 
TO ORDER.
WE WELCOME EVERYONE TO TODAY'S 
HEARING ON ONLINE PLATFORMS AND 
MARKET POWER PART SIX, EXAMINING
THE DOMINANCE OF AMAZON, APPLE, 
FACEBOOK, AND GOOGLE.
BEFORE WE BEGIN, I'D LIKE TO 
REMIND MEMBERS WE HAVE 
ESTABLISHED AN EMAIL ADDRESS AND
DISTRIBUTION LIST DEDICATED TO 
CIRCULATING EXHIBITIONS, 
MOTIONS, OR OTHER MATERIALS.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT 
MATERIALS, PLEASE SEND THEM TO 
THE EMAIL ADDRESS THAT HAS BEEN 
PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED TO YOUR 
OFFICE AND WE WILL CIRCULATE THE
MATERIALS TO MEMBERS AND STAFF 
AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.
I WOULD ALSO REMIND ALL MEMBERS 
THAT GUIDANCE FROM THE OFFICE OF
THE ATTENDING PHYSICIANS STATE 
THAT PHYSICIAN COVERINGS ARE 
REQUIRED FOR ALL MEETINGS IN AN 
ENCLOSED SPACE SUCH AS COMMITTEE
HEARINGS.
I EXPECT ALL MEMBERS ON BOTH 
SIDES OF THE AISLE TO WEAR A 
MASK EXCEPT WHEN YOU ARE SPEAK.
I WILL RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR AN 
OPENING STATEMENT.
MORE THAN A YEAR AGO THIS 
SUBCOMMITTEE LAUNCHED AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO DIGITAL 
MARKETS.
OUR TWO OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN TO 
DOCUMENT COMPETITION PROBLEMS IN
THE DIGITAL ECONOMY AND TO 
EVALUATE WHERE THE CURRENT 
ANTITRUST FRAMEWORK IS ABLE TO 
PROPERLY ADDRESS THEM N. 
SEPTEMBER 2019, THE CHAIRMAN AND
RANKING MEMBERS OF THE FULL 
COMMITTEE AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE 
ISSUED SWEEPING BIPARTISAN 
REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION FOR THE
FOUR FIRMS THAT WILL AT TODAY'S 
HEARING.
SINCE THEN, WE'VE RECEIVED 
MILLIONS OF PAGES FROM EVIDENCE 
FROM THESE FIRMS AS WELL AS 
DOCUMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS TO 
MORE THAN 100 MARKET 
PARTICIPANTS.
WE ALSO CONDUCTED HUNDREDS OF 
HOURS OF INTERVIEWS.
WE HAVE HELD FIVE HEARINGS TO 
EXAMINE THE AFFECTS ON 
INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP,
A FREE AND DIVERSE PRESS, AND 
INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES IN THE 
ONLINE MARKETPLACE.
WE'VE HELD 17 BRIEFINGS AND 
ROUND TABLES WITH OVER 35 
EXPERTS AND STAKEHOLDERS IN 
SUPPORT OF OUR WORK.
THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN 
BIPARTISAN FROM THE START.
IT'S BEEN AN HONOR TO WORK 
ALONGSIDE MY COLLEAGUE, 
CONGRESSMAN AS WELL AS THE 
FORMER RANKING MEMBER OF THE 
FULL COMMITTEE, CONGRESSMAN DOUG
COLLINS.
WE WORKED CLOSELY WITH ALL 
MEMBERS ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE AND HAVE
TAKEN THIS WORK SERIOUSLY AND 
STUDIED THESE ISSUES CAREFULLY.
AS MY COLLEAGUE, CONGRESSMAN KEN
BUCK RECENTLY COMMENTED AND I 
QUOTE, THIS IS THE MOST 
BIPARTISAN EFFORT THAT I'VE BEEN
INVOLVED WITH IN FIVE AND A HALF
YEARS OF CONGRESS, END QUOTE.
THE PURPOSE OF TODAY'S HEARING 
IS TO EXAMINE THE DOMINANCE OF 
AMAZON, APPLE, FACEBOOK, AND 
GOOGLE.
AMAZON RUNS THE LARGEST ONLINE 
MARKETPLACE IN AMERICA, 
CAPTURING 70% OF ALL ONLINE 
MARKETPLACE SALES.
IT OPERATES ACROSS A VAST ARRAY 
OF BUSINESSES FROM CLOUD 
COMPUTING AND MOVIE PRODUCTION 
TO TRANSPORTATION LOGISTICS AND 
SMALL BUSINESS LENDING.
AMAZON'S MARKET VALUATION HIT 
$1.5 TRILLION, MORE THAN THAT OF
WALMART, TARGET, SALESFORCE, 
IBM, eBAY, AND ETSY COMBINED.
APPLE IS A DOMINANT PROVIDER OF 
SMARTPHONES WITH MORE THAN 100 
MILLION USERS ALONE.
IN ADDITION TO HARDWARE, APPLE 
SELLS FINANCIAL SERVICES, MEDIA,
AND GAMES.
FACEBOOK IS THE WORLD'S LARGEST 
PROVIDER OF SOCIAL NETWORKING 
SERVICES WITH A BUSINESS MODEL 
THAT SELLS DIGITAL ADS.
DESPITE A LITANY OF PRIVACY 
SCANDALS AND RECORD-BREAKING 
FINES, FACEBOOK CONTINUES TO 
ENJOY BILLIONS IN PROFITS, 
$18 BILLION LAST YEAR ALONE.
LASTLY, GOOGLE IS THE WORLD'S 
LARGEST ONLINE SEARCH ENGINE, 
CAPTURING MORE THAN 90% OF 
SEARCHING ONLINE.
IT CONTROLS KEY TECHNOLOGIES AND
DIGITAL AD MARKETS AND ENJOYS 
MORE THAN 1 BILLION USERS ACROSS
SIX PRODUCTS, INCLUDING 
BROWSERS, SMARTPHONES, AND 
DIGITAL MAPS.
PRIOR TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, 
THESE CORPORATIONS ALREADY STOOD
OUT AS TITANS IN OUR ECONOMY.
IN THE WAKE OF COVID-19, 
HOWEVER, THEY'RE LIKELY TO 
EMERGE STRONGER AND MORE 
POWERFUL THAN EVER BEFORE.
AS AMERICAN FAMILIES SHIFT MORE 
OF THEIR WORK, SHOPPING, AND 
COMMUNICATION ONLINE, THESE 
GIANTS STAND TO PROFIT.
LOCALLY OWNED BUSINESSES 
MEANWHILE, MOM AND POP STORES ON
MAIN STREET FACE AN ECONOMIC 
CRISIS UNLIKE ANY IN RECENT 
HISTORY.
AS HARD AS IT IS TO BELIEVE, 
IT'S POSSIBLE OUR ECONOMY WERE 
EMERGE MORE CONCENTRATED THAN 
BEFORE.
THESE COMPANIES SERVE AS 
CRITICAL ARTERIES OF COMMERCE 
AND COMMUNICATIONS.
BECAUSE THESE COMPANIES ARE SO 
CENTRAL TO OUR 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, MEANINGFUL 
WAYS, WE OBSERVE COMMON PARTNERS
AND COMPETITION PROBLEMS OVER 
THE THE COURSE OF THIS 
INVESTIGATION.
FIRST, EACH PLATFORM IS A BOTTLE
NECK FOR A KEY CHANNEL OF 
DISTRIBUTION WHERE THEY CONTROL 
ACCESS TO INFORMATION OR A 
MARKETPLACE, THESE PLATFORMS 
HAVE THE INCENTIVE AND ABILITY 
TO EXPLOIT THIS POWER.
THEY CAN CHARGE EXORBITANT FEES.
SECOND, EACH PLATFORM USES ITS 
CONTROL OVER DIGITAL 
INFRASTRUCTURE TO SURVEIL OTHER 
COMPANIES, THAT I SHALL GROWTH, 
BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND WHETHER 
THEY MIGHT POSE A COMPETITIVE 
THREAT.
EACH PLATFORM HAS USED THIS DATA
TO PROTECT ITS POWER BY EITHER 
BUYING, COPYING, OR CUTTING OFF 
ACCESS FOR ANY ACTUAL OR 
POTENTIAL RIVAL.
THIRD, THESE PLATFORMS ABUSE 
THEIR CONTROL OVER CURRENT 
TECHNOLOGIES TO EXTEND THEIR 
POWER, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH 
SELF-PREFERENCING, PREDATORY 
PRICING, OR REQUIRING USERS TO 
BUY ADDITIONAL PRODUCTS THE 
DOMINANT PLATFORMS HAVE WIELDED 
THEIR POWER IN DESTRUCTIVE, 
HARMFUL WAYS IN ORDER TO EXPAND.
AT TODAY'S HEARING, WE'LL 
EXAMINE HOW EACH COMPANY HAS 
USED THIS PLAYBOOK TO ACHIEVE 
AND MAINTAIN DOMINANCE AND HOW 
THEIR POWER SHAPES AND AFFECTS 
OUR DAILY LIVES.
WHY DOES THIS MATTER?
MANY OF THE PRACTICES USED BY 
THESE COMPANIES HAVE HARMFUL 
ECONOMIC EFFECTS.
THEY DISCOURAGE 
ENTREPRENEURSHIP, DESTROY JOBS, 
HIKE COSTS, AND DEGRADE QUALITY.
SIMPLY PUT, THEY HAVE TOO MUCH 
POWER.
THIS POWER STAVES OFF NEW FORMS 
OF COMPETITION, CREATIVITY, AND 
INNOVATION.
WHILE THESE DOMINANT FORMS MAY 
PRODUCE INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS, 
THEIR DOMINANCE IS KILLING SMALL
BUSINESSES, MANUFACTURING, AND 
OVERALL DYNAMISM THAT ARE THE 
ENGINES OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.
SEVERAL OF THESE FIRMS ALSO 
HARVEST AND ABUSE PEOPLE'S DATA 
TO SELL ADS FOR EVERYTHING FROM 
NEW BOOKS TO DANGEROUS SO-CALLED
MIRACLE CURES.
WHEN EVERYDAY AMERICANS LEARNED 
HOW MUCH OF THEIR DATA IS BEING 
MINED, THEY CAN'T RUN AWAY FAST 
ENOUGH.
BUT IN MANY CASES, THERE IS NO 
ESCAPE FROM THE SURVEILLANCE 
BECAUSE THERE'S NO ALTERNATIVE.
PEOPLE ARE STUCK WITH BAD 
OPTIONS.
OPEN MARKETS ARE PREDICATED ON 
THE IDEA THAT IF A COMPANY HARMS
PEOPLE, CONSUMERS, WORKERS AND 
BUSINESS PARTNERS WILL CHOOSE 
ANOTHER OPTION.
WE'RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THAT 
CHOICE IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE.
IN CLOSING, I'M CONFIDENT THAT 
ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS WE SEE 
IN THESE MARKETS WILL LEAD TO A 
STRONGER, MORE VIBRATE ECONOMY 
BECAUSE CONCENTRATED ECONOMIC 
POWER ALSO LEADS TO CONCENTRATED
POLITICAL POWER, THIS 
INVESTIGATION ALSO GOES TO THE 
HEART OF WHERE THE W"WE" AS A 
PEOPLE GOVERNOR OURSELVES OR 
WHETHER WE LET OURSELVES BE 
GOVERNED BY PRIVATE MONOPOLIES.
CONCENTRATED POLITICAL CONTROL 
ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH DEMOCRATIC
IDEALS.
WHEN THEY WERE CONFRONTED IN THE
PAST, OIL TIE CONS, AT&T OR 
MICROSOFT, WE TOOK ACTION TO 
ENSURE NO PRIVATE CORPORATION 
CONTROLS OUR ECONOMY OR OUR 
DEMOCRACY.
WE FACE SIMILAR CHALLENGES 
TODAY.
AS GATEKEEPERS OF THE DIGITAL 
ECONOMY, THESE PLATFORMS ENJOY 
THE POWER TO PICK WINNERS AND 
LOSERS, TO SHAKE DOWN SMALL 
BUSINESSES AND ENRICH THEMSELVES
BY CHOKING OFF COMPETITORS.
THEIR ABILITY TO DICTATE TERMS, 
CALL THE SHOTS, UP END ENTIRE 
SECTORS AND INSPIRE FEAR 
REPRESENT THE POWERS OF A 
PRIVATE GOVERNMENT.
OUR FOUNDERS WOULD NOT BOW 
BEFORE A KING, NOR SHOULD WE BOW
BEFORE THE EMPERORS OF THE 
ONLINE ECONOMY.
WITH THAT, I NOW RECOGNIZE THE 
RANKING MEMBER OF THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE, MR. CICILLINE FOR.
>> A MEMORANDUM SERVICE FOR JOHN
LEWIS ON MONDAY REQUIRED OUR 
ATTENTION.
HOWEVER, THIS HEARING IS VITAL 
TO OUR OVERSIGHT WORK AND I 
APPRECIATE YOUR FLEXIBILITY.
THROUGHOUT MY LONG TIME IN 
CONGRESS, I HAVE PRIORITIZED 
OVERSITE IS ONE OF OUR 
RESPONSIBILITIES, TO 
PERIODICALLY REVIEW IF 
EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR LAWS, AND I
THINK IT'S A GOOD AND TIMELY 
THING WE ARE NOW TURNING OUR 
ATTENTION TO TECHNOLOGICAL 
INNOVATIONS WHICH BRINGS US TO 
ALL OF YOUR COMPANIES.
EXTRAORDINARILY RELIANCE 
AMERICANS HAVE ON TECHNOLOGICAL 
INNOVATIONS AND THESE UNEXPECTED
AND UNPRECEDENTED TIMES, YOUR 
COMPANIES HAVE PROVIDED 
INNOVATIONS THROUGH OUR NATION'S
CREATING A MYRIAD OF OUR DAILY 
NEEDS.
THE DELIVERY OF GROCERIES, 
VIRTUAL BUSINESS FOR DOCTORS, 
CONNECTING SOCIALLY DISTANT 
FAMILIES, KEEPING OUR SMALL AND 
LARGE BUSINESSES CONNECT.
WITH THAT RESPONSIBILITY COMES 
AN INCREASED SCRUTINY OF YOUR 
DOMINANCE IN THE MARKETPLACE.
I WANT TO REITERATE SOMETHING I 
SAID THROUGHOUT THIS 
INVESTIGATION, BEING BIG IS NOT 
INHERENTLY BAD.
QUITE THE OPPOSITE.
IN AMERICA YOU SHOULD BE 
REWARDED FOR SUCCESS.
WE'RE HERE TO BETTER UNDERSTAND 
THE ROLE YOUR COMPANIES HAVE IN 
THE DIGITAL MARKETPLACE AND 
IMPORTANTLY, THE EFFECT THEY 
HAVE ON CONSUMERS AND THE PUBLIC
AT LARGE.
YOU L
YOU LEAD SOME OF TODAY'S MOST 
POWERFUL COMPANIES AND WE HAVE 
AN INTEREST IN WHAT YOUR 
COMPANIES DO WITH THAT 
ACCUMULATED POWER.
WILLIAMSON KNOW THAT THE TECH 
MARKETPLACE IS DRIVEN BY DATA, 
SO IT FOLLOWS THAT THOSE WHO 
CONTROL THE DATA IN ESSENCE 
CONTROL THE MARKETPLACE.
THERE ARE BROADER QUESTIONS 
SURROUNDING DATA, WHO OWNS THE 
DATA, WHAT RESPONSIBILITIES TO 
COMPANIES HAVE TO SHARE WITH 
THEIR CUSTOMERS OR THEIR 
COMPETITORS, WHAT IS THE FAIR 
MARKET VALUE OF THAT DATA, IS 
THERE ANYTHING MONABOUT REQUIRI 
THIS DATA AND WHAT ABOUT 
MONETIZING IT.
THESE ARE COMPLEX ISSUES THAT 
EVEN YOUR OWN COMPANIES ARE 
WRESTLING WITH IN THE CURRENTLY 
TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE, AND THE
ANSWERS TO WHICH WE OWE THE 
AMERICAN CONSUMERS.
SINCE THE TECH INVESTIGATION 
BEGAN, WE'VE HEARD RUMBLINGS 
FROM MANY WHO WERE QUICK TO SAY 
YOUR SUCCESSFUL COMPANIES HAVE 
GROWN TOO LARGE.
IT SEEMS THOSE COMPLAINTS HAVE 
GOTTEN EVEN LOUDER.
WHILE I FIND THESE COMPLAINTS 
INFORMATIVE, I DON'T PLAN ON 
LITIGATING EACH OF THESE 
COMPLAINTS TODAY.
ANTITRUST LAW AND THE CONSUMER 
WELFARE STANDARD HAS SERVED THIS
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 INVOLVES, 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'S YOUTUBE AND 
TWITTER HAVE BECOME THE PUBLIC 
SQUARE OF TODAY WHERE POLITICAL 
DEBATE UNFOLDS IN REAL TIME.
BUT REPORTS THAT DESCENDING 
VIEWS, OFTEN CONSERVATIVE VIEWS,
ARE TARGETED OR CENSORED IS 
TROUBLING.
CONSERVATIVES ARE OUR CONSUMERS 
TOO, AND THEY NEED THE 
PROTECTION OF THE ANTITRUST 
LAWS.
THE POWER TO INFLUENCE DEBATE 
CARRIES WITH IT REMARKABLE 
RESPONSIBILITIES.
SO LET THE FACTS BE OUR GUIDE 
HERE.
YOUR COMPANIES ARE LARGE, THAT'S
NOT A PROBLEM.
YOUR COMPANIES ARE SUCCESSFUL.
THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM EITHER.
BUT I WANT TO LEAVE HERE 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. 
>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.
NOW THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE 
DISTINGUISHED CHAIRMAN OF THE 
FULL COMPEMITTEE, MR. NADLER, F 
HIS OPENING STATEMENT. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WANT TO THANK YOU, RANKING 
MEMBER SENSENBRENNER AND THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR THE 
TREMENDOUS EFFORT YOU PUT TO 
THIS INVESTIGATION.
I APPRECIATE YOUR 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 LONGED BELIEVED WITH THOMAS 
JEFFERSON AND LOUIS BRANDEIS THE
CONCENTRATION OF POWER IN MY 
FORM, EMS ECONOMIC OR POLITICAL 
POWER, IS DANGEROUS TO A 
DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.
THAT IS WHY WE MUST EXAMINE 
THESE AND OTHER COMPANIES THAT 
PLAY A DOMINANT ROLE IN OUR 
ECONOMY AND IN OUR SOCIETY AND 
ENSURE THAT OUR ANTITRUST LAWS 
PRESERVES A HEALTHY MARKETPLACE.
THESE PRINCIPLES HAVE GUIDED 
THIS COMPETE'S YEAR-LONG 
INVESTIGATION INTO COMPETITION 
IN DIGITAL MARKETS, AND THEY ARE
THE LENS THROUGH WHICH I 
APPROACH TODAY'S HEARING.
THE OPEN INTERNET HAS DELIVERED 
ENORMOUS BENEFITS TO AMERICANS, 
INCLUDING A SURGE OF ECONOMIC 
OPPORTUNITY, MASSIVE INVESTMENT 
AND NEW PATHWAYS FOR EDUCATION 
ONLINE.
BUT THERE'S GROWING EVIDENCE 
THAT A HANDFUL OF CORPORATIONS 
HAVE CAPTURED A SHARE OF ONLINE 
COMMERCE.
FROM PROVIDING THE DIAMOND IN 
SEARCH PLATFORM, RETAIL 
PLATFORM, AND ONLINE MESSAGING 
PLATFORM TO PROVIDING THE 
UNDERLYING MAPPING SERVICES AND 
CLOUD COMPUTING ON WHICH 
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER 
BUSINESSES RELY, THESE DOMINANT 
PLATFORMS NOW COMPRISE THE 
ESSENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE
21st CENTURY.
BY VIRTUE OF CONTROLLING THE 
INFRASTRUCTURE, THEY HAVE ACCESS
TO MARKETS.
IN SOME BASIC WAYS, THE PROBLEM 
IS NOT UNLIKE WHAT WE FACED 130 
YEARS AGO WHEN RAILROADS 
TRANSFORMED AMERICAN LIFE, BOTH 
TH
ALSO CREATING A KEY CHOKE HOLD 
THE RAILROAD MONOPOLIES COULD 
EXPLOIT.
THEY CHARGED TOLLS, THEY 
DISCRIMINATED AMONG FARMERS, 
PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS 
ACROSS THE ECONOMY, AND BY 
EXPANDING INTO LINES OF BUSINESS
THAT COMPETED DIRECTLY WITH 
PRODUCERS, THEY COULD USE THEIR 
DOMINANCE IN TRANSPORTATION TO 
FAVOR THEIR OWN SERVICES.
THESE TACTICS BY THE RAILROADS 
SPURRED FURY AND DESPAIR ACROSS 
THE COUNTRY.
CONGRESS INITIATED 
INVESTIGATIONS TO DOCUMENT THESE
PROBLEMS AND OUTLAWED THESE 
ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES IN 
THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY AND OTHER 
INDUSTRIES DOMINATED BY 
UNREGULATED MONOPOLIES AND 
TRUSTS.
IMPORTANTLY, CONGRESSIONAL 
OVERSIGHT DURING THIS PERIOD 
DIDN'T PREVENT THE ARRIVAL OF 
NEW TECHNOLOGY OR HUMAN 
PROGRESS.
INSTEAD, CONGRESS RECOGNIZED 
THAT THESE POWERFUL NEW 
TECHNOLOGIES HAD RESHAPED THE 
BALANCE OF POWER IN OUR ECONOMY 
AND THAT IT WAS THE ROLE OF 
CONGRESS TO ENSURE THAT THE NEW 
MONOPOLIZES COULD NOT ABUSE 
THEIR POWER.
TODAY THE 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 
RIGHT NOW ON THESE POWERFUL 
INTERM
INTERMEDIAT 
INTERMEDIARIES.
THE FACT THAT SOME COMPANIES 
HAVE SHARED WITH THE COMMITTEE 
OVER THE PAST YEAR DURING THIS 
INVESTIGATION.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S CURRENT 
REVIEW OF COMPETITION IN THE 
DIGITAL MARKETPLACE TANS LONG 
TRADITION OF THIS COMMITTEE OF 
OVERSIGHT OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS 
AND OUR ECONOMY.
FROM THE DAYS OF CHAIRMAN 
EMANUEL SELLER, THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND ITS 
ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE HAVE 
CONDUCTED CAREFUL INQUIRIES INTO
INDUSTRIAL SECTORS SHOWING 
CONSOLIDATION AND 
ANTI-COMPETITIVE CONDUCT.
THIS HAS CONTINUED ON A 
BIPARTISAN BASIS OVER THE YEARS.
AS A 1950 REPORT FROM THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MONOPOLY POWER 
DESCRIBED, QUOTE, IT IS THE 
PROVINCE OF THIS SUBCOMMITTEE TO
INVESTIGATE FACTORS WHICH TENDED
TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION, 
STRENGTHEN MONOPOLIES, INJURE 
SMALL BUSINESSES OR PROMOTE UNDO
YOU CONCENTRATE OF ECONOMIC 
POWER, TO ASCERTAIN THE FACTS 
AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED 
ON THOSE FINDINGS.
FOLLOWING IN THIS PROUD 
TRADITION, OUR INVESTIGATING HAS
HELD HERE GOES WITH INDUSTRY AND
GOVERNMENT WITNESSES, 
CONSULTATIONS WITH SUBJECT 
MATTER EXPERTS, AND A CAREFUL 
AND AT TIMES PAINSTAKING REVIEW 
OF LARGE VOLUMES OF EVIDENCE 
PROVIDED BY INDUSTRY SKPARPTS 
REGULATORS.
WHILE ULTIMATELY IT IS THE 
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ANTITRUST 
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO ENFORCE 
THE LAW, CONGRESS HAS AN 
OBLIGATION TO ASSESS WHETHER 
EXISTING ANTITRUST LAWS AND 
COMPETITION POLICIES AND THE 
WILL TO ENFORCE THOSE LAWS AND 
POLICIES ARE ADEQUATE TO ADDRESS
THE COMPETITION ISSUES FACING 
OUR COUNTRY AND TO TAKE ACTION 
IF THEY ARE FIND TO BE LACKING.
GIVEN DOMINANT ROLE THEY PLAY IN
OUR ECONOMY AND SOCIETY, IT IS 
ONLY REASONABLE THAT OUR CAREFUL
EXAMINATION OF THE ANTITRUST 
LAWS BEGIN WITH THEM.
I APPRECIATE THE PARTICIPATION 
OF ALL OF OUR WITNESSES TODAY.
THE INVESTIGATION WOULD NOT BE 
COMPLETE.
INDEED IT HAS HARDLY BEGUN 
WITHOUT HEARING DIRECTLY FROM 
THE DECISION-MAKERS OF THESE 
COMPANIES.
I LOOK FORWARD TO THEIR 
TESTIMONY AND TO THE DAY'S 
DISCUSSIONS.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY 
FULL TIME. 
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN AND I 
NOW RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER
OF THE FULL COMMITTEE, THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO, MR. JORDAN,
FOR HIS OPENING STATEMENT. 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WANT TO THANK THE RANKING 
MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, MR. 
SENSENBRENNER.
I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY MORE 
MEETINGS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IN 
THIS CONGRESS, BUT I WANT TO 
THANK JIM FOR THE CONSTITUENTS 
OF HIS DISTRICT IN WISCONSIN FOR
THIS MANY YEARS AND FOR THE WORK
HE'S DONE FOR THIS ENTIRE 
COMMITTEE.
I'LL JUST CUT TO THE CHASE.
BIG TECH IS OUT TO GET 
CONSERVATIVES.
THAT'S NOT A HUNCH, THAT'S A 
FACT.
JULY 20th, 2020, GOOGLE TROOUFZ 
HOME PAGES OF BREITBART AND THE 
DAILY COLLAR.
JUST LAST NIGHT WE LEARNED 
GOOGLE HAS CENSURED SO MUCH, 
TRAFFIC HAS DECLINED 99%.
JUNE 6th, GOOGLE BANS THE 
FEDERALIST.
APRIL, GOOGLE AND YOUTUBE 
ANNOUNCE A POLICY CENSURING THE 
CONTENT THAT CONFLICTS WITH THE 
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WORLD 
HEALTH ORGANIZATION.
AN ORGANIZATION THAT LIED TO US,
THAT SHIELDED CHINA.
IF YOU CONTRADICT SOMETHING THEY
SAY, THEY CAN SAY WHATEVER THEY 
WANT.
THEY CAN LIE FOR CHINA.
THEY CAN SHIELD FOR CHINA.
YOU SAY SOMETHING AGAINST THEM, 
YOU GET CENSURED.
JUNE 29, 2020, AEMGZ BANS 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACCOUNT ON 
TWITCH AFTER HE RAISES CONCERNS 
ABOUT DEFUNDING THE POLICE.
JUNE 4th, 2020, AMAZON BANS A 
BOOK CRITICAL OF THE CORONAVIRUS
LOCKDOWNS WRITTEN BY A 
CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR.
MAY 27th, 2020, AMAZON SMILE 
WON'T LET YOU GIVE TO THE FAMILY
RESEARCH COUNCIL, BUT YOU CAN 
GIVE TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD.
FACEBOOK, JUNE 19th, 2020, TAKES
DOWN POSTS FROM PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
NOVEMBER 1st, 2018, FACEBOOK 
SILENCES A PRO-LIFE 
ORGANIZATION'S ADVERTISEMENT.
FORMER FACEBOOK EMPLOYEES ADMIT 
FACEBOOK ROUTINELY SUPPRESSES 
CONSERVATIVE VIEWS.
AND I HAVEN'T EVEN MENTIONED 
TWITTER WHO WE ACTUALLY INVITED,
MR. CHAIRMAN.
WE ASKED FOR YOU GUYS TO INVITE 
HIM AS ONE OF OUR WITNESSES.
YOU GUYS SAID NO.
I HAVEN'T EVEN MENTIONED THEM.
TWO YEARS AGO THEY SHADOW BANNED
TWO MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE.
FOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WERE 
SHADOW BANNED TWO YEARS AGO.
435 IN THE HOUSE, ONLY FOUR GET 
SHADOW BANNED.
WHAT DID MR. DORSEY TELL US?
OH, IT WAS JUST A GLITCH IN OUR 
ALGORITHM.
I ASKED HIM WHAT DID YOU PUT, 
THE NAMES GATES, NUNES, JORDAN?
IF I HAD A NIBBLING FOR EVERY 
TIME I HEARD IT WAS JUST A 
GLITCH, I WOULDN'T BE AS WEALTHY
AS OUR WITNESSES, BUT I'D BE 
DOING ALL RIGHT.
WE'VE HEARD THAT EXCUSE TIME AND
TIME AGAIN, MAY 28th, TWITTER 
CENSURES PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TWEET
ON THE RIOTS IN MINNEAPOLIS.
JUNE 23rd, 2020, TWITTER 
CENSURES THE PRESIDENT SAYING 
HE'LL ENFORCE THE RULE OF LAW 
AGAINST ANY AUTONOMOUS ZONE IN 
WASHINGTON, D.C.
THE PRESIDENT TWEETS THAT HE'S 
NOT GOING TO FIND ONE IN 
WASHINGTON, D.C., NOPE, YOU 
CAN'T DO THAT.
YOU GET BANNED, YOU GET 
CENSURED, DOZENS OF EXAMPLES -- 
I FORGOT ONE.
I FORGOT ONE.
JUST LAST WEEK JULY 21st, HERE'S
WHAT TWITTER DID.
THE LEADER OF IRAN, THE ISLAMIC 
REPUBLIC OF IRAN -- THIS IS FROM
THE LARGEST STATE SPONSOR OF 
TERRORISM, TWITTER ALLOWS THIS 
TWEET.
QUOTE, THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF 
IRAN WILL NEVER FORGET THE 
MARTYRDOM OF SOLEIMANI AND WILL 
DEFINITELY STRIKE A RECIPROCAL 
BLOW IN THE UNITED STATES.
SO YOU CAN THEN THE CITIZENS OF 
THIS GREAT COUNTRY, THE LEADER 
OF THE LARGEST STATE SPONSOR OF 
TERRORISM, THAT'S JUST FINE.
BUT ALL THE PRESIDENT SAYS HE'S 
NOT GOING TO ALLOW SOME 
AUTONOMOUS ZONE IN D.C. AND HE 
GETS -- HE GETS CENSURED.
ALL KINDS OF EXAMPLES, MOST OF 
THEM FROM THIS YEAR, AND THAT'S 
WHAT'S, I THINK, CRITICAL FOR US
ALL TO UNDERSTAND.
MOST OF THEM FROM THIS YEAR, AN 
ELECTION YEAR, AND 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 WHERE TOP
EXECUTIVES AT GOOGLE EMAIL CHAIN
WHERE THEY TALKED ABOUT THE 
SILENT DONATION GOOGLE MADE TO 
THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN.
THANK GOODNESS IT ONE POINT 
ENOUGH AND IN SPITE OF THEIR 
EFFORTS, PRESIDENT TRUMP WON.
BUT WE'RE 97 DAYS BEFORE AN 
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 WORKS AMERICAN CITIZENS GET
TO SEE PRIOR TO THEIR VOTING IS 
PRETTY DARN IMPORTANT.
LOOK, ALL THINK THE FREE 
MARKET'S GREAT.
WE THINK COMPETITION IS GREAT.
BUT WHAT'S NOT GREAT IS 
CENSURING PEOPLE, CENSURING 
CONSERVATIVES AND TRYING TO 
IMPACT ELECTIONS.
IF IT DOESN'T END, THERE HAS TO 
BE CONSEQUENCES.
THERE HAVE TO BE CONSEQUENCES.
THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT 
AND I THINK WHAT SO MANY 
AMERICANS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT.
SO I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING IF 
OUR WITNESSES, MR. CHAIRMAN.
BEFORE I YIELD BACK, WE HAVE A 
COLLEAGUE.
I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT 
THAT MR. JOHNSON, THE RANKING 
MEMBER OF THE CONSTITUTION 
SUBCOMMITTEE BE ALLOWED TO 
PARTICIPATE IN TODAY'S HEARING, 
WHICH IS OUR CUSTOMARY PRACTICE 
FOR SUBCOMMITTEE. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD OBJECT.
>> OBJECTION IS HEARD.
AND NOWTIVE PLEASURE OF --
>> WITNESSES?
WHY ARE WE NOT ALLOWING -- IT IS
CUSTOMARY. 
>> THERE WAS A UNANIMOUS CONSENT
QUESTION, OBJECTION WAS HEARD, 
AND I WILL INTRODUCE OUR 
WITNESS. 
>> THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED --
>> IT IS NOW MY PLEASURE TO 
INTRODUCE TODAY'S WITNESS.
OUR FIRST WITNESS IS JEFF 
BEZOS -- MR. JORDAN, I HAVE THE 
TEAM. 
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE'S 
LIBERTIES HERE.
WE HAVE THE RANKING MEMBER --
>> MR. JORDAN, YOU MADE A 
REQUEST, OBJECTION WAS HEARD. 
>> OUR FIRST WITNESS IS JEFF 
BEZOS --
>> PUT YOUR MASK ON. 
>> MR. BEZOS FOUNDED AMAZON IN 
19 -- EXCUSE ME.
I'M GOING TO REMIND MEMBERS OF 
THIS COMMITTEE, UNLESS YOU ARE 
SPEAKING, OUR RULES REQUIRE YOU 
TO WEAR A MASK ACCORDING TO THE 
ATTENDING PHYSICIAN.
I'M SPEAKING ABOUT ANOTHER 
MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE.
I'LL BEGIN AGAIN.
IT IS NOW MY PLEASURE TO 
INTRODUCE TODAY'S WITNESSES.
OUR FIRST WITNESS IS JEFF BEZOS,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF 
AMAZON.COM.
MR. BEZOS FOUNDED AMAZON IN 1994
AS AN ONLINE BOOKSTORE.
SINCE THEN AMAZON HAS GROWN TO 
BE THE LARGEST ONLINE RETAILER 
ON THE INTERNET.
MR. BEZOS OVER SEES HIS 
COMPANY'S EXPANSION INTO CLOUD 
COMPUTING, DIGITAL STREAMING, 
AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.
MR. BEZOS RECEIVED HIS 
BACHELOR'S OF SCIENCE FROM 
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY.
OUR SECOND WITNESS, SUNDAR 
PICHAI, IS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
OFFICER OF ALPHABET AND GOOGLE.
MR. PICHAI ALSO OVERSEES THE 
COMPANY'S SEARCH PRODUCTS.
PRIOR TO HIS TIME AT GOOGLE, HE 
WORKED AT McKIN ZIP HE RECEIVED 
A DEGREE IN METALLURGICAL 
ENGINEERING, A MASTER'S FROM 
STANFORD AND AN MBA FROM THE 
WHARTON SCHOOL OF PENNSYLVANIA.
THIRD IS TIM COOK.
HE JOINED APPLE IN 1998 AND 
SERVED AS ITS CHIEF OPERATIONAL 
OFFICER UNDER STEVE JOBS.
IN 2011, MR. COOK WAS NAMED CEO.
WHILE AT APPLE, HE HAS OVERSEEN 
THEIR EXPANSION INTO NEW MARKETS
THROUGH LAUNCH AND DEVELOPMENTS 
OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES LIKE 
APPLE PAY, APPLE WATCH, iCLOUD, 
APPLE CORD AND HOME POD.
MR. COOK SERVED AS THE DIRECTOR 
OF NORTH AMERICAN FULFILLMENT 
FOR IBM.
HE RECEIVED A BACHELOR FROM 
SCIENCE OF AUBURN UNIVERSITY AND
AN MBA FROM DUKE UNIVERSITY 
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS.
THE LAST WITNESS IS MARK 
ZUCKERBERG, FOUNDER, CHAIRMAN, 
AND CEO OF FACEBOOK.
MR. ZUCKERBERG INITIALLY 
LAUNCHED FACEBOOK IN ORDER TO 
HELP CONNECT COLLEGE STUDENTS AT
HIS SCHOOL MORE EASILY.
SINCE THEN, THE COMPANY HAS 
GROWN INTO THE WORLD'S LARGEST 
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM WITH 
1.7 BILLION GLOBAL DAILY ACTIVE 
USERS.
HE ATTENDED HARVARD UNIVERSITY 
BEFORE LEAVING TO FOCUS FULL 
TIME ON DEVELOPING FACEBOOK.
WE WELCOME ALL OF OUR 
DISTINGUISHED WITNESSES AND 
THANK THEM FOR PARTICIPATING IN 
TODAY'S HEARING.
AND NOW I WILL BEGIN BY SWEARING
YOU IN.
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 SECTION G OF 
THE HOUSE REMOTE COMMITTEE 
PROCEEDING REGULATIONS, YOUR 
SWORN TESTIMONY MUST BE YOUR 
OWN.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU WISH 
TO MUTE YOURSELF SO YOU CAN 
CONFER WITH YOUR COUNSEL.
PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HANDS.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM UNDER 
PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE 
TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE 
IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST 
OF OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE SO HELP YOU
GOD?
>> YES.
>> LET THE RECORD SHOW THE 
WITNESSES ANSWERED INTO THE 
AFFIRMATIVE.
THANK YOU.
YOU MAY BE SEATED.
YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENTS WILL BE 
WRITTEN INTO THE RECORD 
ENTIRELY.
I ASK THAT YOU SUMMARIZE YOUR 
TESTIMONY IN FIVE MINUTES TO 
HELP YOU STAY WITHIN THAT TIME, 
THERE IS A TIMING LIGHT IN WEB 
WEATHER CONDITIONS.
WHEN THE LIGHT SWITCHES FROM
WHEN THE LIGHT TURNS RED, IT 
SIGNALS YOUR FIVE MINUTES HAVE 
EXPIRED.
MR. BEZOS, YOU MAY BEGIN.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN CICILLINE
AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
I WAS BORN INTO GREAT WEALTH, 
NOT MONETARY WEALTH, BUT THE 
WEALTH OF A LOVING FAMILY THAT 
ENCOURAGED ME TO DREAM BIG.
MOM MY MOM, JACKIE, HAD ME WHEN 
SHE WAS A 17-YEAR-OLD HIGH 
SCHOOL STUDENT 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, SHE GRADUATED 
AND WAS DETERMINED TO CONTINUE 
HER EDUCATION.
SHE ENROLLED IN NIGHT SCHOOL AND
BROUGHT ME TO CLASS 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 DID NOT HAVE AN EASY PAST.
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 
ON WALL STREET INTO A SEATTLE 
GARAGE TO FOUND AMAZON, FULLY 
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT MIGHT NOT 
WORK.
IT FEELS LIKE YESTERDAY I WAS 
DRIVING THE 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 PRINCIPLE 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 AND THE 
MILITARY.
THE RETAIL MARKET WE PARTICIPATE
IN IS EXTRAORDINARILY LARGE AND 
COMPETITIVE.
AMAZON ACCOUNTS FOR LESS THAN 1%
OF THE $25 TRILLION RETAIL 
MARKET AND LESS THAN 4% OF U.S. 
RETAIL.
THERE'S ROOM IN RETAIL FOR 
WINNERS.
WE COMPETE AGAINST LARGE, 
ESTABLISHED PLAYERS LIKE TARGET,
CROSS-COE, 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 
SAME VALUABLE REAL ESTATE WE 
SPEND BILLIONS TO BUILD MARKET 
AND MAINTAIN.
WE BELIEVE THAT COMBINING THE 
STRENGTHS OF AMAZON'S STORE WITH
THE VAST SELECTION OF PRODUCTS 
OFFERED BY THIRD PARTIES WOULD 
BE A BETTER EXPERIENCE FOR 
CUSTOMERS AND THE GROWING PIE 
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-SIZED BUSINESSES 
SELLING ON AMAZON.
THE TRUST CUSTOMERS PUT IN US 
HAS ALLOWED AMAZON TO CREATE 
MORE JOBS IN THE UNITED STATES 
OVER THE PAST DECADE THAN ANY 
OTHER COMPANY.
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS 
ACROSS 42 STATES.
AMAZON EMPLOYEES MAKE A MINIMUM 
OF $15 AN HOUR, MORE THAN DOUBLE
THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE.
AND WE OFFER THE BEST BENEFITS, 
BENEFITS THAT INCLUDE 
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE, 
401(k) RETIREMENT, AND PARENTAL 
LEAVE, WHICH INCLUDES 20 WEEKS 
OF AID MATERNITY LEAVE.
MORE THAN ANYPLACE ON EARTH, 
ENTREPRENEURIAL COMPANIES START,
GROW, AND THRIVE HERE IN THE 
U.S.
WE NURTURE ENTREPRENEURS AND 
START-UPS WITH STABLE RULE OF 
LAW, THE FINEST UNIVERSITY 
SYSTEM IN THE WORLD, THE FREEDOM
OF DEMOCRACY, AND A DEEPLY 
ACCEPTED CULTURE OF RISK TAKING.
OF COURSE, THIS GREAT NATION OF 
OURS IS FAR FROM PERFECT.
EVEN AS WE REMEMBER CONGRESSMAN 
JOHN LEWIS AND HONOR HIS LEGACY,
WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A MUCH 
NEEDED RACE RECKONING.
WE ALSO FACE CLIMATE CHANGE AND 
INCOME EQUALITY AND WE'RE 
STRU
STUMBLING THROUGH THE CRISIS OF 
A GLOBAL PANDEMIC.
STILL, THE REST OF THE WORLD 
WOULD LOVE TEEN TINIEST SIP OF 
THE ELIXIR WE HAVE HERE IN THE 
U.S.
IMMIGRANTS LIKE MY DAD SEE WHAT 
A TREASURE THIS COUNTRY IS.
THEY HAVE PERSPECTIVE AND OFTEN 
CAN SEE IT EVEN MORE CLEARLY 
THAN THOSE OF US WHO WERE LUCKY 
ENOUGH TO BE BORN HERE.
