 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 BEZOS, 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 
OFTEN 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
CONSERVATIVES, 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 THE 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, PARTICULARLY 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 REGULATIONS 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 
HAPPENING 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 WHAT
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 GONE 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 
OF 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 THAT.
>> 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 GENERALLY, 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 
UNBORN 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, EVEN 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 YOU 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 COMPANY 
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 
REPORTS 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 SEARCHES 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 FOUR 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 SOCKET, 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 TODAY 
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 DURING 
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-LEANING 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 INFODEMIC, 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'VE 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 OFFER 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 AND 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
BEING 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
OPPORTUNITY, 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 
POLITICIZATION 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.
>> CAT, 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 
CAPITOL 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, THANK 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 DIFFERENT 
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 COME 
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 TODAY, 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 THERE 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 NEGOTIATION
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 HEARD 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 
ZUCKERBERG 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 THE 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 PROGRESS, 
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 COLUMNIST, 
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 TECH 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 THEY 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 DRAG 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 
ACTUALLY 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, 
ENABLING 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 YOU'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 CONGRESS, 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 FAMILY, 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 THERE 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 EYES 
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 OVERALL,
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 
SCRIPT 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 
FIRST 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 COULD 
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
HAS 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 SAY 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 CHALLENGES 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 
GOVERNMENT 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 ORDINARY 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 THOSE 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 
START 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 PRODUCT 
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 TODAY, 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 BOUNCING 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, REACHING 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 MOMENT 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 ITS 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  ANTITRUST 
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 FACT 
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 
EXPERTS 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 COMPANIES 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
CONVINCED 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 
SEE 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 MILLIONS 
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 ALONGSIDE 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 THEY 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 OUR 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 
INFORMATION 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 THEY 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. PEOPLE 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, 
GOVERN 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 AND 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 APPEAR 
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 DAILY 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 
CONSUMERS 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 EVEN 
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 NEEDS 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 ANTITRUST 
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 DISSING 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 THESE 
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 TODAY'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 
CENTURY. 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 FARMERS, 
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, 
CONGRESSIONAL 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 
ECONOMIC 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 LOOK 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 ROUTINELY 
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 SAYS 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, THANK 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 COMPANIES, 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 UNANIMOUS 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 
INTELLIGENCE, 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 STANFORD, 
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 
YOU 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 IT 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, 
THESE 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
GLOBAL 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 ELIXIR 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 EXPERIENCE 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 MORE 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 GOOGLE
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 BILLION 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 PRODUCTS, 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 ANDROID, 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, WHOSE 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 RECOMMEND 
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
CHOICES, 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 SHELF 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 DEVICE, 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 60 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 BEGIN, 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 COMPETE 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 PETE -- 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 EXPECT, 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 REGULATION 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 
WHAT 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 
DOWNSIZED 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 QUERY, 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 GARDEN 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 KNOWING 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 
GOOGLE 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 SITES, 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 
COMPETITIVE 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 COMMITTEE, 
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 
CONSERVATIVE 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 YOU 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 CATEGORIES
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 SPECIFIC 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 CAN 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, COMPETING 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 TECHNOLOGY 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 TO 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 TO 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 OFF 
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 
REACHED 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 IT. 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 
FIVE 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 
ANOTHER 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 REMOVING 
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 ONLY 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 
OCCURRING, 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 
ADVANTAGE 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 
OTHER 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 IMMENSE 
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 
ENORMOUS 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 AT 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 APPLE'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 
INCREASING 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 VALUES, 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 GOOGLE 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 HELP 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 FOLLOWING 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 
VERY 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. MILITARY 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 RECOGNIZE 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 AMERICA, 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 ACTIVATED 
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 FREIRE 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
PROTECT 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, McDONALD'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, 
BEFORE 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 THESE 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 BUSINESS. 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 TO 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 BETTER. 
