 
THAT'S THE DELICATE BALANCE WE 
ARE  CONSTANTLY STRIKING. 
>> I WANT TO BE CLEAR, I 
BELIEVE THE MARKET 
CONSOLIDATION POWER IS 
SIGNIFICANT. 
WHEN WE ARE MOVING FORWARD TO 
REGULATE THIS, WE ARE NOT 
SQUEEZING OUT COMPETITION IN 
OUR QUEST TO DO SOMETHING. 
I'VE SAID THAT BEFORE AND I'LL 
SAY IT AGAIN:  USUALLY IN OUR 
QUEST TO PROTECT BIG COMPANIES, 
WE END UP HURTING OTHER SMALL 
COMPANIES MORE. 
THE CONSEQUENCES HAVE LED TO 
REGULATORY CAPTURE THAT 
EXASPERATES COMPETITIONS. 
GOOGLE'S AD MARKET SHARE HAS 
INCREASED SINCE THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF GDPR, YOU 
KNOW THAT TO BE CORRECT? 
>> TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF 
COMPETITION, AD PRICES ARE DOWN 
BY 40% IN THE LAST TEN YEARS. 
IN THE U.S., IT'S DOWN FROM 
1.4% IN 1992 TO LESS THAN 1% 
TODAY. 
WE SEE ROBUST COMPETITION IN 
THE MARKETPLACE. 
WE HAVE TO IMPLEMENT THE CARE 
AND ENSURE PRIVACY AND SECURITY 
FOR USERS. 
>> I'M GLAD YOU MENTIONED 
PRIVACY. 
I THINK GENERALLY SPEAKING 
OUTSIDE THE POLITICAL ISSUES 
AND BIAS, THIS IS FOR ALL FOUR 
OF THE WITNESSES. 
I THINK UNWITH OF THE BIGGER 
CONCERNS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT 
DATA AND VALUE, WHICH IS WHERE 
PEOPLE ARE  REALLY CONCERNED 
WITH HOWWE ARE MOVING FORWARD, 
WARRANTS CAN COMPEL TECHNOLOGY 
COMPANIES TO PROVIDE DEVICE FOR 
ANY AREA AT ANY TIME. 
THERE WAS A 15% IN REQUESTS 
FROM 2017 TO 2018 AND A 500% 
INCREASE IN 2018 TO 2019. 
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES 
PROBABLE CAUSE AND SPECIFICITY. 
THIS IS FOR ANY AREA AT A 
PARTICULAR TIME. 
UNLESS A COMPANY BY PARTICULAR 
INFORMATION IS IDENTIFYING A 
SUBJECT, GO WARRANTS ARE 
ESSENTIALLY GENERAL WARRANTS. 
I BELIEVE THE CONTENTS SHOULD 
BE UNDER THE STORED 
COMMUNICATIONS ACT, DO YOU 
AGREE? 
>> YOU KNOW, HAPPY TO 
UNDERSTAND MORE. 
WE DEEPLY CARE ABOUT -- THIS IS 
WHY WE PUT TRANSPARENCY FORTH. 
WE RECENTLY MADE A CHANGE BY 
WHICH WE AUTOMATICALLY DELETE 
THE LOCATION ACTIVITY AFTER A 
CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME BY 
DEFAULT FOR OUR USERS. 
>> AND THESE ARE GOING ON IN 
VIRGINIA AND NEW YORK RIGHT 
NOW. 
I THINK PEOPLE WOULD BE 
TERRIFIED TO KNOW THAT LAW 
ENFORCEMENT COULD GRAB GENERAL 
WARRANTS AND GET EVERYBODY'S 
INFORMATION ANYWHERE. 
IT REQUIRES CONGRESS TO ACT AND 
EVERYBODY WILLING TO WORK TO. 
>> TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS 
EXPIRED. 
I BELIEVE HE HAS A UNANIMOUS 
CONSENT REQUEST. 
>> I DO, FOR WALL STREET 
JOURNAL ARTICLE, POLICE REQUEST 
FOR GOOGLE USERS INFORMATION. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> THEN I HAVE TWO LETTERS, THE 
LETTERS FROM CONGRESSMAN WALDEN 
AND CONGRESSWOMAN ROGERS, TO 
MR. COOK OF APPLE AND SUNDAR 
PICHAI. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, I NOW 
RECOGNIZE THE CHAIRMAN FROM 
WASHINGTON. 
>> THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING WITH 
US. 
IN JULY 2019. 
>>> YOUR EMPLOYEE TOLD ME UNDER 
OATH THAT AMAZON DOES NOT 
QUOTE, USE ANY SPECIFIC SELLER 
DATA WHEN CREATING ITS OWN 
PRIVATE BRAND PRODUCT. 
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 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. 
I CAN TELL YOU WE HAVE A POLICY 
AGAINST USING SELLER-SPECIFIC 
DATA TO AID OUR PRIVATE LABELED 
BUSINESS. 
BUT I CAN'T GUARANTEE YOU THAT 
THAT POLICY HAS NEVER BEEN 
VIOLATED. 
>> MR. BEZOS,IN 2020 A REPORT 
IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL 
REVEALED YOUR COMPANY ACCESSES 
DATA BOTH BY REVIEWING DATA ON 
POPULAR PRODUCTS AND BY 
CREATING TINY PRODUCT 
CATEGORIES THAT ALLOWED YOUR 
COMPANY TO ACCESS DETAILED 
SELLER INFORMATION IN A 
SUPPOSEDLY AGGREGATE CATEGORY. 
DO YOU DENY THAT REPORT? 
>> I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE WALL 
STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE YOU'RE 
TALKING ABOUT. 
WE CONTINUE TO LOOK INTO THAT 
CAREFULLY. 
I'M NOT YET SATISFIED WE HAVE 
GOTTEN TO THE BOTTOM OF IT AND 
WE ARE GOING TO KEEP LOOKING AT 
IT. 
SOME OF THE SOURCES IN THE 
ARTICLE ARE ANONYMOUS BUT WE 
CONTINUE TO LOOK INTO IT. 
>> SO I'LL TAKE THAT AS YOU'RE 
NOT DENYING IT. 
A THIRD PARTY RECRUITER TOLD 
THIS COSMETICS QUOTE, THERE'S A 
RULE BUT NOBODY SPOT CHECKING. 
IT'S A CANDY SHOP. 
EVERYONE CAN HAVE ACCESS TO 
EVERYTHING THEY WANT. 
DO CATEGORY MANAGERS HAVE 
ACCESS TO THIRD PARTY PRODUCTS  
AND BUSINESSES? 
>> HERE'S WHAT I CAN TELL YOU. 
WE HAVE CERTAIN SAFEGUARDS IN 
PLACE. 
WE TRAIN PEOPLE ON THE POLICY 
AND EXPECT PEOPLE TO FOLLOW 
THAT POLICY SAME AS ANY OTHER. 
>> THERE'S NO ACTUAL 
ENFORCEMENT? 
OF THAT POLICY? 
IT'S VOLUNTEER AND THERE'S NO 
ACTUAL ENFORCEMENT? 
>> NO, I THINK I MAY HAVE 
MISSPOKE. 
I'M TRYING TO SAY THAT AMAZON, 
THE FACT THAT WE HAVE SUCH A 
POLICY IS VOLUNTEER. 
I THINK NO OTHER RETAILER EVEN 
HAS SUCH A POLICY. 
OUR ENFORCEMENT  OF THATPOLICY, 
WE TREAT IT LIKE ANY OTHER 
POLICY AND WE'D TAKE ACTION 
AND
SO MY NEXT QUESTION WAS GOINGS
TO BE IF YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE
ACTUALLY ENFORCING THESE RULES
DO YOU THINK THAT THAT'S WORKING
AND I WOULD JUST SAY THERE'S
CREDIBLE REPORTING THERE'S
DOCUMENTED BREACHES OF THESE
RULES THAT YOU HAVE PUT INTO
PLACE AND THE COMMITTEE HAS
INTERVIEWED EMPLOYEES THAT
TYPICALLY SAY THAT THESE
BREACHES TYPICALLY OCCUR.
LET'S TALK ABOUT AGGREGATE DATA
FOR A SECOND.
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 THAT DATA ESSENTIALLY
ALLOWS ACCESS TO HIGHLY DETAILED
DATA IN THOSE CATEGORIES.
THERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF A SMALL
BUSINESS THAT HAD NO COMPETITIVE
EXCEPT WHERE AMAZON DEALS.
LAUNCHED ITS OWN COMPETING
PRODUCTS AND I GO BACK TO THE
GENERAL COUNCIL STATEMENT TO
THIS COMMITTEE VERY CLEARLY THAT
THERE WAS NO ACCESS TO THAT
DATA.
AND I'M NOW HEARING YOU SAY WELL
YOU'RE NOT SO SURE THAT THAT'S
GOING ON.
AND 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 CAN TRACK CONSUMER HABITS,
INTERESTS, EVEN WHAT CONSUMERS
CLICKED ON BUT DIDN'T BUY.
YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THE ENTIRETY
OF THE SELLER'S PRICING AND
INVENTORY INFORMATION PAST,
PRESENT, AND FUTURE AND YOU
DICTATE THE PARTICIPATION OF
THIRD PARTY SELLERS ON YOUR
PLATFORM.
SO YOU CAN SET THE RULES OF THE
GAME FOR YOUR COMPETITORS BUT
NOT ACTUALLY FOLLOW THOSE SAME
RULES FOR YOURSELF.
DO YOU THINK THAT'S FAIR TO THE
MOM AND POP THIRD PARTY
BUSINESSES WHO ARE TRYING TO
SELL ON YOUR PLATFORM?
>> I APPRECIATE THAT QUESTION
AND I LIKE IT A LOT BECAUSE I
REALLY WANT A CHANCE TO ADDRESS
THAT.
I'M VERY PROUD OF WHAT WE'VE
DONE FOR THIRD PARTY SELLERS.
WE ARE ZERO SELLERS ON IT.
>> THE QUESTION I'M ASKING.
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 DO NOT HAVE.
IF YOU'RE CONTINUOUSLY
MONITORING THE DATA TO MAKE SURE
THEY'RE NEVER GOINGS TO GET BIG
ENOUGH THAT IS THE CONCERN THAT
THE COMMITTEE HAS AND, YOU KNOW,
I THINK YOUR COMPANY STARTED IN
MY DISTRICT.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE WORK
THAT YOU'VE DONE AND SAY THAT
THE WHOLE GOAL OF THE
COMMITTEE'S WORK IS TO MAKE SURE
THERE ARE MORE AMAZONS, THERE
ARE MORE APPLINGS, THERE ARE
MORE COMPANIES THAT GET TO
INNOVATE AND SMALL BUSINESSES
GET TO THRIVE AND THAT IS WHY WE
NEED TO REGULATE THESE
MARKETPLACES SO THAT NO COMPANY
HAS A PLATFORM SO DOMINANT THAT
IT IS ESSENTIALLY A MONOPOLY.
>> I JUST WANT TO REMINDS
WITNESSES, WE APPRECIATE THE
GRATITUDE FOR THE QUESTIONS AND
YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THEM 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 MACKING
GOOD USE OF YOUR TIME.
AND WITH THAT I RECOGNIZE THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA,
MR. STUBY.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> MR. PATCHI I'M JUST GOING TO
START WITH YOU.
I'M JUST GOING TO ILLUSTRATE MY
QUESTION WITH THE FACTUAL
INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED TO ME.
SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, MY WIFE
CALLED AND SAID THERE'S A GOOD
ARTICLE ON THE GATEWAY PUN PUND
AT
THAT YOU SHOULD READ.
THERE WAS A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT
BLOGGING SITES ABOUT HOW THERE
WERE DISAGREEMENTS WITH WHAT WAS
ON THE GATEWAY PUNDIT AND I
ACTUALLY HAD TO TYPE IN
GATEWAYPUNDIT.COM.
GOOGLE DIDN'T ALLOW ME TO GET TO
THE WEBSITE.
THAT WAS A COUPLE MONTHS AGO
BEFORE THIS HEARING WAS SET TO
BE HEARD, BEFORE YOU KNEW THAT
YOU KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO BE
APPEARING BEFORE US TODAY AND
THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT OBVIOUSLY
CONSERVATIVES AND REPUBLICANS
HAVE HAD.
LAST WEEK, AFTER THIS WAS
NOTICED, THIS HEARING WAS
NOTICED, I DID THE EXACT SAME
THING HERE IN THE CAPITAL.
AND WOULDN'T YOU KNOW IT.
I GOOGLED GATEWAY PUNDIT AND
THAT WAS THE VERY SITE THAT CAME
UP.
I ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY DID THIS
ON MY LAPTOP HERE IN THE CAPITAL
SEVERAL MONTHS AGO AND THEN
TODAY.
CLEARLY SOMETHING HAD HAPPENED
BETWEEN NOT BEING NOTIFIED THAT
YOU WERE GOING TO BE APPEARING
BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE AND, THEN,
LAST WEEK KNOWING YOU WOULD BE
APPEARING BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE
AND SUDDENLY CONSERVATIVE
WEBSITES ARE NOW AT THE TOP OF
THE BAR WHEN YOU SEARCH FOR
THEM.
SO WAS THERE ANYTHING DONE AT
GOOGLE BETWEEN A COUPLE OF
MONTHS AGO AND LAST WEEK OR THE
WEEK BEFORE YOU APPEARING TODAY
THAT HAS CHANGED YOUR APPROACH
TO SILENCING CONSERVATIVE
WEBSITES?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE APPROACH OUR
WORK WITH A DEEP SENSE OF
RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT IN A NON
PARTISAN WAY.
WE WANT TO SERVE ALL OUR USERS
NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE.
IT'S A LONG TERM BUSINESS
INCENTIVE TO DO SO.
AND I BELIEVE ON OUR PLATFORMS
INCLUDING YouTube THAT A MORE
CONSERVATIVE VOICES THAN EVER
BEFORE AND WE BELIEVE IN FREEDOM
OF EXPRESSION.
ON THE SPECIFIC ISSUE, YOU KNOW,
I WILL HAVE TO LOOK INTO IT.
YOU KNOW, I OBVIOUSLY WASN'T
AWARE OF IT.
WE DO -- IT COULD BE A NUMBER OF
REASONS.
WE CONSTANTLY GET REPORTS --
>> SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK
INTO FOR IT ME, CAN I EXPECT A
RESPONSE FROM YOU SAY IN THE
NEXT TWO WEEKS AS TO WHY THAT
OCCURRED?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE'LL DO OUR
BEST TO FOLLOW UP AND I'LL
ENGAGE WITH YOUR OFFICE.
>> OKAY.
WE'LL FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
I'VE GOT A SIMILAR QUESTION.
SO I'VE BEEN ELECTED POLITICS
FOR ALMOST TEN YEARS AND WHEN I
WAS IN THE FLORIDA SENATE AND
THE STATE SENATE I NEVER HAD A
PROBLEM WITH MY CAMPAIGN E-MAILS
MARKED AS SPAM OR GOING TO JUNG
FOLDERS AND WE HAD 30,000,
40,000 PEOPLE ON OUR E-MAIL
LIST.
AND SUDDENLY, I GET ELECTED TO
CONGRESS AND I'M NOW UP HERE IN
WASHINGTON, D.C. AND, AND MY
PARENTS WHO HAVE A GMAIL ACCOUNT
AREN'T GETTING MY CAMPAIGN
E-MAILS.
MY SUPPORTERS SAY I JUST WANT
YOU TO KNOW THIS MY GMAIL
ACCOUNT IS SUDDENLY TAKING YOUR
CAMPAIGN E-MAILS THAT I'VE
RECEIVED FOR ALMOST TEN YEARS
AND SUDDENLY GOING TO SPAM AND
JUNG FOLDERS.
THIS APPEARS TO ONLY BE
HAPPENING TO CONSERVATIVE
POLITICIANS.
I DON'T.
SO MY QUESTION IS WHY IS THIS
ONLY HAPPENING TO REPUBLICANS
AND IT'S A FACT IT'S HAPPENING
BECAUSE I CAN HAVE MY SUPPORTERS
TESTIFY THEY'VE RECEIVED MY
E-MAILS FOR 8, 9, YEARS AND
SUDDENLY THIS LAST YEAR ALL OF
THEIR GMAIL.
MY CAMPAIGN E-MAILS ARE GOING TO
THEIR SPAM FOLD.
