOO MUCH STOCK IN THESE BIG BLOWUP SORTS OF MOMENTS, THE BIG HEADLINES. TALKING EARLIER ABOUT PREVIOUS INSTANCES IN WHICH CONGRESS

HAS HELD MAJOR EXECUTIVES TO ACCOUNT, WE HAD THOSE HEARINGS WHERE TOBACCO EXECUTIVES GOT UP AND SAID UNDER OATH THAT THERE PRODUCTS WERE NOT A PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD OR ADDICTIVE, THOSE KINDS OF MOMENTS DON'T HAPPEN A LOT OF HEARINGS, WE DON'T HAVE THOSE KINDS OF HEADLINE GRABBING INSTANCES WERE CONGRESS CLASHES WITH EXECUTIVES, BUT IN THIS CASE, I THINK IF YOU ASKED EVERY LAWMAKER INVOLVED IN THIS HEARING WHAT THEY WANT TO GET OUT OF IT, WITH A WILL TELL YOU IS, IT'S NOT TO WATCH MARK ZUC

KERBERG SAY SOMETHING SILLY OR HAVE A HUGE EMAIL DROP WERE THE EXPOSED SOME UNKNOWN TRUTHS, IT'S THAT THEY WANT TO LEAVE A FRAMEWORK FOR REFORM OF FEDERAL LAW, THEY THINK IT IS TOO EASY FOR COMPANIES TO ACQUIRE COMPETITORS INTO HARD FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO BRING CASES, OR PERHAPS THE AGENCIES THAT BRING CASES DON'T HAVE THE STAFF OR RESOURCES TO BRING THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE IN THE U.S. HAS JUST BEEN TOO LAX ON THESE COMPANIES. SO I THINK WE PROBABLY WON'T BE ABLE TO EVEN ASSIST TH

E FULL IMPACT OF TODAY'S HEARING UNTIL ONE MONTH, TWO MONTHS, SIX MONTHS FROM NOW WHEN THEY PRODUCE THE REPORT AND GET TO THE STEP OF LEGISLATING. CONSIDER THE CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA HEARING, LAWMAKERS HAD SOME SILLY MOMENTS, BUT THE GOAL OF THE HEARING REALLY WAS TO PROBE WHAT FACEBOOK HAD DONE AND THINK WHETHER CONGRESS NEEDED TO UPDATE FEDERAL PRIVACY LAW TO ENSURE THAT SUCH A SITUATION COULD NOT HAPPEN AGAIN, AND IF IT DID, THERE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE PENALTIES. TWO YEARS, VIRTUALLY NO P

ROGRESS, LOTS OF TALKING CRITICISM, BUT NOTHING MEANINGFUL THAT WOULD HOLD THE COMPANIES TO ACCOUNT. AND THAT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT THE LAWMAKERS WANT TO AVOID RATHER THAN SILLY STATEMENTS, THEY DON'T WANT TO WASTE THEIR POLITICAL CAPITAL SO TO SPEAK, JUST HAVING ANOTHER HEARING THAT'S A MEANS TO AN END AND NOT JUST THE END. >> THAT IS WHAT IS EXPECTED TO COME ON EARLY FALL, BUT SUBJECT TO CHANGE BECAUSE OF CORONAVIRUS, AND POSSIBLE DELAYS ON THE REPORT ON THAT FRONT. >>> TECHNOLOGY CO

LUMNIST, JEFFREY FOWLER, SO GOOD TO SEE YOU, WHAT IS ON THE LINE, FOR THE AVERAGE AMERICAN WHO USES THE TECHNOLOGY? >> THAT'S AN IMPORTANT QUESTION, MISSING FROM THE CONVERSATION ABOUT ANTITRUST SO FAR, DIFFICULT TO CONNECT SOME OF THESE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT MARKETPLACES AND MARKET DOMINANCE TO WHAT IT MATTERS TO US, WHERE DOES THIS IMPACT MY LIFE, I'M LOOKING OUT FOR THAT, AND THE TELL FOR ME ON THIS ISSUE, YOU ARE AND I WERE ON SIT TOGETHER WATCHING THEM TESTIFY IN CONTROL OF YOUR DATA,

EVERY AMERICAN CONSUMER KNOWS THAT'S NOT TRUE, WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OF THE DATA ON THESE PLATFORMS, IF WE DID, MARK ZUCKERBERG WOULDN'T BE IN FRONT OF CONGRESS, WHAT ARE THE BIG LITTLE LIES THAT THEY WILL TELL CONGRESS AND US, AS CONSUMERS, WE KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT HOW THEIR PRODUCTS REALLY WORK IN THEIR SERVICES REALLY WORK. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE THAT I EXPECT TO HEAR LOT TODAY, WE HAVE THE POWER TO MOVE THE DATA ANYWHERE, LOTS OF CHOICE, FACEBOOK SAYS YOU CAN GO TO SOME OTHER SOCIAL NETWORK.

AND LETTING THEM HAVE THE SAME RULE AS FACEBOOK PLAYS IN THEIR LIVES, ANOTHER ONE ON MY LIST, AND IN JEFF BEZOS TESTIMONY, THEY ARE ACTUALLY NOT THAT BIG, THEY ARE ONLY 4% OF AMERICAN RETAIL. AND AS MY COLLEAGUE JAY GREENE WAS SAYING, MAYBE, BUT THAT'S NOT THE REAL TRUTH OF THE MATTER. WHEN IT COMES TO THE IMPACT ON OUR LIVES, AS THE ONLINE SHOPPING DESTINATION EVEN MORE OVER AND TALKING A LOT ABOUT HOW THESE COMPANIES ARE SHAPING OUR EXPERIENCES. >>> JEFF, HOW IMPORTANT IS IT THAT THE T

ECH CEOS ARE ABLE TO COME ACROSS WELL AND READ WELL, NOT JUST THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS BUT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, SO UNIQUE FOR US TO SEE THEM, AS WE'VE HEARD FROM OTHER GUESTS IN A UNSCRIPTED MOMENT, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE TRYING TO KEEP TO A SCRIPTED TEXT, HOW MUCH DOES IT MATTER WHAT THEY SAY NOW THEY SAY IT? >> THE POINTER MAKING EARLIER, AND THE MOST RECENT APPLE PRODUCT LAUNCH EVENT, WWDC EVENT THIS SUMMER WAS LITERALLY PRE-RECORDED. THEY WILL ACTUALLY HAVE TO TAKE SOME QUESTIONS, IF THE

Y LIE, THEY CAN BE CAUGHT ON, AND SO YES, THE IMAGE THAT THE ROAD GOT OF MARK ZUCKERBERG IN 2018 REALLY MOVED ALONG ARE THINKING OF HIM, AND NOT IN A GOOD WAY, NOW HE IS COMPARED TO DATA FROM STAR TREK, AND THERE'S IMAGES OF HIM DRINKING WATER AND NOT BEING ABLE TO BLINK, HE CRYSTALLIZED THE SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE IMAGE OF WHAT ACO LOOKS LIKE AND NOT IN A GOOD WAY, CAN THEY TALK LIKE NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS, CAN THEY RESPOND, OR DO THEY GO BACK TO THESE NONSENSE TALKING POINTS. I DON'T HAVE A LOT

OF FAITH THAT THEY WILL ACT LIKE HUMAN BEINGS THOUGH. >> WE HAVEN'T TALKED A LOT ABOUT TIM COOK, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR FROM HIM AND WHAT HE HAS ON THE LINE HERE, IN TERMS OF THESE WITNESSES, MARK ZUCKERBERG, DESPITE BEING SO YOUNG, IS THE VETERAN OF TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS, BUT TIM COOK IS USED TO DOING PRESENTATIONS AND SPEAKING, AND REPRESENTING APPLE, WHAT WILL YOU BE WATCHING FROM HIM? >> TIM COOK, HIS FALLBACK POINT, WE SAW THAT IN SOME OF THE PREPARED TESTIMONY

FOR THIS MORNING, IS THAT PEOPLE LOVE US, HE DOES IN THE BETTER SOUTHERN ACCENT THAT I DELIVERED, PEOPLE LOVE APPLE PRODUCTS, 99% APPROVAL RATING, SO HOW COULD WE POSSIBLY BE DOING ANYTHING WRONG. AND I THINK THE THING THAT HE HAS TO RECONCILE IS THAT AMERICANS ARE WAKING UP TO THE FACT THAT THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THESE PRODUCTS, AND PROBLEMS WITH THE WAY THAT THESE COMPANIES BEHAVE THAT ARE STARTING TO IMPACT US, SO HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO NAVIGATE THIS, WHICH IS A NEW SPACE FOR HIM IN

PUBLIC. >> TONY CARR TALKING ABOUT THE GOOGLE, BENEFITING AMERICANS, THE PRODUCTS THAT THEY PROVIDE THAT WE LOVE AND USE EVERY DAY OF OUR LIVES. >> TO START WITH APPLE FOR SECOND, IT IS NOT TIM COOK'S FIRST TIME TESTIFYING, APPLE GOT INTO A BUNCH OF TROUBLE A FEW YEARS AGO AFTER A DIFFERENT CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE TAX PRACTICES, A BIPARTISAN GROUP OF MEMBERS THAT APPLE WAS DODGING U.S. TAXES, AND THEY PREPARED A REPORT WHICH SOUNDS A BIT SIMILAR TO WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW, THEY D

RAG HIM UP THERE ANY TESTIFIED AND IT WAS A CAKEWALK FOR TIM, THERE WERE MORE LAWMAKERS WHO WANTED TO GUSH ABOUT HOW GREAT THE iPHONE WAS, AND SEEING IF I WOULD BRING JOBS TO THE DISTRICT RATHER THAN THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THEM STASHING MONEY IN IRELAND, SO TODAY COULD BE VERY DIFFERENT FOR TIM DEPENDING ON HOW LAWMAKERS THINK ABOUT THE COMPANY. >>> FOR GOOGLE, TRANSITIONING, GOOGLE AND SUNDAR PICHAI HAVE AVOIDED CONGRESS, TESTIFYING ABOUT THE CONSERVATIVE BIAS ISSUE, AND LAWMAKERS WERE ACTU

ALLY VERY IMPRESSED WITH HIM, THEY THOUGHT HE WAS A REASONABLE, WONKY ENGINEER, HE WAS SO SOFT-SPOKEN THAT THE HEARING THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM COULD NOT HEAR HIM. REPORTERS THAT WERE BEHIND HIM COULDN'T HEAR A WORD THAT HE WAS SAYING, ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE LAWMAKERS COULD, SO THE ARGUMENT THAT GOOGLE WANTS TO MAKE TODAY, GOOGLE IS AN AMERICAN SUCCESS STORY, DELIVERING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF VALUES TO NEWS PUBLISHERS AND WEBSITES THAT ARE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE ADVERTISING TOOL, ENABL

ING JOBS WITH SMALL BUSINESSES THAT RELY ON AD TOOLS TO GET THE MESSAGE OUT THERE, THEY ARE SELLING SHOES OR CLOTHING OR WHATEVER MAY BE. AND THE SAME THING ABOUT THE NEWER GADGETS LIKE SMART PHONES OR SELF DRIVING CARS, THE THING THEY HAVE SAID TIME AND AGAIN, IS THAT THE BIGNESS ALLOWS THEM THE LUXURY OF DOING RESEARCH AND ENDEAVORS THAT SMALLER, -- COMPANIES COULD NOT FATHOM, WHETHER THAT RESONATES WITH LAWMAKERS IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE, A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK GOOGLE HAS HARMED MORE THAN IT

HURT, IT ENRICHED ITSELF AT THE COST OF RIVALS, THAT IT USES ITS SEARCH PAGE TO GIVE ITS OFFERINGS LIKE IN TRAVEL AND SHOPPING, A BOOST, WHILE PLAYING DOWN SOME OF THE COMPETITORS OFFERS. AND NOT EVERYBODY SHARES GOOGLE'S ROSY VIEW ABOUT ITS GAMBIT. SO IT WILL DEPEND ON HOW MUCH LAWMAKERS SPEND ON THEM VERSUS ANOTHER COMPANY, AS WE TALKED ABOUT, THE FIRST LAWSUIT, FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE STATES, A MUCH MORE URGENT SITUATION FOR GOOGLE THAN THE OTHER THREE COMPANIES. >>> IF YO

U'RE JUST TUNING IN, WE ARE WATCHING FOR THE HEARING TO GET UNDERWAY, ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN THE HOUSE, 4 TOP CEOS TESTIFYING BEFORE THEM, I'M WITH JAY GREENE, A TECHNOLOGY REPORTER WHO COVERS THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST, TONY, SENIOR TECH REPORTER AND JEFF FOWLER, TECHNOLOGY, SCOTT AND THANK YOU TO THOSE WHO JOINED US EARLIER. >>> JAY GREENE, THE CEOS THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, I HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF JEFF BEZOS, HIS FIRST TIME BEFORE CONGR

ESS, WHAT SORT OF PREPARATION DO YOU ANTICIPATE THAT JEFF BEZOS DID FOR TODAY? >> I THINK INTENSE, NO DOUBT HE WAS PREPARED, STUDYING ON THIS FOR A LONG TIME, YOU DON'T WANT TO SCREW THIS UP, BUT HE IS PRETTY GOOD AT THIS, HE HAS HIS GO IMPROMPTU MOMENT SAYS ANYBODY ELSE, IT WON'T SURPRISE ME IF YOU HEAR HIS OVERLY LOUD LAUGH, HE HUMANIZES HIMSELF, THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARING FOR THIS FOR A WHILE, THIS IS I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT IS CLEAR THAT HE KNOWS WHAT IS GOING TO BE COMING AT HIM. BY AND

LARGE. I'M SURE HE'S PRACTICED MANY ANSWERS, PROBABLY LIKE A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE, RULE IT FOR A WHILE TO MAKE SURE THE ANSWERS YOU GIVE SOUND RIGHT. I'M SURE HE'S QUITE PRACTICED AT THIS, AND WILL BE THE FIRST TIME TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS, BUT HE IS NO STRANGER TO DC, A FEW YEARS AGO, HE BOUGHT THE LARGEST PRIVATE HOME IN DC, HE HAS HOSTED PARTIES AT THIS HOME WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, HE AND THE PRESIDENT SEEM TO BE AT ODDS AT TIMES, BUT HE IS MET WITH THE PRESIDENT, AND THE PRESENCE FA

MILY, SO I DON'T THINK HE'S GOING TO BE CAUGHT OFFGUARD HERE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY UNLIKELY. >> OUR TECHNOLOGY REPORTER WHO WRITES THE TECHNOLOGY 202 POST, IT IS SLATED TO START AT 1:00 EASTERN TIME, 25 MINUTES AWAY. A REMINDER THAT THE 4 CEOS WILL READ -- APPEAR REMOTELY, AND YOU WILL SEE A MIX OF MEMBERS APPEARING IN PERSON AND SOME WILL ALSO LIKELY APPEAR REMOTELY. TONY, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST JOINING US, A REMINDER THAT IT IS CHAIRED BY

DAVID SWEENEY, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FOR THEM IN PARTICULAR AND WHO ALSO ARE YOU WATCHING TODAY. >> I'M WATCHING EVERYONE BUT DAVID CICILLINE IS THE BIG ONE, HE IS LET A LOT OF THE INVESTIGATION AND INVOLVED IN SOME OF THE QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES IN PUBLIC AND BEHIND THE SCENES. BRINGS SOME OF THE EVIDENCE TROVE, THEY HAVE AMASSED OVER THE COURSE OF THE PROBE, EARLIER IN THIS PROCESS WHEN THE INVESTIGATION BEGAN, THERE WAS SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS THAT THER

E WERE SERIOUS COMPETITION ISSUES THAT WERE WORTH EXPLORING, THAT PERHAPS PROTECTED BECOME TOO POWERFUL, AND THEY WERE CAREFUL IN THE ORIGINAL OPENING STATEMENTS, IT SEEMS ANOTHER GENERATION AGO I GUESS, THE POINT OF THE IT WAS BIPARTISAN, A FAR CRY FROM NOW, WITH JIM JORDAN IN PARTICULAR, PLANNING TO TAKE PART IN TODAY'S TESTIMONY AND QUESTIONING, AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT REPUBLICANS ARE EXPECTED TO POUND SO MUCH ON THIS QUESTION OF CONSERVATIVE BIAS, WHICH IS JUST A RED HERRING IN THE E

YES OF DEMOCRATS, THEY DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY TRUTH, THEY SEE IT AS A WAY TO TRY TO GAME THE ELECTION AHEAD OF NOVEMBER, SO IT WILL BE IMPORTANT TO WATCH THE DYNAMIC IN INTERESTING TO SEE LAWMAKERS REALLY QUESTION FOLKS LIKE JEFF BEZOS AT AMAZON AND MARK ZUCKERBERG AT FACEBOOK ABOUT SPECIFIC PRACTICES, AMAZON SPECIFIC RELATIONSHIPS WITH THIRD PARTY SELLERS. >> YOU MENTIONED JIM JORDAN, HE WILL BE HERE TODAY, HE'S THE RANKING MEMBER, THE TOP REPUBLICAN ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OVERAL

L, AND JERRY NADLER, THE CHAIRMAN WILL ALSO BE THERE, JOINING 13 MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, MORE DEMOCRATS THAN REPUBLICANS, BECAUSE OF COURSE DEMOCRATS CAN QUARREL -- CONTROL CONGRESS, THEY CAN ESSENTIALLY MOLD THE DIRECTION OF THE HEARING, GIVE THE NAME OF THE HEARING GET THIS CEOS FOCUSED ON THEIR ISSUES, BUT AS YOU POINT OUT, REPUBLICANS CAN STILL ASK WHATEVER ISSUES ARE ON THEIR MIND, THEY ARE NOT STICKING TO SOME SORT OF TOPIC IF THEY DON'T WANT TO. >> NOBODY IS BEHOLDEN TO ANY SCRI

PT WHATSOEVER, PLENTY OF HEARINGS, TECH OR OTHERWISE, ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE OF THE AISLE, YOU WILL SEE QUESTIONS ABOUT ISSUES OF PRIVACY AS JEFF WAS DISCUSSING, THE EXTENT TO WHICH PEOPLE REALLY DO HAVE CONTROL OVER DATA OR THE EXTENT TO WHICH FACEBOOK REALLY HAS LEARNED THE LESSON OF ITS MOST RECENT PAINFUL PRIVACY SCANDALS AND OTHER SORTS OF MISHAPS. GOING TO FACTOR VERY HEAVILY WITH THIS GIVEN THE FACT THAT THERE ARE DEMOCRATS VERY CONCERNED THAT SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES HAVE NOT LEARNED

THE LESSONS OF 2016 OR GOTTEN THE SYSTEM UP TO PART WITH THE THREAT FROM RUSSIA AND OTHER MALICIOUS ACTORS, AND CORONAVIRUS IS LIKE TO COME UP, TALKING WITH LAWMAKERS BEFORE TODAY, THERE WAS CERTAINLY CONCERN, THAT HE COMPANY LIKE FACEBOOK WAS DOING ENOUGH TO CLAMP DOWN ON SOME OF THE MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE CORONAVIRUS AND THE PANDEMIC, SO THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY BRING THAT UP IN FRONT OF SUNDAR PICHAI AND MARK ZUCKERBERG, AND GET THEM TO ATONE FOR IT. REPUBLICANS CAN TRY TO

MOVE IN THEIR DIRECTION, THEY WANTED TO INVITE JACK DORSEY TO APPEAR FROM TWITTER, BUT REPUBLICANS DON'T REALLY HAVE THAT POWER, THEY CAN JUST TELL HE WITNESSED TO SHOW UP, THEY HAVE TO WORK WITH THE DEMOCRATS, WHICH ARE IN CHARGE, GO THROUGH THIS LENGTHY PROCESS AND POTENTIALLY SUBPOENA, AND DEMOCRATS WERE NOT INTERESTED IN THAT IDEA, BECAUSE TWITTER IS NOT REALLY AN ANTITRUST CONCERN, AND JACK DORSEY SAID HE CERTAINLY WASN'T SHOWING UP TO A HEARING WHERE HE DIDN'T HAVE TO ATTEND IN THE FI

RST PLACE, SO IT OFFERS A SIGN ABOUT THE EXTENT TO WHICH REPUBLICANS REALLY WANT TO TURN THIS INTO A POLITICAL AFFAIR, PRESSING ON THOSE ISSUES OF BIAS. >> ALONG THOSE LINES, PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETED, HERE'S WHAT HE WROTE ON TWITTER, IF CONGRESS DOESN'T BRING FAIRNESS TO BIG TECH, I WILL DO IT MYSELF WITH EXECUTIVE ORDERS, IN WASHINGTON IT HAS BEEN ALL TALK AND NO ACTION FOR YEARS, AND THE PEOPLE OF OUR COUNTRY ARE SICK AND TIRED OF IT. TO ME ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS

WITH THESE COMPANIES? >> HE ACTUALLY DID ISSUE A VERY SURPRISING EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT ESSENTIALLY COULD HOLD FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE AND OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA SITES ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE DECISIONS THEY MAKE ABOUT THE CONTENT THEY LEAVE UPPER TAKEDOWN, THE EFFORT THERE WAS ABOUT POLITICAL BIAS, THERE WAS A CONCERN ON THE PART OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, BECAUSE OF ACTIONS THAT TWITTERS -- TWITTER AND OTHER COMPANIES HAD TAKEN AGAINST HIM THAT THEY WERE CENSORING HIS VIEWPOINT, WHICH WAS NOT TRUE, BUT IT C

OULD CREATE A PROCESS IN WHICH FEDERAL AGENCIES COULD PENALIZE COMPANIES IF THEY MADE CONTENT DECISIONS THAT WOULD BE CALLED BIAS, BUT PEOPLE ON THE LEFT AND RIGHT SOUGHT AS A SERIOUS THREAT TO FREE SPEECH AND THAT'S GOING TO BE LITIGATED, ALREADY A LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST THAT, EARLY MOVEMENT AT THE REGULATORY LEVEL JUST THIS WEEK, BUT THAT DEMONSTRATED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS CERTAINLY WILLING TO TAKE ACTION THE SPACE, IF HE PERCEIVES THEM TO BE BIASED, WHICH SHE DOES. THE RELATIONSHIP H

AS ALWAYS BEEN CHILLY, BACK WHEN HE WAS RUNNING FOR THE ELECTION, HE FOUND HIMSELF AT ODDS WITH MAJOR TECH EXECUTIVES AND THEIR EMPLOYEES ON SOCIAL ISSUES, AND IMMIGRATION, AND THAT DIDN'T REALLY CHANGE. THERE WERE EFFORTS TO GET CLOSER TO HIM, SOME COMPANIES HAVE BEEN BETTER THAN OTHERS, APPLE HAS BEEN BETTER AT DISPATCHING TIM COOK, BUT THE RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN I SEE AND ESPECIALLY SOCIAL MEDIA, JUST BECAUSE OF THIS CONCERN ABOUT BIAS. >> LET'S GO TO J GREENE, JEFF BEZOS IS EXPECTED TO S

AY IN HIS TESTIMONY, THAT PUBLIC OPINION AND -- IS IN FAVOR OF WHAT AMAZON CAN BRING TO THE MARKETPLACE, ESSENTIALLY AMAZON HELPS CONSUMERS. HOW MUCH DOES THIS PUBLIC OPINION THING MATTER, BOTH WITH WHAT CONGRESS HAS TO CONSIDER AND WHAT THE VIEWER HAS TO CONSIDER? >> I THINK IT IS A INTERESTING QUESTION, JEFF TALKED ABOUT THIS EARLIER AS WELL, FOLKS LOVE GETTING PACKAGES FROM AMAZON, AND AMAZON HAS HISTORICALLY DONE PRETTY WELL AT GIVING THEM WHAT THEY WANT, SELECTION THAT DECENT PRICES,

DURING THE PANDEMIC HAS BEEN A CHALLENGE, BUT THE INTERESTING THING, COVERING MICROSOFT DURING ITS ANTITRUST WOES 20 YEARS AGO, MICROSOFT MADE THE SAME ARGUMENT, AND THE POINT THAT IS REALLY INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT TO THINK ABOUT, IT'S NOT THAT THERE IS THIS BROAD PUBLIC SUPPORT THAT WILL MATTER, WHAT REALLY MATTERS IS HOW AMAZON IS PERCEIVED BY SMALL GROUP OF IMPORTANT INFLUENCERS, CONGRESS, THE MEDIA THAT COVERS THE MATTERS, I THINK THAT WILL BE FAR MORE IMPORTANT HERE, ONE OF THE CH

ALLENGES THAT YOU WILL SEE FOR JEFF BEZOS TODAY IS THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WILL PRESS HIM ON THE WAY AMAZON TREATS THE THIRD PARTY SELLERS THAT OPERATE VIA THE MARKETPLACE, AMAZON SELLS A LOT OF ITS OWN ITEMS, A LOT OF ITEMS ON THE MARKETPLACE, BUT THIRD PARTY SELLERS, INDEPENDENT MERCHANT, CAN 60%, SO IT IS INTERESTING, IF AMAZON MAKES IT HARDER FOR THOSE FOLKS TO INTERVENE, WITH NEW PRODUCTS, THAT'S AN ISSUE. THE POPULARITY OF AMAZON ENDS UP BEING LESS IMPORTANT IN THE CASE, IF YOU

HAVE A NUMBER OF THESE THIRD-PARTY MERCHANTS SAYING THIS IS TOTALLY UNFAIR AND IF YOU HAVE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS LISTENING, BECAUSE THE THIRD-PARTY MERCHANTS ARE ALSO CONSTITUENTS, AND IF THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO COMPETE ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, THAT WILL HURT BUSINESSES IN THE DISTRICTS. THE POPULARITY IS SOMETHING WHERE THEY WILL SAY HEY, THEY'RE USING OUR PRODUCTS, BUT I THINK IS DIFFERENT AS TO WHETHER THAT'S GOING TO DRIVE THE CONVERSATION. >> THERE ARE COMPANIES THAT PEOPLE ASSOCIATE WITH

THESE BIG FOR THAT ARE NOT HERE, TWITTER, WE TALKED ABOUT WHY THEY ARE NOT HERE, AND TIKTOK ENTERING THE MARKETPLACE, WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO HAVE THESE 4 REPRESENTING THE CONVERSATION, AND THE ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE IS HEARING FROM A LOT OF VOICES, ONE OF A SERIES OF HEARINGS THEY ARE HOLDING, SLIGHTLY SMALLER COMPANIES ARE MUCH SMALLER ONES WHO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT HOW BIG THESE 4 ARE, BUT WHAT ABOUT WHO IS NOT IN THE ROOM TODAY? >> CERTAINLY THE NAME TIKTOK IS GOING TO COME UP A LOT, ONE OF

THE MAIN TARGETS THAT FACEBOOK AND OTHERS ARE SAYING HEY U.S. GOVERNMENT, IF YOU REGULATE US, CHINA IS GOING TO TAKE OVER, SO TIKTOK IS THE BIG BOOGIE MAN IN THE ROOM, EVEN THOUGH SO FAR IT WAS THAT, BOOGIE MAN, THERE WAS A BIG THING ABOUT WHETHER PEOPLE SHOULD DELETE A TIKTOK APP, IT'S OWNED BY A COMPANY IN CHINA, I LOOKED INTO IT, I GOT TO TALK ON THE RECORD ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE DOING WITH THE DATA AND WHO HAD ACCESS, AND THERE ISN'T MUCH EVIDENCE YET TO SAY THAT THE CHINESE GOVERNMEN

T IS LISTENING TO OUR CONVERSATIONS ON TIKTOK OR USING THE INFORMATION TO MANIPULATE US, BUT IT IS CERTAINLY A BOOGIE MAN THAT WERE GOING TO SEE. SO THAT IS ONE PRESENCE ON THE SIDELINES. I THINK IT SAYS A LOT ABOUT HOW SMALL OUR UNIVERSE OF ENGAGEMENT HAS BECOME WITH THE TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY. IF WE THINK ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO, ALL THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF COMPANIES WHOSE PRODUCTS YOU MIGHT HAVE USED OR EXPLORED, AS SOMEONE WHO WRITES ABOUT CONSUMER TECH, I USED TO WRITE ABOUT A LOT OF DIFFERENT

KINDS OF INVENTIONS AND STARTUPS AND AND NEW WEIRD IDEAS OUT THERE, BUT THE WORLD HAS REALLY BECOME A LOT SMALLER IN A SENSE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, AS THESE COUPLE OF COMPANIES HAVE BECOME REALLY DOMINANT. THERE IS A SENSE AMONG SOME IN SILICON VALLEY THAT WHY EVEN BOTHER TRYING TO COMPETE WITH THESE BIG GUYS WHEN YOU KNOW THAT POSSIBLY THEY COULD SEE YOUR PRODUCT AND JUST COPY IT AND PULL OUT THE RUG FROM UNDERNEATH YOU OR YOU WOULD JUST NEVER EVEN MAKE IT INTO THE CONSUMER LIGHT.

I WAS TALKING TO ONE VENTURE CAPITALIST YESTERDAY, AND SHE TOLD ME, LOOK, YOU COULD POSSIBLY GET THAT FOR A SUCH AND -- A SEARCH ENGINE, BUT THE BARS WAY APPEAR BEFORE THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU MONEY. THESE ARE THE RIGHT COMPANIES TO PUT ON THE LINE, BECAUSE THEY REPRESENT A LARGE PORTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY THAT WE LIVE WITH. >> $5 TRILLION, THAT'S HARD TO COMPREHEND, THAT THESE 4 COMPANIES MAKEUP, NEARLY $5 TRILLION. >> YES, ONE OF THE THINGS, IF LAWMAKERS WANT TO HELP EXPLAIN THIS TO ORDINA

RY AMERICANS, AND MAKE THEM UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THEY HAVE TO MAKE THOSE NUMBERS FEEL LIKE SOMETHING. BECAUSE IN THE SPAN OF A SHORT DECADE, THESE COMPANIES HAVE GONE FROM STRONG, BIG AMERICAN BUSINESSES TO COMPANIES THE SIZE OF WHICH IT IS RARE THAT THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN, AND THE KIND OF POWER THEY HAVE, JUST OVER BUSINESS BUT OVER INFORMATION WE RECEIVE IN OUR LIVES AND HOW WE LIVE OUR LIVES AND OUR ATTENTION, AND ALL OF THESE ISSUES, SO WE REALLY HAVE TO CAPTURE THOS

E ASPECTS OF THEIR POWER. >> IF YOU'RE JUST TUNING IN, WE ARE WAITING FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING, ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE AS PART OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND SEEING 4 CEOS TESTIFYING, IT IS A HISTORIC DAY TO HAVE ALL 4 CEOS BEFORE THE PANEL, IT HAS BEEN DELAYED UNTIL WE EXPECT 1 PM EASTERN TIME, 10 MINUTES OR SO, WE ANTICIPATE IT WILL GET UNDERWAY, THERE WAS A HEARING IN THE ROOM BEFORE, AND OUR COLLEAGUE CAT ZAKRZEWSKI SAID THEY HAD TO GET THAT DONE, IT RAN OVER, AND THIS SHOULD STAR

T SLOWLY. >>> JEFF, EVEN THOUGH WE SEE SOME MEMBERS OF THE ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE MOVING AROUND THE ROOM, MANY IN MASS, SOME OF THEM MAY CHOOSE TO THEIR QUESTIONING REMOTELY, BUT ALL 4 OF OUR GUESS, ALL 4 CEOS WILL ATTEND THE HEARING REMOTELY, I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU WHAT YOU MAKE OF THE FACT THAT THEY'RE USING WEBEX, OF ALL THE VARIOUS TECHNOLOGIES THAT THE CEOS HAVE CONTROL OVER, AND DEVELOPED, THAT WE ALL YOU SO WIDELY, THEY ARE USING WEBEX? >> EACH OF THESE CEOS MAKES A COMPETING PRODUC

T TO WEBEX, AND WEBEX, MADE ME SMILE WHEN HE SAID IT, BUT I RECENTLY DID A REVIEW OF ALL THE COMPETING VIDEOCONFERENCING SERVICES, WE GAVE THE IN MEMORIAM A WORD TO WEBEX AS THE ONE THAT HAD SORT OF PASSED OUT OF OUR LIVES BECAUSE IT WAS CONSIDERED SO TIRED AND OLD NOW, BUT IN A WAY THAT FEELS APPROPRIATE FOR CONGRESS, THAT THEY WOULD USE THE OLD-SCHOOL OPTION. CERTAINLY ALL OF THESE CEOS SHOULD KNOW HOW TO RESIST TECHNOLOGY, ANYBODY WHO SAYS OH SORRY, I FORGOT TO UNMUTE, NO PASSES GIVEN T

ODAY, I WILL BE INTERESTED TO SEE IF THEY GO FOR THE BOLD VIRTUAL BACKGROUND CHOICE, MY MONEY WOULD BE ON TIM COOK, THE SOLID WHITE OF APPLE, I EXPECT TIM COOK WILL LOOK THE BEST, NOT JUST BECAUSE OF APPLE'S PRODUCTS, BUT THE WEBCAM, ON APPLE LAPTOPS, THERE ARE AMONG THE WORST, BUT I THINK THEY WILL HAVE A PROFESSIONAL CAMERA SET UP, BUT HE IS EXPERIENCE WITH USING THE STUFF. I AM INTERESTING TO SEE INTERESTED TO SEE JEFF BEZOS , HOW HE LOOKS, A LOT OF THESE GUYS HAVE LIGHTING PROBLEMS BOU

NCING OFF THE HEAD IN CERTAIN WAYS, THERE COULD BE TECHNICAL CHALLENGES. >> ALL THE COSMETICS ARE IMPORTANT, BECAUSE THE HEARING WILL BE WITNESSED WIDELY, CLIPS WILL BE TAKEN FROM IT AND BROADCAST ALL OVER THE WORLD, IT'S NOT A MATTER OF SOMEBODY OPENING A LAPTOP AND ROLLING OUT OF BED AND JUMPING ON WEBEX, IT IS ALSO HOW THESE 4 MEN APPEAR IN THIS MOMENT, THEIR BACKGROUND AND THEIR LIGHTNING -- LIGHTING, IT IS ALL SIGNIFICANT. >> MARK ZUCKERBERG, THINK OF THE GIFTS HE GAVE TO THE WORLD, RE

ACHING FOR THE WATER, DRINKING THE WATER, HIS UNBLINKING STARE INTO THE CAMERA, THE SWEAT, THE RUFFLED TIDE, ALL OF THIS SIGNALS NOT ONLY -- SOME OF THEM FIT STEREOTYPES ABOUT NERDS OR WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE, AND SOME OF IT WILL MAYBE MOVE THEM INTO NEW PLACES, THESE COMPANIES HAVE REALLY GIANT BRANDS, THEY ARE WORTH A LOT OF MONEY, THEY PUT A LOT INTO THEM, AND THERE IS A LOT OF MONEY IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY PUT IN ADVERTISING AS WELL. >> TONY, I LOVE WHAT YOU CONTRIBUTED IN POINTING OUT, IT

'S NOT JUST ABOUT TODAY, IT'S ABOUT WHAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE CHOOSES TO DO IN THE COMING WEEKS AND MONTHS AND WHAT CONGRESS CHOOSES TO DO IN ACTING AND LEGISLATION THEY ARE ABLE TO CRAFT. BUT THIS IS A MOMENT WHERE THE CEOS HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTROL OVER THE OPTICS BECAUSE THEY ARE COMING REMOTELY, THEY WILL BE SITTING IN FRONT OF CONGRESS, WITH MEMORABLE MOMENTS SITTING THERE IN FRONT OF A PANEL OF AMERICA'S ELECTED OFFICIALS. HOW ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT THE OPTICS OF THIS? >> THE MOMEN

T WERE THERE HOLDING OF THE RIGHT-HAND TAKING THE OATH, DOZENS AND DOZENS OF CAMERAMEN FLASHING THEIR SHOTS, RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM, MARK ZUCKERBERG, SITTING IN HIS CHAIR, HEARING ABOUT A YEAR AGO, IT WAS USED UNLIKE 1000 STORIES YOU COULDN'T READ A STORY ABOUT FACEBOOK HAVING DENSITY WRONG, WITHOUT MARK ZUCKERBERG, SITTING AT A TABLE ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM CONGRESS, AND IT DOES MEAN SOMETHING TO THE EXECUTIVES, FOR THE POINTS THAT JEFF POINTED OUT, THEY ARE SO IMAGE-CONSCIOUS, IN SOME

CASES, THEY TRY TO AVOID THAT, YOU DON'T SEE JEFF BEZOS WORKING THE HALLS OF CONGRESS THE WAY OTHER BUSINESS LEADERS MIGHT, IS NOT A GOOD LOOK FOR THEM GENERALLY SPEAKING, THEY TRY TO AVOIDED. OBVIOUSLY THE GREAT UNKNOWN IS THE LIVE HEARINGS OFF AND WE HAVE JUST BEGUN TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THE STUFF IN A MEANINGFUL WAY AND ASK QUESTIONS AND FOLLOW-UPS WITHOUT IT BECOMING AWKWARD, BUT A WAY OF TRYING TO INJECT SOME LIGHT INTO THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC, BUT A MOMENT IN WHICH MARK OR JEFF,

OR SOMEONE ELSE FEELING AWKWARD, AND MORE LAWMAKERS ARE ABLE TO LEARN SOMETHING NEW AND TAKE THAT INFORMATION AND DO SOMETHING ACTIONABLE WITH IT. OR EVEN MORE THAN THAT, IF FEDERAL OFFICIALS AND STATE OFFICIALS DURING THE INVESTIGATION SEE OR FEEL SOMETHING IN THE HEARINGS THAT CHANGES THEIR WAY OF THINKING AND AFFECTS THEIR LINE OF INQUIRY, YOU NEVER KNOW, YOU'RE LIKELY TO KNOW BECAUSE OF THE SECRECY BUT THIS KIND OF STUFF FACTORS INTO SO MUCH, THAT YOU DO AND DON'T SEE, THAT'S WHY THE

EXECUTIVES ARE SO ONGUARD. >> J GREENE, I LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS, THE APPLICATIONS HIS HEARING HAS OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON DC, WHAT IT MIGHT MEAN FOR INVESTIGATIONS, A LOT OF PEOPLE LISTENING AS AMERICAN CONSUMERS, BUT ALSO THE YEARS OF INVESTIGATORS AND COMPETITORS, HOW MUCH OF AN IMPACT DOES THIS HAVE OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON DC? >> SO THE HEARING A YEAR AGO IN WHICH THE CEOS, IS PROBABLY UNFAIR, BUT A LOWER RANKING EXECUTIVE SHOWED UP, ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS, THAT YOU WILL HERE TODAY,

A LAWYER FROM AMAZON WAS ASKED WHETHER OR NOT AMAZON COLLECTS DATA ABOUT HOW THIRD PARTIES SELL THEIR PRODUCTS AND USES THE DATA TO INFORM ITS DECISIONS WHETHER OR NOT TO START SELLING ITS OWN PRODUCTS, AND TONY REFERENCED THIS EARLIER, BUT CICILLINE WILL CLEARLY GO AFTER THAT, AND SUTTON SAID NO THEY DON'T DO THAT, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL HAD A REPORT EARLIER THIS YEAR THAT AMAZON ACTUALLY DOES USE DATA FROM THE SALES OF THESE PRODUCTS TO THINK ABOUT WHAT PRODUCTS IT SHOULD LAUNCH ON IT

S OWN, AS PRIVATE-LABEL GOODS, YOU WILL CERTAINLY HEAR THAT, INVESTIGATORS LOOKING INTO WHAT THE ANSWERS ARE FROM THE EXECUTIVES ON THESE KIND OF ISSUES, WHERE THEY CAN USE THE ANSWERS, EFFECTIVELY AGAINST THEM LATER, IF THERE INVESTIGATIONS PERVERSE SHOW THAT THE CEOS ARE SAYING SOMETHING THAT ISN'T ENTIRELY TRUE. >> YOU CAN SEE THERE, JOURNALISTS SETTING UP, ADHERING TO SOCIAL DISTANCE GUIDELINES, WE DID SEE THE CHAIRMAN, DAVID CICILLINE, THE DEMOCRAT FROM RHODE ISLAND, LEADING THE ANTI

TRUST SUBCOMMITTEE, AND REMINDER THAT THE TOP MEMBERS WHO SIT ON THE COMMITTEE OVERALL, GIVING OPENING STATEMENTS AND ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS, JERRY NADLER AND JIM JORDAN, THEY WILL JOIN THE 13 MEMBERS OF THE ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE IN QUESTIONING THE WITNESSES. THEY WILL GET FIVE MINUTES TO ASK QUESTIONS, THEY COULD GO INTO SUBSEQUENT ROUNDS, SO THIS COULD BE A LONG DAY. THE HEARING WAS DELAYED, SCHEDULED AT NOON BUT EXPECTING A 1:00 START TIME, QUITE SHORTLY, THERE WAS ANOTHER HEARING

TAKING PLACE BEFORE HAND, IT RAN LONG SO THEY HAD TO DO A BIT OF A RESET. WE WILL HAVE IT LIVE IN AND INTERRUPTED HERE IN THE WASHINGTON POST, KITCHEN ON OUR YOUTUBE STREAM OR HOMEPAGE, AND A WASHINGTON POST LIVE BLOG CHRONICLING WHAT'S HAPPENING IN REAL-TIME, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO CHECK THAT OUT AS WELL . >>> JEFFCO THE OPTICS OF THIS IS IMPORTANT, I SEE JIM SENSENBRENNER WEARING A MASK, AND OTHERS, IT'S WORTH TAKING A MOMENT REFLECTING ON HOW HISTORIC IT IS, INCLUDING THE COMMITTEE DOING

ITS WORK IN THE TIME OF CORONAVIRUS. >> YES, AS CITIZENS AND CUSTOMERS OF THESE COMPANIES, RARELY DO WE GET TO SEE THE CEOS, WHO HAVE BEEN SET UP AS KIND OF ICONS OF THE BRANDS, PARTICULARLY IN THE CASE OF AMAZON, BUT ALSO INCREASINGLY WITH APPLE, RARELY DO WE GET TO SEE THEM IN MOMENTS THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT UNSCRIPTED, SEE THEM ON THEIR FEET, OR SEE THEM TAKE ANYTHING OTHER THAN PHONING QUESTIONS FROM THE PRESS THAT THEY WILL ALLOW ACCESS TO THEM, SO IT WILL DEFINITELY SHAPE THE IMAGE

THAT WE HAVE, NOT ONLY OF THESE LEADERS BUT ALSO COMPANIES AND PRODUCTS. >> WE'LL HEAR FROM DAVID CICILLINE AND ALSO JOE NAGUSE, VAL DEMINGS, MATT GAETZ, CONTROVERSIAL REPUBLICAN FROM FLORIDA. ARE YOU EXPECTING COORDINATION ON MESSAGING FROM THE DEMOCRAT SIDE AND COORDINATION OF THE REPUBLICAN SIDE AS WELL? >> IT LOOKS LIKE, AND A SECOND, FOR LUCKY, THE DEMOCRATS DID GET TOGETHER OUT OF THE HEARING, A PRESENTATION THAT STAFF FOR THE TOP DEMOCRATS HAD TO TALK ABOUT HOW TO MESSAGE, AND THE F

ACT THAT IT IS HAPPENING IN A REMOTE FASHION, ONE THING IS THAT THEY PLAN TO PRESS EXECUTIVES ON COMMUNICATIONS THEY GAIN, ON PERHAPS THAT LARGE COMPANIES WERE SEEKING TO ACQUIRE SMALLER COMPETITORS WITH AN INTENT TO KILL THEM. AND THEY CAME OUT OUT OF ONE OF THE BRIEFINGS DEMOCRATS WERE HAVING TO COURSE -- COORDINATE WHAT THEY FOUND SO FAR. ONE LAST THING, THERE HAVE BEEN MANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONGRESS TO OF HAD THIS OVERSIGHT BEFORE NOW, AND THE KNOCK ON LAWMAKERS FOR A LOT OF EXPERT

S IS THAT THEY HAD MISSED THE OPPORTUNITY, THAT IT SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN SO LONG TO HAVE GOTTEN ALL THESE EXECUTIVES THERE OR TO GET JEFF BEZOS THERE IN PARTICULAR, SINCE HE HAS NEVER TESTIFIED, IT SHOULD'VE BECOME A MUCH MORE REGULAR OCCURRENCE MUCH AS IT IS IN BANKING AND FINANCIAL SECTORS, WHERE IT'S NOT RARE FOR THEM TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, IT HAS BEEN FOR THE TECH INDUSTRY, RELATIVELY SPEAKING IT'S NEWER, COMPANIES GOT BIGGER MUCH MORE QUICKLY, SO LAWMAKERS WERE OUTPACED BY THE COMPANIE

S THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO KEEP WATCH OVER, AND THE HOPE ON THE MINDS OF DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS IS THAT THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF A SERIES OF THINGS THAT CONGRESS MIGHT DO WITH THE TECH INDUSTRY AND NOT SOME SORT OF ONE-OFF HEARING. >> IS SAYING SOMEONE IS HELPING THE CHAIRMAN GET AN iPHONE CABLE PLUGGED IN, IT GOES TO SHOW YOU HOW THE TECHNOLOGY IS USED BY EVERYONE INCLUDING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. I WOULD LIKE TO THINK TONY, AND J GREENE, AND JEFF, AND EARLIER, ELIZABETH, AND CAT ZAKRZEWSKI,

COVERING THIS HEARING AND COVERING THE STORIES FOR MANY YEARS NOW, CONTINUE WATCHING COVERS TODAY, WE WILL HAVE A LIVE BLOG UP IN ACTIVE, UNINTERRUPTED THROUGHOUT, SO STAY TUNED, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO SUBSCRIBE, SO WE CAN UPDATE YOU AS THE STORY EVOLVES. EXPECTED TO PUT OUT A REPORT, PERHAPS IN THE FALL, AND CORONAVIRUS MAY INTERFERE WITH THAT AND WE'LL SEE IF CONGRESS WILL BE ABLE TO ACT ON LEGISLATION OR MOVE FORWARD. THE BIG QUESTION ON MANY MEMBERS MINDS, ARE THE COMPANY'S TOO BIG AND

POWERFUL, STIFLING, WORTH $5 TRILLION, AND AS WE WAIT FOR CHAIRMAN CICILLINE TO GAVILAN, ONE QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU JEFF, THESE COMPANIES ARE DOING GREAT THINGS FOR THE STOCK MARKET, AND WE KNOW IT IS A GREAT CONCERN TO PEOPLE, INCLUDING PRESIDENT TRUMP, AS THEY CONTINUE TO BATTLE THE CORONAVIRUS. >> THAT IS TRUE, BUT THEIR FORTUNES ARE A LITTLE BIT TIED TO HOW WELL THEY ARE ABLE TO SELL PRODUCTS. THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A BIG YEAR FOR THE PHONE INDUSTRY, WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE CONVINCE

D TO UPGRADE TO A 5G PHONE, SAMSUNG HAS A COUPLE OUT, APPLES EXPECTED TO COME OUT WITH ONE LATER THIS YEAR, BUT THIS CORONAVIRUS, KEEPING PEOPLE SO MANY OF THEM AT HOME, YORTY HAVE WI-FI, AND WITH THE ECONOMY SO DIFFICULT, WHO HAS THE MONEY TO BUY A $1000 UPGRADE TO THEIR EXISTING PHONE? AT SOME POINT, THE CORONAVIRUS IN THE CURRENT PANDEMIC MIGHT RESTART HITTING THE COMPANY'S BOTTOM LINE, AND THE VIEW MIGHT START TO CHANGE. >> WE EXPECTED TO GET UNDERWAY AT ANY MOMENT. CHAIRMAN CICILLINE

PREPARING TO GAVILAN, LET'S GO LIVE TO THE HEARING ROOM, THE U.S. CAPITOL COMPLEX, YOU WILL I REMIND YOU SEE THE CEOS TESTIFY REMOTELY OVER WEBEX, BUT SOME OF THE MEMBERS INCLUDING THE CHAIRMAN OF THEIR PERSON AND OTHERS MAY ASK THEIR QUESTIONS REMOTELY, PEOPLE ARE ENCOURAGED TO WEAR MASKS AND SOCIAL DISTANCE AND ADHERE TO BEST PRACTICES. AND SOME JOURNALISTS IN THE ROOM, THEY ARE BEING ASKED TO SOCIALLY DISTANCE AND WHAT A DIFFERENT OPTICAL MOMENT AND DIFFERENT SCENE THAN WE USUALLY SE

E IN THESE INCREDIBLY CROWDED HEARING ROOMS, AND YOU CAN SEE THERE, MEMBERS WHO ARE THERE REMOTELY. IT WAS INITIALLY SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY BUT DELAYED UNTIL TODAY BECAUSE OF THE CEREMONY SURROUNDING THE DEATH OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN LEWIS. AND TO HONOR JOHN LEWIS, PUSHED SUE TODAY, AND WE NOW BRING THE HEARING JULY. >> THE SUBCOMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER, THE CHAIRS AUTHORIZED TO DECLARE RESIST ANY TIME, ON PLATFORMS AND MARKET POWER, THE DOMINANCE OF APPLE, FACEBOOK, GOOGLE, AND AMAZON. WE HAVE