IT IS STILL DAY ONE FOR THIS 
COUNTRY AND EVEN IN THE FACE OF 
TODAY'S HUMBLING CHALLENGES I 
HAVE NEVER BEEN MORE OPTIMISTIC 
ABOUT OUR FUTURE.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY, AND I'M
VERY HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR 
QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. BEZOS.
MR. PICHAI, YOU ARE NOW 
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, 
RANKING MEMBER 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'LL BE DEEPLY MISSED.
BUT IT'S HARD TO HAVE A 
DISCUSSION ABOUT OPPORTUNITY.
THIS HAS NEVER BEEN MORE 
IMPORTANT AS THE GLOBAL PANDEMIC
POSES DUAL CHALLENGES TO OUR 
HEALTH AND OUR ECONOMY.
EXPANDING ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY 
TO TECHNOLOGY IS PERSONAL TO ME.
I DIDN'T HAVE MUCH ACCESS TO A 
COMPUTER GROWING UP IN INDIA.
SO YOU CAN IMAGINE MY AMAZEMENT 
WHEN I ARRIVED IN THE U.S. FOR 
GRADUATE SCHOOL AND SAW AN 
ENTIRE 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 EXPERIENCED THAT 
THROUGH CHROME FOR FREE.
GOOGLE TAKES PRIDE IN THE NUMBER
OF PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE OUR 
PRODUCTS OF WE ARE EVEN PROUDER 
OF WHAT THEY DO WITH THEM.
FROM THE 140 MILLION STUDENTS 
AND TEACHERS USING G SUITE FOR 
EDUCATION TO STAY CONNECTED 
DURING THE PANDEMIC, TO THE 5 
MILLION AMERICANS GAINING 
DIGITAL SKILLS THROUGH GLOBAL 
GOOGLE, TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO 
HAVE TURNED TO GOOGLE FOR HELP, 
FROM 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.
WE EMPLOY MORE THAN 75,000 
PEOPLE IN THE U.S. ACROSS 26 
STATES.
THE PROGRESS OF POLICY AND 
SECURITY ESTIMATED THAT IN 2018 
WE INVESTED MORE THAN 
$20 BILLION IN THE U.S., CITING 
US AS THE LARGEST CAPITAL 
INVESTOR IN AMERICA THAT YEAR 
AND ONE OF THE TOP FIVE FOR THE 
LAST THREE YEARS.
ONE WAY WE CONTRIBUTE IS BY 
BUILDING HELPFUL PRODUCT.
RESEARCH FOUND THAT FREE 
SERVICES LIKE SURGE, GMAIL, MAPS
AND PHOTOS PROVIDE THOUSANDS OF 
DOLLARS A YEAR IN VALUE TO THE 
AVERAGE AMERICAN.
AND MANY ARE SMALL BUSINESSES 
USING OUR DIGITAL TOOLS TO GROW.
STONE DIMENSIONS, A FAMILY-OWNED
COMPANY IN WISCONSIN USES GOOGLE
MY BUSINESS TO DRAW MORE 
CUSTOMERS.
A FAMILY-OWNED APPLIANCE STORE 
CREDITS GOOGLE ANALYTICS WITH 
HELPING THEM REACH CUSTOMERS 
ONLINE DURING THE PANDEMIC.
NEARLY ONE-THIRD OF SMALL 
BUSINESSES OWNERS SAY WITHOUT 
DIGITAL TOOLS, THEY WOULD HAVE 
TO CLOSE ALL OUR PART OF THEIR 
BUSINESS DURING COVID.
AT THE END OF 2019 OUR RND SPEND
INCREASED TENFOLD FROM 
$2.8 BILLION TO $26 BILLION, AND
WE HAVE INVESTED OVER 
$90 BILLION THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
OUR 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 IS NOT GUARANTEED.
NEW COMPETITORS EMERGE EVERY 
DAY, AND TODAY USERS HAVE MORE 
ACCESS TO INFORMATION THAN EVER 
BEFORE.
COMPETITION DRIVES US TO 
INNOVATE AND IT LEADS TO BETTER 
PRODUCTS, LOWER PRICES, AND MORE
CHOICES FOR EVERYONE.
FOR EXAMPLE, COMPETITION HELPED 
LOWER ONLINE ADVERTISING COSTS 
BY 4% OVER THE LAST DECADES, BUT
SAVINGS PASSED DOWN TO 
CONSUMERS.
OPEN PLATFORMS LIKE ANDROID ALSO
SUPPORT THE INNOVATION OF 
OTHERS.
USING DROANDROID, THOUSANDS BUI 
AND SELL THEIR OWN DEVICES 
WITHOUT PAYING ANY LICENSING 
FEES TO US.
THIS HAS ENABLED BILLIONS OF 
CONSUMERS TO HAVE CUTTING-EDGE 
SMARTPHONES, SOME FOR LESS THAN 
$50.
WHETHER BUILDING TOOLS FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES FOR PLATFORMS LIKE 
ANDROID, GOOGLE SUCCEEDS WHEN 
OTHER SUCCEED.
WE HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT 
PRIVACY IS A UNIVERSAL RIGHT AND
GOOGLE IS COMMITTED TO KEEPING 
YOUR INFORMATION SAFE, TREATING 
IT RESPONSIBLY, AND WE'VE LONG 
SUPPORTED THE CREATION OF 
COMPREHENSIVE FEDERAL PRIVACY 
LAWS.
I'VE NEVER FORGOTTEN HOW ACCESS 
TO TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION 
CHANGED THE COURSE OF MY LIFE.
GOOGLE BUILDS PRODUCTS THAT 
INCREASE ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY 
FOR EVERYONE, NO MATTER WHERE 
YOU LIVE, WHAT YOU BELIEVE, OR 
HOW MUCH MONEY YOU EARN.
WE ARE COMMITTED TO DOING THIS 
RESPONSIBLY IN PARTNERSHIP WITH 
LAWMAKERS TO ENSURE EVERY 
AMERICAN HAS ACCESS TO THE 
INCREDIBLE OPPORTUNITY 
TECHNOLOGY CREATES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MR. PICHAI.
MR. COOK IS NOW RECOGNIZED FOR 
FIVE MINUTES. 
>> CHAIRMAN CICILLINE AND 
NADLER, RANKING MEMBER JORDAN, 
MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, 
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
OFFER TESTIMONY.
BEFORE I BEGIN, I WANT TO 
RECOGNIZE THE LIFE AND LEGACY OF
JOHN LEWIS.
I JOIN YOU IN MOURNING NOT ONLY 
A HERO, BUT SOMEONE 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 AND A COUNTRY 
THAT BENEFITED SO PROFOUNDLY 
FROM HIS LEADERSHIP.
MY NAME IS TIM COOK.
I'VE BEEN APPLE'S 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.
IT'S A PROMISE THAT WILL ONLY 
BUILD THINGS THAT MAKE US PROUD.
AS STEVE PUT IT, WE ONLY MICK 
THINGS WE RECOMMEND TO OUR 
FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
YOU COULD 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.
BUT YOU WANTED TO PUT IT SIMPLY,
PRODUCTS LIKE iPHONE JUST WERE.
WHEN CUSTOMERS CONSISTENTLY GIVE
iPHONE A 99% SATISFACTION 
RATING, THAT'S THE MESSAGE 
THEY'RE SENDING ABOUT THE USER 
EXPERIENCE.
BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT CUSTOMERS 
HAVE A LOT OF CHOICES AND OUR 
PRODUCTS FACE FIERCE 
COMPETITION.
COMPANIES LIKE SAMSUNG, WAYWAY 
AND GOOGLE HAVE BUILT WITH 
DIFFERENT APPROACHES.
WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT.
OUR GOAL IS THE BEST, NOT THE 
MOST.
IN FACT, WE DON'T HAVE A 
DOMINANT SHARE IN ANY MARKET OR 
IN ANY PRODUCT CATEGORY WHERE WE
DO BUSINESS.
WHAT DOES MOTIVATE US IS THAT 
TIMELESS DRIVE TO BUILD NEW 
THINGS THAT WE'RE PROUD TO SHOW 
OUR USERS.
WE FOCUS RELENTLESSLY ON THOSE 
INNOVATIONS, ON DEEPENING CORE 
PRINCIPLES LIKE PRIVACY AND 
SECURITY, AND ON CREATING NEW 
FEATURES.
IN 2008 WE INTRODUCED A NEW 
FEATURE OF THE iPHONE CALLED THE
APP STORE, LAUNCHED WITH 500 
APPS, WHICH SEAMS SEEMED LIKE A 
LOT AT 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 AT THE 
TIME DIDN'T WORK WELL.
BRICK AND MORTAR STORES CHARGED 
HIGH FEES AND HAD LIMITED REACH.
PHYSICAL MEDIA LIKE CDs HAD TO 
BE SHIPPED AND WERE HARD TO 
UPDATE.
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 
A HIGH QUALITY, RELIABLE, AND 
SECURE USER EXPERIENCE.
THEY ARE TRANSPARENT AND 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 APPEAR APPLE DEVICE 
AND WHERE THE FEATURES OR 
SERVICES WOULD BE EXPERIENCED 
AND CONSUMED ON AN APPLE DEVICE.
IN THE APP STORE'S MORE THAN 
10-YEAR HISTORY, WE HAVE NEVER 
RAISED THE COMMISSION OR ADDED A
SINGLE FEE.
IN FACT, WE'VE REDUCED IT.
I'M HERE TODAY BECAUSE SCRUTINY 
IS REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE.
WE APPROACH THIS PROCESS WITH 
RESPECT AND HUMILITY.
BUT WE MAKE NO CONCESSIONS ON 
THE FACTS.
WHAT BEGAN AT 500 APPS IS NOW 
MORE THAN 1.7 MILLION.
ONLY 60 OF WHICH ARE APPLE 
SOFTWARE.
IF APPLE IS A GATE KEEPER, WE'VE
OPENED THE GATE WIDER.
WE WANT TO GET EVERY APP WE CAN 
OPT STORE, NOT KEEP THEM OFF.
THE APP STORE'S ECONOMIC 
CONTRIBUTIONS ARE SIGNIFICANT.
THE ECOSYSTEM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
1.9 MILLION JOBS IN ALL 5 
STATES, AND IT FACILITATED 
$138 BILLION IN COMMERCE IN 2019
ALONE IN THE U.S.
I SHARE THE COMMITTEE'S BELIEF 
THAT COMPETITION PROMOTES 
INNOVATION, THAT IT MAKES SPACE 
FOR THE NEXT GREAT IDEA, AND 
THAT IT 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.
IT INSPIRES US TO WORK 
TIRELESSLY TO MAKE SURE TOMORROW
WILL BE EVEN BETTER THAN TODAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I LOOK FORWARD TO RESPONDING TO 
YOUR QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. COOK.
MR. ZUCKERBERG IS NOW RECOGNIZED
FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU.
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, MEMBERS OF
THE SUBCOMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR 
THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY.
THE TECH INDUSTRY IS AN AMERICAN
SUCCESS STORY.
THE PRODUCTS WE BUILD HAVE 
CHANGED THE WORLD AND IMPROVED 
PEOPLE'S LIVES.
OUR INDUSTRY IS ONE OF THE WAYS 
THAT AMERICA SHARES ITS VALUES 
WITH THE WORLD AND ONE OF OUR 
GREATEST ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL 
EXPORTS.
FACEBOOK IS PART OF THIS STORY.
WE STARTED WITH AN IDEA TO GIVE 
PEOPLE THE POWER TO SHARE AND 
CONNECT.
AND WE'VE BUILT SERVICES THAT 
BILLIONS OF PEOPLE FIND USEFUL.
I'M PROUD THAT WE'VE GIVEN 
PEOPLE WHO NEVER HAD A VOICE 
BEFORE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE 
HEARD.
AND GIVING SMALL BUSINESSES 
ACCESS TO TOOLS THAT THE ONLY 
LARGEST PLAYERS USED TO HAVE.
SINCE COVID EMERGED, I'M PROUD 
THAT PEOPLE HAVE USED OUR 
SERVICES TO STAY IN TOUCH WITH 
FRIENDS AND FAMILY WHO THEY 
CAN'T BE WITH IN PERSON AND TO 
KEEP THEIR SMALL BUSINESSES 
RUNNING ONLINE WHEN PHYSICAL 
STORES ARE CLOSED.
I BELIEVE THAT FACEBOOK AND THE 
U.S. TECH INDUSTRY ARE A FORCE 
FOR INNOVATION AND EMPOWERING 
PEOPLE, BUT I RECOGNIZE THE 
POWER OF TECH COMPANIES.
OUR SERVICES ARE ABOUT 
CONNECTION AND OUR BUSINESS 
MODEL IS ADVERTISING.
WE FACED TENSE COMPETITION IN 
BOTH.
MANY OF OUR COMPETITORS HAVE 
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OR BILLIONS
OF USERS.
SOME ARE UPSTARTS, BUT OTHERS 
ARE GATEKEEPERS WITH THE POWER 
TO DECIDE IF WE CAN EVEN RELEASE
OUR APPS IN THEIR APP STORES TO 
COMPETE WITH THEM.
IN MANY AREAS, WE'RE BEHIND OUR 
COMPETITORS.
THE MOST POPULAR MESSAGING 
SERVICE IN THE U.S. IS iMESSAGE.
THE FASTEST GROWING APP IS 
TIKTOK.
THE MOST POPULAR APP FOR VIDEO 
IS YOUTUBE.
THE FASTEST GROWING ADS PLATFORM
IS AMAZON.
THE LARGEST ADS PLATFORM IS 
GOOGLE.
AND FOR EVERY DOLLAR SPENT ON 
ADVERTISING IN THE U.S., LESS 
THAN 10 CENTS IS SPENT WITH US.
WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT ONLINE 
PLATFORMS, BUT I THINK THE TRUE 
NATURE OF COMPETITION IS MUCH 
BROADER.
WHEN GOOGLE BOUGHT YOUTUBE, THEY
COULD COMPETE AGAINST THE 
DOMINANT PLAYER IN VIDEO, WHICH 
WAS THE CABLE INDUSTRY.
WHEN AMAZON BOUGHT WHOLE FOODS, 
THEY COULD COMPETE AGAINST 
KROGER AND WALMART.
WHEN FACEBOOK BOUGHT WHATSAPP, 
WE CAN COMPETE AGAINST TELECOS 
WHO COULD CHARGE 10 CENTS A 
MESSAGE.
NOT ANYMORE.
NOW PEOPLE CAN BUY GROCERIES AND
SEND PRIVATE MESSAGES FOR FREE.
THAT'S 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.
THAT CHANGE CAN OFTEN HAPPEN 
FASTER THAN YOU EXPECT.
OF THE TEN MOST VALUABLE 
COMPANIES A DECADE AGO, ONLY 
THREE STILL MAKE THAT LIST 
TODAY.
IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE THE TOP 
TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES COME FROM, 
A DECADE AGO THE VAST MAJORITY 
WERE AMERICAN.
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.
WHILE THESE ARE NOT ANTITRUST 
ISSUES AND ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY 
THE TOPIC OF TODAY'S HEARING, I 
RECOGNIZE THAT WE WERE OFTEN AT 
THE CENTER OF THESE DISCUSSIONS.
WE BUILD PLATFORMS FOR SHARING 
IDEAS AND IMPORTANT DEBATES PLAY
OUT ACROSS OUR SERVICES.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS ULTIMATELY 
LEADS TO MORE PROGRESS, BUT IT 
MEANS WE FIND OURSELVES IN THE 
MIDDLE OF DEEP DISAGREEMENTS 
ABOUT SOCIAL ISSUES AND 
HIGH-STAKES ELECTIONS.
I PERSONALLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT 
PRIVATE COMPANIES SHOULD BE 
MAKING SO MANY DECISIONS ABOUT 
THESE ISSUES BY THEMSELVES.
AND 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 
VOICE AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, 
KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE, UPHOLDING 
DEMOCRATIC TRADITIONS LIKE 
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND 
VOTING, 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 COMPETE WITH OR THE 
COUNTRIES THEY REPRESENT.
AS GLOBAL COMPETITION INCREASES,
THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT OUR 
VALUES WILL WIN OUT.
I'M PROUD OF THE SERVICES WE 
BUILD AND HOW THEY IMPROVE 
PEOPLE'S LIVES.
WE COMPETE HARD.
WE COMPETE FAIRLY.
WE TRY TO BE THE BEST.
THAT'S 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 AND I THANK THE 
WITNESSES FOR YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENTS.
BEFORE I BEGIN RECOGNIZING 
MEMBERS FOR QUESTIONING UNDER 
THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE, I'M GOING 
TO ENTER INTO THE HEARING RECORD
THE DOCUMENTS AND EXHIBITS 
MAJORITY MEMBERS WILL BE 
REFERENCING IN THEIR QUESTIONING
TODAY.
THESE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN 
DISTRIBUTED TO THE WITNESSES.
I WILL NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR 
FIVE MINUTES.
MR. PICHAI, EVERY 85% OF ALL 
ONLINE SEARCHES GO THROUGH 
GOOGLE.
EVERY ONLINE COMPANY IN THE 
UNITED STATES DEPENDS ON GOOGLE 
TO REACH USERS.
A BUSINESS MAY SINK OR SWIM 
BASED ON GOOGLE'S DECISIONS 
ALONE.
IN OTHER WORDS, ONLINE 
BUSINESSES TOLD US THAT GOOGLE 
STEALS THEIR CONTENT AND 
PRIVILEGES ITS OWN SITES IN WAYS
THAT PROFIT GOOGLE BUT CRUSH 
EVERYBODY ELSE.
MOST BUSINESSES ASK TO STAY 
ANONYMOUS DUE TO FEARS THAT 
GOOGLE WILL RETALIATE AGAINST 
THEM.
ONE ENTREPRENEUR HAS TO DOWNSIZE
HIS BUSINESS AND LAY OFF HALF 
HIS STAFF.
HE TOLD US, AND I, QUOTE, IF 
SOMEONE CAME TO ME WITH AN IDEA 
FOR A WEBSITE OR WEB SERVICE 
TODAY, I'D TELL THEM TO RUN, RUN
AS FAR AWAY FROM THE WEB AS 
POSSIBLE.
LAUNCH A LAWN CARE BUSINESS OR 
DOG GROOMING BIRKSZ SOMETHING 
GOOGLE CAN'T TAKE AWAY AS SOON 
AS HE OR SHE IS THRIVING.
SO MY FIRST QUESTION, MR. 
PICHAI, IS WHY DOES GOOGLE STEAL
CONTENT FROM HONEST BUSINESSES?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH RESPECT, I
DISAGREE WITH THAT.
WE SEE MANY BUSINESSES THRIVE, 
PARTICULARLY EVEN DURING THE 
PANDEMIC BUSINESSES, AN EXAMPLE,
KETTLE BELLS IN TEXAS --
>> MR. PICHAI, I HAVE A LIMITED 
AMOUNT OF TIME.
BUT MY QUESTION IS VERY 
SPECIFIC.
WE HEARD THROUGHOUT THIS 
INVESTIGATION THAT GOOGLE HAS 
STOLEN CONTENT TO BUILD YOUR OWN
BUSINESS.
THESE ARE CONSISTENT REPORTS.
AND SO IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT
DOESN'T HAPPEN IS REALLY 
INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE 
LEARNED DURING THE COURSE OF THE
INVESTIGATION.
BUT I'LL MOVE ON TO A NEW 
QUESTION.
MR. PICHAI, MOST AMERICANS 
BELIEVE WHEN THEY ENTER A SEARCH
QUERY WHAT GOOGLE SHOWS ARE THE 
MOST RELEVANT RESULTS.
BUT INCREASINGLY GOOGLE JUST 
SHOWS WHATEVER IS MOST 
PROFITABLE FOR GOOGLE, BE IT 
GOOGLE ADS OR GOOGLE'S OWN 
SITES.
SO MY QUESTION, ISN'T THIS HA 
FUNDAMENTAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
BETWEEN SERVING USERS WHO WANT 
TO ACCESS THE BEST AND MOST 
RELEVANT INFORMATION AND 
GOOGLE'S BUSINESS MODEL AND 
INCENTIVIZES GOOGLE TO SELL ADS 
AND KEEP USERS ON GOOGLE'S ON 
SITES?
>> WE'VE ALWAYS FOCUSED ON 
PROVIDING USERS THE MOST 
RELEVANT INFORMATION.
AND WE RELY ON THE TRUST FOR 
USERS TO COME BACK TO GOOGLE 
EVERY DAY.
IN FACT, THE VAST MAJORITY OF 
GOOGLE -- WE DON'T SHOW ADS AT 
ALL, ONLY FOR A SMALL SUBSET OF 
INQUIRIES WHERE THE INCESSPUT I 
HIGHLY COMMERCIAL.
THEY MAY BE LOOKING FOR TV SETS 
AND SO ON --
>> THEY CAN'T SAY VALUE OF THE 
PART THAT YOU DO USE THE GOOGLE 
ADS FOR?
IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF YOUR 
BUSINESS.
WHAT'S THE ACTUAL VALUE?
$200 BILLION?
>> IT'S 100 PLUS BILLION 
DOLLARS. 
>> THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY, MR. 
PICHAI.
LET ME MOVE ON.
IT'S GOOGLE'S BUSINESS MODEL 
THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
IT EVOLVED FROM A TURNSTILE TO 
THE REST OF THE WEB TO A WALLED 
GARDEN THAT KEEPS USERS WITHIN 
ITS SITES.
EMAILS SHOW THAT OVER A DECADE 
AGO GOOGLE STARTED TO FEAR 
COMPETITION FROM CERTAIN WEB 
PAGES THAT COULD DIVERT SEARCH 
TRAFFIC FROM GOOGLE.
THESE DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT GOOGLE
STAFF DISCUSSED THE 
PROLIFERATING THREAT IS HOW IT 
WAS DESCRIBED THAT THESE WEB 
PAGES POSED TO GOOGLE.
ANY TRAFFIC LOST TO OTHER SITES 
WAS A LOSS IN REVENUE.
ONE OF GOOGLE'S MEMOS OBSERVED 
THAT CERTAIN WEBSITES WERE 
GETTING, AND I, QUOTE, TOO MUCH 
TRAFFIC.
SO GOOGLE DECIDED TO PUT AN END 
TO THAT.
MR. PICHAI, YOU'VE BEEN AT 
GOOGLE SINCE 2004.
WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THESE 
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE THREAT 
FROM VERTICAL SEARCH?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WITHOUT KNOWING 
THE SPECIFICS, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT
FULLY CLEAR OF THE CONTEXT.
BUT DEFINITELY WHEN WE LOOK AT 
VERTICAL SEARCHES, IT VALIDATES 
THE COMPETITION WE SEE.
FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN USERS COME 
LOOKING TO SHOP ONLINE, 
INDEPENDENT STUDIES SHOW THAT 
OVER 55% OF PRODUCT SEARCHES 
ORIGINATE WITH AMAZON AND 70% 
WITH THE MAJOR E-COMMERCE 
COMPANIES.
IN THE FEW CATEGORIES THAT ARE 
COMMERCIAL IN NATURE, WE SEE 
VIGOROUS COMPETITION, BE IT 
TRAVEL, REAL ESTATE, AND WE ARE 
WORKING HARD --
>> LET ME ASK YOU SPECIFICALLY, 
MR. PICHAI.
THE EVIDENCE WE COLLECTED SHOWS 
THAT GOOGLE PURSUE ADD 
MULTI-PRONGED ATTACK.
FIRST GOOGLE BEGAN TO STEAL 
OTHER WEB PAGES' CONTENT.
IN 2010 GOOGLE STOLE RESTAURANT 
REVIEWS FROM YELP TO BOOT STRAP 
ITS OWN LOCAL SEARCH BUSINESS.
DO YOU KNOW HOW GOOGLE RESPONDED
WHEN YELP ASKED TO YOU STOP 
STEALING THEIR REVIEWS?
I'LL TELL YOU.
OUR INVESTIGATION SHOWS GOOGLE 
THREATENED TO DELIST YELP 
ENTIRELY.
LET US STEAL YOUR CONTENT OR 
EFFECTIVELY DISAPPEAR FROM THE 
WEB.
MR. PICHAI, ISN'T THAT WEBSITE .
>> WHEN I RUN THE COMPANY, I'M 
FOCUSED ON GIVING USERS WHAT WE 
WANT.
HAPPY TO ENGAGE AND THE 
SPECIFICS AND ANSWER YOUR 
QUESTIONS FURTHER. 
>> THANK YOU.
ONE FINAL SERIES OF QUESTIONS, 
MR. PICHAI.
DID GOOGLE USE ITS WEBSITE TO 
SURVEY COMPETITIVE THREATS?
>> CONGRESSMAN, JUST LIKE OTHER 
BUSINESSES, WE TRIED TO 
UNDERSTAND TRENDS FROM, YOU 
KNOW, DATA, WHICH WE CAN SEE, 
AND WE USE IT TO IMPROVE OUR 
PRODUCTS FOR OUR USERS, BUT 
WE'RE REALLY FOCUSED ON 
IMPROVING OUR PRODUCTS AND 
THAT'S HOW --
>> I APPRECIATE THAT, 
MR. PICHAI.
GOOGLE'S OWN DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT
GOOGLE DID JUST THAT, WHICH IS 
VERY DISTURBING AND VERY 
ANTI-COMPETITIVE.
IN ADDITION TO STEALING CONTENT,
GOOGLE BEGAN TO PRIVILEGE ITS 
OWN SITES.
AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT 
PUBLISHED JUST YESTERDAY FOUND 
63% OF WEB SEARCHES THAT START 
ON GOOGLE ALSO END SOMEWHERE ON 
GOOGLE'S OWN WEBSITES.
TO ME THAT'S EVIDENCE GOOGLE IS 
INCREASINGLY A WALLED GARDEN 
THAT KEEPS PEOPLE ON GOOGLE 
SITES EVEN IF THEY DON'T HAVE 
THE MOST INFORMATION AND 
CATASTROPHIC FOR OTHER COMPANIES
ONLINE.
MY TIME IS RUNNING OUT.
THE EVIDENCE SEEMS VERY CLEAR TO
ME.
AS GOOGLE BECAME THE GATEWAY TO 
THE INTERNET AND BEGAN TO ABUSE 
ITS POWER, IT USED SURVEILLANCE 
OVER WEB TRAFFIC DAMPENED 
INNOVATION AND NEW BUSINESS 
GROWTH AND DRAMATICALLY 
INCREASED THE ACCESS OF USERS ON
THE INTERNET, VIRTUALLY ENSURING
ANY BUSINESS THAT WANTS TO BE 
FOUND ON THE WEB, MUST PAY 
GOOGLE A TAX.
AND WITH THAT I RECOGNIZE THE 
RANKING MEMBER OF THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE, MR. SENSENBRENNER 
FOR HIS FIRST ROUND OF 
QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, 
MR. CHAIRMAN.
I'VE BEEN IN CONGRESS 42 YEARS.
THAT'S COMING TO AN END AT THE 
END OF THIS YEAR.
I'M BREATHING A SIGH OF RELIEF.
BUT DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, 
DURING THE DECADE OF THE '90s 
AND THE 00s, I WAS INVOLVED AS 
CHAIRMAN OF THE SCIENCE 
COMMITTEE AND CHAIRMAN OF THIS 
COMMITTEE AND TRYING TO MAKE THE
NET UNIVERSAL AND OPEN IT UP TO 
EVERYBODY.
ONE THESIS WE USED IS THE NET 
SHOULD END UP BECOMING BASICALLY
LE DEBATE ON ISSUES NOT ONLY IN 
OUR COUNTRY BUT THROUGHOUT THE 
WORLD.
IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT, THIS 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMPANY GAVE 
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS 
IMMUNITY SO IF SOMEBODY SAID 
SOMETHING DEFAMATORY IN WHAT 
THEY POSTED, THE ISPs COULD NOT 
BE A PART OF THE LAWSUIT FOR 
DEFAMATION.
NOW, AFTER HEARING MR. JORDAN, 
IN A LONG LINE OF CENSORSHIP OF 
CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINTS, YOU 
KNOW, I'M CONCERNED THAT THE 
PEOPLE WHO MANAGE THE NET AND 
THE FOUR OF YOU MANAGE A BIG 
PART OF THE NET, ARE ENDING UP 
USING THIS AS A POLITICAL 
SCREEN.
CONSERVATIVES ARE CONSUMERS, 
TOO.
AND THE WAY THE NET WAS PUT 
TOGETHER IN THE EYES OF CONGRESS
IS THAT EVERYBODY SHOULD BE ABLE
TO SPEAK THEIR MIND.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, MR. JORDAN'S 
LITANY OF CENSORSHIP ZEROS IN ON
FACEBOOK.
WHAT ARE YOUR STANDARDS IN, 
QUOTE, FILTERING OUT POLITICAL 
SPEECH THAT MAYBE 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 A VOICE TO SHARE THEIR 
EXPERIENCES AND IDEAS.
A LOT OF THAT IS DAY-TO-DAY 
THINGS THAT HAPPEN IN THEIR 
LIVES, SOME OF IT IS POLITICAL.
AND, FRANKLY, I THINK WE'VE 
DISTINGUISHED OURSELVES AS ONE 
OF THE COMPANIES THAT DEFENDS 
FREE EXPRESSION THE MOST.
WE DO HAVE COMMUNITY STANDARDS 
AROUND THINGS YOU CAN AND CANNOT
SAY.
I THINK YOU WOULD LIKELY AGREE 
WITH MOST OF THEM.
THEY BAN CATEGORIES OF HARM SUCH
AS PROMOTING TERRORIST 
PROPAGANDA, CHILD EXPLOITATION, 
INCLIMITEMENT OF VIOLENCE, 
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY VIOLATIONS
AND THEY ALSO BAN THINGS LIKE 
HATE SPEECH THAT COULD LEAD TO 
DEHUMANIZING PEOPLE AND 
ENCOURAGING VIOLENCE DOWN THE 
ROAD. 
>> IF I MAY ASK A SPECIFIC OF 
YOU, IT WAS REPORTED THAT DONALD
TRUMP JR. GOT TAKEN DOWN FOR A 
PERIOD OF TIME BECAUSE HE PUT 
SOMETHING UP, THE EFFICACY OF 
HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE.
NOW, I WOULDN'T TAKE IT MYSELF, 
BUT THERE STILL IS A DEBATE ON 
WHETHER IT IS EFFECTIVE EITHER 
IN TREAT OR PREVENTING COVID-19.
AND I THINK THAT THIS 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, YOU 
KNOW, GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
WHY DID THAT HAPPEN?
>> CONGRESSMAN, FIRST TO BE 
CLEAR, I THINK WHAT YOU MIGHT BE
REFERRING TO HAPPENED ON 
TWITTER.
SO, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SPEAK TO
THAT.
I CAN TALK TO OUR POLICIES ABOUT
THIS.
WE DO PROHIBIT CONTENT THAT WILL
LEAD TO IMMINENT RISK OF HARM.
AND STATING THAT THERE'S A 
PROVEN CURE FOR COVID, WHEN 
THERE IS, IN FACT, NONE, MIGHT 
ENCOURAGE SOMEONE TO GO TAKE 
SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE SOME 
ADVERSE EFFECT.
WE DO TAKE THAT DOWN.
WE DO NOT PROHIBIT DISCUSSION 
AROUND TRIALS OF DRUGS OR PEOPLE
SAYING THAT THEY THINK 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 --
>> WOULDN'T THAT BE --
>> TO MAKE --
>> BE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE 
ISSUE TO SAY THIS IS NOT PROVEN 
AND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW AS A FACT 
THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR PEOPLE WITH 
CERTAIN CONDITIONS, IT'S CONTRA 
INDICATED AND THEY SHOULDN'T 
TAKE IT.
BUT WOULDN'T THAT BE UP TO 
SOMEBODY ELSE TO SAY, OKAY, WHAT
SOMEBODY POSTED ON THIS REALLY 
ISN'T TRUE AND HERE'S WHAT THE 
FACTS ARE, RATHER THAN HAVING A 
TWITTER OR FACEBOOK TAKE IT 
DOWN?
>> CONGRESS MMAN, IN GENERAL I 
AGREE WITH YOU.
WE DO NOT WANT TO BECOME THE 
ARBITRATORS OF TRUTH.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE A BAD 
POSITION FOR US TO BE IN AND 
NOT -- NOT WHAT 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 COVID 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 WE 
SHOULD TAKE THAT DOWN.
THAT COULD CAUSE IMMINENT RISK 
OF HARM. 
>> THANK YOU.
I YIELD BACK.
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN.
I RECOGNIZE DISTINGUISHED 
MR. NADLER FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, I WANT TO THANK 
YOU FOR PROVIDING US INFORMATION
DURING OUR INVESTIGATION.
HOWEVER, THE DOCUMENTS YOU 
PROVIDED TELL A VERY DISTURBING 
STORY.
AND THAT STORY IS THAT FACEBOOK 
SAW INSTAGRAM AS 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 
ANTI-COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION 
THAT THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS WERE 
DESIGNED TO PREVENT.
NOW, LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT I MEAN.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, YOU HAVE WRITTEN
THAT FACEBOOK CAN LIKELY ALWAYS 
JUST BUY ANY COMPETITIVE 
STARTUPS.
IN FACT, ON THE DAY FACEBOOK 
BOUGHT INSTAGRAM, WHICH YOU 
DESCRIBED AS A THREAT, YOU 
WROTE, QUOTE, ONE THING ABOUT 
STARTUPS IS YOU CAN OFTEN 
ACQUIRE THEM, CLOSE QUOTE.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, YOU WERE 
REFERRING TO COMPANIES LIKE 
INSTAGRAM IN THAT QUOTE, WEREN'T
YOU?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I DON'T HAVE THE
EXACT DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF ME, 
BUT I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CLEAR 
THAT WE VIEWED INSTAGRAM BOTH AS
A COMPETITOR AND AS A COMPLEMENT
TO OUR SERVICES.
IN THE GROWING SPACE AROUND -- 
AFTER SMART PHONES STARTED 
GETTING BIG.
THEY COMPETED WITH US IN THE 
SPACE OF MOBILE CAMERAS, MOBILE 
FOET TO SHARING, BUT AT THE TIME
ALMOST NO ONE THOUGHT OF THEM AS
A GENERAL SOCIAL NETWORK.
PEOPLE DIDN'T THINK OF THEM AS 
COMPETING WITH US IN THAT SPACE.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE 
ACQUISITION HAS BEEN WILDLY 
SUCCESSFUL.
WE WERE ABLE TO BY ACQUIRING 
THEM CONTINUE INVESTING IN IT 
AND GROWING IT AS A STAND-ALONE 
BRAND THAT REACHES MANY MORE 
PEOPLE THAN EITHER KEVIN, THE 
CO-FOUNDER, OR I THOUGHT 
POSSIBLE AT THE TIME, WHILE ALSO
INCORPORATING SOME TECHNOLOGY 
INTO MAKING FACEBOOK'S PHOTO 
SHARING PRODUCTS BETTER.
SO, YES.
>> OKAY.
NOW, IN EARLY 2012, WHEN 
FACEBOOK CONTEMPLATED ACQUIRING 
INSTAGRAM, A COMPETITIVE 
STARTUP, YOU TOLD YOUR CFO THAT 
INSTAGRAM COULD BE VERY 
DISRUPTIVE TO US.
IN THE WEEKS LEELDING UP TO THE 
DEAL, YOU DESCRIBED INSTAGRAM AS
A THREAT SAYING THAT, QUOTE, 
INSTAGRAM CAN MEANINGFULLY HURT 
US WITHOUT BECOMING A HUGE 
BUSINESS, UNQUOTE.
NOW, MR. ZUCKERBERG, WHAT DID 
YOU MEAN WHEN YOU DESCRIBED 
INSTAGRAM AS A THREAT, AS 
DISRUPTIVE?
WHEN YOU SAID THAT INSTAGRAM 
COULD MEANINGFULLY HURT 
FACEBOOK, DID YOU MEAN THAT -- 
DID YOU MEAN CONSUMERS MIGHT 
SWITCH FROM FACE BOO K TO 
INSTAGRAM?
>> CONGRESSMAN, THANKS FOR THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS.
AT THE TIME THERE WAS A SMALL 
BUT GROWING FIELD OF --
>> DID YOU MEAN THAT -- DID YOU 
MEAN THAT CONSUMERS MIGHT SWITCH
FROM FACEBOOK TO INSTAGRAM?
THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
>> THANKS.
CONGRESSMAN --
>> YES OR NO.
DID YOU MEAN THAT?
>> IN THE SPACE OF MOBILE PHOTOS
AND CAMERA APPS, WHICH WAS 
GROWING, THEY WERE A COMPETITOR.
EY
 I'VE BEEN CLEAR ABOUT THAT. 
>> FINE.
IN FEBRUARY OF THAT YEAR, 
FEBRUARY 2012, YOU TOLD 
FACEBOOK'S CHIEF FINANCIAL 
OFFICER THAT YOU WERE INTERESTED
IN BUYING INSTAGRAM.
HE ASKED YOU WHETHER THE PURPOSE
OF THE DEAL WAS TO NEUTRALIZE A 
POTENTIAL COMPETITOR OR TO 
INTEGRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WITH 
OURS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE OUR 
SERVICES?
YOU ANSWERED IT WAS A 
COMBINATION OF BOTH.
SAYING, WHAT WE'RE REALLY BUYING
IS TIME.
EVEN IF SOME NEW COMPETITORS 
SPRINGS UP, THOSE PRODUCTS WON'T
GET MUCH TRACTION SINCE WE'LL 
ALREADY HAVE THE MECHANICS 
DEPLOYED AT SCALE.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, WHAT DID YOU 
MEAN WHEN YOU ANSWERED THAT THE 
PURPOSE OF THE DEAL WAS TO 
NEUTRALIZE A POTENTIAL 
COMPETITOR?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WELL, THOSE 
AREN'T MY WORDS.
BUT, YES, I'VE BEEN CLEAR THAT 
INSTAGRAM WAS A COMPETITOR IN 
THE SPACE OF MOBILE PHOTO 
SHARING.
THERE WERE A LOT OF OTHERS AT 
THE TIME.
THEY COMPETED WITH APPS LIKE 
VISCO CAM AND PIXPLEASE AND 
COMPANIES LIKE PATH.
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 BEING 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 --
>> WERE YOU -- THANK YOU FOR 
YOUR TIME.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, MERGERS AND 
ACQUISITIONS THAT BUY OFF 
POTENTIAL COMPETITIVE THREATS 
VIOLATE THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.
IN YOUR OWN WORDS YOU PURCHASED 
INSTAGRAM TO NEUTRALIZE A 
COMPETITIVE THREAT.
IF WAS AN ILLEGAL MERGER AT THE 
TIME OF THE TRANSACTION, WHY 
SHOULDN'T INSTAGRAM BE BROKEN 
OFF INTO A SEPARATE COMPANY?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I THINK THE FTC 
HAD ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS AND 
REVIEWED THIS AND UNANIMOUSLY 
VOTED AT THE TIME NOT TO 
CHALLENGE THE ACQUISITION.
I MEAN, I THINK WITH HINDSIGHT, 
IT PROBABLY LOOKS LIKE OBVIOUS 
THAT INSTAGRAM WOULD HAVE 
REACHED THE SCALE THAT IT HAS 
TODAY, BUT AT THE TIME IT WAS 
FAR FROM OBVIOUS.
A LOT OF THE COMPETITORS THEY 
COMPETED WITH IN MOBILE SHARING,
INCLUDING COMPANIES LIKE PATH, 
DH WERE HOT AT THE TIME AND HAD 
GREAT FOUNDERS AND ENTREPRENEURS
RUNNING THEM.
DAVE MOORE AND I WORKED CLOSELY 
WITH THEM.
I DON'T THINK PATH EXISTS TODAY.
IT WAS NOT A GARN TEEN INSTAGRAM
WOULD DO WELL.
IT WASN'T JUST BECAUSE OF THE 
FOUNDER'S TALENT BUT BECAUSE WE 
BUILT INTO THE INFRASTRUCTURE 
AND PROMOTING IT AND WORKING 
SECURITY AND A LOT OF THINGS 
AROUND THIS.
I THINK THIS HAS BEEN AN 
AMERICAN SUCCESS STORY. 
>> WELL, THANK YOU.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, YOU'RE MAKING MY
POINT.
IN CLOSING, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT
TO END WHERE I BEGAN.
FACEBOOK, BY MR. MZ'S OWN 
ADMISSION AND BY THE DOCUMENTS 
WE HAVE THE TIME, FACEBOOK SAW 
INSTAGRAM AS A THREAT THAT COULD
POTENTIALLY SIPHON BUSINESS AWAY
FROM FACEBOOK.
RATHER THAN COMPETE WITH IT, 
FACEBOOK BOUGHT IT.
THIS IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF 
ANTI-COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION 
THAT THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS ARE 
DESIGNED TO PREVENT.
THIS SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED 
IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT SHOULD 
NEVER HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO 
HAPPEN AND IT CANNOT HAPPEN 
AGAIN.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WOULD REMIND THE WITNESS THAT 
THE FAILURES OF THE FTC IN 2012,
OF COURSE, DO NOT ALLEVIATE THE 
ANTI-TRUST CHALLENGES THAT THE 
CHAIRMAN DESCRIBED.
WITH THAT I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE
THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO.
AGAIN, THANK HIM FOR CO-HOSTING 
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FIELD 
HEARINGS WE HAD ALONG WITH 
MR. NEGUSE IN COLORADO THAT I 
THINK WAS VERY CRITICAL IN THIS 
INVESTIGATION.
YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE 
MINUTES, MR. BUCK. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE 
BIPARTISAN WAY YOU HAVE 
APPROACHED THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S 
INVESTIGATION.
I WANT TO START BY SAYING 
CAPITALISM IS THE GREATEST 
INSTRUMENT FREEDOM HAS EVER 
SEEN.
CAPITALISM HAS GIVEN THE UNITED 
STATES THE MEANS TO DEFEAT 
SOVIET UNION, BEAT BACK FASCISM 
AND PUT A MAN ON THE MOON.