SO IF YOU CAN GIVE ME SOME
CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
>> IN GMAIL WE ARE FOCUSED ON
USERS HAVE INDICATED THEY WANT
US TO ORGANIZE THEIR PERSONAL
E-MAILS, E-MAILS THEY RECEIVE
FROM FRIENDS AND FAMILY
SEPARATELY.
SO ALL WE HAVE DONE, WE HAVE A
TABBED ORGANIZATION AND, YOU
KNOW, THE PRIMARY TAB HAS
E-MAILS FROM FRIENDS AND FAMILY
AND THE SECONDARY TAB HAS OTHER
NOTIFICATIONS AND SO ON.
>> WELL, IT WAS MY FATHER WHO
WAS NOT RECEIVING NOW MY
CAMPAIGN E-MAILS.
SO, CLEARLY THAT FA MEAL AL
THING FAMILY ALTHING
THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>> OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T HAVE
THAT CONTEXT.
WE JUST APPLY IT NEUTRALLY
ACROSS ALL ORGANIZATIONS AND,
YOU KNOW --
>> WELL, WHAT ASSURANCES CAN
YOU GIVE ME THAT THERE'S -- MY
TIME'S SHORT.
ONE LAST QUESTION.
WHAT INSURANCES CAN YOU GIVE ME
THAT ANY BIAS AMONGST YOUR
EMPLOYEES ISN'T AFFECTING YOUR
SPAM FOLDER ALGORITHMS.
>> THERE'S NOTHING IN THE
ALGORITHMS WHICH HAS TO DO WITH
POLITICAL IDEOLOGY.
WE DO GET COMPLAINTS ACROSS THE
AISLE.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE WORD
"SOCIALIST" WASN'T FOUND.
WE GET COMPLAINTS.
WE LOOK INTO IT.
WE APPROACH OUR WORK IN A NON
PARTISAN WAY AND IT'S IN OUR
LONG-TERM INCENTIVE TO SERVE
USERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND
TODAY THAT'S WHY WE INVEST IN
OUR RADARS.
>>> I NOW RECOGNIZE THE
GENTLEMEN LADY FROM FLORIDA MISS
DEMMINGS.
>> LET ME JUST SUGGEST FOR THE
RECORD, I'M A DEMOCRAT FROM
FLORIDA AND I HAVE HEARD
COMPLAINTS ABOUT MY E-MAILS
GOING INTO SPAM AS WELL AND I'M
SURE OTHER DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS
HAVE HAD THE SAME EXPERIENCES.
UNFORTUNATELY.
MR. PACHI, IN 2011, GOOGLE
PURCHASED DOUBLE CLICK, THE
LEADING PROVIDER OF CERTAIN
ADVERTISING TOOLS, IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT,
CONGRESSWOMAN.
>> WHEN GOOGLE PROPOSED THE
MERGER, ALARM BELLS WERE RAISED
ABOUT THE ACCESS TO DATA GOOGLE
WOULD HAVE SPECIFICALLY THE
ABILITY TO CONNECT TO USERS'
PERSONAL IDENTITY WITH THEIR
BROWSING ACTIVITY.
GOOGLE HOWEVER, COMMITTED TO
CONGRESS AND TO THE ANTI-TRUST
ENFORCES THAT THE DEAL WOULD NOT
REDUCE USER PRIVACY.
GOOGLE CHIEF LEGAL ADVISOR
TESTIFIED BEFORE THE SENATE
ANTI-TRUST SUB COMMITTEE THAT
GOOGLE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MERGE
THIS DATA EVEN IF IT WANTED TO
GIVEN CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTIONS.
BUT IN JUNE OF 2016, GOOGLE WENT
AHEAD AND MERGED THIS DATA
ANYWAY EFFECTIVELY DESTROYING
ANONYMITY ON THE INTERNET.
MR. PACI, YOU BECAME CEO OF
GOOGLE IN 2015, STHAESHG?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> OKAY.
AND THIS CHANGE WAS MADE IN 2016
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND DID YOU SIGN OFF.
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, ANY CHANGES WE
MADE.
>> MR. PICHAI, WITH ALL DO
RESPECT, DID YOU SIGN OFF ON THE
DECISION OR NOT?
>> I REVIEWED THE -- AT A HIGH
LEVEL, ALL IMPORTANT DECISIONS
ARE MADE.
WE DEEPLY CARE ABOUT PRIVACY OF
OUR USERS.
>> SO YOU SIGNED OFF ON IT --
OKAY.
YOU SIGNED OFF ON THE DECISION.
PRACTICALLY THIS DECISION MEANT
THAT YOUR COMPANY WOULD NOT
COMBINE ALL OF -- WOULD NOW
COMBINE, FOR EXAMPLE, ALL OF MY
DATA ON GOOGLE, MY SEARCH
HISTORY, MY LOCATION FROM GOOGLE
MAPS, INFORMATION FROM MY
E-MAILS FROM GMAIL AS WELL AS MY
PERSONAL IDENTITY WITH THE
RECORD OF ALMOST ALL OF THE
WEBSITES I VISITED.
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY STAGGERING.
ACCORDING TO AN E-MAIL FROM A
DOUBLE CLICK EXECUTIVE, THAT WAS
EXACTLY THE TYPE OF REDUCTION IN
USER PRIVACY THAT GOOGLE'S
FOUNDERS HAD PREVIOUSLY WORRIED
WOULD LEAD TO A BACKLASH.
AND I QUOTE, "THEY WERE
UNWAIVERING ON THE POLICY DUE TO
PHILOSOPHICAL REASONS WHICH IS
LARRY AND S CERTIFY JOOE'S.
THEY WERE ALSO WORRIED ABOUT A
PRIVACY STORM AS WELL AS DAMAGE
TO GOOGLE'S BRAND.
SO IN 2007, GOOGLE'S FOUNDERS
FEARED MAKING THIS CHANGE
BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT WOULD UPSET
THEIR USERS.
BUT IN 2016, GOOGLE DIDN'T SEEM
TO CARE.
MR. PICHAI, ISN'T IT TRUE 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 THAT WHAT
CHANGED WAS GOOGLE GAINED
ENORMOUS MARKET POWER?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, THERE'S AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE IF I COULD
EXPLAIN.
YOU KNOW, WE TODAY MAKE IT VERY
EASY FOR USERS TO BE IN CONTROL
OF THEIR DATA.
WE HAVE SIMPLIFIED THEIR
SETTINGS.
THEY CAN TURN PERSONALIZATION ON
OR OFF.
WE'VE COMBINED MOST SETTINGS
INTO THREE GROUPINGS.
WE REMIND USERS TO GO TO A
PRIVACY CHECK-UP.
>> OKAY.
MR. PAICHAI THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR THAT.
I FOR GOOGLE BUYS UP COMPANIES
FOR THE PURPOSE OF SURVEILLING
AMERICANS AND BECAUSE OF
GOOGLE'S DOMINANCE, USERS HAVE
NO CHOICE BUT TO SURRENDER.
IN 2019, GOOGLE MADE OVER 80% OF
ITS TOTAL REVENUE THROUGH
SELLING OF AD PLACEMENT, IS THAT
CORRECT, MR. PICHAI?
>> AND BECAUSE GOOGLE SALES
BEHAVIORAL ADS TARGET TO EACH OF
US INDIVIDUALS, THE MORE USER
DATA THAT GOOGLE COLLECTS, THE
MORE MONEY GOOGLE CAN MANGE.
MORE USER DATA MEANS MORE MONEY,
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S NOT TRUE.
>> MORE USER DATA.
NOT THE MORE MONEY GOOGLE
COLLECTS.
I'M SORRY, PLEASE.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE MORE USER
DATA DOES NOT MEAN THE MORE
MONEY THAT GOOGLE CAN COLLECT.
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, MOST OF THE
DATA TODAY WE COLLECT IS TO HELP
USERS AND [INDISCERNIBLE]
PERSONAL EXPERIENCES BACK.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. PICHAI.
>> THE CHAIR NOW RECOGNIZES THE
RANKING MEMBER OF THE FULL
COMMITTEE, MR. JORDAN FOR
5 MINUTES.
>>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. PICHAI IS GOOGLE GOING TO
HELP JOE BIDEN IN THE 2020
ELECTION?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE APPROACH OUR
WORK.
WE SUPPORT BOTH CAMPAIGNS TODAY.