>> 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 OTHER 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 ONE .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 DATA 
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 2019, 
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 ISSUE 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 MISSPOKE, 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 THESE 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 
EMPLOYEES 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, 
PRESENT 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 DESCRIPTION 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 DIDN'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 
REPUBLICANS 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 
CAMPAIGN 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 
SUDDENLY 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 SOCIALIST 
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 DEMOCRATIC 
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 GOOGLE 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 
MORE 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 
COMMUNICATION, 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, HEAD 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, WITHOUT 
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'RE 
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 THAT 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 JOE 
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 QUESTIONS, 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 QUESTION, 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 TELL 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 BACK. 
>> 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 
CONSOLIDATES 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 THAT, 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 
TIMES 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. -- LIVES 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, 
AMAZON 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 THE 
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 WITH 
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 
CHARACTERIZATION. 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 
INVESTIGATION 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
CHAIRMAN 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 
THEY 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 DESCRIBE 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 SHARE
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 IT 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 GIVE 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 PRODUCTS
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 THE 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 
RESPECTFULLY 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 OPINION, 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 PROPRIETARY 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 
ORIGINAL 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 AMAZON, 
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 ALLOW 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 BEEN 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 POSITION,
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, YOU 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 MARKETED 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 WOULDN'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 
BATTERIES 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 MANUALLY 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 THERE 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 ENFORCE 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 
SEARCH. 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 FROM 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, AMERICAN 
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 THAT 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 KNOW 
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 DO 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 ADVANTAGE 
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 THE 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 
YOUTUBE? 
>> 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 LIBERAL 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 POLICIES 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 GROUPS 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. COUNTERFEITS 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 
RESPONSIBLE 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 
REPORTING 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 
CAN 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 AVOID 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 RECESS]
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 
THIS 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? 
>> CONGRESSMAN, 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. 
>> THANK 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 
MUCH 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 ACCESS. 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 
PRODUCT 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 ALLOWS 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 
REVENUE 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 EVIDENCE 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 CONSERVATIVES 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 CERTAINLY 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 
SUGGEST 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 FACT 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 INTO 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 POLITICS, 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 OUR 
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, FEDERAL 
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 DEDICATED 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 VISITED 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,
THEY 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 WHICH 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 UNDERTAKING 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 
INFORMATION 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, UNSURE
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 
PLATFORM. 
>> 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. SOON 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 PRIVACY
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, YOU 
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-BOOKS 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 POWER 
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 CONSUMERS, 
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 AND 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 PRINCIPLE?
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 CONTENT 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 KEEP
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 PEOPLE
 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 
PUTTING
 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, WHICH 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 DEDICATED 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.
THANK 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 JORDAN 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 SUBSEQUENT
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
 PEOPLE 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 STORY.
 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
 DEFENSE 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
 FRACTION 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
 PRESIDENT 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?
>> CONGRESSMAN, 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
 TRUE?
>> 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
 FACEBOOK 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?
>> CONGRESSMAN, 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
 FOUNDER.
>> 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 SAYING 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
 GOVERNMENT 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
 SUCCESS.
 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?
>> CONGRESSMAN, 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 TO 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 GOING
 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
 JUST 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 WENT 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 
HAVE
 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 THEY 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 FOR 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 ALSO 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 KNOW 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. PICHAI, 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 CREATORS, 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?
CONSISTENT 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
 ALTERNATIVES 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
 TRYING 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 YOU'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 FACEBOOK 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
 CORPORATIONS 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 ABOUT 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 GRADUATE
 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 HOW 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 FOR
 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 ISSUES 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
 TALKS 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 ONLINE 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 DESTRUCTION
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, LOOKS 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 MUCH 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 WEBSITE 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
 THESE 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 
SPACE
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 STOCK
 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
 PUBLISHERS.
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
 PUBLISHERS, 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
 REVENUE 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 QUESTION
 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 SO 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 EVEN 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 DON'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
 THIS 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 CETERA.
 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 AMOUNT
 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 ELIGIBLE 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 FOLLOW
 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 THE 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 DEVELOPERS
 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 FOLLOW 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 THE
 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
 COMPETITORS.
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
 DEVELOPERS, 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 REFERS 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 WANT 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 PUBLISH 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 UNDERSTAND 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 AS
 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
 AGAIN, 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 GOODS 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
 RETAIL 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 COMPANIES
 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
 BEZOS.
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.