IT HAS LIFTED MILLIONS OUT OF 
POVERTY.
IT HAS MADE AMERICA THE FREEST, 
MOST PROSPEROUS NATION IN THE 
WORLD.
OUR WITNESSES HAVE TAKEN IDEAS 
BUILT OUT OF A DORM ROOM, 
GARAGE, WAREHOUSE, AND BUILT 
THEM INTO THE FOUR BIGGEST POWER
PLAYERS IN THE DIGITAL ECONOMY.
YOU HAVE ALL ENJOYED THE FREEDOM
TO SUCCEED.
LET ME BE CLEAR.
I DO NOT BELIEVE BIG IS 
NECESSARILY BAD.
BIG IS OFTEN A FORCE FOR GOOD.
HOWEVER, I WANT TO ADDRESS ONE 
PARTICULARLY DISTURBING ISSUE.
MR. PICHAI, IN OCTOBER 2018, 
GOOGLE DROPPED OUT OF THE 
RUNNING FOR A PENTAGON CONTRACT 
TO COMPLETE THE JOINT ENTERPRISE
DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE, JEDI, 
VALUED AT MORE THAN $10 MILLION.
GOOGLE'S STATED REASON FOR 
REMOVING ITSELF IS 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 OUR FREEDOMS AND
STANDS AS A FORCE FOR GOOD 
ACROSS THE GLOBE.
THESE ARE 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 INTERFERENCE OF 
GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE, UNLIKE 
IN COMMUNIST CHINA.
I FIND IT INTERESTING ONLY AFTER
MONTHS FROM WITHDRAWING FROM THE
CONFIDENT, JOSEPH DUNFORD WARNED
THE SENATE ARMED FORCES 
COMMITTEE THAT THE CHINESE 
MILITARY WAS DIRECTLY BENEFITING
FROM GOOGLE'S WORK.
IT MADE ME WONDER, WHAT VALUES 
GOOGLE AND COMMUNIST RED CHINA 
HAD IN COMMON.
I ASKED MYSELF, SELF, IS IT THAT
THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY 
IMPRISONS UIGHUR MUSLIMS IN 
CONCENTRATION CAMPS?
IT IS SHOWN ON THE CHART BEHIND 
ME.
COULD IT BE THAT CHINA FORCES 
SLAVES TO WORK IN SWEAT SHOPS?
MAYBE THEY ALIGN ON THE DESIGN 
TO SUPPRESS FREE SPEECH IN HONG 
KONG?
DID GOOGLE AGREE WITH CCP'S 
DECISION TO LIE TO THE WORLD 
ABOUT THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.
THEN I THOUGHT ABOUT GOOGLE'S 
DRAGONFLY EXPERIMENT.
I WONDERED IF YOU AGREED WITH 
CHINA GOVERNMENT'S TECHNOLOGY 
PLATFORM TO SPY ON ITS OWN 
PEOPLE AND ENFORCE DRACONIAN 
SECURITY LAWS.
MAYBE YOUR COMPANY IS ALIGNED 
WITH THE CHINESE COMMUNIST 
PARTY'S CORPORATE ESPIONAGE 
POLICIES WHERE THE STRATEGY IS 
TO STEAL WHATEVER CAN'T BE 
PRODUCED DOMESTICALLY.
THESE VALUES THAT ALLOW GOOGLE 
TO WORK WITH THE CHINESE 
MILITARY AND NOT THE U.S. 
MILITARY HELPS WHY GOOGLE 
WOULDN'T THINK TWICE ABOUT 
BLATANTLY STEALING A 
COMPETITOR'S PRODUCTS, RIGHT 
DOWN TO THE WATERMARK, WITHOUT 
ANY HINT OF ATTRIBUTION.
MR. PICHAI, DURING OUR FIELD 
HEARING IN MY HOME STATE OF 
COLORADO, I HEARD A STORY THAT 
SOUNDED SO BRAZEN AND CON 
TEMPORARY TO FREE MARKET 
PRINCIPLES I THOUGHT IT MUST 
HAVE BEEN STRAIGHT FROM THE 
CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY'S 
ESPIONAGE PLAYBOOK.
GOOGLE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF A 
COMPANY THAT RELIED ON YOUR 
SEARCH ENGINE TO BUILD ITS BRAND
AND COMPETE.
GOOGLE MISAPPROPRIATED LYRICS 
FROM GENIUS'S WEBSITE AND 
PUBLISHED THOSE LYRICS ON THEIR 
OWN PLATFORM.
GENIUS SUSPECTED THIS THEFT WAS 
OCCURRING, THEY INCORPORATED A 
DIGITAL WATERMARK IN ITS LYRICS 
THAT SPELLED OUT REDHANDED IN 
MORSE CODE.
THE WATERMARK SHOWED YOUR 
COMPANY STOLE WHAT YOU DIDN'T 
WANT TO PRODUCE YOURSELF.
AFTER GOOGLE EXECUTIVES SAID 
THEY WERE INVESTIGATING THIS 
PRODUCT, GENIUS CREATED ANOTHER 
PROJECT.
IT TURNS OUT OF 271 SONGS WHERE 
THE WATERMARK WAS APPLIED, 43% 
SHOWED CLEAR EVIDENCE OF 
MATCHING.
YOUR COMPANY, WHICH ADVERTISES 
ITSELF AS A DOORWAY TO FREEDOM, 
TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THIS SMALL 
COMPANY, ALL BUT EXTINGUISHING 
GENIUS' FREEDOM TO COMPETE.
YOUR CORPORATE VALUES ONCE STOOD
FOR FREEDOM, A PLATFORM THAT 
LEFT CAPITALISM FLOURISH AND 
HELPED BRING COUNTLESS PEOPLE 
ACROSS THE DWLOEB GLOBE OUT OF 
POVERTY.
MY QUESTION, MR. PICHAI, DO YOU 
THINK GOOGLE COULD GET AWAY WITH
FOLLOWING CHINA'S CORPORATE 
ESPIONAGE PLAYBOOK IF YOU DIDN'T
HAVE A MONOPOLYISTSIC 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 ZERO TRUST BASE CYBER 
SECURITY APPROACH TO HELP 
PROTECT PENTAGON NETWORKS FROM 
CYBER SECURITY ATTACKS.
WE HAVE PROJECTS UNDER WAY WITH 
THE NAVY, WITH DEPARTMENT OF 
VETERANS AFFAIRS.
HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP AND EXPLAIN 
MORE.
WE HAVE A VERY LIMITED PRESENCE 
IN CHINA.
WE DON'T OFFER ANY OF OUR 
SERVICES, SEARCH, MAPS, GMAIL, 
YOUTUBE, ET CETERA, IN CHINA.
WITH RESPECT TO MUSIC, WE 
LICENSE CONTENT THERE.
IN FACT, WE LICENSE CONTENT FROM
OTHER COMPANIES.
SO THIS IS A DISPUTE BETWEEN 
GENIUS AND THE OTHER COMPANIES 
IN TERMS OF THE SOURCE OF THE 
CONTENT.
AGAIN, HAPPY TO ENGAGE AND 
EXPLAIN WHAT WE DO HERE FURTHER.
>> I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> THANK THE GENTLEMAN.
I RECOGNIZE 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 WITH APPLE'S 
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 DECISIONMAKER 
AS TO WHETHER AN APP IS MADE 
AVAILABLE TO APP USERS THROUGH 
APPLE'S APP STORE, ISN'T THAT 
CORRECT?
>> SIR, THE APP STORE -- THANK 
YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
THE APP STORE IS A FEATURE OF 
THE iPHONE, MUCH LIKE THE CAMERA
IS AND THE CHIP IS.
AND SO --
>> MY POINT IS, AND I'M SORRY TO
INTERRUPT BUT I WANT TO GET TO 
THE POINT.
THE POINT IS THAT APPLE IS THE 
SOLE DECISIONMAKER AS TO WHETHER
AN APP IS MADE AVAILABLE TO APP 
USERS THROUGH THE APPLE STORE, 
ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
>> IF IT'S A NATIVE APP, YES, 
SIR.
IF IT'S A WEB APP, NO.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
THROUGHOUT OUR INVESTIGATION 
WE'VE HEARD 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.
AND THE RULES GET CHANGED TO 
BENEFIT APPLE AT THE EXPENSE OF 
APP DEVELOPERS AND THE APP STORE
IS SAID TO ALSO DISCRIMINATE 
BETWEEN APP DEVELOPERS WITH 
SIMILAR APPS ON THE APPLE 
PLATFORM AND ALSO AS TO SMALL 
APP DEVELOPERS VERSUS LARGE APP 
DEVELOPERS.
SO, MR. COOK, DOES APPLE NOT 
TREAT ALL APP DEVELOPERS 
EQUALLY?
>> SIR, WE TREAT EVERY DEVELOPER
THE SAME.
WE HAVE OPEN AND TRANSPARENT 
RULES.
IT'S A RIGOROUS PROCESS.
BECAUSE WE CARE SO DEEPLY ABOUT 
PRIVACY AND SECURITY AND 
QUALITY, WE DO LOOK AT EVERY APP
BEFORE IT GOES ON, BUT THOSE 
APPS -- THOSE RULES APPLY EVENLY
TO EVERYONE.
AND AS YOU CAN TELL BY GOING 
FROM --
>> SOME DEVELOPERS ARE FAVORED 
OVER OTHERS, THOUGH, ISN'T THAT 
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS NOT CORRECT.
AND AS YOU CAN TELL FROM GOING 
FROM --
>> SIR, I'LL GIVE YOU AN 
EXAMPLE.
BADU HAS TWO APP STORE EMPLOYEES
ASSIGNED TO HELP IT NAVIGATE THE
APP STORE BUREAUCRACY.
IS THAT TRUE?
>> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT, SIR.
>> WELL, YOU DON'T HAVE OTHER 
APP DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE THAT 
SAME ACCESS TO APPLE PERSONNEL, 
DO YOU?
>> WE DO A LOT OF THINGS WITH 
DEVELOPERS, INCLUDING LOOKING AT
THEIR BETA TEST APPS, REGARDLESS
IF THEY'RE SMALL OR LARGE.
>> OKAY, WELL, LET ME ASK YOU 
THIS QUESTION.
APPLE HAS NEGOTIATED EXCEPTIONS 
TO ITS TYPICAL 30% COMMISSION 
FOR SOME APPS, LIKE AMAZON 
PRIME.
THAT IS A REDUCED COMMISSION 
SUCH AS THE ONE AMAZON PRIME 
GETS AVAILABLE TO OTHER APP 
DEVELOPERS?
IT'S AVAILABLE TO ANYONE MEETING
THE CONDITIONS, YES.
>> OKAY.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
APPLE REQUIRES ALL APP 
DEVELOPERS TO USE APPLE'S 
PAYMENT PROCESSING SYSTEM IF 
THOSE DEVELOPERS WANT TO SELL 
THEIR GOODS OR SERVICES TO APPLE
USERS IN APPLE'S APP STORE, 
ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT BECAUSE IT'S 
A --
>> AND BY PROCESSING PAYMENTS 
FOR APPS THAT YOU ALLOW INTO THE
APP STORE, YOU COLLECT THEIR 
CUSTOMER DATA AND YOU USE THAT 
DATA TO INFORM APPLE AS TO 
WHETHER APPLE SHOULD -- WHETHER 
OR NOT IT WOULD BE PROFITABLE 
FOR APPLE TO LAUNCH A COMPETING 
APP.
ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
>> SIR, 84% OF THE APPS ARE 
CHARGED NOTHING.
THE REMAINING 16% EITHER PAY 15%
OR 30%, DEPENDING UPON THE 
SPECIFICS.
IF IT'S IN THE SECOND YEAR OF A 
SUBSCRIPTION, AS AN EXAMPLE, IT 
ONLY PAYS 15%.
IF YOU LOOK BACK AT HISTORY --
>> WHAT'S TO STOP APPLE FROM 
INCREASING ITS COMMISSION TO 
50%?
>> WE -- SIR, WE HAVE NEVER 
INCREASED COMMISSIONS IN THE 
STORE SINCE THE FIRST DAY IT 
OPERATED IN 2008.
>> THERE'S NOTHING TO STOP YOU 
FROM DOING SO, IS THERE?
>> NO, SIR.
I DISAGREE STRONGLY WITH THAT.
THERE IS A COMPETITION FOR 
DEVELOPERS ARE JUST LIKE THERE'S
A COMPETITION FOR CUSTOMERS.
AND SO THE COMPETITION FOR 
DEVELOPERS, THEY CAN WRITE THEIR
APPS FOR ANDROID OR WINDOWS OR 
XBOX OR PLAYSTATION.
SO, WE HAVE FIERCE COMPETITION 
AT THE DEVELOPER SIDE AND THE 
CUSTOMER SIDE, WHICH IS -- WHICH
IS ESSENTIALLY IT'S SO 
COMPET
COMPETITIVE, I WOULD DESCRIBE IT
AS A STREET FIGHT FOR MARKET 
SHARE IN THE SMARTPHONE 
BUSINESS. 
>> HAS APPLE EVER RETALIATED 
AGAINST OR DISADVANTAGED A 
DEVELOPER WHO WENT PUBLIC ABOUT 
THEIR FRUSTRATIONS WITH THE APP 
STORE?
>> SIR, WE DON'T -- WE DO NOT 
RETALIATE OR BULLY PEOPLE.
IT'S STRONGLY AGAINST OUR 
COMPANY CULTURE.
>> TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS 
EXPIRED.
THE CHAIR NOW RECOGNIZES THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, 
MR. GAETZ.
>> MR. ZUCKERBERG IN HIS WRITTEN
TESTIMONY MADE THE CLAIM THAT 
FACEBOOK IS AN AMERICAN COMPANY 
WITH AMERICAN VALUES.
DO ANY OF THE REST OF YOU TAKE A
DIFFERENT VIEW, THAT IS TO SAY 
YOUR COMPANIES DON'T EMBRACE 
AMERICAN VALUES?
IT'S GREAT TO SEE THAT NONE OF 
YOU DO.
MR. PICHAI, I'M WORRIED ABOUT 
GOOGLE'S MARKET POWER, HOW IT 
CONCENTRATES THAT POWER AND 
ULTIMATELY HOW.
WIELDS IT.
PROJECT MAVEN WAS A 
COLLABORATION BETWEEN GOOGLE AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE THAT 
GOOGLE PULLED OUT OF, CITING 
ETHICAL CONCERNS.
AND YOU MADE THE DECISION TO 
PULL OUT OF THAT JOINT VENTURE 
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 THE 
DECISION TO ABANDON THAT PROJECT
WITH THE UNITED STATES MILITARY?
>> CONGRESSMAN, THANKS FOR YOUR 
CONCERN.
AS I SAID THE EARLIER, WE'RE 
DEEPLY COMMITTED TO SUPPORTING 
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND 
MILITARY.
WE HAVE UNDERTAKEN SEVERAL 
PROJECTS.
ONE INPUT, WE MAKE DECISIONS 
BASED ON A VARIETY OF FACTORS.
AS A COMPANY WE WERE NEW IN THE 
CLOUD SPACE AT THE TIME. 
>> THAT'S A SUFFICIENT ANSWER, 
THAT YOU DID TAKE THEIR FEEDBACK
INTO ACCOUNT.
IN FACT, SOME OF YOUR GOOGLERS 
HAVE RECENTLY SENT YOU A LETTER 
WHERE THEY EXAMINED YOU TO EXIT 
OTHER PARTNERSHIPS AS A 
CONSEQUENCE OF ETHICAL CONCERNS.
THEY ASKED YOU TO 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 
POLICE.
AS YOU WELL KNOW, YOU PROVIDE 
SOME OF THE MOST BASIC SERVICES 
TO POLICE, LIKE EMAIL, BUT YOU 
ALSO PROVIDE SERVICES THAT HELP 
KEEP OUR COPS SAFE WHEN THEY'RE 
DOING THEIR JOB.
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 STAND 
REQUESTED IN THE LATES RECORD?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE HAVE A LONG 
TRACK RECORD OF SUPPORTING LAW 
ENFORCEMENT WHEN IT'S SUPPORTED 
BY DUE PROCESS AND THE LAW.
WE PUSH BACK AGAINST BROO 
REQUESTS.
WE'RE TRANSPARENT ABOUT REQUESTS
WE GET.
BUT WE HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF 
FOLLOWING THE LAW AND 
COOPERATING WITH LAW 
ENFORCEMENT.
>> I UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY.
I'M ASKING ABOUT THE FUTURE.
TO THE LAW ENERFORCEMENT WATCHI 
TODAY, CAN THEY REST ASSURED 
UNDER YOUR LEADERSHIP GOOGLE 
WILL NOT ADOPT THESE BIGOTED 
PROCESSES?
>> WE ARE COMMITTED WITH DUE 
PROCESS IN THE U.S. 
>> I GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT.
I KNOW THAT WILL BE COMFORTING 
TO THE POLICE WHO UTILIZE YOUR 
SERVICES.
YOU MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE 
DISCUSSION ABOUT CHINA THAT YOUR
ENGAGEMENT IN CHINA WAS VERY 
LIMITED.
BUT YET GOOGLE HAS AN AI CHINA 
CENTER.
THE CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 
HAS PUBLISHED A PAPER SAYING 
THAT ENHANCING THE TARGETING 
CAPABILITIES OF CHINA'S J-20 
FIGHTER AIRCRAFT.
YOU COLLABORATE WITH CHINESE 
UNIVERSITIES THAT TAKE MILLIONS 
UPON MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM 
THE CHINESE MILITARY.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, ONE OF YOUR
GOOGLERS, F.
FI LI WAS CITED IN CHINESE MEDIA
SAYING, CHINA IS LIKE A SLEEPING
GIANT.
WHEN SHE WAKES, SHE WILL TREMBLE
THE WORLD.
THE FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
MR. SHANAHAN, SAID THAT THE 
LINES HAVE BEEN BLURRED IN CHINA
BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND MILITARY 
APPLICATION.
AS MR. BUCK CITED, GENERAL 
DUNFORD SAYS THAT YOUR COMPANY 
IS DIRECTLY AIDING THE CHINESE 
MILITARY.
AND PETER THIELE SAID THAT 
GOOGLE'S ACTIVITIES WITH CHINA 
ARE TREASONIST.
HE 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?
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT ABOUT 
CYBER SECURITY AND THOSE THINGS 
BUT PROJECT MAVEN WAS A SPECIFIC
WAY TO ENSURE OUR TROOPS ARE 
SAFE ON THE BATTLEFIELD.
IF YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM MAKING 
THE J-20 CHINESE FIGHTER MORE 
EFFECTIVE IN ITS 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 HAD A CHANCE TO MEET WITH 
GENERAL DUNFORD PERSONALLY.
WE CLARIFIED WHAT WE DO IN 
CHINA.
IT'S VERY LIMITED IN NATURE.
OUR AI WORK IN CHINA IS LIMITED 
TO A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE WORKING 
ON OPEN-SOURCE PROJECTS.
I'M HAPPY TO SHARE AND ENGAGE TO
EXPLAIN OUR 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, WHEN YOU'RE WORKING 
WITH UNIVERSITIES AND WHEN YOUR 
EMPLOYEES ARE TALKING ABOUT 
CHINA TREMBLING THE WORLD, IT 
SEEMS TO REALLY CALL INTO 
QUESTION YOUR COMMITMENT TO OUR 
COUNTRY AND OUR VALUES.
I SEE MY TIME HAS EXPIRED.
I HOPE WE HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 
ROUND.
>> I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN 
FROM MARYLAND, MR. RASKIN FOR 
FIVE MINUTES. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, AS YOU KNOW, THE
PROLIFERATION OF FAKE FACEBOOK 
ACCOUNTS WAS A KEY TOOL IN THE 
STRATEGY OF RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE
IN THE AMERICAN ELECTION IN 
2016, AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT, 
THE SENATE, THE HOUSE HAVE ALL 
FOUND VLADIMIR PUTIN ENGAGED IN 
THIS 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, CAMBRIDGE ANALITICA, 
CHRISTOPHER WILY RECOUNTS HOW 
THE RUSSIAN ASSAULT ON AMERICA 
IN CAMBRIDGE AN LIT KA'S 
RESEARCH DEPENDED ON FACEBOOK.
WHEN THEY LAUNCHED IN 2014 STEVE
BANNON'S GOAL WAS TO CHANGE 
POLITICS BY CHANGING CULTURE.
FACEBOOK DATA, ALGORITHMS AND 
OUTCOMES WERE HIS KEY WEAPONS.
THEY USE THE TOOLS TO IDENTIFY 
PEOPLE WHO EXHIBITED THE THREE 
TRAITS IN WHAT THEY CALLED THE 
DARK TRIAD.
THEY BEGAN TO BOMBARD AND 
ACTIVATE THESE PEOPLE, STILL 
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WITH DARK AND
MANIPULATIVE MESSAGES FROM FAKE 
FACEBOOK PAGES BOTH TO GET THEM 
TO VOTE FOR TRUMP BUT, MORE 
IMPORTANTLY, TO ACTIVATE THEM AS
RACIST AND WHITE NATIONALISTS.
AND THEY GO ON TO DESCRIBE THE 
REMARKABLE SUCCESS OF THIS 
CAMPAIGN BOTH ELECTORALLY AND 
POLITICALLY IN THE COUNTRY IN 
TERMS OF SEWING THE RACIAL AND 
ETHNIC DIVISIONS YOU SEE IN 
AMERICA TODAY.
THEY WAGED A MASS CAMPAIGN OF 
PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE TO 
POLARIZE AMERICA AROUND RACE AND
RELIGION AND TO ACTIVATE RACIST 
AND ANTI-SEMITES.
IT WORKED SPLENDIDLY FOR THEM 
BUT NOT FOR US.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, WHAT POINT DO 
YOU PLAN TO ADDRESS OR DO YOU 
SEE THAT AS A COST OF BEING A 
FORUM IN A MARKETPLACE OF 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 WE HAVE TAKEN TO 
PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF 
ELECTIONS.
WE'VE HIRED -- I THINK IT'S MORE
THAN 30,000 PEOPLE TO WORK ON 
SAFETY AND SECURITY.
WE HAVE BUILT UP AI SYSTEMS TO 
BE ABLE TO FIND HARMFUL CONTENT,
INCLUDING TO BE ABLE TO FIND 50 
DIFFERENT NETWORKS OF 
COORDINATING AND AUTHENTIC 
BEHAVIOR.
BASICALLY, NATION STATES TRYING 
TO INTERFERE IN ELECTIONS.
>> CAN I PAUSE YOU -- LET ME 
JUST PAUSE YOU THERE FOR A 
SECOND.
I'M INTERESTED IN THAT.
THE STOP HATE CAMPAIGN, AND 
THEY'RE TARGETING FACEBOOK RIGHT
NOW FOR A BOYCOTT BECAUSE OF THE
RAPID SPREAD OF HATE MESSAGES 
ONLINE, THE PRESENCE OBEGALO AN 
ALT-RIGHT RACIST CONTENT 
FLOURISHES ON FACEBOOK.
THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO REMOVE 
THESE PAGES AND ESSENTIALLY TO 
JOIN THE MOVEMENT FOR CIVIL 
RIGHTS BY NOT ALLOWING THAT KIND
OF CONTENT.
THEIR BOYCOTTERS INCLUDE BIG 
COMPANIES LIKE LEVI'S, 
McDONALD'S, VW, HEINEKEN AND SO 
ON.
YOU SEEM NOT TOO MOVED BY THEIR 
CAMPAIGN.
I JUST WONDER WHAT YOU THINK 
ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO
DO?
>> CONGRESSMAN, THANKS.
WE'RE VERY FOCUSED ON FIGHTING 
AGAINST ELECTION INTERFERENCE 
AND WE'RE ALSO VERY FOCUSED ON 
FIGHTING AGAINST HATE SPEECH.
OUR COMMITMENT TO THOSE ISSUES 
GO BACK YEARS BEFORE THIS RECENT
MOVEMENT.
SINCE 2016 THE DEFENSES 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.
WE ROUTINELY NOW COLLABORATE 
WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND 
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AND 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 ANYONE EVEN SEES IT ON 
THE PLATFORM.
WE BUILT AI SYSTEMS, AND AS I 
MENTIONED, HAVE TENS OF 
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WORKING ON 
SAFETY AND SECURITY WITH THE 
GOAL OF GETTING THIS STUFF DOWN 
SO THAT WAY BEFORE PEOPLE EVEN 
SEE IT.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE ABLE TO 
PROACTIVELY IDENTIFY 89% OF THE 
HATE SPEECH THAT WE TAKE DOWN 
BEFORE I THINK IT'S EVEN SEEN BY
OTHER PEOPLE.
I WANT TO DO BETTER THAN 89%.
I'D LIKE TO GET THAT TO 99%.
BUT WE HAVE A MASSIVE INVESTMENT
HERE.
WE INVEST IN BILLIONS OF 
DOLLARS --
>> 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 THERE, BUT IN SOME 
SENSE YOU HAVE A PROFIT MOTIVE 
LINKED TO THAT BECAUSE THAT'S 
WHAT'S REPORTED TO YOUR 
INVESTORS, THE NUMBER OF 
ACCOUNTS.
ARE YOU WORKING ZEALOUSLY TO 
FERRET OUT THESE FAKE ACCOUNTS 
THAT SPREAD DISINFORMATION?
>> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED BUT THE 
WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>> CONGRESSMAN, ABSOLUTELY.
WE WORK HARD ON THIS.
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 VERY SMALL PERCENT OF THAT ARE
NATION STATES TRYING TO 
INTERFERE IN ELECTIONS, BUT 
WE'RE VERY FOCUSED ON TRYING TO 
FIND THOSE.
HAVING FAKE AND HARMFUL CONTENT 
ON OUR PLATFORM DOES NOT HELP 
OUR BUSINESS.
IT HURTS OUR BUSINESS.
PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO SEE THAT 
STUFF.
AND THEY USE OUR SERVICES LESS 
WHEN THEY DO.
WE ARE ALIGNED WITH PEOPLE IN 
ORDER TO TAKE THAT DOWN.
WE INVEST BILLIONS OF DOLLARS A 
YEAR IN DOING SO.
>> YIELD BACK.
THANK YOU.
>> THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN 
RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES WHILE WE 
FIX A TECHNICAL FEED WITH ONE OF
OUR WITNESSES.
>>> THE COMMITTEE WILL COME BACK
TO ORDER.
I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
NORTH DAKOTA, MR. ARMSTRONG, FOR
FIVE MINUTES. 
>> GOOGLE HAS RECEIVED CRITICISM
ABOUT BIAS AGAINST CONSERVATIVES
AND CONTENT MODERATION.
THERE WERE THREATS OF DEMON 
TIESING THE FEDERALIST AND OTHER
VIEW POINTS OF COMPLAINT.
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'S 
ECONOMIC HARM TO THE COMPANY.
BUT THAT JUST ISN'T THE CASE 
WITH GOOGLE.
I THINK IT'S A LEGITIMATE 
QUESTION AS TO WHETHER GOOGLE'S 
MARKET POWER INSULATES IT FROM 
LOSS OF REVENUE NORMALLY 
ASSOCIATED WITH HALF OF THE 
PEOPLE THAT USE YOUR PRODUCT.
I THINK IT'S A LEGITIMATE 
QUESTION TO ASK IF OTHER 
ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE YOUR 
INDUSTRIES HAVE WORKED.
SO, MR. PICHAI, GOOGLE HAS 
RESTRICTED ANALYZING ANALYTICS 
OR THE PORTABILITY OF DATA DUE 
TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL 
DATA PROTECTION REGULATION.
SPECIFICALLY IN 2018, GOOGLE 
RESTRICTED THE ABILITY TO EXPORT
THE WIID, A COOKIE BASED 
IDENTIFY THAT CREATES PROFILES 
THROUGH GOOGLE DATA TRANSFER.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, NOT FAMILIAR 
WITH THE SPECKIFICS OF THAT 
PARTICULAR ISSUE, BUT HAPPY TO 
FOLLOW UP MORE ONCE I UNDERSTAND
IT BETTER. 
>> YOU'RE NOT PARTICULARLY 
FAMILIAR WITH HOW YOU'RE 
COMPLYING WITH GDPR?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE'VE LONG BEEN 
WORKING TO COMPLY WITH GDPR.
WE THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT 
REGULATION AND WE ARE IN FULL 
COMPLIANCE TO THE EXTENT OF MY 
KNOWLEDGE.
I JUST MEANT, NOT AWARE OF THE 
SPECIFIC ISSUE WITH THE 
IDENTIFIER YOU MENTIONED THERE.
>> IN ORDER TO COME FLY WITH 
GDPR, GOOGLE MUST COMBINE USER 
DATA WITH OTHER PLATFORMS TO 
CREATE CROSS-PLATFORM ANALYSIS.
IT SEEMS THAT ULTIMATELY LIMITS 
THE ABILITY OF ADVERTISERS TO 
MAKE COMPARISONS BETWEEN 
GOOGLE-BASED CAMPAIGNS AND 
NON-GOOGLE BASED CAMPAIGNS.
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
>> IN ALL THESE ECOSYSTEMS, WE 
ARE BALANCING BETWEEN USERS, 
ADVERTISERS AND PUBLISHERS.
WE DEEPLY CARE ABOUT THE PRIVACY
AND SECURITY OF OUR USERS.
AND SO WHEN WE SERVE THESE 
ECOSYSTEMS, WE HAVE TO TAKE THAT
INTO ACCOUNT.
WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH IMPORTANT
LAWS AND REGULATIONS IN EVERY 
COUNTRY WE OPERATE IN.
SO, THAT'S THE DELICATE BALANCE 
WE ARE CONSTANTLY STRIKING.
BUT WE FOCUS ON OUR USERS AND 
TRYING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN. 
>> I I WANT TO BE PERFECTLY 
CLEAR.
I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT JUST 
THE MARKET POWER CONSOLIDATION 
IS SIGNIFICANT BUT I ALSO WANT 
TO BE CLEAR THAT WHEN WE'RE 
MOVING FORWARD TO REGULATE THIS,
THAT WE AREN'T ACTUALLY 
SQUEEZING OUT COMPETITION IN OUR
QUEST TO DO SOMETHING, BECAUSE 
I'VE SAID THAT BEFORE IN THIS 
HEARING AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN.
USUALLY IN OUR QUEST TO REGULATE
BIG COMPANIES, WE END UP HURTING
SMALL COMPANIES MORE.
AND I'M A STRONG PRIVACY 
ADVOCATE.
BUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF GDPR 
HAVE BEEN TO FURTHER ENTRENCH 
LARGE ESTABLISHED ACTORS LIKE 
GOOGLE LEADING TO REGULATORY 
CAPTURE THAT EXASPERATES 
COMPETITION CONCERN.
AND GOOGLE'S MARKET SHARE SINCE 
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GDPR, DO 
YOU KNOW THAT TO BE CORRECT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, TO GIVE YOU -- 
AD PRICES HAVE FALLEN 40 PRST IN
THE LAST YEAR.
IN THE U.S., ADVERTISING AS A 
CHAIRMAN OF GDP HAS COME DOWN 
FROM 1.4% IN 1992 TO LESS THAN 
1% TODAY.
SO, WE SEE ROBUST COMPETITION IN
THE MARKETPLACE.
AS I SAID EARLIER, YOU KNOW, WE 
HAVE TO COMPLY WITH REGULATION.
WE HAVE TO INTERPRET IT STRICTLY
AND WE HAVE TO BALANCE THE 
ECOSYSTEM.
BUT OUR UTMOST CARE IS ENSURING 
PRIVACY AND SECURITY OF OUR 
USERS. 
>> I'M GLAD YOU MENTION THE 
PRIVACY BECAUSE I WOULD BE 
REMISS IF I DIDN'T DEAL WITH 
THIS ISSUE BECAUSE IT'S SO 
RELEVANT.
GENERALLY SPEAKING OUTSIDE OF 
THE POLITICAL ISSUES AND THE 
BIAS WITH ALL OF THIS, AND THIS 
IS FOR ESSENTIALLY ALL FOUR OF 
OUR WITNESSES, I THINK ONE OF 
OUR BIGGER CONCERNS WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT DATA AND VALUE -- AND THAT
DATA HAVING VALUE AND PRIVACY, 
WHICH IS WHERE PEOPLE REALLY GET
CONCERNED WITH HOW THE DIGITAL 
AGE IS MOVING FORWARD, AND THERE
ARE NEWS REPORTS THAT LAW 
ENFORCEMENT HAS MADE INCREASING 
USE OF WHAT ARE CALLED GEOFENCE 
WARRANTS.
THESE GEOFENCE WARRANTS COMPEL 
TECH COMPANIES FOR LOCATION 
RECORDS ON A CERTAIN DEVICE AT 
ANY TIME.
COURT FILINGS SUGGEST GOOGLE 
RECEIVED ABOUT 1500% INCREASE IN
GEOFENCE REQUESTS FROM 2017 TO 
2018.
AND A 500% INCREASE FROM 2018 TO
2019.
AND SO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT 
REQUIRES PROBABLE CAUSE AND 
SPECIFICITY.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THESE ARE.
THESE WARRANTS ARE FOR ANY 
PERSON, IN ANY AREA AT A 
PARTICULAR TIME.
AND GEOFENCE WARRANTS REQUIRE 
NEITHER.
UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY 
PARTICULARIZED INFORMATION AND 
IDENTIFYING A SUBJECT, GEO 
WARRANTS ARE ESSENTIALLY GENERAL
WARRANTS.
I BELIEVE THE LOCATION 
INFORMATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
CONTENTS OF THE ELECTRONICS 
COMMUNICATION ACT UNDER THE 
STORAGE COMMUNICATIONS ACT.
DO YOU AGREE?
>> HAPPY TO UNDERSTAND MORE.
WE DEEPLY CARE ABOUT -- THIS IS 
WHY WE HAVE TRANSPARENCY REPORTS
BECAUSE WE THINK IT'S AN 
IMPORTANT AREA FOR CONGRESS TO 
HAVE OVERSIGHT.
WE RECENTLY MADE A CHANGE BY 
WHICH WE AUTOMATICALLY DELETE 
LOCATION ACTIVITY AFTER A 
CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME BY 
DEFAULT OF OUR USERS.
WE'RE HAPPY TO ENGAGE WITH YOUR 
OFFICE, CONGRESSMAN. 
>> THESE ARE GOING ON IN 
VIRGINIA AND NEW YORK, I THINK, 
RIGHT NOW.
I MEAN, THIS EQUATES FOR 
EVERYTHING.
I THINK PEOPLE WOULD BE 
TERRIFIED TO KNOW THAT LAW 
ENFORCEMENT COULD GRAB GENERAL 
WARRANTS AND GET EVERYBODY'S 
INFORMATION ANYWHERE, SO IT 
REQUIRES CONGRESS TO ACT AND IT 
REQUIRES EVERYBODY THAT IS A 
WITNESS IN THIS HEARING TO BE 
WILLING TO WORK, TOO, BECAUSE IT
IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT 
ISSUE, I THINK -- 
>> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS
EXPIRED BUT I BELIEVE HE HAS 
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST. 
>> I DO.
I HAVE UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST
FOR "WALL STREET JOURNAL" 
ARTICLE.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> AND THEN I HAVE TWO LETTERS.
THE LETTERS ARE FROM CONGRESSMAN
WALDEN, CONGRESSWOMAN McMORRIS 
ROBERTS.
THE FIRST IS TO MR. COOK OF 
APPLE AND THE SECOND IS TO 
MR. PICHAI. 
>> NO OBJECTION.
I THE GENTLE LADY FROM 
WASHINGTON. 
>> MR. BEZOS, IN JULY 2018 YOUR 
EMPLOYEE NATE SUTTON TOLD ME 
UNDER OATH IN THIS COMMITTEE 
THAT AMAZON DOES NOT, QUOTE, USE
ANY SPECIFIC SELLER DATA WHEN 
CREATING ITS OWN PRIVATE BRAND 
PRODUCT.
LET ME ASK YOU, MR. BEZOS, DOES 
AMAZON EVER ACCESS AND USE 
THIRD-PARTY SELLER DATA WHEN 
MAKING BUSINESS DECISIONS?
JUST A YES OR NO WILL SUFFICE, 
SIR.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
I KNOW IT'S AN IMPORTANT TOPIC 
AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR 
REPRESENTING US.
I CAN'T 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 
THAT POLICY HAS NEVER BEEN 
VIOLATED.
>> MR. BEZOS, YOU'RE PROBABLY 
AWARE THAT IN APRIL 2020, A 
REPORT IN "THE WALL STREET 
JOURNAL" REVEALED YOUR COMPANY 
DOES ACCESS DATA ON THIRD-PARTY 
SELLERS, BOTH BY REVIEWING DATA 
ON POPULAR INDIVIDUAL SELLERS ON
PRODUCTS AND BY CREATING TINY 
PRODUCT CATEGORIES THAT ALLOWED 
YOUR COMPANY TO CATEGORICALLY 
ACCESS DETAILED SELLER 
INFORMATION IN A SUPPOSEDLY 
AGGREGATE CATEGORY.
ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?
>> I'M AWARE OF "THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL" ARTICLE YOU'RE TALKING 
ABOUT.
WE LOOKED INTO THAT CAREFULLY.
I'M NOT THE SATISFIED WE GOT TO 
THE BOTTOM OF IT AND WE'RE GOING
TO KEEP LOOKING AT IT.
IT'S NOT AS EASY TO DO BECAUSE 
SOME OF THE SOURCES IN THE 
ARTICLE ARE ANONYMOUS. 
>> I WILL TELL YOU A FORMER 
AMAZON EMPLOYEE, THIRD PARTY 
SALES AND RECRUITMENT TOLD THIS 
COMMITTEE, QUOTE, THERE'S NO 
RULES OR SOMEBODY ENFORCING OR 
SPOT CHECKING.
THEY JUST SAY DON'T HELP 
YOURSELF TO THE DATA.
IT'S A CANDY SHOP.
ANYONE CAN HAVE ACCESS TO 
ANYTHING THEY WANT.
DO CATEGORY MANAGERS HAVE ACCESS
TO PUBLIC DATA ABOUT THIRD-PARTY
PRODUCTS AND BUSINESSES?
>> HERE'S WHAT I CAN TELL YOU.
WE DO HAVE CERTAIN SAFEGUARDS IN
PLACE.
WE TRAIN PEOPLE ON THE POLICY.
WE EXPECT PEOPLE TO FOLLOW THAT 
POLICY THE SAME WAY WE WOULD ANY
OTHER.
IT'S A VOLUNTARY POLICY.
AS FAR AS I'M AWARE --
>> SO THERE'S NO ACTUAL -- 
THERE'S NO ACTUAL ENFORCEMENT?
>> OH, NO. 
>> SO IT'S VOLUNTARY AND THERE'S
NO ACTUAL ENFORCEMENT?
MAYBE THAT ANSWERS MY --
>> SORRY.
NO, I THINK I MAY HAVE MISSPOKE.
I'M TRYING TO SAY AMAZON'S -- 
THE FACT WE HAVE SUCH A POLICY 
IS VOLUNTARY.
I THINK NO OTHER RETAILER EVEN 
HAS SUCH A POLICY. 
>> WELL, THAT'S --
>> ENFORCEMENT OF THAT POLICY, 
WE WOULD TREAT THAT LIKE ANY 
INTERNAL POLICY.
IF WE FOUND THAT SOMEONE 
VIOLATED IT, WE WOULD TAKE 
ACTION AGAINST THEM.
>> WELL, THERE'S NUMEROUS 
REPORTS AND THE COMMITTEE HAS 
CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS WITH FORMER
EMPLOYEES WHO CONFIRM THERE ARE 
EMPLOYEES WHO DO HAVE ACCESS TO 
THAT DATA AND ARE USING IT, AND 
SO MY NEXT QUESTION WAS GOING TO
BE IF YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE 
ACTUALLY ENFORCING THESE RULES, 
DO YOU THINK THAT THAT'S 
WORKING?
AGAIN, I WOULD JUST IT HAS DOCU 
BREACHES OF THESE RULES THAT YOU
HAVE PUT INTO PLACE AND THE 
COMMITTEE HAS INTERVIEWED THEM, 
THEY SAY THESE BREACHES 
TYPICALLY OCCUR.
YOUR RULES DO ALLOW FOR COMBINED
DATA ON A PRODUCT WHEN THERE ARE
ONLY ONE OR TWO SELLERS IN THE 
MARKETPLACE, CORRECT?
>> YES.
AGGREGATE DATA IS ALLOWED UNDER 
OUR POLICIES.
THAT IS CORRECT.
>> OKAY.
AND INTERVIEWS WITH FORMER 
EMPLOYEES HAVE MADE IT CLEAR, 
THAT AGGREGATE DATA ALLOWS 
ACCESS TO HIGHLY DETAILED DATA 
IN THOSE PRODUCT CATEGORIES.
THERE'S THE EXAMPLE OF A SMALL 
BUSINESS THAT HAD NO DIRECT 
COMPETITORS EXCEPT FOR AMAZON 
WAREHOUSE DEALS, A RESALE 
CLEARANCE ACCOUNT THAT ONLY SOLD
17 UNITS.
AND AMAZON EMPLOYEE ACCESSED A 
DETAILED SALES REPORT ON 
FORTEM'S PRODUCT WITH 
INFORMATION ON HOW MUCH THE 
COMPANY SPENT ON ADVERTISING PER
UNIT, AND THE COST TO SHIP EACH 
TRUNK.
AND THEN AMAZON LAUNCHED ITS OWN
COMPETING PRODUCTS IN OCTOBER 
2019.
THAT'S A MAJOR LOOPHOLE.
I GO BACK TO THE GENERAL 
COUNSEL'S STATEMENT TO THE 
COMMITTEE, THAT THERE WAS NO 
ACCESS TO THIS DATA.
THAT AMAZON DOES NOT USE THAT 
DATA TO ITS OWN BENEFIT AND I'M 
NOW HEARING YOU SAY, YOU'RE NOT 
SO SURE THAT'S GOING ON.
THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE CONCERNED 
WITH HERE IS VERY SIMPLE.
YOU HAVE ACCESS TO DATA THAT FAR
EXCEEDS THE SELLERS ON YOUR 
PLATFORMS WITH WHOM YOU COMPETE.
YOU CONTRACT CONSUMER, YOU CAN 
TRACK CONSUMER HABITS.
YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THE ENTIRETY 
OF SELLERS' 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 FOLLOW THE SAME RULES FOR 
YOURSELF.
DO YOU THINK THAT'S FAIR TO THE 
MOM AND POP THIRD PARTY 
BUSINESSES TRYING TO SELL ON 
YOUR PLATFORM?
>> I APPRECIATE THAT QUESTION.
I LIKE IT A LOT BECAUSE I WANT 
THE CHANCE TO ADDRESS THAT.
I AM VERY PROUD OF WHAT WE'VE 
DONE FOR THIRD PARTY SELLERS ON 
THIS PLATFORM WEST STARTED OUR 
THIRD PARTY PLATFORM 20 YEARS 
AGO.
WE HAD ZERO SELLERS ON IT.
>> THE QUESTION I'M ASKING, I'M 
SORRY.
I'M SO SORRY.
MY TIME IS EXPIRING.
THE QUESTION I WANTED TO ASK YOU
IS THAT YOU HAVE ACCESS TO DATA 
THAT YOUR COMPETITORS DON'T 
HAVE.
YOU MIGHT ALLOW THEM ON TO YOUR 
PLATFORM BUT IF YOU'RE 
CONTINUOUSLY MONITORING TO MAKE 
SURE THAT THEY'LL NEVER GET BIG 
ENOUGH THAT THEY CAN COMPETE 
WITH YOU, THAT IS ACTUALLY THE 
CONCERN THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS.
AND YOU KNOW, I THINK YOUR 
COMPANY STARTED IN MY DISTRICT.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT, 
FOR THE WORK THAT 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, THAT THERE
ARE MORE COMPANIES THAT GET TO 
INNOVATE AND SMALL BUSINESSES 
GET TO THRIVE.
AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
GET AT.
THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO REGULATE 
THESE MARKET PLACES.
SO NO COMPANY HAS A PLATFORM SO 
DOMINANT THAT IT IS ESSENTIALLY 
A MONOPOLY.
THANK YOU.
I YIELD BACK.
>> TIME HAS EXPIRED.
I WANT TO REMIND THE WITNESSES, 
WE APPRECIATE THE GRATITUDE FOR 
THE QUESTIONS AND YOUR 
DESCRIPTION AS GOOD QUESTIONS.
BUT WE'LL JUST ASSUME THAT 
THEY'RE GOOD QUESTIONS AND 
YOU'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM SO 
WE CAN MAKE SURE WE'RE MAKING 
GOOD USE OF OUR TIME.
WITH THAT, I RECOGNIZE THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA.
>> THANK YOU.
I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH YOU 
AND I'LL ILLUSTRATE MY QUESTION 
WITH A FACTUAL INCIDENT THAT 
ACTUALLY OCCURRED TO ME.
SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, MY WIFE 
CALLED AND.
HEY, THERE IS A GOOD ARTICLE ON 
THE GATE WAIVE PUNDIT THAT YOU .
I WAS HERE IN WASHINGTON OUT OF 
CURIOSITY.
I GOOGLED GATEWAY PUNDIT.
IT DIDN'T SHOW UP ON THE FIRST 
OR SECOND PAGE.
THERE WERE A BUNCH OF 
DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT WHAT WAS ON 
THE GATEWAY PUNDIT.
I HAD TO TYPE IT IN TO GET TO 
IT.
INTERESTINGLY, GOOGLE DIDN'T 
ALLOW ME TO GET TO THE ACTUAL 
WEBSITE LT THAT WAS A COUPLE 
MONTHS BEFORE THIS HEARING WAS 
SET TO BE HEARD.
BEFORE YOU KNEW THAT YOU WOULD 
BE APPEARING BEFORE US TODAY AND
THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT 
OBVIOUSLY CONSERVATIVES AND 
REPUBLICANS HAVE HAD.
LAST WEEK, AFTER THIS HEARING 
WAS NOTICED, DID I THE EXACT 
SAME THING IN THE CAPITAL.
AND WOULDN'T YOU KNOW IT, I 
GOOGLED GATEWAY PUNDIT AND IT 
WAS THE FIRST THING THAT CAME 
UP.
THIS ISN'T A NUS REPORT OR 
SOMEBODY TELLING ME.
I PHYSICALLY DID THIS ON MY 
LAPTOP.
SEVERAL MONTHS AGO AND THEN 
TODAY.
SO CLEARLY SOMETHING HAD 
HAPPENED BETWEEN NOT KNOWING 
THAT YOU WERE APPEARING BEFORE A
COMMITTEE AND THEN LAST WEEK 
KNOWING YOU WERE APPEARING 
BEFORE A COMMITTEE AND SUDDENLY 
WEBSITES ARE AT THE TOP OF THE 
BAR WHEN YOU SEARCH FOR THEY 
WILL.
SO WAS THERE ANYTHING DONE AT 
GOOGLE BETWEEN A COUPLE MONTHS 
AGO AND A WEEK BEFORE YOU 
APPEARING TODAY THAT HAS CHANGED
YOUR APPROACH TO SILENCING 
CONSERVATIVE WEBSITES?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE APPROACH OUR 
WORK A DEEP SENSE OF 
RESPONSIBILITY.
IN A NONPARTISAN WAY, WE WANT TO
SERVE ALL OUR USERS NO MATTER 
WHERE THEY ARE.
IT IS OUR LONG TIME BUSINESS 
INCENTIVE TO DO SO.
I BELIEVE ON THE PLATFORMS 
INCLUDING YOUTUBE, THAT THERE 
ARE MORE CONSERVATIVE VOICES 
THAN EVER BEFORE AND WE BELIEVE 
IN FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
ON THE SPECIFIC ISSUE, I WILL 
HAVE TO LOOK INTO IT.
I OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT AWARE OF IT.
WE KNEW IT COULD BE A NUMBER OF 
REASONS.
WE CONSTANTLY GET REPORTS -- 
>> SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK 
INTO IT.
CAN I EXPECT A RESPONSE FROM YOU
IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS?
>> WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO FOLLOW 
UP WITH YOUR OFFICE.
>> WE'LL FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
I HAVE A SIMILAR QUESTION.
I'VE BEEN IN ELECTED POLITICS 
FOR ALMOST TEN YEARS.
WHEN I WAS IN THE FLORIDA SENATE
AND THE STATE SENATE, I NEVER 
HAD A PROBLEM WITH MY CAMPAIGN 
EMAILS BEING MARKED AS SPAM OR 
GOING TO JUNK FOLDERS OR 
ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
WE HAD 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 
PEOPLE ON OUR EMAIL LISTS.
SUDDENLY I GET ELECTED TO 
CONGRESS AND I'M UP HERE IN 
WASHINGTON, D.C. IN MY PARENTS 
WHO HAVE A G MAIL ACCOUNT ARE 
GETTING MY ACCOUNT.
SUDDENLY MY G-MAIL IS GETTING IT
FOR TEN YEARS AND SUDDENLY 
THEY'RE GOING TO SPAM IN JUNK 
FOLDERS.
THIS APPEARS TO ONLY BE 
HAPPENING TO CONSERVATIVE 
REPUBLICANS.
I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE NEWS
OR ANYTHING IN THE PRESS OR 
OTHER MEMBERS ON THE OTHER SIDE 
OF THE AISLE TALKING ABOUT THEIR
CAMPAIGN EMAILS GETTING HELP TO 
INTO JUNK FOLDERS IN G-MAIL.
SO MY QUESTION IS WHY IS THIS 
ONLY HAPPENING TO REPUBLICANS?
AND IT IS A FACT IT'S HAPPENING.
I CAN HAVE MY SUPPORTERS TESTIFY
THAT THEY RECEIVED MY EMAILS FOR
EIGHT YEARS, EIGHT, NINE YEARS, 
AND SUDDENLY THIS LAST YEAR, ALL
THEIR G-MAIL, MY CAMPAIGNING IS 
GOING TO THEIR SPAM FOLDERS.
SO IF YOU CAN GIVE ME SOME 
CLARIFICATION ON THAT, I WOULD 
APPRECIATE IT.
>> WE ARE FOCUSED ON WHAT USERS 
WANT.
AND THEY'VE INDICATED THEY WANT 
TO US ORGANIZE THEIR PERSONAL 
EMAILS, FROM FRIENDS AND FAMILY,
SEPARATELY.
SO ALL WE'VE DONE IS WE HAVE THE
ORGANIZATION, THE PRIMARY TAB IS
FROM FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND THE 
OTHER TAB IS OTHER NOTIFICATIONS
AND SO ON.
IT WAS MY FATHER NOT RECEIVING 
THE EMAIL.
SO CLEARLY THAT FAMILIAL THING 
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DID NOT 
APPLY TO MY EMAILS.
>> OUR SYSTEMS ARE PROBABLY NOT 
ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS 
YOUR FATHER.
OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T HAVE THAT 
CONTEXT.
WE JUST APPLY IT NEUTRALLY 
ACROSS ALL ORGANIZATIONS.
AND -- 
>> WHAT ASSURANCES CAN YOU GIVE 
ME THAT THERE IS -- MY TIME IS 
SHORT.
ONE LAST QUESTION.
WHAT SHURMSS CAN YOU GIVE ME 
THAT ANY BIAS ISN'T INFLUENCING 
YOUR SPAM FOLDER ALGORITHMS?
>> CONGRESSMAN, THERE IS NOTHING
IN THE ALGORITHM WHICH HAS 
ANYTHING TO DO WITH POLITICAL 
IDEOLOGY.
WE DO GET COMPLAINTS ACROSS THE 
AISLE.
THE SOCIALISTS SAID IN JANUARY 
OF THIS YEAR THAT IT WASN'T IN 
SEARCH RESULTS.
WE GET COMPLAINTS.
WE LOOK INTO IT.
WE APPROACH OUR WORK IN A 
NONPART SANDAL WAY AND IT IS IN 
OUR LONG TERM INCENTIVE TO SERVE
USERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
TODAY, THAT'S WHY WE INVEST IN 
49 STATES ACROSS THE U.S. SO WE 
CAN CAPTURE ALL THE POINTS.
>> THANK YOU.
TIME HAS EXPIRED.
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENETICAL 
LADY FROM FLORIDA.
>> I'VE HEARD COMPLAINTS ABOUT 
MY EMAILS GOING INTO SPAM AS 
WELL.
AND I'LL SURE OTHER DEMOCRATIC 
MEMBERS HAVE HAD THE SAME 
EXPERIENCES.
IN 2007, GOOGLE PURCHASED DOUBLE
CLICK.
CERTAIN ADVERTISING TOOLS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> WHEN GOOGLE PROPOSED THE 
MERGER, ALARM BELLS WERE RAISED 
ABOUT THE ACCESS TO DATA GOOGLE 
WOULD HAVE.
SPECIFICALLY THE ABILITY TO 
CONNECT A PERSONAL IDENTITY.
THE DEAL WOULD NOT REDUCE USER 
PRIVACY.
GOOGLE TESTIFIED BEFORE THE 
SENATE ANTI-TRUST SUB COMMITTEE 
THAT GOOGLE WOULD BE ABLE TO 
MERGE THIS DATA, EVEN IF IT 
WANTED TO, GIVEN CONTRACTUAL 
RESTRICTIONS.
BUT IN JUNE OF 2016, GOOGLE 
WOMEN AHEAD AND MERGED THIS -- 
GOOLG WENT AHEAD ON THE 
INTERNET.
YOU BECAME CEO OF GOOGLE IN 
2015.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND THIS CHANGE WAS MADE IN 
2016, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
DID YOU SIGN OFF THAT GOOGLE HAD
TOLD CONGRESS IT WOULD BE KEPT 
SEPARATE?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, ANY CHANGES WE
MADE -- 
>> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, PLEASE,
DID YOU SIGN OFF ON THE DECISION
OR NOT?
>> I REVIEW AT A HIGH LEVEL ALL 
IMPORTANT DECISIONS WE MAKE.
WE DEEPLY CARE ABOUT OUR USERS.
>> SO YOU SIGNED OFF.
OKAY.
YOU SIGNED OFF ON THE DECISION.
PRACTICALLY, THIS DECISION MEN 
THAT YOUR COMPANY WOULD NOT 
COMBINE ALL, WOULD NOW COMBINE, 
FOR EXAMPLE, ALL OF MY DATA ON 
GOOGLE, MY SEARCH HISTORY, MY 
LOCATION FROM GOOGLE MAPS, 
INFORMATION FROM MY EMAILS, FROM
G-MAIL, AS WELL AS MY PERSONAL 
IDENTITY WITH A RECORD OF ALMOST
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 
AND USER PRIVACY THAT THE 
FOUNDERS HAD PREVIOUSLY WORRIED 
WOULD LEAD TO A BACK LASH.
AND I QUOTE.
THEY WERE UNWAVERING DUE TO 
PHILOSOPHICAL REASONS, WHICH IS 
NOT WANTING USERS ASSOCIATED 
WITH THE CROSS-SITE CLICKING.
THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT A 
PRIVILEGECY STORM AS WELL AS 
DAMAGE TO GOOGLE'S BRAND.
SO IN 2007, GOOGLE'S FOUNDERS 
FEARED MAKING THIS CHANGE 
BECAUSE THEY KNEW WOULD IT UPSET
THE USERS.
IN 2016, GOOGLE DID NOT SEEM TO 
CARE.
ISN'T TRY IT THAT WHAT CHANGED 
BETWEEN 2007 AND 2016 IS THAT 
GOOGLE GAINED ENORMOUS MARKET 
POWER.
SO WHILE GOOGLE HAD TO CARE 
ABOUT USER PRIVACY IN 2007, IT 
NO LONGER HAD TO IN 2016.
WOULD YOU AGREE WAS THAT GOOGLE 
GAINED ENORMOUS MARKET POWER?
>> IT IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE.
IF I COULD EXPLAIN.
WE PLAYING IT VERY EASY FOR 
USERS TO CONTROL THEIR SETTINGS.
THEY CAN TURN IT ON AND OFF.
WE HAVE COMBINED MOST OF THE 
SETTINGS INTO THREE GROUPINGS.
REREMIND USERS TO GO TO A 
PROIFCY CHECK UP.
1 BILLION USERS -- 
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I AM CONCERNED THAT GOOGLE'S 
BAIT-AND-SWITCH IS PART OF A 
BROADER PANEL WHERE GOOGLE BUYS 
UP COMPANIES FOR THE THAT YOU 
RECALL OF SURVEILLING AMERICANS.
AND BECAUSE OF GOOGLE DOMINANCE,
USERS HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO 
SURRENDER.
IN 2019, GOOGLE MADE OVER 80% OF
ITS TOTAL REVENUE THROUGH 
SELLING OF AD PLACEMENT.
IS THAT CORRECT?
80%?
>> THE MAJORITY.
>> BECAUSE THEY SELL BEHAVIORAL 
ADS, THE MORE USER DATE THAT 
GOOGLE COLLECTS, THE MORE MONEY 
GOOGLE CAN MAKE.
MORE USER DATA MEAN MORE MONEY, 
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IN GENERAL, THAT'S NOT TRUE.
>> MORE USER DATA IS NOT MORE 
MONEY THAT GOOGLE CONNECTS?
>> I'M SORRY, PLEASE.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE MORE USER
DATA DOES NOT MEAN THE MORE 
MONEY THAT GOOGLE CAN COLLECT.
>> MOST OF THE DATA WE COLLECT 
IS TO HELP USERS.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK THANK YOU.
>> 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 PAR OF FREE SPEECH IN 
DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES AND 
CAMPAIGNS, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING 
TO LAW AND THE APPROACH IN A 
NONPARTISAN WAY.
>> IT IS A YES OR NO QUESTION.
CAN YOU ASSURE AMERICANS TODAY 
YOU WON'T TAILOR YOUR FEATURES 
TO HELP JOE BIDEN IN THE 
UPCOMING ELECTION?
>> YOU KNOW, WE SUPPORT WORK 
THAT CAMPAIGNS DO.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE.
>> WE ALL DO ALL KINDS OF ONLINE
SOCIAL MEDIA.
ALL KINDS OF THAT OUTRECEIVE.
THAT COMMUNICATION.
THIS IS A SIMPLE QUESTION.
CAN YOU TODAY ASSURE AMERICANS 
YOU WILL NOT TAILOR YOUR 
FEATURES IN ANY WAY TO HELP 
SPECIFICALLY HELP ONE CANDIDATE 
OVER ANOTHER.
WHAT I'M CONCERNED IS YOU 
HELPING JOE BIDEN OVER PRESIDENT
TRUMP.
>> WE WON'T DO ANY WORK TO 
POLITICALLY TILT ANYTHING ONE 
WAY OR THE OTHER.
IT IS AGAINST OUR CORE VALUES.
>> YOU DID IT IN 2016.
THERE'S AN EMAIL IN 2016 THAT 
WAS WIDELY CIRCULATED THAT GOT 
PUBLIC WHERE THE HEAD OF YOUR 
MULTICULTURAL MARKETING TALKS 
ABOUT THE SILENCE DONATION 
GOOGLE MADE TO THE CLINTON 
CAMPAIGN.
AND YOU APPLAUDED HER WORK.
SHE POINTS THAT OUT IN THE 
EMAIL.
I'M CURIOUS, IF YOU DID IT IN 
2016, IN SPITE OF THE FACT, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WON.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT 
GOING TO DO IT AGAIN IN 2020.
>> I RECALL THE CONVERSATION 
TEMPERATURE.
I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN.
WE DIDN'T FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF 
SUCH ACTIVITY.
AND I TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY AFTER
THE CONVERSATION TO REINFORCE TO
THE COMPANY.
WE REALIZE EVEN IN APPEARANCE, 
IT COULD BE IMPROPER.
WE HAVE CLEARLY COMMUNICATED TO 
EMPLOYEES ANY PERSONAL OF 
POLITICAL ACTIVITY, WHILE IT IS 
THEIR RIGHT, NEEDS TO HAPPEN ON 
THEIR OWN TIME AND RESOURCES AND
SHOULD AVOID -- 
>> OF COURSE.
EVERYONE HAS THEIR FIRST 
AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO CAMPAIGN HOW
THEY WANT.
WHAT YOU CAN'T DO IS CONFIGURE 
THE FEATURES TO HELP ONE OVER 
ANOTHER.
HERE'S WHAT SHE WROTE TO THE 
EMAIL.
A NUMBER OF KEY EXECUTIVES IN 
YOUR COIL.
QUOTE, WE PUSH TO GET OUT THE 
LATINO VOTE WITH OUR FEATURES.
SECOND QUOTE, WE PUSH TO GET OUT
THE LATINO VOTE WITH OUR FEET 
NURSES KEY STATES.
IT SEEMS THE LAST THREE WORDS 
ARE THE REAL QUALIFIER HERE.
WHEN YOU'RE TRYING IN KEY 
STATES, SHE HAD ALREADY 
COMMUNICATE THAT HAD SHE WAS 
SUPPORTING CLINTON.
SHE WANTED CLINTON TO WIN.
WHEN SHE TALKS ABOUT INCREASING 
THE LATINO VOTE, WHICH SHE 
ASSUMED WOULD HELP CANDIDATE 
CLINTON AND SHE'S DOING IT IN 
KEY STATES.
IT IS ONE THING IF YOU'RE GOING 
TO INCREASE IT AROUND THE 
COUNTRY.
YOU'RE JUST A GOOD CORPORATE 
CITIZEN.
YOU'RE URGING PEOPLE TO VOTE.
QUITE ANOTHER WHEN YOU'RE 
FOCUSING ON IN KEY STATES.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY WERE?
NEVADA AND FLORIDA.
THE SWING STATES.
SO AGAIN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE 
THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN IN 
2020.
>> I CAN ASSURE YOU WE COMPLIED 
IN 2016 AS A COIL.
ANY WORK WE DO WITH ELECTIONS IS
NONPAR
NONPARTISAN.
USERS COME TO US, WHAT THE 
VOTING HOURS ARE, I CAN ASSURE 
YOU -- 
>> SO, HERE'S THE QUESTION ON SO
MANY AMERICANS' MINDS.
THEY SAW THE LIST IN OUR OPENING
STATEMENTS.
GOOGLE IS SIDING WITH THE WORLD 
HEALTH ORGANIZATION OVER ANYONE 
WHO DISAGREES WITH THEM EVEN 
THOUGH THEY OBVIOUSLY LIED TO 
AMERICA.
OBVIOUSLY FOR CHINA.
WE HAVE THE HISTORY OF ALL THE 
THINGS GOOGLE HAS DONE AND THE 
HISTORY OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016
IN THE ELECTION WHERE ACCORDING 
TO YOUR MULTICULTURAL MARKETING 
EXECUTIVE, TRIED TO HELP CLINTON
AND HERE WE ARE, 97 DAYS BEFORE 
THE ELECTION AND WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN.
CAN YOU GIVE US TWO ASSURANCES, 
ONE, YOU WON'T TRY TO TAILOR 
YOUR FEATURES, CONFIGURE YOUR 
PLATFORM IN A WAY TO HELP JOE 
BIDEN.
AND SECOND, THAT YOU WON'T USE 
YOUR SEARCH ENGINE TO SILENCE 
CONSERVATIVES.
CAN YOU GIVE US THOSE TWO TODAY?
>> CONGRESSMAN, ON OUR SEARCH 
ENGINE, CONSERVATIVES HAVE MORE 
ACCESS TO INFORMATION THAN EVER 
BEFORE.
>> WE APPRECIATE THAT.
THAT WAS NOT THE QUESTION.
CAN YOU ASSURE US YOU WON'T TRY 
TO SILENCE CONSERVATIVES AND CAN
YOU ASSURE THAT THAT, AS DID YOU
IN 2016, CAN YOU ASSURE YOU 
WON'T DO THE SAME THING FOR JOE 
BIDEN IN 2020.
>> YOU HAVE MY COMMITMENT.
IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE AND 
WE'LL CONDUCT OURSELVES IN A 
NEUTRAL WAY.
>> I RECOGNIZE FROM 
PENNSYLVANIA.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO REDIRECT YOUR
ATTENTION.
RATHER THAN FRINGE CONSPIRACY 
THEORIES.
OUR INVESTIGATION -- 
>> WE HAVE THE EMAIL.
THERE'S NO -- 
>> YOU DO NOT HAVE THE TIME.
PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL.
SHE CONTROLS THE TIME.
>> PUT YOUR MASK ON.
PUT YOUR MASK ON.
>> MR. JORDAN?
>> MR. JORDAN?
>> WHY WOULD THE DEPUTY 
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY UNMASK
MICHAEL FLYNN'S NAME?
>> WHAT I WANT TO KNOW -- 
>> THANK YOU.
OUR INVESTIGATION UNCOVERED 
DOCUMENTS THAT SHOWED THAT 
AMAZON SOMETIMES DOESN'T PLAY 
FAIRLY.
CROSSING THE LINE FROM ROBUST 
COMPETITION TO PREDATORY 
PRICING, TO DESTROY RIVALS, 
RATHER THAN OUTCOMPETE THEM.
LET'S TAKE EXAMPLE OF QUINCY 
WHICH USED TO OWN DIAPERS.COM 
AND PROVIDED ONLINE BABY 
PRODUCTS.
IN 2009 YOUR TEAM VIEWED IT AS 
AMAZON'S LARGEST AND FASTEST 
ONLINE COMPETITOR FOR DIAPERS.
ONE OF THE TOP EXECUTIVES SAID 
THAT DIAPERS.COM KEEPS THE 
PRESSURE OF PRICING ON US.
AND STRONG COMPETITION MEN 
AMAZON WAS HAVING TO WORK HARDER
AND HARDER SO CUSTOMERS DIDN'T 
PICK DIAPERS.COM OVER AMAZON.
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HARD 
WORKING FAMILIES, SINGLE PARENTS
WITH BABIES AND YOUNG CHILDREN.
BECAUSE DIAPERS.COM WAS SO 
SUCCESSFUL, AMAZON SAW IT AS 
THREAT.
IT SHOWED THAT THEY BEGAN 
STRATEGIZING WAYS TO WEAKEN THIS
COMPANY.
AND AMAZON HATCHED A PLAN TO 
TAKE IT OUT.
IN AN EMAIL I REVIEWED, ONE OF 
YOUR TOP EXECUTIVES PROPOSED AN 
AGGRESSIVE PLAN TO WIN AGAINST 
DIMERS DOC, A PLAN THAT SOUGHT 
TO UNDERCUT THE BUSINESS BY 
TEMPORARILY SLASHING AMAZON 
PRICES.
WE SAW ONE OF YOUR PROFIT AND 
LOSS STATEMENTS.
IT APPEARS IN ONE MONTH ALONE 
AMAZON WAS WILLING TO BLEED OVER
$200 MILLION IN DIAPER PROFIT 
LOSSES.
HOW MUCH MONEY WAS AMAZON 
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 MAYBE 10 OR 11 YEARS OR 
SO.
MAYBE THE DATES ON THE 
DOCUMENTS.
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT THE 
IDEA OF USING DIAPERS AND 
PRODUCTS LIKE THAT TO ATTRACT 
NEW CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE NEW 
FAMILIES IS A VERY TRADITIONAL 
IDEA.
>> LET'S DELVE INTO THIS A 
LITTLE FURTHER.
I'M SORRY.
YOU KNOW I ONLY HAVE A FEW 
MINUTES SO LET'S PRESS ON.
YOUR OWN DOCUMENTS MAKE IT CHEER
THAT IT WORKED AND WITHIN A FEW 
MONTHS IT WAS STRUGGLING SO 
AMAZON BOUGHT IT.
AFTER BUYING YOUR LEADING 
COMPETITOR HERE, AMAZON CUT 
PROMOTIONS LIKE AMAZON.COM AND 
THE STEAM DISCOUNTS IT USED TO 
LURE CUSTOMERS AWAY FROM 
DIAPERS.COM, AND THEN INCREASED 
THE PRICES AT DIAPERS FOR NEW 
MOMS AND DADS.
MR. BEZOS, DID YOU PERSONALLY 
SIGN OFF ON THE PLAN TO RAISE 
PRICES AFTER AMAZON ELIMINATED 
ITS COMPETITION?
>> I DON'T REMEMBER THAT AT ALL.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I REMEMBER THAT WE MATCH 
COMPETITOR PRICES AND I BELIEVE 
WE FOLLOWED DIAPERS.COM.
THIS IS 11 YEARS AGO SO YOU'RE 
ASKING A LOT OF MY MEMORY.
I BELIEVE WE FOLLOWED 
DIAPERS.COM.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.
OKAY.
JUST MOVING ON.
>> WE PUT MILLIONS INTO TRYING 
TO PLAYING IT SUCCESSFUL.
>> I'M SORRY.
SO UP THAT AMAZON FOCUSES 
SUCCESSES EXCESSIVELY ON 
CUSTOMERS.
HOW WOULD CUSTOMERS, ESPECIALLY 
SINGLE MOMS, FAMILIES, HOW WOULD
THEY BENEFIT WHEN THE PRICES 
WERE DRIVEN UP BY THE FACT THAT 
YOU ELIMINATED YOUR MAIN 
COMPETITOR?
>> WELL, I DON'T AGREE, WITH 
GREAT RESPECT, I DON'T AGREE 
WITH THE PREMISE.
AT THE SAME TIME YOU SHOULD 
RECOGNIZE, DIAPERS IS A VERY 
LARGE PRODUCT CATEGORY, SOLD IN 
MANY, MANY PLACES.
>> RIGHT.
BUT THIS IS THE ONLINE DIAPER 
MARKET.
WE DO HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THESE 
PREDATORY -- 
>> COSTCO AND KROEGER AND 
WALMART.
>> I NEED TO PUSH ON HERE.
THE EVIDENCE WE'VE COLLECTED 
SUGGESTS THAT PREDATORY 
PRACTICES WEREN'T UNIQUE HERE.
IN 2013, IT WAS REPORTED THAT 
YOU INSTRUCTED AMAZON EMPLOYEES 
TO APPROACH DISCUSSIONS WITH 
CERTAIN BUSINESS PARTNERS, AND I
QUOTE, THE WAY A CHEETAH WOULD 
PURSUE A SICKL L
LY GAZELLE.
IS THAT STILL IN PLACE AND DO 
YOU PURSUE THIS IN OTHER PARTS 
OF THE BUSINESS?
I CANNOT COMMENT ON THAT BECAUSE
I DON'T REMEMBER IT.
I CAN TELL THAT YOU WE ARE VERY,
VERY FOCUSED ON THE CUSTOMER, AS
YOU STARTED.
>> I'M CONCERNED WITH THE 
CUSTOMERS AS WELL.
SPECIALLY THE FAMILIES MANY MY 
DISTRICT.
>> WE CAN OFFER THOSE -- 
>> I'M SORRY.
I'M ALMOST OUT OF TIME.
I'M CONCERNED, TOO.
SPECIALLY WITH THE CURRENT 
PANDEMIC.
ONE OF THE BIGGEST NEEDS I'LL 
SEEING AT THE FOOD DRIVES, AND 
THE GIVEAWAYS WE'RE HAVING TO 
RUN IN MY DISTRICT, IS THAT 
FAMILIES DON'T HAVE DIAPERS.
WE HAVE TO COLLECT THEM TO GIVE 
THEY WILL OUT.
SO IT CERTAINLY IS SOMETHING 
THAT HAS A REALLY HARD IMPACT ON
FAMILIES AND I'M REALLY 
CONCERNED THAT PRICING MIGHT 
HAVE BEEN DRIVEN UP HERE BY THIS
TACTIC.
I YIELD BACK.
>> I JUST ANNOUNCED BOTH CALLED 
WHAT WE'LL CONTINUE WITH THE 
HEARING.
SO I INVITE ALEX TO VOTE.
IT'S A ROLLING VOTE.
SO VOTE ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN 
SCHEDULE.
I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO THANK EACH OF THE 
WITNESSES TODAY FOR YOUR 
TESTIMONY.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN 2004, WHEN 
YOU HAD LAUNCHED FACEBOOK, IT'S 
FAIR TO SAY, I THINK YOU WOULD 
AGREE WITH ME.
YOU HAD QUITE A FEW COMPETITORS.
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, YES.
>> MY SPACE, FRIENDSTER, GOOGLE,
CY WORLD, YAHOO! 360, AOL, THEY 
WERE ALL COMPETITORS?
>> CONGRESSMAN, THOSE WERE SOME 
OF THE COMPETITORS AT THE TIME 
AND IT HAS ONLY GOTTEN A LOT 
MORE COMPETITIVE SINCE.
>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT.
BY 2012, MR. ZUCKERBERG, NONE OF
THOSE COMPANIES THAT I JUST 
IDENTIFIED, EXISTED.
YOU'RE CERTAINLY AWARE OF.
.
THEY WERE ALL GONE.
FACEBOOK IN MY VIEW WAS A 
MONOPOLY BY THEN.
I WONDER WHETHER YOU WOULD AGREE
WITH THAT.
I TAKE IT YOU DON'T?
>> CONGRESSMAN, THAT'S CORRECT.
I DON'T.
WE FACE A LOT OF COMPETITORS.
IN EVERY PART OF WHAT WE DO.
FROM CONNECTING WITH FRIENDS 
PRIVATELY TO CONNECTING WITH 
PEOPLE IN A COMMUNITY, 
CONNECTING WITH ALL YOUR FRIENDS
AT ONCE, ALL KINDS OF USER 
GENERATED CONTENT.
I WOULD BET THAT YOU OR MOST 
PEOPLE HERE HAVE MULTIPLE APPS 
FOR EACH OF THOSE ON YOUR 
PHONES.
>> MR. ZUCKERBERG, LET'S DIG 
INTO THIS A BIT FURTHER.
YOU AND I CLEARLY DISAGREE ABOUT
THAT.
IN 2012, I'M LOOKING AT A 
DOCUMENT PRODUCED BY THE 
INVESTIGATION, IT IS A 
PRESENTATION PREPARED FOR CHERYL
SANDBERG TO GIVE TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF A MAJOR FUN.
FACEBOOK IS NOW 95% OF ALL 
SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE UNITED 
STATES.
THE TITLE OF THE SLIDE IS EVEN, 
QUOTE, THE INDUSTRY CONSOLIDATES
AS IT MATURES.
IF I LOOK AT THAT GRAPH, 
CERTAINLY I THINK MOST FOLKS 
WOULD CONCEDE THAT FACEBOOK WAS 
MONOPOLY AS EARLY AS 2012.
NONETHELESS, I UNDERSTAND THAT 
WE DISAGREE ON THAT POINT.
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT 
FACEBOOK, ITS STRATEGY, SINCE 
THAT TIME, TO ESSENTIALLY 
PROTECT WHAT I DESCRIBE AS A 
MONOPOLY BUT WHAT WOULD YOU 
DESCRIBE AS MARKET POWER.
THAT FACEBOOK HAS BEEN ENGAGED 
IN PURCHASING COMPETITION.
IN SOME CASES, REPLICATING COME 
PETITION.
IN SOME CASES, ELIMINATING COME 
PETITION.
WOULD THAT BE A FAIR STATEMENT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, THE SPACE OF 
PEOPLE CONNECTING WITH OTHER 
PEOPLE IS A VERY LARGE SPACE.
AND I WOULD AGREE THAT THERE 
WERE DIFFERENT APPROACHES THAT 
WE TOOK ON ADDRESSING DIFFERENT 
PARTS OF THAT SPACE.
IT IS ALL IN SERVICE OF BUILDING
THE BEST SERVICES.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
>> I APPRECIATE THE LIGHTER 
POINT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE 
CONCEDING, AT LEAST SOME OF 
THOSE STRATEGIES, I WANT TO TALK
ABOUT THAT.
IN 2014, HERE'S AN EMAIL.
IT IS FROM FACEBOOK'S CHIEF 
FINANCIAL OFFICER DESCRIBED AS 
THE ACQUISITION STRATEGY AS A 
LAND GRAB.
AND SAYING THAT WE ARE GOING TO 
SPEND 5 TO 10% OF OUR MARKET 
GRAB EVERY COUPLE YEARS TO SHORE
UP OUR COMPETITION.
MY SENSE OF THE FACTS IS THAT IS
WHAT HAS OCCURRED.
FACEBOOK AS YOU CONCEDED.
YOU CONCEDED EARLIER THAT 
INSTAGRAM WAS A COMPETITOR.
YOU ACQUIRED IT IN 2012.
INSTAGRAM IS NOW THE SIXTH 
LARGEST SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM IN
THE WORLD.
>> I'M NOT SURE WHAT RANK IT IS.
IT HAS CERTAINLY GROWN BEYOND --
>> I CAN RECOMMEND THAT 
EMPIRICAL SHOWS IT IS THE 
CIRCUIT LARGEST.
IN 2014 FACEBOOK GOT ITS 
COMPETITOR, WHAT'S APP, IS THAT 
CORRECT?
>> YES.
THEY COMPETED WITH US IN THE 
SPACE OF SOCIAL MESSAGING, A 
GROWING AND IMPORTANT SPACE.
AND ONE PART OF THE GLOBAL SPACE
OF HOW PEOPLE CONNECT MORE 
BROADLY.
>> I UNDERSTAND.
AND WHAT'S APP HAD 400 MILLION 
USERS.
A CLEAR PADS TO 1 BILLION USERS.
AND IT IS NOW THE SECOND LARGEST
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM IN THE 
WORLD WITH 2 BILLION USERS 
WORLDWIDE.
MORE THAN FACEBOOK MESSENGER.
AND OF COURSE, YOUR COMPANY OWNS
WHAT'S APP.
FACEBOOK ALSO TRIED TO BUY OTHER
COMPETITIVE START-UPS.
IN FACT, AS CHAIRMAN NADLER 
NOTED, DID YOU TELL ONE OF THEM 
IN 2012 THAT YOU CAN LIKE YOU 
BUY, JUST BUY ANY COMPETITIVE 
START-UP BUT IT WILL BE A WHILE 
BEFORE WE GO BUY GOOGLE.
DO YOU RECALL WRITING THAT 
EMAIL?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I DON'T 
SPECIFICALLY.
BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE A JOKE.
>> IT CERTAINLY, I DON'T TAKE IT
AS 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 BUY ANY COMPETITIVE 
START-UPS BUT IT WILL BE A WHILE
BEFORE WE CAN BUY GOOGLE.
AND GIVEN THE PURCHASES THAT 
FACEBOOK HAD MADE PREVIOUS TO 
THIS, AND THE ATTEMPTED 
PURCHASES, MY UNDERSTANDING IS 
THAT FACEBOOK MADE SEVERAL 
OVERTURES TO SNAP CHAT WHICH 
REBUFFED THOSE EFFORTS.
CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT IT WAS
NOT MADE IN JEST.
HERE'S WHY I ASK.
IT STRIKES ME OVER THE COURSE OF
THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, FACEBOOK
HAS USED ITS MARKET POWER TO 
EITHER PURCHASE OR REPLICATE THE
COMPETITION.
AND FACEBOOK, FACEBOOK 
MESSENGER, WHAT'S APP, 
INSTAGRAM, ARE NOW THE MOST DOWN
LOADED APPS OF THE LAST DECADE 
AND YOUR COMPANY OWNS THEM ALL.
WE HAVE A WORD FOR THAT.
THAT WORD IS MONOPOLY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> MR. BEZOS, YOU REFERRED TO 
THIRD PARTY SUCCESSORS AND 
STATED THAT YOUR SUCCESS DEPENDS
ON THEIR SUCCESS.
OVER THE PAST YEAR WE'VE HEARD A
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STORY.
AS PART OF THIS INVESTIGATION, 
WE INTERVIEWED MANY SMALL 
BUSINESSES.
THEY USED THE WORDS LIKE, 
BULLYING, FEAR AND PANIC TO 
DESCRIBE THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH
AMAZON.
I'M GOING TO SHARE THE STORY OF 
A SMALL BUSINESS OWN HERE IS 
ALSO A WIFE AND A MOTHER.
SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THIS 
IS ACTUALLY AFFECTING THE LIVES 
OF EVERYDAY PEOPLE AND WHY THIS 
TRULY MATTERS.
>> WE WERE A TOP BOOK SELLER ON 
AMAZON.COM.
AND WE WORKED DAY AND NIGHT VERY
HARD TOWARD GROWING OUR 
BUSINESS.
AND MAINTAINING THE FIVE STAR 
FEEDBACK RATING.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, THIS BUSINESS 
FEEDS A TOLL OF 14 PEOPLE WHICH 
INCLUDES THREE CHILDREN AND ONE 
19-YEAR-OLD.
AS WE GREW, WE WERE IN THE 
MARKET SHARE.
NOW, AMAZON STARTED RESTRICTING 
US FROM SELLING.
THEY STARTED WITH A FEW TITLES 
IN ONLY 2019.
WITHIN SIX MONTHS, AMAZON 
SYSTEMATICALLY BLOCKED US FROM 
SELLING THE FULL TEXTBOOK 
CATEGORY.
WE HAVEN'T SOLD A SINGLE BOOK 
FROM THE PAST TEN MONTHS.
PROBABLY MORE.
WE WERE NEVER GIVEN A REASON.
AMAZON DIDN'T EVEN PROVIDE WITH 
US A NOTICE.
WE ASKED WHY WE WERE RESTRICTED.
THERE WAS NO WARNING NO, PLAN.
>> SO MR. BEZOS, AFTER AMAZON 
DELISTED THIS SMALL BUSINESS 
WITHOUT ANY APPARENT REASON OR 
NOTICE, SHE TOLD US THEY SENT 
MORE THAN FIVE HIM 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 
THAT YOU DESCRIBED AS BOTH A 
PARTNER AND A CUSTOMER?
>> NO, CONGRESSMAN.
I APPRECIATE YOU SHOWING ME 
ANECDOTE.
I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO HER.
IT DOES NOT AT ALL SEEM TO ME 
LIKE THE RIGHT WAY TO TREAT HER.
AND I'M SURPRISED BY THAT.
IT'S NOT THE SYSTEMATIC APPROACH
WE TAKE.
I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT'S 
GOING ON.
WE WOULD LOVE FOR THIRD PARTY 
SELLERS TO SELL BOOKS.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT AND I 
WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IT 
BETTER.
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.
BASICALLY, THIS PAT REMINDER OF 
BEHAVIOR HAS TO CHANGE.
MR. BEZOS, MY QUESTION IS, ARE 
YOU WILLING TO MAKE SURE GOING 
FORWARD THAT THE NUMEROUS 
SELLERS WE TALK TO, THEY HAVE 
PROBLEMS JUST LIKE THIS.
AND THERE ARE MORE SELLERS WHO 
TELL US THEY'VE EXHAUSTED ALL OF
THEIR OPTIONS BEFORE REACHING 
OUT TO YOU AS A LAST RESORT BUT 
THEY'RE STILL WAITING FOR YOUR 
RESPONSE.
WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY TO THE 
SMALL BUSINESS WHO'S ARE TALKING
ON CONGRESS BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY 
WON'T LISTEN TO THEM?
>> I WOULD SAY THAT'S NOT 
ACCEPTABLE.
IF WE RBL LISTENING TO YOU, I'M 
NOT HAPPY ABOUT THAT AT ALL.
I DO DISAGREE WITH A PIECE OF 
THIS.
I DO NOT THINK THIS IS 
SYSTEMATICALLY GOING ON.
WHAT WOULD BE USEFUL, IS THAT 
THIRD PARTY SELLERS IN AGGREGATE
ARE DOING EXTREMELY WELL ON 
AMAZON.
THEY GREW FROM 20 YEARS AGO, IT 
WAS ZERO AND TODAY IT'S 60% OF 
SALES.
THIRD PARTY SELLERS GROWING EVEN
FASTER.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
MR. BEZOS -- 
>> THANK YOU.
>> YOU SAID THAT SELLERS HAVE 
MANY OTHER ATTRACTIVE OPTIONS 
THE REACH CUSTOMERS.