WE THINK POLITICAL ADS IT IS AN
IMPORTANT PART OF FREE SPEECH IN
DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES AND WE
ENGAGE WITH CAMPAIGNS, YOU KNOW
ACCORDING TO LAW AND WE APPROACH
OUR WORK IN A NONPARTISAN WAY.
>> IT'S A YES OR NO QUESTION.
CAN YOU ASSURE AMERICANS TODAY
YOU WON'T TAILOR YOUR FEATURES
TO HELP JOE BIDEN IN THE UP
COMING ELECTION?
>> WE SUPPORT WORKS THAT
CAMPAIGNS DO.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.
WE ALL DO ALL KINDS OF ONLINE
SOCIAL MEDIA.
ALL KINDS OF THAT OUTREACH, 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 IN THIS -- WHAT I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT IS YOU'RE
HELPING JOE BIDEN OVER PRESIDENT
TRUMP.
>> WE WON'T DO ANY WORK TO
POLITICALLY TILT ONE THING ONE
WAY OR THE OTHER.
>> BUT YOU DID IT IN 2016.
THERE'S AN E-MAIL IN 2016 THAT
WAS WIDELY CIRCULATED AMONGST
THE EXECUTIVES AT YOUR COMPANY
THAT GOT PUBLIC WHERE MISS
ILIANA MARILLO TALKS ABOUT THE
SILENT DONATION GOOGLE MADE TO
THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND YOU
APPLAUDED HER WORK.
SHE POINTS THAT OUT IN THE
E-MAIL.
I'M JUST CURIOUS, IF YOU DID IT
IN 2016 -- I WANT TO MAKE SURE
DESPITE IN THE FACT THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP WON, I WANT TO
MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT DOING IT
AGAIN IN 2020.
>> CONGRESSMAN, I RECALL THAT AT
THAT TIME.
WE DIDN'T FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF
SUCH ACTIVITY AND I TIPPED THE
OPPORTUNITY TO REINFORCE TO THE
COMPANY.
WE REALIZE INTERFERENCE COULD BE
IMPROPER.
AND SO WE'VE CLEARLY INDICATED
TO OUR EMPLOYEES IT NEEDS TO
HAPPEN ON THEIR OWN TIME AND
RESOURCES.
>> OF COURSE, EVERYONE'S GOT
THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
WHAT THEY CAN'T DO IS CON FIGURE
YOUR FEATURES TO HELP ONE
CANDIDATE OVER THE OTHER.
HERE'S WHAT SHE WROTE TO THE
E-MAIL TO A NUMBER OF KEY
EXECUTIVES IN YOUR COMPANY.
QUOTE, WE PUSH TO GET OUT THE
LATINO VOTE WITH YOUR FEATURES.
SECOND QUOTE, WE PUSH TO GET OUT
THE LATINO VOTES WITH OUR
FEATURES IN KEY STATES.
THOSE LAST THREE WORDS ARE THE
REAL QUALIFIR HERE.
WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO INCREASE
THE LATINO VOTE IN KEY STATES
AND SHE'D ALREADY COMMUNICATED
THAT SHE WAS SUPPORTING CLINTON.
THAT SHE WANTED CLINTON TO WIN.
SO WHEN SHE TALKS ABOUT INNING
VOTE WHICH SHE ASSUMED IT WAS
GOING TO HELP CLINTON.
IT'S ONE THING.
YOU'RE URGING PEOPLE TO VOTE.
IT'S QUITE ANOTHER WHEN YOU'RE
FOCUSING ON IN KEY STATES AND
THOSE KEY STATES 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
WITH LAWS IN 2016.
AS A COMPANY, ANY WORK WE DO
AROUND ELECTIONS IS NONPARTISAN.
USERS DO COME TO US FOR
UNDERSTANDING WHERE POLLING
PLACES ARE.
THE DATA.
WHAT THE HOURS ARE.
AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT WE'LL
APPROACH OUR WORK IN A
NONPARTISAN WORK.
>> HERE'S THE QUESTION ON SO
MANY AMERICANS' MINDS.
THEY SAW THE LIST WE READ ON
EARLIER IN OUR STATEMENTS.
GOOGLE IS SIDING WITH THE WORLD
HEALTH ORGANIZATION OVER ANYONE
THAT DISAGREES WITH THEM.
EVEN THOUGH THE WORLD HEALTH
ORGANIZATION LIED TO THE U.S.
WE HAD THE HISTORY OF ALL THE
THINGS GOOGLE HAS DONE AND THE
HISTORY OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016
IN THE ELECTION WHERE THEY
OBVIOUSLY ACCORDING TO ONE OF
YOUR MULTI-CULTURAL MARKETING
EXECUTIVE TRIED TO HELP CLINTON
AND HERE WE ARE 97 DAYS BEFORE
THE ELECTION, AND WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE IT'S NOT GOING TO
HAPPEN AGAIN.
CAN YOU GIVE US TWO ASSURANCES?
ONE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TAILOR
YOUR FEATURES, CONFIGURE YOUR
PLATFORM TO HELP JOE BIDEN.
AND, SECOND, THAT YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO USE YOUR SEARCH ENGINE
TO SCIENCE CONSERVATIVES?
CAN YOU GIVE US THOSE TWO
ASSURANCES TODAY?
>> CONGRESSMAN, PEOPLE HAVE MORE
ACCESS.
>> THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION.
CAN YOU ASSURE US TODAY YOU'RE
NOT GOING TO TRY TO SILENCE
CONSERVATIVES AND CAN YOU ASSURE
US TODAY YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TRY
TO CONFIGURE YOUR FEATURES AS
MISS MARILLO SAID IN 2016 AND
ASSURE US YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO
THE SAME THING FOR JOE BIDEN IN
2020.
>> YOU HAVE MY COMMITMENT.
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN TRUE AND WE'LL
CONTINUE TO CONDUCT OURSELVES IN
A NEUTRAL WAY.
>> APPRECIATE IT.
YIELD BACK.
>> THE CHAIR NOW RECOGNIZES
GENTLE LADY FROM PENNSYLVANIA.
>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN, I'D
LIKE TO REDIRECT YOUR ATTENTION
TO ANTI-TRUST LAWS RATHER THAN
CONSPIRACY THEORIES.
MR. BEZOS --
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WE HAVE THE
E-MAILS.
>> JORDAN YOU DO NOT HAVE THE
TIME.
>> BUT SHE CONTROLS THE TIME.
PUT YOUR MASK ON.
>> MR. RASKIN, YOU WANT TO TALK
ABOUT MASKS.
WHY WOULD YOU DEPUTY SECRETARY
TREASURY UNMASK MICHAEL FLIN'S
NAME.
AND WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IF
SOMEONE COMES AFTER MY MOTIVES
FOR ASKING QUESTIONS, I GET A
CHANCE TO RESPOND.
>> THE GENTLE LADY IS
RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU.
SHOWED THAT AMAZON SOMETIMES
DOESN'T PLAY FAIRLILY.
TO DESTROY RIVALS RATHER THAN
OUTCOMPETE THEM.
AND LET'S TAKE THE EXAMPLE OF
QUIDSY WHICH USED TO OWN
DIAPERS.COM AND PRODUCE ONLINE
BABY CARE PRODUCTS.
IN 2009, YOUR TEAM VIEWED
DIAPERS.COM AS AMAZON'S LARGEST
AND FASTEST ONLINE COMPETITOR
FOR DIAPERS.
ONE OF AMAZON'S TOP EXECUTIVES
SAID THAT DIAPERS.COM KEEPS THE
PRESSURE ON PRICING ON US AND
STRONG COMPETITION FROM
DIAPERS.COM SO THAT CUSTOMERS
DIDN'T PICK DIAPERS.COM OVER
AMAZON AND THE CUSTOMERS WERE
TALKING ABOUT HARD-WORKING
FAMILIES, SINGLE PARENTS WITH
BABIES AND YOUNG CHILDREN.
BECAUSE DIAPERS.COM WAS SO
SUCCESSFUL, AMAZON SAW IT AS A
THREAT.
THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE'VE
OBTAINED SHOW THAT AMAZON
EMPLOYEES BEGAN STRAT JIEZING
WAYS TO WEAKEN THIS COMPANY.
AND IN 2010, AMAZON HATCHED A
PLOT TO GO AFTER DIAPERS.COM AND
TAKE IT OUT.