ESTABLISHED AN EMAIL LIST AND DISTRIBUTION LIST, DEDICATED FOR THIS, OR WRITTEN MATERIALS AS THEY MIGHT WANT TO OFFER AS PART OF THE HEARING TODAY, IF YOU LIKE TO SUBMIT MATERIALS, SEND THEM TO THE EMAIL ADDRESS PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED TO OFFICES AND WE WILL CIRCULATE MATERIALS TO MEMBERS AND STAFF AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE GUIDANCE, FACE COVERINGS ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL MEETINGS AND IN AN ENCLOSED SPACE, SUCH AS COMMITTEE HEARINGS, I EXPECT ALL MEMBERS ON ALL SIDES

OF THE AISLE ARE REQUIRED TO WEAR A MASK EXCEPT WHEN SPEAKING, I RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT. >>> MORE THAN A YEAR AGO, THE SUBCOMMITTEE LAUNCHED AN INVESTIGATION INTO DIGITAL MARKETS, DOCUMENTING PROBLEMS IN THE DIGITAL ECONOMY AND TO EVALUATE WHETHER THE CURRENT ANTITRUST FRAMEWORK IS ABLE TO PROPERLY ADDRESS THEM. IN 2019, CHAIRMAN AND RANKING MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE ISSUED SWEEPING BIPARTISAN REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION TO THE FOR CEOS, WE RECEIVED MILLION

S OF PAGES OF EVIDENCE FROM THE FIRMS AND DOCUMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS FROM MORE THAN 100 MARKET PARTICIPANTS, HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF INTERVIEWS, AS PART OF THE INVESTIGATION WE HAVE HELD FIVE HEARINGS TO EXAMINE THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE MARKETING POWER ON INFORMATION GOT DATA PRIVACY, AND THE ONLINE MARKETPLACE. WE'VE HELD 17 BRIEFINGS AND ROUNDTABLES WITH OVER 35 EXPERTS AND STAKEHOLDERS IN SUPPORT OF OUR WORK THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN BIPARTISAN FROM THE START, IT HAS BEEN AN HONOR TO WORK AL

ONGSIDE WITH MY COLLEAGUE, JIM SENSENBRENNER, AND DOUG COLLINS. WE WORK CLOSELY WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE, WHO HAVE TAKEN THIS WORK SERIOUSLY AND STUDIED THESE ISSUES CAREFULLY. AS MY COLLEAGUE, CONGRESSMAN KEN BUCK SAID, IT IS THE MOST BIPARTISAN EFFORT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH IN 5 1/2 YEARS IN CONGRESS.". >>> THE PURPOSE IS TO EXAMINE THE DOMINANCE OF AMAZON, APPLE, FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE. AMAZON RUNS THE LARGEST ONLINE MARKETPLACE IN AMERICA, 70% OF

ALL SALES. IT OPERATES ACROSS A VAST ARRAY OF BUSINESSES, CLOUD COMPUTING AND MOVIE PRODUCTION TO TRANSPORTATION LOGISTICS AND SMALL BUSINESS LENDING. AMAZONS MARKET VALUATION RECENTLY HIT NUMBER $1.5 TRILLION, MORE THAN WALMART, TARGET, SALESFORCE, IBM, eBAY AND AT SEA COMBINED. >>> APPLE IS A DOMINANT PROVIDER OF PHONES, WITH MORE THAN HALF THE BILLING IN THE U.S. ALONE. MEDIAN GAMES. >>> FACEBOOK IS THE WORLD'S LARGEST PROVIDER OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SERVICES, A BUSINESS MODEL THAT SELLS

DIGITAL ADS. DESPITE A LITANY OF PRIVACY SCANDALS AND RECORD-BREAKING FINES, FACEBOOK CONTINUES TO ENJOY BOOMING PROFITS, $18 BILLION LAST YEAR ALONE. >>> GOOGLE IS THE WORLD'S LARGEST ONLINE SEARCH ENGINE, CAPTURING MORE THAN 90% OF SEARCHES ONLINE, CONTROLLING KEY TECHNOLOGIES AND DIGITAL AD MARKETS AND ENJOYS MORE THAN 1 BILLION USERS ACROSS SIX PRODUCTS, SMART PHONES, AND DIGITALLY. >>> PRIOR TO THE PANDEMIC, THEY ALREADY STOOD OUT AS TITANS AND THE ECONOMY, IN THE WAKE OF COVID-19 TH

EY ARE LIKELY TO EMERGE STRONGER AND MORE POWERFUL THAN EVER BEFORE. SHIFTING WORK AND SHOPPING AND MEDICATION ONLINE, AS THEY DO THE GIANT STAND TO PROFIT. MOM-AND-POP STORES ON MAIN STREET FACING ECONOMIC CRISIS UNLIKE ANY IN RECENT HISTORY. AS HARD AS IT IS TO BELIEVE, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE ECONOMY WILL EMERGE FROM THIS CRISIS EVEN MORE CONCENTRATED AND CONSOLIDATED THEM BEFORE. THESE COMPANIES SERVE AS CRITICAL ARTERIES OF COMMERCE AND COMMUNICATION, BECAUSE THEY ARE SO CENTRAL TO O

UR MODERN LIFE, THEIR BUSINESS PRACTICES AND DECISIONS HAVE AN OUTSIZED EFFECT ON OUR ECONOMY AND DEMOCRACY. ANY SINGLE ACTION BY ONE OF THESE COMPANIES CAN AFFECT HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF US IN PROFOUND AND LASTING WAYS. ALTHOUGH THESE FOUR CORPORATIONS DIFFER IN IMPORTANT AND MEANINGFUL WAYS, WE HAVE OBSERVED COMMON PROBLEMS AND COMPETITION PROBLEMS IN THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION. FIRST, EACH PLATFORM IS A BOTTLENECK FOR A KEY CHANNEL DISTRIBUTION. WHETHER THEY CONTROL ACCESS TO INFOR

MATION MARKETPLACE, THESE PLATFORMS HAVE THE INCENTIVE AND ABILITY TO EXPLOIT THIS POWER, THEY CAN CHARGES URBAN FEES, IMPOSE OPPRESSIVE CONTRACTS AND EXTRACT VALUABLE DATA FROM THE PEOPLE AND BUSINESSES THAT RELY ON THEM. >>> SECOND, EACH PLATFORM USES THE CONTROL OVER DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO SURVEILLING OTHER COMPANIES, THEIR GROWTH, BUSINESS ACTIVITY, AND WHETHER THEY MIGHT POSE A COMPETITIVE THREAT. EACH PLATFORM HAS USED DATA TO PROTECT POWER, BY BUYING, COPYING OR CUTTING OFF AXIS

FOR ANY ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL RIVAL. >>> THIRD, THE ABUSER CONTROL OVER CURRENT TECHNOLOGIES TO EXTEND THEIR POWER, WHETHER IT IS THROUGH SELF REFERENCING, PREDATORY PRICING OR REQUIRING USERS TO BUY ADDITIONAL PRODUCTS, THE DOMINANT PLATFORMS HAVE WIELDED THEIR POWER IN DESTRUCTIVE WAYS IN ORDER TO EXPAND. AT TODAY'S HEARING, USING THE PLAYBOOK, AFFECTING THE DAILY LIVES, WHY DOES IT MATTER. HARMFUL ECONOMIC EFFECTS. DESTROY JOBS, HIGH COSTS AND DEGRADE QUALITY. SIMPLY PUT. SIMPLY PUT TH

EY HAVE TOO MUCH POWER STIFLING CREATIVITY IN INNOVATION, NEW INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS, BUT THE DOMINANCE IS KILLING SMALL BUSINESSES, MANUFACTURING AND OVERALL DYNAMISM THAT ARE THE ENGINES OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY, SEVERAL FIRMS HARVEST AND ABUSE PEOPLE'S DATA, TO SELL ADS FOR EVERYTHING FROM NEW BOOKS TO DANGEROUS SO-CALLED MIRACLE CURES. WHEN AMERICANS LEARN HOW MUCH OF THEIR DATA ARE BEING MINED, THEY CAN'T RUN AWAY FAST ENOUGH. NO ESCAPE FROM THE SURVEILLANCE, BECAUSE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. PEOP

LE ARE STUCK WITH BAD OPTIONS, OPEN MARKETS ARE PREDICATED ON THE IDEA THAT THE COMPANY HARMS PEOPLE, CONSUMERS, WORKERS AND BUSINESS PARTNERS WHICH IS ANOTHER OPTION. WE ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THAT CHOICE IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE. AND ENCLOSING, I'M CONFIDENT THAT ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS WE WILL SEE THE MARKETS WILL LEAD TO A STRONGER AND MORE VIBRANT ECONOMY, CONCENTRATED ECONOMIC POWER LEADS TO CONCENTRATED POLITICAL POWER, THIS INVESTIGATION GOES TO THE HEART OF WHETHER WE AS A PEOPLE, G

OVERN OURSELVES, OR WHETHER WE ALLOW OURSELVES TO BE GOVERNED BY PRIVATE MONOPOLIES, AMERICAN DEMOCRACY HAS ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH MONOPOLY POWER. CONCENTRATED MARKETS AND POLITICAL CONTROL, ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH DEMOCRATIC IDEALS, WHEN AMERICANS HAVE CONFRONTED MONOPOLISTS, RAILROADS, OIL TYCOONS, AT&T AND MICROSOFT, WE TOOK ACTION TO ENSURE NO PRIVATE CORPORATION CONTROLLED THE ECONOMY OR DEMOCRACY, WE FACE SIMILAR CHALLENGES TODAY, AS GATEKEEPERS, THEY HAVE THE POWER TO PICK WINNERS AN

D LOSERS, SHAKEDOWN SMALL BUSINESSES AND ENRICH THEMSELVES WHILE CHOKING OFF COMPETITORS. THEIR ABILITY TO DICTATE TERMS, CALL THE SHOTS, UP IN ENTIRE SECTORS AND INSPIRE FEAR REPRESENT THE POWERS OF A PRIVATE GOVERNMENT. OUR FOUNDERS WOULD NOT BOW BEFORE THE KING, NOR SHOULD WE BOW BEFORE THE EMPERORS OF THE ONLINE ECONOMY. I NOW RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER, OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, JIM SENSENBRENNER. >> THANK YOU, I WANT TO THINK THE CEOS WERE QUICKLY WORKING WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO APP

EAR TODAY, THE MEMORIAL SERVICE FOR JOHN LEWIS REQUIRED OUR ATTENTION, HOWEVER THE HEARING IS VITAL TO OUR OVERSIGHT WORK AND I APPRECIATE THE FLEXIBILITY, PRIORITIZING THIS IS ONE OF THE SEMINAL RESPONSIBILITIES, PERIODICALLY REVIEWING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LAWS. A GOOD AND TIMELY THING, TURNING IT TO TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS WHICH BRINGS US TO ALL OF THE COMPANIES. A PANDEMIC, THE DRAMATIC ILLUSTRATION, THE TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS, THESE UNPRECEDENTED TIMES, A MYRIAD OF THE DAIL

Y NEEDS. DELIVERY OF GROCERIES, VIRTUAL BUSINESS WITH DOCTORS, SOCIALLY DISTANT FAMILIES, AND KEEPING SMALL AND LARGE BUSINESSES CONNECTED, THE INCREASE SCRUTINY OF THE DOMINANCE AND MARKETPLACES. I WANT TO REITERATE SOMETHING I SAID THROUGHOUT THE INVESTIGATION. BEING BIG IS NOT INHERENTLY BAD. QUITE THE OPPOSITE, IN AMERICA YOU SHOULD BE REWARDED FOR SUCCESS, WE ARE HERE TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE ROLE YOUR COMPANIES HAVE IN THE MARKETPLACE, AND IMPORTANTLY, THE EFFECT THEY HAVE ON CONSU

MERS AND THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. SOME OF TODAY'S MORE POWERFUL COMPANIES, MY COLLEAGUES AND I HAVE A GREAT INTEREST ABOUT WHAT YOUR COMPANIES DO WITH THAT ACCUMULATED POWER. AND WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE TECH MARKETPLACE IS DRIVEN BY DATA, SO IT FOLLOWS THAT THOSE WHO CONTROL THE DATA CONTROLLER MARKETPLACE. THERE ARE BROADER QUESTIONS SURROUNDING DATA. AND WHO OWNS THE DATA. WHAT RESPONSIBILITIES DO COMPANIES HAVE TO SHARE WITH THEIR CUSTOMERS OR THEIR COMPETITORS. WHAT IS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE

OF THE DATA, IS THERE ANYTHING MONOPOLISTIC IN ACQUIRING THIS DATA AND WHAT ABOUT MONETIZING IT? THESE ARE COMPLEX ISSUES THAT CONGRESS, REGULATORS AND EVEN YOUR OWN COMPANIES ARE WRESTLING WITHIN THE CURRENT TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE, AND THE ANSWERS TO WHICH WE OWE THE AMERICAN CONSUMERS, SINCE THE TECH INVESTIGATION BEGAN, WE'VE HEARD RUMBLINGS FROM MANY WHO WORK TO SAY YOUR SUCCESSFUL COMPANIES HAVE GROWN TOO LARGE. SINCE THE HEARING WAS NOUNCE, IT SEEMS LIKE THOSE COMPLAINTS OF GOTTEN E

VEN LOUDER. I FIND THESE COMPLAINTS INFORMATIVE, BUT I DON'T PLAN ON IT LITIGATING EACH OF THESE COMPLAINTS TODAY. ANTITRUST LAW AND THE CONSUMER WELFARE STANDARD HAVE SERVED THE COUNTRY WELL FOR OVER A CENTURY. THOSE LAWS HAVE PROVIDED THE FRAMEWORK AND CREATIVITY TO MAKE WAY FOR SOME OF OUR MOST SUCCESSFUL AND INNOVATIVE COMPANIES. I WILL BE THE FIRST TO HIGHLIGHT THAT. HOWEVER, AS THE BUSINESS LANDSCAPE EVOLVES, WE MUST ENSURE THAT OUR EXISTING ANTITRUST LAWS ARE APPLIED TO MEET THE NE

EDS OF OUR COUNTRY AND ITS CONSUMERS. I SHARE THE CONCERN THAT MARKET DOMINANCE IN THE DIGITAL SPACE, IS RIPE FOR ABUSE, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO FREE SPEECH. AS WE KNOW, COMPANIES LIKE FACEBOOK, GOOGLE, YOUTUBE AND TWITTER, HAVE BECOME THE PUBLIC SQUARE OF TODAY, WHERE CLINICAL DEBATE UNFOLDS IN REAL TIME. BUT REPORTS THAT DISSENTING VIEWS, OFTEN CONSERVATIVE VIEWS, ARE TARGETED OR CENSORED IS SERIOUSLY TROUBLING, CONSERVATIVES ARE CONSUMERS, TOO. AND THEY NEED THE PROTECTION OF THE A

NTITRUST LAWS. THE POWER TO INFLUENCE DEBATE CARRIES WITH IT REMARKABLE RESPONSIBILITIES. SO THAT THE FACTS BE THE GUIDE HERE, YOUR COMPANIES ARE LARGE, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM, YOUR COMPANIES ARE SUCCESSFUL, THAT'S THE PROBLEM EITHER. BUT I WANT TO LEAVE YOUR TODAY WITH A MORE COMPLETE PICTURE OF HOW YOUR INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES USE YOUR SIZE, SUCCESS AND POWER, AND WHAT IT MEANS TO THE AMERICAN CONSUMER. I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> THINK YOU GENTLEMEN, THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE DI

SSING WAS CHAIRMAN OF THE FULL COMMITTEE, MR. JERRY NADLER. >> I WANT TO THANK YOU, RANKING MEMBER, JIM SENSENBRENNER, AND THE RANKING MEMBERS FOR THE TREMENDOUS EFFORT THAT YOU PUT INTO THE INVESTIGATION. I APPRECIATE YOU CALLING THIS HEARING TODAY SO THAT WE CAN HEAR DIRECTLY FROM THE LEADERS OF AMAZON, APPLE, FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO AN IMPORTANT DIALOGUE. TODAY IT IS EFFECTIVELY IMPOSSIBLE TO USE THE INTERNET WITHOUT USING IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER THE SERVICES OF THES

E FOUR COMPANIES. I HAVE LONG BELIEVED WITH THOMAS JEFFERSON AND LOUIS BRANDEIS, THAT CONCENTRATION OF POWER IN ANY FORM, ESPECIALLY CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC OR POLITICAL POWER, IS DANGEROUS TO A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY. THAT IS WHY YOU MUST EXAMINE THESE AND OTHER COMPANIES THAT PLAY A DOMINANT ROLE IN SOCIETY, THE TOOLS THAT THEY NEED TO PRESERVE A HEALTHY MARKETPLACE. THEY HAVE GUIDED THE YEAR-LONG INVESTIGATION INTO COMPETITION IN DIGITAL MARKETS, THE LENS THROUGH WHICH I APPROACHED TODA

Y'S HEARING. THE OPEN INTERNET HAS DELIVERED ENORMOUS BENEFIT TO AMERICANS, INCLUDING A SURGE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, MASSIVE INVESTMENT IN EDUCATION ONLINE. BUT A HANDFUL OF CORPORATIONS HAVE AN OUTSIDE SHARE OF INDICATIONS, PROVIDING A DOMINANT SEARCH, RETAIL AND ONLINE MESSAGING PLATFORM, PROVIDING THE UNDERLYING MAPPING SERVICES AND CLOUD COMPUTING ON WHICH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER BUSINESSES RELY, THESE DOMINANT PLATFORMS COMPRISE THE ESSENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21st CE

NTURY. BY VIRTUE OF CONTROLLING ESSENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL ACCESS TO MARKETS. IN SOME BASIC WAYS, THE PROBLEM IS NOT UNLIKE WHAT WE FACED 130 YEARS AGO WHEN RAILROADS TRANSFORMED AMERICAN LIFE, ENABLING FARMERS AND PRODUCERS TO ACT AS NEW MARKETS, BUT ALSO A KEY CHOKEHOLD THAT THE RAILROAD MONOPOLIES COULD EXPLOIT. RAILROADS ABUSE THE SKI KEEPER POWER IN A VARIETY OF WAYS, CHARGING TOLLS, EXTORTING PRODUCERS RELYING ON THE RAILS, DISCRIMINATING AGAINST FARME

RS, PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS ACROSS THE ECONOMY, THIS IS THAT COMPETED WITH PRODUCERS, THEY COULD USE THEIR DOMINANCE AND TRANSPORTATION TO FAVOR THESE SERVICES, THESE TACTICS BY THE RAILROADS SPURRED FURY AND DESPAIR ACROSS THE COUNTRY, CONGRESS INITIATED INVESTIGATIONS TO DOCUMENT THESE PROBLEMS, AND ENACTED LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS TO OUTLAW THESE ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES OF THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY AND OTHER INDUSTRIES, DOMINATED BY UNREGULATED MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS. IMPORTANTLY, CONGRESS

IONAL OVERSIGHT AND LEGISLATIVE REFORMS DURING THE PERIOD, DID NOT PREVENT THE INEXORABLE TECHNOLOGY OR HUMAN PROGRESS. CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THAT THE TECHNOLOGIES HAD RESHAPED THE BALANCE OF POWER IN OUR ECONOMY, IN OTHER WORDS THE ROLE OF CONGRESS TO ENSURE THAT THE NEW MONOPOLISTS COULD NOT ABUSE THE POWER. TODAY, THE DIGITAL ECONOMY POSES SIMILAR CHALLENGES. WHILE THE UNDERLYING TECHNOLOGY IS DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT OF COURSE, NEW DIGITAL INTERMEDIARIES HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL ACCESS

TO CRITICAL MARKETS. IF YOU'RE AN INDEPENDENT MERCHANT, DEVELOPER OR CONTENT PRODUCER, YOU ARE INCREASINGLY RELIANT ON THESE POWERFUL INTERMEDIARIES, JUST AS MARKETS AND CONSUMERS. >>> MANY BUSINESSES LIVE IN FEAR OF EXCLUSION FROM THESE PLATFORMS, A FACT THAT SOME COMPANIES THAT SHARED WITH THE COMMITTEE DURING THE INVESTIGATION. THE SUBCOMMITTEES CURRENT REVIEW OF COMPETITION IN THE DIGITAL MARKETPLACE CONTINUES A LONG TRADITION OF OVERSIGHT OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS AND OUR ECONOMY. FROM

CHAIRMAN EMMANUEL SELLER, AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE, CONDUCTING CAREFUL FACT-BASED INQUIRIES INTO INDUSTRIAL SECTORS, SHOWING SIGNS OF CONSOLIDATION AND ANTI-COMPETITIVE CONDUCT. CONTINUING ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS OVER THE YEARS, CHAIRMAN BROOKS, AND OTHERS. IN 1950 REPORT FROM THE THEN NAMED SUBCOMMITTEE OF MONOPOLY POWER DESCRIBED IT, IT IS THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE FACTORS WHICH TEND TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION, STRENGTHEN MONOPOLIES, SMALL BUSINESSES OR PROMOTE UNDUE CONCENTRATION OF ECONOM

IC POWER, OBTAINING FACTS AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS. FOLLOWING IN THE PROUD TRADITION, HOLDING HARRY'S -- EARRINGS, CONSULTATION WITH SUBJECT MATTER, AND PAINSTAKING REVIEW OF LARGE VOLUMES OF EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY INDUSTRY PARTICIPANTS AND REGULATORS. WHILE ULTIMATELY IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO ENFORCE THE LAW, CONGRESS HAS NO OBLIGATION TO ASSESS WHETHER EXISTING ANTITRUST LAWS AND POLICIES AND THE WILL TO ENFORCE THE LAWS AND

POLICIES, ARE ADEQUATE TO ADDRESS THE COMPETITION ISSUES FACING OUR COUNTRY AND TO TAKE ACTION IF THEY ARE FOUND TO BE LACKING. GIVEN THE DOMINANT ROLE THEY PLAY IN THE ECONOMY AND SOCIETY, IT IS ONLY REASONABLE THAT ARE CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS BEGIN WITH THEM. I APPRECIATE THE PARTICIPATION OF ALL OF OUR WITNESSES TODAY, OUR INVESTIGATION WOULD NOT BE COMPLETE, AND INDEED IT HAS HARDLY BEGUN, WITHOUT HEARING DIRECTLY FROM THE DECISION-MAKERS OF THESE COMPANIES, AND I L

OOK FORWARD TO THEIR TESTIMONY IN TODAY'S DISCUSSION, THE YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> I THINK THE GENTLEMAN AND I RANK -- RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER, THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO, JIM JORDAN. >> I WANT TO THINK THE RANKING MEMBER, JIM SENSENBRENNER, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY FULL COMMITTEES TO HAVE THIS CONGRESS, I WANT TO THANK JIM FOR HIS GREAT WORK FOR HIS CONSTITUENT, CONSTITUENTS, AND THE WORK THAT HE'S DONE FOR THE ENTIRE COMMITTEE. I WILL CUT TO THE CHASE, BIG TAKE IS OUT TO GET

CONSERVATIVES, THAT'S NOT A SUSPICION OR HUNCH, THAT'S A FACT, JULY 20, REMOVING BREITBART AND THE DAILY CALLER, SO MUCH TRAFFIC HAS DECLINED, JUNE 16, 2020 APRIL 19, OUT LYING A POLICY THE CONTACT THAT CONFLICTS, WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, THAT LIED TO US, THAT SHILLED FOR CHINA, IF YOU CONTRADICT SOMETHING THEY SAY, THEY CAN SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT, THEY CAN LIVE FOR CHINA. YOU GET CENSORED. AMAZON BANDS PRESIDENT TRUMP SUCCUMB

ON TWITCH AFTER HE RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT DEFINING THE POLICE, AMAZON BANDS A BOOK CRITICAL OF THE CORONAVIRUS LOT DONE WRITTEN BY CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR, MAY 27, 2020, AMAZON WON'T LET YOU GIVE TO THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL OR THE DEFENSE FUND, OR BUT YOU CAN GIVE TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD. FACEBOOK, JUNE 19, 2020, TAKE SAMPLES FROM PRESENT TRUMP'S ELECTION CAMPAIGN, FACEBOOK SILENCES A PRO-LIFE ORGANIZATION ADVERTISEMENT, 19th, 2016, FORMER FACEBOOK OF -- EMPLOYEES ADMIT FACEBOOK ROUTIN

ELY SUPPRESSES CONSERVATIVE VIEWS. AND I HAVEN'T EVEN MENTIONED TWITTER. WHO ACTUALLY INVITED, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE ASKED FOR YOU GUYS TO INVITE THEM IS ONE OF OUR WITNESSES, AND YOU SAID NO, I HAVE MENTIONED THEM, TWO YEARS AGO, THE SHADOWED, SHADOW BAND, 4 TO 35 MILES, 535, ONLY 4, ONLY 4, MATT GAETZ, DEVIN NUNES, JORDAN, SHADOW BAND, AND THEY SAID IT WAS JUST A GLITCH IN THE ALGORITHM. I ASKED HIM WHAT DID YOU PUT THE ALGORITHM, THOSE NAMES? IF I HAD A NICKEL FOR EVERY TIME I HEARD IT WAS

JUST A GLITCH, I WOULD BE AS WEALTHY AS WITNESSES, I WOULD BE DOING ALL RIGHT. IF YOU -- HER THAT TIME AND TIME AGAIN, CENSORING PRESENT TRUMP STREET ON THE RIGHTS MINNEAPOLIS, CENSORING THE WHITE HOUSE, QUOTING THE PRESENCE COMMENTS ABOUT QUITTING THE RIGHTS, JUNE 23, TWITTER SENSORS THE PRESIDENT AGAIN. FOR SAYING HE WILL ENFORCE THE RULE OF LAW AGAINST ANY AUTONOMOUS ZONE, YOU CAN TWEET ABOUT IT THAT HAPPENED IN SEATTLE, THE PRESENT TWEETS ABOUT IT, NO, I CAN'T DO THAT. YOU GET BANNED AND

CENSORED. DOZENS OF EXAMPLES. I FORGOT ONE, JUST LAST WEEK, JULY 21, HERE'S WHAT TWITTER DID, THE LEADER OF IRAN, THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, ONE OF THE LARGEST STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM, TWITTER LOVE THIS TWEET, THE ZOMBIE REPUBLIC OF IRAN WILL NEVER FORGET THE MARTYRDOM AND WILL DEFINITELY STRIKE A RECIPROCAL BLOW IN THE UNITED STATES. SO YOU CAN THREATEN THE CITIZENS OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY, THE LEADER OF THE LARGEST DATE SPONSOR OF TERRORISM, THAT IS JUST FINE, BUT THE PRESIDENT SAY

S HE WON'T ALLOW SOME AUTONOMOUS ZONE IN DC, AND HE GETS CENSORED. ALL KINDS OF EXAMPLES, MOST OF THEM FROM THIS YEAR, AND THAT IS WHAT I THINK IS CRITICAL FOR US TO UNDERSTAND, MOST OF THEM FROM THIS YEAR, AN ELECTION YEAR, THAT'S WHAT CONCERNS ME AND SO MANY AMERICANS, BECAUSE WE SAW WHAT GOOGLE DID IN 2016. WE ALL KNOW ABOUT THE EMAIL THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION, WERE TOP EXECUTIVES AT GOOGLE EMAIL CHAIN, IT TALKED ABOUT THE SILENT DONATION THAT GOOGLE MADE TO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN, THAN

K GOODNESS IT WASN'T ENOUGH, IN SPITE OF THEIR EFFORTS TO HELP CLINTON, PRESIDENT TRUMP WON, BUT WERE 97 DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION, AND THE POWER, AS THE PREVIOUS CHAIRMAN AND RANKING MEMBER HAVE SAID, THE POWER THESE COMPANIES HAVE TO IMPACT WHAT HAPPENS DURING AN ELECTION, WHAT AMERICAN CITIZENS GET TO SEE PRIOR TO THEIR VOTING, IS PRETTY DARN IMPORTANT. THAT IS WHY THIS COMMITTEE HEARING IS IMPORTANT. WE THINK THE FREE MARKET IS GREAT, AND COMPETITION, AND THE FACT THAT THEIR AMERICAN COM

PANIES, BUT WHAT IS NOT GREAT, IS CENSORING PEOPLE AND CONSERVATIVES, AND IMPACTING ELECTIONS, AND IF IT DOESN'T END, THERE HAS TO BE CONSEQUENCES, THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT AND WHAT SO MANY AMERICANS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT, I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM THE WITNESSES MR. CHAIRMAN, AND BEFORE I YOU BACK, HE CALLED, A COLLEAGUE, THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE CONSTITUTION SUBCOMMITTEE, I WOULD ASK THAT HE BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN TODAY'S HEARING, WHICH IS THE CUSTOMARY PRACTICE. >> A UNAN

IMOUS CONSIDERATION -- >> OBJECTION. >> IT IS CUSTOMARY, THERE WAS A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST, OBJECTION WAS HEARD, NOW WE WILL INTRODUCE THE WITNESS. >> THAT IS NOT EVER HAPPEN -- >> OUR FIRST WITNESS IS JEFF BEZOS, MR. JORDAN, I HAVE THE TIME. >> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE'S LIBERTY. >> YOU MADE A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST, AN OBJECTION WAS HEARD, THAT IS THE RULE. >> JEFF BEZOS, THE CEO OF AMAZON.COM, HE FOUNDED AMAZON -- I'M GOING TO REMIND MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE, UNLESS YOU'RE

SPEAKING, OUR RULES REQUIRE YOU TO WEAR A MASK CORDING TO THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, SPEAKING ABOUT ANOTHER MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE. IT IS NOW MY PLEASURE TO INTRODUCE TODAY'S WITNESSES, THE FIRST WITNESS IS JEFF BEZOS, THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF AMAZON.COM, HE FOUNDED AMAZON IN 1994 AS AN ONLINE BOOKSTORE, SINCE THEN AND HAS GROWN TO BE THE LARGEST ONLINE RETAILER IN THE INTERNET, HE OVERSAW THE EXPANSION INTO AREAS INCLUDING CLOUD COMPUTING, DIGITAL STREAMING AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLI

GENCE, HE RECEIVED HIS BACHELORS OF SCIENCE FROM PRINCETON UNIVERSITY. >>> THE SECOND WITNESS, SUNDAR PICHAI, THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ALPHABET AND GOOGLE, JOINING IN 2004, HOPING TO MANAGE A NUMBER OF SUCCESSFUL PRODUCTS, INCLUDING GOOGLE CHROME, GMAIL AND THE ANDROID OPERATING SYSTEM, AND OVERSAW THE POPULAR SEARCH PRODUCT, DURING HIS TIME AT GOOGLE, HE WORKED IN MANAGEMENT CONSULTING AT KINSEY PRIOR TO THAT, FROM THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, A MASTERS DEGREE FROM STANFOR

D, AND AN NBA FROM THE WHARTON SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA. >>> OUR THIRD WITNESSES TIM COOK, THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF APPLE, JOINING IN 1998, JOINING AS THE CHIEF OPERATIONAL OFFICER UNDER STEVE JOBS, IN 2011 HE WAS NAMED CEO, WHILE AT APPLE HE IS A RECENT EXPANSION INTO NEW MARKETS, LAUNCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES, APPLE PAY, APPLE WATCH AND HOME POD. SERVING AS THE DIRECTOR OF NORTH AMERICAN FULFILLMENT, THE NBA FROM DUKE UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

, LESS WITNESS AT TODAY'S HEARING, MARK SUNDBERG, MR. ZUCKERBERG LUNCH FACEBOOK TO CONNECT COLLEGE STUDENTS AT HIS SCHOOL MORE EASILY, GROWING INTO THE LARGEST SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM, WITH $1.7 BILLION GLOBAL ACTIVE USERS, ATTENDING HARVARD UNIVERSITY BEFORE LEAVING TO FOCUS FULL-TIME ON DEVELOPING FACEBOOK. WE WELCOME ALL OF OUR DISTINGUISHED WITNESSES AND WE THANK THEM FOR PARTICIPATING IN TODAY'S HEARING, AND NOW I WILL BEGIN BY SWEARING UN, AND BEFORE I DO THAT, I WANT TO ALSO REMIND YO

U THAT YOU ARE THE ONLY ONES FROM YOUR RESPECTIVE COMPANIES INVITED TO TESTIFY TODAY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH NORMAL HOUSE PRACTICE IN SECTION G OF THE HOUSE REMOTE COMMITTEE PROCEEDING REGULATIONS, YOUR SWOLLEN -- YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY MUST BE YOUR OWN, YOU CAN MUTE TO CONSULT WITH COUNSEL, WILL YOU PLEASE RATE YOUR -- RAISE YOUR RIGHT HANDS, AND UNMUTE, DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION AND BELIEF SO HELP YOU ,?

>> YES. >> YES. >> YES. >> YES. >> THE WITNESSES ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, YOU MAY REMAIN SEEN, YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENTS WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD AND THE ENTIRETY, I ASKED THAT YOU SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY IN FIVE MINUTES, TO HELP YOU STAY WITHIN THE TIME, THERE IS A LIGHT IN WEBEX, WHEN IT SWITCHES FROM GREEN TO YELLOW, 1 MINUTE, ONE IT IS READ IT SIGNALS THE FIVE MINUTES HAVE EXPIRED, JEFF BEZOS, YOU MAY BEGIN. >> THANK YOU CUT CHAIRMAN TRENT HUNTING AND RANKING MEMBERS. I

WAS BORN INTO GREAT WEALTH, NOT MONETARY WEALTH BUT THE WEALTH OF A LOVING FAMILY, A FAMILY THAT FOSTERED MY CURIOSITY ENCOURAGED ME TO DREAM BIG, MY MOM, JACKIE, HAD ME WHEN SHE WAS 17 IN ALBUQUERQUE, BEING PREGNANT IN HIGH SCHOOL WAS NOT POPULAR, THE SCHOOL TRIED TO KICK HER OUT, BUT SHE WAS ALLOWED TO FINISH, AFTER MY GRANDFATHER NEGOTIATED TERMS WITH THE PRINCIPAL. SHE COULDN'T HAVE A LOCKER, NO EXTRACURRICULARS AND COULDN'T WALK ACROSS THE STAGE TO GET HER DIPLOMA. SHE GRADUATED AND I

T WAS DETERMINED TO CONTINUE HER EDUCATION, SO SHE ENROLLED IN NIGHT SCHOOL, BRINGING ME, HER INFANT SON, TO CLASSROOM THROUGHOUT. MY DAD'S NAME IS MIGUEL, HE ADOPTED ME WHEN I WAS 4, HE WAS 16 WHEN HE CAME TO THE U.S. FROM CUBA BY HIMSELF SHORTLY AFTER CASTRO TOOK OVER. MY DAD DIDN'T SPEAK ENGLISH AND HE DIDN'T HAVE AN EASY PATH. WHAT HE DID HAVE WAS GRIT AND DETERMINATION. HE RECEIVED A SCHOLARSHIP TO COLLEGE IN ALBUQUERQUE, WHICH IS WHERE HE MET MY MOM. TOGETHER WITH MY GRANDPARENTS, TH

ESE HARD-WORKING, RESOURCEFUL AND LOVING PEOPLE MADE ME WHO I AM. I WALKED AWAY FROM A STEADY JOB IN WALL STREET INTO A SEATTLE GARAGE TO FOUND AMAZON, FULLY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT MIGHT NOT WORK. IF YOU IS LIKE JUST YESTERDAY I WAS DRIVING PACKAGES TO THE POST OFFICE MYSELF, DREAMING THAT ONE DAY WE MIGHT AFFORD A FORKLIFT. CUSTOMER OBSESSION HAS DRIVEN OUR SUCCESS, AND I TAKE IT AS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT CUSTOMERS NOTICE WHEN YOU DO THE RIGHT THING. YOU EARN TRUST SLOWLY, OVER TIME, BY

DOING HARD THINGS WELL, DELIVERING ON TIME, OFFERING EVERYDAY LOW PRICES, MAKING PROMISES AND KEEPING THEM, AND MAKING PRINCIPAL DECISIONS EVEN WHEN THEY ARE UNPOPULAR. AND OUR APPROACH IS WORKING, 80% OF AMERICANS HAVE A FAVORABLE IMPRESSION OF AMAZON OVERALL. WHO DO AMERICANS TRUST MORE THAN AMAZON TO DO THE RIGHT THING? ONLY THEIR DOCTORS IN THE MILITARY. THE RETAIL MARKET WE PARTICIPATE IN IS EXTRAORDINARILY LARGE AND COMPETITIVE, AMAZON ACCOUNTS FOR LESS THAN 1% OF THE $25 TRILLION G

LOBAL RETAIL MARKET, AND LESS THAN 4% OF U.S. RETAIL. THERE IS ROOM IN RETAIL FOR MULTIPLE WINNERS, WE COMPETE AGAINST LARGE, ESTABLISHED PLAYERS LIKE TARGET, COSTCO, KROGER AND OF COURSE WALMART, A COMPANY MORE THAN TWICE AMAZON'S SIZE. 20 YEARS AGO, WE MADE THE DECISION TO INVITE OTHER SELLERS TO SELL ON OUR STORE, TO SHARE THE SAME VALUABLE REAL ESTATE WE SPEND BILLIONS TO BUILD, MARKET AND MAINTAIN. WE BELIEVE THAT COMBINING THE STRENGTHS OF THE AMAZON STORE WITH THE VAST SELECTION OF

PRODUCTS OFFERED BY THIRD PARTIES WOULD BE A BETTER EXPERIENCE FOR CUSTOMERS. AND THE GROWING PIE OF REVENUE AND PROFITS WOULD BE BIG ENOUGH FOR ALL. WE WERE BETTING THAT IT WAS NOT A ZERO-SUM GAME. FORTUNATELY, WE WERE RIGHT, THERE ARE NOW 1.7 MILLION SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZE BUSINESSES ON AMAZON, THE TRUST CUSTOMERS PUT IN US EVERY DAY HAS ALLOWED AMAZON TO CREATE MORE JOBS IN THE UNITED STATES THE PAST DECADE THAN ANY OTHER COMPANY. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS ACROSS 42 STATES. AMAZON

EMPLOYEES MAKE A MINIMUM OF $15 PER HOUR, MORE THAN DOUBLE THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE, AND WE OFFER THE BEST BENEFITS, THE HEALTH INSURANCE, THE PAID MATERNITY LEAVE. AND WE NURTURE ON FUNDERS AND STARTUPS, FREEDOM OF DEMOCRACY, THE CULTURE OF RISK-TAKING. AND OF COURSE THE NATION OF OURS IS FAR FROM PERFECT, HONORING HIS LEGACY OF JOHN LEWIS, THE RACE RECKONING, THE CHALLENGES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN INCOME INEQUALITY, WITH ALL THE FAULTS AND PROBLEMS, THE REST OF THE WORLD WOULD LOVE, THE ELIX

IR THAT WE HAVE THE U.S., IMMIGRANTS LIKE MY DAD SAW THE TREASURE THIS COMP -- COUNTRY IS, THEY HAVE A PERSPECTIVE AND SOMETIMES CAN SEE EVEN MORE CLEARLY THAN THOSE OF US WERE LUCKY ENOUGH TO BE BORN HERE, IT IS STILL DAY ONE FOR THE COUNTRY, AND EVEN IN THE FACE OF HUMBLING CHALLENGES, I HAVE NEVER BEEN MORE OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE FUTURE. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY, AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, AND SUNDAR PICHAI IS NOT RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE

MINUTES. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER JIM SENSENBRENNER AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, BEFORE I START, I KNOW THIS HEARING WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF THE CEREMONIES TO HONOR THE LIFE OF YOUR COLLEAGUE, REPRESENTATIVE JOHN LEWIS. BECAUSE OF HIS COURAGE, THIS WORLD IS A BETTER PLACE, HE WILL BE DEEPLY MISSED. AT ITS HEART, A DISCUSSION ABOUT COMPETITION IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT OPPORTUNITY. THIS IS NEVER BEEN MORE IMPORTANT AS A GLOBAL PANDEMIC FORCES DUAL CHALLENGES, TO OUR HEALTH

AND ECONOMY. EXPANDING ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY THROUGH TECHNOLOGY, IS PERSONAL TO ME. I DIDN'T HAVE MUCH ACCESS TO A COMPUTER GROWING UP IN INDIA, BUT YOU CAN IMAGINE MY AMAZEMENT WHEN I ARRIVED IN THE U.S. FOR GRADUATE SCHOOL AND SAW A LAB OF COMPUTERS TO USE WHENEVER I WANTED. ACCESSING THE INTERNET FOR THE FIRST TIME SET ME ON A PATH TO BRING TECHNOLOGY TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. IT INSPIRED ME TO BUILD GOOGLE'S FIRST BROWSER, CHROME, I'M PROUD THAT 11 YEARS LATER, SO MANY PEOPLE EXPE

RIENCE IT THROUGH CHROME FOR FREE. WE TAKE PRIDE OF WHAT PEOPLE DO WITH THEIR PRODUCTS, WHAT THEY DO WITH THEM, 140 MILLION STUDENTS AND TEACHERS USING IT FOR EDUCATION TO STAY CONNECTED DURING THE PANDEMIC, AND 5 MILLION, GETTING DIGITAL SKILLS WITH GROW WITH GOOGLE, FINDING THE FASTEST ROUTE HOME TO LEARNING HOW TO COOK A NEW DISH ON YOUTUBE. GOOGLE'S WORK WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT THE LONG TRADITION OF AMERICAN INNOVATION. AND WE ARE PROUD TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE FUTURE, WE EMPLOY MOR

E THAN 75,000 PEOPLE IN THE U.S. ACROSS 26 STATES, THE POLICY INSTITUTE ESTIMATED THAT IN 2018, WE ENLISTED MORE THAN $20 BILLION IN U.S., THE LARGEST CAPITAL INVESTOR THAT YEAR, AND ONE OF THE TOP FIVE FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS. ONE WAY THAT WE CONTRIBUTE IS BY HELPFUL PRODUCTS, SEARCH, GMAIL, MAPS AND PHOTOS, PROVIDE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A YEAR VALUE TO THE AVERAGE AMERICAN. AND MANY OF OUR SMALL BUSINESSES USING DIGITAL TOOLS TO GROW. A FAMILY-OWNED STONE COMPANY IN WISCONSIN USES GOOG

LE MY BUSINESS TO DRAW MORE CUSTOMERS, A FAMILY OWNED APPLIANCE STORE IN BRISTOL, RHODE ISLAND, CREDITS GOOGLE ANALYTICS WITH HELPING THEM REACH CUSTOMERS ONLINE DURING THE PANDEMIC. NEARLY 1/3 OF ALL SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS SAY THAT WITHOUT OUR DIGITAL TOOLS, THEY WOULD'VE HAD TO CLOSE ALL OR PART OF OUR -- THEIR BUSINESS DURING COVID. BEING AMONG THE WORLD'S BIGGEST INVESTORS IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AT THE END OF 2019, OUR R&D SPEND HAD INCREASED TENFOLD OVER 10 YEARS, FROM $2.8 BILLI

ON TO UP TO $26 BILLION, AND WE HAVE INVESTED OVER $90 BILLION OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS, ENGINEERS ARE HELPING AMERICA REMAIN A GLOBAL LEADER IN EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES LIKE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, SELF DRIVING CARS AND QUANTUM COMPUTING. JUST AS AMERICA'S TECHNOLOGY LEADERSHIP IS NOT INEVITABLE, GOOGLE'S CONTINUED SUCCESS IS NOT GUARANTEED, NEW COMPETITORS EMERGE EVERY DAY, AND USERS HAVE MORE ACCESS TO INFORMATION THAN EVER BEFORE, COMPETITION DRIVES US TO INNOVATE AND LEADS TO BETTER P

RODUCTS, MORE CHOICES FOR EVERYONE. FOR EXAMPLE, COMPETITION IS HELP LOWER ONLINE ADVERTISING COSTS BY 40% OF THE LAST DECADE, WITH SAVINGS PASSED DOWN TO CONSUMERS. OPEN PLATFORMS LIKE ANDROID SUPPORT THE INNOVATION OF OTHERS, USING ANDROID, THOUSANDS OF MOBILE OPERATORS BUILD AND SELL THEIR OWN DEVICES WITHOUT PAYING LICENSING FEES TO US. THIS HAS ENABLED BILLIONS OF CONSUMERS TO OFFER CUTTING-EDGE SMART PHONES, FOR LESS THAN $50. BUILDING TOOLS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, OR PLATFORMS LIKE A

NDROID, GOOGLE SUCCEEDS WHEN OTHERS SUCCEED. COMPETITION SETS HIGHER STANDARDS FOR PRIVACY AND SECURITY, WE HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT PRIVACY IS A UNIVERSAL DRIVE, AND GOOGLE IS COMMITTED TO KEEPING YOUR INFORMATION SAFE, TREATING IT RESPONSIBLY, PUTTING YOU IN CONTROL, AND WE HAVE LONG SUPPORTED THE CREATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PRIVACY LAWS. WE WILL NEVER FORGET HOW IT CHANGE THE COURSE OF MY LIFE, GOOGLE MAKING PRODUCTS FOR AXIS OF OPPORTUNITY TO EVERYONE, KNOW WHAT -- NO MATTER WHERE YOU

LIVE, WHAT YOU BELIEVE, OR HOW MUCH MONEY YOU HAVE, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH LAWMAKERS, DOING IT RESPONSIBLY, TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERY AMERICAN HAS ACCESS TO THE INCREDIBLE OPPORTUNITY THAT TECHNOLOGY CREATES, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, AND NOW TIM COOK IS RECOGNIZED. >>> CHAIRMAN CICILLINE AND CHAIRMAN OTHER, AND JIM JORDAN, AND EVERYONE, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE LIFE AND LEGACY OF JOHN LEWIS, I JOIN YOU IN MOURNING NOT ONLY A HERO BUT SOMEBODY I KNEW PERSONALLY, WH

OSE EXAMPLE INSPIRES AND GUIDES ME STILL. EVERY AMERICAN OWES JOHN LEWIS A DEBT, AND I FEEL FORTUNATE TO HAIL FROM A STATE IN THE COUNTRY THAT BENEFITED SO PROFOUNDLY FROM HIS LEADERSHIP. >>> MY NAME IS TIM COOK, I HAVE BEEN APPLE CEO SINCE 2011, AND A PROUD EMPLOYEE OF THIS UNIQUELY AMERICAN COMPANY SINCE 1998. AT APPLE, WE MAKE OURSELVES A PROMISE, AND OUR CUSTOMERS A PROMISE, A PROMISE THAT WE WILL ONLY BUILD THINGS THAT MAKE US PROUD. AS STEVE PUT IT, WE ONLY MAKE THINGS THAT WE WOULD RE

COMMEND TO HER FAMILY AND FRIENDS. YOU CAN TRY TO DEFINE THIS DIFFERENCE IN A LOT OF WAYS, YOU CAN CALL IT THE SEAMLESS INTEGRATION OF HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE, YOU CAN CALL IT SIMPLICITY OF DESIGN OR A GREAT ECOSYSTEM, ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE TRUE. THAT IF YOU WANT TO PUT IT SIMPLY, PRODUCTS LIKE iPHONE JUST WORK. WHEN CUSTOMERS CONSISTENTLY GIVE iPHONE A 99% SATISFACTION RATING, THAT IS THE MESSAGE THEY'RE SENDING ABOUT THE USER EXPERIENCE. BUT WE ALSO KNOW THE CUSTOMERS HAVE A LOT OF CHOI

CES, AND PRODUCTS FACE FIERCE COMPETITION, SAMSUNG, LG, GOOGLE, AND HUAWEI HAVE DEALT WITH DIFFERENT APPROACHES, WERE OKAY WITH THAT, OUR IDEAS THE BEST, THE MOST, WE DON'T HAVE A MONOPOLY IN ANY CATEGORY WHERE WE HAVE AND DO BUSINESS, THE TIMELESS DRAWL TO BUILD NEW THINGS THAT WE ARE PROUD TO SHOW OUR USERS. WE FOCUS RELENTLESSLY ON THOSE INNOVATIONS. DEEPENING CORE PRINCIPLES LIKE PRIVACY AND SECURITY, AND CREATING NEW FEATURES. IN 2008, WE INTRODUCED A NEW FEATURE OF THE iPHONE CALLED

THE APP STORE, LAUNCHED WITH 500 APPS, WHICH SEEMED LIKE A LOT OF THE TIME, THE APP STORE PROVIDED A SAFE AND TRUSTED WAY FOR USERS TO GET MORE OUT OF THEIR PHONE. WE KNEW THE DISTRIBUTION OPTIONS FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS DIDN'T WORK WELL, BRICK-AND-MORTAR STORES, HIGH FEES AND LIMITED REACH, PHYSICAL MEDIA LIKE CDS HAD TO BE SHIPPED AND WERE HARD UP DATE. FROM THE BEGINNING, THE APP STORE WAS A REVOLUTIONARY ALTERNATIVE. APP STORE DEVELOPERS SET PRICES FOR THEIR APPS, AND NEVER PAY FOR SH

ELF SPACE. WE PROVIDE EVERY DEVELOPER WITH CUTTING-EDGE TOOLS LIKE COMPILERS, PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES AND MORE THAN 150,000 ESSENTIAL SOFTWARE BUILDING BLOCKS CALLED APIS. THE APP STORE GUIDELINES ENSURE HIGH QUALITY, A RELIABLE AND SECURE USER EXPERIENCE, TRANSPARENT, APPLIED EQUALLY TO EVERY DEVELOPER. FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF APPS, DEVELOPERS KEEP 100% OF THE MONEY THEY MAKE, THE ONLY APPS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO A COMMISSION ARE THOSE WHERE THE DEVELOPER ACQUIRES A CUSTOMER ON AN APPLE DEV