BUT THAT'S NOT AT ALL WHAT WE 
FOUND IN OUR INVESTIGATION.
ACCORDING TO EMARKETER, A SOURCE
AMAZON CITED IN SUBMISSIONS TO 
THIS COMMITTEE, AMAZON HAS 
NEARLY SEVEN TIMES THE MARK 
SHARE OF ITS CLOSEST ECOMMERCE 
COMPETITOR.
ONE SELLER TOLD US, AND I QUOTE,
AMAZON CONTINUES TO BE THE ONLY 
SHOW IN TOWN NO MATTER HOW ANGRY
SELLERS GET.
THEY HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO.
SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THESE 
PEOPLE ARE NOT BEING TRUTHFUL 
WHEN THEY SAY THAT AMAZON IS THE
ONLY GAME IN TOWN?
>> WITH GREAT RESPECT, I DO 
DISAGREE WITH THAT.
I BELIEVE THERE ARE SXOPGSS SOME
OF THEM ARE NOT EVEN ON THE 
CHART.
I DIDN'T SEE SOME THAT I KNOW 
OF.
SO I THINK THERE ARE A LOT -- 
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
>> MY TIME IS SHORT.
THANK YOU.
IF AMAZON DIDN'T HAVE MONOPOLY 
POWER, DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD 
CHOOSE TO STAY IN A RELATIONSHIP
THAT'S CHARACTERIZED BY 
BULLYING, FEAR AND PANIC?
>> WITH ALL RESPECT TO 
CONGRESSWOMAN, I DO NOT ACCEPT 
THE PREMISE OF YOUR QUESTION.
THAT'S NOT HOW WE OPERATE THE 
BUSINESS.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I'M GOING ON CLOSE WITH GIVING 
THE BOOK SELLER THE OPPORTUNITY 
TO FINALLY BE HEARD BY YOU.
>> MR. BEZOS, WE INCREASED OUR 
SALES ON AMAZON BY FIVE TIMES IN
THE PAST THREE YEARS.
AND WE HAVE CONTINUED THAT MUCH 
PROPORTIONAL SELLER FES TO 
AMAZON.
WE HAVE CONTRIBUTED THAT MUCH TO
YOUR BUSINESS.
FIVE TIMES.
WE FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES SET BY
YOU.
PLEASE JUST HELP US IN EARNING 
OUR LIVELIHOOD.
WE BEG YOU, THERE ARE 14 LIVES 
AT STAKE.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE HELP US 
GET BACK ON TRACK.
>> WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE 
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
>> WE'VE NOW COULDN'T CLUEDED 
OUR FIRST ROUND.
I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE 
MINUTES.
MR. BEZOS, ACCORDING TO YOUR 
TESTIMONY, THE MARKETPLACE IS 
COMPETITIVE.
BUT AMAZON CONTROLS AS MUCH AS 
75% OF ALL ONLINE MARK PLACE 
SALES.
AND EMARKETER, A SOURCE YOU 
CITED TO US IN SUBMISSIONS IN 
THIS COMMITTEE, REPORTS THAT 
AMAZON IS NEARLY SEVEN TIMES THE
MARKET SHARE OF ITS 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.
I BELIEVE AMAZON IS A GREAT ONE 
AND WE'VE WORKED VERY HARD.
I THINK WE ARE THE BEST ONE.
WE HAVE A LOT OF PROGRAMS TO 
HELP SELLERS.
>> THERE ARE 2.2 MILLION ACTIVE 
SELLERS YESTERDAY.
ABOUT 37% RELY ON AMAZON AS 
THEIR SOLE SOURCE OF INCOME.
THAT IS OVER 800,000 PEOPLE 
RELYING ON AMAZON TO FEED THEIR 
FAMILIES, PUT THEIR KIDS THROUGH
SCHOOL AND KEEP A ROOF OVER 
THEIR HEADS.
YOU HAVE REFERRED TO THIRD PARTY
SELLERS AS BOTH PARTNERS AND 
CUSTOMERS.
ISN'T TRY IT THAT AMAZON REFERS 
TO THIRD PARTY SELLERS AS 
INTERNAL COMPETITORS?
>> IT WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME, IN 
SOME WAYS THEY'RE COMPETING AND 
ALSO WITH EACH OTHER.
>> YOUR OWN DOCUMENTS, AMAZON'S 
OWN DOCUMENTS THAT YOU PRODUCE 
REFER TO THE VERY SAME SELLERS 
THAT YOU'VE DESCRIBE AS AMAZON 
PARTNERS AS INTERNAL 
COMPETITORS.
IN FACT, WE'VE 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 WE 
INTERVIEWED DESCRIBED IT THIS 
WAY.
WE'RE STUCK.
WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE BUT TO 
SELL THROUGH AMAZON.
ANOTHER SAID, THEY'VE NEVER BEEN
A GREAT PARTNER BUT YOU HAVE TO 
WORK WITH THEM.
DURING THIS INVESTIGATION, WE'VE
HEARD SO MANY HEART BREAKING 
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.
SO I WANT TO TALK TO YOU THAT 
ONE COMPANY THAT REALLY STOOD 
OUT FROM THE REST.
I WANT TO YOU PAY CLOSE 
ATTENTION TO HOW THEY DESCRIBE 
YOUR PARTNERSHIP.
WE HEARD FROM A SMALL APPAREL 
COMPANY THAT MAKES AND SELLS 
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 BEEN,ER IN 
BEEN A TOP SELLER FOR THE 
BRANDS.
THEY WERE MAKING ABOUT $60,000 A
YEAR ON THIS ONE ITEM.
ONE DAY THEY WOKE UP AND FOUND 
THAT AMAZON HAD STARTED LISTING 
THE EXACT SAME PRODUCT, CAUSE GO
THEIR SALES TO GO TO ZERO 
OVERNIGHT.
AMAZON HAD UNDERCUT THEIR PRICE,
SETTING IT BELOW WHAT THE 
MANUFACTURER WOULD GENERALLY 
ALLOW TO BE SOLD, SO EVEN IF 
THEY WANTED TO, THEY COULDN'T 
MATCH THE PRICE.
HERE'S HOW THE APPAREL COMPANY 
SKRIBLDS WORKING WITH AMAZON.
AND I QUOTE.
AMAZON STRINGS YOU ALONG FOR A 
WHILE BECAUSE IT FEELS SO GOOD 
TO GET THAT PAYCHECK EVERY WEEK.
IN THE PAST, FOR LACK OF A 
BETTER MATERIAL, WE CALLED IT 
AMAZON HEROIN.
YOU JUST KEPT GOING.
YOU HAD TO GET YOUR NEXT FIX.
THE NEXT CHECK.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU FIND 
OUT THIS PERSON WHO WAS 
SEEMINGLY BENEFITTING YOU, 
MAKING YOU FEEL GOOD WAS 
ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE YOUR 
DOWNFALL.
ENDS QUOTE.
THIS IS ONE OF YOUR PARTNERS.
WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY COMPARE 
YOUR COMPANY TO A DRUG DEALER?
>> SIR, I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR
AND YOU THIS COMMITTEE BUT I 
COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH THAT 
CHARACTERIZATION.
WHAT WE HAVE DONE, CREATE IN THE
STORE, A PLACE, WE CAN GO BACK 
IN TIME.
WE SOLD ONLY OUR OWN INVENTORY.
IT WAS A VERY CONTROVERSIAL 
DECISION IN THE COMPANY TO 
INVITE THIRD PARTY SELLERS TO 
COME INTO WHAT IS MORE YOU MOST 
VALUABLE RETAIL.
WE DID THAT BECAUSE WE WERE 
CONVINCED IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR
THE CONSUMER.
>> MR. BEZOS -- 
>> TO HAVE THE SELECTION.
AND I THINK WE WERE RIGHT AND I 
THINK IT HAS WORKED OUT WELL.
>> UNDER FORTUNATELY, 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.
NOW YOU SAID THAT AMAZON IS ONLY
FOCUSED ON DOING WHAT'S BEST FOR
THE CUSTOMER.
YOU JUST SAID IT AGAIN.
AND ALSO 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 IT AN INHERENT CONFLICT OF
INTEREST FOR AMAZON TO PRODUCE 
AND SELL PRODUCTS ON ITS 
PLATFORM COMPETE DIRECTLY WITH 
THIRD PARTY SELLERS, 
PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU, AMAZON, 
SETS THE RULES OF THE GAME?
>> THANK YOU.
NO.
I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS.
THE CONSUMER IS THE ONE MAKING 
THE DECISIONS.
THEY'RE MAKING THE DECISIONS 
ABOUT WHAT TO BUY.
WHAT PRICE TO BUY IT AT.
>> THERE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST,
YOU ARE A DATA COIL.
WHEN YOU KNOW SOMEONE PUTS 
SOMETHING IN THEIR CART AND 
TAKES IT OUT.
TRADITIONAL BRICK AND MORTAR 
STORES DON'T HAVE THAT.
SO I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON A 
QUESTION YOU GAVE.
YOU SAID THAT YOU CAN'T 
GUARANTEE THAT THE POLICY OF NOT
SHARING THIRD PARTY SELLERS' 
DATA WITH AMAZON'S OWN LINE 
HASN'T BEEN VIOLATED.
YOU COULDN'T BE CERTAIN.
CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT TO 
ME?
CAN YOU LIST EXAMPLES WHERE THAT
POLICY HAS BEEN VIOLATED?
BECAUSE IT IS PARTICULARLY 
CONCERNING TO ME, SHOULD NOT 
THIRD PARTIES KNOW FOR SURE THAT
DATA ISN'T BEING SHARED WITH 
YOUR OWN LINE?
THEIR COMPETITORS?
WHY SHOULD THEY LIST THEIR 
PRODUCT ON AMAZON IF THEY'RE 
JUST GOING TO BE UNDERCUT BY 
AMAZON'S OWN PRODUCTS VULS OF 
DATA YOU TAKE FROM THEM.
I THINK WHAT I WANT YOU TO 
UNDERSTAND, IS THAT WE HAVE A 
POLICY AGAINST USING INDIVIDUAL 
SELLER DATA TO COMPETE WITH OUR 
PRIVATE LABEL PRODUCTS.
>> YOU COULDN'T ASSURE HER THAT 
THAT POLICY ISN'T VIOLATED 
ROUTINELY.
>> WE ARE INVESTIGATING THAT.
I DO NOT WANT TO SIT HERE AND GO
BEYOND WHAT I KNOW RIGHT NOW.
WE ARE AS A RESULT OF.
"WALL STREET JOURNAL" ARTICLE, 
WE ARE LOOKING TEMPERATURE VERY 
CAREFULLY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AND SHARE THEM WITH YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
I LOOK FORWARD TOM.
THE EVIDENCE WE'VE COLLECTED 
SHOWS AMAZON IS ONLY INTERESTED 
IN EXPLOITING ITS MONOPOLY POWER
OVER THE ECOMMERCE MARK PLACE TO
FURTHER EXPANDS AND PROTECT THIS
POWER.
THIS MAKES CLEAR THAT AMAZON'S 
DUAL ROLE AS A PLATFORM OPERATOR
AND COMPETING SELLER IS 
FUNDAMENTALLY ANTI-COMPETITIVE 
AND CONGRESS MUST TAKE ACTION.
WITH THAT I RECOGNIZE THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THAT 
THE HISTORY PROVES THAT CONGRESS
DOES A POOR JOB IN PICKING 
WINNERS AND LOSERS.
I'VE BEEN WORKING THE CHAIRMAN 
FOR OVER A YEAR ON THIS 
BIPARTISAN INVESTIGATION.
AND I HAVE REACHED THE 
CONCLUSION THAT WE DO NOT NEED 
TO CHANGE OUR ANTI-TRUST LAWS.
THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING JUST 
FINE.
THE QUESTION HERE IS THE 
QUESTION OF ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE
ANTI-TRUST LAWS.
NOW, WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT 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 THAT THIS ACQUISITION 
DID PASS THE SMELL TEST OF THE 
REGULATORS INVOLVED.
MAYBE THEY MADE A MISTAKE OR 
MAYBE SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENED.
I DON'T KNOW.
THE FACT IS THERE IS NOT A 
PROBLEM WITH THE LAW.
ABOUT 35 YEARS AGO, AT&T WAS 
BROKEN UP BECAUSE IT WAS 
DETERMINED THAT ONE-STOP SHOPS 
WERE MONOPOLYISTIC.
BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO GET YOUR 
LONG DISTANCE SERVICE FROM YOUR 
LOCAL PHONE COMPANY, THERE WERE 
MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS IN THE 
TELECOM INDUSTRY.
TECHNOLOGY ADVANCED A HUGE 
AMOUNT.
AND GUESS WHAT?
WE'RE BACK TO EXACTLY WHERE WE 
WERE IN 1984.
SO THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT 
CONGRESSIONAL PRESSURE IS NOT 
THE BEST.
USING THE AT&T EXAMPLE, WHICH I 
THINK WAS THE BIG FLOP AND 
COUNTER PRODUCTIVE, LET ME ASK 
MR. BEZOS.
SAY THE AT&T EXAMPLE WAS APPLIED
TO AMAZON.
AND YOU WERE REQUIRED TO SPIN 
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.
VERY CLEAR.
>> NOW, LET ME ASK ABOUT GOOGLE.
IF YOU WERE FORCED TO SPLIT UP 
YOUR BUSINESS LINES, SAY, SPIN 
OFF YOUTUBE, CAN YOU DESCRIBE 
WHAT HAPPENS TO CONSUMERS THERE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, TODAY CONSUMERS 
ARE MEETING, THEY SEE PRICES ARE
FALLING AND I THINK IT SERVES 
THEM WELL.
>> AND YOU'RE RIGHT THERE.
SO YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO BE
ON THIS COMMITTEE IN THE NEXT 
CONGRESS.
I AM GOING TO PUT MY FEET UP AND
BACK SENIOR, QUOTE/UNQUOTE 
STATESMAN.
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 THAT IT IS NOT 
FOR CONGRESS THAT LEGISLATES TO 
TOSS ALL OF OUR ANTI-TRUST LAWS 
AND THE PRESIDENT THAT HAS BEEN 
ESTABLISHED THROUGH LITIGATION 
OVER THE LAST 100 PLUS YEARS.
IT IS SOMETHING WHERE WE OUGHT 
TO GO BACK TO THE REGULATORS, TO
THE END FORCERS.
HAVE THEM LOOK AT THIS STUFF.
HAVE THEM MAKE A DETERMINATION 
ON WHETHER OR NOT THE LAW HAS 
BEEN VIOLATED.
I THINK THE LAW IS GOOD.
WE DON'T NEED TO THROW IT ALL IN
THE WASTE BASKET.
BUT THERE ARE SOME MATTERS OF 
CONCERN THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM 
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE THAT I 
THINK NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
IT REQUIRES AN AGENCY LIKE THE 
FTC THEY'VE MADE MISTAKES IN THE
PAST, SO BE IT.
WE'RE ALL HUMAN.
WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES.
EVEN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES DO 
THAT.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN MARCH OF 
2012, YOU SUGGESTED BY EMAIL TO 
YOUR MANAGEMENT TEAM THAT MOVING
FASTER AND COPYING OTHER APPLES 
COULD PREVENT OUR COMPETITORS 
FROM GETTING FOOT HOLDS.
CHERYL SANDSBERG RESPONDSED, IT 
IS BETTER TO DO MORE AND MOVE 
FASTER.
ESPECIALLY IF THAT MEANS YOU 
DON'T HAVE OUR COMPETITORS BUILD
PRODUCTS THAT TAKES OUR USERS.
THE MANAGER ADDED, I WOULD LOVE 
TO BE FAR MORE AGGRESSIVE AND 
NIMBLE IN COPYING COMPETITORS.
HAS FACEBOOK EVER TAKEN STEPS TO
PREVENT COMPETITORS FROM 
COPYING?
>> I VIEW IT AS OUR JOB TO 
UNDERSTAND WHAT PEOPLE ARE 
FINDSING VALUABLE.
AND ALL THE SERVICE THAT'S THEY 
USE.
CERTAINLY -- 
>> DO YOU COPY YOUR COMPETITORS?
>> WE'VE CERTAINLY ADAPTED 
FEATURES THAT OTHERS HAVE LED 
IN, AS HAVE OTHERS COPIED AND 
ADAPTED FEATURES.
>> I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT 
OTHERS.
SINCE MARCH OF 2012, AFTER THAT 
EMAIL CONVERSATION, HOW MANY 
COMPETITORS DID FACEBOOK END UP 
COPYING?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I CAN'T GIVE 
YOU A NUMBER OF COMPANIES -- 
>> IS IT LESS THAN FIVE?
>> I DON'T KNOW.
>> LESS THAN 50?
ANY ESTIMATES?
YOUR TEAM WAS MAKING A PLAN.
HOW DID IT PLAY OUT?
>> I'M NOT SURE I AGREE WITH THE
PREMISE.
OUR JOB IS TO MAKE SURE WE BUILD
THE BEST SERVICES FOR PEOPLE TO 
CONNECT WITH ALL THE PEOPLE THEY
CARE ABOUT.
A LOT OF.
IS DONE BY INNOVATING -- 
>> THANK YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG.
LET ME GO ON.
HAS FACEBOOK EVER THREATENED TO 
CLONE THE PRODUCTS OF A 
COMPANY -- 
>> NOT THAT I RECALL.
>> AND I WOULD LIKE THE ON 
REMIND YOU, THAT YOU ARE UNDER 
OATH AND THERE ARE QUOTES FROM 
FACEBOOK'S OWN DOCUMENTS.
PRIOR TO ACQUIRING INSTAGRAM, 
FACEBOOK BEGAN ACQUIRING A COIL 
CALLED FACEBOOK CAMERA.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
I'VE 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 COME PETTY SET WAS 
COMPANIES LIKE WHAT WE WERE 
BUILDING WITH FACEBOOK CAMERA 
AND -- 
>> THANK YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG.
DID YOU EVER USE THIS VERY 
SIMILAR FACEBOOK CAMERA PRODUCT 
TO THREATEN INSTAGRAM'S FOUNDER?
>> I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU WOULD 
MEAN BY THREATEN.
I THINK IT WAS KNOWN THAT WE 
WERE BUILDING A CAMERA APP AT 
THE TIME.
THAT WAS A WELL DOCUMENTED 
THING.
>> LET ME TELL YOU, THAT IN A 
CHAT, YOU TOLD MINIMUM FACEBOOK 
WAS, QUOTE, DEVELOPING OUR OWN 
PHOTO STRATEGY SO HOW WE ENGAGE 
NOW WILL ALSO DETERMINE HOW MUCH
WE'RE PARTNERS VERSUS 
COMPETITORS DOWN THE LINE.
THE FOUNDERS SEEMED TO THINK 
THAT WAS A THREAT.
HE COULDN'T IDENTIFIED IN THE AN
INVESTOR AT THE TIME THAT HE 
FEARED, THAT YOU WOULD GO INTO, 
QUOTE, DESTROY MODE IF HE DIDN'T
SELL INSTAGRAM TO YOU.
SO LET'S JUST RECAP.
FACEBOOK CLONED A POPULAR 
PRODUCT, APPROACHED THE COMPANY 
YOU IDENTIFIED AS A COMPETITIVE 
THREAT AND TOLD THEM, IF YOU 
DIDN'T LET THEM BUY YOU UP, 
THERE WOULD BE CONSEQUENCES.
WERE THERE ANY OTHER COMPANIES 
THAT YOU USE THE SAME TACTIC 
WITH WHILE ATTEMPTING TO BUY 
THEM?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I WANT TO 
RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE.
IT WAS CLEAR THIS WAS A SPACE WE
WERE GOING TO COMPETE IN ONE WAY
OR ANOTHER.
I DON'T VIEW THOSE CONVERSATIONS
AS A THREAT IN ANY WAY.
>> I'M JUST USING THE DOCUMENTS 
AND THE TESTIMONY THAT THE 
COMMITTEE HAS COLLECTED FROM 
OTHERS.
DID YOU WARN EVAN SPEAGLE, THE 
FOUNDER OF SNAP CHAT, THAT THEY 
WERE IN THE PROCESS OF CLONING 
THE FEATURES OF HIS COMPANY 
WHILE ALSO ATTEMPTING TO BUY 
SNAP CHAT?
>> I DON'T REMEMBER THOSE 
SPECIFIC CONVERSATIONS.
THAT WAS AN AREA THAT IT WAS 
VERY CLEAR WE WOULD BE BUILDING 
SOMETHING.
PEOPLE WANT TO BE ABLE TO 
COMMUNAL PRIVATELY, WITH ALL 
THEIR FRIENDS AT ONCE.
AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE 
THAT WE BUILD THE BEST PRODUCTS 
IN ALL THE SPACES WE CAN AROUND 
HELPING PEOPLE STAY CONNECTED 
WITH THE PEOPLE THEY CARE ABOUT.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
I THINK THE QUESTION IS, WHEN 
THE DOMINANT PLATFORM THREATENS 
THE POTENTIAL RIVALS, THAT 
SHOULD NOT BE A NORMAL BUSINESS 
PRACTICE.
FACEBOOK IS A CASE STUDY IN MY 
OPINION IN MONOPOLY POWER.
YOUR COMPANY MONETIZES OUR DATA 
AND THEN YOUR COIL USES THAT 
DATA TO SPY ON COMPETITORS AND 
TO COMPANY, ACQUIRE AND KILL 
RIVALS.
YOU'VE USED FACEBOOK'S POWER TO 
THREATEN SMALLER COMPETITORS AND
TO ENSURE YOU ALWAYS GET YOUR 
WAY.
THESE TACTICS REINFORCE 
FACEBOOK'S DOMINANCE WHICH YOU 
THEN USE IN INCREASINGLY 
DESTRUCTIONIVE WAYS.
SO FACEBOOK'S VERY MODEL MAKES 
IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR NEW COMPANIES 
THE FLOURISH SEPARATELY AND THAT
HARMS OUR DEMOCRACY.
IT HARMS MOM AND POP BUSINESSES 
AND IT HARMS BUSINESSES.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO 
IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
I'M CONCERNED THAT YOU'VE USED 
AMAZON'S DOMINANT MARKET 
POSITION TO UNDER FAIRLY HARM 
COMPETITION.
WE'VE HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF 
COMPANIES USE THIS FROM THIRD 
PARTY COMPANIES TO LAUNCH ITS 
OWN PRIVATE LABEL PRODUCTS.
MEETS WITH START-UPS TO DISCUSS 
THE PRODUCT AND THEN USES THE 
PROPRIETARY TO CREATE ITS OWN 
PRIVATE LABEL COMPANIES.
IT ALLOWS THE SALE OF 
COUNTERFEIT ITEMS THROUGH ITS 
WEB PLATFORM.
DURING THE SUB COMMITTEE'S FIELD
HEARING THIS JANUARY, THE CEO, 
DAVID BARMETT DETAILED HOW 
AMAZON ALLOWED COUNTERFEIT 
PRODUCTS TO APPEAR ON THE 
MARKETPLACE AHEAD OF POP SOCKETS
PRODUCTS.
HE TOLD CNBC THAT THEY FOUND AT 
LEAST 1,000 COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS
FORTUNE SALE ON AMAZON'S 
MARKETPLACE.
WHICH AMAZON ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO
REMEDY UNTIL POP SOCKETS AGREED 
TO A NEARLY $2 MILLION MARKETING
DEAL WITH AMAZON.
WE'VE ALSO SEEN TROUBLING 
REPORTS FROM THE "WALL STREET 
JOURNAL" DETAILING AMAZON'S USE 
OF THIRD PARTY SELLERS 
PROPRIETARY DATA TO DEVELOP AND 
MARK ITS OWN COMPETITIVE PRIVATE
LABEL PRODUCTS.
THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL" 
REPORTED THAT CONSTANTLY'S 
CONVENIENT YOU ARE CAPITAL FUND 
USED MEETINGS WITH UNSUSPECTING 
START-UP COILS TO GAUGE ACCESS 
TO SECRET PROPRIETARY PRODUCT 
INFORMATION AND FINANCIAL 
DETAILS.
AMAZON THEN REPORTEDLY USED THE 
INFORMATION TO LAUNCH COMPETING 
PRODUCTS.
OFTEN DISASTROUS RESULTS.
WITH THE ORIGINAL START-UP 
COMPANY.
THERE ARE MANY EXAMS BUT ONE 
STICKS OUT IN PARTICULAR.
IN 2011, THEY CONTACTED VOCAL 
LIFE ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF 
INVESTING IN THE SPEECH 
DETECTION TECHNOLOGY.
THE FOUNDER SECOND THE MEETING 
THINKING THIS WAS THE COMPANY'S 
BIG BREAK.
AFTER DISPLAYING LOCAL LIVES 
TECHNOLOGY AND PROPRIETARY 
INFORMATION, INCLUDING 
ENGINEERING DATA TO AMAZON 
EMPLOYEES, IT CAME TO A BANKRUPT
HALT.
THE EMPLOYEES STOPPED RESPONDING
TO EMAILS BEFORE THE TECHNOLOGY 
EVENTUALLY FOUND ITS WAY INTO 
THE AMAZON'S ECHO DEVICE.
THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE SERIOUS.
ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE SIZE AND 
SCOPE OF THESE PRACTICES 
COULDN'T HAPPEN WITHOUT THE 
MONOPOLY CONTROL OF THE 
MARKETPLACE.
I'M ALSO CONCERNED THAT GIVEN 
THE ALLOWANCE OF COUNTERFEIT 
GOODS ON ITS MARKETPLACE, 
ESPECIALLY FROM CHINA, THAT 
AMAZON'S MARGARET PLACE MAY BE 
KNOWINGLY OR UNDER KNOWINGLY 
FURTHERING CHIMNA'S FORCED 
ENSLAVED LABOR.
THIS IS FOLLOWING REPORTS THAT 
AT LEAST 80 GLOBAL COMPANIES AND
SELL ON THE AMAZON MARK PLACE, 
INCLUDING NIKE, STARBUCKS AND 
SAMSUNG HAVE TIES TO COMPANIES 
THAT USE ENSLAVED MUSLIMS.
FOLLOWING THESE REPORTS, THE 
SENATOR INTRODUCED AN IMPORTANT 
BILL LAST WEEK REQUIRING 
AMERICAN BUSINESSES TO ENSURE 
THAT IT DOES NOT RELY ON SLAVE 
LABOR.
I WILL BE INTRODUCING A BILL 
LATER THIS AFTERNOON.
WHILE I DONAL EXPECT YOU TO HAVE
BILL IS AT KNOWLEDGE OF THE 
LEGISLATION, I WANT TO ASK ALL 
FOUR OF OUR 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 YOUR 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.
I THINK WE BRIEFLY DISCUSSED 
THIS ISSUE.
IF YOU CAN GIVE A YORNL AES OR  
ANSWER.
WOULD YOU AGREE TO THIS IDEA?
>> I WOULD LOVE TO ENGAGE ON THE
LEGISLATION LET ME BE CLEAR.
SLAVE LABOR IS ABHORRENT.
WE WOULD NOT TOLERATE IT IN 
APPLE.
I WOULD LOVE TO GET WITH YOUR 
OFFICE AND ENGAGE ON THE 
LEGISLATION.
>> THANK YOU.
>> CONGRESSMAN, I SHARE YOUR 
CONCERN IN THIS AREA.
I FIND IT AN HORN AS WELL.
HAPPY -- AN HORN AS WELL.
I WOULD LIKE TO ENGAGE WITH YOUR
OFFICE.
>> I DON'T EVEN WANT TO ENGAGE 
WITH MY OFFICE HALF THE TIME.
WILL YOU AGREE THAT SLAVE LABOR 
IS SOMETHING YOU WILL NOT 
TOLERATE IN MANUFACTURING YOUR 
PRODUCTS OR IN PRODUCTS THAT ARE
SOLD ON YOUR PLATFORMS?
>> I AGREE.
>> WE WOULDN'T TOLERATE IT.
WE WOULD END THE RELATIONSHIP IF
IT WERE FOUND.
>> MR. ZUCKERBERG?
>> I AGREE.
WE WOULDN'T TOLERATE THIS.
IF WE FOUND ANYTHING LIKE THIS, 
WE WOULD TERMINATE ANY 
RELATIONSHIP.
>> AND MR. BEZOS?
>> YES.
I AGREE COMPLETELY.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, 
GENTLEMEN.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN 
FROM MARYLAND.
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO THANK MR. BUCK FOR 
THAT EXCELLENT LINE OF 
QUESTIONING AND FOR THE UPCOMING
LEGISLATION.
I LOOK FORWARD TO JOINING THAT.
WE WANT, IN THE 19th CENTURY, WE
HAD THE ROB BARONS.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE WEALTH 
THAT YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO MASS IS
NOT USED AGAINST THE INTERESTS 
OF DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS 
AROUND THE WORLD.
AND NOT AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF
A FREE MARKET AT HOME.
SO MR. BEZOS, LET ME TURN TO 
YOU.
I'M INTERESTED IN THE ROLE THAT 
YOU PLAY AS A GATE KEEPER.
A LOT OF CONSUMERS WANT TWHONG 
THE HBO MAX APP WILL BE 
AVAILABLE ON YOUR FIRE DEVICE.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT 
NEGOTIATIONS ARE ONGOING.
BUT THAT YOUR COMPANY ISN'T ONLY
ASKING FOR FINANCIAL TERMS BUT 
ALSO FOR CONTENT FROM WARNER 
MEDIA.
IS THAT RIGHT AND
IS IT FAIR TO USE YOUR GATE 
KEEPER STATUS ROLE IN THE 
STREAMING DEVICE MARKET TO 
PROMOTE YOUR POSITION AS A 
COMPETITOR IN THE VIDEO 
STREAMING MARKET WITH RESPECT TO
CONTENT?
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE 
DETAILS OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS.
I JUST SAID, THEY'RE UNDER WAY 
RIGHT NOW.
I PREDICT THAT THE COMPANIES 
WILL EVENTUALLY COME TO AN 
AGREEMENT, AND I THINK THIS IS 
KIND OF TWO LARGE COMPANIES, 
NEGOTIATE AGREEMENT NORMAL CASE.
>> BUT HERE'S WHY I PURSUE IT 
PRECISELY.
IT IS A LARGE COMPANY AND IN A 
WAY, THEY STAND IN FOR HUNDREDS 
OF THOUSANDS OF MUCH SMALLER 
COMPANIES WHO ARE EVEN IN A MORE
DISADVANTAGEOUS POSITION WITH 
RESPECT TO NEGOTIATING WITH YOU.
I GUESS, THE GENERAL PROPOSITION
THEN YOU COULD SPEAK TO, IF YOU 
DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OF THIS, 
IS IT OKAY TO NEGOTIATE NOT JUST
FOR FINANCIAL TERMS IN HAVING 
SOMEONE BE PART OF YOUR FIRE 
UNIT, BUT ALSO, TO TRY TO 
EXTRACT IN THAT NEGOTIATION 
LEVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO GETTING
CONTENT FROM THEM?
>> WELL, AGAIN, I'M NOT FAMILIAR
WITH THE DETAILS.
>> I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT THAT 
ONE.
IN GENERAL, IN GENERAL.
>> IN GENERAL, I THINK WHEN TWO 
COMPANIES ARE NEGOTIATING, YOU 
ARE NEGOTIATING NOT JUST THE 
AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S GOING TO 
CHANGE HANDS BUT ALSO, WHAT 
YOU'RE GOING TO GET IN EXCHANGE 
FOR THE AMOUNT OF MONEY.
THAT IS THE VERY FUNDAMENTAL WAY
THAT BUSINESS WORKS.
>> YOU SEE AT LEAST TO 
OUTSIDERS, THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE 
A STRUCTURAL CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST.
LIKE, YOU'RE USING YOUR CONTROL 
OVER ACCESS TO PEOPLE'S LIVING 
ROOMS, ESSENTIALLY.
YOU'RE USING THAT IN ORDER TO 
OBTAIN LEVERAGE IN TERMS OF 
GETTING CREATIVE CONTENT THAT 
YOU WANT.
ARE YOU ESSENTIALLY CONVERTING 
POWER IN ONE DOMAIN INTO POWER 
IN ANOTHER DOMAIN WHERE IT 
DOESN'T BELONG?
>> I THINK WHAT I SHOULD DO IS 
OFFER TO GET YOU INFORMATION, 
I'LL GET TO YOUR OFFICE FOR YOU 
BECAUSE I'M NOT FAMILIAR ENOUGH 
WITH THIS, AND I COULD IMAGINE 
THAT THERE WOULD BE SCENARIOS IF
WE'RE JUST TALKING ABSTRACT 
WHERE IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE 
AND I COULD IMAGINE SCENARIOS 
WHERE IT WOULD BE VERY NORMAL 
AND VERY APPROPRIATE. 
>> FAIR ENOUGH.
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT AN EMERGING
MARKET SMART HOMES AND I WANT TO
TALK ABOUT THE HUB OF THE SMART 
HOME, SMART SPEAKERS.
DOES AMAZON PRICE THE ECHO 
DEVICE BELOW COST?
>> NOT ITS LIST PRICE BUT IT'S 
OFTEN ON PROMOTION AND 
SOMETIMES, WHEN IT'S ON 
PROMOTION, IT MAY BE BELOW COST,
YES.
>> SEVERAL OTHER COMPANIES DID 
TELL US, IN FACT, THAT AMAZON IS
PRICING ECHO DEVICES WAY BELOW 
COST, MAKING IT NEARLY 
IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO COMPETE 
AND AGGRESSIVELY DISCOUNTING 
ALEXA ENABLED SPEAKERS.
SMART SPEAKERS WITH VOICE 
ASSISTANTS LIKE ALEXA ALONG WITH
THE MYRIAD OF SMART HOME 
APPLIANCES THAT ALEXA CAN 
INTERACT WITH MAKE UP THE NEXT 
ECO-SYSTEM OR PLATFORM FOR TECH 
COMPANIES TO LOCK IN CUSTOMERS.
WOULD YOU SAY THE SMART HOME 
MARKET FOR WHICH THE ECHO RING 
SECURITY SYSTEM AND OTHER SMART 
DEVICES OPERATE IS A WINNERS 
TAKE ALL MARKET, YES OR NO?
>> NO.
ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE ABLE TO 
SUCCEED WITH WHAT WE WANT, WHICH
IS, WE WOULD LIKE, OUR VISION 
FOR THIS IS SMART HOME SPEAKERS 
SHOULD ANSWER TO DIFFERENT -- 
>> WHEN CONSIDERING THE 
ACQUISITION -- 
>> CASE BY CASE BASIS AND I 
THINK, JUST IF WE COULD ACHIEVE 
THAT, THEN I THINK YOU WOULD GET
REALLY GOOD BEHAVIOR ON THE PART
OF COMPETITIVE VOICE AGENTS 
HELPING YOU. 
>> WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE 
RING, YOU LOOK AT, WE'RE LOOKING
AT MARKET POSITION, NOT BY 
TECHNOLOGY AND THAT MOMENTUM IS 
VERY VALUABLE.
SO IF SMART HOMES ARE NOT A 
MARKET WITH LOCK-IN EFFECTS, WHY
WOULD A LEADING MARKET POSITION 
AND MOMENTUM BE SO VERY 
VALUABLE?
>> SIR, MARKET POSITION IS 
VALUABLE IN ALMOST ANY BUSINESS 
AND ONE OF THE PRIMARY THINGS 
ONE WOULD LOOK AT IN AN 
ACQUISITION.
MULTIPLE REASONS WE TRY TO BUY A
COMPANY.
SOMETIMES WE TRY TO BUY 
TECHNOLOGY OR IP, BUT THE MOST 
COMMON CASE IS MARKET POSITION.
THAT THE COMPANY HAS TRACTION 
WITH CUSTOMERS.
THEY BUILT A SERVICE, MAYBE THE 
FIRST MOVER.
A NUMBER OF REASONS THEY HAVE 
THE MARKET POSITION BUT THAT'S A
VERY COMMON REASON TO ACQUIRE A 
COMPANY.
>> ONCE A COMPANY BECOMES 
DOMINANT IN A MARKET, IT CAN 
FAVOR ITS OWN PRODUCTS AND 
SERVICES.
ALEXA-ENABLED SMART SPEAKERS 
MAKE UP 60% OF THE SMART SPEAKER
MARKET.
WHEN I ASK ALEXA TO PLAY MY 
FAVORITE SONG, PRIME IS THE 
DEFAULT MUSIC PLAYER, RIGHT?
>> YES, IF YOU'RE A PRIME 
MEMBER.
>> WHEN THEY SAY ALEXA BUY 
BATTERIES, WOULD YOU LIKE TO BUY
AA AMAZON BASIC BATTERIES, SO 
HAS ALEXA EVER BEEN TRAINED TO 
FAVOR AMAZON PRODUCTS WHEN USERS
SHOP BY VOICE?
>> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED FOR THE 
QUESTION.
>> I'M SURE THERE'S CASES WE DO 
PROMOTE OUR OWN PRODUCTS, OF 
COURSE, A COMMON PRACTICE IN 
BUSINESS.
SO IT WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME IF 
ALEXA SOMETIMES DOES PROMOTE OUR
OWN PRODUCTS.
>> THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, MR. 
GATES, FOR FIVE MINUTES. 
>> DURING OUR PRIOR DISCUSSION 
EARLIER TODAY, YOU SAID THAT 
GOOGLE DOESN'T WORK WITH THE 
CHINESE MILITARY.
THAT ANSWER WAS DECEPTIVE 
BECAUSE GOOGLE WORKS WITH MANY 
OF THE ENTITIES THAT WORK WITH 
THE CHINESE MILITARY IN COMMON 
COLLABORATION AND JUST AS ONE 
EXAMPLE WOULD BE THE UNIVERSITY 
WHERE THE HEAD OF GOOGLE AI 
SERVED ON THE COMPUTER SCIENCE 
ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE 
UNIVERSITY AND THEN THE 
UNIVERSITY TAKES A NEARLY $15 
MILLION FROM CHINA'S CENTRAL 
MILITARY COMMISSION.
EVEN IF YOU DON'T LITERALLY SHOW
UP AT THE OFFICES OF THE CHINESE
MI
MILITARY, IF YOU'RE SHOWING UP 
AT THE SAME TIME, THAT WOULD 
LEAD TO MY CONCERN BUT I WANT TO
TALK ABOUT SEARCH BECAUSE THAT'S
AN AREA WHERE I KNOW GOOGLE HAS 
REAL MARKET DOMINANCE.
ON DECEMBER 11th, YOU TESTIFIED 
TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND 
IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM 
MY COLLEAGUE ABOUT SEARCH, YOU 
SAID, WE DON'T MANUALLY 
INTERVENE ON ANY PARTICULAR 
SEARCH RESULT.
BUT LEAKED MEMOS OBTAINED BY THE
DAILY CALLER SHOW THAT ISN'T 
TRUE.
IN FACT, THOSE MEMOS WERE 
ALTERED DECEMBER 3rd, JUST A 
WEEK BEFORE YOUR TESTIMONY AND 
THEY DESCRIBE A DECEPTIVE NEWS 
BLACKLIST.
AND A PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING 
THAT BLACKLIST APPROVED BY BEN 
GOMES WHO LEADS SEARCH WITH YOUR
COMPANY AND ALSO, SOMETHING 
CALLED A FRINGE RANKING, WHICH 
SEEMS TO BEG THE QUESTION, WHO 
GETS TO DECIDE WHAT'S FRINGE AND
IN YOUR ANSWER, YOU SAID THERE 
IS NO MANUAL INTERVENTION OF 
SEARCH.
THAT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY, BUT NOW
I'M GOING TO CITE SPECIFICALLY 
FROM THIS MEMO FROM THE DAILY 
CALLER.
IT SAYS, I'M SORRY, THE DAILY 
CALLER OBTAINED FROM THE 
COMPANY, THE BEGINNING OF THE 
WORK FLOW STARTS WHEN A WEB SITE
IS PLACED ON A WATCH LIST.
IT CONTINUES, THIS WATCH LIST IS
MAINTAINED AND STORED BY ERIS 
WITH ACCESS RESTRICTED TO POLICY
AND ENFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS.
IT DOES BEG THE QUESTION WHO 
THESE ENFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS 
ARE, AND ACCESS TO THE LISTING 
TO BE SHARED ON A NEED TO KNOW 
BASIS TO ENFORCE OR ENRICH THE 
POLICY VIOLATIONS.
THE INVESTIGATION OF THE WATCH 
LIST IS DONE IN THE TOOL ATHENA,
THE AIRES MANUAL REVIEW TOOL.
SO YOU SAID TO CONGRESSWOMAN 
THERE WAS NO MANUAL REVIEW TOOL 
AND THEN YOUR DOCUMENTS INDICATE
THAT THERE IS A MANUAL REVIEW 
TOOL.
SO HELP US UNDERSTAND THE 
INCONSISTENCY.
>> CONGRESSMAN, TWO PARTS TO 
THIS.
IN GENERAL, WE AUTOMATICALLY 
APPROACH OUR SEARCH RESULTS, WE 
HAVE ROBUST POLICIES TO DO SO.
WE TEST IT WITH USER FEEDBACK 
AND EVALUATE LAST YEAR OVER 
300,000 EXPERIMENTS AND LAUNCHED
AROUND 3,000 IMPROVEMENTS TO 
SEARCH.
AND WE DON'T MANUALLY TUNE THE 
QUESTION.
LAST TIME, IT WAS IN THE CONTEXT
OF, IF THERE'S SOMEONE BEHIND 
THE CURTAIN, MANUALLY TUNING 
INDIVIDUAL SEARCH RESULT, WE 
DON'T GENERALLY APPROACH IT A.
BUT THEN INTERFERING IN 
ELECTIONS, THEN WE HAVE TO PUT 
THE SITE ON A LIST SO THAT 
DOESN'T APPEAR IN OUR SEARCH 
RESULTS QUERY.
OTHERS INCLUDE VIOLENT 
EXTREMISM.