IN AN E-MAIL THAT I'VE REVIEWED,
ONE OF YOUR TOP EXECUTIVES
PROPOSED TO YOU AN AGGRESSIVE
PLAN TO WIN AGAINST DIAPERS.COM,
A PLAN THAT SOUGHT TO UNDERCUT
THEIR BUSINESS BY TEMPORARILY
SLASHING AMAZON PRICES.
WE SAW ONE OF YOUR PROFIT AND
LAW STATEMENTS AND IT APPEARS
THAT IN ONE MONTH ALONE, AMAZON
WAS WILLING TO BLEED OVER
$200 MILLION IN DIAPER PROFIT
LOSSES.
MR. BEZOS, HOW MUCH MONEY WAS
AMAZON ULTIMATELY WILLING TO
LOSE ON THIS CAMPAIGN TO
UNDERMIND 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 TEN OR ELEVEN YEARS OR SO.
YOU CAN GIVE ME THE DATES ON
THOSE DOCUMENTS.
BUT 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.
>> SURE, BUT LET'S DELVE INTO
THIS A LITTLE FURTHER.
I'M SORRY.
YOU KNOW I ONLY HAVE A FEW
MINUTES.
SO I JUST WANT TO PRESS ON.
YOUR OWN DOCUMENTS MADE CLEAR
THE PRICE AGAINST DIAPERS.COM
WORKED AND WITHIN A FEW MONTHS
IT WAS STRUGGLING AND SO AMAZON
BOUGHT IT.
AFTER BUYING YOUR LEADING
COMPETITOR HERE, AMAZON CUT
PROMOTIONS LIKE AMAZON.MOM AND
THE STEEP DISCOUNTS IT USED TO
LURE CUSTOMERS AWAY FROM
DIAPERS.COM, AND THEN, INCREASED
THE PRICE OF DIAPERS.
DID YOU SIGN OFF ON THE PLAN TO
RAISE PRICES AFTER AMAZON
ELIMINATED ITS COMPETITION?
>> I DON'T REMEMBER THAT AT ALL.
WE FOLLOWED DIAPERS.COM.
YOU'RE ASKING A LOT OF MY
MEMORY.
I BELIEVE WE FOLLOWED
DIAPERS.COM.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT OKAY.
JUST MODIFY MOVING ON.
>> WITH GREAT RESPECT, I DON'T
AGREE WITH THE PREMISE.
AT THE SAME TIME, YOU SHOULD
RECOGNIZE IN CONTEXT, DIAPERS IS
A VERY LARGE PRODUCT CATEGORY
SOLD IN MANY PLACES.
>> RIGHT, BUT THIS WAS THE
ONLINE DIAPER MARKET.
NOW, WE DO HAVE EVIDENCE THAT
THESE PREDATORY -- I'M SORRY,
MR. BEZOS, I NEED TO PUSH ON
HERE.
>> OF COURSE.
SORRY.
>> THE EVIDENCE WE'VE COLLECTED
SUGGESTS THAT THE PREDATORY
PRACTICES WEREN'T UNIQUE HERE.
IN 2013, IT WAS REPORTED THAT
YOU INSTRUCTED AMAZON EMPLOYES
TO DISCUSS WITH BUSINESS
PARTNERS AND I QUOTE, THE WAY A
CHEETAH WOULD APPROACH A SICKLY
GAZELLE.
IS THE GAZELLE PROJECT STILL IN
PLACE?
>> I CANNOT COMMENT ON THAT
BECAUSE I DON'TEMEMBER IT.
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT WE
ARE VERY FOCUSED ON THE CUSTOMER
AS YOU STARTED.
>> OKAY.
WELL I'M CONCERNED WITH THE
CUSTOMERS AS WELL.
ESPECIALLY THE FAMILIES IN MY
DISTRICT.
I'M SORRY, MR. BEZOS, I'M ALMOST
OUT OF TIME.
I'M CONCERNED TOO BECAUSE
ESPECIALLY WITH THE CURRENT
PANDEMIC, ONE OF THE BIGGEST
NEEDS I'M SEEING AT THE FOOD
DRIVES AND THE GIVE-AWAYS WE'RE
HAVING TO RUN IN MY DISTRICT IS
THAT FAMILIES DON'T HAVE DIAPERS
AND WE HAVE TO COLLECT THEM TO
GIVE THEM OUT.
SO IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS A
HARD IMPACT ON FAMILIES AND I'M
CONCERNED THAT PRICING MIGHT
HAVE BEEN DRIVEN UP BY THIS
TACTIC AND I YIELD BACK.
>> I JUST ANNOUNCED VOTES ARE
GOING TO BE CALLED BUT WE'RE
GOING TO CONTINUE WITH THE
HEARING.
I INVITE COLLEAGUES TO VOTE.
VOTE ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN
SCHEDULE.
I KNOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN
FROM COLORADO.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
AND I WANT TO THANK EACH OF THE
WITNESSES HERE TODAY FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN 2004 WHEN YOU
LAUNCHED FACEBOOK, IT'S FAIR TO
SAY I THINK YOU'D AGREE WITH ME
YOU HAD QUITE A FEW COMPETITORS,
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, YES.
>> MYSPACE, FRIENDSTER, GOOGLE'S
OR CUT, YAHOO'S 360, BEBO, THEY
WERE ALL COMPETITORS.
>> THOSE WERE SOME OF THE
COMPETITORS AT THE TIME AND IT'S
ONLY GOTTEN A LOT MORE
COMPETITIVE SINCE.
>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT.
BY 2012, NONE OF THOSE COMPANIES
THAT I JUST IDENTIFIED EXISTED.
YOU'RE CERTAINLY AWARE OF THAT.
THEY WERE ALL BASICALLY GONE.
FACEBOOK IN MY VIEW WAS IN A
MONOPOLY BY THEN.
I WONDER WHETHER YOU'D AGREE
WITH THAT.
I TAKE IT YOU DON'T.
>> CONGRESSMAN, THAT'S CORRECT.
I DON'T.
WE FACE A LOT OF COMPETITORS AND
UM, EVERY PART OF WHAT WE DO
FROM CONNECTING WITH FRIENDS
PRIVATELY TO CONNECTING WITH
PEOPLE IN COMMUNITIES TO
CONNECTING WITH ALL YOUR FRIENDS
AT ONCE TO CONNECTING WITH ALL
KIND OF USER GENERATED CONTENT.
I WOULD BET THAT YOU OR MOST
PEOPLE HERE HAVE MULTIPLE APPS
FOR EACH OF THOSE ON YOUR
PHONES.
>> WHY DON'T WE DIG INTO THIS A
BIT FURTHER.
YOU AND I CLEARLY DISAGREE ABOUT
THAT.
IN 2012, I'M LOOKING AT A
DOCUMENT.
IT'S A PRESENTATION FOR CHERYL
SANDBURG TO DELIVER TO THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF A MAJOR
INTELLIGENCE FIRM.
BOASTING FACEBOOK IS NOW 95% OF
ALL SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE UNITED
STATES.
THE TITLE OF THE SLIDE IS QUOTE,
"THE INDUSTRY CONSOLIDATES AS IT
MATURES."
I THINK MOST PEOPLE
WOULD CONCEDE.
I UNDERSTAND 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 OBVIOUSLY WHAT YOU WOULD
DESCRIBE AS MARKET POWER THAT
FACEBOOK HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN
PURCHASING COMPETITION AND IN
SOME CASES REPLICATING
COMPETITION AND IN SOME CASES
ELIMINATING COMPETITION.
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 TO ADDRESSING DIFFERENT
PARTS OF THAT SPACE.
BUT IT'S ALL IN SERVICE OF
BUILDING THE BEST SERVICE.
>> IT FEELS LIKE SOME OF THOSE
STRAT YE JOOES ARE WHAT I
IDENTIFIED: QUOTE A LAND GRAB
AND SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO
SPEND 5% TO 10% OF OUR MARKET
CAP EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS TO
SURE UP OUR POSITION AND MY
SENSE OF THE FACTS IS THAT, IN
FACT, WHAT HAS OCCURRED.
FACEBOOK AS YOU CONCEDED EARLIER
THAT INSTAGRAM WAS A COMPETITOR
OF FACEBOOK'S.
YOU ACQUIRED INSTAGRAM IN 2012.