ICE, AND THE FEATURES OR SERVICES WOULD BE EXPERIENCED OR CONSUMED ON AN APPLE DEVICE. IN THE APP STORE'S MORE THAN 10 YEAR HISTORY, WE HAVE NEVER RAISED THE COMMISSIONER ADDED A SINGLE FEE, IN FACT WE HAVE REDUCED IT FOR SUBTRACTIONS AND EXEMPTED ADDITIONAL CATEGORIES OF APPS. I AM HERE TODAY BECAUSE SCRUTINY IS REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE, WE APPROACH THIS PROCESS WITH RESPECT AND HUMILITY, BUT WE MAKE NO CONCESSION ON THE FACT, WILL BEGIN HIS 500 APPS IS NOW MORE THAN 1.7 MILLION, ONLY 6

0 OF WHICH ARE APPLE SOFTWARE. IF APPLE IS A GATEKEEPER, WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS OPEN THE GATE WIDER, WE WANT TO GET EVERY APP WE CAN ON THE STORE, THAT KEEP THEM OFF. THE APP STORE'S ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS ARE SIGNIFICANT, THE ECOSYSTEM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 1.9 MILLION JOBS IN ALL 50 STATES, AND IT FACILITATED $138 BILLION IN COMMERCE IN THE U.S. IN 2019 ALONE. I SHARE THE COMMITTEE'S BELIEF THAT COMPETITION PROMOTES INNOVATION AND MAKE SPACE FOR THE NEXT GREAT IDEA AND GIVES CONSUMERS MORE

CHOICES. SINCE APPLE WAS FOUNDED, THESE THINGS HAVE DEFINED US. THE FIRST MAC BROUGHT OPPORTUNITY AND POSSIBILITY INTO THE HOME, THE iPOD HELPED MUSICIANS AND ARTISTS TO SHARE THEIR CREATIONS AND BE PAID FAIRLY FOR IT. THIS LEGACY DOES MUCH MORE THAN MAKE US PROUD, INSPIRES US TO WORK TIRELESSLY TO MAKE SURE THAT TOMORROW WILL BE EVEN BETTER THAN TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I LOOK FORWARD TO RESPONDING TO YOUR QUESTIONS. >> MR. ZUCKERBERG IS NOT RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> BEFORE I BEGI

N, I WANT TO ADD MY VOICE TO THOSE HONORING CONGRESSMAN JOHN LEWIS AND HIS SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY, AMERICA HAS LOST A REAL HERO, WHO NEVER STOPPED FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHTS OF EVERY PERSON. CHAIRMAN CICILLINE, RANKING MEMBER SENSENBRENNER, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY. THE TECH INDUSTRY IS AN AMERICAN SUCCESS STORY, THE PRODUCTS WE BUILD HAVEN'T CHANGED THE WORLD -- HAVE CHANGE THE WORLD, IT IS ONE OF OUR GREATEST CULTURAL ECONOMICS, FACEBOOK PART OF THE STORY, STARTING WITH AN

IDEA TO GIVE PEOPLE THE POWER TO SHARE AND CONNECT. WE BUILD SERVICES THAT ALIENS OF PEOPLE FIND USEFUL. I AM PROUD THAT WE HAVE GIVEN PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER HAD A VOICE BEFORE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. AND GIVEN SMALL BUSINESSES THE ACCESS TO TOOLS THAT ONLY THE LARGEST PLAYERS USED TO HAVE, SINCE COVEN EMERGED, I AM PROUD THAT PEOPLE HAVE USED OUR SERVICES TO STAY IN TOUCH WITH FRIENDS AND FAMILY THAT THEY CAN'T BE WITH IN PERSON, AND TO KEEP THEIR SMALL BUSINESSES RUNNING ONLINE, ONE

PHYSICAL STORES ARE CLOSED. I BELIEVE THAT FACEBOOK IN THE U.S. TECH INDUSTRY ARE A FORCE FOR INNOVATION AND EMPOWERING PEOPLE, BUT I RECOGNIZE THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT THE SIZE AND POWER OF TECH COMPANIES, OUR SERVICES ARE ABOUT CONNECTION, AND OUR BUSINESS MODEL IS ADVERTISING, AND WE FACE INTENSE COMPETITION IN BOTH. MANY OF OUR COMPETITORS HAVE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OR BILLIONS OF USERS, SUMMER UPSTARTS, BUT OTHERS ARE GATEKEEPERS ARE ONES THAT CAN DECIDE WHETHER TO ALLOW HER APPS TO C

OMPETE WITH THEM, IN SOME AREAS WE ARE BEHIND THEM, THE MOST POPULAR MESSAGING SERVICE IS IMESSAGE, THE FASTEST-GROWING APP IS TIKTOK, THE MOST POPULAR APP FOR VIDEO IS YOUTUBE, THE FASTEST-GROWING AS PLATFORM IS AMAZON, THE LARGEST AS PLATFORM IS GOOGLE, AND FOR EVERY DOLLAR SPENT ON ADVERTISING IN THE U.S., LESS THAN $.10 IS SPENT WITH US. WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT ONLINE PLATFORMS, BUT I THINK THE TRUE NATURE OF COMPETITION IS MUCH BROADER. WHEN GOOGLE BOUGHT YOUTUBE, THEY COULD CAN PET

E -- COMPETE AGAINST THE DOMINANT PLAYER IN THE CABLE INDUSTRY, AMAZON BOUGHT WHOLE FOODS, THEY COULD COMPETE, AND WHAT'S UP, FROM GOOGLE, $.10 PER TEXT MESSAGE, BUT NOT ANYMORE, PEOPLE CAN WATCH VIDEO, I GET GROCERIES DELIVERED AND SEND PRIVATE MESSAGES FOR FREE. THAT IS COMPETITION. NEW COMPANIES ARE CREATED ALL THE TIME ALL OVER THE WORLD. HISTORY SHOWS THAT IF WE DON'T KEEP INNOVATING, SOMEONE WILL REPLACE EVERY COMPANY HERE TODAY. AND THAT CHANGE CAN OFTEN HAPPEN FASTER THAN YOU EXPE

CT, OF THE 10 MOST VALUABLE COMPANIES A DECADE AGO, ONLY THREE STILL MAKE THE LIST TODAY. AND IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE THE TOP TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES COME FROM, IT TAKE YOU TO GO THE VAST MAJORITY WERE AMERICAN COP TODAY, ALMOST HALF ARE CHINESE. ASIDE FROM COMPETITION, THERE ARE OTHER SERIOUS ISSUES RELATED TO THE INTERNET, INCLUDING QUESTIONS ABOUT ELECTIONS, HARMFUL CONTENT AND PRIVACY, AND WHILE THESE ARE NOT ANTITRUST ISSUES AND THAT SPECIFICALLY THE TOPIC OF TODAY'S HEARING, I RECOGNIZE WE ARE

OFTEN AT THE CENTER OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, WE BUILD PLATFORMS FOR SHARING IDEAS AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE THOSE DEBATES TO PLAY OUT ACROSS OUR SERVICES, I BELIEVE IT LEADS TO MORE PROGRESS, BUT WE OFTEN FIND OURSELVES IN THE MIDDLE OF DEEP DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT SOCIAL ISSUES AND HIGH-STAKES ELECTIONS. I PERSONALLY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT PRIVATE COMPANIES SHOULD BE MAKING SO MANY DECISIONS ABOUT THESE ISSUES BY THEMSELVES, THAT'S WHY LAST YEAR I MADE THE CASE THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE NEW REGULA

TION FOR THE INTERNET. FACEBOOK STANDS FOR A SET OF BASIC PRINCIPLES, GIVING PEOPLE A VOICE AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE, UPHOLDING DEMOCRATIC TRADITIONS LIKE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND VOTING, AND ENABLING AND OPENING A COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE. THESE ARE FUNDAMENTAL VALUES FOR MOST OF US BUT NOT FOR EVERYONE IN THE WORLD, NOT FOR EVERY COMPANY WE COULD BE MYTH -- COMPETE WITH OR THE COUNTRIES THEY REPRESENT, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE OUR VALUES WILL WIN OUT, I'M HAPPY WITH WH

AT WE PROVIDE AND HOW IT CHANGES PEOPLE'S LIVES, WE COMPETE FAIRLY AND TRY TO BE THE BEST, THAT IS WHAT I WAS TAUGHT MATTERS IN THIS COUNTRY, WHEN WE SUCCEED, IT'S BECAUSE WE DELIVER GREAT EXPERIENCES THAT PEOPLE LOVE. THANK YOU, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, I THINK THE WITNESSES FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENTS, BEFORE QUESTIONING, THE 5 MINUTE RULE, ENTERING THE HEARING RECORD, DOCUMENTS THEY WILL BE REFERENCING IN THE QUESTIONS TODAY, THESE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN

DISTRIBUTED TO THE WITNESSES, I WILL RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES. >>> SUNDAR PICHAI, 85% OF SEARCHES GO THROUGH GOOGLE, THEY DEPEND ON GOOGLE TO REACH USERS, BUSINESSES CAN SINK OR SWIM BASED ON GOOGLE DECISIONS ALONE, -- NUMEROUS ONLINE BUSINESS SAY THEY GOOGLE STILLS ARE CONTENT AND PROFITS GOOGLE AND CRUSH SOMEONE ELSE, MOST BUSINESSES ASKED TO STAY ANONYMOUS, BUT ONE ENTREPRENEUR, BRIAN WARNER SAID HIS WEBSITE WAS DRIVING UNTIL GOOGLE STILLS CONTACT AND TRAFFIC DROPPED 80%, HE D

OWNSIZED HIS BUSINESS LAID OFF HALF HIS STAFF, HE TOLD US, IF SOMEONE CAME TO ME WITH AN IDEA FOR WEBSITE OR WEB SERVICE TODAY, I WOULD SAY RUN AS FAR AWAY FROM THE WEB AS POSSIBLE, LONG CARE, DOG GROOMING, SOMETHING GOOGLE CAN'T TAKE AWAY AS SOON AS HE OR SHE IS THRIVING, MY FIRST QUESTION, MR. TRAINING, IS WHY DOES GOOGLE STILL CONTENT FROM HONEST BUSINESSES? >> MR. CHAIRMAN. -- MR. PICHAI. >> I DISAGREE WITH THE CHARACTERIZATION, WE SUPPORT NUMBER 1.4 MILLION SMALL BUSINESSES, WITH THEIR

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, WE SEE MANY BUSINESSES THRIVE, EVEN GIVEN THE PANDEMIC, BUSINESSES AN EXAMPLE, IN TEXAS, THEY REALLY HAVE -- >> I HAVE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME, MY QUESTION IS VERY SPECIFIC, WE HEARD THROUGHOUT THIS INVESTIGATION THAT GOOGLE HAS STOLEN CONTENT TO BUILD YOUR OWN BUSINESS, THESE ARE CONSISTENT REPORTS, SO YOUR TESTIMONY THAT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN IS INCONSISTENT WITH THIS INVESTIGATION, BUT I WILL MOVE TO A NEW QUESTION, MOST AMERICANS BELIEVE WHEN THEY ENTER A SEARCH QUER

Y, WHAT GOOGLE SHOWS IS THE MOST RELEVANT RESULTS, BUT INCREASINGLY GOOGLE SHOWS WHATEVER IS MOST PROFITABLE FOR GOOGLE, GOOGLE ADS OR GOOGLE'S OWN SITES. ISN'T THERE A FUNDAMENTAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN SERVING USERS WHO WANT TO ACCESS THE BEST AND MOST RELEVANT INFORMATION AND GOOGLE'S BUSINESS MODEL WHICH INCENTIVIZES SELLING ADS AND KEEP USERS ON GOOGLE'S OWN SITES? >> WE HAVE ALWAYS FOCUSED ON PROVIDING USERS THE MOST RELEVANT INFORMATION, AND RELYING ON THEM TO COME BACK TO

GOOGLE EVERY DAY, THE VAST MAJORITY, WHERE THE IMPACT IS HIGHLY COMMERCIAL, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY MIGHT BE LOOKING FOR TV SETS OR -- >> WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THE PART THAT YOU DO USE THE GOOGLE ADS FOR, IT IS A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF YOUR BUSINESS. $200 MILLION, $300 BILLION? >> IN TERMS OF REVENUE, IT IS AROUND $100 BILLION PLUS. >> THAT IS A LOT OF MONEY. LET ME MOVE ON. IT IS GOOGLE'S BUSINESS MODEL THAT IS THE PROBLEM, OUR DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT GOOGLE EVOLVED FROM A TURNSTILE TO THE WEB, TO A GA

RDEN THAT KEEPS PEOPLE WITHIN THE SITES, GOOGLE STARTED TO FEAR COMPETITION FROM CERTAIN WEBPAGES THAT COULD DIVERT SEARCH TRAFFIC AND REVENUE FROM GOOGLE, THESE DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT GOOGLE STAFF DISCUSSED THE PROLIFERATING THREAT THAT THESE WEBPAGES POSTED TO GOOGLE, ANY TRAFFIC LOST OTHER SITES WAS A LOSS IN REVENUE, ONE OF THE MEMOS OBSERVED THAT CERTAIN WEBSITES WERE GETTING TOO MUCH TRAFFIC, PUTTING INTO THAT. GOOGLE SINCE 2000 -- 2004, THE THREAT FROM VERTICAL SEARCH. >> WITHOUT KNOWIN

G THE SPECIFICS, THERE --, CLEARLY CONTEX, VALIDATING THE COMPETITION THEY SEE, USERS LOOKING TO SHOP ONLINE, INDEPENDENT STUDIES SHOW THAT 55% OF SEARCHES ORIGINATE WITH AMAZON AND 70% ORIGINATE WITH MAJOR e-COMMERCE COMPANIES, THE FEW CATEGORIES THAT ARE COMMERCIAL IN NATURE, WE SEE VIGOROUS COMPETITION, TRAVEL, REAL ESTATE AND WE ARE WORKING HARD TO DO THAT. >> THE EVIDENCE THAT WE COLLECTED SHOWS THAT GOOGLE PURSUED A MULTIPRONGED ATTACK, STEALING OTHER WEBPAGES CONTENT, IN 2010 GOOGL

E STOOL RESTAURANT REVIEWS FROM YELP TO BOOTSTRAP ITS OWN RIVAL BUSINESS, DID YOU KNOW HOW GOOGLE RESPONDED WHEN YELP ASKED YOU TO STOP STEALING THEIR REVIEWS? I WILL TELL YOU, OUR INVESTIGATION SHOWS THAT GOOGLE'S RESPONSE WAS TO THREATEN TO DELIST YELP ENTIRELY, GOOGLE GAVE THE CHOICE OF LETTUCE STILL YOUR CONTENT OR EFFECTIVELY DISAPPEAR FROM THE WEB. ISN'T THAT ANTICOMPETITIVE? >> CONGRESSMAN, WHEN I RUN THE COMPANY, I'M REALLY FOCUSED ON GIVING USERS WHAT THEY WANT, WE CONDUCT OURSELVES

TO THE HIGHEST STANDARD, I'M HAPPY TO ENGAGE AND UNDERSTAND THE SPECIFICS AND ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS FURTHER. >> DID GOOGLE EVER USE IT SURVEILLANCE OVER WEB TRAFFIC TO IDENTIFY COMPETITIVE THREATS? >> JUST LIKE OTHER BUSINESSES, WE TRY TO UNDERSTAND TRENDS FROM DATA WHICH WE CAN SEE, AND WE USE IT TO IMPROVE PRODUCTS FOR USERS. FOCUSING ON IMPROVING THE PRODUCTS. >> IT SHOWS THAT GOOGLE DID JUST THAT. WHICH IS VERY DISTURBING AND HE COMPETITIVE, STEALING CONTENT AND PRIVILEGING ITS OWN SIT

ES, AND INVESTIGATIVE REPORT PUBLISHED YESTERDAY FOUND THAT 63% OF WEB SEARCHES THAT START ALSO IN THE BUNDLES OWN WEBSITES, INCREASING THE A WALLED GARDEN. KEEPING PEOPLE IN GOOGLE SITES EVEN IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE MOST RELEVANT INFORMATION AND IT IS ECONOMICALLY CATASTROPHIC FOR OTHER COMPANIES ONLINE, MY TIME IS RUNNING OUT, BUT MR. PICHAI, THE EVIDENCE SEEMS VERY CLEAR, AS GOOGLE BECAME THE GATEWAY TO THE INTERNET, I BEGAN TO ABUSE ITS POWER, SURVEILLANCE OVER WEB TRAFFIC TO IDENTIFY CO

MPETITIVE THREATS AND CRUSH THEM, DAMPENING INNOVATION AND NEW BUSINESS GROWTH AND DRAMATICALLY INCREASED THE PRICE OF ACCESSING THE INTERNET, ANY BUSINESS THAT WANTS TO BE FOUND ON THE WEB MUST PAY GOOGLE A TAX, I RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, JIM SENSENBRENNER. >> I HAVE BEEN IN CONGRESS 42 YEARS, THAT'S COMING TO AN END AT THE END OF THE YEAR, I'M BREATHING A SIGH OF RELIEF, BUT DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, DURING THE 90s AND THE 00'S, I WAS CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMIT

TEE, TRYING TO MAKE THE NET UNIVERSAL, AND OPEN IT UP TO EVERYBODY. AND ONE OF THE FECES THAT WE USED IS THE NET SHOULD END UP BECOMING BASICALLY THE DEBATE ON ISSUES, NOT ONLY IN OUR COUNTRY BUT THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT, THIS COMMITTEE AND THE CONGRESS GAVE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS IMMUNITY, SO IF SOMEBODY SAID SOMETHING DEFAMATORY WHAT THEY POSTED, THE ISPS COULD NOT BE PART OF A LAWSUIT FOR DEFAMATION. AFTER HEARING MR. JORDAN GIVE A LONG LINE OF CENSORSHIP OF CONSERV

ATIVE VIEWPOINTS, I AM CONCERNED THAT THE PEOPLE WHO MANAGE THE NET, AND THE FOURS YOU MANAGE A BIG PART OF THE NET, ARE ENDING UP USING THIS AS A POLITICAL SCREEN, CONSERVATIVES ARE CONSUMERS, TOO. IN THE EYES OF CONGRESS, THAT EVERYBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SPEAK THEIR MIND, MR. ZUCKERBERG, MR. JORDAN'S LITANY OF CENSORSHIP ZEROS IN ON FACEBOOK, EXACTLY WHAT ARE YOUR STANDARDS AND IN FILTERING OUT POLITICAL SPEECH THAT MAY BE SOME PEOPLE OUT THERE DON'T AGREE WITH? >> CONGRESSMAN, THANK YO

U FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS. OUR GOAL IS TO OFFER A PLATFORM FOR ALL IDEAS, WE WANT TO GIVE EVERYONE IN THE WORLD OF VOICE, TO SHARE THEIR EXPERIENCES AND IDEAS, A LOT OF THAT IS A DAY-TO-DAY THING THAT HAPPENS IN THEIR LIVES, SOME OF IT IS POLITICAL, AND FRANKLY, I THINK WE HAVE DISTINGUISHED OURSELVES AS ONE OF THE COMPANIES THAT DEFENDS FREE EXPRESSION THE MOST, WE DO HAVE COMMUNITY STANDERS RUN THINGS YOU CAN AND CAN'T SAY, YOU WOULD AGREE WITH MOST OF THEM, BENDING CATEGORI

ES OF ARM SUCH AS PROMOTING TERRORIST PROPAGANDA, INCITEMENT OF VIOLENCE, SOME MORE LEGALISTIC THINGS LIKE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY VIOLATIONS, AND ALSO BEEN THINGS LIKE HATE SPEECH, THAT COULD LEAD TO DEHUMANIZING PEOPLE AND PREVENTING VIOLENCE DOWN THE ROAD. >> IF I MAY ASK A SPECIFIC, IT IS REPORTED THAT DONALD TRUMP JR. GOT TAKEN DOWN FOR A PERIOD OF TIME BECAUSE HE POSTED ABOUT THE EFFICACY OF HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE, I WOULD NOT TAKE IT MYSELF, BUT THERE STILL IS A DEBATE AS TO WHETHER IT

IS EFFECTIVE IN TREATING COVID-19, AND I THINK IT IS A LEGITIMATE MATTER OF DISCUSSION. AND IT WOULD BE UP TO A PATIENT AND THEIR DOCTOR TO DETERMINE WHETHER HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE WAS THE CORRECT MEDICATION, GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. WHY DID THAT HAPPEN? >> CONGRESSMAN, TO BE CLEAR, WHAT YOU MIGHT BE REFERRING TO HAPPENED ON TWITTER, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SPEAK TO THAT, I CAN TALK TO OUR POLICIES ABOUT THIS, WE PROHIBIT CONTENT THAT WILL LEAD TO IMMINENT RISK OF HARM, AND STATING THAT THERE IS

A PROVEN CURE FOR COVID WHEN THERE IS IN FACT NONE, I ENCOURAGE SOMEBODY TO TAKE SOMETHING THAT HAS ADVERSE EFFECTS, SO WE DO TAKE THAT DOWN, WE DO NOT PROHIBIT DISCUSSION AROUND TRIALS OF DRUGS, OR PEOPLE SAYING THAT THEY THINK THAT THINGS MIGHT WORK OR PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH EXPERIMENTAL DRUGS, BUT IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO SAY THAT SOMETHING IS PROVEN WHEN IN FACT IT IS NOT, THAT COULD LEAD PEOPLE TO -- >> WOULDN'T THAT FOR SOMEONE ELSE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ISSUE GOT TO SAY IT IS

NOT PROVEN, I KNOW AS A FACT FOR PEOPLE WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS, IT IS CONTRAINDICATED IN THEY SHOULDN'T TAKE IT, BUT WOULDN'T THAT BE UP TO SOMEBODY ELSE TO SAY OKAY, BUT SOME OF THE POSTS ON THIS REALLY ISN'T TRUE, AND HERE'S WHAT THE FACTS ARE, RATHER THAN HAVING A TWITTER OR A FACEBOOK TAKE IT DOWN? >> CONGRESSMAN, IN GENERAL I AGREE WITH YOU AND WE DO NOT WANT TO BECOME THE ARBITERS OF TRUTH. THAT WOULD BE A BAD POSITION FOR US TO BE IN, AND NOT WOULD WE SHOULD BE DOING. BUT ON SP

ECIFIC CLAIMS, IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO GO OUT AND SAY THAT HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE IS PROVEN TO CURE COVID WHEN IN FACT IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN TO CURE IT, AND THAT STATEMENT COULD LEAD PEOPLE TO TAKE A DRUG THAT IN SOME CASES, SOME OF THE DATA SUGGESTS IT MIGHT BE HARMFUL TO PEOPLE, WE THINK THAT WE SHOULD TAKE THAT DOWN, THAT COULD CREATE IMMINENT RISK OF HARM. >> I YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU, I RECOGNIZE THE DISTINGUISHED CHAIR OF THE FULL JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, MR. NADLER FROM NEW YORK. >> MR.

ZUCKERBERG, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING US INFORMATION DURING THE INVESTIGATION, HOWEVER THE DOCUMENTS YOU PROVIDED TO A VERY DISTURBING STORY, THAT STORY IS THAT FACEBOOK SAW INSTAGRAM IS A POWERFUL THREAT THAT COULD SIPHON BUSINESS AWAY FROM FACEBOOK. SO RATHER THAN COMPETE WITH IT, FACEBOOK BOUGHT IT, THIS IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF ANTICOMPETITIVE ACQUISITION THAT THE ANTITRUST LAWS WERE DESIGNED TO PREVENT. LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT I MEAN. MR. ZUCKERBERG, YOU HAVE WRITTEN THAT FACEBOOK C

AN LIKELY ALWAYS JUST BY COMPETITIVE STARTUPS, IN FACT ON THE DAY THE FACEBOOK BOUGHT INSTAGRAM, WHICH YOU DESCRIBE AS A THREAT, YOU WROTE, ONE THING ABOUT STARTUPS IS THAT YOU CAN OFTEN ACQUIRE THEM. ESTHER ZUCKERBERG, YOU WERE REFERRING TO COMPANIES LIKE INSTAGRAM THAT QUOTE, WEREN'T YOU? BIGGER CONGRESSMAN, I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT DOCUMENT FOR ME, DOING INSTAGRAM BOTH AS A COMPETITOR, AND AS A COMPLIMENT TO OUR SERVICES, IN THE GROWING SPACE AROUND -- AFTER SMART PHONES GETTING BIG, COMP

ETING WITH MOBILE CAMERAS AND PHOTO SHARING, BUT ALMOST NONE OF THEM THOUGHT OF THEM AS A GENERAL SOCIAL NETWORK, OR COMPETING WITH US IN THAT SPACE, I THINK THE ACQUISITION HAS BEEN WILDLY SUCCESSFUL, WE WERE ABLE TO, BY ACQUIRING THEM, CONTINUE INVESTING IN GROWING IT AS A STANDALONE BRAND THAT NOW REACHES MANY MORE PEOPLE THAT I THINK EITHER KEVIN, THE COFOUNDER OR I THOUGHT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO TIME WHILE ALSO INCORPORATING SOME TECHNOLOGY INTO MAKING FACEBOOK'S PHOTO SHARING TECHNOLO

GY BETTER. SO, YES. >> IN EARLY 2012 WHEN FACEBOOK CONTEMPLATED ACQUIRING INSTAGRAM, A COMPETITIVE STARTUP, YOU TOLD YOUR CEO THAT INSTAGRAM COULD BE VERY DESTRUCTIVE TO US, AND THE WEEKS GOING UP THE DEAL, YOU DESCRIBED IT AS A THREAT, SAYING INSTAGRAM CAN MEANINGFULLY HURT US WITHOUT BECOMING A HUGE BUSINESS. WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU DESCRIBED INSTAGRAM AS A THREAT AND DISRUPTIVE, AND THAT INSTAGRAM COULD MEANINGFULLY HURT FACEBOOK? DID YOU MEAN THAT CONSUMERS MIGHT SWITCH FROM FACEBOOK T

O INSTAGRAM? >> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS. AT THE TIME, THERE WAS A SMALL BUT GROWING FIELD OF -- >> DID YOU MEAN THAT CONSUMERS MIGHT SWITCH FROM FACEBOOK TO INSTAGRAM? BIGGER CONGRESSMAN. >> YES OR NO? >> IN THE SPACE OF MOBILE PHOTOS AND CAMERA APPS, THEY WERE A COMPETITOR. I'VE BEEN CLEAR ABOUT THAT. >> FINE, IN FEBRUARY OF THAT YEAR, 2012, YOU TOLD THE FINANCIAL OFFICER THAT YOU ARE INTERESTED IN BUYING INSTAGRAM, HE ASKED YOU WHETHER THE PURPOSE OF THE DEAL WAS T

O NEUTRALIZE A POTENTIAL COMPETITOR OR INTEGRATE THEM INTO OUR SERVICES, YOU SAID IT WAS A COMBINATION OF BOTH, WE ARE BUYING TIME, EVEN IF SOME NEW COMPETITOR SPRINGS UP, THOSE PRODUCTS WON'T GET MUCH TRACTION SINCE WE WILL ALREADY HAVE THE MECHANICS AND DEPLOYING IN SCALE, WHAT DID YOU MEAN THAT YOU ANSWERED THE PURPOSE OF THE DEAL WAS TO NEUTRALIZE A POTENTIAL COMPETITOR? >> THOSE ARE NOT MY WORDS, BUT YES, I HAVE BEEN CLEAR THAT INSTAGRAM WAS A COMPETITOR IN THE SPACE OF MOBILE PHOTO

SHARING, THERE WERE A LOT OF OTHERS AT THE TIME, COMPETING WITH APPS LIKE DISCO CAM AND PICK PLEASE AND OTHER COMPANIES, AND IT WAS A SUBSET OF THE OVERALL SPACE OF CONNECTING THAT WE EXIST IN, AND BY HAVING THEM JOIN US, THEY CERTAINLY WENT FROM BEING A COMPETITOR IN THE SPACE OF A MOBILE CAMERA TO AN APP THAT WE COULD HELP GROW AND HELP GET MORE PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO USE AND BE ON OUR TEAM, AND I THINK THAT IS BEEN WILDLY SUCCESSFUL. >> MR. ZUCKERBERG, MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS THAT BUY OF

F POTENTIAL COMPETITIVE THREATS VIOLATE THE ANTITRUST LAWS. IN YOUR OWN WORDS, YOU PERCH RELIES -- PURCHASED INSTAGRAM TO NEUTRALIZE A COMPETITIVE THREAT, IF THIS WAS AN ILLEGAL MERGER AT THE TIME, WHY SHOULDN'T INSTAGRAM NOW BE BROKEN OFF INTO A SEPARATE COMPANY? >> CONGRESSMAN, I THINK THE FTC HAD ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS AND REVIEWED THIS AND UNANIMOUSLY VOTED AT THE TIME NOT TO CHALLENGE THE ACQUISITION. WITH HINDSIGHT, IT PROBABLY LOOKS LIKE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT INSTAGRAM WOULD HAVE REA

CHED THE SKILL THAT IT HAS TODAY, BUT OF THE TIME IT WAS FAR FROM OBVIOUS, A LOT OF THE COMPETITORS THAT THEY COMPETED WITH IN MOBILE SHARING, INCLUDING TAPS, WHICH WERE HOT AT THE TIME, AND GREAT FUNDERS NOT BEEN OR IS RUNNING THEM, DAVE MOORE, I DON'T THINK IT EXISTED A, IT WAS NOT A GUARANTEE THAT INSTAGRAM WAS GOING TO SUCCEED, IT HAS DONE WILDLY WELL LARGELY BECAUSE NOT JUST BECAUSE OF THE FOUNDERS TALENT BUT BECAUSE WE INVESTED HEAVILY IN BUILDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE. AND PROMOTING I

T. BEEN WORKING ON SECURITY AND WORKING ON A LOT OF THINGS AROUND IT. I THINK IT IS AN AMAZING SUCCESS STORY. >> THANK YOU. ESTHER ZUCKERBERG, YOU'RE MAKING MY POINT, ENCLOSING MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO AND WHERE I BEGAN, FACEBOOK, BY MR. AS A RESULT ADMISSION OF THE DOCUMENTS WE HAVE THE TIME, SO INSTAGRAM IS A THREAT THAT COULD POTENTIALLY SIPHON BUSINESS AWAY FROM FACEBOOK, SO RATHER THAN COMPETE WITH IT, FACEBOOK BOUGHT IT, THIS IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF ANTICOMPETITIVE ACQUISITION THAT THE

ANTITRUST LAWS WERE DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO HAPPEN AND THEY CAN'T HAPPEN AGAIN, I YIELD BACK. >> I WOULD REMIND THE WITNESS THAT THE FAILURES OF THE FTC IN 2012 OF COURSE DO NOT ALLEVIATE THE ANTITRUST CHALLENGES THAT THE TREMOR DESCRIBED. AND I WERE GUYS THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO, AND THANK HIM FOR COHOSTING ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FIELD HEARINGS ALONG WITH JOE NAGUSE IN COLORADO, YOU ARE NICE FOR FIV

E MINUTES, MR. BUCK. >> AND THANK YOU FOR THE BIPARTISAN WAY YOU HAVE APPROACHED THE INVESTIGATION. I WANT TO START BY SAYING THAT CAPITALISM IS THE GREATEST INSTRUMENT FOR FREEDOM THIS WORLD HAS EVER SEEN, GIVING THE UNITED STATES THE FREEDOM AND MEANS TO DEFEAT THE SOVIET UNION, BEAT BACK FASCISM AND PUT A MAN ON THE MOON, THIS ECONOMIC SYSTEM HAS LIFTED MILLIONS OUT OF POVERTY, AND MADE AMERICA THE FREEST AND MOST PROSPEROUS NATION IN THE WORLD, OUR WITNESSES HAVE TAKEN IDEAS FOR ANOT

HER DORM ROOM, A GARAGE AND A WAREHOUSE AND BUILD THE DREAMS INTO 4 THE BIGGEST POWER PLAYERS IN THE DIGITAL ECONOMY, YOU HAVE ENJOYED THE FREEDOM TO SUCCEED. LET ME BE CLEAR, I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK BIG IS THE SILLY BAD, BECAUSE OFTEN A FORCE FOR GOOD, BUT I WANT TO ADDRESS ONE PARTICULARLY DISTURBING ISSUE, MR. PICHAI, GOOGLE DROPPED OUT OF THE RUNNING FOR A PENTAGON CONTRACT TO COMPLETE THE JOINT DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRACT VALUED AT MORE THAN $10 BILLION, GOOGLE STATED REASON FOR RE

MOVING ITSELF FROM THE BIDDING PROCESS IS THAT THE U.S. MILITARY'S PROJECT DID NOT ALIGN WITH GOOGLE'S CORPORATE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES. THIS IS THE SAME U.S. MILITARY THAT FIGHTS FOR FREEDOMS AND STANDS AS A FORCE FOR GOOD ACROSS THE GLOBE. THE SAME SOLDIERS, SAILORS AND AIRMEN THAT SACRIFICE THEIR LIVES TO ENSURE YOU HAVE THE FREEDOM TO BUILD YOUR COMPANY AND SET YOUR CORPORATE POLICIES WITHOUT FEAR OF GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. UNLIKE IN COMMUNIST CHINA. AND I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT ONL

Y MONTHS AFTER WITHDRAWING FROM THE CONTRACT, MARINE GENERAL JOSEPH DUNFORD, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, WARMED THAT THE CHINESE MILITARY WAS DIRECTLY BENEFITING FROM GOOGLE'S WORK, IT MADE ME WONDER WHAT VALUES GOOGLE AND COMMUNIST RED CHINA HAD COMMON, I ASKED MYSELF IS IT THAT THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT IMPRISONS MUSLIMS IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS, LIKE IS SHOWN IN THE CHART BEHIND ME, CHINA FORCES SLAVES IN SWEATSHOPS, MAYBE THEY ALIGN ONLY DESIGNED TO SUPPRESS FREE SPEECH IN

HONG KONG. DID GOOGLE AGREE WITH CCP'S DECISION TO LIE TO THE WORLD ABOUT THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC. AND I THOUGHT ABOUT THE DRAGONFLY EXPERIMENT, MAYBE YOU AGREED WITH THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT'S USE OF TECHNOLOGY PLATFORMS TO SPY ON ITS OWN PEOPLE, AND ENFORCED RECODING SECURITY LAWS. MAYBE IT IS THAT YOUR COMPANY IS ALIGNED WITH THE CHINESE, COMMUNIST PARTIES ESPIONAGE, WHATEVER CAN BE DONE PRODUCED DOMESTICALLY. THE CHINESE MILITARY. BLATANTLY STEALING A COMPETITORS PRODUCT. WITHOUT A HINT OF

ATTRIBUTION. I HEARD A STORY THAT SOUNDED SO BRAZEN AND CONTRARY TO FREE-MARKET PRINCIPLES, IT MUST'VE BEEN STRAIGHT FROM THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTIES CORPORATE ESPIONAGE PLAYBOOK. GOOGLE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF A COMPANY THAT RELY ON YOUR SEARCH ENGINE TO BUILD ITS BRAND AND COMPETE, MISAPPROPRIATING LYRICS FROM GENIUS MEDIA GROUPS WEBSITE AND PUBLISH THOSE LYRICS ON GOOGLE'S OWN PLATFORM, GENIUS CUT GOOGLE IN THE ACT, LITERALLY RED-HANDED, WHEN GENIUS SUSPECT OF THE CORPORATE THAT WAS OCCUR

RING, THEY INCORPORATED A DIGITAL WATERMARK THAT SPELLED OUT RED-HANDED. IN MORSE CODE, THE LYRIC BOXES CONTAIN THE WATERMARK SHOWING YOUR COMPANY STOLE WHAT YOU COULDN'T OR DIDN'T WANT TO PRODUCE YOURSELF. AFTER EXECUTIVES STATED THEY WERE RECEIVING THIS PROBLEMATIC BEHAVIOR, GENIUS CREATED ANOTHER EXPERIMENT TO FIND THE SCOPE, OUT OF 271 SONGS WERE THE WATERMARK WAS APPLIED, 43% SHOWED CLEAR EVIDENCE OF MATCHING, YOUR COMPANY, WHICH ADVERTISES ITSELF AS A DOORWAY TO FREEDOM, TOOK ADVANT

AGE OF THE SMALL COMPANY, EXTINGUISHING GENIUSES FREEDOM TO COMPETE. GOOGLE IS SUPPOSED TO CONNECT PEOPLE TO INFORMATION, IT ONCE STOOD FOR FREEDOM, LETTING CAPITALISM FLOURISH AND HELP BRING COUNTLESS PEOPLE ACROSS THE GLOBE OUT OF POVERTY, MY QUESTION TO YOU, MR. PICHAI, DO YOU THINK THAT GOOGLE CAN GET AWAY WITH CHINA'S CORPORATE ESPIONAGE PLAYBOOK IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE A MONOPOLISTIC ADVANTAGE IN THE MARKET? >> CONGRESSMAN, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE IMPORTANT CONCERNS YOU RAISE,

FIRST OF ALL, WE ARE PROUD TO SUPPORT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, WE RECENTLY SIGNED A BIG PROJECT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WHERE WE ARE BRINGING OUR WORLD-CLASS CYBER SECURITY APPROACH TO HELP PROTECT NETWORKS FROM CYBER SECURITY ATTACKS. WE HAVE PROJECTS UNDERWAY OF THE NAVY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, HAPPY TO EXPLAIN MORE, WE HAVE A VERY LIMITED PRESENCE IN CHINA, WE DON'T OFFER ANY SERVICES, SEARCH, MAPS, GMAIL, ETC. IN CHINA, WITH RESPECT TO MUSIC UP WE LICENSE CONTENT, FROM OTHE

R COMPANIES, SO THIS IS A DISPUTE BETWEEN GENIUS AND OTHER COMPANIES IN TERMS OF WHAT THE SOURCE OF THE CONTENT IS, BUT HAPPY TO ENGAGE AND EXPLAIN WHAT WE DO HERE FURTHER. >> I YIELD BACK. >>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA, MR. JOHNSON FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. COOK, WITH OVER 100 MILLION iPHONE USERS IN THE UNITED STATES ALONE, AND APPLES OWNERSHIP OF THE APP STORE GIVING APPLE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL WHICH APPS ARE ALLOWED TO BE MARKETED TO APPLE USERS. YOU WIELD IMME

NSE POWER OVER SMALL BUSINESSES TO GROW AND PROSPER. APPLE IS THE SOLE DECISION-MAKER AS TO WHETHER AN APP IS MADE AVAILABLE TO APP USERS THROUGH APPLE'S APP STORE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> SIR, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTIONS, THE APP STORE IS A FEATURE OF THE iPHONE, MUCH LIKE THE CAMERA IS AND THE CHIP IS. >> MY POINT IS, I AM SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT I WANT TO GET TO THE POINT, THE POINT IS THAT APPLE IS THE SOLE DECISION-MAKER AS TO WHETHER AN APP IS MADE AVAILABLE TO APP USERS THROUGH THE

APPLE STORE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> IF IT IS A NATIVE APP, YES SIR, IF IT IS A WEB APP, NO. >> THANK YOU, THROUGHOUT THE INVESTIGATION WE HAVE HER CONCERNS THAT RULES GOVERNING THE APP STORE REVIEW PROCESS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO APP DEVELOPERS, THE RULES ARE MADE UP AS YOU GO, THEY ARE ARBITRARILY INTERPRETED AND ENFORCED, AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE WHENEVER APPLE SEES FIT TO CHANGE, AND DEVELOPERS HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO GO ALONG WITH THE CHANGES, OR THEY MUST LEAVE THE APP STORE, THAT'S AN ENOR

MOUS AMOUNT OF POWER, ALSO THE RULES GET CHANGED TO BENEFIT APPLE AT THE EXPENSE OF AT DEVELOPERS, AND THE APP STORE IS SAID TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN APP DEVELOPERS WITH SIMILAR APPS, ON THE APPLE PLATFORM, AND AS TOO SMALL APP DEVELOPERS VERSUS LARGE APP DEVELOPERS, SO DOES APPLE NOT TREAT ALL APP DEVELOPERS EQUALLY? SPEAKERS SURE, WE TREAT EVERY DEVELOPER THE SAME, WE HAVE OPEN AND TRANSPARENT RULES, IT IS A RIGOROUS PROCESS, BECAUSE WE CARE SO DEEPLY ABOUT PRIVACY AND SECURITY IN QUALITY,

WE DO LOOK AT EVERY APP BEFORE GOES ON, BUT THOSE RULES APPLY EVENLY TO EVERYONE. AND THAT YOU CAN TELL BY GOING FROM -- >> SOME DEVELOPERS ARE FAVORED OVER OTHERS THOUGH, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS NOT CORRECT. >> FORGIVE ME, I WILL GIVE AN EXAMPLE, BAIDU HAS 2 PEOPLE ASSIGNED TO NAVIGATE THE BUREAUCRACY, ISN'T THAT TRUE? >> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT SERVE. >> YOU DON'T HAVE APP DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE THE SAME ACCESS TO APPLE PERSONNEL, DO YOU? >> WE DO A LOT OF THINGS, INCLUDING LOOKING A

T THE BETA TEST APPS, >> LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION, APPLE HAS NEGOTIATED EXCEPTIONS TO THE TYPICAL 30% COMMISSION FOR SOME APPS LIKE AMAZON PRIME. IS A REDUCED COMMISSION SUCH AS THE ONE THAT EMMA PLOT -- AMAZON PRIME GETS AVAILABLE TO APP DEVELOPERS? >> IT IS AVAILABLE TO ANYONE MEETING THE CONDITIONS, YES. >> LET ME ASK YOU THIS, APPLE REQUIRES ALL APP DEVELOPERS TO USE APPLE'S PAYMENT PROCESSING SYSTEM, IF THOSE DEVELOPERS WANT TO SELL THE GOODS AND SERVICES TO APPLE USERS THROUGH AP

PLE'S APP STORE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS GREAT BY -- >> BY PROCESSING PAYMENTS FOR APPS THAT YOU ALLOW INTO THE APP STORE, YOU COLLECT THEIR CUSTOMER DATA AND USE THAT DATA TO INFORM APPLE AS TO WHETHER IT WOULD BE PROFITABLE FOR APPLE TO LAUNCH A COMPETING APP, IS THAT CORRECT? >> 84% OF THE APPS ARE CHARGED NOTHING, THE REMAINING 60% EITHER PAY $15 OR $30, DEPENDING ON THE SPECIFICS, IN THE SECOND YEAR OF A SUBSCRIPTION, IT ONLY PLAYS -- PAYS 15%. >> WHAT IS TO STOP APPLE FROM INCR

EASING ITS COMMISSION TO 50%? >> SIR, WE HAVE NEVER INCREASED COMMISSIONS IN THE STORE SINCE THE FIRST DAY IT OPERATED IN 2008. >> THERE IS NOTHING TO STOP YOU FROM DOING SO, IS THERE? BIGGER I DISAGREE STRONGLY WITH THAT, THERE IS A COMPETITION FOR DEVELOPERS JUST LIKE A COMPETITION FOR CUSTOMERS, THE COMPETITION FOR DEVELOPERS, THEY CAN WRITE THEIR APPS FOR ANDROID OR WINDOWS OR XBOX OR PLAYSTATION, WE HAD FEARS COMPOSITION AT THE DEVELOPER SIDE AND THE CUSTOMER SIDE, WHICH ESSENTIALLY IT

IS SO COMPETITIVE I WOULD DESCRIBE IT AS A STREET FIGHT FOR MARKET SHARE IN THE SMARTPHONE BUSINESS. >> IS APPLE EVER RETALIATED AGAINST OR DISADVANTAGED A DEVELOPER WHO WENT PUBLIC ABOUT THEIR FRUSTRATIONS WITH THE APP STORE? >> WE DON'T RETALIATE OR BULLY PEOPLE, IT IS STRONGLY AGAINST OUR COMPANY CULTURE. >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. RECOGNIZING THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, MR. GAETZ. >> MR. ZUCKERBERG MADE THE CLAIM THAT FACEBOOK IS AN AMERICAN COMPANY WITH AMERICAN VAL

UES, DO ANY OF THE REST OF YOU TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW, THAT YOUR COMPANIES DON'T HAVE AMERICAN VALUES. IT IS GREAT TO SEE THAT NONE OF YOU DO, MR. PICHAI, I'M WORRIED ABOUT GOOGLE'S MARKET POWER AND OUT CONCENTRATES THE POWER AND HOW IT WIELDS IT, PROJECT MAVEN WAS A COLLABORATION BETWEEN GOOGLE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE THAT GOOGLE PULLED OUT OF, CITING ETHICAL CONCERNS, YOU MADE THE DECISION TO PULL OUT FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF A LETTER FROM THOUSANDS OF YOUR EMPLOYEES SAYING THAT GOOG

LE SHOULD NOT BE IN THE BUSINESS OF WAR. MY QUESTION MR. PICHAI, IS DID YOU WEIGH THE INPUT FROM YOUR EMPLOYEES WHEN MAKING A DECISION TO ABANDON THAT PROJECT WITH THE UNITED STATES MILITARY? >> CONGRESSMAN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONCERN, AS I SAID EARLIER, WE ARE DEEPLY COMMITTED TO SUPPORTING THE MILITARY AND THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, WE HAVE TAKEN IN SEVERAL PROJECTS SINCE THEN, TAKING THE EMPLOYEES, ONE INPUT, MAKING IT BASED ON A VARIETY OF FACTORS, AS A COMPANY, CLOUDS THE CASE AT THAT TIME

. SINCE THEN -- THAT IS A SUFFICIENT ANSWER, YOU TOOK THEIR FEEDBACK INTO ACCOUNT, IN FACT SOME OF YOUR GOOGLE EMPLOYEES HAVE RECENTLY SENT A LETTER TO EXIT OTHER PARTNERSHIPS OF THE CONSEQUENCE OF ETHICAL CONCERNS, STOP DOING BUSINESS WITH AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT, SAYING THAT POLICE BROADLY UPHOLD WHITE SUPREMACY AND THAT GOOGLE SHOULD NOT BE ENGAGED IN ANY SERVICES TO PLEASE, AND AS YOU WILL KNOW, YOU PROVIDE SOME OF THE MOST BASIC SERVICES TO POLICE LIKE EMAIL BUT ALSO SERVICES THAT HEL

P KEEP OUR COPS SAFE WHEN THEY ARE DOING THEIR JOB AND SO MY QUESTION IS, HERE IN FRONT OF CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WILL YOU TAKE THE PLEDGE THAT GOOGLE WILL NOT ADOPT THE BIGOTED ANTI-POLICE POLICY THAT IS REQUESTED IN THE MOST RECENT LETTER? >> CONGRESSMAN, WE HAVE A LONG >>> RECORD TRACK RECORD WORKING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT WHEN IT IS SUPPORTED BY DUE PROCESS, AND THE PUSHBACK AGAINST OVERBROAD REQUEST, WE ARE TRANSPARENT ABOUT THE REQUEST WE GET, WE HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF FOLL

OWING THE LAW, AND COOPERATING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. >> I UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY, I'M ASKING ABOUT THE FUTURE, LAW ENFORCEMENT WATCHING TODAY, CAN REST ASSURED THAT GOOGLE WILL NOT IMPLEMENT THESE BIGOTED ANTI-POLICE POLICIES? >> INNOVATIVE POLICIES, BUT WE ARE COMMITTED TO THOSE POLICIES SUPPORTING THE POLICE AND THE U.S. >> I'M SURE THAT WOULD BE COVERING TO THE POLICE THAT UTILIZE YOUR SERVICES. YOU MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE DISCUSSION ABOUT CHINA THAT YOUR ENGAGEMENT IN CHINA WAS VER

Y LIMITED. YET GOOGLE HAS AN AI CHINA CENTER, THE CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES HAS PUBLISHED A PAPER THAT ENHANCES THE TARGETING CAPABILITY OF CHINA'S J 20 FIGHTER AIRCRAFT, COLLABORATING WITH CHINESE UNIVERSITIES THAT TAKE MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM THE CHINESE MILITARY, IN FACT ONE OF YOUR GOOGLE EMPLOYEES, WHILE UNDER YOUR EMPLOYEE WAS CITED IN CHINA STATE MEDIA SAYING CHINA IS LIKE A SLEEPING GIANT, WHEN SHE WAKES, SHE WILL TREMBLE THE WORLD, THE FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

, MR. SHANAHAN, SAID THE LINES HAVE BEEN BLURRED BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND MILITARY APPLICATION, AND MR. BOOK CITED, GENERAL DUNFORD SAID YOUR COMPANY IS DIRECTLY AIDING THE CHINESE MILITARY, AND PETER TEAL, WHO SERVES ON THE MR. ZUCKERBERG SPORTED FACEBOOK I SEE THAT GOOGLE'S ACTIVITIES IN CHINA ARE TREASONOUS, THE ACCUSED YOU OF TREASON. WHY WOULD AN AMERICAN COMPANY WITH AMERICAN VALUES SO DIRECTLY AID THE CHINESE MILITARY, BUT HAVE ETHICAL CONCERNS ABOUT WORKING ALONGSIDE THE U.S. MILIT