>> THAT PROCESS YOU DESCRIBE, IS
THAT DONE MANUALLY?
>> WE COULD GET REPORTS FROM LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.
COMPLYING WITH, IT'S A KNOWN -- 
>> THERE IS EITHER A MANUAL 
OPPONENT O 
COMPONENT OR NOT, WHICH IS IT?
>> FOR CREATING THOSE LISTS, 
THAT PROCESS CAN BE MANUAL. 
>> THAT IS SORT OF THE CONCERN 
THAT I HAVE.
YOU'VE NOW SAID SOMETHING 
DIFFERENT TODAY THAT YOU SAID TO
MS. LAUGHRIN.
BUT AMERICAN JOURNAL, DAILY 
CALLER AND BREITBART THAT 
RECEIVE THE IRE OR THE NEGATIVE 
TREATMENT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF 
YOUR MANUAL TOOLING AND IT ALSO 
SEEMS NOTEWORTHY THAT 
WHISTLEBLOWERS AT YOUR OWN 
COMPANY SPOKE OUT.
ONE REASON YOU MAINTAIN THIS 
MANUAL TOOL IS TO STOP ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE.
I BELIEVE IT IS YOUR COMPANY 
ENGAGING IN ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE AND IT'S NOT JUST 
MY VIEW.
MIKE WHACKER CAME OUT AND WAS A 
WHISTLEBLOWER INDICATING THAT 
THE MANUAL BLACKLIST TARGETS 
THAT GOOGLE SPECIFICALLY GOES 
AFTER ARE THOSE WHO SUPPORT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO HOLD A 
CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT AND HE 
LET YOUR COMPANY IN 2019 BECAUSE
HE WAS SPEAKING OUT AGAINST 
THESE OUTRAGE MOBS.
SO CAN YOU SEE HOW WHEN YOU 
EMPOWER INDIVIDUALS, SOME OF THE
SAME INDIVIDUALS THAT PROJECT 
VERITAS EXPOSED PEOPLE AS 
LABELING PEOPLE AS TERRORISTS 
WHO SAY MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
IF YOU SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT, 
THAT IN FACT CAN BE THE VERY 
ELECTION INTERFERENCE WE'RE 
CONCERNED ABOUT AND USE YOUR 
MARKET DOMINANCE AND SEARCH TO 
ACCOMPLISH THAT INTERFERENCE?
>> I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THAT
CHARACTERIZATION.
WE DON'T APPROACH THIS WORK WITH
ANY POLITICAL VIEWPOINT BUT TO 
COMPLY WITH LAW, KNOWN COPY
T
COPYRIGHT, AND THOSE REQUESTS 
CAN COME FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT.
>> TIME, GENTLEMEN.
EXPIRED.
>> I YIELD BACK.
I'M SORRY, RECOGNIZE FROM SAN 
FRANCISCO.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST GIVEN THE 
PRODUCTIVITY OF OUR DISCUSSION, 
I REQUEST A THIRD ROUND OF 
QUESTIONING.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE CHAIRMAN OF 
THE FULL COMMITTEE MR. NADLER.
>> YEAH.
YOU KNOW, THE DOCUMENTS WITH THE
JOURNALISM INDUSTRY IN THIS 
COUNTRY ARE ECONOMIC CREEK HOLE.
DON'T HAVE LOCAL NEWSPAPER AND 
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOURNALISTS
LAID OFF IN RECENT YEARS.
THE REASON JOURNALISM IN FREE 
FALL IS GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK 
CAPTURE THE VAST MAJORITY OF 
DIGITAL AD REVENUE.
IT IS GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK THAT 
INCREASINGLY PROFIT OFF OF THAT.
TOLD US GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK 
MAINTAIN DOMINANCE THIN THESE 
MARKETS, IN PART, 
ANTI-COMPETITIVE CONDUCT.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN 2015, 
FACEBOOK WITH HIGHER RATES OF 
VIDEO VIEWERSHIP ON ITS 
PLATFORM.
BASED ON ITS METRICS, FIRED 
HUNDREDS OF JOURNALISTS, 
CHOOSING INSTEAD TO BOOST THEIR 
VIDEO DIVISION.
IN 2018, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT 
FACEBOOK HAD INFLATED THESE 
MEASURES.
AND HAD KNOWN ABOUT THE 
INACCURACY SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE 
FACEBOOK PUBLICLY DISCLOSED 
THIS.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, DID YOU KNOW 
THAT THESE METRICS WERE INFLATED
BEFORE THEY WERE PUBLICLY 
RELEASED?
>> CONGRESSMAN, NO, I DID NOT.
AND WE REGRET THAT MISTAKE AND 
HAVE PUT IN PLACE A NUMBER OF 
OTHER MEASURES SINCE THEN TO 
MAKE SURE THAT WE -- 
>> 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 PUT IN PLACE 
MEASURES TO MAKE SURE.
>> WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY TO 
THE JOURNALISTS WHO LOST THEIR 
JOBS BECAUSE OF FACEBOOK'S 
DECEPTION?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I DISAGREE WITH 
THAT CHARACTERIZATION AND ALSO, 
YOUR DESCRIPTION -- 
>> RECLAIMING MY TIME.
GOOGLE, MEANWHILE, MAINTAINED 
ITS DOMINANCE IN PART THROUGH 
AGGREGATING THROUGH PRODUCTS AND
SERVICES.
I UNDERSTAND THAT GOOGLE 
COLLECTS USER DATA ON USER 
BROWSING ACTIVITY THROUGH CHROME
BROWSER.
DOES GOOGLE USE THAT DATA FOR 
PURPOSES IN ADVERTISING OR TO 
DEVELOP AND REFINE ALGORITHMS?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WE DO USE DATA 
TO IMPROVE OUR PRODUCTS AND 
SERVICES FOR OUR USERS.
ANY TIME WE DO IT, WE BELIEVE IN
CONTROL AND TRANSPARENCY AND BY 
TELLING THEM TO CHOOSE HOW THEY 
LIKE THEIR DATA.
>> AND SO YOU DO USE THE DATA 
THAT YOU GET FROM THESE 
COMPANIES FOR YOUR PURPOSES?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING WAS WHETHER 
WE USE DATA IN GENERAL TO 
IMPROVE OUR PRODUCTS AND 
SERVICES AND WE DO USE DATA TO 
SHOW ADS BUT WE GIVE USERS THE 
CHOICE.
THEY CAN TURN AD PERSONALIZATION
ON OR OFF.
>> THIS OBVIOUSLY, USE OF THIS 
DATA FROM ALL THESE COMPANIES 
GIVE YOU A TREMENDOUS ADVANTAGE 
OVER THEM AND ANY COMPETITOR.
DOES THE ABILITY TO MAKE MONEY 
IN ANY WAY AFFECT GOOGLE'S 
ALGORITHM IN TERMS OF WHAT 
APPEARS IN THE A TYPICAL GOOGLE 
NEWS SEARCH RESULTS?
>> WE DON'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT 
THE COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIP WE 
HAVE.
>> BUT FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE HAVE 
GRAVELY THREATENED JOURNALISM IN
THE UNITED STATES.
REPORTERS HAVE BEEN FIRED.
LOCAL NEWSPAPERS HAVE BEEN SHUT 
DOWN, AND NOW WE HEAR THAT 
GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK ARE MAKING 
MONEY OVER WHAT NEWS THEY LET 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE.
THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS 
SITUATION AND UNFORTUNATELY, MY 
TIME HAS EXPIRED AND I HAVE TO 
YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN, FOR 
YIELDING.
I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
FLORIDA.
FOR FIVE MINUTES. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I'M JUST GOING TO PICK UP WHERE 
I LEFT OFF.
MR. PACHAI, THERE ARE RIOTING 
GROUPS WHAT I CONTEND VERY 
VIOLENT VIDEO, YET YESTERDAY I 
WAS SENT A YOUTUBE VIDEO ABOUT 
DOCTORS DISCUSSING 
HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE AND 
DISCUSSING THE NOT DANGERS 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.
I JUST CHECKED AGAIN TO MAKE 
SURE AND IT SAYS THIS VIDEO HAS 
BEEN REMOVED FOR VIOLATING 
YOUTUBE'S COMMUNITY GUIDELINES.
HOW CAN DOCTORS GIVING THEIR 
OPINION ON A DRUG THAT THEY 
THINK IS EFFECTIVE FOR THE 
TREATMENT OF COVID-19 AND 
DOCTORS WHO THINK IT'S 
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 DEBATE ON YOUTUBE 
ABOUT EFFECTIVE WAYS TO DEAL 
WITH COVID.
WE ALLOW A ROBUST DEBATE, BUT IN
THE AREA DURING A PANDEMIC, WE 
LOOK TO LOCAL HEALTH 
AUTHORITIES.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE U.S., IT 
WOULD BE CDC.
FOR GUIDELINES AROUND MEDICAL 
MISINFORMATION WHICH COULD CAUSE
HARM IN THE REAL WORLD AND SO, 
FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE ARE 
ASPECTS OF A VIDEO AND IF IT 
EXPLICITLY STATES SOMETHING 
COULD BE A PROVEN CURE AND THAT 
DOESN'T MEET CDC GUIDELINES, WE 
WOULD -- 
>> BUT IT'S FREE EXOPRESSION OF 
SPEECH AND HAVE THESE DOCTORS 
GIVING THEIR OPINION AS DOCTORS 
AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY 
YOUTUBE AND THEREFORE GOOGLE 
THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO SILENT
PHYSICIANS AND THEIR OPINION OF 
WHAT CAN HELP AND CURE PEOPLE 
WITH COVID-19.
I'LL SWITCH QUICKLY TO MR. 
ZUCKERBERG.
I THINK AT THIS POINT, IT'S 
FAIRLY OBVIOUS THAT TECHNOLOGY 
PLATFORMS HAVE BEEN STIFLING 
CONSERVATIVE NEWS AND OPINIONS.
YOU EMPLOY A PANEL OF CONTENT 
MODERATORS.
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 30,000 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 DON'T THINK YOU BUILD A SOCIAL
PRODUCT WITH THE GOAL OF GIVING 
PEOPLE A VOICE IF YOU DON'T 
BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE BEING ABLE 
TO EXPRESS THE WIDE VARIETY OF 
THINGS IS ULTIMATELY VALUABLE 
FOR THE WORLD, AND WE TRY TO 
MAKE SURE THAT OUR POLICIES AND 
OUR OPERATIONS ULTIMATELY 
REFLECT AND CARRY THAT OUT.
>> IS THERE AN IDEOLOGICAL 
DIVERSITY AMONG THE CONTENT 
MODERATORS?
>> I DON'T THINK WE CHOOSE TO 
HIRE THEM ON THE BASIS OF AN 
IDEOLOGY.
THEY'RE HIRED ALL OVER THE 
WORLD.
THERE'S CERTAINLY A BUNCH IN THE
U.S.
THERE'S DIVERSITY IN WHERE 
THEY'RE HIRED, BUT CERTAINLY, WE
DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANY BIAS IN 
WHAT WE DO, AND WE WOULDN'T 
TOLERATE IF WE DISCOVERED THAT.
>> SO YOU DON'T SPECIFICALLY 
HIRE, SAY, CONSERVATIVE 
MODERATORS AND DEMOCRAT OR 
LIBERAL MODERATORS SO THERE'S A 
BALANCE IN YOUR CONTENT 
MODERATORS?
>> CONGRESSMAN, IN TERMS OF THE 
30,000 TO 35,000 PEOPLE OR MORE 
AT THIS POINT WHO ARE DOING 
SAFETY AND SECURITY REVIEW, THAT
IS CORRECT.
IN TERMS OF THE PEOPLE SETTING 
THE POLICIES, I THINK IT IS 
VALUABLE TO HAVE PEOPLE WITH A 
DIVERSITY OF VIEWPOINTS INVOLVED
SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE
THE DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS 
REPRESENTED IN THE POLICY 
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND WE ALSO 
CONSULT WITH A NUMBER OF OUTSIDE
GROUPS WHENEVER WE DEVELOP NEW 
POLICIES TO MAKE SURE WE'RE 
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL 
PERSPECTIVES.
>> WHAT ARE SOME OF THOSE 
OUTSIDE GROUPS THAT WOULD BE 
CONSERVATIVE-LEANING?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I NEED TO GET 
BACK TO WITH YOU WITH A LIST OF 
SPECIFIC GROUPS, BUT IT WOULD 
DEPEND ON WHAT THE TOPIC IS.
>> CAN YOU JUST THINK OF ONE?
I MEAN YOU SAID, YOU REACH TO 
OUTSIDE GROUPS.
CAN YOU THINK OF ONE 
CONSERVATIVE OUTSIDE GROUP YOU 
REACH OUT TO AND USE AS A 
CONTENT MODERATOR?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M TALKING 
ABOUT DIFFERENT EXTERNAL STAKE 
HOLDERS AND GROUPS THAT ARE 
INPUTS TO OUR POLICY DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS AND I'M NOT INVOLVED IN 
THOSE CONVERSATIONS DIRECTLY, 
I'D HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU WITH
SPECIFICS ON THAT BUT I'M QUITE 
CONFIDENT WE SPEAK WITH PEOPLE 
ACROSS THE IDEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM 
WITH THOSE POLICIES. 
>> I WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE 
A POLICY UPDATE ON THAT.
THIRD PARTY FACT CHECKERS AND 
HOW MANY FACT CHECKERS DOES 
FACEBOOK EMPLOY?
>> YES, THANKS.
WE WORK WITH ABOUT 70 FACT 
CHECKING PARTNERS AROUND THE 
WORLD, AND THE GOAL OF THE 
PROGRAM IS TO LIMIT THE 
DISTRIBUTION OF VIRAL HOAXES, SO
THINGS THAT ARE CLEARLY FALSE.
FROM GETTING A LOT OF 
DISTRIBUTION, BUT WE DON'T 
OURSELVES WANT TO BE IN THE 
BUSINESS OF DETERMINING WHAT IS 
TRUE AND WHAT IS FALSE THAT 
RAPINO 
FEELS LIKE AN INAPPROPRIATE ROLE
FOR US TO PLAY.
W
WE RELY ON THE INDEPENDENT FACT 
CHECKING ORGANIZATION THAT HAS A
SET OF GUIDELINES OF WHAT MAKES 
AN INDEPENDENT FACT-CHECKER AND 
THEY CERTIFY THOSE FACT CHECKERS
AND THEN ANY ORGANIZATION THAT 
GETS CERTIFICATION FROM THAT 
GROUP IS QUALIFIED TO BE A FACT 
CHECKING PARTNER WITHIN 
FACEBOOK.
>> THANK YOU.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME EXPIRED.
I'LL RECOGNIZE MR. JOHNSON FOR 
FIVE MINUTES AND THEN WE'RE 
GOING TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK OF 
THE COMMITTEE.
MR. JOHNSON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. BEZOS, AMAZON HAS A 
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM WITH 
COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS SOLD ON ITS
PLATFORM.
NOT ONLY RIP OFF THE OWNERS OF 
LEGITIMATE BUSINESSES, THEY ALSO
CAN BE DANGEROUS.
COUNTERFEIT MEDICINE, BABY FOOD,
AUTOMOBILE TIRES AND OTHER 
PRODUCTS CAN KILL.
AMAZON HAS SAID IT'S FIXING ITS 
COUNTERFEIT PROBLEM, BUT 
COUNTERFEITING SEEMS TO BE 
GETTING WORSE, NOT BETTER.
AMAZON IS A TRILLION DOLLAR 
COMPANY BUT AMAZON CUSTOMERS ARE
NOT GUARANTEED THAT THE PRODUCTS
PURCHASED ON YOUR PLATFORM ARE 
AUTHENTIC.
AMAZON ACTS LIKE IT'S NOT 
RESPONSIBLE FOR COUNTERFEITS 
BEING TOLD BY THIRD PARTY 
SELLERS ON ITS PLATFORM AND 
WE'VE HEARD THAT AMAZON PUTS THE
BURDEN AND COST ON BRAND OWNERS 
TO POLICE AMAZON'S SITE, EVEN 
THOUGH AMAZON MAKES MONEY WHEN A
COUNTERFEIT GOOD IS SOLD ON ITS 
SITE.
MORE THAN HALF OF AMAZON'S 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 PRODUCTS OFF OF ITS 
PLATFORM?
>> THANK YOU.
THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT 
ISSUE, AND ONE WE WORK HARD ON.
COUNTERFEITS ARE DISCOURAGED.
THEY ARE A PROBLEM THAT DOES NOT
HELP WITH TRUST FOR CUSTOMERS.
IT'S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS, HONEST 
THIRD PARTY SELLERS.
WE DO A LOT TO PREVENT 
COUNTERFEITING.
WE HAVE A TEAM OF MORE THAN A 
THOUSAND PEOPLE THAT DOES THIS.
WE INVEST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS 
IN SYSTEMS THAT DO THIS, 
SOMETHING CALLED PROJECT ZERO 
THAT HELPS BRANDS WITH 
INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS THAT HELP 
WITH COUNTERFEITING. 
>> I'M GLAD THAT YOU HAVE THOSE 
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, AND WE DO SO NOT 
ONLY FOR RETAIL PRODUCTS BUT 
THIRD PARTY PRODUCTS AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU.
WE'VE HEARD FROM NUMEROUS THIRD 
PARTY SELLERS AND BRAND OWNERS 
THAT AMAZON HAS USED KNOCKOFFS 
AS LEVERAGE TO PRESSURE SELLERS 
TO DO WHAT AMAZON WANTS.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE FOUNDER OF POP 
SOCKETS RECETESTIFIED IN JANUAR 
THAT AMAZON ITSELF 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'S UNACCEPTABLE.
IF THOSE ARE THE FACTS AND IF 
SOMEONE SOMEWHERE INSIDE AMAZON 
SAID, YOU KNOW, BUY X DOLLARS IN
ADS AND THEN WE'LL HELP YOU WITH
YOUR COUNTERFEIT PROBLEM, THAT 
IS UNACCEPTABLE AND I WILL LOOK 
INTO THAT AND GET BACK TO YOUR 
OFFICE WITH THAT, BUT WHAT I CAN
TELL YOU IS THAT WE HAVE A 
COUNTERFEIT CRIMES UNIT.
ATTEMPT TO PROSECUTE 
COUNTERFEITERS.
WE ENCOURAGE THIS BODY TO PASS 
STRICTER PENALTIES FOR 
COUNTERFEITERS AND INCREASE LAW 
ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES TO GO 
AFTER COUNTERFEITERS.
>> BUT MAKES MONEY OFF OF 
COUNTERFEIT GOODS BEING SONLLD  
YOUR PLATFORM, ISN'T THAT 
CORRECT?
>> IF IT DOES IN MY VIEW, SIR, 
IT WOULD BE IN THE SHORT-TERM.
I WOULD MUCH RATHER LOSE A SALE 
THAN LOSE A CUSTOMER.
WE MAKE MONEY THAT COMES BACK.
>> FAIR ENOUGH, SIR.
MAKING COMPANIES PAY EXTRA TO 
AVOID HAVING THEIR PRODUCTS 
DISAPPEAR IN RANKINGS SEEMS TO 
BE SO UNFAIR, ESPECIALLY TO 
SMALL BUSINESSES.
THE AMERICAN DREAM IS THREATENED
WHEN THAT HAPPENS, DON'T YOU 
THINK SO?
>> SIR, NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT 
YOU'RE REFERRING TO.
IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE 
JUST TALKED ABOUT A SECOND AGO, 
I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH THAT.
>> FULLY DIFFERENT SITUATION NOW
WHERE A COMPANY THAT IS SELLING 
ON YOUR PLATFORM, BUT IS NOT 
PAYING ANYTHING EXTRA GETS 
BURIED IN THE RANKINGS, BUT 
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'RE 
REFERRING TO IS THE FACT THAT WE
OFFER AN ADVERTISING SERVICE, 
BASICALLY, FOR THIRD PARTY 
SELLERS TO DRIVE ADDITIONAL 
PROMOTION TO THEIR PRODUCTS.
THAT'S A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM.
SOME SELLERS USE IT, SOME DON'T 
AND IT'S BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE AT 
HELPING PEOPLE PROMOTE THEIR 
PRODUCTS.
>> WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.
THANK YOU.
>> THE CHAIRMAN YIELDS BACK.
THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN A 
BRIEF RECESS.
>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH 
DAKOTA, MR. ARMSTRONG. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MY COLLEAGUE 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 
REGARDING AMAZON'S PRIVATE 
LABEL.
SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT POSSIBLE
LOOPHOLE THAT ALLOWS AMAZON TO 
REVIEW NON-PUBLIC AGGREGATE DATA
TO INFORM PRIVATE BRANDS EVEN IN
INSTANCES WHERE THERE'S ONLY A 
FEW THIRD PARTY SELLERS.
I JUST WANT TO DRILL DOWN ON 
THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
WHERE EXACTLY DOES AMAZON DRAW 
THE LINE?
>> I'M SORRY.
AGGREGATE DATA WOULD BE MORE 
THAN ONE SELLER.
AND OF COURSE, YOU HAVE TO 
REMEMBER 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.
>> NOT THAT DIFFERENT FROM 
PERHAPS A BEST LIST OR PRODUCT 
RANKING WHICH WE DO MAKE PUBLIC 
FOR ALL.
>> I WANT TO BE CLEAR, WHAT YOU 
SAY AMAZON ALLOW THE USE OF 
AGGREGATE DATA TO INFORM PRIVATE
LABEL BRANDS WHEN THERE'S ONLY 
THREE SELLERS FOR A PRODUCT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> DOES AMAZON LOOK AT AGGREGATE
DATA WHEN THERE'S ONLY TWO 
SELLERS OF A PRODUCT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> AM I CORRECT IN MY 
UNDERSTANDING THAT AMAZON IS 
CONDUCTING AN INTERNAL 
INVESTIGATION ON THE USE OF 
THIRD PARTY DATA?
>> YES, BASICALLY, TRYING TO 
UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE ANECDOTES
THAT WE SAW IN THE "WALL STREET 
JOURNAL" ARTICLE.
>> WILL YOU COMMIT TO INFORMING 
THIS COMMITTEE ON THE OUTCOME OF
THAT INVESTIGATION WITH THE 
IMPACT CIRCUMSTANCES. 
>> WE'LL DO THAT.
>> MUSIC CAN BE USED TO DRIVE 
REVENUE ON OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A 
REASON IT'S IMPORTANT, I WANT TO
TALK ABOUT TWITCH FOR A SECOND.
NEWS REPORTS HAVE INDICATED THAT
TWITCH USERS ARE RECEIVING 
NOTICE AND TAKE DOWN REQUESTS 
PURSUANT TO THE DIGITAL 
MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT TWITCH 
ALLOWS USERS TO STREAM MUSIC BUT
NOT LICENSE MUSIC, IS THAT 
CORRECT?
>> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ASK THAT
I COULD GET BACK TO YOUR OFFICE 
WITH AN ANSWER OF THE QUESTION, 
I DON'T KNOW.
>> I JUST HAVE TWO MORE 
QUESTIONS RELATED TO THAT.
IF TWITCH IS RESPONDING TO DMCA 
NOTICE AND TAKEDOWN 
REQUIREMENTS, SHOULD, ONE, 
TWITCH CONSIDER LICENSING MUSIC 
INSTEAD OF RETROACTIVELY 
ADHERING TO THE NOTICES?
THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS WE'RE 
INTERESTED IN, PRIMARY CONCERNED
ABOUT SMALL UP AND COMING 
MUSICIANS, DIFFERENT PEOPLE NOT 
NECESSARILY LABELS TO MAKE IT 
EASY FOR THEM TO GET CEASE AND 
DESIST NOTICES OUT AS WELL AND 
CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD THERE. 
>> YES, CONGRESSMAN.
THAT IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE AND I
UNDERSTAND IT AND I WILL GET 
BACK TO YOUR OFFICE ON THAT.
>> EARLIER THIS YEAR, GOOGLE 
ANNOUNCED PLANS TO RETIRE THIRD 
PARTY COOKIES THAT WEB SITES 
ATTACHED TO USERS BROWSERS.
THIS ALLOWS USERS TO BE TRACKED 
ACROSS THE INTERNET.
A CONSEQUENCE OF THAT CHANGE IS 
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 PROCOOKIE BECAUSE I'M NOT 
WHEN I USE MY COMPUTER AS WELL, 
BUT I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE 
LEGITIMATE PRIVACY CONCERN WITH 
THIRD PARTY COOKIES BUT I DO 
WANT TO FOCUS ON THE COMPETITION
ASPECT.
THE ASSET ACTION PLACED GOOGLE 
AS A DISADVANTAGE OR HAVE 
ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COLLECTING 
THAT USER DATA TO INFORM THE 
DIGITAL ADVERTISING ACTIVITIES, 
MR. PACHI?
>> CONGRESSMAN, AS YOU RIGHTLY 
POINTED OUT, THIS IS AN AREA 
WHERE WE'VE FOCUSED ON USER 
PRIVACY AND USERS CLEARLY DON'T 
WANT TO BE TRACKED WITH THIRD 
PARTY COOKIES.
IN FACT, ON A BROWSER, FROM 
APPLE AND THE FOUNDATION HAVE 
ALSO IMPLEMENTED 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'S AN IMPORTANT CHANGE AND
I THINK WE HAVE TO BE FOCUSED O 
FORWARD. 
>> YOU HAVE OTHER WAYS TO 
COLLECTING THAT INFORMATION, 
CORRECT?
>> ON THE FIRST PARTY SERVICES, 
WE DON'T RELY ON COOKIES AND 
OBVIOUSLY, WHEN PEOPLE COME AND 
TYPE INTO SEARCH -- 
>> NOT ASKING YOU TO RELY ON 
COOKIES.
ASKING IF YOU HAVE OTHER WAYS OF
COLLECTING IT, THROUGH G MAIL OR
CONSUMER FACING PLATFORMS, 
RIGHT?
>> WE DON'T USE DATA FROM G-MAIL
FOR ADS, CONGRESSMAN, BUT TO THE
EXTENT, ON THE SERVICES, WHERE 
WE PROVIDE ADS, AND IF USERS 
HAVE CONSENTED TO ADS 
PERSONALIZATION, YES, WE DO HAVE
DATA. 
>> THANK YOU, I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMEN YIELDS BACK.
I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLE LADY FROM
FLORIDA.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. 
CHAIRMAN.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, DURING 
DISCUSSIONS OF CHANGING 
FACEBOOK'S PLATFORM POLICY IN 
2012, YOU SAID THAT, AND I 
QUOTE, IN ANY MODEL, ASSUME WE 
ENFORCE THE POLICIES AGAINST 
COMPETITORS MUCH MORE STRONGLY.
IT SOUNDS LIKE FACEBOOK 
WEAPONIZES ITS POLICIES TO 
TARGET COMPETITORS.
WHY WOULD FACEBOOK ENFORCE 
POLICIES AGAINST COMPETITORS 
MORE STRONGLY?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, WHEN WE WERE A
MUCH SMALLER COMPANY, WE SAW 
THAT -- 
>> THIS IS 2012 NOW.
THIS IS IN 2012.
SO PLEASE GO RIGHT AHEAD.
>> SURE.
WE'VE 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 GROWING AND 
COMPETE WITH US.
SO WE HAD SOME OF THOSE TINUALL 
OVER TIME. 
>> MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN 2013, A 
SENIOR FACEBOOK EMPLOYEE 
IDENTIFIED MESSAGING AS A 
FAST-GROWING APP ON FACEBOOK AND
SAID WE WILL RESTRICT THEIR 
ACCESS.
WAS THIS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF 
ENFORCING FACEBOOK'S POLICIES 
AGAINST COMPETITORS, MUCH MORE 
STRONGLY?
MESSAGE ME?
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT 
SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, BUT WE DID 
HAVE THAT POLICY.
>> LET'S MOVE TO ANOTHER TO SEE 
IF YOU REMEMBER THIS ONE.
IN 2014, OTHER FACEBOOK PRODUCT 
MANAGERS OPENLY DISCUSS REMOVING
PINTEREST'S ACCESS TO FACEBOOK'S
PLATFORM AS ONE EMPLOYEE SAID, I
AM 100% IN FAVOR OF THE IDEA OF 
MOVING IT FROM PINTEREST BUT AM 
NOT RECOMMENDING MOVING IT FROM 
NETFLIX GOING FORWARD.
WHY WOULD FACEBOOK PRODUCT 
MANAGERS WANT TO RESTRICT 
PINTEREST'S ACCESS TO FACEBOOK 
BUT NOT NETFLIX?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M NOT 
FAMILIAR WITH THAT EXCHANGE.
I DON'T THINK I WAS ON THAT.
>> WHY DO YOU THINK YOU WOULDN'T
HAVE TO BE ON THAT BUT WHY DO 
YOU THINK THEY MADE THAT 
DECISION?
OR WOULD MAKE A DECISION LIKE 
THAT?
>> WELL, 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'S ONE OF THE MANY 
COMPETITORS. 
>> ALL RIGHT.
OKAY.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, THESE EXAMPLES 
AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 
STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT FACEBOOK 
DOES WEAPONIZE ITS POLICY, 
PLATFORM POLICIES AND THEN 
SELECTIVELY TO UNDERMINE 
COMPETITORS BUT LET'S MOVE ON.
MR. COOK, I AM CONCERNED THAT 
APPLE'S POLICIES ARE ALSO 
PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS IN 
THE APP ECONOMY.
AND THAT APPLE RULES MEAN APPLE 
APPS ALWAYS WIN.
IN 2019, APPLE REMOVED FROM THE 
APPLE STORE CERTAIN APPS THAT 
HELP PARENTS CONTROL THEIR 
CHILDREN'S DEVICES.
DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT 
JUSTIFICATION APPLE CITED?
>> YES, CONGRESSWOMAN, I DO.
IT WAS THAT THE USE OF 
TECHNOLOGY CALLED MDM, MOBILE 
DEVICE MANAGEMENT, PLACED KIDS' 
DATA AT RISK, SO WE WERE WORRIED
ABOUT THE SAFETY OF KIDS.
>> OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT
THE APP BASICALLY UNDERMINED 
KIDS' PRIVACY, BUT ANOTHER APP 
THAT USED THIS SAME TOOL WAS 
APPTURE, AN APP OWNED BY THE 
SAUDI ARABIA GOVERNMENT.
DO YOU RECALL WHAT APPLE'S 
POSITION WAS TOWARDS THIS APP?
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT 
APP. 
>> OKAY.
APPLE ALLOWED THIS SAUDI APP TO 
REMAIN, SO THERE ARE TWO TYPES 
OF APPS.
THEY USE THE SAME TOOL.
APPLE KICKS ONE OUT, AND SAID 
THAT ONE WAS HELPING PARENTS BUT
KEEPS THE ONE OWNED BY A 
POWERFUL GOVERNMENT.
IF THAT IS CORRECT, MR. COOK, 
THAT APPLE SUPPOSEDLY DID THE 
SAME THING, WHY WOULD YOU KEEP 
THE ONE OWNED BY A POWERFUL 
GOVERNMENT?
>> I'D LIKE TO LOOK INTO THIS, 
AND GET BACK WITH YOUR OFFICE 
-- 
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU APPLIED 
DIFFERENT RULES TO THE SAME 
APPS. 
>> WE APPLY THE RULES TO ALL 
DEVELOPERS EVENLY.
>> DID THE FACT THAT APPLE 
-- MR. COOK, LET ME ASK YOU 
THIS.
DID THE FACT THAT APPLE HAD ITS 
OWN PARENTAL CONTROL APPS 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'S OVER 30 PARENTAL 
CONTROLS ON THE APP STORE TODAY,
SO THERE'S PLENTY OF 
COMPETITION.
AND I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THIS 
IS NOT AN AREA WHERE APPLE GETS 
ANY REVENUE AT ALL.
WE DO THIS -- 
>> I DIDN'T ASK ANYTHING ABOUT 
REVENUE.
THAT WAS NOT MY QUESTION, BUT 
I'M OUT OF TIME.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> THANK YOU, GENTLE LADY, FOR 
YIELDING BACK AND THE MEMBER MR.
JORDAN FOR FIVE MINUTES. 
>> I WOULD YIELD TO THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, MR. 
GATES. 
>> THANK YOU TO THE GENTLEMAN 
FOR YIELDING.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, AS MR. PACHI 
SAID THERE WAS AN EDITORIAL 
MANIPULATION ON THEIR PLATFORM, 
YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY GIVEN 
TESTIMONY TO CONGRESS SAYING 
THERE IS NOT EDITORIAL 
MANIPULATION 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 
THERE'S EVEN VIDEO THAT SUGGESTS
THAT CONTENT MODERATORS THAT YOU
EMPLOY ARE OUT THERE 
DISADVANTAGING CONSERVATIVE 
CONTENT.
I'M WONDERING IF YOU ARE 
FAMILIAR WITH THE EXPERIENCES OF
ZACH McELROY AND RYAN HARTWIG, 
TWO PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATED IN 
FACEBOOK CONTENT REVIEW AND
INDIVIDUAL VIDEO EVIDENCE AND 
THE TESTIMONY FROM THEM THAT THE
CULTURE THAT YOU LEAD WITH 
FACEBOOK IS ONE THAT 
DISADVANTAGES AND LEADS TO 
CONTENT MANIPULATION.
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M SOMEWHAT 
FAMILIAR WITH THE CONCERNS THAT 
THEY HAVE RAISED AND AS I'VE 
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 WAY 
THAT HAS ANY IDEALOGICAL BIAS 
AND I WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO 
DISCUSS A RANGE OF ISSUES.
WE PEOPLE RAISE CONCERNS LIKE 
THAT, WE LOOK INTO THEM TO MAKE 
SURE 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.
>> AND FOLLOWING THE RELEASE OF 
THOSE VIDEOS AND THAT EVIDENCE 
FROM PROJECT VERITAS, WILL YOU 
DESCRIBE THE INVESTIGATION THAT 
FACEBOOK UNDERTOOK TO ROOT OUT 
THESE CORROSIVE EFFECTS ON YOUR 
PLATFORM?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'D HAVE TO GET 
BACK TO YOU WITH MORE DETAILS ON
THAT, BUT I KNOW THAT WE HAVE 
ONGOING TRAINING IN WHAT WE DO 
AND WE CERTAINLY WILL LOOK INTO 
ANY COMPLAINTS THAT COME UP AND 
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S 
DONE IN A WAY THAT REFLECT TESS 
VALUES AROUND THE COMPANY AND 
BEING A PLATFORM FOR ALL IDEAS.
>> I'M CONCERNED THAT THE 
PLATFORM DOES AFFECT THE VALUE 
OF THE COMPANY BUT THOSE DON'T 
GIVE EVERYONE A VOICE.
AND WHILE I APPRECIATE TRAINING 
AS A PROPHYLACTIC ENDEAVOR TO 
TRY TO GUIDE FUTURE CONTENT, IT 
SEEMS DISINGENIOUS FOR YOU TO 
SUGGEST THESE VIDEOS COME OUT 
THAT SHOW THE PEOPLE THAT YOU 
TRUST WITH CONTENT MODERATION 
ADMITTING ON VIDEO THAT THEY 
DISADVANTAGE CONSERVATIVES, THAT
THEY LABEL PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT 
THE PRESIDENT AS A WAY TO PUSH 
DOWN THAT CONTENT FOR YOU TO 
COME TO US MANY MONTHS LATER 
AFTER THAT WAS ALL OVER THE NEWS
AND THE INTERNET AND SAY, WELL, 
YOU KNOW, YOU'LL GET BACK TO US 
AND 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 THE QUESTION IN A 
DIFFERENT WAY, IN YOUR PRIOR 
TESTIMONY, YOU SAID THIS DOES 
NOT HAPPEN, IT CANNOT HAPPEN.
WOULD YOU AT LEAST BE WILLING TO
ACKNOWLEDGE BASED ON THE IR RU 
IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE IN A WAY 
THAT WE NEED TO ROOT OUT.
>> CONGRESSMAN, MY TESTIMONY IN 
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 
MAKE MISTAKES, PEOPLE HAVE SOME 
OF THEIR OWN GOALS SOME OF THE 
TIME AND IT'S OUR JOB IN RUNNING
THE COMPANY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
MINIMIZE THEIRS AND MAKE SURE 
THAT THE COMPANY'S OPERATIONS 
REFLECT THE PRINCIPLES THAT WE 
INTEND TO RUN IT ON.
>> AND WHEN YOU FIRE PEOPLE AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR POLITICS, 
DO YOU THINK THAT THAT IMPACTS 
THE CULTURE AND PERHAPS EMPOWERS
SOME OF THE CONTENT MODERATORS 
TO ALSO TREAT PEOPLE WORSE AS A 
CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR POLITICS?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT AWARE OF
A CASE WHERE WE HAVE FIRE 
DOLLARS SOMEONE ON BEHALF OF 
THEIR POLITICS.
I WOULD SAY THAT THAT WOULD BE 
AN INAPPROPRIATE THING FOR US TO
DO.
>> WHY DID YOU FIRE PALMER 
WALKIE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE 
IT'S APPROPRIATE TO GET INTO A 
SPECIFIC PERSONNEL ISSUE 
PUBLICLY.
I -- 
>> I ONLY HAVE TEN SECONDS, BUT 
PALMER'S NDA DOESN'T ALLOW HIM 
TO TALK TO ANYONE BUT GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS.
I'M 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 I THINK BOTH IN THE CASE OF 
THESE CONTENT MODERATORS AND IN 
THE CASE OF THE CONTENT 
TESTIMONY YOU GAVE REGARDING MR.
LUCKY AND FIRING PEOPLE OVER 
THEIR POLITICS, THERE IS SERIOUS
QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT 
YOU'RE GIVING TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY
HERE OR WHETHER OR NOT IT'S 
LYING BEFORE CONGRESS.
I SEE MY TIME IS EXPIRED AND 
I'LL YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
I NOW RECOGNIZE MISS SCANLON.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. PROCHET, I WANTED TO FOCUS 
ON GOOGLE'S ACQUISITION OF 
YOUTUBE AND SOME OF THE 
CONSEQUENCES OF THAT MOVE FOR 
CONSUMER PRIVACY AND 
COMPETITION.
GOOGLE PURCHASED YOUTUBE IN 2006
AFTER IDENTIFYING IT AS A RIVAL 
THAT COULD DRAW BUSINESS AWAY 
FROM GOOGLE AND IT'S MY 
UNDERSTANDING GOOGLE PAID $1.65 
BILLION FOR THAT ACQUISITION, 
NEARLY 30 TIMES ITS ORIGINAL BID
OF 50 MILLION.
SO COULD YOU TELL US WHY GOOGLE 
WAS WILLING TO PAY SO MUCH MORE 
BEYOND THE INITIAL PROPOSED BID 
AND WAS THIS AS A RESULT OF ANY 
ANALYSIS ON THE HARM GOOGLE 
WOULD SUFFER IF A COMPETITOR HAD
PURCHASED YOUTUBE?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, WE ACQUIRED 
YOUTUBE IN 2006 AND THIS WAS 
WELL BEFORE MY TIME THERE AS CEO
AND I WASN'T DIRECTLY INVOLVED.
YOU KNOW, WHAT I DO RECALL AT 
THE TIME IS THAT WE SAW IT AS A 
NEW, EMERGING AREA AND WE ARE --
OUR MISSION IS TO HELP USERS 
WITH INFORMATION.
WE SAW AN OPPORTUNITY AND IT 
WASN'T -- YOU ONLY HAD 67 
PEOPLE.
>> OKAY.
WAS MR. PAIGE IN CHARGE OF THAT 
DECISION?
>> I'M PRETTY SURE OUR SENIOR 
LEADERSHIP TEAM AT THE TIME 
LOOKED INTO IT.
>> OKAY.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE TO TAKE THE STEPS 
NECESSARY TO HAVE US HERE FOR 
WHOEVER WAS IN CHARGE WITH THAT.
MOVING ON, GOOGLE IS NOW, BY 
FAR, THE TOP ONLINE SITE WHERE 
AMERICANS WATCH VIDEOS, 
INCLUDING CHILDREN'S VIDEOS.
AND AS I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE, 
FEDERAL LAW PREVENTS COMPANIES 
FROM COLLECTING DATA ON CHILDREN
UNDER 13.
HOWEVER, JUST LAST YEAR, THE 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION FOUND 
GOOGLE SPENT YEARS KNOWINGLY 
COLLECTING DATA ON CHILDREN 
UNDER 13 ON YOUTUBE AND OFFERING
ADVERTISERS THE ABILITY TO 
TARGET THOSE CHILDREN DIRECTLY.
DID YOUTUBE USE THE DATA IT 
ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED TO IMPROVE 
ITS ABILITY TO TARGET ADS TO 
CHILDREN?
>> WE ARE -- THIS IS AN AREA I 
TAKE IT SERIOUSLY.
I AM A PARENT, TOO.
WE HAVE A DEDICATED PRODUCT FOR 
KIDS IN YOUTUBE KIDS ON THE MAIN
YOUTUBE PLATFORM.
WE MAKE SURE WE HAVE CLEAR 
POLICIES.
WE ENFORCE THEM RIGOROUSLY.
IN 2019, WE FLAGGED AND REMOVED 
CLOSE TO A MILLION VIDEOS 
POTENTIALLY FOR CONCERNS AROUND 
CHILD SAFETY.
SO IT'S AN AREA WE ARE INVESTING
RIGOROUSLY AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO
DO SO.
>> WELL, I'M MORE CONCERNED 
ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU'RE 
INVESTING RIGOROUSLY IN LURING 
IN ADVERTISERS LIKE TOYMAKERS, 
MATTEL AND HASBRO BY TELLING 
THEM YOUTUBE IS THE NUMBER ONE 
SITE REGULARLY VISITED BY KIDS.
SO THAT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE 
TARGETING THE KIDS AND TARGETING
ADVERTISERS TO BRING THEM ON 
BOARD.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> TODAY IN THE MAIN SITE OF 
YOUTUBE, WE DON'T ALLOW ANYONE 
UNDER 13 TO CREATE ACCOUNTS.