INSTAGRAM IS NOW THE SIXTH
LARGEST SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM IN
THE WORLD, IS THAT RIGHT.
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE
WHAT RANK IT IS, BUT IT'S
CERTAINLY GROWING BEYOND OUR
WILDEST EXPECTATIONS.
>> I CAN SHOW YOU THE STATISTICS
THAT SDEM STRAIGHT THAT IT'S THE
SIXTH LARGEST.
IN 2016, FACEBOOK BOUGHT ITS
COMPETITOR WHAT'S APP IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, YES, WHAT'S APP
WAS ALSO A COMPETITOR AND
COMPLEMENTARY.
THEY COMPETED WITH US IN THE
SPACE OF MOBILE MESSAGES WHICH
IS GROWING IN THE MOBILE SPACE
WHICH IS ONE PART OF THE GLOBAL
ON HOW PEOPLE CAN CONNECT
BROADLY.
>> UNDERSTOOD.
AND WHAT'S APP HAD
(100) 000-0000 MONTHLY ACTIVE
USERS AND WHAT'S APP 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 TRIED TO BUY OTHER
COMPETITIVE START-UPS.
YOU DID TELL ONE OF FACEBOOK'S
SENIOR ENGINEER IN 2012 THAT YOU
CAN QUOTE LIKELY JUST BUY ANY
COMPETITIVE START-UP BUT IT WILL
BE AWHILE BEFORE WE CAN BUY
GOOGLE.
DO YOU RECALL WRITING THAT
E-MAIL?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I DON'T
SPECIFICALLY, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE
A JOKE.
>> IT CERTAINLY -- I DON'T TAKE
IT AS A JOKE.
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 AWHILE
BEFORE WE CAN BUY GOOGLE AND
GIVEN THE PURCHASES THAT
FACEBOOK MADE PREVIOUS TO THIS
AND THE ATTEMPTED PURCHASES.
MY UNDERSTANDING FACEBOOK MADE
SEVERAL OVER CHURS CLEARLY
DEMONSTRATES IN MY VIEW.
HERE'S WHY I ASK,
MR. ZUCKERBERG, IT STRIKES ME
FACEBOOK HAS USED ITS MARKET
POWER TO REPLICATE ITS POWER.
AND FACEBOOK, WHAT'S APP, ARE
THE MOST DOWNLOADED APPS OF THE
LAST DECADE.
YOUR COMPANY OWNS THEM ALL AND
WE HAVE A WORD FOR THAT.
THAT WORD IS MONOPOLY AND WITH
THAT I WOULD YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLE LADY FROM GEORGIA
FOR 5 MINUTES.
>> YOU REFERRED TO THIRD PARTY
SELLERS TODAY TO AMAZON PARTNERS
AND YOUR SYSTEM DEPENDS ON THEIR
SUCCESS, BUT OVER THE PAST YEAR,
WE'VE HEARD A COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT STORY.
AS PART OF THIS INVESTIGATION,
WE'VE INTERVIEWED MANY SMALL
BUSINESSES AND THEY USED THE
WORDS LIKE BULLYING, FEAR, AND
PANIC TO DESCRIBE THEIR
RELATIONSHIP WITH AMAZON AND I'M
GOING TO SHARE THE STORY OF A
SMALL BUSINESS OWNER WHO 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 TOWARDS GROWING
OUR BUSINESS AND MAINTAINING A 5
STAR FEEDBACK RATING.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, THIS BUSINESS
FEEDS TO A [INDISCERNIBLE]
OF
14 PEOPLE WHICH AND ONE
90-YEAR-OLD GRANNY.
AND AS WE GREW, WE WERE SLINKING
AMAZON'S MARKET SHARE IN THE
TEXTBOOK CATEGORY.
SO AMAZON STARTED RESTRICTING US
FROM SELLING.
THEY STARTED WITH A FEW TITLES
IN EARLY 2019.
AND WITHIN SIX MONTHS, AMAZON
SYSTEMATICALLY BLOCKED US FROM
SELLING THE FULL TEXTBOOK
CATEGORY.
WE HAVEN'T SOLD A SINGLE BOOK
FROM THE PAST TEN MONTHS OR
PROBABLY MORE.
WE WERE NEVER GIVEN A REASON.
AMAZON DIDN'T PROVIDE US WITH A
NOTICE AS TO WHY WE WERE BEING
RESTRICTED.
THERE WAS NO WARNING.
THERE WAS NO PLAN.
>> AND SO, MR. BEZOS, AFTER
AMAZON DELISTED THIS SMALL
BUSINESS WITHOUT ANY APPARENT
REASON OR NOTICE, SHE TOLD US
THAT THEY SENT MORE THAN 500
SEPARATE COMMUNICATIONS TO
AMAZON INCLUDING TO YOU,
MR. BEZOS OVER THE PAST YEAR.
AND 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.
CONGRESSWOMAN, I APPRECIATE YOU
SHOWING ME THAT ANECDOTE AND I
WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO HER.
IT DOES NOT AT ALL TO ME SEEM
LIKE THE RIGHT WAY TO TREAT HER
AND I'M SURPRISED BY THAT.
AND IT'S NOT THE SYSTEMATIC
APPROACH THAT WE TAKE, I CAN
ASSURE YOU.
I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT'S
GOING ON IN THAT ANECDOTE
BECAUSE WE WOULD LOVE FOR THIRD
PARTY SELLERS TO SELL BOOKS.
>> RESPECTIVELY SIR.
>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT BUT I
WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IT
BETTER WITH YOUR PERMISSION I
WOULD LIKE TO GET IN TOUCH WITH
YOUR OFFICE.
>> I THINK YOU'RE MISSING THE
POINT.
THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT ONE
BUSINESS.
I'M CONCERNED THIS A PATTERN OF
BEHAVIOR AND BASICALLY THIS
PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR HAS TOO
CHANGE.
MR. BEZOS, MY QUESTION IS SIMPLY
ARE YOU WILLING TO MAKE SURE
GOING FORWARD THAT, YOU KNOW,
THE NUMEROUS SELLERS THAT WE'VE
TALKED TO, THEY HAVE PROBLEMS
JUST LIKE THIS AND THERE ARE
MORE SELLERS WHO'VE TOLD US
THEY'VE EXHAUSTED ALL OF THEIR
OPTIONS BEFORE FINALLY REACHING
OUT TO YOU DIRECTLY AS A LAST
RESORT, BUT THEY'RE STILL
WAITING FOR YOUR RESPONSE.
SO WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ONTO
THESE SMALL BUSINESSES TALKING
TO CONGRESS BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY
WON'T LISTEN TO THEM?
>> WELL, I'D SAY THAT'S NOT
ACCEPTABLE.
IF WE AREN'T LISTENING TO YOU,
I'M NOT HAPPY ABOUT THAT AT ALL,
BUT I DO -- YOU KNOW, IF YOU
WOULD ALLOW ME TO DISAGREE WITH
A PIECE OF THIS, I DO NOT THINK
THAT'S SYSTEMATICALLY WHAT'S
GOING ON AND THE EVIDENCE I
WOULD SUGGEST WOULD BE USEFUL
FOR YOU TO CONSIDER IN THAT
REGARD 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.
>> THANK YOU.
VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
MR. BEZOS, YOU SAID THAT SELLERS
HAVE MANY OTHER ATTRACTIVE
OPTIONS TO REACH CUSTOMERS, BUT
THAT'S NOT AT ALL WHAT WE FOUND
IN OUR INVESTIGATION ACCORDING
TO eMARKETER, A SOURCE AMAZON
CITED IN SUBMISSIONS TO THIS
COMMITTEE, AMAZON HAS NEARLY
SEVEN TIMES THE MARKET SHARE OF
ITS CLOSEST eCOMMERCE
COMPETITOR.
ONE SELLER TOLD US THAT 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 AREN'T BEING TRUTHFUL
WHEN THEY SAY THAT AMAZON IS THE
ONLY GAME IN TOWN?
>> YEAH.
CONGRESSWOMAN, WITH GREAT
RESPECT I DO DISAGREE WITH THAT.
I BELIEVE THERE ARE A LOT OF
OPTIONS AND SOME OF THEM ARE NOT
EVEN LISTED ON THAT CHART I JUST
LOOKED AT THAT TIME BRIEFLY, BUT
I DID SEE SOME THAT I KNOW OF
FOR EXAMPLE.