ARY ON PROJECT MAVEN, AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT ABOUT CYBER SECURITY AND THOSE THINGS, BUT PROJECT MAVEN WAS A SPECIFIC WAY TO ENSURE OUR TROOPS ARE SAFE IN THE BATTLEFIELD, IF YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM MAKING THE J 20 FIGHTER MORE EFFECTIVE IN TARGETING, WHY WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO MAKE AMERICA AS EFFECTIVE? >> CONGRESSMAN, WITH RESPECT, WE ARE NOT WORKING WITH THE CHINESE MILITARY, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY FALSE, I AM MET WITH GENERAL DUNFORD DIRECTLY, WE HAVE QUALIFIED WE'RE DOING COMPARED TO THE.,

WE ARE LIMITED TO A HIM -- HANDFUL OF PEOPLE WORKING ON THOSE PROJECTS, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SPLINTER WORK IN CHINA. >> WHEN THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF SAYS AN AMERICAN COMPANY IS DIRECTLY AIDING CHINA, WHEN YOU HAVE AN AI CENTER IN WORKING WITH UNIVERSITIES AND YOUR EMPLOYEES ARE TALKING ABOUT CHINA TRAVELING THE WORLD, IT SEEMS TO CALL TO QUESTION YOUR COMMITMENT TO OUR COUNTRY AND OUR VALUES. I SEE MY TIME HAS EXPIRED, I HOPE WE HAVE AN ADDITIONAL ROUND. >>> I KNOW RECOGNI

ZE MR. JAMIE RASKIN. >> MR. ZUCKERBERG, AS YOU KNOW THE PROLIFERATION OF FACEBOOK ACCOUNTS WAS A KEY TOOL IN THE STRATEGY OF RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE AMERICAN ELECTION IN 2016, AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT, THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE HAVE ALL FOUND THAT VLADIMIR PUTIN ENGAGED IN A SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGN TO UNDERMINE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY IN 2016 AND TO WORK FOR A VICTORY FOR DONALD TRUMP. IN HIS REMARKABLE BOOK, MIND BLANK, I'M BEING POLITE, CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA AND THE PLOT TO BREAK AM

ERICA, WHISTLEBLOWER CHRISTOPHER WILEY, WHO WORKED AT CAMBRIDGE AND BECAUSE I RECALLED HOW THE ASSAULT ON AMERICA AND THEIR RESEARCH DEPENDED ON FACEBOOK, WHEN CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA LAUNCHED IN THE SUMMER OF 2014, STEVE BANNON'S GOAL WAS TO CHANGE POLITICS BY CHANGING CULTURE, FACEBOOK'S DATA, ANALYTICS AND NARRATIVES WERE THE KEY WEAPON, THEY USE THESE TOOLS TO IDENTIFY PEOPLE WHO EXHIBITED THREE TRAITS AND WHAT THEY CALL THE DARK TRIAD, NARCISSISM, MacHIAVELLIANISM AND PSYCHOPATHY, THEY AC

TIVATED THESE PEOPLE, A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, BUT MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WITH DARK AND MANIPULATIVE MESSAGES FROM FAKE FACEBOOK PAGES, TO GET THEM TO VOTE FOR TRUMP BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY TO ACTIVATE THEM AS RACISTS AND WHITE NATIONALISTS. THEY GO ON TO DESCRIBE THE REMARKABLE SUCCESS OF THIS CAMPAIGN. BOTH ELECTORALLY BUT ALSO POLITICALLY IN THE COUNTRY, AND SEWING THE TERRIBLE RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIVISIONS IN AMERICA TODAY, WAGING A MASS CAMPAIGN OF PSYCHOLOGICAL WHERE FREI

RE TO POLARIZER ON RACE AND RELIGION, AND ACTIVATE RACISTS AND ANTI-SEMITES. IT DIDN'T WORK SO WELL FOR AMERICA. MR. ZUCKERBERG, WHICH PART OF THIS NARRATIVE HAVE YOU ADDRESSED OR ARE YOU PLANNING TO ADDRESS, OR DO YOU JUST SEE THAT ESSENTIALLY AS THE COST OF BEING A FORM AND A MARKETPLACE FOR IDEAS? IS THERE NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT THE USE OF FACEBOOK TO ENGENDER SOCIAL DIVISION IN AMERICA? >> CONGRESSMAN, THANK YOU, SINCE 2016, THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF STEPS THAT WE'VE TAKEN TO P

ROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF ELECTIONS, WE HAVE HIRED I THINK IT IS MORE THAN 30,000 PEOPLE TO WORK ON SAFETY AND SECURITY, BUILDING UP AI SYSTEMS TO FIND A HARMFUL CONTENT, INCLUDING BEING ABLE TO FIND MORE THAN 50 DIFFERENT NETWORKS OF COORDINATED AND AUTHENTIC BEHAVIOR, NATIONSTATES TRYING TO INTERFERE IN ELECTIONS. >> LET ME POSITIVE FOR SECOND, I'M INTERESTED IN THAT. THESE STOP HEAT FOR PROFIT CAMPAIGN IS A COALITION THAT INCLUDES THE COLOR OF CHANGE, THE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE AND OTHER

CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS, THEY ARE TARGETING FACEBOOK FOR A BOYCOTT BECAUSE OF THE RAPID SPREAD OF HATE MESSAGES ONLINE, THE PRESENCE OF BOOGALOO AND OTHER RIGHT WING EXTREMIST GROUPS TRYING TO INTERRUPT AND DISRUPT BLACK LIVES BETTER APPROACHES, AND ALL RIGHT RACIST AND ANTI-SEMITIC CONTENT FLOURISHES ON FACEBOOK, SO THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO REMOVE THESE PAGES AND ESSENTIALLY TO JOIN THE MOVEMENT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS BY NOT ALLOWING THAT KIND OF CONTENT, THE BOY CUTTERS INCLUDE PATAGONIA, LEVIS, McD

ONALD'S, VW, HEINEKEN, SO ON, BUT YOU SEEM NOT TO BE THAT MOVED BY THEIR CAMPAIGN, I WONDER WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO ASK YOU TO DO? >> CONGRESSMAN, THANKS, WE ARE FURRY FOCUSED ON FUNDING AGAINST ELECTION INTERFERENCE, AND HATE SPEECH, OUR COMMITMENT TO THOSE ISSUES GO BACK YEARS BEFORE THIS RECENT MOVEMENT. SINCE 2016, THE DEFENSE IS THAT THE COMPANY HAS BUILT UP TO HELP SECURE ELECTIONS, NOT JUST IN THE U.S. BUT AROUND THE WORLD, I THINK ARE SOME OF THE MOST ADVANCED

THAT ANY COMPANY OR GOVERNMENT HAS IN THE WORLD NOW. COLLABORATING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, AND WE ARE ABLE TO SOMETIMES IDENTIFY THREATS COMING FROM OTHER COUNTRIES BEFORE GOVERNMENTS ARE EVEN ABLE TO. IN TERMS OF FIGHTING HATE, WE HAVE BUILT REALLY SOPHISTICATED SYSTEMS, OUR GOAL IS TO IDENTIFY IT BEFORE ANYBODY EVEN SEASON ON THE PLATFORM, REBUILD AI SYSTEMS AND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WORKING ON SAFETY AND SECURITY, WITH THE GOAL OF GETTING THE STUFF DOWN, B

EFORE PEOPLE EVEN SEE IT. RIGHT NOW, WE ARE BE ABLE TO PROACTIVELY IDENTIFY 89% OF THE HATE SPEECH THAT WE PUT DOWN, I WOULD LIKE TO GET BETTER THAN 89%, I WOULD LIKE TO GET 99%, BUT WE HAVE A MASSIVE INVESTMENT HERE. INVESTING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS PER >> MY TIME IS ALMOST UP, CAN YOU JUST ADDRESS THE PROLIFERATION OF FAKE ACCOUNTS, I UNDERSTAND ANNUALLY YOU GET 6.5 BILLION FAKE ACCOUNTS PRODUCED, BUT IN SON'S SENSE -- IN SOME SENSE YOU HAVE A FINANCIAL CONNECTION, ARE YOU FERRETING OUT THE

SE FAKE ACCOUNTS THAT ARE USED TO SPREAD HATE AND DISINFORMATION? >> TIMES EXPIRED BUT THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> ABSOLUTELY, WE TAKE DOWN BILLIONS OF FAKE ACCOUNTS A YEAR, A LOT OF THAT IS JUST PEOPLE TRYING TO SET UP ACCOUNTS TO SPAM PEOPLE FOR COMMERCIAL REASONS, A SMALL PERCENTAGE ARE NATIONSTATES TRYING TO INTERFERE IN ELECTIONS, BUT WE ARE VERY FOCUSED ON TRYING TO FIND THOSE, HAVING FAKE AND HARMFUL CONTENT ON OUR PLATFORM DOES NOT HELP OUR BUSINESS, IT HURTS HER BUSIN

ESS. PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT STUFF, AND THE USE OUR SERVICES LESS WHEN THEY DO. SO WE ARE ALIGNED WITH PEOPLE IN ORDER TO TAKE THAT DOWN, AND WE INVEST BILLIONS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR IN DOING SO. >> THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN RECESS FOR 10 MINUTES WHILE WE FIX A TECHNICAL FEED WITH ONE OF OUR WITNESSES. >>> THE COMMITTEE WILL CONNECT ORDER, I RECOGNIZE THE GERMAN FROM NORTH DAKOTA, MR. ARMSTRONG. >> GOOGLE HAS RECEIVED CRITICISM ABOUT BIAS AGAINST CONSERVATIVES AND CONTENT MODERATION,

THE MONETIZING THE FEDERALISTS ANOTHER NUMEROUS COULD VIEW POINTS, AS A RESULT, A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HAS LOST TRUST IN YOUR COMPANY. A LACK OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN A PRODUCT USUALLY MEANS THERE IS ECONOMIC HARM TO THE COMPANY. BUT THAT JUST ISN'T THE CASE WITH GOOGLE, I THINK IT IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER GOOGLE'S MARKET POWER INSULATES IT FROM LOSS OF REVENUE NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH OFFENDING HALF THE PEOPLE THAT USE THE PRODUCT, AND IS LEGITIMATE T

O ASK IF OTHER ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE YOUR INDUSTRIES HAVE WORKED. SO MR. PICHAI, GOOGLE HAS RESTRICTED THE ANALYTICS OR THE PORTABILITY RELATED TO ADVERTISING DUE TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATION, IN 2010, RESTRICTING THE ABILITY TO EXPORT THE DOUBLE ID, A COOKIE-BASED IDENTIFIER, CREATING PROFILES THROUGH DATA TRANSFER, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE SPECIFICS OF THE PARTICULAR ISSUE, BUT HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP MORE ONCE I UNDERSTAND IT BET

TER. >> YOU ARE NOT PARTICULARLY FAMILIAR WITH HOW YOU ARE COMPLYING WITH GDPR? BAKER HARASSMENT, WE HAVE LONG BEEN WORKING TO COMPLY WITH GDPR, WE THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT REGULATION, AND WE ARE IN FULL COMPLIANCE TO THE EXPENSE OF MY KNOWLEDGE, I JUST MEANT NOT ABOUT THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE WITH THE IDENTIFIER YOU MENTIONED, BUT HAPPY TO UNDERSTAND IT BETTER AND FOLLOW-UP. >> IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH GDPR, GOOGLE MUST RETAIN CONTROL OVER MORE USER DATA AND RESTRICTED TO COMBINE IT WITH OTHE

R PLATFORMS ACROSS QUITE -- CROSS-PLATFORM ANALYSIS, IT SEEMS LIKE IT ULTIMATELY LIMITS THE ADVERTISERS TO MAKE COMPARISONS BETWEEN GOOGLE BASE CAMPAIGNS AND NON--- NON-GOOGLE BASE CAMPAIGNS, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >> IN ALL OF THESE ECOSYSTEMS, WE ARE BALANCING BETWEEN USERS, ADVERTISERS AND PUBLISHERS, WE DEEPLY CARE ABOUT THE PRIVACY AND SECURITY OF OUR USERS, SO WHEN WE SERVE THESE ECOSYSTEMS, WE HAVE TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT AND TO COMPLY WITH IMPORTANT LAWS AND REGULATIONS IN

EVERY COUNTRY, THAT WE OFFER IT, THAT IS THE DELICATE BALANCE WE ARE CONSTANTLY STRIKING, BUT WE ARE FOCUSED ON OUR USERS AND TRYING TO DO THE BEST THAT WE CAN. >> I JUST WANT TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT MARKET POWER CONSOLIDATION IS SIGNIFICANT, BUT I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WE WERE MOVING FORWARD REGULATE THIS, THAT WE AREN'T ACTUALLY SQUEEZING OUT COMPETITION IN OUR QUEST TO DO SO, BECAUSE I'VE SAID THAT BEFORE THIS HEARING AND I WILL SIT AGAIN, USUALLY IN OUR QUEST TO

REGULATE BIG COMPANIES, WE END UP HURTING SMART COMPANIES -- SMALL COMPANIES MORE THE CONSEQUENCES OF GDPR, HAVE FURTHER ENTRENCHED LARGE ACTORS LIKE GOOGLE, LEADING TO REGULATORY CAPTURE, AND THE DIGITAL AD MARKET SHARE HAS INCREASED SINCE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GDPR, YOU KNOW THAT TO BE CORRECT? >> CONGRESSMAN, TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF THE ROBUST COMPETITION WE SEE, ADD PRICES OF FALLEN BY 40% IN THE PAST 10 YEARS AND IN FACT IN THE U.S., ADVERTISING AS A SHARE OF GDP HAS COME DOWN FROM O

NE .4% IN 1992, TO LESS THAN 1% TODAY, WE SEE ROBUST COMPETITION IN THE MARKETPLACE, AND AS I SAID EARLIER, WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH REGULATIONS AND INTERPRETED STRICTLY AND BALANCED ECOSYSTEM, BUT UTMOST CARE IS IN AND ENSURING THE SECURITY AND PRIVACY OF MEMBERS PICK >> I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T DO WITH PRIVACY, I'M GLAD YOU MENTIONED THAT, GENERALLY SPEAKING OUTSIDE OF THE POLITICAL ISSUES AND THE BIAS, ESSENTIALLY FOR ALL FOUR WITNESSES, ONE OF OUR BIGGER CONCERNS WE TALKED ABOUT D

ATA AND DATA HAVING VALUE AND PRIVACY, WHICH IS WHERE PEOPLE REALLY GET CONCERNED WITH HOW THE DIGITAL AGE IS MOVING FORWARD, THERE ARE NEWS REPORTS THE LAW-ENFORCEMENT HAS MADE INCREASING USE OF WHAT ARE CALLED GEO-FENCE WARRANTS, ALLOWING AUTHORITIES TO COMPEL TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES TO DISCLOSE LOCATION RECORDS FOR ANY DEVICE IN A CERTAIN AREA AT A PARTICULAR TIME, COURT FILINGS JUST LIKE GOOGLE RECEIVED A 1500 PERCENT INCREASE IN REQUESTS FROM 2017 THROUGH 2018, AND 500% FROM 2018 UNTIL 20

19, AND SO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES PROBABLE CAUSE AND SPECIFICITY, THAT'S NOT WHAT THESE ARE, THEY ARE FOR ANY PERSON IN AN AREA AT A PARTICULAR TIME, GEO-FENCE WARRANTS REQUIRE NEITHER. UNLESS THE COMPANY BY PARTICULARIZED INFORMATION AND IDENTIFYING A SUBJECT, THEY ARE GENERALLY WARRANTS. I BELIEVE THE LOCATION INFORMATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS THE CONTENT OF THE HISTORIC MEDICATION.COM DO YOU AGREE? BIGGER HAPPY TO UNDERSTAND MORE, WE DEEPLY CARE ABOUT THIS, THIS IS WHY WE ISS

UE TRANSPARENCY REPORTS, WE THINK IT IS IMPORTANT AREA FOR CONGRESS TO HAVE OVERSIGHT AND WE RECENTLY MADE A CHANGE BY WHICH WE AUTOMATICALLY DELETE LOCATION ACTIVITY AFTER A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME BY DEFAULT FOR OUR USERS, SO WE ARE HAPPY TO ENGAGE WITH THE OFFICE, CONGRESSMAN PICK >> THESE ARE GOING ON IN VIRGINIA AND NEW YORK RIGHT NOW, THIS EQUATES FOR EVERYTHING, PEOPLE WOULD BE TERRIFIED TO KNOW THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN GRAB GENERAL WARRANTS AND GET ANYBODY'S INFORMATION ANYWHERE,

IT REQUIRES, STACKED AND EVERYBODY IN A WITNESS IN THE HEARING TO BE ABLE TO WORK TO IT, THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE I THINK. >> THE TIME IS BUT A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST? BAKER YES, FOR A WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE, PLEASE REQUEST FOR GOOGLE FACING NEW SCRUTINY, AS WELL. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION PICK >> 2 LETTERS, CONGRESSMAN WALDEN AND COMMERCE ONE McMORRIS. >> ENTERING THOSE INTO THE RECORD, AND NOW I RECOGNIZE PRAMILA JAYAPAL PICK >> YOUR EMPLOYEE, NATE SUTTON, TOLD ME UNDER OATH

IN THE COMMITTEE THAT AMAZON DOES NOT QUOTE, USE ANY SPECIFIC SELLER DATA WHEN CREATING ITS OWN PRIVATE BRAND PRODUCTS. SO LET ME ASK YOU, MR. JEFF BEZOS, DOES AMAZON USE THIRD-PARTY DATA WHEN MAKING DID -- BUSINESS DECISIONS, YES OR NO? BAKER THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, IT'S AN IMPORTANT TOPIC, AND THANK YOU FOR REPRESENTING US. I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION YES OR NO, WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS, WE HAVE A POLICY AGAINST USING SELLER SPECIFIC DATA TO AID OUR PRIVATE LABEL BUSINESS BUT I CAN'T

GUARANTEE YOU THAT THE POLICY HAS NEVER BEEN VIOLATED. >> YOU'RE PROBABLY AWARE THAT AN APRIL 2020 REPORT IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL REVEALED THAT YOUR COMPANY DOES ACCESS DATA ON THIRD-PARTY SELLERS, BUT BY REVIEWING DATA ON POPULAR INDIVIDUAL SELLERS AND PRODUCTS, AND CREATING TINY PRODUCT CATEGORIES THAT ALLOW YOUR COMPANY TO CATEGORICALLY ACCESS DETAILED SELLER INFORMATION IN A SUPPOSEDLY AGGREGATE CATEGORY, DO YOU DENY THAT REPORT? >> I AM FAMILIAR WITH A WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE

THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE CONTINUE TO LOOK INTO THAT VERY CAREFULLY, I'M NOT YET SATISFIED THAT WE HAVE GOTTEN TO THE BOTTOM OF IT, WE WILL KEEP LOOKING AT IT, SOME OF THESE SOURCES IN THE ARTICLE ARE ANONYMOUS BUT WE CONTINUE TO LOOK AT IT PICK >> I TAKE IT THAT YOU'RE NOT DENYING THAT, LOOKING INTO IT, A FORMER AMAZON EMPLOYEE AND THIRD-PARTY VENDOR TOLD THE COMMITTEE, THERE IS A RULE BUT THERE IS NOBODY ENFORCING HER SPOT CHECKING, THEY SAY DON'T HELP YOURSELF TO THE DATA, IT IS A

CANDY SHOP, ANYBODY CAN HAVE ACCESS TO ANYTHING THEY WANT. DO CATEGORY MANAGERS HAVE ACCESS TO NONPUBLIC DATA ABOUT THIRD-PARTY PRODUCTS AND BUSINESSES? >> HERE IS WHAT I CAN TELL YOU, WE HAVE CERTAIN SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE, WE TRAIN PEOPLE IN THE POLICY, WE EXPECT PEOPLE TO FOLLOW POLICY THE WAY WE WOULD ANY OTHER. A VOLUNTARY POLICY, NO OTHER RETAILER USES IT AT ALL -- >> BUT THERE IS NO ACTUAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE POLICY? IT IS VOLUNTARY, BUT NO ACTUAL ENFORCEMENT? >> NO, I THINK I MAY HAVE M

ISSPOKE, I'M TRYING TO SAY THAT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE SUCH A POLICY IS VOLUNTARY. NO OTHER RETAILER EVEN HAS IS A POLICY. AND WE WOULD TREAT THAT IT'S ANY INTERNAL POLICY AND FOUND IF SOMEONE VIOLENTLY, WE WOULD TAKE ACTION AGAINST THEM. >> THERE ARE NUMEROUS REPORTS, THE COMMITTEE HAS CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS WITH FORMER EMPLOYEES WHO CONFIRM THAT THERE ARE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE ACCESS TO THE DATA AND ARE USING IT, SEMANTICS QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE, IF YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE ACTUALLY ENFORCING THE

SE RULES, DO YOU THINK THAT IS WORKING, AND AGAIN I WOULD JUST SAY THERE IS CREDIBLE REPORTING THAT HAS DOCUMENTED BREACHES OF THESE RULES YOU HAVE PUT INTO PLACE, AND THE COMMITTEE IS INTERVIEWED EMPLOYEES THAT SAY THESE BREACHES TYPICALLY OCCUR. LET'S TALK ABOUT AGGREGATE DATA, THE RULES ALLOW YOU TO COMBINE DATA ON A PRODUCT WHEN THERE ONLY ONE OR TWO SELLERS IN THE MARKETPLACE, CORRECT? BAKER YES, AGGREGATE DATA IS ALLOWED UNDER OUR POLICIES, THAT IS CORRECT. >> INTERVIEWS WITH FORMER E

MPLOYEES HAVE MANY CLEAR THAT THE AGGREGATE DATA ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS AXIS TO HIGHLY DETAILED DATA IN THOSE PRODUCT CATEGORIES, THE EXAMPLE AFORETIME, NO DIRECT COMPETITORS, EXCEPT FOR AMAZON -- IT ONLY SOLD 17 UNITS, AND ACCESS TO DETAILED SALES REPORT ON THEIR PRODUCT WITH INFORMATION ON HOW MUCH THEY SPENT ON ADVERTISING PER UNIT AND THE COST TO SHIP EACH TRUNK, THEN AMAZON LAUNCHED ITS OWN COMPETING PRODUCTS IN OCTOBER 2019. THAT IS A MAJOR LOOPHOLE AND I GO BACK TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL

STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE, VERY CLEARLY THAT THERE WAS NO ACCESS TO THIS DATA, THEN AMAZON DOES NOT USE THE DATA FOR ITS OWN BENEFIT, NOW I'M HEARING YOU SAYING YOU'RE NOT SO SURE IT'S GOING ON, AND THE ISSUE WE ARE CONCERNED WITH HERE IS VERY SIMPLE. YOU HAVE ACCESS TO DATA THAT FAR EXCEEDS THE SELLERS ON UPON FORMS WITH WHOM YOU COMPETE -- WITH WHOM YOU COMPETE, EVERYTHING THAT THEY CLICKED ON AND DIDN'T BUY, ACCESS TO THE ENTIRETY OF SELLER'S PRICING AND INVENTORY INFORMATION, PAST, P

RESENT AND FUTURE AND YOU DICTATE THE PARTICIPATION OF THIRD-PARTY SELLERS ON YOUR PLATFORM, SO YOU CAN SET THE RULES OF THE GAME FOR YOUR COMPETITORS, BUT NOT ACTUALLY FOLLOW THOSE SAME RULES FOR YOURSELF. DO YOU THINK THAT IS FAIR TO THE MOM-AND-POP THIRD-PARTY BUSINESSES TRYING TO SELL ON YOUR PLATFORM? >> I APPRECIATE THAT QUESTION, I LIKE A LOT BECAUSE I WANT A CHANCE TO ADDRESS THAT. I'M VERY PROUD OF WHAT WE HAVE DONE FOR THIRD-PARTY SELLERS ON THIS PLATFORM. WE STARTED THE THIRD-

PARTY PLATFORM 20 YEARS AGO AND WE HAD ZERO SELLERS ON IT. eBAY WAS -- >> I'M SORRY, MY TIME IS EXPIRING, THE QUESTION THAT I WANTED ASK YOU IS, YOU HAVE ACCESS TO DATA THAT YOUR COMPETITORS DO NOT HAVE, YOU MIGHT ALLOW THIRD-PARTY SELLERS UNDER YOUR PLATFORM, BUT IF YOU'RE CONTINUOUSLY MONITORING THE DATA TO MAKE SURE THEY WILL NEVER GET BIG ENOUGH TO COMPETE, THAT IS I SEE THE CONCERN THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS, AND YOUR COMPANY STARTED MY DISTRICT, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT AND THE WORK

YOU'VE DONE AND SAY THAT THE WHOLE GOAL OF THIS COMMITTEE'S WORK IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE MORE AMAZONS, MORE APPLES, MORE COMPANIES THAT GET TO INNOVATE IN SMALL BUSINESSES THEY GET TO THRIVE, THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO GET AT AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE TRYING TO REGULATE THE MARKETPLACES SO THAT NO COMPANY HAS A PLATFORM SO DOMINANT THAT IT IS ESSENTIALLY A MONOPOLY, I YIELD BACK. >> I WANTED TO REMIND THE WITNESSES, WE APPRECIATE THE GRATITUDE FOR THE QUESTIONS, AND YOUR DESCRIPTIO

N OF THEM AS GOOD QUESTIONS, WE WILL ASSUME THEY ARE GOOD QUESTIONS, AND YOU ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM SO WERE MAKING GOOD USE OF OUR TIME, AND WITH THAT I RECOGNIZE THE GYM AND FROM FLORIDA, MR. GREG STEUBE. I WILL START WITH YOU, SUNDAR PICHAI, A FACTUAL INCIDENT, IT OCCURRED TO ME, SEVERAL MONTHS AGO MY WIFE CALLED AND SAID HEY THERE'S A GOOD ARTICLE ON THE GATEWAY PUNDIT THAT YOU SHOULD READ, OUT OF CURIOSITY I WAS IN WASHINGTON, AND OUT OF CURIOSITY, I GOOGLED GATEWAY PUNDIT, AND IT D

IDN'T SHOW UP ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE SECOND PAGE, THERE WAS A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT BLOGGING SITES ABOUT HOW THERE WERE DISAGREEMENTS WITH WHAT WAS ON THE GATEWAY PUNDIT, BUT ACTUALLY HAD TO TYPE IN GATEWAY PUNDIT.COM TO GET TO IT, INTERESTINGLY GOOGLE DIDN'T ALLOW ME TO GET TO THE ACTUAL WEBSITE. THAT WAS A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, BEFORE THE HEARING WAS SET TO BE HEARD IN KNOWN AND BEFORE YOU KNEW THAT YOU WOULD BE APPEARING BEFORE US TODAY, AND THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT CONSERVATIVES AND REPU

BLICANS HAVE HAD. LAST WEEK, AFTER THIS WAS NOTICED, THE HEARING WAS NOTICED, I DID THE EXACT SAME THING IN THE CAPITAL, AND WOULD YOU KNOW IT, I GOOGLED GATEWAY PUNDIT AND IT WAS THE FIRST WEBSITE THEY CAME OUT. THIS IS AND FROM A CONSTITUENT IN MY DISTRICT OR SOMEBODY TELLING ME, OR NEWS REPORT, I DID THIS PHYSICALLY ON MY CAPITAL SEVERAL MONTHS AGO AND THEN TODAY, SO CLEARLY SOMETHING HAD HAPPENED BETWEEN NOT BEING NOTIFIED THAT YOU'RE GOING TO APPEAR IN LAST WEEK KNOWING YOU WOULD BE

APPEARING AND SUDDENLY CONSERVATIVE WEBSITES ARE NOW THE TOP OF THE BAR WHEN YOU SEARCH FOR THEM. SO WAS THERE ANYTHING DONE A GOOGLE BETWEEN A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO AND LAST WEEK OR THE WEEK BEFORE YOU APPEARING TODAY THAT HAS CHANGED THE APPROACH TO SILENCING CONSERVATIVE WEBSITES. >> CONGRESSMAN, WE APPROACH OUR WORK WITH A DEEP SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY, IN A NONPARTISAN WAY, WE WANT TO SERVE ALL USERS, WHETHER THEY ARE CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERAL, IT IS IN OUR INTEREST TO DO SO, OTHER MORE

CONSERVATIVE VOICES THAN EVER BEFORE, WE BELIEVE THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, I OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT QUESTION, IT COULD BE A NUMBER OF REASONS, WE CONSTANTLY GET REPORTS -- >> IF YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK INTO IT, CAN I RESET -- EXPECT A RESPONSE FROM YOU IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS AS TO WHY THAT OCCURRED? >> CONGRESSMAN, WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO FOLLOW, AND I WILL ENGAGE WITH YOUR OFFICE TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT. >> OKAY, WE WILL FOLLOW UP ON THAT. I'VE BEEN IN ELECTED POLITICS FOR 10 YEARS,

WHEN I WAS IN THE FLORIDA SENATE AND STATE SENATE, I NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH MY CAMPAIGN EMAILS BEING GOING TO SPAM OR JUNK FOLDERS OR ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES, WE HAVE 30,000, 40,000, 50,000, AND SUDDENLY I GET ELECTED TO CONGRESS, AND I'M NOW APPEAR IN WASHINGTON DC, AND MY PARENTS, YOU HAVE A GMAIL ACCOUNT, ARE NOT GETTING MY CAMPAIGN EMAILS, MY SUPPORTERS, JUST LAST WEEK, ONE OF MY SUPPORTERS CALLED ME AND SAID I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW, MY GMAIL ACCOUNT IS SUDDENLY TAKING YOUR CAMPA

IGN EMAILS I RECEIVED FOR ALMOST 10 YEARS AND SUDDENLY THEY'RE GOING TO SPAM AND JUNK FOLDERS, IT APPEARS TO ONLY BE HAPPENING TO CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THE NEWS OR THE PRESS OR OTHER MEMBERS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE TALKING ABOUT CAMPAIGN EMAILS GETTING THROWN INTO JUNK FOLDERS IN GMAIL, MY QUESTION IS, WHY IS THIS ONLY HAPPENING TO REPUBLICANS, AND IT'S A FACT, I CAN HAVE MY SUPPORTERS TESTIFY THEY RECEIVED MY EMAILS FOR EIGHT YEARS OR NINE YEARS, AND SUDDE

NLY IN THE LAST YEAR, ALL OF THEIR GMAIL, MY CAMPAIGN EMAILS ARE GOING TO THE SPAM FOLDER. IF YOU GIVE ME CLARIFICATION ON THAT I WOULD APPRECIATE IT? >> IN GMAIL WE HAVE FOCUSED ON WHAT USERS WANT, THEY INDICATED THAT THEY WANTED US TO ORGANIZE PERSONAL INFO -- EMAIL SEPARATELY. WE HAVE THE TAB ORGANIZATION, FRIENDS AND FAMILY, AND THE SECONDARY TAB AS OTHER NOTIFICATIONS AND SO ON. IN THESE -- >> IT WAS MY FATHER WAS NOT RECEIVING MY CAMPAIGN EMAILS. SO CLEARLY THAT FAMILIAL THING THAT

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT,, DIDN'T APPLY TO MY EMAILS. >> ARE SYSTEMS PROBABLY ARE NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE CAMPING, IT'S YOUR FATHER, WE APPLY NEUTRALLY ACROSS ALL ORGANIZATIONS, AND YOU KNOW -- >> WHAT ASSURANCES CAN YOU GIVE ME THAT -- ONE LAST QUESTION, WHAT ASSURANCE CAN YOU GIVE ME THAT BIAS ISN'T INFLUENCING YOUR SPAM FOLDER ALGORITHMS? >> CONGRESSMAN, THERE IS IT NOTHING IN THE ALGORITHM THAT HAS TO DO WITH PARTICULAR IDEOLOGY, WE DO GET COMPLAINTS ACROSS THE AISLE, THE WORLD SOCIAL

IST REVIEW COMPLAINED IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR THAT THEIR SITE WASN'T FOUND IN GOOGLE SEARCHES, SO WE GET COMPLAINTS AND WE LOOK INTO IT, BUT WE APPROACH OUR WORK IN A NONPARTISAN WAY, IT IS IN OUR LONG-TERM INCENTIVE TO SERVE USERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THAT IS WHY WE INVEST IN OUR RATERS AND 49 STATES, SO THAT WE CAN CAPTION -- CAPTURE ALL OF THESE. >>> I NOW RECOGNIZE MS. TRAN25 >> I AM A DEMOCRAT FROM FLORIDA, I'VE HEARD COMPLAINS ABOUT MY EMAILS GOING TO SPAM AS WELL AND I'M SURE OTHER D

EMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF HAVE THE SAME EXPERIENCES, UNFORTUNATELY. MR. PICHAI, GOOGLE PURCHASED DOUBLECLICK, THE LEADING PROVIDER OF ADVERTISING TOOLS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> WHEN GOOGLE PROPOSED MERGER, ALARM BELLS WERE RAISED ABOUT THE AXIS GOOGLE WOULD HAVE, SPECIFICALLY THE PERSONAL IDENTITY WITH THE BROWSING ACTIVITY, GOOGLE COMMITTED TO CONGRESS AND THE ANTITRUST ENFORCER IS THAT IT WOULD NOT REDUCE USER PRIVACY, THE LEGAL ADVISOR TESTIFIED BEFORE THE SENATE ANTITRUST

SUBCOMMITTEE THAT GOOGLE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MERGE THIS DATA, EVEN IF IT WANTED TO, GIVEN CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTIONS. BUT IN JUNE 2016, GOOGLE WENT AHEAD AND MERGE THE DATA ANYWAY, EFFECTIVELY DESTROYING ANONYMITY ON THE INTERNET. MR. BAIDU -- MR. PICHAI, YOU BECAME CEO OF GOOGLE IN 2015, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THIS CHANGE WAS MADE IN 2016, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. >> FOR THAT, DID YOU SIGN OFF ON THIS DECISION TO COMBINE THE SETS OF DATA THAT GOOGLE

HAD TOLD CONGRESS WOULD BE KEPT SEPARATE? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, ANY CHANGES WE MADE WOULD BE MADE -- >> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, PLEASE, DID YOU SIGN OFF ON THE DECISION OR NOT? >> I REVIEW AT THE HIGH-LEVEL ALL IMPORTANT DECISIONS WE MAKE, WE DEEPLY CARE ABOUT PRIVACY AND SECURITY OF OUR USERS. >> SO YOU SIGNED OFF. YOU SIGNED OFF ON THE DECISION. THIS DECISION MEANT THAT YOUR COMPANY WOULD NOT COMBINE -- NOW COMBINED FOR EXAMPLE, ALL OF MY DATA ON GOOGLE, MY SEARCH HISTORY, MY LOCATION FROM GOO

GLE MAPS, INFORMATION FOR MY EMAILS, GMAIL, AS WELL AS MY PERSONAL IDENTITY, WITH A RECORD OF ALL OF THE WEBSITES I VISITED. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY STAGGERING. ACCORDING TO AN EMAIL FROM A DOUBLE-CLICK EXECUTIVE, THAT WAS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF REDUCTION IN USER PRIVACY THAT GOOGLE'S FOUNDERS HAD PREVIOUSLY WORRIED WOULD LEAD TO A BACKLASH. AND I QUOTE, THEY WERE UNWAVERING ON THE POLICY DUE TO PHILOSOPHICAL REASONS, WHICH LARRY ANSWER GAYE FUNDAMENTALLY DID NOT WANT USERS ASSOCIATED WITH A CROSS

SITE COOKIE, AND THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT A PRIVACY STORM AND DAMAGE TO GOOGLE'S BRAND. SO IN 2007, GOOGLE'S FOUNDERS FEARED MAKING THIS CHANGE BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT WOULD UPSET THEIR USERS, BUT IN 2016, GOOGLE DID NOT SEEM TO CARE. MR. PICHAI, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT WHAT CHANGED BETWEEN 2007 AND 2016 IS THAT GOOGLE GAINED ENORMOUS MARKET POWER, SO WELL GOOGLE HAD TO CARE ABOUT USER PRIVACY AND 27 -- 2007, IT NO LONGER HAD TO IN 2016, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT WHAT CHANGE WAS GOOGLE GAINED ENORMOUS

MARKET POWER? BAKER CONGRESSWOMAN, IF I COULD EXPLAIN, WE TODAY MAKE IT VERY EASY FOR USERS TO BE IN CONTROL OF THE DATA, WE HAVE SIMPLIFIED THEIR SETTINGS, THEY CAN TURN PERSONALIZATION ON OR OFF, WE'VE COMBINED MOST OF THE ACTIVITY SETTINGS THE THREE GROUPINGS, WE REMIND USERS TO GO TO A PRIVACY CHECKUP AS WELL. >> THANK YOU PICHAI I AM CONCERNED THAT GOOGLE'S BAIT AND SWITCH WITH DOUBLE-CLICK IS PART OF A PATTERN WHERE GOOGLE BUYS UP COMPANIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SURVEILLING AMERICANS,

AND BECAUSE OF GOOGLE'S DOMINANCE, USERS HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO SURRENDER. IN 2019, GOOGLE MADE OVER 80% OF THE TOTAL REVENUE THROUGH THE SELLING OF AD PLACEMENT, IS THAT CORRECT MR. PICHAI? >> IN THE MAJORITY -- YES. >> BECAUSE GOOGLE SELLS BEHAVIORAL ADS, ADS TARGETED EACH OF US AS INDIVIDUALS, MORE USER DATA THAT GOOGLE COLLECTS, THE MORE MONEY IT CAN MAKE, MORE USER DATA MEANS MORE MONEY, IS THAT CORRECT? >> IN GENERAL, THAT IS NOT TRUE, THAT IS NOT MY >> NOT THE MORE USER DATA, THE M

ORE MONEY THAT GOOGLE CAN COLLECT? PLEASE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE MORE USER DATA DOES NOT MEAN THE MORE MONEY THAT GOOGLE CAN COLLECT? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, MOST OF THE DATED TODAY WE COLLECT IS TO HELP USERS AND PROVIDE PERSONAL EXPERIENCES BACK. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. PICHAI, MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK . STRIKE THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE FULL COMMITTEE, MR. JORDAN. >> MR. PICHAI, IS GOOGLE GOING TO TAILOR ITS FEATURES TO HELP JOE BIDEN IN THE 2020 ELECTION? >> CONGRESSMAN, WE APPROACH OUR

WORK , WE SUPPORT BOTH CAMPAIGNS TODAY, WE THINK POLITICAL ADS IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF FREE SPEECH IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY AND WE ENGAGE WITH CAMPAIGNS ACCORDING TO LAW, AND WE APPROACH OUR WORK IN A NONPARTISAN WAY. >> IT WAS A YES OR NO QUESTION. CAN YOU ASSURE AMERICANS TODAY THAT YOU WON'T TELL YOUR FEATURES TO HELP JOE BIDEN IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION? >> WE SUPPORT THE WORK THAT CAMPAIGNS DO, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND -- >> WE ALL DO ALL KINDS OF ONLINE SOCIAL MEDIA, THAT OUTREACH AND CO

MMUNICATION, THIS IS A SIMPLE QUESTION, CAN YOU ASSURE AMERICANS YOU WILL NOT TELL YOUR FEATURES IN ANY WAY TO HELP SPECIFICALLY HELP ONE CANDIDATE OVER ANOTHER, WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS JOE BIDEN OVER PRESIDENT TRUMP? >> WE WILL NOT DO ANY WORK TO LYRICALLY TOOK ANYTHING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, IT IS AGAINST OUR CORE VALUES. >> BUT YOU DID IN 2016? THERE IS AN EMAIL IN 2016 THAT WAS WIDELY CIRCULATING AMONGST THE EXECUTIVES THAT YOUR COMPANY THAT GOT PUBLIC, WHERE MS. ILIANA AMARILLO, H

EAD OF CULTURAL MARKETING TALKED ABOUT A SILENT DONATION GOOGLE MADE TO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN, AND YOU APPLAUDED HER WORK, SHE POINTED OUT AN EMAIL, IF YOU DID IN 2016, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT YOU DID THEN, HE WON, I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT AGAIN IN 2020? >> CONGRESSMAN, I RECALL THE CONVERSATION OF THE TIME, I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN, WE DID NOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF SUCH ACTIVITY, AND I TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY AFTER THE CONVERSATION TO REINFORCE THE COMPANY, WE REALIZE

EVEN THE APPEARANCE COULD BE IN PROPERTY, IMPROPER, ANY PERSONAL POLITICAL ACTIVITY, IT SHOULD HAPPEN ON THEIR OWN TIME AND RESOURCES, AND AVOID ANY USE -- >> EVERYONE HAS A FIRST MEMBER RIGHT TO CAMPAIGN THEY WANT, BUT THEY CAN'T CONFIGURE YOUR FEATURES TO HELP ONE CANDIDATE OVER ANOTHER, YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE FOUND IN THE EVIDENCE, THIS IS WHAT SHE WROTE THE EMAIL, TO A NUMBER OF KEY EXECUTIVES IN YOUR COMPANY. QUOTE, WE PUSHED TO GET OUT THE LATINO VOTE WITH OUR FEATURES, SECOND QUOTE, WI

THOUT THE LATINO VOTE WITH OUR FEATURES IN KEY STATES, THOSE LAST THREE WORDS OF THE QUALIFIER, THAT IS ELECTIONEERING, TRYING TO INCREASE THE ELECTION -- LATINO VOTE IN KEY STATES, SHE ALREADY INDICATED THAT SHE SUPPORTED CLINTON AND WANTED HER TO WIN, INCREASING THE LATINO VOTE, WHICH YOU THINK WILL HELP CANDIDATE CLINTON AND DOING THAT IN KEY STATES. IT'S ONE THING IF ARE GOING TO INCREASE AROUND THE COUNTRY, IS TO GOOD CORPORATE CITIZEN, URGING PEOPLE TO VOTE, QUITE ANOTHER WHEN YOU'R

E FOCUSING ON KEY STATES, NEVADA AND FLORIDA, THE SWING STATES. SO AGAIN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN 2020. >> I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT WE COMPLY WITH LAWS AND 2016, AS A COMPANY WE DO AROUND ELECTIONS, IS NONPARTISAN, WERE THE POLLING PLACES ARE, THE DATA, VOTING HOURS, DAY, PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION, WE ARE COMMITTED AND I CAN ASSURE YOU WE WILL APPROACH THE WORK. >> THE QUESTION ON SO MANY AMERICANS MINE, THEY SAW THE LIST THAT WE READ EARLIER ON, ALL THE THINGS T

HAT GOOGLE HAS DONE, SIDING WITH THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION OVER ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THEM, EVEN THOUGH THEY OBVIOUSLY LIED FOR TO AMERICA, AND THE HISTORY OF 2016, IN THE ELECTION, WHERE THEY OBVIOUSLY, ACCORDING TO ONE OF YOUR MULTICULTURAL MARKETING EXECUTIVES, TRIED TO HELP CLINTON, HERE WE ARE 9070S BEFORE THE ELECTION, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN, I GIVE YOU -- CAN YOU GIVE US 2 ASSERTIONS ASSURANCES, YOU WILL TRY TO CONFIGURE PLATFORM TO HELP JO

E BIDEN AND THAT YOU WON'T USE YOUR SEARCH ENGINE TO SILENCE CONSERVATIVES, CAN YOU GIVE US THOSE 2 ASSURANCES TODAY? >> ON OUR SEARCH ENGINE, CONSERVATIVES HAVE MORE ACCESS TO INFORMATION THAN EVER BEFORE. >> CAN YOU ASSURE US TODAY THAT YOU WON'T TRY TO SILENCE CONSERVATIVES AND ASSURE US THAT YOU WON'T TRY TO CONFIGURE YOUR FEATURES, AS YOU SAID YOU DID IN 2016, ASSURE US YOU WANT TO THE SAME THING FOR JOE BIDEN IN 2020? >> YOU HAVE MY COMMITMENT, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE AND WE WILL

CONTINUE TO CONDUCT OURSELVES IN A NEUTRAL WAY. >> I APPRECIATE IT, I YIELD BACK . >>> AND THE GENTLE LADY FROM PENNSYLVANIA, MS. MARY GAY SCANLON. >> ANTI- TRUST LAW RATHER THAN FRINGE CONSPIRACY THEORIES. MR. JEFF BEZOS. >> WE HAVE THE EMAIL, THERE IS NO FRINGE -- >> YOU DO NOT HAVE THE TIME, PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL, SHE CONTROLS THE TIME. >> PUT YOUR MASK ON. >> MR. JORDAN. IT IS MARY GAY SCANLON'S TIME. >> UNMASKING MICHAEL FLYNN'S NAME. CAN SOMEONE COME AFTER MY MOTIVES ARE ASKING Q

UESTIONS, I GET A CHANCE TO -- >> THE GENTLE LADIES RECOGNIZED. >> MR. JEFF BEZOS CAR INVESTIGATION UNCOVERED DOCUMENTS THAT SHOW THAT AMAZON SOMETIMES DOESN'T PLAY FAIRLY, SOMETIMES CROSSING ROBUST COMPOSITION, GOING TO PREDATORY PRICING, RATHER THAN COMPETING, USED TO OWN DIAPERS.COM AND PROVIDED ONLINE BABY CARE PRODUCTS, IN 2009, YOUR TEAMS YOU DIAPERS.COM IS AMAZON'S LARGEST AND FASTEST GROWING ONLINE COMPETITOR FOR DIAPERS. ONE OF AMAZON'S TOP EXECUTIVES SAID THAT DIAPERS.COM PUTS

THE PRESSURE ON PRICING HONEST, AND STRONG COMPETITION FROM DIAPERS.COM MEANT THAT AMAZON WAS HAVING TO WORK HARDER AND HARDER SO THE CUSTOMERS DID NOT PICK THEM OVER AMAZON. SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES AND YOUNG CHILDREN, BECAUSE IT WAS SO SUCCESSFUL, AMAZON SAW IT AS A THREAT, THE DOCUMENTS WE HAVE OBTAINED SAW THAT AMAZON EMPLOYEES LOOKED AT WAYS TO WEAKEN THE COMPANY, AND THEY HATCHED A PLOT, HATCHED A PLOT TO TAKE IT OUT, IN THE EMAIL THAT I REVIEWED, WE HAVE THESE ON THE SLIDES, ONE OF

YOUR TOP EXECUTIVES PROPOSE TO YOU A QUOTE, AGGRESSIVE PLAN TO WIN AGAINST DIAPERS.COM, THAT SOUGHT TO UNDERCUT THEIR BUSINESS BY TEMPORARILY SLASHING AMAZON PRICES. WE SAW ONE OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENTS, AND IT APPEARS THAT IN ONE MONTH ALONE, AMAZON WAS WILLING TO BLEED OVER $200 MILLION IN DIAPER PROFIT LOSSES, HOW MUCH MONEY WAS AMAZON ULTIMATELY WILLING TO LOSE ON THIS CAMPAIGN TO UNDERMINE DIAPERS.COM? >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW THE DIRECT ANSWER TO YOUR QUEST

ION, THIS IS GOING BACK IN TIME I THINK 10 OR 11 YEARS OR SO, YOU GIVE ME THE DATES OF THOSE DOCUMENTS. WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS, THE IDEA OF USING DIAPERS AND PRODUCTS LIKE THAT TO ATTRACT NEW CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE NEW FAMILIES, IS A VERY TRADITIONAL IDEA. WE DID NOT INVENT THAT IDEA. >> YOU KNOW I ONLY HAVE A FEW MINUTES, I JUST WANT TRUE REFLECT ON THAT, YOUR OWN DOCUMENTS MAKE CLEAR THAT THE PRICE WAR AGAINST DIAPERS.COM WORKED, AND WITH THE A FEW MONTHS IT WAS STRUGGLING, SO THAN AMAZON

BOUGHT IT. AFTER BUYING YOUR LEADING COMPETITOR, AMAZON CUT PROMOTIONS LIKE AMAZON .MOM, AND THE STEEP DISCOUNTS, LURING IT FROM DIAPERS.COM AND INCREASE THE PRICES OF DIAPERS FOR NEW MOMS AND DADS, DID YOU PERSONALLY SIGN OFF ON THE PLAN TO RAISE PRICES AFTER AMAZON ELIMINATED THE COMPETITION? >> I DON'T REMEMBER THAT AT ALL, WHAT I REMEMBER IS, WE MATCH COMPETITIVE PRICES, WE FOLLOW DIAPERS.COM, THIS IS 11 YEARS AGO, I BELIEVE WE FOLLOWED THEM, AND AFTER WE BOUGHT THEM -- >> HE'S TAKING

MY TIME, SORRY. YOU SAID THAT AMAZON FOCUSES EXCESSIVELY ON CUSTOMERS, HOW WOULD CUSTOMERS, ESPECIALLY SINGLE MOMS A NEW FAMILIES, HOW WOULD THEY BENEFIT WHEN THE PRICES WERE DRIVEN UP BY THE FACT THAT YOU ELIMINATED YOUR MAIN COMPETITOR? BAKER WITH GREAT RESPECT, I DON'T AGREE WITH THE PREMISE, AT THE SAME TIME, YOU SHOULD RECOGNIZE AND CONTACTS, DIAPERS IS A VERY LARGE PRODUCT CATEGORY, SOLD IN MANY PLACES, NOT JUST AMAZON. >> BUT THIS WAS THE ONLINE DIAPER MARKET. WE DO HAVE EVIDENCE

-- >> WALMART, COSTCO. >> I NEED TO PUSH ON. THE EVIDENCE WE COLLECTED SUGGEST THAT PREDATORY PRACTICES WERE NOT UNIQUE, IN 2013 IT WAS REPORTED THAT YOU INSTRUCTED AMAZON EMPLOYEES TO APPROACH DISCUSSIONS WITH CERTAIN BUSINESS PARTNERS, AND I QUOTE, THE WAY A CHEATER WOULD PURSUE A SICKLY GAZELLE, IS THE GAZELLE PROJECT STILL IN PLACE AND DOES AMAZON STILL PURSUE PREDATORY CAMPAIGNS AND OTHER PARTS OF THE BUSINESS? >> I CANNOT COMMENT ON THAT, BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER IT, BUT WHAT I CAN TE