THERE ARE SCENARIOS IN WHICH 
THERE COULD BE FAMILY SCREWING 
AND TODAY THERE ARE CREATORS WHO
CREATE CONTENT ORIENTED TO 
FAMILIES.
AND AS PART OF THAT THERE ARE 
ADVERTISERS WHICH ARE INTERESTED
IN CONNECTING WITH THOSE USERS.
BUT EVERYTHING WE DID HERE, WE 
OBVIOUSLY COMPLY WITH ALL THE 
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND -- 
>> OKAY.
LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF THE 
CONTENT THAT IS SPECIFICALLY FOR
CHILDREN.
-- MAKES IT ILLEGAL TO TARGET 
THOSE KIDS, BUT WE'VE GOT AN 
ISSUE WHERE CONTENT CREATORS ARE
IN A DIFFICULT APPROXIMATION 
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 HAVE CHOICES BOTH 
FOR CREATORS IN TERMS OF, YOU 
KNOW, TOOLS AND PREFERENCES AND 
WE HAVE EXTENSIVE TOOLS FOR 
ADVERTISERS AND ABOVE ALL FOR 
USERS WE GIVE A CHOICE.
THEY CAN EITHER USE YOUTUBE AS A
SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE WITHOUT 
SEEING THOSE TYPES OF ADS OR 
THEY CAN USE IT FOR FREE WITH 
ADS.
SO WE GIVE CHOICE AND, YOU KNOW,
FOR US, IT IS ABOUT MOST 
IMPORTANCE THAT YOUTUBE IS A 
PLACE WHERE PEOPLE COME TO LEARN
AND, YOU KNOW, BE INCREASINGLY 
SMALL AND MEDIUM BUSINESSES, YOU
USETUBE TO THRIVE, ESPECIALLY 
DURING COVID PARTICULARLY 
DURING -- MANY OF THE -- 
LET'S GO BACK TO CONTENT 
DESIGNED FOR CHILDREN.
IF THERE'S AN ORGANIZATION LIKE 
SESAME STREET THAT WANTS TO 
PROVIDE CHILD-CENTERED CONTENT 
BUT THEY DON'T WANT THAT CONTENT
TO BE SULLIED, SHALL WE SAY WITH
JUNK FOOD ADS OR SOMETHING, MY 
UNDERSTANDING IS YOU SAY THE 
CONTENT CREATORS CAN DO THAT, 
BUT WE'VE GOT A RECENT REPORT 
FROM "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL" 
THAT SAYS YOUTUBE HASN'T BEEN 
HONORING THOSE REQUESTS AND IT'S
BEEN MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR 
INDEPENDENT AUDITING COMPANIES 
LIKE OPEN SLATE TO INDEPENDENTLY
AUDIT THAT AND REPORT BACK TO 
THOSE CONTENT CREATORS ABOUT 
WHETHER OR NOT YOUTUBE IS 
HONORING THOSE.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE 
PARTICULAR REPORT, BUT I'M HAPPY
TO UNDERSTAND IT BETTER AND, YOU
KNOW, HAVE MY OFFICE FOLLOW UP 
WITH YOUR STAFF, SKONGMAN.
>> I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.
MY TIME IS EXPIRED.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN WOMAN YIELDS 
BACK.
THE CHAIR WILL NOW RECOGNIZE 
HIMSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> MR. BEZOS, THANK YOU FOR 
BEING HERE TODAY.
IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU 
REVIEWED YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY.
YOU INDICATED AND I'LL QUOTE 
THAT AMAZON ACCOUNTS FOR LESS 
THAN 1% OF THE 25 TRILLION 
DOLLARS GLOBAL RETAIL MARKET AND
LESS THAN 4% OF RETAIL IN THE 
U.S.
END QUOTE.
WHEN YOU REFER TO RETAIL, I TAKE
IT BASED ON THE EMPIRICAL 
STUDIES I REVIEWED, YOU'RE 
REFERRING TO A BROAD DEFINITION 
OF RETAIL THAT INCLUDES 
RESTAURANTS, BARS, GAS STATIONS,
IT'S A FAIRLEY ALL ENCOMPASSING 
VIEW OF RETAIL.
I WONDER IF YOU KNOW WHAT 
PERCENTAGE OF AMAZON'S SALES ARE
REPRESENTED IN THE TERMS OF 
ONLINE RETAIL SALES, THE 
E-COMMERCE MARKET STREAM.
>> THE FIGURES I'VE SEEN FOR -- 
YOU KNOW, I DON'T -- WITH ALL 
DUE RESPECT, I DON'T ACCEPT THAT
E-COMMERCE IS A DIFFERENT 
MARKET.
BUT AS A DIFFERENT CHANNEL, WHAT
I'VE SEEN IS 30% TO 40% IS THE 
OUTSIDE STUDIES THAT I'VE SEEN 
WHERE AMAZON'S SHARE OF THAT 
E-COMMERCE CHANNEL.
>> AND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH 
THE DATA THAT I HAVE SEEN.
THE LATEST FIGURE I SAW WAS 40%.
AND SO IN TERMS OF HOW WE DEFINE
IT, WHETHER IT'S A STREAM OR 
CHANNEL, NONETHELESS, I THINK 
THAT -- FACTUALLY IT'S 
IMPORTANT.
IT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION 
THAT I WT TO MAKE SURE WE 
CLEAR HERE.
OBVIOUSLY, I SUSPECT YOU 
UNDERSTAND MORE THAN MOST THAT 
THE EARLY STAGES OF A START-UP 
WHERE ENTREPRENEURS ARE 
UNDERTAKING RISK TOES BRING 
THEIR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES TO 
MARKET, OVER THE COURSE OF OUR 
INVESTIGATION, WE HAVE HEARD 
DIRECTLY FROM START-UPS WHO RELY
ON AMAZON SERVICES AND THAT 
INCLUDES OBVIOUSLY 
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL'S QUESTIONS,
REPRESENTATIVE BUCK THAT MY 
COLLEAGUE WITH COLORADO, WITH 
RESPECT TO THE WAY AMAZON USES 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
BUT WE'VE ALSO HEARD AMAZON'S 
CLOUD COMPUTING ARM, AWS, THE 
NOTION THAT THAT COMPUTING ARM 
ESSENTIALLY IDENTIFIES 
START-UP'S BEST TECHNOLOGIES AND
ROLLS OUT PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.
SO MR. BEZOS, DOES AMAZON USE 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT 
COMPANIES SHARE VIA AWS TO BUILD
COMPETING SERVICES?
>> NO, SIR, NO, SIR THAT I'M 
AWARE OF.
AWS DOES OFTEN, YOU KNOW, THEY 
DO KEEP EXPANDING THEIR 
SERVICES.
AWS STARTED, YOU KNOW, 15 YEARS 
AGO IN THIS ENTIRE CATEGORY -- 
>> LET ME CLARIFY THAT, MR. 
BEZOS.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING.
LAST WEEK ONE OF AMAZON'S FORMER
ENGINEERS POSTED ONLINE THAT HE 
AND HIS TEAM PROACTIVELY 
IDENTIFIED GROWING BUSINESSES ON
AWS, THAT THEY BUILT COMPETING 
PRODUCTS AND THAT THOSE TARGETED
THOSE PRODUCTS TO THE BUSINESS'S
CUSTOMERS.
AND THERE'S BEEN PUBLIC 
REPORTING ON THAT STRATEGY.
SO I GUESS I WONDER IF YOU CAN 
COMMENT ON THAT AND HOW YOU 
WOULD ACCOUNT FOR THOSE 
STATEMENTS.
>> WELL, I THINK THERE MAY BE 
CATEGORIES -- DATABASES OF 
DIFFERENT KINDS AND SO ON WHERE 
WE SEE THAT IT'S AN IMPORTANT 
PRODUCT FOR CUSTOMERS AND WE 
MAKE OUR OWN PRODUCT OFFERING IN
THAT ARENA.
BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN WE STOP 
SERVICING THE OTHER COMPANIES 
THAT ARE ALSO MAKING THOSE 
PRODUCTS.
WE HAVE COMPETITORS USING AWS 
AND WE WORK VERY HARD TO MAKE 
THEM SUCCESSFUL.
NETFLIX IS ONE EXAMPLE, HULU IS 
ANOTHER EXAMPLE AND SO ON.
>> I THINK THE CONCERN, MR. 
BEZOS, WITH RESPECT IS THAT THE 
PATTERN EMERGES ACROSS THE 
DIFFERENT COMPONENTS IN AMAZON, 
WHETHER IT'S THE MARKETPLACE OR 
WHETHER IT'S THE CLOUD SERVICES 
I MENTIONED.
IN ADDITION, THERE WAS AN 
ARTICLE, I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE 
IN THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL" 
RECORDING THE ALEXA FUNDS, THAT 
ACCORDING TO NEWS REPORTS 
AMAZON'S VENTURE CAPITAL SAW IN 
THE ALEXA FUND, THEY INVESTED IN
A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT COMPANIES.
YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE ALEXA 
FUND INVESTING IN DEFINE CROWD 
CORP.
DOES THAT RING A BELL?
>> NO, SIR.
I'M AFRAID IT DOESN'T.
>> OKAY.
I'LL REPRESENT TO YOU ACCORDING 
TO THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL," 
AND I'LL QUOTE FROM THEM, WHEN 
AMAZON INCORPORATED ITS VENTURE 
FUND IT GAINED ACCESS TO THE 
TECHNOLOGY START-UP'S FINANCES 
AND OTHER CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION.
NEARLY FOUR YEARS LATER IN 
APRIL, AMAZON'S CLOUD COMPUTING 
UNIT LAUNCHED AN ARTIFICIAL 
INTELLIGENCE PRODUCT THAT DOES 
ALMOST EXACTLY WHAT DEFINED 
CROWD SAID SAID DEFINED 
EXECUTIVE AND CHIEF DAN.
ARE YOU AWARE OF THOSE 
ALLEGATIONS?
>> I READ THAT ARTICLE, BUT I 
DIDN'T REMEMBER THAT PIECE OF 
IT.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF 
THAT SITUATION AND I WOULD BE 
HAPPY TO GET BACK TO YOUR OFFICE
WITH MORE INFORMATION ABOUT 
THAT.
>> WELL, I CERTAINLY WOULD 
WELCOME THAT.
AND TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU ALL 
CAN FOLLOW UP WITH THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO 
THIS PARTICULAR ARTICLE AND THE 
DIFFERENT EPISODES THAT ARE IN 
TERMS OF DEFINED CROWD CORP.
THE REASON WHY I ASK THESE 
QUESTIONS, MR. BEZOS, TO ME IS 
WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS
INNOVATION KILL ZONE THAT SEEMS 
TO BE EMERGING.
I REPRESENT TWO OF THE MOST 
INNOVATIVE TECH HUBS IN THE CUP 
AND ENTREPRENEURS AND FOUNDERS 
SHARED THIS STORY WITH THIS 
COMMITTEE DURING ONE OF OUR 
FIELD HEARINGS THAT WE HELD AT 
THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW 
SCHOOL EARLIER THIS YEAR.
AND THEY ARE EXTREMELY DEPENDENT
ON BIG TECHNOLOGY FIRMS, 
INCLUDING IN TERMS OF INVESTMENT
AND CAPITAL, YET THEY LIVE IN 
CONSTANT FEAR THAT THE PLATFORMS
COULD STEAL THEIR CORE 
TECHNOLOGIES OR IDEAS, MAKING IT
IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPETE BECAUSE OF
THOSE EXISTING ADVANTAGES.
I SEE MY TIME IS EXPIRED, BUT WE
WILL BE FOLLOWING UP WITH 
RESPECT TO THE EPISODES THAT I 
REFERENCED.
WITH THAT, I WOULD YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS EXPIRED.
AND THE GENTLEMAN WOMAN FROM 
GEORGIA, MS. McBETH IS 
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MR. COOK, FACEBOOK ACQUIRED 
WHATSAPP IN 2014.
AT THAT TIME, THE BOARD WAS TOLD
THE DEAL WAS CRITICAL FOR 
COUNTERING THE APP STORE POWER 
OF APPLE AND GOOGLE WHO CHOKE 
OFF FACEBOOK'S ACCESS TO MOBILE 
DEVICES.
WAS CHERYL SANDBERG CORRECT, 
DOES APPLE HAVE THE POWER TO 
EXCLUDE APPS FROM THE APP STORE?
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF
THIS, CONGRESSWOMAN, WE'VE 
INCREASED THE NUMBER OF APPS 
FROM 500 TO 1.7 MILLION.
SO THERE IS A VERY WIDE GATE FOR
THE APPS STORE.
AND THERE'S FIERCE COMPETITION 
FOR DEVELOPERS AND WE WANT EVERY
APP WE CAN ON THE PLATFORM.
>> OKAY.
SO BUT MR. COOK WHAT YOU'RE 
SAYING IS APPLE CAN EXCLUDE APPS
FROM THE APP STORE, IN FACT, IT 
HAS.
IN 2018, APPLE INTRODUCED AN APP
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 THAT GAVE 
PARENTS CONTROL OVER THE KIDS' 
PHONE USAGE 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, AND 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, WHY DID APPLE REMOVE 
COMPETING APPS RIGHT AFTER YOU 
RELEASED SCREEN TIME?
>> WE WERE CONCERNED, 
CONGRESSWOMAN, ABOUT THE PRIVACY
AND SECURITY OF KIDS.
THE TECHNOLOGY THAT WAS BEING 
USED AT THAT 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.
>> TODAY WE HAVE -- 
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
BUT THE TIMING OF THE REMOVAL 
SEEMS VERY COINCIDENTAL.
IF APPLE WASN'T ATTEMPT TO GO 
HARM COMPETITORS IN ORDER TO 
HELP ITS OWN APP, WHY DID PHIL 
SHILLER, WHO RUNS THE APP STORE,
PROMOTE THE SCREEN TIME APP TO 
CUSTOMERS WHO COMPLAINED ABOUT 
THE REMOVAL OF RIVAL PARENTAL 
CONTROL APPS?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I CAN'T SEE 
THIS EMAIL.
I'M SORRY, MY EYES ARE NOT GOOD 
ENOUGH TO READ IT.
BUT I SEE SCREEN TIME AS JUST AN
ALTERNATIVE.
BUT THERE ARE OVER 30 PARENTAL 
CONTROL APPS THAT ARE IN THE APP
STORE TODAY.
SO THERE IS VIBRANT COMPETITION 
FOR PARENTAL CONTROLS OUT THERE.
>> OKAY.
MR. COOK, THE FACT IS THAT APPLE
SIDELINED SCREEN TIME'S 
COMPETITION BY KEEPING THEM OUT 
OF THE APP STORE.
AND WHILE APPEL CLAIMS THESE 
COMPETITORS WEREN'T MEETINGING 
THE PRIVACY STANDARDS, THESE 
APPS SAY YOU ADMITTED THEM BACK 
IN SIX MONTHS LATER WITHOUT 
REQUIRING SIGNIFICANT PRIVACY 
CHANGES AND, OF COURSE, SIX 
MONTHS IS TRULY AN ETERNITY FOR 
SMALL BUSINESSES TO BE SHUT 
DOWN, EVEN WORSE IF ALL THE 
WHILE A LARGER COMPETITOR IS 
ACTUALLY TAKING AWAY CUSTOMERS.
AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT THE 
FIRST TIME SOMETHING LIKE THIS 
SEEMS TO HAVE HAPPENED.
LET ME GIVE YOU ANOTHER EXAMPLE 
OF THE HARM THAT HAS BEEN CAUSED
TO YOUR COMPETITORS.
IN 2010, APPLE INTRODUCED AN 
ONLINE BOOKSTORE CALLED THE 
IBOOKSTORE WHERE IT OFFERED 
eBOOKS.
AND THE ONLY MAJOR PUBLISHER 
THAT DIDN'T AGREE TO JOIN 
IBOOKSTORE WAS RANDOM HOUSE.
RANDOM HOUSE WANTED TO OFFER ITS
OWN eBOOKS THROUGH ITS OWN APPS.
AMID CONTINUED NEGOTIATIONS 
BETWEEN APPLE AND RANDOM HOUSE, 
SENIOR VP EDDIE QUEUE SAID -- 
I'M QUOTING HIM WHEN HE SAID HE 
PREVENTED AN APP FROM RANDOM 
HOUSE GOING LIVE IN THE APP 
STORE.
HE HIMSELF CITED THIS REJECTION 
AS A FACTOR IN FINALLY GETTING 
RANDOM HOUSE TO GIVE IN AND JOIN
IBOOKSTORE.
IS IT FAIR FOR APPLE TO USE ITS 
POWER OVER THE APPS STORE TO 
PRESSURE A BUSINESS TO JOIN 
APPLE'S OWN APP?
>> I CAN'T SEE THE EMAIL AND SO 
I DON'T KNOW THE CONTEXT OF IT, 
BUT THERE ARE MANY REASONS WHY 
AN APP MIGHT NOT INITIALLY GO 
THROUGH.
THE APP STORE GATE.
BECAUSE IT MAY NOT WORK 
PROPERLY, THERE MAY BE OTHER 
ISSUES WITH IT.
SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE.
WHAT I WOULD -- I WOULD SAY, 
THOUGH, ON A MACRO BASIS, THE 
GATE TO THE -- THE APP STORE IS 
VERY WIDE.
WE HAVE 1.7 MILLION APPS IN IT.
IT'S BECOME AN ECONOMIC MIRACLE.
>> OKAY.
>> WITH OVER $138 BILLION OF 
COMMERCE JUST IN THE UNITED 
STATES.
>> MR. COOK, I REALLY, REALLY 
APPRECIATE THAT SENTIMENT, BUT I
WANT TO SAY TO YOU THAT APPLE 
ENJOYS ENORMOUS POWER TO CONTROL
WHICH APPS CAN REACH CONSUMERS, 
EVEN SOME OF THE LARGEST 
COMPANIES IN THE COUNTRY FEAR 
YOUR POWER.
OUR EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT YOUR 
COMPANY HAS USED ITS POWER TO 
HARM YOUR RIVALS AND BOOST YOUR 
OWN BUSINESS.
THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR.
AND HARMS SMALL BUSINESSES THAT 
RELY ON YOU TO REACH CUSTOMERS 
AND STIFLES THE 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.
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
THAT CONCLUDES THAT ROUND.
IN LIGHT OF THE REQUEST OF MR. 
GATES FOR A THIRD ROUND AND 
BECAUSE MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES 
WOULD LIKE TO GET MORE FULSOME 
ANSWERS ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES, 
WE'LL PROCEED TO A FINAL ROUND 
AND MY EXPECTATIONS IS WE WILL 
CONTACT WITHIN THE HOUR.
AND 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 OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO, 
THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE AL VER
WENDELL HOLMES JR. WROTE THE 
MOST STRINGENT PROTECTION OF 
FREE SPEECH WOULD NOT PROTECT A 
MAN FALSELY SHOT AND FIRED IN A 
THEATER AND CAUSING PANIC.
MY FIRST QUESTION IS, MR. 
ZUCKERBERG, DO YOU AGREE WITH 
THAT PRINCIPLE, THAT THERE ARE 
LIMITS TO HARMFUL SPEECH AND 
THERE ARE PARTICULARLY WITH 
REGARD TO HAD HEALTH AND SAFETY 
OF THE PUBLIC?
>> I CERTAINLY DO.
I ACTUALLY THINK OUR POLICIES GO
FURTHER THAN ELIMINATING THOSE 
TYPES OF THINGS.
>> WELL, MR. ZUCKERBERG, YOU 
HAVE A BILLION USERS AND ALMOST 
50,000 EMPLOYEES.
SO HE 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 I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT I DO 
NOT BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY 
INCENTIVE TO HAVE THIS CONTENT 
ON OUR SERVICES.
>> EXCEPT THAT -- 
>> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, EXCEPT 
THAT IT IS OFTEN THE MOST 
ENGAGING.
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 SOME EXAMPLE 
SPECIFIC EXAMPLES THAT WILL 
ILLUSTRATE MY CONCERNS.
THESE ARE SOME OF THE TOP TEN 
MOST SHARED ARTICLES ON FACEBOOK
IN 2020.
TRUMP'S SUGGESTS DISINFECTANT TO
BEAT CORONAVIRUS AND BEAT THE 
LUNGS.
CORONAVIRUS BIGGEST 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 THAT 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 WOULD LEAD TO 
IMMINENT HARM.
THIS HAS SHOWN SO FAR.
>> THE 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 YOU SPECIFICALLY, 
WHAT ARE YOU DOING RIGHT NOW TO 
PROTECT PEOPLE FROM DEMONSTRABLY
FALSE CLAIMS RELATED TO THIS 
DEADLY PANDEMIC?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'LL 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 FEED BASE ODD WHAT IS 
GOING TO BE THE MOST MEANINGFUL 
TO PEOPLE AND IS GOING TO CREATE
LONG-TERM SATISFACTION, NOT JUST
WHAT IS GOING TO GET ENGAGEMENTS
OR CLICKS TODAY.
>> SIR, IF THAT IS TRUE, HOW DO 
YOU EXPLAIN THAT ON MONDAY THE 
SECOND MOST POPULAR POST ON 
FACEBOOK WAS A BREITBART VIDEO 
CLAIMING THAT YOU DON'T NEED A 
MASK AND HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE IS A
CURE FOR COVID?
AND IN THE FIRST FIVE HOURS 
AFTER BEING POSTED ON FACEBOOK, 
IT RACKED UP 20 MILLION VIEWS 
AND OVER 100,000 COMMENTS BEFORE
FACEBOOK ACTED TO REMOVE IT?
WELL, A LOT OF PEOPLE SHARED 
THAT AND WE DID TAKE IT DOWN 
BECAUSE IT VIOLATES OUR 
POLICIES.
WE WORKED WITH THE CDC TO FIGURE
OUT -- 
>> OVER A MILLION PEOPLE 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 CAN TENT?
>> 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.
>> WITH AUTHORITATIVE 
INFORMATION FROM HEALTH 
OFFICIALS -- 
>> THANK YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG.
I JUST HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
TELEVISION STATION RUNS A FALSE 
POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT, THEY'RE
HELD LIABLE FOR THAT.
WHY SHOULD FACEBOOK OR ANY OTHER
PLATFORM BE DIFFERENT?
YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE MAYBE NOT FOR
THE FIRST POSTING, BUT YOU THEN 
TAKE THAT POSTING AND YOU APPLY 
A SET OF ALGORITHMS THAT DECIDE 
HOW YOU WILL DISSEMINATE THAT 
WHICH IS A BUSINESS DECISION, 
NOT A FIRST AMENDMENT DECISION.
AND IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND YOU 
WHY FACEBOOK SHOULDN'T BE 
RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE BUSINESS 
DECISIONS.
>> CONGRESSMAN, IN TERMS OF 
POLITICAL ADS, WE'VE MODELLED A 
LOT OF OUR POLICIES OFF THE FCC 
GUIDELINES ON BROADCASTERS.
AND THEIR REQUIREMENTS TO RUN 
POLITICAL ADS.
EQUALLY FROM ALL DIFFERENT 
SIDES.
>> I THINK THIS -- 
>> FORCE MORE -- 
>> I THINK THESE EXAMPLES, 
UNFORTUNATELY, ARE JUST THE TIP 
OF THE ICEBERG.
IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT COVID.
FACEBOOK HOSTS COUNTLESS PAGES 
AND ADS DEDICATED TO CONSPIRACY 
THEORIES AND CALLS TO VIOLENCE 
INCLUDING CONTENT THAT LED TO 
CHARLOTTESVILLE IN 2017 AND 
FACEBOOK GETS AWAY WITH IT 
BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONLY GAME IN 
TOWN.
THERE IS 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.
IN 2016, THERE WAS AN INTERNAL 
GOOGLE MEETING.
YOU ATTENDED THAT MEETING ALONG 
WITH SERGEI BRIN, A VIDEO OF 
THAT MEETING WAS LINKED TO 
BREITBART.
AT THE MEETING, TOP GOOGLE 
EXECUTIVES INCLUDING CANT 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.
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 ELECTION HEARING ON BEHALF OF
THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT, BUT 
GIVEN THE VIDEO EVIDENCE OF 
SENIOR MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM IN 
YOUR PRESENCE SAYING THEY HAD 
THE INTENT TO MAKE THE TRUMP 
VICTORY A BLIP, WHY SHOULD WE 
BELIEVE THAT TESTIMONY TODAY?
>> AS A COMPANY, WE TAKE PRIDE 
IN FREE ELECTIONS AND WE ARE 
DEEPLY COMMITTED TO IT AS I SAID
TO CONGRESSMAN -- 
>> DO YOU REMEMBER THAT MEETING?
2016 THAT YOU -- IS. 
>> YES, I DO.
YES, I DO.
>> IT WASN'T IN THE CONTEXT OF, 
YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE ELECTION 
ACROSS BOTH SIDES.
THERE WERE A LOT OF OPINIS AND
ELECTIONS ARE KIND OF A 
POLARIZING MOMENT GENERALLY IN 
THE COUNTRY.
AND THERE WAS A LOT OF RHETORIC 
WILL CERTAIN ISSUES WHICH ARE --
>> 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 VICE PRESIDENTS 
CENSORED, YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY
PEOPLE WOULD BE CONCERNED.
WHAT ACTION DID YOU TAKE AS THE 
CEO TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE 
NEUTRALITY OF YOUR PLATFORM?
>>. 
>> CONGRESSMAN, NO ONE HAD A 
VIEW OF INTERFERING WITH 
ELECTIONS OR SO ON.
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS WE MADE 
IT VERY CLEAR ABOUT TWO YEARS 
AGO, WE ANNOUNCED NEW COMMUNITY 
GUIDELINES WITHIN GOOGLE CLEARLY
MAKING IT CLEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, 
EMPLOYEES CAN HAVE OBVIOUSLY ARE
FREE TO HAVE THEIR POLITICAL 
VIEWS, BUT NONE OF THAT SHOULD 
EVER -- THEY SHOULD BRING THAT 
AS THEY WORK ON ANY OF OUR 
PRODUCTS AND IF HE FOUND ANY 
EVIDENCE THAT PEOPLE ARE USING A
POLITICAL AGENDA TO MANIPULATE 
ANY OF OUR CONTENT PLATFORMS.
>> UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVE A 
STRING OF EVENTS HERE.
WE HAVE THE 2016 MEETING WHERE 
PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THEIR INTENT
TO MAKE CHANGES, TO HURT THE 
PRESIDENT, AND THEN WE HAVE YOUR
TESTIMONY TODAY THAT IS 
DIFFERENT FROM YOUR TESTIMONY IN
DECEMBER WHERE YOU SEE PEOPLE 
CAN MANIPULATE BLACK LISTS AND 
THEN YOU HAVE THE OUTCOME WHERE 
SITES LIKE BREITBART AND GATEWAY
PUNDIT AND OTHERS SEE THAT 
TREATMENT.
IT DOESN'T TAKE SHERLOCK HOLMES 
TO CONNECT THE DOTS AND SEE WHAT
GOOGLE IS DOING.
I'M GOING TO MOVE ON WITH MY 
FINAL 90 SECONDS.
MR. BEZOS, I AM DEEPLY MOVED BY 
YOUR PERSONAL STORY.
I AM NOT ACCUSING YOU OF SOMEONE
TRAFFICKING HATE.
BUT IT SEEMS THAT YOU EMPOWER 
PEOPLE WHO DO.
AND I'M PARTICULARLY TALKING 
ABOUT 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 AS 
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.
FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T KNOW
WHAT AMAZON SMILE IS, IT'S A 
PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS CUSTOMERS TO
DESIGNATE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF 
THEIR PRACTICES TO GO TO A 
CHARITY THAT WE PAY FOR.
WE USE THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW 
CENTER DATA TO SAY WHICH 
CHARITIES ARE EXTREMIST 
ORGANIZATIONS.
WE ALSO USE THE U.S. FOREIGN 
ASSET OFFICE TO DO THE SAME 
THING.
THOSE TWO TOGETHER -- 
>> BUT WHY SINCE THEY'RE CALLING
CATHOLICS AND JEWISH GROUPS 
HATEFUL GROUPS, WHY WOULD YOU 
TRUST THEM?
>> SIR, I'M GOING ACKNOWLEDGE 
THIS IS AN IMPERFECT SYSTEM 
AND -- 
>> NO DOUBT.
>> I WOULD LOVE SUGGESTIONS ON 
BETTER OR ADDITIONAL SOURCES.
>> MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE A 
DIVORCE FROM THE SPLC AND I SEE 
THAT I'M OUT OF TIME AND I YIELD
BACK.
>> I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN
FROM GEORGIA, MR. JOHNSON.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
FACEBOOK IS DOMINANT NOT JUST IN
THE SOCIAL MEDIA MARKET BUT IN 
ITS SOCIAL DISABILITIES.
FACEBOOK HAD SEVERAL TOOLS THAT 
ALLOWED IT TO CONDUCT DIGITAL 
SURVEILLANCE, INCLUDING TRACTOR,
FACEBOOK'S HIKE BUTTON, FACEBOOK
LOGIN AND A SERIES OF 
APPLICATION PROGRAMMING 
INTERFACES OR APIs.
THESE TOOLS PROVIDE FACEBOOK 
WITH INSIGHTS INTO ITS 
COMPETITORS WEBSITES AND APPS.
ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> 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.
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, KWCOMPETITIVE RESEARCH, D
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 FOES?
>> I'M NOT SURE WHAT HE WAS 
REFERRING TO THERE BUT HE WAS 
ONE OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN 
RUNNING OUR ANALYTICS 
ORGANIZATION.
I THINK IT'S NATURAL THAT HE 
WOULD AS PART OF HIS 
RESPONSIBILITY BE FOCUSED ON 
MARKET RESEARCH AND 
UNDERSTANDING MORE THERE.
>> AND CERTAINLY ISN'T IT TRUE 
THAT FACEBOOK, AFTER THAT 
CONVERSATION, PURCHASED THE WEB 
ANALYTICS COMPANY ONEVAU TO 
MONITOR ITS COMPETITORS?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I THINK YOU HAVE
THE TIMING CORRECT.
WE PURCHASED ANAVAU AS PART OF 
OUR BROADER MARKET RESEARCH 
CAPACITY.
>> AND THAT WOULD GIVE YOU THE 
CAPABILITY TO MONITOR YOUR 
COMPETITORS, CORRECT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, IT GAVE 
AGGREGATE ANALYTICS AS TO WHAT 
PEOPLE WERE USING AND WHAT 
PEOPLE WERE FINDING VALUABLE.
SORT OF LIKE THE TYPE OF PRODUCT
THAT YOU FIND FROM NIELSON, SOME
OF THESE OTHER THIRD PARTY 
COMPANIES THAT PROVIDE SIMILAR 
DATA.
>> 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 ANEAVAU TO 
USE SERER SURVEILLANCE, YOUR 
COMPANY GOT KICKED OUT OF 
APPEL'
APPLE'S APP STORE.
ISN'T THAT TRUE?
>> I'M NOT SURE I WOULD 
CHARACTERIZE IT THAT WAY?
>> NEVEAU DID GET KICKED OUT OF 
THE APP STORE.
ISN'T THAT TRUE?
>> I BELIEVE WE TOOK THE APP OUT
AFTER APPLE CHANGED THEIR POLICY
ABOUT THE VPN APPS.
>> AND IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE USE
OF THESE SURVEILLANCE TOOLS.
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE 
THAT THE POLICY WAS WORDED THAT 
WAY.
OR IF THAT'S EXACTLY THE RIGHT 
CHARACTERIZATION OF IT.
>> OKAY.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION.
AFTER ONEVEAU WAS BOOTED OUT OF 
THE APPS STORE, YOU TURNED TO 
OTHER SURVEILLANCE TOOLS SUCH AS
FACEBOOK RESEARCH APP.
CORRECT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, IN GENERAL, YES,
WE DO A BROAD VARIETY OF -- AS 
TO -- 
>> AND ALSO, ISN'T IT TRUE, MR. 
ZUCKERBERG, THAT FACEBOOK PAID 
TEENAGERS TO SELL THEIR PRIVACY 
BY INSTALLING FACEBOOK RESEARCH 
APP?
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT, 
BUT I THINK IT'S A GENERAL 
PRACTICE TO BE ABLE TO -- THAT 
THE COMPANIES USE TO HAVE 
DIFFERENT SURVEYS AND -- 
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 ENJOYING, 
SAID THEY CAN LEARN AND MAKE MR 
PRODUCTS BETTER.
THAT IS WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO 
DO.
THAT IS WHAT OUR ANALYTICS TEAM 
WAS DOING.
I THINK IN GENERAL THAT ALLOWS 
US TO MAKE OUR SERVICES BETTER 
WHICH IS OUR GOAL.
>> DID YOU USE THAT CAPABILITY 
TO PURCHASE WHATSAPP?
>> CONGRESSMAN, IT WAS ONE OF 
THE SIGNALS THAT WE HAD ABOUT 
WHATSAPP'S TRAJECTORY, BUT WE 
DIDN'T NEED IT.
WITHOUT THAT, IT WAS PRETTY 
CLEAR THAT WHATSAPP WAS A GREAT 
PRODUCT.
I ALREADY HAD A RELATIONSHIP 
WITH THE FOUNDER.
>> AND IT WAS A COMPETITOR -- 
>> 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, 
A YES-OR-NO ANSWER.
DO YOU BELIEVE 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 IS 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. PACHAI, DO YOU BELIEVE 
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 WAS SAYING I HAVE HEARD MANY 
REPORTS OF THAT.
I HAVEN'T SEEN IT PERSONALLY, 
BUT I'VE SEEN MANY REPORTS OF 
IT.
>> SO OF ALL THE DIFFERENT 
PRODUCTS AMAZON CARRIES, YOU 
HAVEN'T SEEN THAT IN ANY OF THE 
COMPANIES THAT SELL AMAZON OR 
YOUR COMPANY ITSELF?
>> OH, WELL, CERTAINLY THERE ARE
KNOCKOFF PRODUCTS IF THAT'S WHAT
YOU MEAN AND THERE ARE 
COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS AND ALL OF 
THAT, BUT THE CHINESE -- IF THE 
ANSWER IS IF THE CHINESE 
GOVERNMENT IS 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 
REGULATION IN GENERAL AND 
ANTI-TRUST IN PARTICULAR SEEMS 
TO HAVE BEEN MUCH LESS 
SUCCESSFUL THAN AMERICA'S 
APPROACH.
AS YOU ALL KNOW FROM DIRECT 
EXPERIENCE, THIS IS A COMPANY 
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 WHAT WOULD LIKE TO CHIME
IN, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO YOU.
NONE OF YOU HAVE ANY 
RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW CONGRESS 
CAN BETTER PRODUCT U.S. 
COMPANIES LIKE YOURSELF?
ALL RIGHT.
I'LL YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY 
TIME.
>> 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 IS ONE FROM 
DAVID WANER 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.
AND 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 
RECOLLECTION?
>> YES, CONCGRESSMAN.
THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
ADDRESS THIS AND FRANKLY TO 
CORRECT THE RECORD.
I BELIEVE THAT WHAT HE WAS 
REFERRING TO WAS A QUESTION THAT
WAS INCOMING FROM INVESTORS 
ABOUT WHETHER WE WOULD CONTINUE 
TO REQUIRE YOU DIFFERENT 
COMPANIES -- I DON'T THINK 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.
>> OKAY.
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?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE I 
AGREE WITH THE CHARACTERIZATION 
OF HOW WE COMMUNICATED WITH 
INVESTORS, BUT -- 
>> IT'S YOUR WORDS, MR. 
ZUCKERBERG.
>> BUT I THINK THE BROADER POINT
IS THERE WERE A LOT OF NEW WAYS 
THAT PEOPLE CAN CONNECT THAT 
WERE CREATED BY SMARTPHONES.
AND -- 
>> BUT THIS IS ABOUT YOUR MERGER
AND ACQUISITION STRATEGY.
I'M NOT INTERESTINED IN HOW PEOE
CONNECT.
I'M INTERESTED IN HOW YOU 
ACQUIRE -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS 
EXPIRED, BUT THE WITNESS MAY 
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>> IN ORDER TO SERVE PEOPLE 
BETTER AND HELP PEOPLE CONNECT 
IN ALL THE WAYS THAT WE WANT, WE
INNOVATED AND BUILT A LOT OF USE
CASES INTERNALLY AND WE ACQUIRED
OTHERS.
AND 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'VE GRABBED A LOT OF LAND.
>> I WOULD SAY 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
COMMISSION FROM APPS THAT CHANGE
THEIR BUSINESS MODELS IN 
RESPONSE TO THE PANDEMIC.
BUSINESSES THAT RELIED ON 
IN-PERSON INTERACTIONS HAVE 
MOVED ONLINE AND APPLE IS 
LOOKING FOR ITS CUT.
I'VE HEARD FROM SOME OF THE 
EFFECTED BUSINESSES.
THEY SAY YOU WERE CALLING THEM 
UP DEMANDING YOUR 30%.
>> ISN'T THIS PANDEMIC 
PROFITEERING?
>> WE WOULD NEVER DO THAT, MR. 
CHAIRMAN.
THE PANDEMIC IS THE TRAGEDY AND 
IT'S HURTING AMERICANS AND 
PEOPLE FROM ALL AROUND THE WORLD
AND WE WOULD NEVER TAKE 
ADVANTAGE OF THAT.
I BELIEVE THE CASES YOU'RE 
TALKING ABOUT ARE CASES WHERE 
SOMETHING HAS MOVED TO A DIGITAL
SERVICE WHICH TECHNICALLY DOES 
NEED TO MOVE THROUGH OUR 
COMMISSION MODEL AND IN BOTH OF 
THE CASES THAT I'M AWARE OF, WE 
ARE WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPERS.
TO SORT OF ZOOM OUT AND GIVE YOU
SOME HISTORICAL CONTEXT ON THIS.
WHEN WE ENTERED THE APPS STORE 
MARKET, THE COST OF 
DISTRIBUTESING 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.
A IT'S NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR 2 
MILLION JOBS ACROSS AMERICA IN 
84% OF THE APPS ON THE STORE ARE
DISTRIBUTED FOR FREE.
OH
ONLY THAT 16% IS SUBJECT OR THE 
30%?
>> AND SCHOOL IS ABOUT TO START 
AROUND THE COUNTRY.
MILLIONS OF PARENTS AND STUDENTS
WILL ATTEND SCHOOL ONLINE.
THEY WILL RELY ON APPS TO TALK 
TO TEACHERS, STUDENTS AND 
VIRTUAL LEARNING TOOLS.
ARE THEY ONLINE LEARNING TOOLS 
NEXT ON APPLE'S LIST TO 
MONETIZE?
>> THEY'RE NOT, MR. CHAIRMAN.
WE WOULD -- WE'RE VERY PROUD OF 
WHAT WE'VE DONE IN EDUCATION.
WE ARE SERVING THAT MARKET IN A 
SIGNIFICANT WAY, INCLUDING TONS 
OF DONATIONS AND WE WILL WORK 
WITH THE 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 
AMOUNTS OF MONEY ACROSS THE U.S.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> WE'VE HEARD THAT APPLE IS NOW
TRYING TO EXTRACT COMMISSIONS 
FROM VARIOUS APPS THAT 
PREVIOUSLY DIDN'T PAY YOU 
ANYTHING.
YOU APPROVED THE EMAIL APP HEY 
AND THEN DATE LATER THREATENED 
TO KICK IT OUT OF THE APPS STORE
UNLESS IT GAVE YOU A CUT OF 
REVENUE.
THE COO OF BASE CAMP TESTIFIED 
BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE EARLIER 
THIS YEAR WITNESS HE WAS 
CONCERNED ABOUT APPLE'S MONOPOLY
OVER SOFTWARE DISBEAUTIFUL ON 
IOS DEVICES.
AND HE SEEMS TOVK RIGHT.
APPLE SAYS SERVICES LIKE HAY 
HAVE ALWAYS BEEN REQUIRED TO CUT
APPLE IN.
BUT HE PREVIOUSLY DIDN'T 
INTERPRET THE RULES THAT WAY.
YOU DIDN'T ENFORCE YOUR RULES 
THAT WAY.
>> SO WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THIS,
PLEASE.
>> YEAH.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD.
HAY IS IN THE STORE TODAY AND 
WE'RE HAPPY THAT THEY'RE THERE.
I BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE A 
VERSION OF THEIR PRODUCT IS FOR 
FREE AND SO THEY'RE NOT PAYING 
ANYTHING ON THAT.
I WOULD SAY THE 30% -- I HOPE 
YOU GIVE ME 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 ARROWS 
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 THAT THE APPS
STORE WENT INTO EFFECT IN 2008.
WE'VE ONLY LOWERED THEM.
>> THANK YOU.
I SEE MY TIME IS EXPIRED.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S YIELDS BACK.
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN 
FROM NORTH DAKOTA, MR. 
ARMSTRONG.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
IN 2015, GOOGLE ANNOUNCED THAT 
IT WOULD NOT ALLOW THIRD PARTIES
TO BUY YOUTUBE ADS VIA ADEX.
THAT MEANSGOOGLE CITED THIS BY G
USER EXPERIENCE.
IT IS ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
EVEN UNDER THE GDPR, THAT YOU 
ARE ALLOWED -- YOU ALLOW USERS 
TO PROVIDE CONSENT, WHICH WOULD 
AUTHORIZE THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY.
IT SEEMS THAT IF -- THAT THIS 
POLICY, REGARDLESS OF THE 
PRIVACY CONCERNS, REDUCED 
COMPETITION FOR DEMAND SIGHT 
PLATFORMS ON YOUTUBE.
DO YOU AGREE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE'RE ALWAYS 
LOOKING TO INCREASE THE YOUTUBE 
EXPERIENCE.
PART OF BEING ABLE TO INTEGRATE 
THE SPACE, IT'S SOMETHING CALLED
TRUE VIEW ADS AND FOR USERS, WE 
GIVE THEM SKIPPABLE ADS.
IF THEY FIND THE ADS NOT TO BE 
RELEVANT, THEY CAN SKIP PAST 
THOSE ADS.