SO I THINK THERE ARE A LOT --
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
MR. BEZOS, MY TIME IS SHORT.
IF AMAZON DIDN'T HAVE MONOPOLY
POWER OVER THESE SELLERS DO YOU
THINK THEY'D CHOOSE TO STAY.
>> WITH ALL RESPECT,
CONGRESSWOMAN, I DO NOT ACCEPT
THE PREMISE OF YOUR QUESTION.
THAT IS NOT HOW WE OPERATE THE
BUSINESS.
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> AND, NAFK --
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
MR. BEZOS, I'M GOING TO 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 CONTRIBUTED THAT MUCH OF
PROPORTIONAL SELLER FEES TO
AMAZON.
WE HAVE CONTRIBUTED THAT MUCH TO
YOUR BUSINESS TO FIVE TIMES.
WE FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES THAT
WERE SET BY YOU.
WE -- PLEASE, JUST HELP US IN
EARNING OUR LIVELIHOOD.
WE BEG YOU.
THERE ARE 14 LIVES AT STAKE.
PLEASE, HELP US GET BACK ON
TRACK.
>> I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF
MY TIME.
>> WE'VE NOW CONCLUDED OUR FIRST
TIME.
I KNOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR
5 MINUTES.
>>> MR. BEZOS, ACCORDING TO
YOUR TESTIMONY, THE MARKET IS
COMPETITIVE, BUT AMAZON CONTROLS
AS MUCH AS 75% OF ALL ONLINE
SALE AND eMARKETER REPORTS THAT
AMAZON HAS 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 FOR SMALLER STORES.
I BELIEVE AMAZON IS A GREAT ONE
AND WE WORK VERY HARD.
I THINK WE ARE THE BEST ONE.
WE HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT
PROGRAMS THAT HELP SELLERS.
>> THERE ARE 2.2 MILLION ACTIVE
SELLERS AS OF YESTERDAY.
ABOUT 37% OF THOSE SELLERS RELY
ON AMAZON AS THEIR SOLE SOURCE
OF INCOME.
THAT'S OVER 8,000 PEOPLE RELYING
ON AMAZON TO PUT THEIR KIDS
THROUGH SCHOOL AND KEEP A ROOF
OVER THEIR HEADS.
YOU HAVE REFERRED TO THIRD PARTY
SELLERS AS YOUR PARTNER AND
CUSTOMERS.
BUT ISN'T IT TRUE THAT AMAZON
REFERS TO THIRD PARTY SELLERS AS
INTERNAL COMPETITORS?
>> I THINK -- IT WOULDN'T
SURPRISE ME WE'RE COMPETING AND
THEY'RE ALSO COMPETING WITH EACH
OTHER.
>> AMAZON'S OWN DOCUMENTS THAT
YOU PRODUCE REFER TOED VERY SAME
SELLER THAT IS YOU'VE DESCRIBED
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 AND I QUOTE, "WE'RE STUCK.
WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE BUT TO
SELL THROUGH AMAZON.
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
ZUNG SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES ONLY
TO HAVE AMAZON POACH THEIR
BEST-SELLING ITEMS AND DRIVE
THEM OUT OF BUSINESS.
SO I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT
ONE COMPANY.
I WANT TO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO
HOW THEY DESCRIBED 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 HANDS.
THIS PARTICULAR BUSINESS
DISCOVERED AND STARTED SELLING A
UNIQUE ITEM THAT HAD NEVER BEEN
A TOP SELLER FOR THE BRAND.
THEY WERE MAKING ABOUT $60,000 A
YEAR ON JUST THIS ONE ITEM.
ONE DAY, THEY WOKE UP AND FOUND
THAT AMAZON HAD STARTED LISTING
THE EXACT SAME PRODUCT CAUSING
THEIR SALES TO GO TO ZERO
OVERNIGHT.
AMAZON UNDERCUT THEIR PRICE
SAYING BELOW WHAT THE
MANUFACTURER GENERALLY ALLOWED
TO BE SOLD, SO THAT EVEN IF THEY
WANTED TO, THEY COULDN'T MATCH
THE PRICE.
HERE'S HOW THE APPAREL COMPANY
DESCRIBED WORKING WITH AMAZON
AND I QUOTE.
AMAZON STRINGS YOU ALONG FOR
AWHILE BECAUSE IT FEELS SO GOOD
TO GET THAT PAYCHECK EVERY WEEK
AND IN THE PAST, FOR A LACK OF
THE BETTER TERM, WE CALLED IT
AMAZON HEROIN BECAUSE YOU JUST
KEPT GOING AND YOU HAD TO GET
YOUR NEXT FIX, YOUR NEXT CHECK.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU
FIND OUT THAT THIS PERSON WHO IS
SEEMINGLY BENEFITTING YOU WAS
JUST ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE YOUR
DOWNFALL.
END QUOTE.
SO MR. BEZOS, THIS IS ONE OF
YOUR PARTNERS.
WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY COMPARE
YOUR COMPANY TO A DRUG DEALER?
>> SIR, I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR
YOU AND THIS COMMITTEE, BUT I
COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH THAT
CHARACTERIZATION.
WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS CREATE IN
THE STORE A PLACE -- YOU CAN GO
BACK IN TIME, WE SOLD ONLY OUR
INVENTORY.
IT WAS A VERY CONTROVERSIAL
DECISION TO INVITE THIRD PARTY
SELLERS.
WE DID THAT BECAUSE WE WERE
CONVINCED THAT IT WOULD BE
BETTER FOR THE CONSUMER FOR THE
CUSTOMER.
>> MR. BEZOS, RECLAIMING MY
TIME.
UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS ONE OF
MANY SMALL COMPANIES THAT HAVE
TOLD US DURING THIS YEAR LONG
INVESTIGATION THAT THEY WERE
MISTREATED, ABUSED, AND TOSSED
ASIDE BY AMAZON.
YOU SAID AMAZON IS ONLY FOCUSED
ON DOING WHAT'S BEST FOR THE
CUSTOMERINGS AND ALSO THIRD
PARTY SELLERS.
ISN'T IT AN INHERENT CONFLICT OF
INTEREST FOR AMAZON TO REDUCE
AND SELL PRODUCTS ON ITS
PLATFORM THAT COMPETE DIRECTLY
WITH THIRD PARTY SELLERS WHEN
PARTICULARLY YOU, AMAZON SETS
THE RULES OF THE GAME?
>> NO.
I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS.
WE HAVE -- WE HAVE THE CONSUMER
IS THE ONE ULTIMATELY MAKING THE
DECISIONS.
THEY'RE MAKING THE DECISIONS
ABOUT WHAT TO BUY, WHAT PRICE TO
BUY IT AT.
WHO TO BUY IT FROM.
>> THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION,
MR. BEZOS, THE QUESTION IS THERE
AN INPARENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST
BECAUSE YOU ARE A DATA COMPANY.
TRADITIONAL BRICK AND MORTAR
STORES LIKE A GROCERY STORE
DON'T HAVE THAT.
AND SO I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP
FINALLY ON AN ANSWER TO THE
QUESTION THAT YOU GAVE TO THE
CONGRESSMAN.
YOU SAID YOU CAN'T GUARANTEE
THAT THE POLICY OF NOT SHARING
USER DATA WITH AMAZON OES OWN
LINE, YOU COULDN'T BE CERTAIN.
CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT TO
ME.
CAN YOU LIST EXAMPLES OF WHERE
THAT POLICY HAS BEEN VIOLATED
BECAUSE IT'S PARTICULARLY
CONCERNING TO ME THAT SHOULDN'T
THIRD PARTIES NO FOR SURE THE
DATA ISN'T BEING SHARED WITH
YOUR OWN LINE, THEIR
COMPETITORS.
WHY SHOULD A THIRD PARTY SELLER
LIST THEIR PRODUCT ON AMAZON IF
THEY'RE JUST GOING TO BE CUT BY
AMAZON'S OWN PRODUCT AS A RESULT
OF DATA YOU TAKE FROM THEM.
>> SIR, I THINK WHAT I WANT YOU
TO UNDERSTAND AND I THINK IS
IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT
WE HAVE A POLICY AGAINST USING
INDIVIDUAL SELLER DATA TO
COMPETE WITH OUR PRIVATE LABEL
PRODUCTS.