LL YOU IS, WE ARE VERY FOCUSED ON THE CUSTOMER AS YOU STARTED, AND IT DOES CONCLUDE, WITH BARGAINING VERY HARD -- >> >> ALMOST OUT OF TIME, ALSO WITH THE CURRENT PANDEMIC, ONE OF THE BIGGEST NEEDS I'M SEEING AT THE FOOD DRIVES IN THE GIVEAWAYS, HAVING TO RUN IN MY DISTRICT, FAMILIES DON'T HAVE DIAPERS AND WE HAVE TO COLLECT THEM TO GIVE THEM OUT, SO IT CERTAINLY IS SOMETHING THAT HAS A REALLY HARD IMPACT ON FAMILIES I'M REALLY CONCERNED, AND IT MIGHT'VE BEEN DRIVEN BY THIS AND I YIELD BAC

K. >> WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE WITH THE HEARING, INVITE COLLEAGUES, A ROLLING VOTE, VOTE ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN SCHEDULE. WE HAVE A VOTE, AND I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO, MR. JOE NEGUSE. >> I THINK THE WITNESSES FOR TESTIMONY. MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN 2004, WHEN YOU LAUNCHED FACEBOOK, IT'S FAIR TO SAY, I THINK YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME, YOU HAVE QUITE A FEW COMPETITORS, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >>, CIMAN, YES. >> MySPACE, YAHOO 360, IT WELL, SABLE, ALL COMPETITORS? >> SOME OF THE

COMPETITORS OF THE TIME, AND IT HAS ONLY GOTTEN MORE COMPETITIVE SINCE. >> LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT. BY 2012, NONE OF THOSE COMPANIES EXISTED, YOU ARE CERTAINLY AWARE OF THAT, THEY WERE ALL BASICALLY GONE. FACEBOOK IN MY VIEW WAS IN A MONOPOLY BY THEN, I WONDER WHETHER YOU WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, I TAKE IT YOU DON'T? >> CONGRESSMAN, THAT'S GREAT, I DON'T, WE FACE A LOT OF COMPETITORS, EVERY PART OF WHAT WE DO, CONNECTING WITH FRIENDS PRIVATELY TO CONNECTING WITH PEOPLE AND COMMUNITIES AND ALL

THE FRIENDS AT ONCE, THE USER GENERATED CONTENT, YOU ARE MOST PEOPLE HERE HAVE MULTIPLE APPS FOR EACH OF THOSE ON YOUR PHONES. >> LET'S DIG INTO THIS A BIT FURTHER, WE CLEARLY DISAGREE, IN 2012, LOOKING A DOCUMENT THAT WAS PRODUCED BY FACEBOOK IN RESPONSE TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION, PREPARED FOR CHERYL SANDBERG TO DELIVER TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A MAJOR FIRM, BOASTING THAT FACEBOOK IS NOW 95% OF ALL SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE UNITED STATES. THE TITLE OF THE SLIDE, THE INDUSTRY CON

SOLIDATES AS IT MATURES, AS I LOOK AT THAT, MOST FOLKS WOULD CONCEDE THAT IT WAS A MONOPOLY AS EARLY AS 2012, UNDERSTAND WE DISAGREE ON THAT POINT. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT FACEBOOK, THE STRATEGY, SINCE THAT TIME, TO ESSENTIALLY PROTECT WHAT I DESCRIBE AS A MONOPOLY, BUT WHAT YOU WOULD DESCRIBE AS MARKET POWER, FACEBOOK HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN PURCHASING COMPOSITION, IN SOME CASES REPLICATING IT, AND ELIMINATING THE COMPETITION, WOULD THAT BE A FAIR STATEMENT? >> CONGRESSMAN, THE SPACE OF

PEOPLE CONNECTING WITH OTHER PEOPLE IS A VERY LARGE SPACE. >> I WOULD AGREE THAT THERE WERE DIFFERENT APPROACHES THAT WE TOOK TO ADDRESSING DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE SPACE, BUT IT IS ALL IN SERVICE OF BUILDING THE BEST SERVICES AND -- >> I APPRECIATE THE LATTER POINT, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE CONCEDING THAT SOME OF THEM WERE WHAT IDENTIFIED. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT, 2014, AN EMAIL, FACEBOOK'S CURRENT CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, DESCRIBING THE ACQUISITION STRATEGY AS A LANDGRAB, WE ARE GOING

TO SPEND 5%-10% OF OUR MARKET EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS TO SHORE UP OUR POSITION, MY SENSE OF THE FACTS IS IN FACT WHAT HAS OCCURRED, FACEBOOK, AS YOU CONCEDED EARLIER, INSTAGRAM WAS A COMPETITOR OF FACEBOOK, YOU ACQUIRED IT IN 2012, NOW THE SIX LARGEST SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM IN THE WORLD, IS THAT RIGHT? >> I'M NOT SURE WHAT RANK IT IS, BUT HAS GROWN BEYOND OUR WILDEST >> THE STATISTICS DEMONSTRATE THAT, EMPIRICAL DATA, THE SIX LARGEST, FACEBOOK BOUGHT WHATSAPP, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, WHAT'S

UP WAS ALSO BOTH A COMPETITOR AND COMPLEMENTARY, THEY COMPUTED US IN THE SPACE OF MOBILE MESSAGING, A GROWING AND IMPORTANT SPACE, AND ONE PART OF THE GLOBAL CONNECTION MORE BROADLY. >> 400 MILLION MONTHLY LEADERS, A CLEAR PATH TOWARDS 1 BILLION MONTHLY ACTIVE USERS, AND WHATSAPP IS NOW THE SECOND LARGEST SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM THE WORLD, WITH 2 BILLION USERS WORLDWIDE, MORE THAN FACEBOOK MESSENGER, AND OF COURSE YOUR COMPANY OWNS WHATSAPP. FACEBOOK ALSO BOUGHT OTHER COMPETITIVE STARTUPS,

OR TRIED, ONE OF THE SENIOR ENGINEERS IN 2012, YOU CAN QUOTE, LIKELY BY ANY COMPETITIVE STARTUP, BUT IT WILL BE A WHILE BEFORE WE CAN BY GOOGLE, DO YOU RECALL WRITING THAT EMAIL? >> I DON'T SPECIFICALLY, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE A JOKE. >> I SURELY DON'T TAKE IT AS A JOKE AS I REVIEW THE EMAIL, IT WAS IN REGARDS TO HAVING JUST CLOSED THE INSTAGRAM SALE. AND THE RESPONSE FROM THIS INDIVIDUAL, THIS ENGINEER TO YOU WAS QUOTE, WELL PLAYED, YOUR RESPONSE WAS, THANKS, ONE REASON PEOPLE UNDERESTIMATE

THE IMPORTANCE OF WATCHING GOOGLE IS THAT WE CAN LIKELY ALWAYS JUST BY ANY COMPETITIVE STARTUPS, BUT IT WILL BE A WHILE BEFORE WE CAN BY GOOGLE, GIVEN THE PURCHASES THAT FACEBOOK MADE PREVIOUS, AND THE ATTEMPTED PURCHASES, FACEBOOK MADE SEVERAL OVERTURES TO SNAPCHAT, WHICH REBUFFED THE EFFORTS, DEMONSTRATES THAT THE EMAIL WAS NOT MEAN JUST. BUT HERE'S WHY ASKED THESE QUESTIONS, MR. ZUCKERBERG, IT STRIKES ME THAT OVER THE COURSE THE LAST TWO YEARS, FACEBOOK IS USED MARKET POWER TO PURCHASE

OR REPLICATE THE COMPETITION, FACEBOOK, FACEBOOK MESSENGER, WHATSAPP, INSTAGRAM, ARE NOW THE MOST DOWNLOADED APPS OF THE LAST DECADE, YOUR COMPANY OWNS THEM ALL, WE HAVE A WORD FOR THAT, THAT WORD IS MONOPOLY, AND WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK . >>> AND I WILL RECOGNIZE THE GENTLE LADY, LUCY McBATH. >> YOU SAID THAT YOUR SUCCESS DEPENDS ON THEIR SUCCESS, OVER THE PAST YEAR, WE HAVE HEARD A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STORY, AS PART OF THE INVESTIGATION, WE'VE INTERVIEWED MANY SMALL BUSINESSES, THEY'

VE USED WORDS LIKE BULLYING, FEAR AND PANIC TO DESCRIBE THE RELATIONSHIP WITH AMAZON. I'M GOING TO SHARE THE STORY OF A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER WHO IS A WIFE AND A MOTHER, SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS ACTUALLY AFFECTING THE LIVES OF EVERYDAY PEOPLE AND WHY IT TRULY MATTERS. >> AMAZON.COM, WE WORK DAY AND NIGHT VERY HARD TOWARDS GROWING OUR BUSINESS, AND GETTING FIVE-STAR FEEDBACK RATING, MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE BUSINESS HAD A TOTAL OF 14 PEOPLE, INCLUDING TEACHERS AND A 19-YEAR-OLD GRANNY,

AND WE GREW, WE WERE SHRINKING AMAZONS MARKET SHARE IN THE CATEGORY, AMAZON STARTED STRETCHING US FROM SELLING, THEY STARTED WITH A FEW TITLES IN EARLY 2019, AND WITHIN SIX MONTHS, AMAZON SYSTEMATICALLY BLOCKED US FROM SELLING THE FULL TEXTBOOK CATEGORY. WE HAVE NOT SOLD A SINGLE BOOK IN THE PAST 10 MONTHS, PROBABLY MORE, WE WERE NEVER GIVEN A REASON, AMAZON DID NOT EVEN PROVIDED US AS A NOTICE AS TO WHY WE ARE BEING RESTRICTED, THERE WAS NO WARNING OR PLAN. >> SO AFTER AMAZON DELISTED THE

SMALL BUSINESS WITHOUT ANY APPARENT REASON OR NOTICE, SHE TOLD US THEY SENT MORE THAN 500 SEPARATE COMMUNICATIONS TO AMAZON, INCLUDING TO YOU, MR. BEZOS, OVER THE PAST YEAR, THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE MEANINGFUL RESPONSE, DO YOU THINK THIS IS AN ACCEPTABLE WAY TO TREAT SOMEONE YOU DESCRIBE AS BOTH A PARTNER AND CUSTOMER? >> NO, IRIS WOMAN, AND I APPRECIATE YOU SHOWING ME THAT DON'T. I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO HER. IT DOES NOT AT ALL TO ME SEEM LIKE THE WAY TO TREAT HER, AND I'M SURPRISED BY THA

T, IT IS NOT THE SYSTEMATIC APPROACH THAT WE TAKE, I CAN ASSURE YOU, I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON THAT ANTIDOTE, BECAUSE WE WOULD LOVE FOR THIRD-PARTY SELLERS TO SELL BOOKS ON THE WEBSITE. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND BETTER, WITH YOUR PERMISSION I WOULD LIKE TO GET IN TOUCH WITH YOUR OFFICE. >> I THINK YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT, THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT ONE BUSINESS, I'M CONCERNED THAT THIS IS A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR, THIS PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR HAS TO CHANGE.

MR. BEZOS, MY QUESTION IS SIMPLY, ARE YOU WILLING TO MAKE SURE GOING FORWARD THAT THE NUMEROUS SELLERS THAT WE HAVE TALKED TO HAVE PROBLEMS LIKE THIS, AND THEY HAVE TOLD US THEY HAVE EXHAUSTED ALL THE OPTIONS BEFORE FINALLY REACHING OUT TO YOU DIRECTLY, AS A LAST RESORT, BUT THEY ARE WAITING FOR YOUR RESPONSE, WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY TO THE SMALL BUSINESSES, TALKING TO CONGRESS, BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY WON'T LISTEN TO THEM. >> THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE, IF WE ARE NOT LISTENING TO YOU, I'M NOT HAPPY

ABOUT THE LAW, I WOULD SAY THIS NOT SYSTEMATICALLY GOING ON, I WOULD SAY IN THAT REGARD, THIRD-PARTY SELLERS IN AGGREGATE ARE DOING EXTREMELY WELL ON AMAZON. 20 YEARS AGO WAS ZERO AND TODAY IT IS 60% OF SALES, THIRD-PARTY SALES. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. YOU SAID THAT SELLERS HAVE MANY OTHER ATTRACTIVE OPTIONS TO REACH CUSTOMERS, BUT THAT'S NOT AT ALL WHAT WE FOUND IN OUR INVESTIGATION, ACCORDING TO E MARKETER, A SOURCE THAT AMAZON CITED IN SUBMISSIONS TO THE COMMITTEE, AMAZON HAS NEARLY 7 TI

MES THE MARKET SHARE OF THE CLOSEST e-COMMERCE COMPETITOR, ONE SELLER TOLD US THAT AMAZON CONTINUES TO BE THE ONLY SHOW IN TOWN, NO MATTER HOW ANGRY SELLERS GET, THEY HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO. ARE YOU SAYING THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT BEING TRUTHFUL WHEN THEY SAY THAT AMAZON IS THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, WITH GREAT RESPECT, I DO DISAGREE WITH THAT, I BELIEVE THERE ARE A LOT OF OPTIONS AND MOVE THEM OR NOT I-ON THE CHART I LOOKED AT IT BRIEFLY, I DIDN'T SEE SOME THE NO FOR EXAMPLE,

AND I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF -- MORE AND MORE EVERY DAY. >> MY TIME IS SHORT, IF AMAZON DID NOT HAVE MONOPOLY POWER, DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD CHOOSE TO STAY IN A RELATIONSHIP THAT IS CHARACTERIZED BY BULLYING, FEAR AND PANIC? >> WITH ALL RESPECT, CURTIS WOMAN, I DO NOT ACCEPT THE PREMISE OF THE QUESTION, THAT IS NOT HOW WE OPERATE THE BUSINESS, AND IN FACT, WE WORK VERY HARD TO PROVIDE A TOOL FOR SELLERS, AND THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL. >> I WILL CLOSE WITH GIVING THE BOOKSELLER

THE OPPORTUNITY TO FINALLY BE HEARD BY YOU. >> MR. BEZOS, WE INCREASED OUR SALES IN AMAZON BY FIVE TIMES IN THE PAST THREE YEARS, AND WE HAVE CONTRIBUTED THAT MUCH IN PROPORTION AND SELLER FEES TO AMAZON, WE HAVE CONTRIBUTED THAT MUCH TO YOUR BUSINESS, FIVE TIMES, WE FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES THAT WERE SET BY YOU, AND PLEASE HELP US IN EARNING A LIVELIHOOD, WE BEG YOU, THERE ARE 14 LIES IN STATE COPS THESE HELP US GET BACK ON TRACK. >> WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. -- LIV

ES AT STAKE. >>> I RECOGNIZE MYSELF, FOR FIVE MINUTES, AMAZON CONTROLS AS MUCH IS 75% OF ALL ONLINE MARKETPLACE SALES, E MARKETER, A SOURCE YOU CITED, REPORTS THAT AMAZON HAS NEARLY SEVEN TIMES THE MARKET SHARE OF THE CLOSEST COMPETITOR, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT SMALL BUSINESSES HAVE NO REAL OPTION BUT TO RELY ON AMAZON TO CONNECT WITH CUSTOMERS AND MAKE ONLINE SALES? >> NO SIR, WITH GREAT RESPECT, I DO HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION ON THAT. I BELIEVE THERE ARE A LOT OF OPTIONS FOR SMALL SELLERS, AMA

ZON IS A GREAT ONE, WE WORK VERY HARD, I THINK WERE THE BEST ONE. A LOT OF DIFFERENT -- >> THANK YOU, 37% OF SELLERS RELY ON AMAZON AS THE SOLE SOURCE OF INCOME, 800,000 PEOPLE RELY ON AMAZON TO FEED THEIR FAMILIES, PUT THE KIDS TO SCHOOL AND KEEP A ROOF OVER THEIR HEADS, MR. BEZOS, YOU HAVE REFERRED TO THIRD-PARTY SELLERS AS BOTH PARTNERS AND CUSTOMERS, BUT ISN'T IT TRUE THAT AMAZON REFERS TO THEM AS INTERNAL COMPETITORS QUICK >> IT WOULD NOT SURPRISE ME, IN SOME WAYS WE ARE COMPETING AND

THEY ARE COMPETING WITH EACH OTHER. >> YOUR OWN DOCUMENTS, THAT YOU PRODUCE, FOR THE VERY SAME SELLERS THAT YOU DESCRIBED AS PARTNERS, AS INTERNAL COMPETITORS, WE HAVE HEARD FROM THIRD-PARTY SELLERS AGAIN AND AGAIN DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION THAT AMAZON IS THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN, ONE SMALL BUSINESS OWNER DESCRIBED IT THIS WAY, WE ARE STUCK, WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE BUT TO SELL THROUGH AMAZON, THE SAID THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN A GREAT PARTNER BUT YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH THEM. DURING TH

E INVESTIGATION WE HAVE HEARD SO MANY HEARTBREAKING STORIES OF SMALL BUSINESSES WHO SUNK SIGNIFICANT TIME AND RESOURCES INTO BUILDING A BUSINESS AND SELLING ON AMAZON, ONLY TO HAVE AMAZON POACH THEIR BEST-SELLING ITEMS AND DRIVE THEM OUT OF BUSINESS. ONE COMPANY THAT REALLY STOOD OUT FROM THE REST, PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO HOW THEY DESCRIBE YOUR PARTNERSHIP, A SMALL APPAREL COMPANY THAT MAKES WHAT THEY CALL USEFUL APPAREL FOR PEOPLE WHO WORK ON THEIR FEET AND WITH THEIR HANDS. CONSTRUCTION

WORKERS AND FIREFIGHTERS, THIS PARTICULAR BUSINESS DISCOVERED AND STARTED SELLING A UNIQUE ITEM THAT HAD NEVER BEEN A TOP SELLER FOR THE BRAND, MAKING ABOUT $60,000 PER YEAR ON ONE ITEM. ONE DAY THEY WOKE UP AND FOUND THAT AMAZON HAD STARTED LISTING THE EXACT SAME PRODUCT, CAUSING THE SALES GO TO ZERO OVERNIGHT. UNDERCUTTING THE PRICE, BELOW WHAT THE GENERALLY MANUFACTURED PRICING ALLOWED TO BE SOLD, SO EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO, THEY COULD MATCH THE PRICE, HERE'S HOW TO DESCRIBE WORKING WI

TH AMAZON. AMAZON STRANGE ALONG FOR A WHILE BECAUSE IT FEELS SO GOOD. LIKE THE BETTER TERM, AMAZON HAIR WAS IN, YET IT GOING GET THE NEXT FIX AND CHECK, BUT IT'S IN THE DAY YOU FIND OUT THAT THIS PERSON, WHO IS SEEMINGLY BENEFITING YOU AND MAKING YOU FEEL GOOD WAS ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE YOUR DOWNFALL. MR. BEZOS, THIS IS ONE OF YOUR PARTNERS, WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY COMPARE YOUR COMPANY TO A DRUG DEALER? >> OUT OF GREAT RESPECT FOR YOU AND THE COMMITTEE, I COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH THAT C

HARACTERIZATION. WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS CREATE IN THE STORE, IF YOU GO BACK IN TIME, WE SOLD ONLY OUR OWN INVENTORY, A VERY CONTROVERSIAL DECISION INSIDE THE CON COMPANY TO INVITE THIRD-PARTY SELLERS INTO WHAT IS OUR MOST VALUABLE REAL ESTATE PROJECT DETAIL PAGES, WE WERE CONVINCED IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE CONSUMER AND CUSTOMER TO HAVE THAT. I THINK WE WERE RIGHT AND IT IS WORKED OUT WELL. >> RECLAIMING MY TIME, THIS IS ONE OF MANY SMALL COMPANIES THAT HAVE TOLD US DURING THIS YEAR-LONG IN

VESTIGATION THAT THEY WERE MISTREATED, ABUSED AND TOSSED ASIDE BY AMAZON. YOU SAID THAT AMAZON IS ONLY FOCUSED ON DOING WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CUSTOMER, YOU JUST AS AGAIN, AND THIRD-PARTY SELLERS, HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE WHEN YOU COMPETE DIRECTLY WITH THIRD-PARTY SELLERS WITH YOUR OWN PRODUCTS THAT UNDERCUT THE COMPETITION, ISN'T THAT AN INHERENT CONFLICT OF BUSINESS FOR AMAZON TO SELL PRODUCTS THAT COMPETE DIRECTLY WITH THIRD-PARTY SELLERS, PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU SET THE RULES OF THE GAME? >>

THANK YOU, NO I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS. THE CONSUMER IS THE ONE OLD ME -- ULTIMATELY MAKING THE DECISIONS, WHAT TO BUY, WHAT PRICE AND WHO TO BUY IT FROM, AND WHAT WE -- >> BUT THE QUESTION IS, IS THERE AN INHERENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST, YOU ARE A DATA COMPANY, YOU KNEW WHEN SOMEONE PUT SOMETHING IN THE CARTER TAKE IT OUT, TRADITIONAL BRICK-AND-MORTAR STORES WERE COMPETITION OCCURS DON'T HAVE THAT. I WANT TO FOLLOW FINALLY IN THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION THAT YOU GAVE TO THE CONGRESSWOMAN, ERIC

SWALWELL FOUR, YOU SAID THAT NOT SELLING THIRD-PARTY DATA WITH OTHERS ONLINE, YOU COULD BE CERTAIN, CAN YOU LIST EXAMPLES OF WHERE THAT POLICY HAD BEEN VIOLATED, IT IS PARTICULARLY CONCERNING, SHOULDN'T THIRD PARTIES KNOW FOR SURE THAT THEIR DATA IS NOT BEING SHARED WITH THEIR COMPETITORS, WHY SHOULD A THIRD-PARTY LIST ON AMAZON IF THEY WOULD JUST BE UNDERCUT BY AMAZON ON PRODUCT AS A RESULT OF DATA THAT YOU TAKE FROM THEM? >> SIR, WHAT I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND AND I THINK IS IMPORTANT

TO UNDERSTAND, WE HAVE A POLICY AGAINST USING INDIVIDUAL SELLER DATA TO COMPETE WITH OUR PRIVATE LABEL PRODUCTS. >> BUT YOU COULDN'T ASSURE HER THAT IT IS NOT VIOLATED ROUTINELY. >> WE ARE INVESTIGATING THAT. I DO NOT WANT TO SIT HERE AND I DO NOT WANT TO GO BEYOND WHAT I KNOW RIGHT NOW, BUT AS A RESULT OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE, WE ARE LOOKING AT IT CAREFULLY. AND WE WANT TO GET BACK AND SHARE THEM WITH YOU. >> THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE COLLECTED SHOWS THAT AMAZON IS ONLY INTERESTED

IN EXPLOITING ITS MONOPOLY POWER OVER THE e-COMMERCE MARKETPLACE TO FURTHER EXPAND AND PROTECT ITS POWER, THE INVESTIGATION MAKES CLEAR THAT AMAZON'S DUAL ROLE AS A PLATFORM OPERATOR AND IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY ANTICOMPETITIVE AND CONGRESS MUST TAKE ACTION. DENIES THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN. MR. JIM SENSENBRENNER. >> I THINK HISTORY PROVES THAT CONGRESS DOES A POOR JOB IN PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS, AND I'VE LOOKED OVER A LOT OF THE MATERIAL THAT HAS BEEN ASSEMBLED, WORKING WITH THE CHAIRM

AN FOR OVER A YEAR ON THIS BIPARTISAN INVESTIGATION, AND I HAVE REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT WE DO NOT NEED TO CHANGE THE ANTITRUST LAWS. THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING JUST FINE, THE QUESTION HERE IS THE QUESTION OF ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE ANTITRUST LAWS. THE FACEBOOK ACQUISITION OF INSTAGRAM, THAT HAPPENED IN 2012, OBAMA'S FTC SIGNED OFF ON THAT. SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU THINK, HAS HAPPENED AT THAT TIME, THE FACT IS, THIS ACQUISITION DID PASS THE SMELL TEST OF THE REGULATORS INVOLVED. NOW MAYBE TH

EY MADE A MISTAKE OR MAYBE SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS, I DON'T KNOW, BUT THE FACT IS, THERE IS NOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT, 35 YEARS AGO, AT&T WAS BROKEN UP BECAUSE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT IT WAS DETERMINED THAT ONE-STOP SHOPS WERE MONOPOLIZED. YOU HAVE TO YOUR LONG-DISTANCE SERVICE FROM YOUR PHONE COMPANY, THEY WERE SPUN OFF, ACQUISITIONS IN THE TELECOM INDUSTRY, AND GUESS WHAT, AND GUESS WHAT WE ARE BACK TO EXACTLY WHERE WE WERE IN 1984. THE CONGRESSIONAL PRESSURE IS NOT THE BEST, USING THE AT&T

EXAMPLE, A BIG FLOP ENCOUNTER PRODUCTION COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, THE ME ASK MR. BEZOS, THE AT&T EXAMPLE WAS APPLIED AMAZON, AND YOU WERE REQUIRED TO SPEND STUFF OFF, SO YOU MIGHT HAVE NO MORE OF A ONE-STOP SHOP, BUT YOU HAVE TO GO TO SEPARATE PLACES FOR BOOKS OR GROCERIES OR VIDEOS OR ELECTRONICS, HOW ARE THE CONSUMERS HELPED BY THAT? >> SIR, THANK YOU. THEY WOULD NOT BE. THAT IS VERY CLEAR. >> NOW, MR. PICHAI, LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT GOOGLE, IF YOU ARE FORCED TO SPIN OFF YOUTUBE, CAN YOU DESCR

IBE WHAT HAPPENS TO CONSUMERS THERE? >> CONGRESSMAN, TODAY, CONSUMERS AND MOST OF THE AREAS WE ARE DEALING WITH, THEY SEE PRICES ARE FALLING AND THEY GET MORE CHOICE THAN EVER BEFORE, I THINK IT SERVES THEM WELL. >> AND YOU'RE RIGHT THERE. SO I'M NOT GOING TO BE ON THIS COMMITTEE AND THE NEXT CONGRESS, I'M GOING TO PUT MY FEET UP AND BECOME A SENIOR QUOTE STATESMAN, BUT LET ME SAY THAT WE HAVE HEARD A WHOLE LOT OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT BIG TECH. SOME OF THEM ARE POLITICAL IN NATURE, AND I SHAR

E THE COMPLAINTS AND THE CONCERN OF MR. JORDAN AND OTHERS, AND OTHERS TALK ABOUT ALLEGEDLY ANTI-COMPETITIVE ACTIVITY. IT SEEMS TO ME LEGISLATING AND TOSSING ALL OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS AND THE PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED, THE INVESTIGATION OF THE LAST 100+ YEARS, SOMETHING WHERE WE OUGHT TO GO BACK TO THE REGULATORS, THROUGH THE ENFORCERS, HAVE THEM LOOK AT THE STUFF, AND HAVE THEM MAKE A DETERMINATION ON WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS BEEN VIOLATED. I THINK THE LAWS GOOD ON THAT, WE DON'T NEED TO THROW I

T ON THE WASTEBASKET THERE ARE MATTERS OF CONCERN THAT WE'VE SEEN IN BOTH PARTS OF THE AISLE THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, IF IT REQUIRES AN AGENCY LIKE THE FTC TO SAY THEY HAVE MADE MISTAKES IN THE PAST, SO BE IT, WE ARE HUMAN WE MAKE MISTAKES, EVEN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. AND I YIELD BACK . >>> AND I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLE LADY FROM WASHINGTON, MS. PRAMILA JAYAPAL. >> YOU SUGGESTED THAT YOUR MANAGEMENT TEAM, MOVING FASTER TO STOP FOOTHOLDS, IT IS BETTER TO DO MORE MOVE FASTER, ESPECIALLY IF YOU

DON'T HAVE COMPETITORS, FACEBOOK'S PRODUCT MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR, FAR MORE AGGRESSIVE. AND COPYING COMPETITORS. GETTING FOOTHOLDS, COPYING COMPETITORS, >> I VIEWED IS OUR JOB TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR FUNNY VALUABLE, AND ALL THE SERVICES, AS WELL? FIGURED YOU CUP YOUR COMPETITORS. -- >> YOU HAVE COPIED YOUR COMPETITORS? >> OTHERS HAVE ALSO COPY -- >> I'M JUST ASKING YOU, MARCH 2012, AFTER THE EMAIL CONVERSATION, HOW MANY COMPETITORS DID FACEBOOK END OF COPYING? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, I CAN GIV

E YOU A NUMBER OF COMPANIES THAT -- >> IS IT LESS THAN FIVE? >> I DON'T KNOW. >> 50? >> ANY ESTIMATES, YOUR TEAM IS MAKING A PLAN, HOW DID IT PLAY OUT? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M NOT SURE I AGREE WITH THE PREMISE YEAR, OUR JOB IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE BUILD THE BEST SERVICES FOR PEOPLE TO CONNECT WITH THE PEOPLE THEY CARE ABOUT, A LOT OF THAT IS DONE BY INNOVATING AND BY BUILDING NEW THINGS THAT ARE WORKING INTERNALLY -- >> THANK YOU, LET ME GO ON, HAS FACEBOOK EVER THREATENED TO CLONE THE PRO

DUCTS OF ANOTHER COMPANY WHILE ALSO ATTEMPTING TO ACQUIRE THE COMPANY? >> NOT THAT I WOULD RECALL. >> I WOULD LIKE TO RECALL, YOU ARE UNDER OATH, QUOTES FROM FACEBOOK'S OWN DOCUMENTS, PRIOR TO ACQUIRING INSTAGRAM, FACEBOOK BEGAN DEVELOPING A SIMILAR PRODUCT CALLED FACEBOOK CAMERA, CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT, I HAVE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES THAT WE WERE COMPETING IN THE SPACE OF BUILDING MOBILE CAMERAS WITH INSTAGRAM, THAT'S WHAT THEY DID AT THE TIME, THEIR COMPETITIVE SET WAS COMPANIES LIKE

WHAT WE WERE BUILDING WITH FACEBOOK CAMERA AND OTHERS. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. ZUCKERBERG, DID USE A SIMILAR FACEBOOK CAMERA PRODUCT TO THREATEN INSTAGRAM'S FOUNDER, KEVIN -- >> I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU WOULD MEAN BY THREATENING, IT WAS PUBLIC THAT WE WERE BUILDING A CAMERA APP AT THE TIME, THAT WAS A WELL-DOCUMENTED THING. >> AND IN A CHAT, YOU SAID THAT FACEBOOK WAS DEVELOPING OUR OWN PHOTO STRATEGY, HOW WE ENGAGE NOW WILL DETERMINE HOW MUCH WE ARE PARTNERS VERSUS COMPETITORS DOWN TH

E LINE, INSTAGRAM'S FOUNDER SEEM TO THINK THAT WAS A THREAT, CONFIDING IN A INVESTOR AT THE TIME, HE FEARED HE WOULD GO INTO QUOTE, DESTROY MODE, IF HE DIDN'T SELL INSTAGRAM TO YOU. LET'S RECAP, FACEBOOK LOANED A POPULAR PRODUCT AND APPROACH THE COMPANY YOU IDENTIFIED AS A COMPETITIVE THREAT AND TOLD THEM IF THEY DID LET YOU BUY THEM UP, THERE WOULD BE CONSEQUENCES. WERE THERE ANY OTHER COMPANIES THAT YOU USE THE SAME TACTIC WITH WHILE TEMPTED TO BUY THEM? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, I WANT TO RESPE

CTFULLY DISAGREE WITH THE CHARACTERIZATION, IT WAS CLEAR THIS WAS A SPACE THAT WE WERE GOING TO COMPETE IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, I DON'T VIEW THOSE CONVERSATIONS AS A THREAT IN ANY WAY. I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. >> JUST LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS IN THE TESTIMONY THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS DISCUSSED FROM OTHERS, DID YOU WARN EVAN SPIEGEL, THE FOUNDER OF SNAPCHAT, THAT FACEBOOK WAS CLONING THE FEATURES OF HIS COMPANY WHILE ALSO ATTEMPTING TO PURCHASE SNAPCHAT? >> I DON'T RECALL THE CONVERSATIONS,

BUT THOUSAND AREA THAT WE WOULD BE BUILDING SOMETHING, PEOPLE WANT TO BE ABLE TO COMMIT GAIT PRIVATELY AND WITH THEIR FRIENDS AT ONCE, AND WE ARE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE BUILD THE BEST PRODUCTS IN ALL THE SPACES THAT WE CAN AROUND HELPING PEOPLE STAY CONNECTED WITH THE PEOPLE THEY CARE ABOUT. >> I APPRECIATE THAT MR. ZUCKERBERG, THE QUESTION IS, WHEN THE DOMINANT PLATFORM THREATENS ITS POTENTIAL RIVALS, THAT SHOULD NOT BE A NORMAL BUSINESS PRACTICE, FACEBOOK IS A CASE STUDY, IN MY OPI

NION, IN MONOPOLY POWER, BECAUSE YOUR COMPANY HARVESTED MONETIZES OUR DATA AND THEN USES THE DATA TO SPY ON COMPETITORS AND TO COPY, ACQUIRE AND KILL RIVALS. YOU HAVE USED FACEBOOK'S POWER TO THREATEN SMALLER COMPETITORS AND ENSURE THAT YOU ALWAYS GET YOUR WAY. THESE TACTICS REINFORCE FACEBOOK'S DOMINANCE, WHICH YOU USED IN INCREASINGLY DESTRUCTIVE WAYS. FACEBOOK'S VERY MODEL MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR NEW COMPANIES TO FLOURISH SEPARATELY, AND THAT HARMS OUR DEMOCRACY AND HARMS MOM-AND-POP

BUSINESSES AND CONSUMERS, AND MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEWOMAN YEARS BACK, THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO, MR. BOOK IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU MR. BEZOS, I'M CONCERNED THAT YOU'VE USED AMAZON'S MARKET POSITION TO UNFAIRLY HARM COMPETITION, WE HAVE HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF COMPANIES THAT AMAZON USES PROPRIETARY DATA FROM THIRD-PARTY COMPANIES TO LAUNCH ITS OWN PRIVATE LABEL PRODUCTS, MEANING WAS STARTED TO DISCUSS INVESTING WITH THE PRODUCT AND USES THE PROPRIE

TARY DATA TO CREATE ITS OWN PRIVATE LABEL PRODUCTS, ALLOWS THE SALE OF COUNTERFEIT ITEMS THROUGH THE WEB PLATFORM. DURING THE SUBCOMMITTEES HEARING IN BOULDER, DAVID BARNETT DETAILED HOW AMAZON ALLOWED COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS TO APPEAR ON AMAZON'S MARKETPLACE, AHEAD OF POP SOCKETS PRODUCTS. TELLING CNBC THAT POP SOCKETS FOUND AT LEAST 1000 COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS FOR SALE ON AMAZON'S MARKETPLACE, WHICH AMAZON ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO REMEDY, UNTIL POP SOCKETS AGREED TO A NEARLY $2 MILLION MARKETING

TO WITH AMAZON, AND WE'VE SEEN TROUBLING REPORTS FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL DETAILING AMAZON'S USE OF THIRD-PARTY SELLERS PROPRIETARY DATA TO DEVELOP AND MARKET ITS OWN COMPETITIVE PRIVATE LABEL PRODUCTS, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL REPORTED THAT AMAZON'S VENTURE CAPITAL FUND USED MEETINGS WITH UNSUSPECTING STARTING STARTUP COMPANIES, TO GET PRODUCT INFORMATION AND FINANCIAL DETAILS, THEN REPORTEDLY USE THE INFORMATION TO LAUNCH COMPETING PRODUCTS, OFTEN WITH DISASTROUS RESULTS FROM THE O

RIGINAL STARTUP COMPANY. THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES BUT ONE ALLEGATION IN THE REPORTING STICKS OUT IN PARTICULAR, IN 2011, AMAZON CONTACTED VOCA LIFE, ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF CREATING A SPEECH DICTATION TECHNOLOGY, THEY MET THINK IT WAS THEIR BIG BREAK, AFTER PROVIDING PROPRIETARY INFORMATION INCLUDING ENGINEERING DATA, TO AMAZON EMPLOYEES, THE RELATIONSHIP CAME TO AN ABRUPT HALT, AMAZON EMPLOYEES ALLEGEDLY STOPPED RESPONDING TO EMAILS BEFORE THE TECHNOLOGY EVENTUALLY FOUND ITS WAY TO THE

AMAZONS ECHO DEVICE. THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE SERIOUS, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF THE PRACTICES COULD NOT HAPPEN WITHOUT AMAZONS MONOPOLISTIC CONTROL THE MARKETPLACE. I AM ALSO CONCERNED THAT GIVEN AMAZONS ALLOWANCE OF COUNTERFEIT GOODS IN THE MARKETPLACE, ESPECIALLY FROM CHINA, THAN AMAZON'S MARKETPLACE MAY BE KNOWINGLY OR UNKNOWINGLY FURTHERING CHINA'S USE OF FOREST AND SLAVE LABOR CONDITIONS. ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT, FOLLOWING RECENT REPORTS FOLLOWING COMPANIES THAT SELL ON AM

AZON, NIKE, SAMSUNG, HAVE TIES TO CHINESE FACTORIES THAT USE ENSLAVED MUSLIMS. CENTER -- SENATOR HOLLY, AS THAN TO CERTIFY THE SUPPLY CHAIN DOES NOT RELY ON FORCED LABOR. I WILL BE INTRODUCING A HOUSE COMPANION BILL LATER THIS AFTERNOON. WHILE I DO NOT EXPECT YOU TO HAVE INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LEGISLATION, I DO WANT TO ASK ALL FOUR WITNESSES A SIMPLE YES OR NO QUESTION, WILL YOU CERTIFY HERE TODAY THAT YOUR COMPANY DOES NOT USE AND WILL NEVER USE SLAVE LABOR TO MANUFACTURE PRODUCTS OR A

LLOW PRODUCTS TO BE SOLD ON YOUR PLATFORM THAT ARE MANUFACTURED USING SLAVE LABOR? MR. COOK, YOU WERE KIND ENOUGH TO VISIT WITH ME ON THE PHONE, WE BRIEFLY DISCUSSED THIS, IF YOU CAN GIVE A YES OR NO ANSWER, I KNOW YOU HAVEN'T READ THE DETAILS, WOULD YOU AGREE TO THIS IDEA? >> I WOULD LOVE TO ENGAGE IN THE LEGISLATION, WITH THE CONGRESSMAN, LET ME BE CLEAR, FORCED LABOR IS UP WARRANT, WE WOULD NOT TOLERATE IT AT APPLE, I WOULD LOVE TO GET WITH YOUR OFFICE AND ENGAGE IN THE LEGISLATION >>

TAKE YOU, MR. PICHAI ? >> CONGRESSMAN, THE CONCERN IN THIS AREA, I FIND IT ABHORRENT AS WELL, AND HAPPY TO ENGAGE WITH THE OFFICE AND DISCUSS FURTHER. >> I DON'T EVEN WANT YOU TO ENGAGE WITH MY OFFICE, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT SLAVE LABOR IS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU WILL TOLERATE IN MANUFACTURING YOUR PRODUCTS OR IN PRODUCTS THAT ARE SOLD ON YOUR PLATFORMS? >> I AGREE. >> MR. COOK? >> WE WOULD NOT TOLERATE IT, WE WOULD TERMINATE A SUPPLY RELATIONSHIP IF IT WERE FOUND. >> ESTHER ZUCKERBERG? >

> I AGREE, WE WOULD NOT TOLERATE IT AND IF WE FOUND ANYTHING LIKE THIS, WE WOULD ALSO TERMINATE ANY RELATIONSHIP. >> MR. BEZOS? >> I AGREE COMPLETELY. >> THANK YOU GENTLEMEN, I YIELD BACK. >>> I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND. MR. JAMIE RASKIN. >> I LOOK FORWARD TO JOINING THE LEGISLATION, I THINK MR. BOOK FOR THAT LEGISLATION. IN THE 19th CENTURY, WE HAD THE ROBBER BARONS, 20 CENTURY, THE CYBER BARONS, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE EXTRAORDINARY POWER AND WEALTH THAT YOU'VE BE

EN ABLE TO AMASS IS NOT USED AGAINST DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS AROUND THE WORLD, AND NOT AGAINST THE INTEREST OF A FREE MARKET AT HOME. SO MR. BEZOS, AND RETURN TO YOU, I'M INTERESTED IN THE ROLE THAT YOU PLAY AS A GATEKEEPER, A LOT OF CONSUMERS WANT TO KNOW WHEN THE HBO MAX APPLE BE AVAILABLE ON YOUR FIRE DEVICE, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT NEGOTIATIONS ARE ONGOING, BUT THAT YOUR COMPANY IS NOT ONLY ASKING FOR FINANCIAL TERMS BUT ALSO FOR CONTENT FROM WARNER MEDIA. IS THAT RIGHT, AND IS THAT

A FAIR WAY TO PROCEED? IS IT FAIR TO USE YOUR GATEKEEPER STATUS ROLE IN THE STREAMING DEVICE MARKET AND PROMOTE YOUR POSITION AS A COMPETITOR IN THE VIDEO STREAMING MARKET WITH RESPECT TO CONTENT? >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE DETAILS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS, THEY ARE UNDERWAY RIGHT NOW. COMING TO AN AGREEMENT, 2 LARGE COMPANIES, AND A NORMAL CASE -- >> HERE IS WHY I PURSUE IT, IT IS A LARGE COMPANY, AND THEY STAND IN FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SMALLER COMPANIES, IN A MORE DISADVANTAGEOUS P

OSITION, NOT JUST FOR FINANCIAL TERMS, BEING PART OF THE FIRE UNIT, BUT ALSO TO TRY A TO AND LEVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO GETTING CONTENT FROM THEM. >> AGAIN, I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE DETAILS. >> I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT THAT BUT IN GENERAL. >> IN GENERAL, WHEN COMPANIES ARE NEGOTIATING, YOUR NEGOTIATING NOT JUST THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE HANDS, AND ALSO WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET IN EXCHANGE FOR THE AMOUNT OF MONEY, A FUNDAMENTAL WAY THE BUSINESS WORKS. >> AT LEAST OUTSIDERS, YO

U CAN SEE THAT MIKE THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE A STRUCTURAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST, YOU ARE USING YOUR CONTROL OVER ACCESS ESSENTIALLY, USING THAT TO USE LEVERAGE. TO GET THE CREATIVE CONTENT YOU WANT. CONVERTING POWER. INTO POWER IN THE OTHER DOMAIN WERE DOESN'T BELONG. >> OFFERED TO GET YOU INFORMATION, I WILL GET IT TO YOUR OFFICE, WHERE WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE, >> TALK ABOUT THE EMERGING MARKET, SMART HOMES, THE HUB OF THE SMART HOME, SMART SPEAKERS, THE ECHO DEVICE BELOW COST, DOES IT MARKETE

D BELOW COST? >> NOT THE LIST PRICE, BUT OFTEN ON PROMOTION, SOMETIMES ONCE ON PROMOTION IT MAY BE BELOW COST, YES. >> SOME OF THE COMPANIES TOLD US THAT, PRICING WAY BELOW COST, MAKING IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO COMPETE. AND AGGRESSIVELY DISCOUNTING ALEXA ENABLED SPEAKERS IS A STRATEGY TO OWN THE SMART HOME. LIKE ALEXA, THE MYRIAD OF SMART HOME APPLIANCES. THE PLATFORM FOR TECH COMPANIES TO LOCKING CUSTOMERS. THE SMART HOME MARKET, A WINNER TAKE ALL MARKET, YES OR NO? >> NO I WOUL

DN'T, IF ARE ABLE TO SUCCEED, AND OUR VISION FOR THIS IS THAT SMART HOME SPEAKERS SHOULD ANSWER TO DIFFERENT -- >> WHEN CONSIDERING THE ACQUISITION. >> A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, IF WE COULD ACHIEVE THAT, THEN I THINK YOU WOULD REALLY GET GOOD BEHAVIOR ON THE PART OF COMPETITIVE AGENTS HELPING YOU. >> WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT ACQUIRING RING, BUYING MARKET POSITION, AND NOT TECHNOLOGY. VERY VALUABLE. LOCK-IN EFFECTS. be so very valuable? . Sir market position is valuable in almost any business.