MONETIZING YOUTUBE IS WHAT 
ALLOWS -- TODAY WE HAVE 
LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS 
OF CREATORS EARNING A LIVELIHOOD
AND MANY OF THEM ARE SMALL AND 
MEDIUM BUSINESSES.
WE WANT TO SUPPORT THAT AND WE 
ARE FOCUSED ON THAT.
ALLOWING THIS TYPE OF INTEGRATE 
IS WHAT ALLOWS USERS TO CREATE 
THAT USER EXPERIENCE.
>> BUT AFTER GOOGLE STOPPED 
ALLOWING THEM TO BUY THOSE ADS, 
GOOGLE LIMITED THE AVAILABILITY 
AND NOW REQUIRED THE USE OF ADS 
ON DATA HUB.
THE JUSTIFICATION IS BASED ON 
USER PRIVACY.
OTHER MARKET PARTICIPANTS MAY 
NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THAT DATA, 
BUT IT DOESN'T DISAPPEAR, DOES 
IT?
>> THIS IS CONSISTENT TODAY WITH
HOW MANY SERVICES, BE IT 
FACEBOOK, SNAPCHAT OR PINTREST, 
YOU WORKED TO BUY ADS ON -- 
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT THE SDAET DOESN'T DISAPPEAR,
YOU JUST HAVE GREATER CONTROL 
OVER IT, RIGHT?
>> IT'S A SERVICE WE PROVIDE TO 
OUR USERS.
WE AUDIBLE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE 
PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF USERS.
WE DO MONETIZE WITH ADS.
WE GIVE USERS A CHOICE OF 
CONSUMING ITS AS A SUBSCRIPTION 
SERVICE OR USING IT WITH ADS.
WE'VE BEEN VERY FOCUSED ON 
MAKING YOUTUBE A GREAT PLATFORM 
FOR CREATORS.
AND I THINK THE MODEL IS WORKING
WELL AND IT'S HELPED MANY SMALL 
AND MEDIUM BUSINESS TOES INVEST 
IN THE PLATFORM AND GROW THEIR 
BUSINESSES.
>> SO REGARDLESS OF THE INTENT 
WAS TO LESSEN COMPETITION OR 
NOT, THE ACTION RESULTED IN 
SMALLER COMPETITORS UNABLE TO 
PARTICIPATE IN PLACING ADS ON 
YOUTUBE.
ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE SEE ROBUST 
CHOICE FOR, YOU KNOW, THE 
ADVERTISERS.
THERE IS SEVERAL ALTERNATIVES.
THERE IS OBVIOUSLY FACEBOOK'S 
PRODUCTS, THERE'S AMAZON WITH 
THEIR APPS MARKETPLACE, THERE IS
COMPANIES LIKE SNAP CHAT, 
PINTREST, TWITTER.
SO WE SEE DYNAMISN IN THE 
MARKETPLACE -- 
>> BUT HERE IS MY ISSUE.
THERE ARE POLICIES THAT PROTECT 
USER PRIVACY.
APPLE'S POLICY, MICROSOFT JUST 
KIEM OUT ON FACIAL RECOGNITION 
POLICY.
MY CONCERN IS THAT YOUR 
POSITION -- THE POSITION IS THAT
WHEN WE'RE USING PRIVACY, WE'RE 
TRYING TO USE PRIVACY AND WE'RE 
USING PRIVACY AS A SHIELD SHIELD
AND WHAT YOUR COMPANY IS DOING 
IS USING IT TO BEAT 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'D YIELD THE 
REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO MR. 
GATES.
>> THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
YIELDING.
I WANT 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 ULD
PARTNER WITH A GROUP THAT LABELS
HIM AS SOMEONE WORTHY OF AN 
EXTREMIST WATCH LIST?
>> WELL, IT'S -- I WANT YOU TO 
HOPEFULLY APPRECIATE WHEN WE'RE 
TRYING TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR 
PEOPLE TO DONATE TO ANY NUMBER 
OF MILLIONS OF DIFFERENT 
CHARITIES.
AND WE NEED TO HAVE SOME SOURCE 
OF DATA TO USE.
AND I ACCEPT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING 
THAT THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW 
CENTER AND THE U.S. FOREIGN 
ASSET OFFICE ARE NOT PERFECT.
I WOULD LIKE A BETTER SOURCE IF 
WE COULD GET IT.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE USING TODAY.
IT'S GREAT YOU RECOGNIZE THE 
INFIRMARIES IN THE SOUTHERN 
POVERTY LAW CENTER AND I GUESS 
MR. ZUCKERBERG'S COMPANY USES 
IT, AS WELL.
DO YOU BELIEVE DR. BEN CARSON IS
AN EXTREMIST?
>> NO, CONGRESSMAN.
>> 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 -- IS. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS 
EXPIRED.
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN 
FROM MARYLAND, MR. RASKIN, FOR 
FIVE MINUTES.
>> I READ THE PARANOID STYLE OF 
AMERICAN POLITICS, SO I SUPPOSE 
IT'S FUTILE TO TRY TO CURE THE 
OBSESSIVE PERSECUTION COMPLEX 
AND VICTIMOLOGY OF SOME OF OUR 
COLLEAGUES.
BUT THEY SHOULD CHECK OUT THE 
TOP PERFORMING FACEBOOK POSTS BY
THE UNITED STATES PAGES TODAY OR
ANY DAY IN THE LAST WEEK AND 7 
OR 8 OUT OF THE LAST 8 EACH DAY 
ARE WRIGHT WING CITES, BEN 
SCHAPIRO, FOX NEWS, DAN 
BONSHIRO, 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 THE 
ENDLESS WHINING ABOUT HOW 
FACEBOOK AND TWITTER OR FACEBOOK
AND TWITTER WITH SOMEHOW 
DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CO
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, GIVING DISINFORMATION 
ABOUT COVID-19.
SO WHEN THEY PICK THAT AS THEIR 
CAUSE FOR GOING AFTER YOU, THEY 
DESTROY IT.
AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE R FOR
THE LIFE OF MY THE LINE OF 
QUESTIONING ABOUT ELECTIONERING 
TAKING PLACE BY SOME OF YOUR 
COMPANIES.
IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO 
ELECTIONERING BY CORPORATIONS 
AND YOU'RE OPPOSED TO CITIZENS 
UNITED, THEN YOU'VE GOT NO 
PROBLEM.
CITIZENS UNITED GAVE 
CORPORATIONS THE POWER TO GO OUT
AND SPEND MONEY.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY SOME 
COMPANIES ARE SPENDING MONEY, 
START YOUR OWN COMPANY OR TELL 
THEM WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT.
BUT THE IDEA THAT ELECTIONERING 
IS SOMETHING YOU'RE OPPOSED TO 
STRIKES ME AS COMPLETELY 
INCONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORY 
AND THE FACTS.
SO I WANT TO GO TO MR. COOK, IF 
WE COULD.
BUT FIRST, A GREAT QUESTION.
ARE ANY OF YOUR COMPANIES 
BENEFIT CORPORATIONS?
IS THAT SOMETHING YOU'VE 
CONSIDERED DOING?
IS THERE ANY ONE OF YOU THAT 
THOUGHT ABOUT BECOME AGO B CORP.
OR A BENEFIT CORP.ATION?
I TAKE IT THE ANSWER IS NO 
THERE.
MR. COOK, I'M HUNG UP ON THIS 
WHOLE 30% QUESTION THAT SEVERAL 
MEMBERS HAVE TALKED TO YOU ABOUT
AND YOU SAID SOMETIMES IT'S 15%,
SOMETIMES IT'S 30%.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHEN IT'S 15 AND
ABOUT IT'S 30 AND WHY IT'S 15 
TIMES AND WHY IT'S 30?
>> SURE.
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, 
CONGRESSMAN.
84% OF THE TIME IT'S ZERO.
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 THERE IS NO -- YOU'RE
TAKING NO TOLL, ESSENTIALLY.
THE SECOND YEAR IT'S 15 AND IT'S
30 AFTER THAT.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> NO.
IF IT'S A SUBSCRIPTION PRODUCT, 
IT'S YOU 30% IN THE FIRST YEAR 
AND THEN IT DROPS TO 15 IN THE 
SECOND YEAR AND EVERY YEAR 
THEREAFTER.
>> I GOTCHA.
OKAY.
WELL, WHAT TROUBLES ME IS JUST 
WHAT ONE BUSINESSWOMAN TOLD ME 
WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THIS, 
WHICH IS SHE SAID I PAY AROUND 
25% OF MY INCOME TO UNCLE SAM, 
TO 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.
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 THE 10,000 POUND 
GORILLA AND THEY'RE JUST TRYING 
TO GET STARTED?
>> NO, I DON'T THINK SO.
KEEP IN MIND WE'VE GONE FROM 500
APPS TO 1.7 MILLION.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF APPS ON THE 
STORE AND A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE 
MAKING A VERY GOOD LIVING FROM 
IT.
>> AND YOU'VE SAID THAT SEVERAL 
TIMES, BUT THAT, TO ME, MIGHT 
JUST UNDERSCORE THE MONOPOLY 
NATURE OF YOUR BUSINESS, THAT 
EVERYBODY HAS 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 TERMS THAT
ARE BEING DICTATED ARE, IN FACT,
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 PLAY STATION.
IF YOU'RE A CUSTOMER AND YOU 
DON'T LIKE THE SETUP, THE CURE 
RATED EXPERIENCE OF THE APP 
STORE, YOU CAN BUY A SAMSUNG.
YOU CAN BUY A -- 
>> OKAY.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
ONE MORE FINAL QUESTION FOR MR. 
ZUC
ZUCKERBERG.
YOU SPEND A LOT OF YOIM YOUR 
TIME SPEAKING TO YOUR COLLEAGUES
THAT HAVE THIS PERSECUTION 
COMPLEX.
WILL YOU HAVE TIME TO MEET WITH 
THIS BROAD COALITION OF CIVIL 
RIGHTS GROUPS THAT ARE ENGAGED 
IN A BOYCOTT BECAUSE OF WHAT 
THEY THINK IS THE PROLIFERATION 
OF HATE SPEECH AND HOLOCAUST 
PROVISIONISM AND OTHER 
AFFILIATED TOPICS ON FACEBOOK?
>> YES, I HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO
MEET WITH THEM.
I THINK THE TOPICS THEY'RE 
PUSHING ON ARE IMPORTANT ON A 
LOT OF THE GOALS WE AGREE.
THESE ARE ISSUES AROUND FIGHTING
HATE YOU THAT WE HAVE FOCUSED ON
FOR YEARS AND WE ARE CONTINUING 
TO IMPROVE THE WAY OUR COMPANIES
WORKS AND CONTINUE GETTING 
BETTER ON THESE THISHS.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
THANK YOU.
>> I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN
FROM OHIO, MR. JORDAN, FOR FIVE 
MINUTES.
>> MR. COOK, IS THE CANCELED 
CULTURE MOB DANGEROUS?
>> IT'S SOMETHING I'M NOT ALL 
THE WAY UP TO SPEED ON.
BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 
WHERE SOMEBODY WITH A DIFFERENT 
POSITIVE TALKS AND 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.
AND I WANT TO REFERENCE A 
LETTER, BARRY WEISS WHO RESIGNED
AS AN EDITOR AT THE "NEW YORK 
TIMES" WROTE A LETTER EXPLAINING
WHY SHE RESIGNED.
AND I'LL READ THREE SENTENCES 
FOR ALL OF YOU.
SHE SAID MY OWN FOR RAYS INTO 
WRONG THINK MADE ME THE SUBJECT 
OF CONSTANT BULLYING BY MY 
COLLEAGUES.
SHE WENT ON TO SAY LATER IN THE 
LETTER, EVERYONE LIVES IN FEAR 
OF THE DIGITAL THUNDER DOME.
AND THOSE TARGETS AREN'T JUST 
CO
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?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M SORRY, I HAD
A MOMENT -- OF THE HEARING.
BUT WE BUILD PLATFORMS FOR 
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND WE 
TAKE PRIDE IN THE FACT THAT 
ACROSS THE PLATFORMS, INCLUDING 
YOUTUBE, THERE ARE MORE DIVERSE 
VOICES THAN EVER BEFORE.
>> I'M JUST SAYING ARE YOU 
CONCERNED -- I'M CONCERNED ABOUT
IT AND, AGAIN, I'M CONCERNED NOT
JUST BECAUSE CONSEBIVES GET 
ATTACKED.
I'M CONCERNED WHEN ANYONE GETS 
ATTACKED FOR EXPRESSING A VICE 
PRESIDENT -- EXPRESSING A 
VIEWPOINT.
HOW ABOUT YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG?
>> GIVING PEOPLE A VOICE IS AN 
IMPORTANT PART OF WHAT OUR 
SERVICES DO.
I'M VERY WORRIED ABOUT SOME OF 
THE FORCES OF ILL LIBERALISM 
THAT I SEE IN THIS COUNTRY 
PUSHING AGAINST FREE EXPRESSION.
I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE 
FUNDAMENTAL DEMOCRATIC 
TRADITIONS 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 COMMITTED TO 
DOING WHAT WE CAN TO -- 
>> MR. BEZOS -- 
>> PROTECT PEOPLE'S VOICE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. ZUCKER.
MR. BEZOS.
>> YES, SIR.
I AM CONCERNED IN GENERAL ABOUT 
THAT AND WHAT I FIND AND I FIND 
DISCOURAGING, IT APPEARS TO ME 
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 THAT, YES.
>> I SEE IT, TOO.
AND I THINK -- I GUESS MY POINT 
IS, YOU WERE FOUR PRETTY 
IMPORTANT GUYS LEADING FOUR OF 
THE MOST IMPORTANT COMPANY OWES 
PLANET AND IT WOULD SURE BE 
HELPFUL IF YOU SPOKE OUT AGAINST
THIS.
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 
STRAIGHT OUT OF THE SOVIET UNION
SAYING TO A BUMPER OF WORKERS AS
THEY'RE MARCHING ALONG, HE SAYS 
WIN OF THE LINES THAT THE 
NARRATOR USES IS OUR UNIFICATION
OF THOUGHTS IS MORE POWERFUL A 
WEAPON OR FLEET THAN ANY ARMY ON
THE EARTH.
AND THE AD IS WITH THIS LADY 
RUNNING IN IN COLOR AND SMASHING
THE SCREEN.
BUSTING THE GROUP THINK, BUSTING
THE MOB THINK.
DO 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 IT -- THE POINT WAS, MOB 
THINK CANCELED CULTURE, GROUP 
THINK IS NOT WHAT THIS COUNTRY 
IS 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 S A FOOTBALL COACH AT 
OKLAHOMA STATE WHO WORE THE, 
QUOTE, WRONG T-SHIRT FISHING 
WITH HIS BOYS.
HE GOT IN ALL KINDS OF TROUBLE.
JAMES HARDEN WEARS A MASK SAYING
BACK THE POLICE, HELP THE 
POLICE, SUPPORT THE POLICE, HE 
GETS ATTACKED.
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 SHOULD SURE HELP IF YOU'RE 
OUT THERE CRITICIZING WHAT THE 
CANCELED CULTURE MOB IS DOING TO
THIS COUNTRY AND PEOPLE SEE IT 
EVERY SINGLE DAY AND I HOPE 
YOU'LL DO IT.
I HOPE YOU'LL SPEAK OUT AGAINST 
IT AND BE FAIR.
WITH ALL VIEWPOINTS, I YIELD 
BACK.
>> I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLE LADY 
FROM WASHINGTON.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I DIRECT MY QUESTIONS TO YOU, 
MANY OF US FEEL A DEEP URGENCY 
TO PROTECT INDEPENDENT 
JOURNALISM.
AND I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT AD 
REVENUE AND INDEPENDENT 
JOURNALISM.
GOOGLE MAKES MOST OF ITS REVENUE
THROUGH SELLING ADVERTISING.
>> YES, CONGRESSMAN, THAT'S 
CORRECT.
>> AND OVER 2 MILLION PUBLISHERS
USE THAT SPACE, CORRECT?
>> VERY PROUD TO SUPPORT 
PUBLISHERS.
YOF 
I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBERS.
>> THAT IS A NUMBER PUT FORWARD 
AND YOUR OWN WEBSITE SAYS YOU 
HAVE ACCESS TO OVER 2 MILLION 
SITES.
WHAT IS GOOGLE'S SHARE OF THE AD
EXCHANGE MARKET?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT EXACTLY 
FAMILIAR.
I'VE SEEN VARIOUS REPORTS.
BUT WE ARE A POPULAR CHOICE.
GREAT.
LET ME PUT IT UP FOR YOU.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SCREEN, YOU 
WILL SEE 50% TO 60% GOOGLE HAS 
50% TO 60% ACCORDING TO THE 
ONLINE PLATFORMS AND DIGITAL 
ADVERTISING CMA 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, YOU 
CAN SEE THAT THE SHARE OF THIS 
BY SIDE MARKET THAT GOOGLE HAS 
IS 50% TO 90%, ACCORDING TO THE 
SAME SAME STUDY.
AND I JUST WANT TO SIMPLIFY HOW 
THESE EXCHANGES WORK.
SO SAY IN SEATTLE, DEE'S 
ELECTRONICS, A MOM AND POP 
BUSINESS WANTS TO BUY ONLINE AD 
SPACE IN THE SEATTLE TIMES.
THEY WOULD NEED TO GET TO A 
MIDDLEMAN WHICH WOULD BID FOR AD
SPACE ON A EXCHANGE.
AND THE PROBLEM IS 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 
THEIR AD REVENUE AND ALSO TO 
SELL HIGH TO SMALL BUSINESSES 
THAT ARE DEPENDENT ON 
ADVERTISING ON YOUR PLATFORM.
IT SELLS A BIT LIKE A STOCK 
MARKET, EXCEPT THERE'S NO 
REGULATION ON YOUR AD EXCHANGE 
MARKET.
IF THERE WERE REGULATION, IT 
WOULD PROHIBIT INSIDER TRADING 
WHICH MEANS THE BROKER CAN'T USE
THE DATA IN THE BROKER DIVISION 
TO BUY AND SELL FOR THEIR OWN 
INTEREST.
INSTEAD, BROKERS HAVE TO SERVE 
THEIR CLIENTS.
DOES GOING HAVE A SIMILAR 
OBLIGATION TO SERVE ITS CLIENTS,
THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE SELLING 
AND BUYING AD SPACE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, IF I COULD 
EXPLAIN THIS FOR A MINUTE, WE 
PAID OVER $14 MILLION TO 
PUBLISHERS.
WE ARE DEEPLY COMMITTED TO 
JOURNALISTS AND IN THIS AREA ON 
AN AVERAGE, WE PAY OUT 69% OF 
THE REVENUE WHEN PUBLISHERS USE 
GOOGLE'S -- TOOLS AND IT'S A LOW
MARGIN BUSINESS FOR US.
WE DO IT BECAUSE WE WANT TO HELP
SUPPORT PUBLISHERS IN THIS AREA.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS 
WHEN ANY COMPANY CONTROLS THE 
BUY AND THE SELL SIDE -- I 
WORKED ON WALL STREET A VERY 
LONG TIME AGO -- THERE ARE 
REASONS INSIDER TRADING IS 
REGULATED AND THIS AD EXCHANGE 
IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING 
AND WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY, IT 
ISN'T MEANINGFUL TO CARE ABOUT 
THE NEWSPAPERS.
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 AD 
ON GOOGLE-OWNED SITES AND LESS 
SO FROM OTHER WEBSITES.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT TREND?
>> I CAN'T QUITE SEE WHERE THIS 
IS NET REVENUE OR GROSS REVENUE.
OBVIOUSLY, WHEN IT COMES TO 
NON-GOOGLE PROPERTIES, WE SHARE 
THE MAJORITY OF REVENUE BACK TO 
PUBLISHERS.
WHEREAS ON OUR OWN PROPERTIES, 
WE OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE 
THE INVENTORY.
SO -- BUT I WOULD NEED TO 
UNDERSTAND MORE.
I JUST QUICKLY LOOKED AT IT.
I'M NOT SURE I FULLY -- 
WE COULD SEND IT TO YOU AND 
MANAGER SURE YOU HAVE IT.
GOOGLE HAS NOT MADE ITS SEARCH 
TRAFFIC VOLUMES PUBLIC IN YEARS 
SO THERE IS 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 FAIRLEY OR 
LEFT BEHIND IN FAVOR OF 
GOOGLE-OWNED COMPANIES.
IS GOOGLE STEERING ADVERTISING 
REVENUE TO GOOGLE SEARCH?
>> USERS COME TO GOOGLE SEARCH.
THAT IS WHERE OUR SOURCE OF 
REVENUE COMES FROM.
WE HAVE FOCUSED ON PROVIDING THE
INFORMATION THEY LOOK FOR.
WE KNOW COMPETITION FOR 
INFORMATION IS JUST A CLICK 
AWAY.
>> THANK YOU.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE POINT 
THAT NCHT 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 
ON OF MR. ZUCKERBERG.
OVER 1100 COMPANIES AND RGZS 
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 
APPRECIATE 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 
THAT YOU DON'T CARE HOW YOU'RE 
IMPACTED BY A MAJOR BOYCOTT OF 
1100 ADVERTISERS?
>> NO, CONGRESSWOMAN.
OF COURSE WE CARE.
BUT WE'RE ALSO NOT GOING TO SET 
OUR CONTENT POLICIES BECAUSE OF 
ADVERTISERS.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE WRONG 
THING FOR US TO DO.
WE'VE CARED ABOUT ISSUES LIKE 
FIGHTING HATE SPEECH FOR A LONG 
TIME AND WE'VE INVESTED BILLIONS
OF DOLLARS.
AND I'VE TALKED ABOUT TODAY HOW 
WE HAVE TENS ON OF THOUSANDS OF 
CONTEVENT OF OUR VIEWERS, WE'VE 
BUILT AI SYSTEMS THAT 
PROACTIVELY IDENTIFY THE 
MAJORITY -- WE'RE NOW AT 89% OF 
THE HATE SPEECH THAT WE REMOVE 
BEFORE ANYONE REPORTS IT TO US.
WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE GETTING 
BETTER AT THAT.
I THINK THOSE INVESTMENTS OVER 
TIME AND THE RESULTS WE PUT UP 
WILL BE RECOGNIZED BY PEOPLE.
SINCE I DO BELIEVE THEY ARE 
INDUSTRY LEADING.
AND I THINK OUR ADVERTISING ALSO
IS FOR A LOT OF SMALL BUSINESSES
THE MOST EFFECTIVE OR AMONG THE 
MOST EFFECTIVE WAYS THAT THEY 
CAN FIND AND REACH NEW -- 
>> THANK YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG.
MY TIME HAS EXPIRED.
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 CAPITAL 
THAT WE FOCUS ON CIVIL RIGHTS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. I CALL ON THE NEXT 
WITNESS, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE MR.
PACHAI WHO I THINK WANTS TO MAKE
A CORRECTION FOR THE HEARING.
>> I WANTED TO REPORT THAT -- IN
2009 A PUBLICIZE CYBER ATTACK 
ORIGINATING THERE.
I WANTED TO CORRECT THAT FOR THE
RECORD.
>> THANK YOU.
THE RECORD WILL SO REFLECT.
I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLE LADY 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 NEEDS WHILE HELPING TO 
ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THEIR 
WAREHOUSE WORKERS.
IN PRACTICE, HOWEVER, IT APPEARS
THAT THIS POLICY WAS APPLIED 
SELECTIVELY.
SO THE ESSENTIAL ITEMS WERE 
SUPPOSED TO INCLUDE HOUSEHOLD 
STAPLES, MEDICAL SUPPLIES, HIGH 
DEMAND PRODUCTS AND MANY FACTORS
WERE CONSIDERED WHEN DETERMINING
ELIGIBILITY TO BE ESSENTIAL.
BUT WE'VE HAD SEVERAL EMPLOYEES 
REPORT AMAZON CONTINUED TO SHIP 
NONESSENTIAL ITEMS LIKE 
HAMMOCKS, FISH TANKS, ETCETERA.
FIRE TV, ECHO SPEAKERS AND RING 
DOORBELL, WERE THEY DESIGNATED 
AS ESSENTIAL DURING THE PAN 
DENGIC?
>
. 
>> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO 
THAT QUESTION.
THERE WAS NO PLAYBOOK FOR THIS.
WE MOVED VERY QUICKLY.
DEMAND WENT THROUGH ROOF.
IT WAS LIKE HAVING A HOLIDAY 
SELLING SEASON, BUT IN MARCH, 
AND WE HAD TO MAKE A LOT OF 
DECISIONS VERY RAPIDLY.
>> OKAY.
>> OUR GOAL WAS TO LIMIT IT TO 
ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES, BUT I'M SURE
WE DID NOT DO THAT PERFECTLY.
>> OKAY.
I KNOW THE RING DOORBELL HAS TWO
COMPETING PRODUCTS, INCLUDING 
ARLO AND UFE, MAYBE.
DO YOU KNOW IF THEY WERE 
DESIGNATED AS ESSENTIAL?
>> I DO NOT.
>> CAN.
ARE YOU ABLE TO TESTIFY TO 
CONGRESS TODAY WHETHER AMAZON'S 
PROFIT FACTOR WAS A FACTOR IN 
GIVING A 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.
THAT'S WHAT WE WERE FOCUSED ON.
WE WERE NOT FOCUSED ON 
PROFITABILITY AT THAT TIME.
>> PUSHING OW THE ELUSIVE CLOROX
WIPE, I GUESS.
AT ANY RATE, LET'S TALK ABOUT 
THE FEES THAT AMAZON CHARGES 
SELLERS.
ACCORDING TO A RIENT 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
BAY THIRD PARTY ON ITS SITE.
TODAY, AMAZON KEEPS AN AVERAGE 
OF 30%.
DOESN'T AMAZON'S ABILITY TO HIKE
THOSE FEES SO STEEPLY SUGGEST 
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 MORE AND MORE SELLERS ARE
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SERVICES
THAT WE OFFER AND A BIG PIECE OF
THAT IS -- BY AMAZON WHICH IS 
GREAT FOR SELLERS.
AND IT'S WORKING FOR SELLERS.
THAT'S WHY TODAY 60% OF SALES 
ARE GOING FROM THIRD PARTY 
SELLERS UP FROM ZERO 20 YEARS 
AGO.
>> RIGHT.
BUT I THINK MORE CONCERNING IS 
THE 11% HIKE.
SINCE 2014, AMAZON'S REVENUE 
FROM SELLER FEES HAVE GROWN 
ALMOST TWICE AS FAST SINCE ITS 
JOEL ALL SALES.
MR. BEZOS, AREN'T SELLER FEES 
NOW EFFECTIVELY SUBSIDIZING 
AMAZON'S RETAIL DIVISION?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, NO, I DON'T 
BELIEVE SO.
I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SEEING 
THERE, WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING 
IS THAT SELLERS ARE CHOOSE TO GO
USE MORE OF OUR SERVICES THAT WE
MAKE AVAILABLE.
THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS THEY
WERE SHIPPING THEIR OWN PRODUCTS
FROM THEIR OWN FULFILLMENT 
CENTERS.
SO THEY WOULD HAVE HAD COSTS 
DOING THAT, OPERATING YOUR OWN 
FULFILLMENT CENTER AND BUYING 
TRANSPORTATION TO THE CUSTOMER 
THROUGH THE POSTAL SERVICE OR 
THROUGH U.P.S. OR WHOEVER IT 
WOULD BE.
>> OKAY.
LET'S TALK A BIT ABOUT THE 
FULFILLMENT CENTERS -- 
>> BY AMAZON.
YES, PLEASE, GO AHEAD.
>> SO YOU'VE GOT FULFILLMENT BY 
AMAZON AND A YEAR AGO WE ASKED 
WHETHER A MER CHAS ENROLLED IN 
FULFILLMENT BY AMAZON IS A 
FACTOR IN WHETHER THEY CAN BE 
AWARDED THE BUY BOX.
AT THAT POINT, AMAZON SAID NO.
BUT THE EVIDENCE IS INDICATING 
AND YOUR OWN DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT
BEING ENROLLED IN THAT PROGRAM 
IS A MAJOR FACTOR AND IT 
EFFECTIVELY FORCES SELLERS TO 
PAY FOR FULFILLMENT SERVICES IF 
THEY WANT TO MAKE SALES.
HAS AMAZON'S BIG BUY BOX FAVORED
THOSE WHO BUY FROM AMAZON OVER 
OTHER SELLERS?
>> I THINK EFFECTIVELY THE BUY 
BOX IS -- DIRECTLY OR 
INDIRECTLY, I'M NOT SURE.
BUT INDIRECTLY I THINK THE BUY 
BOX DOES FAVOR PRODUCTS THAT CAN
BE SHIPPED WITH PRIME.
SO IF YOU'RE A PRIME MEMBER, THE
BUY BOX IS TRYING TO PICK -- IF 
WE HAVE MULTIPLE SELLERS SELLING
IS SAME ITEM, THE BUY BOX IS 
LIKELY TRY YOUING TO PICK THE 
ITEM THE CUSTOMER WOULD LIKE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. BEZOS.
I THINK MY TIME IS 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 WARRASN'T FAMILIAR WITH  
FACEBOOK RESEARCH APP.
BUT I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I DO
RECALL THAT WE USED AN APP FOR 
RESEARCH AND IT HAS SINCE BEEN 
DISCONTINUED AND I WOULD BE 
HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP WITH HIS 
STAFF ON ANY MOTHER DETAILS HE 
WOULD LIKE.
>> THANK YOU.
I RECOGNIZE MR. NAGOOSE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WANTED TO DIRECT A FEW 
QUESTIONS TO YOU AND WANTED TO 
TALK ABOUT THE APPS STORE AND 
APP DEVELOPMENT.
TAKING A STEP BACK, MY 
UNDERSTANDING FROM YOUR 
TESTIMONY TODAY IS ESSENTIALLY 
APPLE HAS TO OPERATE BY YOU 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 IS WHY I ASKED THAT 
QUESTION.
THE GUIDELINES SELL APP 
DEVELOPERS NOT TO SUBMIT COPYCAT
APPS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
SFLIEM 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.
>> AND I CAN REMEMBER TO YOU 
WE'VE REVIEWED THE GUIDELINES 
AND PRECISELY THEY SAY APP 
DEVELOPERS SHOULD HAVE ORIGINAL 
IDEAS, THAT COPYCAT IDEAS AREN'T
FAVOR AND APPLE'S CUSTOMERS 
DON'T WANT THOSE.
ERND, THE APP DEVELOPER 
AGREEMENT, WHICH YOU REQUIRE 
EVERY APP DEVELOPER TO AGREE TO 
DOES GIVE APPLE THE RIGHT TO 
COPY OTHER APPS.
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 FOLLOW UP
WITH YOUR OFFICE ON IT.
>> WELL, I WOULD APPRECIATE IF 
YOU COULD FOLLOW UP WITH OUR 
OFFICE.
MY UNDERSTANDING, AGAIN, IS THE 
APP DEVELOPER AGREEMENT 
EXPLICITLY SAYS THAT APPLE CAN 
USE ANY INFORMATION THAT AN APP 
DEVELOPER PROVIDES TO APPLE FOR 
ANY PURPOSE.
SO, OBVIOUSLY, YOU HAVE 
COMPLAINTS FROM ANY NUMBER OF, 
YOU KNOW, APP DEVELOPERS WHO 
HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE OUR 
COMMITTEE.
AS I SAID, I REPRESENT THE STATE
OF COLORADO.
WE HEARD FROM A COMPANY CALLED 
TILE WHICH SAID APPLE HAD ACCESS
TO CONFIDENTIAL ABOUT THE APP 
AND GIVEN YOU THAT JUXTAPOSED 
AGAINST THIS AGREEMENT.
YOU COULD UNDERSTAND WHY WE 
WOULD HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT 
ANTI-COMPETITIVE CONDUCT.
>> WE RUN THE APP STORE TO HELP 
DEVELOPERS, NOT HURT THEM.
WE RESPECT INNOVATION.
WE WOULD NEVER STEAL SOMEBODY'S 
IP.
BUT I WILL FOLLOW UP WITH YOUR 
OFFICE IN MONTHRE DETAIL ON THI.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
MR. PICHAI A SIMILAR LINE OF 
QUESTIONING.
TO THE EXTENT APPLE IS WILLING 
TO COMMIT WITHIN THE DEVELOPER 
AGREEMENT TO SAY THAT WHILE YOU 
ARE ACCESS TO THAT DATA, THAT 
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO USE THAT 
DATA AND ARE NOT PERMITTED TO 
USE THAT DATA TO REPLICATE YOUR 
OWN APP, A COPYCAT APP, IF YOU 
WILL.
THAT WOULD CERTAINLY, IN MY 
VIEW, BE A REFLECTION OF A STEP 
AWAY FROM ANY TYPE OF 
ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'LL FOLLOW
UP AND WE CAN LEARN MORE WITH 
RESPECT TO THAT ISSUE.
SIMILARLY, THERE WAS AN ARTICLE 
JUST TODAY -- OR EXCUSE ME, 
YESTERDAY ABOUT -- FROM THE 
VERGE, THE TITLE IS GOOGLE 
REPORTEDLY KEEPS TABS ON USAGE 
ANDROID APPS TO DEVELOP 
COMPETITORS.
GOOGLE SAID THAT THE DATA 
DOESN'T GIVE INFORMATION ABOUT 
HOW PEOPLE BEHAVE WHILE THEY'RE 
USING INDIVIDUAL APPS, BUT IT 
WOULDN'T SAY WHETHER IT HAD BEEN
USED TO DEVELOP COMPETING APPS.
FIRST, I WOULD TAKE IT YOU WOULD
CONFIRM GOOGLE HAS ACCESS TO 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OR 
COMPETITIVELY SENSITIVE 
INFORMATION ABOUT APPS ON THE 
ANDROID DEVICES?
>> CONGRESSMAN, IF I COULD 
CLARIFY THIS, TODAY WE HAVE AN 
API AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPERS AS 
LONG AS USERS CONSENT.
IT GIVES THE SYSTEM HEALTH 
METRICS.
THIS IS HOW WE CAN LAUREN 
DIGITAL WELL BEING FEATURES ON 
ANDROID.
THIS IS HOW WE UNDERSTAND WHICH 
APPS ARE USING BATTERY AND WE 
CAN GIVE A DASHBOARD MAYBE FOR 
CRASHING OR QUALITY CONTROL OR 
BATTERY USAGE OR FOR DIGITAL 
WELL BEING.
SO AT A HIGH LEVEL, THIS DATA IS
AVAILABLE THROUGH PUBLIC API AND
OTHER DEVELOPS CAN DO THE SAME 
AS LONG AS THEY HAVE ACCESS TO 
IT.
>> SO I WANT TO CLARIFY.
AND I'LL QUOTE FROM THIS 
ARTICLE.
THE ARTICLE REFERS TO THIS DATA 
ABOUT SENSITIVE 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 
HAVE ACCESS THAT DATA.
>> YEAH.
WITH THE USER CONSENT AND THE 
API, YES, WE DO.
>> AND DOES GOOGLE USE THAT?
>> DOES GOOGLE HAVE ACCESS TO 
THAT AND THIS IS HOW WE 
UNDERSTAND AND IMPROVE USAGE?
>>. 
>> 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.
>> WE DO LOOK AT TRENDS AND, IN 
FACT, IN THE PLAY STORE, WE 
PUBLISH THE NUMBERS THEMSELVES 
OF APPLICATION AND WE GIVE 
RANGES.
SO THERE IS A WIDE VARIETY BY 
THE WAY WE TRY TO UNDERSTAND 
WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE MARKET.
BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR THOUGHT 
ABOUT THERE BEING DELAWARETY IN 
THIS AREA.
>> 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 
QUESTIONS, DOES GOOGLE USE THAT 
INFORMATION TO DEVELOP COMPETING
APPS?
I UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSES YOU'VE
DESCRIBED IN TERMS LOVE TO USE 
THE INFORMATION.
I'M 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.
>> WE ARE AWARE OF THE 
POPULARITY OF APPS.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND TO BE 
INACCURATE IN MY ANSWER.
IN GENERAL, THE PRIMARY USE OF 
THAT DATA IS TO IMPROVE THE 
HEALTH OF ANDROID AND ANY DATA 
WE GET WE HAVE USER CONTENT FOR 
IT AND WE WOULD MAKE IT 
AVAILABLE TO AN API DEVELOPER, 
AS WELL.
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS 
EXPIRED.
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLE LADY 
FROM GEORGIA.
>> GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU SO MUCH 
FOR SPENDING SO MUCH OF YOUR 
TIME TODAY.
MANY OF YOU HAVE MENTIONED JOHN 
LEWIS TODAY AND HIS FIGHT FOR 
EQUALITY AND THAT I KNOW THAT 
ALL MY COLLEAGUES AND I WILL 
CARRY ON.
VERY QUICKLY, CAN EACH OF YOU 
SIMPLY COMMIT TO IMPROVING RARNL
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?
>> YES AND WE MADE PUBLIC 
COMMITMENTS TO THIS REGARD.
>> MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN 200 4, 
THERE WERE DOZENS OF SOCIAL 
MEDIA COMPANIES.
FACEBOOK DISTINGUISHED ITSELF 
FROM THE COMPETITORS BY 
FOCUSSING SPECIFICALLY PRIVACY.
YOU HAD A SHORT CLEAR PRIVACY 
POLICY.
IT WAS 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 IS 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 THAT USE OUR 
SERVICES AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE 
UPHELD THAT COMMITMENT.
>> SO MR. ZUCKERBERG, DO YOU 
THINK YOUR COMPANY WOULD BE AS 
SUCCESSFUL IF IT HAD STARTED 
WITH TODAY'S COOKIE POLICY IN 
PLACE?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M NOT SURE 
EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SUFFEREFERR 
TO, BUT IN GENERAL, COOKIES IS 
NOT A BIG PART OF HOW WE'RE 
COLLECTING INFORMATION.
WE'VE PRIMARILY USED 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?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, JUST TO MAKE 
SURE I'M CLEAR, WE DO USE 
COOKIES.
YES, WE DO USE COOKIES.
>> SO THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS 
YOU BROKE A COMMITMENT TO YOUR 
USERS AND WOULD CAN SAY IF YOU 
MAY OR MAY NOT DO THAT AGAIN IN 
THE FUTURE.
THE REALITY IS FACEBOOK'S MARKET
POWER GREW AND FACEBOOK'S 
SACRIFICED ITS USERS POLICY.
MR. BEZOS, MY COLLEAGUES HAVE 
TOUCHED ON COUNTERFEIT GOODS AND
I SHARE THEIR CONCERNS DEEPLY.
I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT STOLEN 
GOODS.
MR. BEZOS, ARE STOLEN GOODS SOLD
ON AMAZON?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, NOT TO MY 
KNOWLEDGE, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE 
MORE THAN A MILLION SELLERS.
SO I'M SURE THAT THERE HAVE BEEN
STOLEN GOODS.
>> REALLY, MR. BEZOS?
>> I'M SORRY?
>> REALLY?
THERE'S NOT.
YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS?
THAT SURPRISES ME.
>> NO.
I JUST SAID WITH OVER A MILLION 
SELLERS, I'M SURE IT HAS 
HAPPENED, BUT CERTAINLY I DON'T 
THINK IT'S A LARGE PART OF WHAT 
WE'RE SELLING.
>> SO BASICALLY, MR. BEZOS, 
YOU'RE SAYING YES.
>> I GUESS SO.
>> SO I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT 
INFORMATION THAT YOU REQUIRE 
FROM SELLERS TO PREVENT THE SALE
OF 120STOLEN 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 A -- 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.
>> SO 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?
>> NO, CONGRESSWOMAN, I DON'T.
>> THEN I'M GOING TO ASK YOU, 
SIR, WILL YOU COMMIT TO 
REPORTING ALL 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 -- 
>> CAN SIR KB CAN YOU MAKE A BLT
COMMITMENT?
>> A BLANKET COMMITMENT TO WHAT?
SORRY, CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M TRYING
TO BE HELPFUL.
>> REPORTING ALL SALES OF 
COUNTERFEIT GOODS TO LAW 
ENFORCEMENTS AND TO VICTIMS TO 
HELP THOSE ORGANIZED IN RETAIL 
CRIME.
>> I SEE NO REASON WHY IF WE'RE 
AWARE OF STOLEN GOODS WE 
WOULDN'T REPORT IT.
WE WOULD WANT THE CORRECT LAW 
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES TO BE 
INVOLVED.
>> THANK YOU AS MUCH.
I Y50E8D BIELD BACK MY TIME.
>> I WANT TO THANK THE WITNESSES
AND MY COLLEAGUES ON MY SIDE OF 
THE AISLE.
I WANT TO THANK THE 
EXTRAORDINARY WORK OF OUR TEAM 
WHO HAS DONE AN EXTRAORDINARY 
JOB THROUGHOUT THIS 
INVESTIGATION AND IN PREPARATION
FOR OUR HEARING TODAY.
TODAY WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
HEAR FROM THE DECISIONMAKERS 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 WORK IN THE DIGITAL AGE.
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, BUT THE 
STORY IS THE SAME.
TODAY THE MEN ARE NAMED 
ZUCKERBERG, COOK, PICHAI AND 
BEZOS.
ONCE AGAIN, THEIR CONTROL OF THE
MARKETPLACE ALLOWS THEM TO DO 
WHATEVER IT TAKES TO CRUSH 
INDEPENDENT BUSINESS AND EXPAND 
THEIR EMPOWER.
THIS MUST END.
THIS SUBCOMMITTEE WILL NEXT 
PUBLISH A REPORT ON THE FINDINGS
OF OUR INVESTIGATION, WE WILL 
PROPOSE STLUGZS TO THE PROBLEMS 
BEFORE US.
IT WAS ONCE SAID WE MUST MAKE 
OUR CHOICE.
WE MAY 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 
WILL HAVE FIVE LEGISLATIVE DAYS 
TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL WRITTEN 
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES OR 
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS FOR THE 
RECORD.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THIS HEARING 
IS ADJOURNED.