It is one of the primary things that one would look at. Sometimes we are trying to buy some tech elegy or some IP. Sometimes some tele-tech position. The company has traction with maybe they were the first mover there can be any number of reasons why they have the market position. That is a really common recent acquire a company. MISTER BASIS WHEN I ASK ALEXA TO PLAY MY MUSIC PROM PRIME MUSIC IS THE DEFAULT MUSIC LAYER IS THAT RIGHT?. A NEW YORK TIMES REPORT FOUND WHEN USERS SAY ALEXA BY B

ATTERIES ALEXA RESPONSE WOULD YOU LIKE TO BUY AMAZON BATTERIES? HAS ALEXA EVER BEEN PRIME TO FAVOR AMAZON PRODUCTS. GO THE TIME HAS EXPIRED. I DON'T KNOW IF IT HAS BEEN TRAINED IN THAT WAY. I'M SURE THERE ARE CASES WHERE WE DO PROMOTE OUR OWN PRODUCTS. IT IS A COMMON PRACTICE IN BUSINESS BUT IT WOULD NOT SURPRISE ME IF ALEXIS DOES NOT DOES PROMOTE OUR OWN PRODUCTS . GO MISTER VIJAY DURING OUR DISCUSSION EARLIER TODAY YOU SAY GOOGLE DOES NOT WORK WITH THE PRIMARY. GOOGLE WORKS WITH MANY OF

THE ENTITIES THAT WORK WITH THE CHINESE MILITARY AND COMMON COLLABORATION AND JUST AS ONE EXAMPLE WOULD BE THE UNIVERSITY WHERE JEFF DEAN WHO IS THE HEAD OF GOOGLE AI AND THEN THE UNIVERSITY TAKES A NEARLY $15 MILLION FROM CHINA'S CENTRAL MILITARY COMMISSION. YOU DON'T SHOW UP AT THE OFFICE OF THE CHINESE MILITARY IF YOU ALL SHOW UP WORKING ON AI THAT WOULD LEAD TO MY CONCERN. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SEARCH BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IS WHERE GOOGLE HAS A REAL MARKET DOMINANCE. YOU SAID WE DON'T MA

NUALLY INTERVENE ON ANY PARTICULAR SEARCH RESULT BUT LEAKED MEMOS OBTAINED BY THE DAILY CALLER SHOW THAT IS NOT TRUE . IN FACT THOSE MEMBERS MEMOS WERE ALTERED DECEMBER 3 JUST A WEEK BEFORE YOUR TESTIMONY AND THEY DESCRIBE A DECEPTIVE NEWS BLACKLIST. AND A PROCESS FOR DELL OF DEVELOPING THAT BLACKLIST APPROVED BY BEEN GOING WHO LEADS SEARCH WITH YOUR COMPANY. SOMETHING CALLED A FRINGE RANKING WHICH SEEMS TO BEG THE QUESTION WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT IS FRINGE AND YOUR ANSWER YOU SAID THAT THE

RE IS NO MANUAL INTERVENTION OF SEARCH. THAT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY AND NOW I'M GOING TO CITE SPECIFICALLY FROM THIS MEMO FROM THE DAILY CALLER. I'M SORRY THE DAILY CALLER OBTAIN FROM YOUR COMPANY. THE BEGINNING OF THE WORKFLOW STARTS ON A WATCHLIST. THIS WATCHLIST IS MAINTAINED AND STORED BY ARIS WITH ACCESS RESTRICTED TO POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS. IT DOES BEG THE QUESTION WHO THESE ENFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS ARE. ACCESS TO THE LISTING CAN ALSO BE SHARED ON A NEED TO KNOW BASIS TO ENFO

RCE OR AND RICH THE POLICY VIOLATIONS. INVESTIGATION OF THE WATCHLIST IS DONE IN THE TOOL ATHENA, THE AREA'S MANUAL ANNUAL REVIEW TOOL. SO YOU SAID TO CONGRESSWOMAN LAUGHLIN THAT THERE WAS NO MANUAL REVIEW TOOL AND YOUR DOCUMENTS INDICATE THERE IS A MANUAL REVIEW TOOL SO HELP US UNDERSTAND THE INCONSISTENCY. BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO PARTS TO THIS. WE ALGORITHMICALLY APPROACH TO DO SO. WE TESTED BOTH THE USER FEEDBACK TO VALIDATE 300,000 EXPERIMENTS AND LAUNCHED AROUND 3000 IMPROVEMENTS TO SEAR

CH. WE DO NOT MANUALLY BUT THE LAST QUESTION IS THERE SOMEONE BEHIND THE CURTAIN MANUALLY TUNING THE SEARCH RESULTED WE DO NOT APPROACH IT AGORA ALGORITHMIC CLEAN. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE MAY BE AN ACTOR WEBSITE ITEM IDENTIFIED IS INTERFERING WITH ELECTIONS. WE THEN HAVE TO PUT THAT SITE ON A LIST SO THAT THAT DOES NOT APPEAR IN OUR SEARCH. SO OTHER EXAMPLES WOULD BE FINAL EXTREMISM TYPICAL IS THAT DONE MANUALLY? THAT PROCESS YOU DESCRIBED IS THAT DONE MANUALLY? BECAUSE WE COULD GET REPORTS FRO

M LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. COMPLYING OR IT IS UNKNOWN -- TO GO THERE IS EITHER A MANUAL COMPONENT OR THERE IS NOT A MANUAL COMPONENT. WHICH IS IT? >> FOR CREATING THOSE LISTS THAT PROCESS CAN INVOLVE MANUAL. >> THAT IS THE CONCERT THAT I HAVE PAID YOU HAVE NOW SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT TODAY THAN YOU SAID TO MS. LAUGHLIN. YOU CONFESS THERE IS A MANUAL COMPONENT TO THE WAY IN WHICH YOU BLACKLIST CONTENT. IT SEEMS TO BE NO COINCIDENCE THAT INSIGHTS LIKE GATEWAY PUNDIT, THE WESTERN JOURNAL, A

MERICAN SPECTATOR, DAILY CALLER AND BRIGHT BAR THAT RECEIVE THE IRE OR THE NEGATIVE TREATMENT AS A QUANT CONSEQUENCE OF YOUR MANUAL TOOLING. IT ALSO SEEMS NOTEWORTHY THAT WHISTLEBLOWERS AT YOUR OWN COMPANY HAS SPOKEN OUT. YOU SAID ONE OF THE REASONS YOU MAINTAIN THIS TOOL IS TO STOP ELECTION INTERFERENCE. I BELIEVE IT IS IN FACT YOUR COMPANY THAT IS ENGAGING IN ELECTION INTERFERENCE BUT IT IS NOT JUST MY VIEW. MIKE LAXER CAME OUT AND WAS A WHISTLEBLOWER INDICATING THAT THE MANUAL TARGETS T

HAT GOOGLE SPECIFICALLY GOES AFTER ARE THOSE WHO SUPPORT PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO HOLD A CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT AND YOU LET YOUR COMPANY IN 2019 BECAUSE HE WAS SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THESE OUTRIGHT SMILES BUT CAN YOU SEE HOW YOU EMPOWER INDIVIDUALS THE SAME INDIVIDUALS THAT PROJECT VERITAS HAS EXPOSED AS LABELING PEOPLE AS TERRORISTS WHO SAY MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN AND SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT THAT THAT IN FACT CAN BE THE VERY ELECTION INTERFERENCE WHERE CONCERNED ABOUT AND YOU ARE USING YOUR MARKET

DOMINANCE AND SEARCH TO ACCOMPLISH THE ELECTION INTERFERENCE? TO GO I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THAT. WE DO NOT ENDORSE ANY POLITICAL VIEWPOINT COULD WE DO THAT TO COME FLY WITH LAW, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. THOSE CAN COME FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY TYPICAL TIME GENTLEMEN. PICKLE YOUR OWN EMPLOYEES ARE ASSERTING POLITICAL BIAS. MISTER CHAIRMAN JUST GIVEN THE PRODUCTIVITY OUT OF OUR DISCUSSION I REQUEST WE BE PERMITTED A THIRD ROUND OF DISCUSSION. >> I NOW RECOGNIZE THE FULL CHAIRMAN OF THE

COMMITTEE MISTER NADLER. >> YOU KNOW THE DOCUMENTS THE NEWS JOURNAL HAS AN INDUSTRY IN THIS COUNTRY ARE IN ECONOMIC FREEFALL. OVER 200 COUNTIES NO LONGER HAVE A LOCAL NEWSPAPER. TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOURNALISTS HAVE BEEN LAID OFF IN RECENT YEARS BUT THE REASON JOURNALISM IS IN DEFAULT IS GOOGLE FACEBOOK NOW CAPTURE THE VAST MAJORITY. ALTHOUGH NEWS PUPPY PUBLISHERS PRODUCE VALUABLE CONTENT IS GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK THAT INCREASINGLY PROFIT OFF OF THAT. PUBLISHERS HAVE TOLD US THAT THEY HAVE

MAINTAINED THEIR DOMINANCE IN THESE MARKETS IN PART FROM COMPETITIVE CONFLICT. MISTER'S UPPER ZUCKERBERG IN 2015 FACEBOOK REPORTED HI AND QUICKLY GROWING RATES OF VIDEO VIEWERSHIP ON ITS PLATFORM. BASED ON THESE METRICS NEWS PUBLISHERS FIRED HUNDREDS OF JOURNALISTS CHOOSING INSTEAD TO BOOST THEIR VIDEO DIVISION . IN 2018 IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT FACEBOOK INFLATED THIS AND HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THE INACCURACY SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE THAT FACEBOOK PUBLICLY DISCLOSE THIS. MISTER ZUCKER BERG DID YOU KNO

W THESE METRICS WERE INFLATED BEFORE THEY WERE PUBLICLY RELEASED? >> NO I DID NOT. WE REGRET THAT MISTAKE AND PUT IN PLACE ANOTHER NUMBER OF OTHER MEASURES SINCE THEN BUT GO YOU REALIZE THE HARM THAT THIS CAUSED JOURNALISTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY? >> CONGRESSMAN I CERTAINLY KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THAT THE METRICS THAT WE REPORT ARE ACCURATE AND WE HAVE PUT IN PLACE ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO MAKE SURE WE CAN AUDIT THOSE CRITICAL WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY TO JOURNALISTS WHO LOST THEIR JOBS BECAUSE

OF FACEBOOK'S DECEPTION? >> CONGRESSMAN I DISAGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION. AND ALSO YOUR DESCRIPTION BUT THE GOAL RECLAIMING MY TIME. GOOGLE MEANWHILE MAINTAINED ITS DOMINANCE IN PART THROUGH AGGRAVATING DATA. MISTER VITAE I UNDERSTAND GOOGLE COLLECTS USER DATA THROUGH ITS CHROME BROWSER. DOES GOOGLE USE THAT DATA FOR ITS OWN PURPOSES EITHER IN ADVERTISING OR TO DEVELOP AND REFINE ITS EGG ALGORITHMS? >> WE DO USE DATA TO IMPROVE OUR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES FOR OUR USERS BUT ANYTIME WE D

O IT WE BELIEVE IN GIVING USES CHOICE AND TRANSPARENCY. WE MAKE IT VERY CLEAR AND WE GIVE THEM SETTINGS TO CHOOSE HOW THEY WOULD LIKE THEIR DATA. >> SO YOU DO USE THE DATA THAT YOU GET FROM THESE COMPANIES FOR YOUR PURPOSES. GO MY UNDERSTANDING WAS WE USED DATA IN GENERAL TO IMPROVE OUR DATA AND SERVICES. WE DO USE DATA TO SHOW ADS. BUT WE GIVE USERS A CHOICE. THEY CAN TURN ADD PERSONALIZATION ON OR OFF. >> OBVIOUSLY THE USE OF THIS DATA FROM ALL THESE COMPANIES GIVE YOU A TREMENDOUS AD

VANTAGE OVER ANY COMPETITOR. THE ABILITY TO MAKE MONEY AND ANY WAY HAVE THE ABILITY TO AFFECT THE ALGORITHM AND SEARCH RESULTS? >> THE WAY WE RANK OUR SEARCH RESULTS WE DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIP THAT WE HAVE. BUT FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE HAVE GREATLY THREATENED JOURNALISM IN THE UNITED STATES. REPORTERS HAVE BEEN FIRED LOCAL NEWSPAPERS HAVE BEEN SHUT DOWN AND NOW WE HEAR GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK ARE MAKING MONEY OVER NEWS THEY LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE E THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS

SITUATION. UNFORTUNATELY MY TIME IS EXPIRED AND I HAVE TO YIELD BACK. >> THINK YOU GENTLEMEN FOR YELLING. I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA BUT BECAUSE THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN BUT I'M GOING TO PICK UP WHERE I LEFT OFF. MISTER THE CHAI THERE ARE GROUPS THAT ARE GOING -- WITH POSTING THAT IS VERY VIOLENT VIDEO BUT YESTERDAY I WAS SENT A YOUTUBE VIDEO ABOUT DOCTORS DISCUSSING HYDROCHLORIC WHEN AND DISCUSSING THE NOT DANGEROUS OF CHILDREN RETURNING TO SCHOOL AND WHEN I CLICKED ON T

HE LINK IT WAS TAKEN DOWN AND THEN I WAS SENT A DIFFERENT LINK ON YOUTUBE AND IT WAS TAKEN DOWN BUT I JUST CHECKED AGAIN TO MAKE SURE IT IS SAYS THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN REMOVED FOR VIOLATING YOUTUBE'S COMMUNITY GUIDELINES. HOW CAN DOCTORS GIVING THEIR OPINION ON A DRUG THEY THINK IS EFFECTIVE FOR THE TREATMENT OF COVID-19 AND DOCTORS WHO THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN TO RETURN BACK TO SCHOOL VIOLATE YOUTUBE'S COMMUNITY GUIDELINES. WHEN ALL OF THESE VIDEOS OF VIOLENCE IS ALL POSTED ON YO

UTUBE? >> CONGRESSMAN WE BELIEVE IN FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THERE IS A LOT OF THE BAY ON YOUTUBE ABOUT EFFECTIVE WAYS TO DEAL WITH COVID. WE ALLOW ROBUST DEBATE IN THE AREA DURING A PANDEMIC, WE LOOK TO LOCAL PARTIES SO IN THE U.S. IT WOULD BE CDC FOR GUIDELINES AROUND MEDICAL MISINFORMATION IN A WAY THAT COULD CAUSE HARM IN THE REAL WORLD . FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE IS ASPECTS OF THE VIDEO AND IF IT EXPLICITLY STATES SOMETHING, IT COULD BE A PROVEN KAREN THAT DOES NOT MEET CDC GUIDELINES .

GREATEST FREE EXPRESSION OF SPEECH AND YOU HAVE THESE DOCTORS WHO ARE GIVING THEIR OPINION AS DOCTORS AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOUTUBE AND THEREFORE GOOGLE THINKS IT IS APPROPRIATE TO SILENCE PHYSICIANS AND THEIR OPINION OF WHAT COULD HELP AND CURE PEOPLE WITH COVID-19. I'M GOING TO SWITCH QUICKLY TO MISTER ZUCKERBERG. I THINK IT IS AT THIS POINT IT IS FAIRLY OBVIOUS TECHNOLOGY PLATFORMS HAVE BEEN USED TO SIPHON OPINIONS. CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW FACEBOOK CHOOSES WHO THESE MODERATORS ARE? >

> THANKS CONGRESSMAN. WE DO HIRE A LOT OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD TO WORK ON SAFETY AND SECURITY. OUR TEAM IS MORE THAN 30 OR 35,000 PEOPLE WORKING ON THAT NOW. WE CERTAINLY TRY TO DO THIS IN A WAY THAT IS NEUTRAL TO ALL VIEWPOINTS. WE WANT TO BE A PLATFORM FOR ALL IDEAS. I DO NOT THINK YOU BUILD A SOCIAL PRODUCT WITH THE GOAL OF GIVING PEOPLE A VOICE IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO EXPRESS A WIDE VARIETY OF THINGS IS ULTIMATELY VALUABLE FOR THE WORLD BUT WE TRY TO MAKE SURE OUR

POLICIES AND OPERATIONS REFLECTED CARRY THAT OUT. IS THERE AN IDEOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AMONG THE MODERATORS? >> CONGRESSMAN I DON'T THINK WE CHOOSE TO HIRE THEM ON THE BASIS OF AN IDEOLOGY. THEY ARE HIRED ALL OVER THE WORLD. THERE IS CERTAINLY A BUNCH IN THE U.S. THERE IS DIVERSITY ON WHERE THEY ARE HIRED BUT CERTAINLY WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANY BIAS IN WHAT WE DO. WE WOULD NOT TOLERATE IT IF WE DISCOVERED THAT TYPICAL YOU DO NOT SPECIFICALLY HIRE CONSERVATIVE MODERATORS AND DEMOCRAT OR LIBE

RAL MODERATOR SO THERE IS A BALANCE IN YOUR CONTENT MODERATORS? >> CONGRESSMAN IN TERMS OF THE 30 TO 35,000 PEOPLE OR MORE AT THIS POINT YOU ARE DOING SAFETY AND SECURITY REVIEW, THAT IS CORRECTED IN TERMS OF THE TEACHER SETTING PEOPLE SETTING THE POLICIES I THINK IT IS VALUABLE TO HAVE PEOPLE WITH THE DIVERSITY OF VIEW POINTS TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS REPRESENTED IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. WE ALSO CONSULT WITH A NUMBER OF OUTSIDE GROUPS WHENEVER WE DEVELOP NEW POLIC

IES TO MAKE SURE WE ARE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL PERSPECTIVES. BECAUSE WHAT ARE SOME OF THOSE OUT SIDE GROUPS THAT WOULD BE CONSERVATIVE LEANING? >> CONGRESSMAN I NEED TO GET BACK TO YOU WITH A LIST OF SPECIFIC GROUPS BUT IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT THE TOPIC IS. >> CAN YOU JUST THINK OF ONE. YOU SAID YOU REACH OUT TO OUTSIDE GROUPS. CAN YOU THINK OF ONE CONSERVATIVE GROUP YOU REACH OUT TO AND USE AS A CONTENT MODERATOR? >> CONGRESSMAN I'M TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT X TERMINAL STAKEHOLDERS AND GR

OUPS THAT ARE INPUTS TO OUR POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. I'M NOT INVOLVED IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS DIRECTLY SO I WOULD HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU WITH SPECIFICS ON THAT. I'M QUITE CONFIDENT THAT WE SPEAK WITH PEOPLE ACROSS THE I HAD IDEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM WHEN DEVELOPING OUR POLICIES SPECTACLE I WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE A FOLLOW-UP ON THAT. CAN YOU BRIEFLY EXPLAIN THE PROCESS FOR THIRD-PARTY FACT CHECKERS. THE GOAT YES, THANKS. WE WORK WITH ABOUT 70 FACT CHECKING PARTNERS AROUND THE WORLD. THE

GOAL OF THE PROGRAM IS TO LIMIT THE DISTRIBUTION OF VIRAL HOAXES. THINGS THAT ARE CLEARLY FAULTS FROM GETTING A LOT OF DISTRIBUTION. WE DO NOT WANT OURSELVES TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF DETERMINING WHAT IS TRUE AND WHAT IS FALSE. THAT FEELS LIKE IN AN APPROPRIATE ROLE FOR US TO PLAY. WE RELY ON AN ORGANIZATION CALLED THE POYNTER INSTITUTE. I THINK IT IS CALLED THE INDEPENDENT FACT CHECKING ORGANIZATION THAT HAS A SET OF GUIDELINES OF WHAT MAKES AN INDEPENDENT FACT CHECKER. THEY CERTIFY THOSE

FACT CHECKERS AND ANY ORGANIZATION THAT GET CERTIFICATION FROM THAT GROUP IS QUALIFIED TO BE A FACT CHECKING PARTNER WITHIN FACEBOOK. BECAUSE THANK YOU CHAIRMAN FOR THE TIME IS EXPIRED. I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE MISTER JOHNSON FOR FIVE MINUTES AND THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK OF THE COMMITTEE. GOAT THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN. MISTER PAZOS AMAZON HAS A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM WITH COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS BEING SOLD ON ITS PLATFORM. COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS NOT ONLY RIP OFF THE OWNERS LEGITIMATE

BUSINESSES THEY ALSO CAN BE DANGEROUS. COUNTERFEIT MEDICINE, BABY FOOD, AUTOMOBILE TIRES AND OTHER PRODUCTS CAN KILL. AMAZON HAS SAID IT IS FIXING ITS COUNTERFEIT PROBLEM BUT COUNTERFEITING SEEMS TO BE GETTING WORSE NOT BETTER. AMAZON IS $1 TRILLION COMPANY BUT AMAZON CUSTOMERS ARE NOT GUARANTEED THAT THE PRODUCTS PURCHASED ON YOUR PLATFORM ARE AUTHENTIC. AMAZON X LIKE IT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR COUNTERFEITS BEING SOLD BY THIRD PARTY SELLERS ON ITS PLATFORM. WE HAVE HEARD THAT AMAZON PUTS

THE BURDEN AND COST ON BRAND OWNERS TO POLICE AMAZON SITE EVEN THOUGH AMAZON MAKES MONEY WHEN A COUNTER FOR GOOD IS SOLD ON ITS SITE. MORE THAN HALF OF AMAZON SALES COME FROM THIRD PARTY SELLER ACCOUNTS. WHY ISN'T AMAZON MORE AGGRESSIVE IN ENSURING THAT COUNTERFEIT GOODS ARE NOT SOLD ON ITS PLATFORM AND WHY ISN'T AMAZON RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING ALL COUNTERFEIT RELICS OF OF ITS PLATFORM. TYPICAL THANK YOU PRINT THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT ISSUE AND ONE THAT WE WORK VERY HARD ON. COUNTE

RFEITS ARE A SCOURGE. THEY ARE A PROBLEM THAT DOES NOT HELP US EARN TRUST WITH CUSTOMERS. IT IS BAD FOR CUSTOMERS. IT IS BAD FOR HONEST, THIRD PARTY SELLERS. WE DO A LOT TO PREVENT COUNTERFEITING. WE HAVE A TEAM OF MORE THAN 1000 PEOPLE THAT DOES THIS BID WE INVEST HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. WE HAVE SOMETHING CALLED PROJECT ZERO WHICH HELPS AND SERIALIZE INDIVIDUAL PRODUCTS WHICH REALLY HELPS WITH COUNTERFEITING. TO GO I'M GLAD THAT YOU HAVE FEATURES IN PLACE BUT WHY ISN'T AMAZON RESP

ONSIBLE FOR KEEPING ALL COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS OFF OF ITS PLATFORM? >> WE CERTAINLY WORK TO DO SO CONGRESSMAN PITT WE DO SO NOT JUST FOR OUR OWN RETAIL PRODUCTS BUT FOR THIRD-PARTY PRODUCTS AS WELL . GO THANK YOU. WE HAVE HEARD FROM NUMEROUS THIRD-PARTY SELLERS AND BRAND OWNERS THE AMAZON HAS USED KNOCKOFFS AS LEVERAGE TO PRESSURE SELLERS TO DO WHAT AMAZON WANTS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE FOUNDER OF POT SOCKETS TESTIFIED IN JANUARY THAT AMAZON IT SELF WAS SELLING KNOCKOFFS OF ITS PRODUCT. AFTER REPOR

TING THE PROBLEM , IT WAS ONLY AFTER HIS COMPANY COMMITTED TO SPENDING $2 MILLION ON ADVERTISEMENTS THAT AMAZON APPEARS TO HAVE STOPPED DIVERTING SALES TO THESE KNOCKOFFS. WHAT IS YOUR EXPLANATION FOR THAT BUSINESS PRACTICE? >> THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE. IF THOSE ARE THE FACTS AND IF SOMEONE SOMEWHERE INSIDE AMAZON SAID PURCHASE X DOLLARS IN ABSOLUTE WILL HELP YOU WITH YOUR COUNTERFEIT PROBLEM THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE. I WILL LOOK INTO THAT AND WE WILL GET BACK TO YOUR OFFICE WITH THAT. WHAT I C

AN TELL YOU IS WE HAVE A COUNTERFEIT CRIMES UNIT. WE LOOK TO PROSECUTE COUNTERFEITERS. I WOULD ENCOURAGE THIS BODY TO PASS STRICTER PENALTIES FOR COUNTERFEITERS AND TO INCREASE LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES TO GO AFTER COUNTERFEITERS. >> BUT YOU CONTINUE TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF COUNTERFEITERS SELLING OFF YOUR PLATFORM ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> I WOULD MUCH RATHER LOSE A SALE THAT IS A CUSTOMER THAT WE MAKE MONEY WHEN THE CUSTOMER COMES BACK. PICKLE FAIR ENOUGH, SIR. NAKED COMPANIES PAY EXTRA TO A

VOID HAVING THEIR PRODUCTS DISAPPEAR IN RANKINGS SEEMS TO BE SO UNFAIR ESPECIALLY THE SMALLER BUSINESSES. THE AMERICAN DREAM IS THREATENED WHEN THAT HAPPENS DON'T YOU THINK SO? >> I AM NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO. IF YOU ARE REFERRING TO WHAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT A SECOND AGO? >> I'M TALKING ABOUT A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION WHERE A COMPANY THAT IS SELLING ON YOUR PLATFORM BUT IS NOT PAYING ANYTHING EXTRA GETS BURIED IN THE RANKINGS AND COMPANIES THAT PAY EXTRA ARE

ABLE TO GET THEIR PRODUCTS PUSHED UP AND THEY AVOID GETTING PUSHED DOWN. IS THAT AN ACCEPTABLE PRACTICE? >> SIR I THINK WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO IS WE OFFER AN ADVERTISING SERVICE FOR THIRD-PARTY SELLERS TO DRIVE ADDITIONAL PROMOTION TO THEIR PRODUCT. THAT IS A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM. SOME SELLERS USE IT, SOME DO NOT. IT IS BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE AT HELPING PEOPLE PROMOTE THEIR PRODUCTS. GO WITH THAT I YELLED BACK. THANK YOU . GO THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN BRIEF RECESS. [COMMITEE IS IN BRIEF R

ECESS] ONE >> COME TO ORDER, RECOGNIZE THAT FOREMAN. >> SORRY? >> GENERAL FROM NORTH DAKOTA, -- MEXICO, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. BETTIS, EARLIER, MY COLLEAGUES BROUGHT UP WHAT I THINK IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE AND THEY WERE DISCUSSING AMAZON'S STATED POLICY AGAINST USING THIRD-PARTY SELLER INFORMATION TO INFORM BUSINESS DECISIONS ARE REGARDING AMAZON'S PRIVATE LABELS. WE NOTED THAT LOOPHOLE THAT ALLOWS AMAZON TO REVIEW NONPUBLIC AGGREGATE DATA TO INFORM PRIVATE BRANDS, EVEN IN INSTANCES WHERE THERE

ARE ONLY A FEW THIRD-PARTY SELLERS. WANTED TO DRILLED DOWN ON THAT A LITTLE MORE. WHERE EXACTLY DOES AMAZON DRAW THE LINE? >> I'M SORRY, AGGREGATE DATA? >> IT'S MORE THAN ONE SELLER. FIRST, YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THE PERSON SEEING THE REPORT WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW MANY SELLERS ARE INSIDE THAT GROUP OR WHAT THE BREAKDOWN WOULD BE BETWEEN THOSE SELLERS. IS THAT PERHAPS DIFFERENT FROM A PART BREAKING WHICH WE DO MAKE PUBLIC FOR ALL? >> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, DOES AMAZON ALLOW

THE USE OF AGGREGATE DATA? DO I STORE PRIVATE LABEL AMAZON BRANDS WHEN THERE ARE ONLY THREE SELLERS FOR A PART? >> YES, SIR. >> DOES AMAZON LOOK AT AGGREGATE DATA WHEN THERE ARE ONLY TWO SELLERS FOR A PRODUCT? >> YES, SIR. >> AM I CORRECT IN MY UNDERSTAND THAT AMAZON IS CONDUCTING AN INTERNAL INVESTIGATION ON THE USE OF THIRD-PARTY DATA? >> YES, WE ARE BASICALLY TRYING TO UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE ATTIC NOTES THAT WE SAW IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE. >> WILL YOU COMMIT TO INFORMING TH

IS COMMITTEE ON THE OUTCOME OF THAT INVESTIGATION, INCLUDING ON THE EXACT CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHEN AMAZON IS ALLOWED TO VIEW AND/OR USE AGGREGATE DATA? >> YES. YES, WE WILL DO THAT. >> NOW, I WOULD MOVE JUST REALLY QUICKLY, MUSIC CAN BE USED TO DRIVE REVENUE, OVERSEE, THERE'S A REASON IT IS IMPORTANT. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT TWITCH FOR A SETTING. HIS REPORTS HAVE INDICATED THAT TWITCHES ARE RECEIVING NOTICE AND TAKEDOWN REQUESTS PURSUANT TO THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT. MY UNDERSTANDING

OF THIS IS THAT TWITCH ALLOWS USERS TO STREAM MUSIC IT'S NOT LICENSING MUSIC, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ASK THAT I CAN GET BACK TO YOUR OFFICE WITH THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW. >> OKAY, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. AND THEN TOOK TWO MORE QUESTIONS RELATED TO THAT. IF TWITCHES RESPONDING TO REQUIREMENTS, ONE, SHOULD TWITCH CONSIDER PROACTIVELY LICENSING MUSIC INSTEAD OF RETROACTIVELY ADHERING TO THOSE NOTICES? THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS PRIMARILY CONCERNED ABOUT, SMALL UP-

AND-COMING MUSICIANS, PEOPLE AREN'T NECESSARILY ON LABELS, MAKING IT EASIER FOR THEM TO GET CEASE-AND-DESIST NOTICES OUT AS WELL AS WE CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. >> YES, CONGRESSMAN. THAT IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE AND I UNDERSTAND, I WILL GET BACK YOUR OFFICE ABOUT THAT HEARD >> ALL RIGHT. EARLY THIS YEAR, GOOGLE ANNOUNCED PLANS TO HAVE THIRD-PARTY COOKING ATTACHED TO USERS' BROWSERS, ALLOWING YOU TO BE TRACKED ACROSS THE INTERNET. A CONSEQUENT OF THE CHANGES THAT IT WILL PUT OTHER

DIGITAL ADVERTISING MARKET PARTICIPANTS AT A DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE THEY CAN NO LONGER TRACK USERS. AT THE VERY, VERY DANGER OF BEING PRO-COOKING, WHEN I'M NOT WHEN I USED A COMPUTER AS WELL BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE LEGITIMATE PRIVACY CONCERNS WITH THIRD-PARTY COOKIES. I DO WANT TO FOCUS ON THE COMPETITION ASPECT. IF THIS ACTION ALSO PLACES GOOGLE AT A DISADVANTAGE OR DOES GOOGLE HAVE ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COLLECTING THAT USER DATA AND PERFORMING DIGITAL ADVERTISING ACTIVITIES? >> CON

GRESSMAN, AS YOU ALREADY POINTED OUT, THIS IS AN AREA WHERE WE ARE FOCUSED ON USER PRIVACY AND THE USERS CLEARLY DON'T WANT TO BE TRACKED BY THIRD-PARTY COOKIES. IN FACT, OTHER BROWSER WINDOWS INCLUDING APPLE AND MAC FOUNDATIONS HAVE ALSO LIMITED THESE CHANGES. WE ARE DOING IT, THOUGHTFULLY GIVING TIME FOR THE INDUSTRY TO ADAPT BECAUSE WE KNOW PUBLISHERS DEPEND ON REVENUE IN THIS AREA. BUT IT IS AN IMPORTANT CHANGE AND I THINK WE HAVE TO BE FOCUSED ON PRIVACY TO DRIVE THE CHANGE FORWARD.

>> YOU HAVE OTHER WAYS OF COLLECTING THAT INFORMATION, CORRECT? >> ON OUR FIRST PARTY SERVICES, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T RELY ON COOKIES. HONESTY, WHEN PEOPLE COME AND TYPE INTO -- >> I'M NOT ASKING IF YOU RELY ON COOKIES, I'M ASKING IF YOU HAVE OTHER WAYS OF COLLECTING IT, THROUGH GMAIL OR CONSUMER-BASED PLATFORMS, RIGHT? >> WE DON'T USE DATA FROM GMAIL FOR ADS, CONGRESSMAN. ON THE SERVICES WE PROVIDE AND AND CONNECT USERS TO CONTACT THEIR AS AND PERSONALIZATION, YES, WE DO HAVE DATA. >> THA

NK YOU, SIR. >> PANAMA, YIELDING BACK, I KNOW I CAN AS THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. >> THINK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN .THIS IS DR. BERG. DURING DISCUSSIONS OF CHANGING FACEBOOK'S PLATFORM POLICY IN 2012, YOU SAID, QUOTE, IN ANY MODEL, I'M ASSUMING WE ENFORCE OUR POLICIES AGAINST COMPETITORS MUCH MORE STRONGLY. IT SOUNDS LIKE FACEBOOK WEBINARS FOR THIS POLICY IS TO TARGET COMPETITORS. WHY WAS FACEBOOK ENFORCING POLICIES AGAINST COMPETITORS MORE STRONGLY? >> CONGAS WOMAN, WHEN WE WERE A MU

CH SMALLER COMPANY, WE SAW THAT -- >> 2012, THIS WAS IN 2012. PLEASE, GO RIGHT AHEAD. >> SURE, WE HAVE HAD POLICIES IN THE PAST THAT HAVE PREVENTED OUR COMPETITORS, WHICH AT THE TIME WERE PRIMARILY WORRIED ABOUT LARGER COMPETITORS. FROM USING OUR PLATFORMS TO GROW AND COMPETE WITH US. SO WE HAD SOME OF THOSE POLICIES, WE CONTINUALLY REVIEW THEM OVER TIME -- >> OKAY, DR. BERG, 2013 FACEBOOK EMPLOYS AN UNDEFINED MESSAGING OF THE LAST GROWING UP ON FACEBOOK AND SAID, WE WILL RESTRICT THEIR A

CCESS. WAS THIS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF ENFORCING FACEBOOK'S POLICIES AGAINST COMPETITORS MUCH MORE STRONGLY? >> CONGAS WOMAN, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT SPECIFIC EXAMPLE BUT WE DID HAVE A POLICY. >> OKAY, LET'S MOVE TO ANOTHER HERE. IN 2014, OTHER FACEBOOK PRODUCT MANAGERS OPENLY DISCUSSED REMOVING PINTEREST'S ASPECT TO FACEBOOK'S ASPECT. AS ONE EMPLOYEE SAID, I'M 100% IN FAVOR OF HOLDING IT FROM PINTEREST. I'M NOT RECOMMENDING REMOVING IT FROM NETFLIX GOING FORWARD. WHY WOULD FACEBOOK'S PR

ODUCT MANAGERS WANT TO RESTRICT PINTEREST'S ACCESS TO FACEBOOK BUT NOT NETFLIX'? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT EXCHANGE. I DON'T THINK I WAS ON THAT. >> WHY DO YOU THINK THAT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE ON THAT? WHY DO YOU THINK THEY MAKE THAT DECISION? OR WOULD IT MAKE A DECISION LIKE THAT? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, AS I SAID, WE USED TO HAVE A POLICY THAT RESTRICTED COMPETITORS FROM USING OUR PLATFORM. AND PINTEREST IS A SOCIAL COMPETITOR WITH US. IT IS ONE OF THE MANY COMPETITORS

THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO SHARE -- >> ALL RIGHT, ZUCKERBERG, EXAMPLES STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT FACEBOOK WEBINARS IS ITS POLICY AND PLATFORM POLICY, ENFORCING SELECTIVELY TO UNDERMINE COMPETITORS. BUT LET'S MOVE ON. I'M CONCERNED THAT APPLE'S POLICIES ARE ALSO PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS IN THE APP ECONOMY AND THAT APPLE RULES AND APPLE APP ALWAYS WINS. YOU SHOULD COOK, AND 2019, APPLE REMOVED FROM THE APPLE STORES CERTAIN APPS THAT HELP PARENTS CONTROL THEIR CERTAIN DEVICES. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT

JUSTIFICATION APPLE CITED? >> YES, CONGRESSMAN. -- CONGAS WOMAN, I DO, IT WAS THAT THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY CALLED MDM, LEVEL DEVICE MANAGEMENT PLACED KIDS' DATA AT RISK AND SO WE WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF KIDS. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SO YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE APP BASICALLY UNDERMINED KIDS' PRIVACY. ANOTHER APP YOU ALSO USED TOO WAS AN APP BY THE SAUDI ARABIAN GOVERNMENT. DO YOU RECALL WHAT APPLE'S POSITION WAS WORN TO THIS APP? >> I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT APP. >> OKAY. APPLE AL

LOWS THE SAUDI APP TO REMAIN. SO THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF APPS. THEY USE THE SAME TOOL. APPLE KICKS ONE OUT AND SAYS, THAT -- ONE, THAT WAS HELPING PARENTS BUT KEEPS THE ONE OWNED BY A FEDERAL OWNED GOVERNMENT. IF THAT IS CORRECT, MR. COOK THAT APHSES ESSENTIALLY DID THE SAME THING, WHY DID YOU KEEP THE ONE OWNED BY A POWERFUL GOVERNMENT? >> I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK INTO THIS AND GET BACK WITH YOUR OFFICE. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU APPLIED TO DIFFERENT RULES TO THE SAME APP. >> WE APPLY THE RULES TO

ALL DEVELOPERS EVENLY. >> DID THE FACT THAT APPLE HAD ITS OWN -- AND IT IS ASK YOU THIS, DID THE FACT THAT APPLE HAD ITS OWN PARENTAL CONTROLS APP THAT WERE COMPETING WITH THESE THIRD-PARTY APPS CONTRIBUTE TO APPLE'S DECISION TO KICK THEM OFF THE APPLE STORE, MR. COOK? WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT? >> IT DID NOT. THERE IS OVER 30 PARENTAL CONTROLS ON THE APP STORE TODAY. SO THERE IS PLENTY OF COMPETITION IN THIS AREA. I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THIS IS NOT AN AREA WHERE APPLE GETS ANY REVE

NUE AT ALL. >> I DO NOT ASK ANYTHING ABOUT REVENUE, THAT WAS NOT MY QUESTION. I'M OUT OF TIME AND THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR. >> THANK YOU, PANEL I CANNOT RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE, MR. JORDAN. >> THANK YOU FOR USING MR. ZUCKERBERG, JUST ASK MR. CHUNKY'S IDEA ON THE TESTIMONY TO CONGRESS SAYING, THERE'S AN EDITORIAL REGULATION THAT DISADVANTAGES CONSERVATIVES AND JUST LIKE IN THE CASE OF GOOGLE, THERE HAVE BEEN WHISTLEBLOWERS FROM FACEBOOK THAT NOT ONLY HAVE OFFERED EVIDEN

CE INDICATING YOUR TESTIMONY WAS NOT TRUTHFUL BUT THAT THERE IS EVEN VIDEO THAT SUGGESTS THAT CONTENT MODERATORS THAT YOU EMPLOY ARE OUT THERE DISADVANTAGING CONSERVATIVE CONTENT. I AM WONDERING IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE EXPERIENCES OF ZACH McELROY AND RYAN HARDWICK, THE PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATED IN FACEBOOK CONTENT REVIEW AND WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THE VERY DAMNING VIDEO EVIDENCE AND THE TESTIMONY FROM THEM, THAT THE COURSE THAT YOU LEAD WITHIN FACEBOOK IS ONE THAT DISADVANTAGES CONSERV

ATIVES AND LEADS TO CONTENT MANIPULATION? >> CONGAS MAN, I'M SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR WITH THE CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE RAISED AND AS I HAVE SAID, WE AIM TO BE A PLATFORM FOR ALL IDEAS. WE GOT INTO THIS BECAUSE WE WANT TO GIVE EVERYONE A VOICE. I CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT OUR PLATFORMS TO BE RUN IN A THAT HAS ANY IDEOLOGICAL BIAS AND I WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS A RANGE OF ISSUES. WHEN PEOPLE RAISE CONCERNS LIKE THAT, WE DO LOOK INTO THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IN OUR OPERATION IS BEHAVING

AND UPHOLDING THE STANDARDS THAT WE WOULD LIKE. AND IF THE BEHAVIOR THAT THEY CITED IS TRUE, THEN THAT WOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE IN OUR OPERATION. >> FOLLOWING THE RULES OF THOSE VIDEOS AND THAT EVIDENCE FOR PROJECT VERITAS, WILL YOU THEN DESCRIBE THE INVESTIGATION THAT FACEBOOK UNDERTOOK TO ROOT OUT THESE VERY CORROSIVE EFFECTS ON YOUR PLATFORM? >> CONGRESSMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO GET BACK TO YOU WITH MORE DETAILS ON THAT. BUT I KNOW THAT WE HAVE ONGOING TRAINING AND IN WHAT WE DO, WE CERTAINL

Y WILL LOOK INTO ANY COMPLAINTS THAT COME UP. AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT HOW WE RUN THE CONTENT REVIEW TEAMS, THAT IT IS DONE IN A WAY THAT REFLECTS THE VALUES OF THE COMPANY AROUND GIVING A VOICE AND BEING A PUFFER FOR ALL IDEAS. >> I'M CONCERNED THAT THE CONTENT REVIEW REFLECTS THE SIZE OF THE COMPANY BUT THEY DON'T REFLECT THE VIEWS OF EVER BEING PREJUDICE AGAINST THE CONTENT. WHILE I APPRECIATE TRAINING AS A PUBLIC ENDEAVOR TO TRY TO GUIDE FUTURE CONTENT, IT SEEMS DISINGENUOUS FOR YOU

TO SUGGEST THAT THESE VIDEOS COME OUT THAT ARE VERY DAMNING THAT SHOW THE PEOPLE THAT YOU TRUST WITH CONTENT MODERATION, ADMITTING ON VIDEO THAT THEY DISADVANTAGE CONSERVATIVES. THEY HAVE LABELED PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT AS A WAY TO PUSH DOWN THE CONTENT AND LIMITED THE REACH OF THAT CONTENT, FOR YOU TO THEN COME TO US MANY MONTHS LATER AFTER THAT WAS ALL OVER THE NEWS AND THE INTERNET AND SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU WILL GET BACK TO US IF YOU DO A LITTLE TRAINING. IT SEEMS TO SUGGE

ST THAT YOU DON'T TAKE THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THIS EVIDENCE VERY SERIOUSLY. SO I'LL ASK IN A DIFFERENT WAY, WOULD YOU REVISE YOUR PRIOR -- YOU KNOW, YOUR PRIOR TESTIMONY AND ENERGY AND COMMERCE, YOU SAID, THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN. IT CANNOT HAPPEN, WOULD YOU LEAST BE WILLING TO KNOWLEDGE BASED ON THE IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE BEFORE US THAT YOU DON'T SEEM TO HAVE INVESTIGATED THAT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT AT FACEBOOK, YOUR EMPLOYEES DO HAVE THE POWER TO DISADVANTAGE CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINTS AND THEY IN FA

CT USE THAT POWER IN WAYS THAT WE NEED TO ROOT OUT? >> CONGRESSMAN, MY TESTIMONY THE PAST AND TODAY IS ABOUT WHAT OUR PRINCIPALS ARE AS A COMPANY AND WHAT WE TRY TO DO. OF COURSE, WHEN YOU HAVE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF EMPLOYEES, PEOPLE MAKING MISTAKES, PEOPLE HAVE SOME OF THEIR OWN GOALS SOME OF THE TIME AND IT IS OUR JOB IN RUNNING THE COMPANY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MINIMIZE ERRORS AND THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT THE COMPANY'S OPERATIONS REFLECT THE PRINCIPLES WE INTEND TO RUN BY. >> AND WHEN YOU

FIRE PEOPLE AS A CONSEQUENT OF THEIR POLITICS, DO YOU THINK THAT THAT IMPACTS THE CULTURE AND PERHAPS EMPOWERS SOME OF THE CONTENT MODERATORS TO ALSO TREAT PEOPLE BASED ON THE CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR POLITICS? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY CASE WHERE WE HAVE HIRED SOMEONE BASED ON THEIR POLITICS. I WOULD SAY THAT THAT WOULD BE AN INAPPROPRIATE THING FOR US TO DO. >> WHY DID YOU HIRE PALMER? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE IT IS APPROPRIATE TO GET IN

TO A SPECIFIC PERSONNEL ISSUE. NOT PUBLICLY. >> I CAN TELL YOU, PALMER -- 10 SECONDS BUT PALMER LUCKY'S NDA WITH YOU DOES NOT ALLOW HIM TO TALK TO ANYONE BUT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. AS A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, I'VE SEEN THE MESSAGES WHERE YOU HAVE SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED MR. LUCKY TO MAKE STATEMENTS REGARDING HIS POLITICS FOR THE BENEFIT OF YOUR COMPANY. SO THINK BOTH IN THE CASE OF THIS CONTENT MODERATORS AND IN THE CASE OF THE TESTIMONY JUST GAVE, REGARDING MR. LUCKY FIRING PEOPLE OF THE POL

ITICS, THERE IS SERIOUS QUESTIONS INTO WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE GIVING TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY HERE OR WHETHER OR NOT BEFORE CONGRESS. I SEE MY TIME IS EXPIRED HERE. >> CHAIRMAN IS BACK CHANNEL FROM PENNSYLVANIA. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. BOUCHER, TO FOCUS ON AND YOUTUBE FOCUS OF YOUTUBE MOVES FOR CONSUMER PRIVACY AND COMPETITION. NOW, GOOGLE PURCHASED YOUTUBE IN 2006 AFTER IDENTIFYING IT AS A POTENTIAL RIVAL THAT COULD EVENTUALLY DROP BUSINESS AWAY FROM GOOSE GOOGLE. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING

THAT GOOGLE .1 $.65 BILLION THAT ACQUISITION. NEARLY 30 TIMES ITS ORIGINAL BID OF 50 MILLION. SHE DID TELL US WHY GOOGLE IS WILLING TO PAY SO MUCH MORE BEYOND THE INITIAL PROPOSED BID? AND WAS THIS AS A RESULT OF ANY ANALYSIS ON THE HARM GOOGLE HAD SUFFERED IF A COMPETITOR HAD PURCHASED YOUTUBE? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, WE HAVE ACQUIRED YOUTUBE SINCE 2006 AND THIS IS RELEVANT FOR MY TIME THERE AS CEO. I WAS INVOLVED IN WHAT I DO RECALL AT THE TIME AS WE SORT OF SAW THE NEW EMERGING AREA WITH O

UR MISSION TO HELP USERS WITH THE INFORMATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR THE EFFICACIES OF PEOPLE. >> OKAY, WAS MR. PAGE IN CHARGE OF THAT DECISION? YOU DON'T KNOW? MATT I'M PRETTY SURE OUR SENIOR LEADERSHIP TEAM AT THE TIME LOOKED DIFFERENT. >> OKAY, I WOULD ENCOURAGE A SUBCOMMITTEE TO TAKE THIS STEP NECESSARY TO HAVE US GET TO HEAR FROM WHOEVER WAS THERE. MOVING ON, GOOGLE IS NOW BY FAR THE TOP ONLINE SITE WHERE AMERICANS WATCH VIDEOS, INCLUDING CHILDREN'S' VIDEOS. AS I'M SURE YOU ARE AWARE, F

EDERAL LAW PREVENTS COMPANIES FROM COLLECTING DATA ON CHILDREN UNDER 13. HOWEVER, JUST LAST YEAR, THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION FOUND THAT GOOGLE HAS SPENT YEARS KNOWINGLY COLLECTING DATA ON CHILDREN UNDER 13 ON YOUTUBE AND OFFERING ADVERTISERS THE ABILITY TO TARGET THOSE CHILDREN DIRECTLY. MR. BOUCHER, DID YOUTUBE USE THE DATA IT ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED TO ILLEGALLY TARGET ADS TOWARDS CHILDREN? >> THIS IS AN AREA THAT WE ARE TAKING VERY SERIOUSLY. WE HAVE INVESTED TREMENDOUSLY AND WE ARE DEDICA

TED WITH GETTING PRODUCTS FOR KIDS AND YOUTUBE KIDS ON THE MAIN YOUTUBE BLOCKS AND WE MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE POLICIES ARE ENFORCED VIGOROUSLY IN AS OF 2019, WE HAVE FLAG WAS 20 MILLION VIDEOS FOR AREAS AROUND CHILD SAFETY. IT IS AN AREA WE ARE INVESTIGATING PERVERSELY AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO. >> I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU ARE INVESTING RIGOROUSLY AND ADVERTISERS LIKE TOYMAKERS, AND TELL AND HAS GROW BY TELLING THEM THAT, YOUTUBE IS THE NUMBER ONE WEBSITE REGULARLY VISI

TED BY KIDS. SO THAT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE TARGETING THE KIDS AND THEN TARGETING ADVERTISERS TO BRING THEM ON BOARD. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THE MAIN SET OF YOUTUBE, WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO CREATE ACCOUNTS. THERE ARE SCENARIOS THAT WE HAVE BEEN REVIEWING AND TODAY, THERE ARE CREATORS WHO CREATE CONTENT-ORIENTED FOR FAMILIES AND AS PART OF THAT, THERE ARE ADVERTISERS AND COLLECTING WITH THOSE USERS. EVERYTHING WE DO HERE, WE HAVE IS TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE REGULATIONS. >> OKAY, LET'S LOOK

AT SOME OF THE CONTENT THAT IS SPECIFICALLY FOR CHILDREN. MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO TARGET THOSE KIDS BUT WE HAVE GOT AN ISSUE A CONTENT CREATORS ARE IN A VERY DIFFICULT POSITION NOW. SO IF A SHOW LIKE "SESAME STREET" DOESN'T WANT TO SHOW ADS FOR JUNK FOOD ON YOUTUBE, DOES YOUTUBE ALLOW IT TO MAKE THAT CHOICE? >> TODAY, WE DO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE CHOICES BOTH FOR CREATORS IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, TOOLS AND PREFERENCES. AND WE HAVE EXTENSIVE TOOLS FOR ADVERTISERS AND FOR USERS. WE GIVE A CHOICE, TH

EY CAN EITHER USE YOUTUBE AS A OPTION SERVICE WITHOUT SEEING THOSE TYPES OF ADS OR, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN USE IT FOR FREE WITH ADS. SO WE GET CHOICE AND, YOU KNOW, FOR US, THIS IS MOST IMPORTANT, THAT YOUTUBE IS A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE COME TO LEARN AND, YOU KNOW, FIND INCREASINGLY SMALL AND MEANINGFUL BUSINESSES AND USE YOUTUBE TO TRY, ESPECIALLY DURING COVID. >> OKAY, LET'S GO BACK TO CONTENT ONLINE FOR CHILDREN. SO, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S AN ORGANIZATION LIKE SESAME STREET THAT WANTS TO PROVIDE

CHILD-CENTERED CONTENT BUT THEY DON'T WANT THE CONTENT TO BE SOLID, SHALL WE SAY WITH JUNK FOOD AS OR SOMETHING, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU SAY THAT THE CONTENT CREATORS CAN DO THAT. BUT WE HAVE HAD A RECENT REPORT FROM "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL," THAT SAYS THEY HAVEN'T BEEN HONORING THOSE REQUESTS AND THAT HAS BEEN MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR COMPANIES TO AUDIT THAT AN INDEPENDENTLY REPORT BACK TO THIS CONTENT CREATORS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOUTUBE IS HONORING THOSE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I'M

NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT PARTICULAR REPORT BUT I'M HAPPY TO HELP UNDERSTAND IT BETTER AS MY OFFICE CAN FOLLOW UP WITH STAFF OFFICE HOURS. >> I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT AND MY TIME IS ASKED TIRED. I YIELD BACK. >> PANEL WOMAN YIELDS BACK. CHECK MY RECOMMENDS HIMSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES. MR. BASIS, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU REVIEWED YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY, YOU INDICATED", AMAZON ACCOUNTS FOR 25 OF THE JOINT ALERT RETAIL MARKETS IN LESSON 4% OF RETAIL IN THE U.

S. WHEN, AND QUOTE, TEGA BASED ON THE EMPIRICAL STUDIES I REVIEWED THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO A BROAD DEFINITION OF RETAILER HE INCLUDES RESTAURANTS, BARS, GAS STATIONS A FAIRLY ALL ENCOMPASSING VIEW OF RETAIL. I WONDER IF YOU KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE OF AMAZON'S SALES REPRESENTED IN TERMS OF ONLINE RETAIL SALES, e-COMMERCE AND HISTORY? >> THE FIGURES I HAVE SEEN -- WITH ALL RESPECT, I DON'T EXPECT THAT THE e-COMMERCE IS A DIFFERENT MARKET BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENT CHANNEL THAN WHAT I'VE SEEN W

HICH IS FROM THE 30% TO 40% IS THE VALENTINE STUDY I'VE SEEN WHERE AMAZON'S SHARE THAT e-COMMERCE CHANNEL. >> THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DATA THAT I RECEIVED, THE FIGURE I SAW WAS 40%. SO IN TERMS OF HOW WE DEFINE IT, WHETHER IT WAS A STREAM OR CHANNEL, NONETHELESS, I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, FACTUALLY, IT IS IMPORTANT TO FIND A DISTINCTION AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE CLEAR HERE. OBVIOUSLY, I SUSPECT YOU UNDERSTAND MORE THAN MOST THAT IN THE EARLY STAGES OF A STARTUP WE ARE UNDERTAKIN

G RISKS TO BRING PRODUCTS AND SERVICES TO MARKET. OVER THE COURSE OF OUR PRESENTATION, WE'VE HEARD DIRECTLY FROM STARTUPS WHO RELY ON AMAZON SERVICES AND INCLUDES OBVIOUSLY PRESENTED OF BUCK, CALLING FROM COLORADO, RESPECT AND CONCERNS WITH WAYS THAT AMAZON USES CONFIDENCE INFORMATION. WE ALSO HEARD THAT FOR THE MARKET PLACE BUT AMAZON'S CLOUD COMPUTING ARM, THE NOTION OF COMPUTING ON ESSENTIALLY HAS ROLLOUT FOR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. ON THIS BASIS, DOES AMAZON USE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMAT

ION THE COMPANIES USE WITH AWS WITH COMPETING SERVICES? >> NO, SIR. NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. AOS DOES OFTEN, YOU KNOW, THEY DO KEEP EXPANDING THEIR SERVICES. AWS STARTED, YOU KNOW, 15 YEARS AGO. THE ENTIRE CATEGORY. >> ON THE CLIFF EITHER, MR. BASIS. I APPRECIATE THAT, SORRY. I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING. LAST WEEK, ONE OF THEM IS A MUSKY FORM ENGINEERS POSTED ONLINE THAT HE AND HIS TEAM BOTH PROACTIVELY AND IDENTIFIED GROWING ACTIVITIES ON A .US AND BUILD COMPETING PRODUCTS IN THE TARGETED

THESE PRODUCTS TO BUSINESSES' CUSTOMERS. THERE HAS BEEN PUBLIC REPORTING ON THAT STRATEGY. SO I GUESS I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN COMMENT ON THAT AND HOW YOU WOULD ACCOUNT FOR THOSE STATEMENTS? >> WELL, I THINK FOR THE CATEGORY, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE DATABASES, DIFFERENT KINDS AND SO ON ARE WE SEE THAT IT IS AN IMPORTANT PRODUCT FOR CUSTOMERS AND WE MAKE OUR OWN PRODUCT OFFERING IN THAT ARENA BUT IT DOES MEAN WE STOP SERVICING THE OTHER COMPANIES THAT ARE ALSO MAKING THOSE PRODUCTS. WE HAVE

COMPETITORS USING IT AND WE WORK VERY HARD TO MAKE THIS SUCCESSFUL. THIS IS ONE EXAMPLE, NETFLIX, HULU AND SO ON. >> WITH RESPECT TO THE PATTERN EMERGING ACROSS THE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS IN AMAZON, WHETHER DOES THE MARKETPLACE OR WHETHER IT IS A CLOUD SERVICES I MENTIONED, IN ADDITION, THERE IS AN ARTICLE, I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE IN "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL," THAT ACCORDING TO NEWS REPORTS, AMAZON'S VENTURE CAPITAL HAD THE ALEXA FUND AND ENDED NUMBER OF DIFFERENT COMPANIES. YOU ARE AWARE, UNSU

RE OF THE CLOUD FORM DOES THAT RING A BELL? >> NO, SIR. I'M AFRAID IT DOESN'T. >> OKAY, OUR PRESENT TO YOU, ACCORDING TO NEW DOES THE WALL STREET JOURNAL,", WHEN AMAZON INCORPORATED THE INVESTMENT CAPITAL, IT GAINED ACCESS TO THE TECHNOLOGY FOR OTHER CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. FOUR YEARS LATER IN APRIL, THEY LOST A PRODUCT THAT IS ALMOST EXACTLY WHAT THIS SAME CROWD DOES, TEST THE CROWD FINDER, TESTING CROWD FINDER DANIEL ROGER. DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTIONS? ARE YOU AWARE OF THIS

ALLEGATION? >> I READ THOSE ARTICLES BUT I DID NOT REMEMBER THAT PIECE OF IT. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. I DO NOT KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF THAT SITUATION AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO GET BACK TO YOUR OFFICE WITH MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT. >> I WOULD APPRECIATE -- I CERTAINLY WOULD WELCOME THIS TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU ALL CAN FOLLOW UP WITH THE SUKKOT SUBCOMMITTEE WITH THIS PARTICULAR ARTICLE IN THE DIFFERENT EPISODES THAT ARE REFERENCED, BOTH IN TERMS OF DEFINE CROWD SOURCES AND AS WELL AS A NUMBER

OF OTHER COMPANIES AND THE NUCLEAR IS YOU MAY BE AWARE OF HEARD THE REASON THIS IS IMPORTANT, MR. BEZOS, TO ME IS WE ARE VERY AWARE OF THIS INFORMATION KILLS ON THE SEEMS TO BE EMERGING. ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING AND MINISTRY OF TECH CUTS IN THE COUNTRY, ENTREPRENEURS AND FOUNDERS SHARE THEIR STORIES WITH THIS COMMITTEE DURING ONE OF OUR FIELD HEARINGS, A FIELD CAN WE ACTUALLY HAD IN A LAW SCHOOL EARLIER THIS YEAR. THEY ARE EXTREMELY DEPENDENT ON BIG TECHNOLOGY FIRMS, INCLUDING FIRMS

FOR INVESTMENT IN CAPITAL BUT THEY LIVE IN CONSTANT FEAR THAT THE BLACK MARKET IS STILL COURT TECHNOLOGIES, MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPETE BECAUSE OF EXISTING EVENT IT IS. I CAN SEE MY CONTRACT EXPIRED BUT WE WILL CERTAINLY BE FOLLOWING UP WITH THE RESPECTED REFERENCES OF THE REFERENCES BEING BACK AND WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK HURT AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA, MAKES MacBETH IS RECOMMENDED FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MR. COCHRAN, FACEBOOK ACQUIRED WHAT'S UP IN 2014 AND AT

THE TIME, SCHOLL SAMBERG TOLD THE BOARD THAT THE DEAL WAS CRITICAL FOR COUNTERING THE APP STORE OF APPLE AND GOOGLE WHO CHOKE OFF FACEBOOK'S AS NEXT OF AS ACCESS TO GLOBAL DEVICES. DOES APPLE HAVE THE POWER TO EXCLUDE APPS FROM THE APP STORE? >> IF YOU WILL LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THIS, CONGRESSWOMAN, WE HAVE INCREASED THE NUMBER OF APPS FROM 500 TO 1.7 MILLION. SO THERE IS A VERY WIDE GATE FOR THE APP STORE. THERE IS FIERCE COMPETITION FOR DEVELOPERS AND WE WANT EVERY APP WE CAN ON THE P

LATFORM. >> OKAY, MR. COOK, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT APPLE CAN EXCLUDE APPS FROM THE APP STORE. IN FACT, IT HAS HEARD IN 2010, APPLE INTRODUCED A MAP CALLED SCREEN TIME WHICH HELPS PEOPLE LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF TIME THEY OR THEIR KIDS SPEND ON THEIR IPHONES, IS THAT CORRECT? >> IT SOUNDS RIGHT. >> BUT BEFORE SCREEN TIME EXISTED, THERE WERE OTHER APPS IN THE APP STORE THEY GAVE PARENTS CONTROL OVER THE KIDS' PHONE USAGE ON APPS LIKE OUR PACK AND A KIDS BOX AND PARENTS DEPENDED ON THEM. SO

ON AFTER YOU INTRODUCED SCREEN TIME, HOWEVER, YOU REMOVED THESE COMPETING APPS FROM THE APP STORE. ONE MOTHER WROTE TO APPLE, SAYING, I QUOTE HER, I AM DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED TO REMOVE THIS APP AND OTHERS LIKE IT. THEREBY REDUCING CONSUMER ACCESS TO MUCH-NEEDED SERVICES TO KEEP CHILDREN SAFE AND PROTECT THEIR MENTAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING. MR. COOK, WANTED APPLE REMOVE COMPETING APPS RIGHT AFTER YOU RELEASED FACETIMED? >> WE WERE CONCERNED, CONGRESSWOMAN, ABOUT THE PRIVAC

Y OF KIDS. THE TECHNOLOGY THAT WAS BEING USED AT THE TIME WAS CALLED MDM AND IT HAD THE ABILITY TO SORT OF TAKE OVER THE KIDS' SCREEN AND A THIRD-PARTY COULD SEE IT. AND SO WE WERE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR SAFETY. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. THE TIMING OF THE REMOVAL SEEMS VERY COINCIDENTAL. IF APPLE WASN'T ATTEMPTING TO HARM COMPETITORS IN ORDER TO HELP ITS OWN APP, WHY DID SCHILLER, WHO RUNS THE APP STORE PROMOTE THE SCREEN TIME APP TO CUSTOMERS WHO COMPLAINED ABOUT THE CONTROL APP

? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, I CAN'T SEE THIS EMAIL. I'M SORRY, MY EYES ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO READ IT. BUT I SEE SCREEN TIME IS JUST AN ALTERNATIVE AND THERE ARE OVER 30 PARENTAL CONTROL APP THAT ARE IN THE APP STORE TODAY. SO THERE IS VIBRANT COMPETITION FOR PARENTAL CONTROL THERE. >> OKAY, MR. CLIFF. THE FACT IS THAT APPLE SIDELINED MAINLINE FOR COMPETITION BY KEEPING THEM OUT OF APP STORE AND ALL APPLE CLAIMS ITS COMPETITORS, WHAT MEETING APPLE'S PRIVACY STANDARDS, THESE PRIVACY CRATERS SAY, YO

U ADMITTED AND BACK IN SIX MONTHS LATER WITHOUT REQUIRING SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. AND BEFORE SIX MONTHS, AND ETERNITY FOR SMALL BUSINESSES TO BE SHUT DOWN, EVEN WORSE OF ALL, WHILE THE LARGER COMPETITOR IS ACTUALLY TAKEN AWAY CUSTOMERS. THIS IS THE NOT THE FIRST TIME SOMETHING LIKE THIS SEEMS TO HAPPEN, MR. COOK. LET ME GIVE YOU ANOTHER EXAMPLE. YOU KNOW, THE HARM THAT HAS BEEN CAUSED TO YOUR COMPETITORS, IN 2010, APPLE INTRODUCES ONLINE BOOKSTORE CALLED THE IBOOKSTORE WHERE IT OFFERS E-BOO

KS AND THE ONLY MAJOR PUBLISHER THAT DIDN'T AGREE TO JOIN IBOOKSTORE WAS RANDOM HOUSE. RANDOM HOUSE WANTED TO OFFER ITS OWN E-BOOKS THROUGH ITS OWN APPS. IT'S COMMITTED THEIR APPS TO BE ADDED TO THE APP STORE. AMIDST CONTINUED NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN APPLE AND RANDOM HOUSE, SENIOR VP EDDIE Q, I'M QUOTING HIM, HE PREVENTED A NAP FROM RANDOM HOUSE FROM GOING LIVE IN THE APP STORE. THEY CITED THIS AS AN APP STORE AND FINALLY HAD AN APP TO JOIN IBOOKSTORE. MR. COOK, IS IF EVER APPLE TO USE THIS P

OWER OVER THE APP STORE TO PRESSURE THE BUSINESS TO JOIN APPLE END OWN UP? >> -- EVEN SOME OF THE LARGEST COMPANIES IN THE COUNTRY FEAR YOUR POWER. OUR EVIDENCE SUGGEST THAT IS YOUR COMPANY HAS USED ITS POWER TO HARM YOUR RIVALS AND BOOST YOUR OWN BUSINESS. THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNSAFE AND HARMS SMALL BUSINESSES THAT RELY ON YOU TO REACH CUSTOMERS AND STIFLE INNOVATION THAT IS THE LIFE BLOOD OF OUR ECONOMY. ULTIMATELY, IT REDUCES THE COMPETITION AND CHOICES THAT ARE MADE AVAILABLE TO C

ONSUMERS, AND THAT IS A GREAT CONCERN TO ALL OF US. AND I YIELD BACK. >> THAT CONCLUDES THAT ROUND. IN LIGHT OF THE REQUEST BY MR. GATES FOR A THIRD ROUND AND BECAUSE MY COLLEAGUES WOULD LIKE MORE ANSWERS ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES, WE'LL PROCEED TO A FINAL ROUND. MY EXPECTATIONS, WE WILL CONCLUDE WITHIN THE HOUR. I'LL RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES. MR. ZUCKERBERG, WE'VE SEEN THE DOMINANCE OF SEVERAL OF THE COMPANIES APPEARING BEFORE US TODAY THAT IT'S NOT JUST HARMFUL TO OUR ECONOMY A

ND COMPETITION BUT IT'S HARMFUL TO THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES OF OUR DEMOCRACY. FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE ARE DESIGNED TO KEEP USERS ON THEIR PLATFORMS WHATEVER THE COST BECAUSE DISINFORMATION, PROPAGANDA AND HATEFUL SPEECH ARE GOOD FOR ENGAGEMENT, THEY'RE GOOD FOR BUSINESS. BUT OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES JR. WROTE, THE MOST STRINGENT PROTECTION OF FREE SPEECH WOULD NOT PROTECT A MAN FALSELY SHOUTING FIRE IN A THEATER AND CAUSING PANIC. MY FIRST QUESTION, IS MR. ZUCKERBERG, DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT P

RINCIPLE? THAT THERE ARE LIMITS TO HARMFUL AND FALSE SPEECH AND THAT ARE PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT WHEN IT COMES TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC? >> CONGRESSMAN, I CERTAINLY DO. AND I ACTUALLY THINK THAT OUR POLICIES GO FURTHER THAN JUST LIMITING THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. HAVE A BILLION USERS AND ALMOST 50,000 EMPLOYEES. AND SO YOU AGREE YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO REMOVE HARMFUL LIES FROM YOUR PLATFORM, CORRECT? >> CONGRESSMAN, I THINK WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO LIMIT THE SPREAD OF C

ONTENT THAT'S GOING TO BE HARMFUL FOR PEOPLE, AND ALSO IF YOU -- I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE ANY INCENTIVE TO HAVE THIS CONTENT ON OUR SERVICE. PEOPLE DON'T LIKE -- >> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IT IS OFTEN THE MOST ENGAGING. IT'S THE MOST -- IT BRINGS THE MOST LIKES OR IT BRINGS THE MOST ACTIVITY, WHICH, OF COURSE, PRODUCES GREAT PROFIT. SO YOU DO HAVE AN INCENTIVE. THE MORE ENGAGEMENT THERE IS, THE MORE MONEY YOU MAKE ON ADVERTISING. SO LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. LET

ME GIVE YOU SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF MY CONCERNS. THESE ARE SOME OF THE TOP TEN MOST SHARED ARTICLES ON FACEBOOK IN 2020 -- TRUMP SUGGESTS INJECTION OF DISINFECTANT TO BEAT CORONAVIRUS AND CLEAN THE LUNGS, CORONAVIRUS HYPE BIGGEST POLITICAL HOAX IN HISTORY, U.S. HOSPITALS GETTING PAID MORE TO LABEL CAUSE OF DEATH AS CORONAVIRUS. DURING THE GREATEST PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS OF OUR LIFETIME, DON'T YOU AGREE THESE ARTICLES VIEWED BY MILLIONS ON YOUR PLATFORM WILL COST LIVES? >> CONGRESSMAN, WITH

RESPECT, WE CERTAINLY HAVE POLICIES THAT PROHIBIT FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT COVID THAT LEADS TO IMMINENT HARM, AND WE'VE BEEN QUITE AGGRESSIVE ABOUT TAKING THAT DOWN AS SOME OF THE QUESTIONING FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE HAS SHOWN SO FAR. I'M PROUD OF OUR EFFORTS HERE. PROBLEM IS FACEBOOK IS PROFITING OFF AND AMPLIFYING DISINFORMATION THAT HARMS OTHERS BECAUSE IT'S PROFITABLE. THIS ISN'T A SPEECH ISSUE. IT'S ABOUT FACEBOOK'S BUSINESS MODEL THAT PRIORITIZES ENGAGEMENT IN ORDER TO KEE

P PEOPLE ON FACEBOOK'S PLATFORM TO SERVE UP MORE ADVERTISEMENTS. SO I'LL ASK VERY SPECIFICALLY, WHAT ARE YOU DOING RIGHT NOW TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM DEMON STRABLY FALSE CLAIMS RELATED TO THIS DEADLY PANDEMIC? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'LL CERTAINLY ANSWER THAT, BUT I HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH THE ASSERTION THAT YOU'RE MAKING THAT THIS CONTENT IS SOMEHOW HELPFUL FOR OUR BUSINESS. IT IS NOT WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO SEE, AND WE RANK OUR -- WHAT WE SHOW IN FEEDS BASED ON WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE MOST MEANINGFUL

TO PEOPLE AND IS GOING TO CREATE LONG-TERM SATISFACTION, NOT JUST WHAT'S GOING TO GET ENGAGEMENT OR CLICKS TODAY. A COMMON MISCONCEPTION OF THE COMPANY. >> IF THAT'S TRUE, MR. ZUCKERBERG, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT ON MONDAY THE MOST POPULAR VIDEO ON FACEBOOK WAS A BREITBART VIDEO CLAIMING YOU DON'T NEED A MASK AND HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE IS A CURE FOR COVID. WITHIN FIVE HOURS IT RACKED UP 20 MILLION VIEWS AND OVER 100,000 COMMENTS BEFORE FACEBOOK ACTED TO REMOVE IT. >> CONGRESSMAN A LOT OF PE

OPLE SHARED THAT. WE DID TAKE IT DOWN BECAUSE IT VIOLATES OUR POLICIES. WE WORKED WITH THE CDC -- >> AFTER 20 MILLION PEOPLE SAW IT OVER THE PERIOD OF FIVE HOURS. DOESN'T THAT SUGGEST, MR. ZUCKERBERG, THAT YOUR PLATFORM IS SO BIG THAT EVEN WITH THE RIGHT POLICIES IN PLACE YOU CAN'T CONTAIN DEADLY CONTENT? >> CONGRESSMAN, I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK WE HAVE ON COVID MISINFORMATION IN PARTICULAR A RELATIVELY GOOD TRACK RECORD OF FIGHTING AND TAKING DOWN LOTS OF FALSE CONTENT AS WELL AS PU

TTING UP AUTHORITATIVE INFORMATION. WE HAVE BUILT A COVID INFORMATION CENTER. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. >> -- INFORMATION FROM HEALTH OFFICIALS. >> THANK YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG. ONE MORE QUESTION. >> -- PEOPLE. >> I APPRECIATE THAT, MR. ZUCKERBERG. WHY SHOULD FACEBOOK OR ANY OTHER PLATFORM BE DIFFERENT? WHILE YOU MAY NOT BE A PUBLISHER, YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE MAYBE NOT FOR THE FIRST POSTING, BUT YOU THEN TAKE THAT POSTING AND APPLY A SET OF ALGORITHMS THAT DECIDE HOW YOU WILL DISSEMINATE THAT, WH

ICH IS A BUSINESS DECISION, NOT A FIRST AMENDMENT DECISION. IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND WHY FACEBOOK SHOULDN'T BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE BUSINESS DECISIONS. >> CONGRESSMAN, IN TERMS OF POLITICAL ADS, WE'VE MODELLED POLICIES OFF THE FCC GUIDELINES ON BROADCASTERS AND THEIR REQUIREMENTS TO RUN POLITICAL ADS EQUALLY FROM ALL DIFFERENT SIDES. >> I THINK THIS -- >> -- HAS MORE -- >> I THINK THESE EXAMPLES ARE THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG. IT'S NOT JUST COVID. FACEBOOK ENABLES KOURNTLESS PAGES AND ADS DE

DICATED TO CONSPIRACY THEORYS AND CALLS TO VIOLENCE, INCLUDING CONTENT THAT LED TO THE WHITE SUPREMACIST RALLY IN CHARLOTTESVILLE IN 2017. AND FACEBOOK GETS AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN. THERE'S NO COMPETITION FORCING YOU TO POLICE YOUR OWN PLATFORM, ALLOWING THIS MISINFORMATION TO SPREAD CAN LEAD TO VIOLENCE, AND FRANKLY, I BELIEVE IT STRIKES AT THE HEART OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. WITH THAT I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, MR. GATES, FOR FIVE MINUTES. THA

NK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. PICHAI, YOU ATTENDED A MEETING WITH SERGEI BRYN, A VIDEO WAS LEAKED TO BREITBART AND AT THE MEETING TOP GOOGLE EXECUTIVES, INCLUDING KENT WALKER, LAMENTED TRUMP'S VICTORY, THEY COMPARED TRUMP VOTERS TO EXTREMISTS AND IT WAS DISCUSSED THAT THERE WAS AN INTENT TO MAKE THE TRUMP WIN A BLIP IN THE POPULOUS MOVEMENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY. NOW, I KNOW YOU'VE TESTIFIED TODAY IN RESPONSE TO MY QUESTIONS AND MR. JORDAN'S QUESTIONS THAT YOU DON'T INTEND THIS TIME TO ENGAGE

IN ELECTIONEERING ON BEHALF OF THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT, BUT GIVEN THE VIDEO EVIDENCE OF SENIOR MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM IN YOUR PRESENCE SAYING THAT THEY HAD THE INTENT TO MAKE THE TRUMP VICTORY A BLIP -- WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THAT TESTIMONY TODAY? VIEW ON -- WE RESPECT THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. WE ARE DEEPLY COMMITTED TO IT. AS A COMPANY WE TAKE PRIDE IN THE INFORMATION WE PROVIDE TO HELP PEOPLE PARTICIPATE IN FREE ELECTIONS, AND WE ARE DEEPLY COMMITTED TO IT, AS I SAID TO CONGRESSMAN JOR

DAN AS WELL. >> DO YOU REMEMBER THAT MEETING? 2016 THAT YOU ATTEND? >> YES, I DO. IT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF, YOU KNOW, TO THE ELECTION ACROSS BOTH SIDES THERE WAS A LOT OF OPINIONS AND, AS YOU KNOW, ELECTIONS ARE KIND OF POLARIZING MOMENT GENERALLY IN THE COUNTRY. AND THERE WAS A LOT OF RHETORIC ABOUT CERTAIN ISSUES -- >> I UNDERSTAND RHETORIC, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHEN THE SENIOR MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM, IN YOUR PRESENCE, SAID THAT THEY DID HAVE THE INTENT TO CHANGE THE OUTCOME IN A SUB

SEQUENT ELECTION AND THEN SINCE THAT MOMENT IN TIME WHERE WE'VE SEEN ALL THESE CONSERVATIVE WEBSITES AND CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINTS SENSORED, YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE WOULD BE CONCERNED. SO AFTER YOUR EMPLOYEES AND TOP EXECUTIVES SAID IN YOUR PRESENCE THAT THEY INTENDED TO MAKE THE TRUMP VICTORY A BLIP, WHAT ACTION DID YOU TAKE AS THE CEO TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE NEUTRALITY OF YOUR PLATFORM? VIEW ON EVER INTERFERING WITH THE ELECTIONS OR SO ON, BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS WE MADE IT

VERY CLEAR ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO WE ANNOUNCED NEW COMMUNITY GUIDELINES FOR WITHIN GOOGLE CLEARLY MAKING IT CLEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, EMPLOYEES CAN -- OBVIOUSLY ARE FREE TO HAVE THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS, BUT NONE OF THAT SHOULD EVER -- THEY SHOULDN'T BRING THAT AS THEY WORK ON ANY OF OUR PRODUCTS. AND IF WE FOUND ANY EVIDENCE THAT PEOPLE ARE USING A POLITICAL AGENDA TO MANIPULATE ANY OF OUR CONTENT PLATFORM -- >> UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE A SPRING OF EVENTS HERE. WE HAVE THE 2016 MEETING WHERE PEOP

LE DEMONSTRATED THEIR INTENT TO MAKE CHANGES TO HURT THE PRESIDENT, THEN WE HAVE YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN YOUR TESTIMONY FROM DECEMBER WHERE YOU SAY PEOPLE CAN MANIPULATE BLACKLISTS. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE OUTCOME WHERE SITES LIKE BREITBART AND GATEWAY PUNDIT AND OTHERS SEE THAT DISPARATE TREATMENT. IT DOESN'T TAKE SHERLOCK HOLMES TO CONNECT THE DOTS AND SEE WHAT GOOGLE'S DOING. I'M GOING TO MOVE ON WITH MY FINAL 90 SECONDS, BEZOS, I AM MOVED BY YOUR PERSONAL S

TORY. I AM NOT HERE ACCUSING YOU AS SOMEONE WHO WOULD TRAFFIC IN HATE, BUT IT SEEMS YOU HAVE EMPOWERED PEOPLE WHO DO. AND I'M PARTICULARLY TALKING ABOUT THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER. THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER, WHICH YOU ALLOW TO DICTATE WHO CAN RECEIVE DONATIONS ON YOUR AMAZON SMILE PLATFORM HAVE SAID THE CATHOLIC FAMILY NEWS, CATHOLIC FAMILY MINISTRIES, THE FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM, THE AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION, THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL, THE JEWISH DEF

ENSE LEAGUE AND EVEN DR. BEN CARSON ARE EXTREMISTS AND SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. DR. CARSON IS ON THE CABINET AND IS ONE OF THE MOST RENOWNED MINDS IN AMERICA. I'M JUST WONDERING WHY YOU WOULD PLACE YOUR CONFIDENCE IN A GROUP THAT SEEMS TO BE SO OUT OF STEP AND SEEMS TO TAKE MAINSTREAM CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND LABEL IT AS HATE? >> SIR, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. WE HAVE -- FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT AMAZON SMILE IS, IT'S A PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS CUSTOMERS TO DONATE A CERTAIN FRACT

ION OF THEIR PURCHASES TO GO TO CHARITY THAT HE THEN PAY FOR. AND THEY CAN SELECT FROM ANY ONE OF MILLIONS OF CHARITIES. WE USE THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER DATA TO SAY WHICH CHARITIES ARE EXTREMIST ORGANIZATIONS. WE ALSO USE THE U.S. FOREIGN OFFICE TO DO THE SAME THING. CATHOLICS AND THESE JEWISH GROUPS, WHY WOULD YOU TRUST THEM? >> SIR, I'M GOING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS IS AN IMPERFECT SYSTEM -- >> -- AND I WOULD LOVE SUGGESTIONS ON BETTER OR ADDITIONAL SOURCES. >> MY SUGGESTION WOULD

BE A DIVORCE FROM SPLC. AND I SEE I'M OUT OF TIME AND YIELD BACK. >> I RECOGNIZE THE CHAIR, SORRY, RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA, MR. JOHNSON. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. FACEBOOK IS DOMINANT NOT JUST IN THE SOCIAL MEDIA MARKET BUT ALSO IN ITS DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE CAPABILITIES. IN 2012, FACEBOOK HAD SEVERAL TOOLS THAT ALLOWED IT TO CONDUCT DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE, INCLUDING TRACKERS, FACEBOOK'S LIKE BUTTON, FACEBOOK LOG IN AND A SERIES OF APPLICATION PROGRAMMING INTERFACES OR APIs.

MR. ZUCKERBERG, THESE TOOLS PROVIDE FACEBOOK WITH INSIGHTS INTO ITS COMPETITOR'S WEBSITES AND APPS, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? YES OR NO? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M -- I THINK BROADLY THE ANSWER TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YES. EVERY OTHER COMPANY HERE DO MARKET RESEARCH TO UNDERSTAND WHAT PEOPLE ARE FINDING VALUABLE. >> ALL RIGHT, OKAY. SO YOU'RE GOING BEYOND THE SCOPE OF MY QUESTION. I APPRECIATE THAT ANSWER, THOUGH. MR. ZUCKERBERG, A FEW DAYS BEFORE FACEBOOK ACQUIRED INSTAGRAM, A FACEBOOK VICE PRE

SIDENT EMAILED YOU SUGGESTING WAYS TO IMPROVE FACEBOOK'S, QUOTE, COMPETITIVE RESEARCH, END QUOTE, BY BUILDING A CUSTOM MODEL, FACEBOOK COULD IMPROVE ITS UNDERSTANDING OF ITS COMPETITORS, AND QUOTE, MAKE MORE BOLD DECISIONS ON WHETHER THEY ARE FRIENDS OR FOES, END QUOTE. MR. ZUCKERBERG, HOW DOES FACEBOOK IMPROVE ITS COMPETITIVE RESEARCH TO DISTINGUISH FRIENDS FROM FOE? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO IN THAT EMAIL THERE, BUT HE IS ONE OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED

IN RUNNING OUR ANALYTICS ORGANIZATION, AND I THINK IT'S NATURAL THAT HE WOULD -- IT'S PART OF HIS RESPONSIBILITY UNDERSTANDING MARKET RESEARCH. FACEBOOK AFTER THAT CONVERSATION PURCHASED THE WEB ANALYTICS COMPANY ONEVO IN 2013 TO GIVE FACEBOOK MORE CAPABILITY TO MONITOR ITS COMPETITORS? >> CONGRESSMAN, I THINK YOU HAVE THE TIMING CORRECT. WE PURCHASED IT AS PART OF OUR BROADER MARKET RESEARCH CAPACITY. >> AND THAT WOULD GIVE YOU THE CAPABILITY TO MONITOR YOUR COMPETITORS, CORRECT? >> CO

NGRESSMAN, IT GAVE AGATE ANALYTICS AS TO WHAT PEOPLE WERE USING AND WHAT PEOPLE WERE FINDING VALUABLE, SORT OF LIKE THE TYPE OF PRODUCT FROM NIELSEN OR OTHER THIRD PARTY COMPANY THAT IS PROVIDE SIMILAR DATA. >> MR. ZUCKERBERG, THAT ACQUISITION GAVE YOU NONPUBLIC REALTIME DATA ABOUT ENGAGEMENT, USAGE AND HOW MUCH TIME PEOPLE SPEND ON APPS. AND WHEN IT BECAME PUBLIC THAT FACEBOOK WAS USING ONEVO TO CONDUCT DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE, YOU COMPANY GOT KICKED OUT OF APPLE'S APP STORE, ISN'T THAT T

RUE? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE I'D CHARACTERIZE IT IN THAT WAY. I THINK -- >> ONEVO DID GET KICKED OUT OF THE APP STORE, ISN'T THAT TRUE? TOOK THE APP OUT AFTER APPLE CHANGED THEIR POLICIES ABOUT WHAT TYPE OF -- >> IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE USE OF THESE SURVEILLANCE TOOLS. >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE THAT THE POLICY WAS WORDED THAT WAY OR THAT THAT'S EXACTLY THE RIGHT CHARACTERIZATION OF IT -- AFTER ONEVO WAS BOOTED OUT OF THE APP STORE, YOU TURNED TO OTHER SURVEILLANCE TOOLS SUCH AS FAC

EBOOK RESEARCH APPS, CORRECT? >> CONGRESSMAN, IN GENERAL, YES, WE DO A BROAD VARIETY OF -- >> AND SO -- AND ALSO ISN'T IT TRUE, MR. ZUCKERBERG -- >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT, BUT I THINK IT'S A GENERAL PRACTICE TO BE ABLE TO -- THAT COMPANIES USE TO HAVE DIFFERENT SURVEYS. >> WELL, FACEBOOK -- >> -- UNDERSTAND DATA FROM HOW PEOPLE ARE USING DIFFERENT PRODUCTS AND WHAT THEIR PREFERENCES ARE. >> FACEBOOK RESEARCH APP GOT THROWN OUT OF THE APP STORE TOO, ISN'T THAT TRUE? >> C

ONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT. >> OKAY, WELL, OVER NEARLY A DECADE, MR. ZUCKERBERG, YOU LED A SUSTAINED EFFORT TO SURVEIL SMALLER COMPETITORS TO BENEFIT THE FACEBOOK -- TO BENEFIT FACEBOOK. THESE WERE STEPS TAKEN TO ABUSE DATA, TO HARM COMPETITORS AND TO SHIELD FACEBOOK FROM COMPETITION. YOU TRIED ONE THING AND THEN YOU GOT CAUGHT, MADE SOME APOLOGIES. THEN YOU DID IT ALL OVER AGAIN. ISN'T THAT TRUE? >> CONGRESSMAN, I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION. I THINK

EVERY COMPANY ENGAGES IN RESEARCH TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR CUSTOMERS ARE DOING SO THEY CAN LEARN. THAT'S WHAT OUR ANALYTICS TEAM WAS DOING. AND I THINK IN GENERAL THAT ALLOWED US TO MAKE OUR SERVICES BETTER FOR PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE TO CONNECT IN DIFFERENT WAYS, WHICH IS OUR GOAL. >> DID YOU USE THAT CAPABILITY TO PURCHASE WHAT'S APP? >> IT WAS ONE OF THE SIGNALS THAT WE HAD ABOUT THE TRAJECTORY, BUT WE DIDN'T NEED IT. IT'S CLEAR IT WAS A GREAT PRODUCT. I HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FOUND

ER. >> AND IT WAS -- >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, MR. STUBEY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR ALL FOUR, YES OR NO ANSWER, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT STEALS TECHNOLOGY FROM U.S. COMPANIES? START WITH MR. COOK. >> I DON'T KNOW OF SPECIFIC CASES WHERE WE HAVE BEEN STOLEN FROM BY THE GOVERNMENT. >> SO YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT'S STEALING TECHNOLOGY FROM U.S. COMPANIES OR YOU'RE JUST SAY

ING NOT FROM YOURS? >> I'M SAYING I KNOW OF NO CASE ON OURS WHERE IT OCCURRED, WHICH IS I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE. >> MR. PICHAI, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT STEALS TECHNOLOGY FROM UNITED STATES COMPANIES. >> CONGRESSMAN, I HAVE NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF ANY INFORMATION STOLEN FROM GOOGLE. >> MR. ZUCKERBERG? >> CONGRESSMAN, I THINK IT'S WELL DOCUMENTED THAT THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT STEALS TECHNOLOGY FROM AMERICAN COMPANIES. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. BEZOS? >>? YOU'

RE ON MUTE. >> MR. BEZOS, I BELIEVE YOU'RE ON MUTE. >> I'M SORRY. I'M SAYING I HAVE HEARD MANY REPORTS OF THAT, AND I HAVEN'T SEEN IT PERSONALLY, BUT I'VE HEARD REPORTS OF IT. >> OF ALL THE DIFFERENT PRODUCTS THAT AMAZON CARRIES, YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THAT IN ANY OF THE COMPANIES THAT SELL PRODUCTS ON AMAZON OR YOUR COMPANY YOURSELF? >> WELL, CERTAINLY THERE ARE KNOCK-OFF PRODUCTS, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU MEAN. AND THERE ARE COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS AND ALL OF THAT. BUT THE ANSWER IS THE CHINESE GOVE

RNMENT STEALING TECHNOLOGY, THAT'S THE THING I READ REPORTS OF BUT DON'T HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH. >> IT'S NO SECRET THAT EUROPE INCREASINGLY SEEMS TO HAVE AN AGENDA OF ATTACKING LARGE, SUCCESSFUL U.S. TECH COMPANIES, YET EUROPE'S APPROACH TO ANTI-TRUST IN PARTICULAR SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN MUCH LESS ACCESSIBLE THAN AMERICA'S APPROACH. AS YOU ALL KNOW, FROM DIRECT EXPERIENCE, THIS IS A COUNTRY WHERE IT'S POSSIBLE TO START A COMPANY FROM A GARAGE OR DORM ROOM AND EXPERIENCE TREMENDOUS SU

CCESS. DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW CONGRESS CAN BETTER PROTECT U.S. FIRMS AND U.S. COMPANIES FROM AGGRESSION AND GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION ABROAD? NOT JUST IN EUROPE BUT IN CHINA AS WELL. ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO CHIME IN, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO ANY OF YOU. NONE OF YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW CONGRESS CAN BETTER PROTECT U.S. COMPANIES LIKE YOURSELF? ALL RIGHT. WELL, I'LL YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO MR. GATES. >> MR. ZUCKERBERG, WHAT IS A DIGITAL LAND GRAB? >> CONGR

ESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. >> WELL, IN THE EMAILS THAT YOUR COMPANY PRODUCED TO THE COMMITTEE, THERE'S ONE FROM DAVID WEINER IN 2014 WHERE HE'S DESCRIBING, UNDER THE MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS ADVICE WITHIN THE COMPANY, THAT YOU NEED TO ENGAGE IN A LAND GRAB. AND HE SAYS I HATE THE WORD LAND GRAB, BUT I THINK THAT'S THE BEST CONVINCING ARGUMENT AND WE SHOULD OWN THAT. IT GOES ON TO DESCRIBE A STRATEGY WHEREIN FACEBOOK WOULD SPEND 5% TO 10% OF ITS MARKET CAP EACH YEAR T

O SHORE UP ITS MARKET POSITION. DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECK COLLECTION? >> YES, THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS AND, FRANKLY, CORRECT THE RECORD. I BELIEVE WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO WAS A QUESTION INCOMING FROM INVESTORS ABOUT WHETHER WE WOULD CONTINUE TO ACQUIRE DIFFERENT COMPANIES. I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WAS -- THAT WASN'T REFERRING TO AN INTERNAL STRATEGY, IT WAS REFERRING TO AN EXTERNAL QUESTION WE WERE FACING ABOUT HOW WE WOULD -- HOW INVESTORS SHOULD EXPECT US TO ACT GO

ING FORWARD. AND I THINK HE WAS DISCUSSING THE FACT THAT AS MOBILE PHONES WERE GROWING IN POPULARITY, THERE WERE A LOT OF NEW WAYS THAT PEOPLE COULD CONNECT AND COMMUNICATE THAT WERE PART OF THIS OVERALL BROADER SPACE AND MARKET AROUND HUMAN CONNECTION AND HELPING PEOPLE STAY CONNECTED AND SHARE THEIR EXPERIENCES. >> MR. ZUCKERBERG, IT SEEMS TO BE BOTH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL BECAUSE THEN IN AN EMAIL FROM YOU IN 2012 WE SEE A SIMILAR SENTIMENT EXPRESSED. YOU WRITE, WE CAN LIKELY ALWAYS JU

ST BUY ANY COMPETITIVE START-UPS. SO IS YOUR DESIRE TO LIMIT COMPETITION BY PURCHASING YOUR COMPETITORS CONSISTENT WITH THE MESSAGE TO YOUR INVESTORS THAT THE WAY YOU'LL RUN YOUR COMPANY IS THROUGH DIGITAL LAND GRABS? AGREE WITH THE CHARACTERIZATION OF HOW WE COMMUNICATED WITH INVESTORS. >> YOUR WORDS, MR. ZUCKERBERG. >> BUT THE BROADER POINT IS THERE WERE A LOT OF NEW WAYS PEOPLE CAN CONNECT THAT WERE CREATED BY SMARTPHONES. >> THIS IS ABOUT YOUR MERGER AND ACQUISITION STRATEGY. YOU WEN

T ON TO SAY ONE THING ABOUT START-UP IS YOU CAN OFTEN ACQUIRE THEM. I'M NOT INTERESTED IN HOW PEOPLE CONNECT, I'M INTERESTED IN HOW YOU ACQUIRE BUSINESSES TO LIMIT COMPETITION. >> GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED, BUT THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> IN ORDER TO SERVE PEOPLE BETTER AND HELP PEOPLE CONNECT IN THE WAYS WE WANT, WE INNOVATED AND BUILT A LOT OF NEW USE CASES INTERNALLY AND ACQUIRED OTHERS. THAT, I THINK, HAS BEEN A VERY SUCCESSFUL STRATEGY AT SERVING PEOPLE WELL. AND A

LOT OF THE COMPANIES THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO ACQUIRE HAVE DONE -- HAVE GONE ON TO REACH AND HELP CONNECT MANY MORE PEOPLE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ON THEIR OWN. >> YOU GRABBED A LOT OF LAND. I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> THANK YOU. I NOW RECOGNIZE THE CHAIR OF THE FULL COMMITTEE, MR. NADLER, FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. COOK, WE'VE HEARD FROM BUSINESSES THAT APPLE IS CANVASSING THE APP STORE TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT CAN EXTRACT CONDITIONS FROM APP THAT IS H

AVE CHANGED THEIR BUSINESS MODELS IN RESPONSE TO THE PANDEMIC. BUSINESS THAT IS RELIED ON IN-PERSON INTERACTIONS HAVE MOVED ONLINE, AND APPLE IS LOOKING FOR ITS CUT. OUR STAFF HAS HEARD FROM AFFECTED BUSINESSES. THEY SAY YOU'RE CALLING THEM UP DEMANDING YOUR 30%. ISN'T THIS PANDEMIC PROFITEERING? >> WE WOULD NEVER DO THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE PANDEMIC IS A TRAGEDY, AND IT'S HURTING AMERICANS AND MANY PEOPLE FROM ALL AROUND THE WORLD. AND WE WOULD NEVER TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT. I BELIEVE

THE CASES THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE CASES WHERE SOMETHING HAS MOVED TO A DIGITAL SERVICE WHICH TECHNICALLY DOES NEED TO GO THROUGH OUR COMMISSION MODEL, BUT IN BOTH OF THE CASES THAT I'M AWARE OF, WE ARE WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPERS TO SORT OF ZOOM OUT AND TO GIVE YOU SOME HISTORICAL CONTEXT ON THIS, WHEN WE ENTERED THE APP STORE MARKET, THE COST OF DISTRIBUTING SOFTWARE WAS 50% TO 70%. AND SO WE TOOK THE RATE IN HALF AND -- TO 30%, AND WE'VE HELD IT IN THAT SAME LEVEL OVER TIME OR

LOWERED IT. IT'S NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR 2 MILLION JOBS ACROSS AMERICA AND 84% OF THE APPS ON THE STORE ARE DISTRIBUTED FOR FREE, WHERE 100% OF THE PROCEEDS GO TO THE DEVELOPER. ONLY THAT 16% IS SUBJECT TO A COMMISSION OF EITHER 15% OR 30%. >> AND SCHOOL IS ABOUT TO START AROUND THE COUNTRY, AND MILLIONS OF PARENTS AND STUDENTS WILL ATTEND SCHOOL ONLINE. THEY WILL RELY ON APPS TO TALK TO TEACHERS, TUTORS AND VIRTUAL LEARNING TOOLS. ARE THESE ONLINE LEARNING TOOLS NEXT ON APPLE'S -- ARE TH

EY ON APPLE'S LIST TO MONETIZE? >> THEY'RE NOT, MR. CHAIR MAN. WE WOULD -- WE WILL -- WE'RE VERY PROUD OF WHAT WE'VE DONE IN EDUCATION. WE ARE SERVING THAT MARKET IN A SIGNIFICANT WAY AND INCLUDING TONS OF DONATIONS. AND WE WILL WORK WITH PEOPLE THAT HAPPEN TO MOVE FROM A PHYSICAL TO A VIRTUAL WORLD BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC. WE'VE DONE A LOT TO ADDRESS COVID IN GENERAL AS A COMPANY. WE'VE SOURCED AND DONATED 30 MILLION MASKS, TURNING OUR SUPPLY CHAIN INTO SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE GREAT FO

R AMERICA. WE'VE DESIGNED A FACE SHIELD, DONATED 10 MILLION OF THOSE. WE'RE DONATING SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY ACROSS THE U.S. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> WE'VE HEARD THAT APPLE IS NOW TRYING TO EXTRACT COMMISSIONS FROM VARIOUS APP THAT IS PREVIOUSLY DIDN'T PAY YOU ANYTHING. YOU APPROVED OR TOLD THE EMAIL APP HEY AND THEN THREATENED TO KICK IT OUT UNLESS IT BUILT A WAY TO GIVE YOU A CUT OF REVENUE. THE COO OF BASE CAMP, OF THE HEY APP, TESTIFIED BEFORE YOU WERE HERE. HE WAS CONCERNED

OVER THE MONOPOLY ON iOS DEVICES. AND HE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN RIGHT. APPLE SAYS SERVICES LIKE HEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN REQUIRED TO CUT APPLE IN, BUT YOU PREVIOUSLY DIDN'T INTERPRET YOUR RULES THIS WAY, YOU DIDN'T ENFORCE YOUR RULES THIS WAY. SO WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THIS, PLEASE. >> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD. HEY IS IN THE STORE TODAY AND WE'RE HAPPY THAT THEY'RE THERE. I BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE A VERSION OF THEIR PRODUCT THAT'S FOR FREE, AND SO THEY'RE NOT PAYING ANYTHING ON THAT. I WOULD AL

SO SAY THE 30% -- I HOPE YOU GIVE ME THE TIME TO EXPLAIN THIS -- OR 15% IS FOR LOTS OF DIFFERENT SERVICES FROM PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES TO COMPILERS TO 150,000 APIs. IT HAS BEEN AN ECONOMIC MIRACLE TO ALLOW THE PERSON IN THEIR BASEMENT TO START A COMPANY, A GLOBAL COMPANY, AND SERVE 175 COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD. IT IS AMAZING. LIKELY THE HIGHEST JOB CREATOR IN THE LAST DECADE. >> I SEE. AND YOU HAVEN'T CHANGED THE RULES IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAKE APPS PAY WHEN THEY WEREN'T PAYING BEFORE? >> I K

NOW OF NO CASE WHERE WE'VE DONE THAT. I'M SURE WE'VE MADE ERRORS BEFORE. WE GET 100,000 DIFFERENT APPS SUBMITTED A WEEK, AND WE'VE GOT 1.7 MILLION ON THE STORE. BUT ACROSS THAT PERIOD OF TIME, WE'VE NEVER RAISED COMMISSIONS FROM THE FIRST DAY THE APP STORE WENT INTO EFFECT BACK IN 2008. WE'VE ONLY LOWERED THEM. >> WELL, THANK YOU, I SEE MY TIME HAS EXPIRED. I YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. >> I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH DAKOTA, MR. ARMSTRONG. >> THANK YOU. MR. P

ICHAI, IN 2015, GOOGLE ANNOUNCED IT WOULD NOT ALLOW THIRD PARTIES TO BUY YOUTUBE ADS VIA ADX. THAT MEANS IT'S CONDUCTED THROUGH GOOGLE DEMAND SITE PRODUCT. GOOGLE JUSTIFIED THIS CHANGE BY CITING PRIVACY AND USER EXPERIENCE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT GOOGLE CITED A CONCERN THAT THIRD PARTY DIGITAL AD PARTICIPANTS WOULD DEVELOP USER PROFILES BASED ON THIS VIEWING. IT IS ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT EVEN UNDER THE GDPR THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED -- YOU ALLOW USERS TO PROVIDE CONCEPT, WHICH WOULD

AUTHORIZE THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY. IT SEEMS THAT IF -- THAT THIS POLICY, REGARDLESS OF THE PRIVACY CONCERNS REDUCED COMPETITION FOR DEMAND SITE PLATFORMS ON YOUTUBE, DO YOU AGREE? >> CONGRESSMAN, WE'RE ALWAYS LOOKING TO IMPROVE THE YOUTUBE EXPERIENCE. PART OF BEING ABLE TO INTEGRATE THE SPACE, WE'VE BEEN INNOVATING WITH TRU VIEW ADS. WE GIVE THEM SKIPPABLE ADS, IF THEY FIND THE ADS NOT RELEVANT. MONETIZING YOUTUBE IS WHAT ALLOWS -- TODAY WE HAVE MANY, LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CR

EATORS, EARNING A LIVELIHOOD. MANY OF THEM ARE SMALL AND MEDIUM BUSINESSES. SO WE WANT TO SUPPORT THAT WELL, AND SO WE ARE FOCUSED ON THAT. ALLOWING THIS TYPE OF INTEGRATION IS WHAT ALLOWS US TO CREATE THAT USER EXPERIENCE. ALLOWING THIRD PARTIES TO BUY ADS, GOOGLE LIMITED THE INTEROPERABILITY ON YOUTUBE. YOU REQUIRE THE USE OF ADS ON DATA HUB. AGAIN, THE JUSTIFICATION IS USER PRIVACY. OTHER AD MARKET PARTICIPANTS MAY NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE DATA, BUT IT DOESN'T DISAPPEAR, DOES IT? CON

SISTENT WITH HOW TODAY MANY SERVICES, BE IT FACEBOOK OR SNAPCHAT OR PINTEREST, YOU WORK WITH THE APP TO BUY ADS ON THEIR PROPERTIES -- >> I UNDERSTAND THE EXCUSE IS PRIVACY, BUT THE DATA DOESN'T DISAPPEAR. YOU JUST HAVE GREATER CONTROL OVER IT, RIGHT? >> CONGRESSMAN, IT'S A SERVICE WE PROVIDE TO OUR USERS. WE OBVIOUSLY WANT TO MAKE SURE WE PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF USERS THERE. WE DO MONETIZE WITH ADS. WE GIVE USERS A CHOICE OF EITHER CONSUMING IT AS A SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE OR USING IT WITH

ADS. AND WE'VE BEEN VERY FOCUSED ON MAKING YOUTUBE A GREAT PLATFORM FOR CREATORS. I THINK THE MODEL IS WORKING WELL. IT'S HELPED MANY SMALL AND MEDIUM BUSINESSES TO INVEST ON THE PLATFORM AND GROW THEIR BUSINESSES. >> SO YOU -- REGARDLESS OF THE INTENT WITH THE LESS IN COMPETITION OR NOT, THE ACTION RESULTED IN SMALLER COMPETITORS UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN PLACING ADS ON YOUTUBE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> CONGRESSMAN, WE RECEIVED ROBUST CHOICE FOR ADVERTISERS, AND THERE ARE SEVERAL ALTER

NATIVES THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, FACEBOOK WITH PRODUCTS, AMAZON WITH ADS MARKETPLACE. COMPANIES LIKE SNAPCHAT, PINTEREST, TWITTER. THIS IS WHY WE'VE SEEN ADVERTISING COSTS DECLINE BY 40% IN THE LAST TEN YEARS. AND SO WE SEE -- >> HERE'S MY, YEAH, BUT HE'S MY ISSUE, AND THERE ARE POLICIES THAT PROTECT USER PRIVACY. APPLE'S POLICY. MICROSOFT JUST CAME OUT ON FACIAL RECOGNITION POLICY. MY CONCERN IS THAT YOUR POSITION -- THE POSITION, OR, IS THAT WHEN WE'RE USING PRIVACY, WE'RE TRYI

NG TO USE PRIVACY AND WE'RE USING PRIVACY AS A SHIELD, BUT WHAT YOU'RE REALLY DOING IS BEATING DOWN THE COMPETITION. AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRIVACY, IT'S A GREAT WORD THAT PEOPLE CARE ABOUT BUT NOT WHEN IT'S UTILIZED TO CONTROL MORE OF THE MARKETPLACE AND SQUEEZE OUT SMALLER COMPETITORS. WITH THAT I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO MR. GATES. >> THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. MR. BEZOS, WE WERE CUT SHORT. I WANTED TO GIVE YOU THE CHANCE TO CLEAR THIS UP. YOU DON'T BELIEVE DR.

BEN CARSON IS AN EXTREMIST, DO YOU? >> NO, SIR, I DON'T. >> SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD PARTNER WITH A GROUP THAT LABELS AS SOMEONE WORTHY OF AN EXTREMIST WATCH LIST? >> WELL, IT'S -- WANT YOU TO HOPEFULLY APPRECIATE WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO DONATE TO ANY NUMBER, FROM MILLIONS OF DIFFERENT CHARITIES. WE NEED TO HAVE SOME SOURCE OF DATA TO USE. AND WHILE I ACCEPT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THAT THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER AND THE U.S. FOREIGN ASSET OFFICE

ARE NOT PERFECT, AND I WOULD LIKE A BETTER SOURCE IF WE CAN GET IT, THAT IS WHAT WE USE TODAY. >> IT'S GREAT TO HEAR THAT YOU DO RECOGNIZE THE INFIRMITIES IN THE SOUTHERN LAW POVERTY LAW CENTER AND THERE ARE -- I GUESS, MR. ZUCKERBERG AND MR. PICHAI'S COMPANIES USE THEM WELL. MR. ZUCKERBERG, DO YOU BELIEVE DR. BEN CARSON IS AN EXTREMIST? >> NO, CONGRESSMAN. >> AND SO WHY WOULD YOU TRUST THE PEOPLE WHO THINK HE IS? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT AWARE OF WHERE WE WORK WITH THE ORGANIZATION THAT Y

OU'RE SAYING. >> OH, THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER. >> GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND, MR. RASKIN, FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I READ THE PARANOID STYLE OF AMERICAN POLITICS, SO I SUPPOSE IT'S FUTILE TO TRY TO CURE THE OBSESSION PERSECUTION COMPLEX AND VICTIMOLG O OF SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES. SEVEN OR EIGHT OF THE TEN EACH DAY ARE RIGHT WING SITES, BEN SHAPIRO, FOX NEWS, BEN SHAPIRO, FOX NEWS, BLUE LIVES MATTER AND SO ON. SO IF FA

CEBOOK IS OUT THERE TRYING TO REPRESS CONSERVATIVE SPEECH, THEY'RE DOING A TERRIBLE JOB AT IT. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND JUST THE ENDLESS WHINING ABOUT HOW FACEBOOK AND TWITTER OR FACEBOOK AND TWITTER ARE SOMEHOW DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CONSERVATIVES. THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP AND DONALD TRUMP JR. FROM TWITTER, THEIR TWEETS, WAS ALL ABOUT THEIR SPREADING DISINFORMATION, FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT COVID-19. THAT WAS AN ABSOLUTE PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURE WHICH I HOPE ALL OF US WOULD ENDORSE. WE DON

'T WANT ANYBODY, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT COVID-19. SO I THINK THEY ESSENTIALLY DESTROY THEIR OWN CASE WHEN THEY PICK THAT AS THEIR CAUSE FOR GOING AFTER ALL OF YOU. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND FOR THE LIFE OF ME THE LINE OF QUESTIONING ABOUT ELECTIONEERING TAKING PLACE BY SOME OF YOUR COMPANIES. EVERY YOU'RE OPPOSED TO ELECTIONEERING, LIKE I AM, AND YOU'RE OPPOSED TO CITIZENS UNITED, THEN YOU'VE GOT NO PROBLEM. CITIZENS UNITED GAVE CO

RPORATIONS THE TOWER GO OUT AND SPEND MONEY. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE COMPANIES ARE SPENDING MONEY, START YOUR OWN COMPANY OR TELL THEM SOMETHING'S WRONG WITH IT. BUT THE IDEA THAT ENGINEERING IS SOMETHING YOU'RE OPPOSED TO STRIKES ME AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORY AND THE FACTS. SO I WANT TO GO TO MR. COOK IF WE COULD. FIRST A QUICK QUESTION. ARE ANY OF YOUR COMPANIES BENEFIT CORPORATIONS? AND IS THAT SOMETHING YOU'VE CONSIDERED DOING? IS THERE ANY ONE OF YOU WHO HAVE THOUGHT A

BOUT BECOMING A B CORPS OR BENEFIT CORPORATION? NOBODY. MR. COOK, I'M HUNG UP ON THIS 30% QUESTION SEVERAL MEMBERS HAVE TALKED TO YOU ABOUT. YOU SAID SOMETIMES IT'S 15%, SOMETIMES IT'S 30%. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHEN IT'S 15% AND WHEN IT'S 30% AND WHY IT'S 15% SOMETIMES AND WHY IT'S 30%? >> SURE. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, CONGRESSMAN. AND 84% OF THE TIME IT'S ZERO. 16% OF THE TIME IT'S 15% OR 30%. IN THE CASE OF IT'S 15% IF IT'S IN THE SECOND YEAR OF A SUBSCRIPTION. >> OKAY, SO YOU JUST GRA

DUATE FROM YOUR FIRST YEAR YOU'RE TAKING NO TOLL ESSENTIALLY. THE SECOND YEAR IT'S 15%, AND THEN IT'S 30% AFTER THAT, IS THAT RIGHT? >> NO, NO. IF IT'S A SUBSCRIPTION PRODUCT, IT'S 30% IN THE FIRST YEAR AND THEN IT DROPS TO 15% IN THE SECOND YEAR AND EVERY YEAR THEREAFTER. >> I GOT YOU. OKAY. WELL, WHAT TROUBLES ME IS JUST WHAT ONE BUSINESSWOMAN TOLD ME WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THIS, WHICH WAS, SHE SAID I PAY AROUND 25% OF MY INCOME TO UNCLE SAM, THE GOVERNMENT, AND THEN I PAY 30% OF MY

INCOME TO APPLE. AND SO I GET HALF OF IT, AND IT'S VERY HARD TO MAKE ENDS MEET. AND I JUST WONDER -- AND YOU KNOW, LOOK, ALL OF YOU ARE IN BUSINESS, AND ALL OF YOU ARE TREMENDOUSLY SUCCESSFUL AT WHAT YOU DO. AND OBVIOUSLY, THIS MODEL HAS WORKED FOR YOU. BUT THE QUESTION IS, DOES THIS MODEL ACTUALLY SQUEEZE OUT THE NEXT GENERATION OF ENTREPRENEURS? AND IS IT AN UNJUST ARRANGEMENT BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, THE 10,000 POUND GORILLA AND THEY'RE TRYING TO GET STARTED. >> NO, I DON'T THINK SO

. KEEP IN MIND WE'VE GONE FROM 500 APPS TO 1.7 MILLION. THERE'S A LOT OF APPS ON THE STORE, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE MAKING A GOOD LIVING FROM IT. >> FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING, BUT YOU'VE SAID THAT SEVERAL TIMES. THAT TO ME MIGHT UNDERSCORE THE MONOPOLY NATURE OF YOUR BUSINESS, THAT EVERYBODY'S GOT TO GO THROUGH YOU. THERE'S REALLY NO ALTERNATIVE. AND SO, I MEAN, I DON'T BLAME YOU FOR TAKING THEM ALL. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE TERM THAT IS ARE BEING DICTATED ARE FAIR TERMS. SO HO

W WOULD YOU DEFEND SUBSTANTIVELY THAT BARGAIN? >> THAT THE -- WHETHER YOU LOOK AT IT FROM A CUSTOMER POINT OF VIEW OR A DEVELOPER POINT OF VIEW, THERE ARE ENORMOUS CHOICES OUT THERE. IF YOU'RE A DEVELOPER, YOU CAN WRITE FOR ANDROID. YOU CAN WRITE FOR WINDOWS. YOU CAN WRITE FOR XBOX OR PLAYSTATION. IF YOU'RE A CUSTOMER AND YOU DON'T LIKE THE SETUP, THE CURATED EXPERIENCE OF THE APP STORE, YOU CAN BUY A SAMSUNG. >> APPRECIATE THAT. FORGET ME FOR CUTTING YOU OFF. I HAVE ONE FINAL QUESTION F

OR MR. ZUCKERBERG. YOU SPEND A LOT OF YOUR TIME SPEAKING TO OUR CONSERVATIVE COLLEAGUES THAT HAVE THIS PERSECUTION COMPLEX THAT YOU'RE SOMEHOW GOING AFTER THEM, WILL YOU HAVE THIS -- BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY THINK IS THE PROLIFERATION OF HATE SPEECH AND HOLOCAUST REVISIONISM AND OTHER AFFILIATED TOPICS ON FACEBOOK? >> CONGRESSMAN, YES, I ALREADY HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO MEET WITH THEM. I THINK THAT THE TOPICS THAT THEY'RE PUSHING ON ARE IMPORTANT ON A LOT OF THE GOALS WE AGREE. THESE ARE IS

SUES AROUND FIGHTING HATE THAT WE HAVE FOCUSED ON FOR YEARS AND ARE COMMITTED TO CONTINUING TO IMPROVE THE WAY OUR COMPANY WORKS AND JUST CONTINUALLY GETTING BETTER ON THESE ISSUES. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG. I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO, MR. JORDAN, FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> MR. COOK, IS THE CANCEL CULTURE MOB DANGEROUS? >> THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I'M ALL THE WAY UP TO SPEED ON, BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMEBODY WITH A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW TALK

S AND THEY'RE CANCEL, I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOOD. I THINK IT'S GOOD FOR PEOPLE TO HEAR DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW AND DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES. >> I AGREE WITH THAT. I WANT TO JUST REFERENCE A LETTER, BARRY WEISS, WHO RESIGNED AS AN EDITOR AT "THE NEW YORK TIMES". I'LL READ THREE LETTERS. FIRST OF ALL, MY OWN FORAYS INTO WRONG THINK MADE ME THE SUBJECT OF CONSTANT BULLYING BY MY COLLEAGUES WHO DISAGREE WITH MY VIEWS. SHE SAYS LATER, EVERYONE LIVES IN FEAR OF THE DIGITAL THUNDER DOME, THE ONLI

NE VENOM IS EXCUSED AS LONG AS IT IS DIRECTED AT THE PROPER TARGETS. THOSE TARGETS AREN'T JUST CONSERVATIVE. MISS WEISS IS CENTER LEFT, NOT CONSERVATIVE. THE TARGETS ARE ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THE MOB. ARE THE REST OF YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE CANCEL CULTURE MOB AND WHAT IT'S UP TO? MR. PICHAI? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M SORRY, I HAD A MOMENT OF DIFFICULTY HEARING. BUT YOU KNOW, WE -- I CAN -- WE BUILD PLATFORMS WITH A LOVE FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, AND WE TAKE PRIDE IN THE FACT THAT ACROSS

OUR PLATFORMS, LIKE YOUTUBE, THERE ARE MORE VOICES THAN EVER BEFORE. >> I'M JUST SAYING, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IT. I'M CONCERNED WHEN ANYONE GETS ATTACKED FOR EXPRESSING A VIEWPOINT. I THOUGHT WE HAD A FIRST AMENDMENT, AND YET THEY CONSTANTLY GET ATTACKED. HOW ABOUT YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG? >> YES, CONGRESSMAN, I BELIEVE STRONGLY IN FREE EXPRESSION, GIVING PEOPLE A VOICE IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF WHAT OUR SERVICES DO. AND I AM -- I'M VERY WORRIED ABOUT SOME OF THE FORCES OF ILL LIBERALISM I SEE

IN THIS COUNTRY PUSHING AGAINST FREE EXPRESSION. I THINK THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL DEMOCRATIC TRADITIONS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR COUNTRY, AND IT'S HOW WE MAKE PROGRESS OVER THE LONG TERM ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES. AND OUR COMPANY IS EXITED TO DOING WHAT WE CAN TO PROTECT PEOPLE'S VOICE. >> THANK YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG. MR. BEZOS? >> YES, SIR, I AM CONCERNED IN GENERAL ABOUT THAT. AND WHAT I FIND AND FIND A LITTLE DISCOURAGING IS IT APPEARS TO ME THAT SOCIAL MEDIA IS A NUANCED DESTRUCTI

ON MACHINE. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S HELPFUL FOR A DEMOCRACY. >> DO YOU AGREE WITH THE TERM SHE USED, DIGITAL THUNDER DOME? >> I SEE IT TOO. AND I GUESS MY POINT IS, YOU ARE FOUR PRETTY IMPORTANT GUYS LEADING FOUR OF THE MOST IMPORTANT COMPANIES ON THE PLANET, AND IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF YOU SPOKE OUT AGAINST THIS. I MEAN, MR. COOK, THERE WAS A 1984 SUPER BOWL AD IN BLACK AND WHITE, HAD THIS BIG BROTHER TYPE FIGURE AS THE NARRATOR SAYING OVER THE SCREEN TO A BUNCH OF THESE WORKERS, LOOK

S LIKE IT WAS 3,000 SOVIET UNION, A BUNCH OF THESE WORKERS MARCHING ALONG, HE SAYS ONE OF THE LINES THAT THE NARRATOR USES IS OUR UNIFICATION OF THOUGHTS IS A MORE POWERFUL WEAPON THAN ANY AD ON EARTH. A LADY RUNS IN IN COLOR AND SMASHES THE SCREEN, BUSTING THE GROUP THINK, BUSTING THE MOB THINK. YOU REMEMBER THAT AD, MR. COOK? WHAT COMPANY HAD THAT AD? >> I REMEMBER IT VERY WELL. IT WAS APPLE VERSUS IBM AT THE TIME. >> YEAH, BUT THE POINT WAS MOB THINK, CANCEL CULTURE, GROUP THINK, IS

NOT WHAT THIS COUNTRY'S ABOUT. AND WE ARE SEEING IT PLAY OUT EVERY SINGLE -- JUST TAKE THE SPORTS WORLD, FOR GOODNESS SAKE. IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS DREW BREES HAD TO BOW TO THE MOB SIMPLY BECAUSE HE SUGGESTED YOU SHOULD STAND FOR THE ANTHEM. THERE WAS A FOOTBALL COACH WHO WORE THE, QUOTE, WRONG T-SHIRT. JAMES HARDEN WEARS A MASK SAYING SUPPORT THE POLICE, HE GETS ATTACK. WHY DON'T WE JUST LET THE FIRST AMENDMENT WORK? THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING. AND YOU ARE FOUR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SO MU

CH INFLUENCE IT WOULD SURE HELP IF YOU'RE OUT THERE CRITICIZING WHAT THE CANCEL CULTURE MOB IS DOING TO THIS COUNTRY AND PEOPLE SEE IT EVERY SINGLE DAY. AND I HOPE YOU'LL DO IT. YOU ALL SAID YOU DISAGREE WITH IT, I HOPE YOU'LL REALLY SPEAK OUT AGAINST IT AND BE FAIR WITH ALL VIEW POINTS. I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLELADY FROM WASHINGTON, MISS JAYAPAL. >> MR. PICHAI, I DIRECT MY QUESTIONS TO YOU. MANY OF US FEEL AN URGENCY TO PROTECT JOURNALISM. AND I

WANTED TO TALK ABOUT AD REVENUE AND INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM. GOOGLE MAKES MOST OF ITS REVENUE THROUGH ADVERTISING. AND THE ADVERTISING EXCHANGE IS A REALTIME MARKETPLACE TO BUY AND SELL ADVERTISING SPACE, CORRECT? >> YES, CONGRESSWOMAN, THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND OVER 2 MILLION WEBSITES INCLUDING ONLINE NEWSPAPERS USE THAT EXCHANGE, CORRECT? >> THEY ARE VERY PROUD TO SUPPORT PUBLISHERS. I DON'T HAVE EXACT NUMBERS, BUT YES. >> THAT'S AN ESTIMATE PUT FORTH BY TECH EXPERT DEENA AND YOUR OWN W

EBSITE FOR GOOGLE DISPLAY NETWORK SAYS YOU HAVE ACCESS TO OVER 2 MILLION SITES. WHAT IS GOOGLE'S SHARE OF THE AD EXCHANGE MARKET? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M NOT EXACTLY FAMILIAR, I'VE SEEN VARIOUS REPORTS, BUT YOU KNOW, WE ARE A POPULAR CHOICE. >> GREAT. LET ME PUT IT UP FOR YOU. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SCREEN, YOU WILL SEE THAT 50% TO 60%, GOOGLE HAS 50% TO 60% ACCORDING TO THE ONLINE PLATFORMS AND DIGITAL ADVERTISING TMA MARKET STUDY THAT WAS JUST RELEASED. AND IN ORDER TO BUY AND SELL ON THES

E EXCHANGES, WEBSITES AND ADVERTISERS GO THROUGH A MIDDLEMAN LIKE GOOGLE'S DB 360 AND GOOGLE ADS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SLIDE, MR. PICHAI, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE SHARE OF THIS BYSIDE MARKET IS 50% TO 90%, ACCORDING TO THE SAME STUDY. AND I JUST WANT TO SIMPLIFY HOW THESE EXCHANGES WORK. SO SAY IN SEATTLE THESE ELECTRONICS, A MOM AND POP BUSINESS, WANTS TO BUY ONLINE AD SPACE IN "THE SEATTLE TIMES". THESE ELECTRONICS WOULD NEED TO GO TO A MIDDLEMAN LIKE GOOGLE ADS WHICH WOULD BID FOR AD SPAC

E ON AN AD EXCHANGE. THE PROBLEM IS THAT GOOGLE CONTROLS ALL OF THESE ENTITIES. SO IT'S RUNNING THE MARKETPLACE. IT'S ACTING ON THE BUY SIDE, AND IT'S ACTING ON THE SELL SIDE AT THE SAME TIME, WHICH IS A MAJOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IT ALLOWS YOU TO SET RATES VERY LOW AS A BUYER OF AD SPACE FROM NEWSPAPERS DEPRIVING THEM OF AD REVENUE AND ALSO TO SELL HIGH TO SMALL BUSINESSES WHO ARE VERY DEPENDENT ON ADVERTISING ON YOUR PLATFORM. IT SOUNDS A BIT LIKE A STOCK MARKET, EXCEPT UNLIKE A STO

CK MARKET, THERE'S NO REGULATION ON YOUR AD EXCHANGE MARKET. IF THERE WERE REGULATION, IT WOULD PROHIBIT INSIDER TRADING, WHICH MEANS THAT THE BROKER CAN'T USE THE DATA IN THE BROKER DIVISION TO BUY AND SELL FOR THEIR OWN INTERESTS, INSTEAD BROKERS HAVE TO SERVE THE CLIENTS, THEIR CLIENTS. DOES GOOGLE HAVE A SIMILAR OBLIGATION TO SERVE ITS CLIENTS? THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE SELLING AND BUYING AD SPACE? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, IF I COULD EXPLAIN THIS FOR A MINUTE, WE PAY OVER $14 BILLION TO PUB

LISHERS. WE ARE DEEPLY COMMITTED TO JOURNALISM IN THIS AREA. ON AN AVERAGE WE PAY 69% OF THE REVENUE WHEN PUBLISHER'S USE GOOGLE BUY AND SELL SITE TOOLS. AND OUT OF -- IT'S A LOW MARGIN BUSINESS FOR US. WE DO IT BECAUSE WE WANT TO HELP SUPPORT PUBLISHERS IN THIS AREA. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT, MR. PICHAI. WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS WHEN ANY COMPANY CONTROLS THE BUY AND SELL SIDE, I WORKED ON WALL STREET A VERY LONG TIME AGO, THERE ARE REASONS THAT INSIDER TRADING IS REGULATED AND THIS AD

IS THE SAME THING. WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY, IT ISN'T MEANINGFUL TO JUST CARE ABOUT THE NEWSPAPERS CHS WE'RE SEEING THEM DIE ALL OVER AND AD REVENUE IS A BIG REASON. LET ME PUT UP A GRAPH HERE THAT SHOWS THAT GOOGLE'S AD REVENUE IS INCREASINGLY COMING FROM ADS ON GOOGLE-OWNED SITES AND LESS SO FROM OTHER WEBSITES. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT TREND? >> I CAN'T QUITE SEE WHERE THIS IS NET OR GROSS. OBVIOUSLY WHEN IT COMES TO NONGOOGLE PROPERTIES, WE SHARE THE MAJORITY OF REVENUE BACK TO PUBLISHER

S, WHEREAS ON OUR OWN PROPERTIES, OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE THE INVENTORY. SO BUT I WOULD NEED TO UNDERSTAND MORE. I JUST QUICKLY LOOKED AT IT. >> WE CAN SEND IT TO YOU AND MAKE SURE YOU HAVE IT. YOU KNOW, GOOGLE HAS NOT MADE ITS SEARCH TRAFFIC VOLUMES PUBLIC IN YEARS, SO THERE'S NO WAY FOR US TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. AND THERE'S NO WAY FOR BUSINESSES TO VERIFY WHETHER THEY'VE BEEN TREATED FAIRLY OR LEFT BEHIND IN FAVOR OF GOOGLE-OWNED COMPANIES. IS GOOGLE STEERING ADVERTISING RE

VENUE TO GAGGLE SEARCH? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, USERS COME TO GOOGLE SEARCH. IT IS THAT TRAFFIC, AND THAT'S WHERE OUR SOURCE OF REVENUE COMES FROM. SO WE ARE FOCUSED ON PROVIDING USERS INFORMATION THEY'RE LOOKING FOR. WE WORK HARD TO EARN THEIR JUST. WE KNOW CONFIDENCE OF INFORMATION IS JUST A CLICK AWAY. >> THANK YOU, MR. PICHAI. I WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM IS INCREDIBLY NECESSARY TO OUR DEMOCRACY, AND WE WANT TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO PROTECT IT. I WANT TO ASK ONE LAST Q

UESTION OF MR. ZUCKERBERG. OVER 1,100 COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS PULLED THEIR ADVERTISING BUSINESS FROM FACEBOOK AS PART OF THE STOP HATE FOR PROFIT CAMPAIGN TO PROTEST THE SPREAD OF HATE SPEECH AND DISINFORMATION, BUT YOU HAD A STAFF MEETING EARLIER THIS MONTH WHERE YOU TOLD EMPLOYEES WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE OUR POLICIES OR APPROACH BECAUSE OF A THREAT TO ANY PERCENT OF OUR REVENUE. MY GUESS IS ALL THESE ADVERTISERS WILL BE BACK ON THE PLATFORM SOON ENOUGH. MR. ZUCKERBERG, ARE YOU S

O BIG YOU DON'T CARE HOW YOU'RE IMPACTED BY A MAJOR BOYCOTT OF 1,100 ADVERTISERS? >> OF COURSE WE CARE. BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO SET CONTENT POLICIES BECAUSE OF ADVERTISERS. WE'VE CARED ABOUT ISSUES LIKE FIGHTING HATE SPEECH FOR A LONG TIME, AND WE'VE INVESTED BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. AND I TALKED ABOUT TODAY HOW WE HAVE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF CONTENT REVIEWERS. WE'VE BUILT AI SYSTEMS THAT PROACTIVELY IDENTIFY THE MAJORITY -- WE'RE NOW AT 89% OF THE HATE SPEECH THAT WE REMOVE BEFORE ANYONE EVE

N REPORTS IT TO US. WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE GETTING BETTER AT THAT. AND I THINK THAT THOSE INVESTMENTS OVER TIME AND THE RESULTS THAT WE'VE PUT UP WILL BE RECOGNIZED BY PEOPLE, SINCE I DO BELIEVE THEY ARE INDUSTRY LEADING. AND I THINK THAT OUR ADVERTISING ALSO IS FOR A LOT OF SMALL BUSINESSES THE MOST EFFECTIVE OR AMONG THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAYS THEY CAN FIND AND REACH NEW CUSTOMERS. >> MY TIME HAS EXPIRED, BUT I WOULD JUST SAY I KNOW YOU'VE COMMISSIONED YOUR OWN CIVIL RIGHTS AUDIT. I D

ON'T THINK YOU'VE IMPLEMENTED ALL THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS YET. I HOPE YOU WILL MOVE QUICKLY TO IMPLEMENT THOSE. THIS IS A CRITICAL TIME AS WE WATCHED THE BODY OF JOHN LEWIS LEAVE US HERE IN THE CAPITOL THAT WE FOCUS ON CIVIL RIGHTS. I YIELD BACK. >> BEFORE I CALL ON THE NEXT WITNESS, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE MR. PICHAI, WHO I THINK WANTS TO MAKE A CORRECTION FOR THE HEARING. >> THE ONLY CORRECTION, THANKS, MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE WAS A QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT INFORMATION OF WITH RESPECT TO CHINA.

I JUST WANTED TO APOLOGIZE ON RECORD. I RECALL IN 2009 WE HAD A WELL PUBLICIZED CYBERATTACK FROM THERE. I WANTED TO CORRECT THAT. >> THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THAT. THE GENTLELADY FROM PENNSYLVANIA FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. IN MARCH 2020, AMAZON ANNOUNCED THAT IT WAS GOING TO START DELAYING SHIPMENTS OF NONESSENTIAL PRODUCTS IN ORDER TO BETTER SERVE CUSTOMERS AND MEET NEED WHILE HELPING TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THEIR WAREHOUSE WORKER. IN PRACTICE, HOWEVER, IT APPEARS T

HIS WAS APPLIED SELECTIVELY AS AMAZON APPEARED TO CONTINUE TO DESIGNATE ITS OWN PRODUCTS AS ESSENTIAL EVEN AS IT DELAYED COMPETING PRODUCTS FROM THIRD PARTY SELLERS. SO THE ESSENTIAL ITEMS WERE SUPPOSED TO INCLUDE HOUSEHOLD STAPLES, MEDICAL SUPPLIES, HIGH DEMAND PRODUCTS AND THAT MANY FACTORS WERE CONSIDERED WHEN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY TO BE ESSENTIAL. BUT WE'VE HAD SEVERAL EMPLOYEES REPORT THAT AMAZON CONTINUED TO SHIP NONESSENTIAL ITEMS LIKE HAMMOCKS, FISH TANKS, POOL FLOATIES, ET CET

ERA. MR. BEZOS, WERE AMAZON DEVICES LIKE ECHO SPEAKERS AND RING DOORBELL DESIGNATED AS ESSENTIAL DURING THE PANDEMIC? >> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT WE HAD -- THERE WAS NO PLAYBOOK FOR THIS. WE MOVED VERY QUICKLY. DEMAND WENT THROUGH THE ROOF. IT WAS LIKE HAVING A HOLIDAY SELLING SEASON BUT IN MARCH. AND WE HAD TO MAKE A LOT OF DECISIONS VERY RAPIDLY. OUR GOAL WAS TO LIMIT IT TO ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES, BUT I'M SURE WE DID NOT DO THAT PERFECTLY. I

KNOW THE RING DOORBELL HAS TWO COMPETING PRODUCTS, INCLUDING ARLO AND ANOTHER. DO YOU KNOW IF THEY WERE DESIGNATED AS ESSENTIAL? >> I DO NOT. >> OKAY. ARE YOU ABLE TO TESTIFY TO CONGRESS TODAY WHETHER AMAZON'S PROFIT FACTOR WAS A FACTOR IN GIVING AN ESSENTIAL CLASSIFICATION DISTINCTION? >> NO. NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. WE WERE WORKING TO ACHIEVE TWO OBJECTIVES. ONE WAS TO GET ESSENTIAL PRODUCTS TO CUSTOMERS AND THE SECOND WAS TO KEEP OUR FRONT LINE EMPLOYEES SAFE. AND WE DID A TREMENDOUS AMO

UNT OF WORK IN BOTH CATEGORIES. AND THAT'S WHAT WE WERE FOCUSED ON. WE WERE NOT FOCUSED ON PROFITABILITY AT THAT TIME. >> PUSHING OUT THE ELUSIVE CLOROX WIPES, I GUESS. AT ANY RATE, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE FEES THAT AMAZON CHARGES SELLERS. ACCORDING TO A RECENT REPORT, SELLER FEES NETTED AMAZON ALMOST $60 BILLION IN 2019, NEARLY DOUBLE THE $35 BILLION IN REVENUE FROM AWS, AMAZON'S MASSIVE CLOUD COMPUTING DIVISION. FIVE YEARS AGO, AMAZON TOOK AN AVERAGE OF 19% OF EACH SALE MADE BY A THIRD

PARTY ON ITS SITE. TODAY AMAZON KEEPS AN AVERAGE OF 30%. DOESN'T AMAZON'S ABILITY TO HIKE THOSE FEES SO STEEPLY SUGGEST THAT AMAZON ENJOYS MARKET POWER OVER THOSE SELLERS? >> NO, CONGRESSWOMAN, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SEEING THERE WHEN YOU SEE THAT GO FROM 19% TO 30% IS THAT MORE AND MORE SELLERS ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE INCREMENTAL SERVICES WE OFFER. AND A BIG PIECE OF THAT IS FULFILLMENT BY AMAZON, PROBABLY THE GREATEST INVENTION WE CREATED FOR SELLERS. AND IT'S

WORKING. THAT'S WHY 60% OF SALES GO THROUGH THIRD PARTY SELLERS, UP FROM 0% 20 YEARS AGO. >> I THINK MORE CONCERNING IS THE 11% HIKE. SINCE 2014, AMAZON'S REVENUE FROM SELLER FEES HAS GROWN ALMOST TWICE AS FAST AS ITS OVERALL SALES. SELLER FEES ACCOUNT FOR 21% OF AMAZON'S TOTAL REVENUE. MR. BEZOS, AREN'T SELLER FEES EFFECTIVELY SUBSIDIZING AMAZON'S RETAIL DIVISION? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SEEING THERE WHEN YOU SEE THESE FEES GOING UP WHAT'S REALLY

HAPPENING IS THAT SELLERS ARE CHOOSING TO USE MORE OF OUR SERVICE THAT IS WE MAKE AVAILABLE. THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, PREVIOUSLY THEY WERE SHIPPING FROM THEIR OWN FULFILLMENT CENTERS AND WOULD HAVE HAD COSTS DOING THAT, OPERATING YOUR OWN CENTER AND BUYING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TO THE CUSTOMER THROUGH THE POSTAL SERVICE OR THROUGH UPS OR WHOEVER IT WOULD BE. >> LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THESE FULFILLMENT CENTERS. >> PLEASE GO AHEAD. >> WE'VE GOT FULFILLMENT BY AMAZON AND A YEAR AGO WE

ASKED WHETHER A MERCHANT WHO WAS ENROLLED IN FULFILLMENT BY AMAZON, ALSO KNOWN AS FBA, IS A FACTOR IN WHETHER THEY CAN BE AWARDED THE BUY BOX. AT THAT TIME, AMAZON SAID NO. BUT THE EVIDENCE IS INDICATING AND YOUR OWN DOCUMENTS SHOWING THAT BEING ENROLLED IN THAT PROGRAM IS A MAJOR FACTOR. AND IT EFFECTIVELY FORCES SELLERS TO PAY FOR FULFILLMENT SERVICES FROM AMAZON IF THEY WANT TO MAKE SALES. MR. BEZOS, HAS AMAZON'S BIG BUY BOX -- OVER OTHER SELLERS? >> I THINK EFFECTIVELY THE BUY BOX -

- DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S DIRECT, BUT INDIRECTLY I THINK THE BUY BOX DOES FAVOR PRODUCT THAT IS CAN BE SHIPPED WITH PRIME. ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE A PRIME MEMBER, THE BUY BOX IS TRYING TO PICK THE OFFER. IF WE HAVE MULTIPLE OFFERS FROM MULTIPLE SELLERS, CUSTOMER WANTS TO BUY THAT ITEM, THE BUY BOX IS TRYING TO PICK THE OFFER WE PREDICT THE CUSTOMER WOULD MOST LIKE. THAT INCLUDES PRICE, DELIVERY SPEED, AND IF YOU'RE A PRIME MEMBER, IT INCLUDES WHETHER THE ITEM IS ELIGIB

LE FOR PRIME. >> I THINK MY TIME'S EXPIRED. >> BEFORE I RECOGNIZE OUR LAST TWO COLLEAGUES, I THINK MR. ZUCKERBERG WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY SOMETHING FOR THE RECORD AS WELL. >> CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU. IN RESPONSE TO CONGRESSMAN JOHNSON'S QUESTION, BEFORE I SAID THAT, I WASN'T FAMILIAR WITH THE FACEBOOK RESEARCH APP. I WASN'T FAMILIAR WITH THAT NAME FOR IT. I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I DO RECALL THAT WE USED A -- AN APP FOR RESEARCH AND IT HAS SINCE BEEN DISCONTINUED. AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO FOLLO

W UP WITH HIS STAFF ON ANYMORE DETAILS HE WOULD LIKE ON THAT. >> THANK YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG. THE RECORD SHOWS, I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO. >> I WANTED TO DIRECT A FEW QUESTIONS TO YOU AND TALK ABOUT THE APP STORE AND APP DEVELOPMENT. TAKING A STEP BACK, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY IS THAT ESSENTIALLY APPLE HAS TO OPERATE BY THE SAME RULES THAT THE APP DEVELOPERS OPERATE BY IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO ACCESS THE APP STORE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> WE HAVE 60 APPS ON TH

E APP STORE. THEY GO THROUGH THE SAME RULES THAT THE 1.7 MILLION DO. >> OKAY. SO HERE'S -- WHY ASK THAT QUESTION? MY QUESTION IS THE APP STORE GUIDELINES TELL APP DEVELOPERS NOT TO SUBMIT COPYCAT APPS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I'M NOT TOTALLY FAMILIAR, BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE BECAUSE WE WERE GETTING A NUMBER OF APPS THAT WERE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING, SORT OF A COOKIE CUTTER. >> I CAN REPRESENT TO YOU, MR. COOK, WE'VE REVIEWED THE GUIDELINES, AND THEY PRECISELY, THEY SAY THAT APP D

EVELOPERS SHOULD HAVE ORIGINAL IDEAS, COPYCAT IDEAS AREN'T FAIR, AND APPLE'S CUSTOMERS DON'T WANT THOSE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APP DEVELOPER GRAEMENT, WHICH YOU REQUIRE EVERY DEVELOPER TO AGREE TO, DOES GIVE APPLE THE RIGHT TO COPY OTHER APPS. AND SO, THE QUESTION IS WHY ONE RULE FOR THE DEVELOPERS THAT COMPETE WITH YOU AND THE OPPOSITE RULE FOR APPLE? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT, BUT I COULD -- I'LL FOLLOW UP WITH YOUR OFFICE ON IT. >> I WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU COULD F

OLLOW UP WITH OUR OFFICE. MY UNDERSTANDING, AGAIN, IS THAT THE APP DEVELOPER AGREEMENT EXPLICITLY SAYS THAT APPLE CAN USE ANY INFORMATION THAT AN APP DEVELOPER GIVES FOR ANY PURPOSE. YOU HAVE COMPLAINTS FROM APP DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE, AS I SAID, I REPRESENT COLORADO. WE HEARD FROM A COMPANY CALLED TILE WHICH SAID APPLE HAD ACCESSED THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE APPS DISTRIBUTED BY THE APP STORE, AND GIVEN THAT, JUXTAPOSED AGAINST THIS LANGUAGE IN T

HE EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENT, YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT ANTI-COMPETITIVE CONDUCT. >> YEAH, CONGRESSMAN, WE RUN THE APP STORE TO HELP DEVELOPERS, NOT HURT THEM. WE RESPECT INNOVATION. IT'S WHAT OUR COMPANY IS BUILT ON. WE WOULD NEVER STEAL SOMEBODY'S IP. BUT I WILL FOLLOW UP WITH YOUR OFFICE ON MORE DETAIL ON THIS. MR. COOK. BECAUSE I THINK TO THE EXTENT THAT APPLE WERE WILLING TO COMMIT -- AND I INTEND RA TO ASK MR. TO ASK MR. PICHAI A SIMILAR LINE OF QUESTIONING -

- WHILE YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THAT DATA, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO USE THAT DATA TO REPLICATE YOUR OWN APP, IF YOU WILL. THAT WOULD, IN MY VIEW, BE A REFLECTION OF A STEP AWAY FROM ANY TYPE OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE CONDUCT. EXCITE SOUNDS LIKE YOU'LL FOLLOW UP AND WE CAN LEARN MORE WITH RESPECT TO THAT ISSUE. MR. PICHAI, SIMILARLY, THERE WAS AN ARTICLE JUST TODAY, OR EXCUSE ME, YESTERDAY, ABOUT -- FROM THE VERGE, THE TITLE IS GOOGLE REPORTEDLY KEEPS TABS ON USAGE OF RIVAL ANDROID APPS TO DEVELOP C

OMPETITORS. I'LL QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE. GOOGLE SAID THE DATA DOESN'T GIVE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW PEOPLE BEHAVE WHILE USING INDIVIDUAL APPS, BUT IT WOULDN'T SAY WHETHER IT HAD BEEN USED TO DEVELOP COMPETING APPS. SO I GUESS, FIRST, I TAKE IT YOU WOULD CONFIRM THAT GOOGLE DOES HAVE ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OR ULTIMATELY COMPETITIVELY SENSITIVE INFORMATION ABOUT APPS ON THE ANDROID DEVICES? >> CONGRESSMAN, IF I COULD CLARIFY THIS, TODAY WE HAVE AN API AVAILABLE FOR OTHER DEVELOPE

RS, AS LONG AS USER'S CONSENT THIS. GIVES THE SYSTEM HEALTH METRICS. THIS IS HOW WE CAN LAUNCH DIGITAL WELL BEING FEATURES ON ANDROID. THIS IS HOW WE UNDERSTAND WHICH APPS ARE USING BATTERY AND WE CAN GIVE A DASHBOARD THAT SHOWS MAYBE FOR CRASHING OR QUALITY CONTROL OR BATTERY USAGE OR FOR DIGITAL WELL BEING. SO THE HIGH LEVEL OF THIS DATA IS AVAILABLE THROUGH A PUBLIC API AND OTHER DEVELOPERS CAN SURVEIL IF THE USERS GIVE CONSENT TO IT. >> MR. PICHAI, I WANT TO CLARIFY. THE ARTICLE REF

ERS TO THIS DATA AS SENSITIVE DATA ABOUT OTHER APPS, INCLUDING HOW OFTEN THEY'RE OPENED AND FOR HOW LONG THEY'RE USED. I'M NOT ASKING HOW YOU USE THAT INFORMATION, I'M JUST ASKING WHETHER OR NOT IN FACT WHAT THE ARTICLE ALLEGES IS CORRECT, THAT YOU DO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT DATA. >> YEAH, WITH USER CONSENT AND THE API, YES, WE DO. AND IT'S CRITICAL TO HAVE ACCESS SO WE CAN -- THIS IS HOW WE UNDERSTAND AND IMPROVE RESOURCE USAGE OF APPLICATIONS. >> UNDERSTOOD. MY TIME'S LIMITED. SORRY. I W

ANT TO GET TO THIS CORE QUESTION. GIVEN GOOGLE HAS ACCESS TO THAT DATA, DOES GOOGLE USE IT TO DEVELOP COMPETING APPS. IF YOUR ANSWER IS NO, WILL GOOGLE COMMIT TO MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES WITHIN ITS ANDROID DEVELOPER APP AGREEMENTS TO ENSURE THAT DEVELOPERS HAVE THAT SENSE OF CLARITY THAT, IN FACT, THE DATA WILL NOT BE USED FOR GOOGLE TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP A COMPETING APPLICATION. >> CONGRESSMAN, LIKE OTHER BUSINESSES TODAY WE DO LOOK AT TRENDS. AND WE, IN FAC, IN PLAY STORE WE DO P

UBLISH THE NUMBERS OF INSTALLS DURING DATE RANGES. THERE'S A LARGE VARIETY OF DATA BY WHICH WE TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE MARKET, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN ABOUT MAKING SURE THERE'S CLARITY IN THIS AREA, AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO INVEST AND GIVE MORE CLARITY. >> I MUST, I GUESS, WANT TO FOLLOW UP QUICKLY, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU'RE WILLING. SO I GUESS I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN ANSWER THAT FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION -- DOES GOOGLE USE THAT INFORMATION TO DEVELOP COMPETING APPS? I U

NDERSTAND THE PURPOSES YOU'VE DESCRIBED IN TERMS OF HOW TO USE THE INFORMATION, I'M JUST ASKING IF ONE OF THOSE, IN FACT, IS TO DEVELOP COMPETING APPS? >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS EXPIRED, BUT THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> CONGRESSMAN, BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON IN MARKET AND WE ARE LOOKING AT THE POPULARITY OF APPS, I WANT TO BE ACCURATE IN MY ANSWER, BUT THE PRIMARY USE IS TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH OF ANDROID. ANY DATA WE GET WE HAVE USER CONCEPT AND MAKE

IT AVAILABLE TO API AND OTHER DEVELOPERS AS WELL. >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS EXPIRED. I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLELADY FROM GEORGIA. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. AND GENTLEMEN, THANKS FOR SPENDING SO MUCH OF YOUR TIME HERE WITH US TODAY. MANY OF YOU HAVE MENTIONED JOHN LEWIS TODAY AND HIS FIGHT FOR EQUALITY. AND I KNOW ALL MY COLLEAGUES AND I WILL CARRY ON. VERY QUICKLY, CAN EACH OF YOU SIMPLY COMMIT TO IMPROVING RACIAL AND GENDER EQUITY AT YOUR COMPANIES, INCLUDING BLACK LEADERSHIP AND WOMEN

IN YOUR SENIOR RANKS, JUST A YES OR NO ANSWER, PLEASE. MR. ZUCKERBERG? >> YES. >> MR. COOK? >> YES, I AM VERY PERSONALLY COMMITTED. >> THANK YOU. MR. BEZOS? >> ABSOLUTELY, YES. >> THANK YOU. MR. PICHAI? >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. THERE WERE DOZENS OF SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES IN 2004. FACEBOOK DISTINGUISHED ITSELF FROM THE COMPETITORS BY FOCUSSING SPECIFICALLY ON PRIVACY. YOU HAD A SHORT, CLEAR PRIVACY POLICY. IT WAS JUST 950 WORDS. IT MADE A PROMISE TO USERS, AND I QUOTE, WE DO NOT AND WILL

NOT USE COOKIES TO COLLECT PRIVATE INFORMATION FROM ANY USER. AND YOU SAID, WILL NOT. THAT'S A COMMITMENT ABOUT THE FUTURE. AND THAT WAS 2004. MR. ZUCKERBERG, TODAY DOES FACEBOOK USE COOKIES TO COLLECT PRIVATE INFORMATION ON USERS? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, MY UNDERSTANDING TO THAT IS NO. WE'RE NOT USING COOKIES TO COLLECT PRIVATE INFORMATION ABOUT PEOPLE WHO USE OUR SERVICES. AND I BELIEVE WE'VE UPHELD THAT COMMITMENT. >> THANK YOU. SO MR. ZUCKERBERG, DO YOU THINK THAT YOUR COMPANY WOULD BE A

S SUCCESSFUL IF IT HAD STARTED WITH TODAY'S COOKIES POLICY IN PLACE? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, BUT IN GENERAL, COOKIES IS NOT A BIG PART OF HOW WE'RE COLLECTING INFORMATION. WE PRIMARILY USE THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMEONE CAN STAY LOGGED IN ON WEB. WE USE THEM TO SOME DEGREE FOR SECURITY TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE SOMEONE TRYING TO LOG IN UNDER A LOT OF DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS FOR ONE COMPUTER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> SO MR. ZUCKERBERG, ONCE AG

AIN, YOU DO NOT USE COOKIES? SURE I'M CLEAR -- WE DO USE COOKIES. YES, WE DO USE COOKIES. >> OKAY. SO MR. ZUCKERBERG, THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOU BROKE A COMMITMENT TO YOUR USERS. AND WHO CAN SAY IF YOU MAY OR MAY NOT DO THAT AGAIN IN THE FUTURE? REALITY IS THAT FACEBOOK'S MARKET POWER GREW AND FACEBOOK SACRIFICED ITS USERS POLICY. MR. BEZOS, MY COLLEAGUES HAVE TOUCHED ON COUNTERFEIT GOODS, AND I SHARE THEIR CONCERNS VERY DEEPLY. I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT STOLEN GOODS. MR. BEZOS, ARE STOLEN G

OODS SOLD ON AMAZON? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN A MILLION SELLERS, SO I'M SURE THAT THERE HAVE BEEN STOLEN GOODS. >> REALLY, MR. BEZOS? >> I'M SORRY? >> THERE'S NOT? YOU DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS, THAT SURPRISES ME? >> I JUST SAID WITH OVER A MILLION SELLERS, I'M SURE THAT IT HAS HAPPENED, BUT CERTAINLY I DON'T THINK IT'S A LARGE PART OF WHAT WE'RE SELLING. >> OKAY, SO MR. BEZOS, BASICALLY THEN YOU'RE SAYING YES. >> I GUESS SO. >> SO I WANT TO ASK

YOU ABOUT INFORMATION YOU REQUIRE FROM SELLERS TO PREVENT THE SALE OF STOLEN GOODS. DO YOU REQUIRE A REAL NAME AND ADDRESS, YES OR NO? >> FOR SELLERS? >> ONCE AGAIN, DO YOU REQUIRE A REAL NAME AND ADDRESS FROM SELLERS? >> I BELIEVE WE DO. BUT LET ME GET BACK TO YOUR OFFICE WITH -- I'D RATHER GIVE YOU THE ACCURATE ANSWER, BUT I THINK WE DO. >> AND I'M AWARE THAT YOU ARE. SO YES, YOU DO REQUIRE A NAME AND ADDRESS. DO YOU REQUIRE A PHONE NUMBER? YES OR NO? >> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S REQUIRED.

I THINK WE OFTEN HAVE IT. BUT I DON'T KNOW. >> BRIEFLY THEN, HOW DO YOU VERIFY THAT EACH OF THESE PIECES OF INFORMATION IS ACCURATE? >> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. >> SO YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE WORK ON VERIFYING SELLER VERIFICATION BEFORE THE SELLER IS ALLOWED TO SELL ON AMAZON? THEN I'M GOING TO ASK YOU, SIR, WILL YOU COMMIT TO REPORTING SALES OF STOLEN AND COUNTERFEIT GOODS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND TO VICTIMS TO TRACK LARGE SCALE OFFENDERS ENGAGED IN ORGANIZED RETAI

L CRIME? >> TO THE DEGREE THAT WE'RE AWARE OF IT, WE WILL CERTAINLY PURSUE IT. IN FACT, I WOULD -- >> SIR K YOU JUST MAKE A BLANKET COMMITMENT, CAN YOU JUST MAKE A BLANKET COMMITMENT? >> A BLANKET COMMITMENT TO WHAT? SORRY, CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M TRYING TO BE HELPFUL. >> REPORTING ALL SALES OF -- >> I SEE NO REASON WHY IF WE'RE AWARE OF STOLEN GOODS WE WOULDN'T REPORT IT. WE WANT THE CORRECT LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES TO BE INVOLVED. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I YIELD BACK MY TIME. >> THANK YOU

. I WANT TO THANK THE WITNESSES FOR THEIR TESTIMONY TODAY AND MY COLLEAGUES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXTRAORDINARY WORK OF OUR TEAM LED BY SLADE, LENA, AMANDA LEWIS, PHIL, ANNA AND JOVAN WHO'VE DONE AN EXTRAORDINARY JOB THROUGHOUT THIS INVESTIGATION AND IN PREPARATION FOR OUR HEARING TODAY. TODAY WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM THE DECISION MAKERS AT FOUR OF THE MOST POWERFUL COMPANIES IN THE WORLD. THIS HEARING HAS MADE ONE FACT CLEAR TO ME -- THESE CO

MPANIES AS EXIST TODAY HAVE MONOPOLY POWER. SOME NEED TO BE BROKEN UP, ALL NEED TO BE PROPERLY REGULATED AND HELD ACCOUNTABLE. WE NEED TO ENSURE THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS FIRST WRITTEN MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO WORK IN THE DIGITAL AGE. WHEN THESE LAWS WERE WRITTEN, THEIR CONTROL OF THE MARKETPLACE ALLOWED THEM TO DO WHATEVER IT TOOK TO CRUSH INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES AND EXPAND THEIR OWN POWER. THE NAMES HAVE CHANGED, THE STORY IS THE SAME. TODAY THE MEN ARE NAMED ZUCKERBERG, COOK, PICHAI AND BE

ZOS. ONCE AGAIN, THEY CONTROL -- THEIR CONTROL OF THE MARKETPLACE ALLOWS THEM TO DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO CRUSH INDEPENDENT BUSINESS AND EXPAND THEIR OWN POWER. THIS MUST END. THIS SUBCOMMITTEE WILL PUBLISH A REPORT ON THE FINDINGS OF OUR INVESTIGATION. WE WILL PROPOSE SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEMS BEFORE US. WE MUST MAKE OUR CHOICE, WE MAY HAVE DEMOCRACY OR WE MAY HAVE WEALTH CONCENTRATED IN THE HANDS OF A FEW, BUT WE CAN'T HAVE BOTH. THIS CONCLUDES TODAY'S HEARING. THANK YOU AGAIN TO OUR

WITNESSES FOR ATTENDING. WITHOUT OBJECTION, ALL MEMBERS HAVE FIVE LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES OR ADDITIONAL MATERIALS FOR RECORD. WITHOUT OBJECTION, THIS HEARING IS ADJOURNED.