>> AND YOU COULDN'T ASSURE MISS
JIAPAUL THAT THAT'S VIOLATED
ROUTINELY.
>> WELL, WE ARE INVESTIGATING
THAT AND I DO NOT WANT TO SIT
HERE AND I DO NOT WANT TO GO
BEYOND WHAT I KNOW RIGHT NOW.
WE ARE AS A RESULT OF THAT WALL
STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE, WE ARING
LOOKING AT THAT CAREFULLY AND
WANT TO GET THIS BACK AND SHARE
THEM WITH YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
THE EVIDENCE WE'VE COLLECTED
SHOWS THAT AMAZON IS ONLY
INTERESTED IN EXPLOITING ITS
MONOPOLY POWER TO FURTHER EXPAND
AND PROTECT THIS POWER.
THIS INVESTIGATION MAKES IT
CLEAR THAT AMAZON'S DUE ROLE AS
A PLATFORM OPERATOR IS
FUNDAMENTALLY ANTI-COMPETITIVE
AND CONGRESS MUST TAKE ACTION
AND I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN
FROM WISCONSIN.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THAT
THE HISTORY APPROVES THAT
CONGRESS DOES A POOR JOB OF
PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS AND
I'VE LOOKED OVER A LOT OF THE
MATERIAL THAT HAS BEEN
ASSEMBLED.
I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH A
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'VE 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 FTC SIGNED OFF ON THAT.
SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU THINK
HAS HAPPENED AT THAT TIME, THE
FACT IS 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, BUT THE FACT IS IS
THAT THERE IS NOT A PROBLEM WITH
THE LAW.
NOW, YOU KNOW, BACK ABOUT 35
YEARS AGO AT&T WAS BROKEN UP
BECAUSE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT
ONE-STOP-SHOPS WERE
MONOPOLISTIC.
AND YOU HAVE TO GET YOUR LONG
DISTANCE SERVICE FROM YOUR LOCAL
PHONE COMPANY THAT WAS
MONOPOLISTIC.
SO THE BABY BILLS WERE SPUN OFF.
A WHOLE LOT HAS HAPPENED SINCE
THEN.
THERE WERE MERGERS AND
ACQUISITIONS IN THE TELECOMM
COMPANY AND GUESS WHAT, WE'RE
BACK TO EXACTLY WHERE WE WERE IN
1984.
SO THIS GOES TO SHOW THE
CONGRESSIONAL PRESSURE IS NOT
THE BEST.
NOW, USING THE AT&T EXAMPLE
WHICH I THINK WAS A 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.
>> RIGHT.
>> VERY CLEAR.
>> NOW, MR. PICHAI.
LET ME ASK ABOUT GOOGLE.
IF YOU WERE FORCED TO SPLIT UP
YOUR BUSINESS LINE, SAY SPIN OFF
AD CHECK AND YouTube AND YOU
DESCRIBE WHAT HAPPENS TO
CONSUMERS THERE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, TODAY, CONSUMERS
IN MOST OF THE AREAS WE'RE
DEALING WITH SEE PRICES ARE
FALLING AND THEY GET MORE
CHOICES THAN EVER BEFORE.
SO I THINK IT SERVES THEM WELL.
>> AND YOU'RE RIGHT THERE.
SO YOU KNOW.
I'M NOT GOING TO BE IN THE
COMMITTEE IN THIS NEXT CONGRESS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, LET ME SAY THAT
WE HAVE HEARD A WHOLE LOT OF
COMPLAINTS ABOUT BIG TECH.
SOME OF THEM ARE POLITICAL IN
NATURE AND OTHERS TALK ABOUT
ALLEGEDLY ANTI-COMPETITIVE
ACTIVITY.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT'S NOT FOR
CONGRESS THAT LEGISLATES TO TOSS
ALL OF OUR ANTI-TRUST LAWS IN
PRECEDENT THAT HAS BEEN
ESTABLISHED OVER THE LITIGATION
IN THE LAST HUNDRED PLUS YEARS.
BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE AUGHT TO
GO BACK TO THE REGULATORS, TO
THE ENFORCERS, HAVE THEM LOOK AT
THIS STUFF AND HAVE THEM MAKE A
DETERMINATION ON WHETHER OR NOT
THE LAW'S BEEN VIOLATED.
I THINK THE LAW'S GOOD ON THAT
AND WE DON'T NEED TO THROW IT
ALL IN THE WAIST 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 AND
IF IT REQUIRES AN AGENCY LIKE
THE FTC TO SAY THEY'VE MADE
MISTAKES IN THE PAST.
THE SO BE IT.
WE'RE ALL HUMAN.
I YIELD BACK.
.
>>> YOU SUGGESTED THAT E-MAIL
TO YOUR MANAGEMENT TEAM OTHER
APPS COULD QUOTE PREVENT OUR
COMPETITORS FROM GETTING
FOOTHOLDS.
CHERYL SANDBURG RESPONDED IT IS
BETTER TO DO MORE AND FASTER IF
IT MEANS YOU DON'T HAVE
COMPETITORS THAT BUILD PRODUCTS
THAT TAKE SOME OF OUR USERS
FACEBOOK'S PRODUCT MANAGER ADDED
THAT QUOTE, I WOULD LOVE TO BE
FAR MORE AGGRESSIVE AND NIMBLE
IN COPYING COMPETITORS.
HAS FACEBOOK EVER STOPPED
COMPETITORS FROM.
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I VIEW IT AS
OUR AS WHAT PEOPLE ARE FINDING
VALUABLE IN ALL OF THE SERVICES
THEY USE AND CERTAINLY IF
SOMEONE --
>> DO YOU COPY YOUR
COMPETITORS?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, WE'VE
CERTAINLY ADAPTED FEATURES THAT
OTHERS HAVE LED IN THAT OTHERS
COPY ADAPTED FEATURES.
>> I'M JUST ASKING
YOU,MR.
ZUCKERBERG, SINCE MARCH
OF 2012, HOW MANY COMPETITORS
DID FACEBOOK END UP COPYING.
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I CAN'T GIVE
YOU A NUMBER OF COMPANIES.
>> IS IT LESS THAN 5?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I DON'T KNOW.
>> LESS THAN 50?
ANY ESTIMATES.
YOUR TEAM WAS MAKING A PLAN, HOW
DID IT PLAY OUT.
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M NOT SURE I
AGREE WITH THE PREMISE HERE.
OUR JOB IS TO MAKE SURE WE BUILD
THE BEST SERVICES FOR PEOPLE TO
CONNECT WITH ALL THE PEOPLE THEY
CARE ABOUT AND A LOT OF THAT IS
DONE BY INNOVATING AND BUILDING
NEW THINGS INTERNALLY.
>> THANK YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG,
LET ME GO ON.
HAS FACEBOOK EVER THREATENED TO
CLONE THE PRODUCTS OF ANOTHER
COMPANY WHILE ALSO ATTEMPTING TO
ACQUIRE THAT COMPANY?
>> NOT THAT I RECALL?
>> AND I'D LIKE TO JUST REMIND
YOU THAT YOU ARE UNDER OATH AND
THERE ARE QUOTES FROM FACEBOOK'S
OWN DOCUMENTS.
PRIOR TO ACQUIRING INSTAGRAM,
FACEBOOK BEGAN DEVELOPING A
SIMILAR PRODUCT CALLED FACEBOOK
CAMERA, CORRECT?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, THAT'S
CORRECT.
I'VE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES THAT WE
WERE COMPETING IN THE SPACE OF
BUILDING MOBILE CAMERAS WITH
INSTAGRAM.
HE'S WHAT THEY DID AT THE TIME.
THEIR COMPETITIVE SET WAS WITH
COMPANIES LIKE BUILDING WITH
FACEBOOK CAMERA.
>> THANK YOU.
DID YOU EVER USE THIS VERY
SIMILAR FACEBOOK CAMERA PRODUCT
TO THREATEN INSTAGRAM'S FOUNDER?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M NOT SURE
WHAT YOU WOULD MEAN BY THREATEN?
I THINK IT WAS PUBLIC 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 HIM THAT FACEBOOK
WAS QUOTE, DEVELOPING OUR OWN
CAMERA STRATEGY, SO HOW WE
ENGAGE NOW WILL DETERMINE HOW
MUCH WE'RE PARTNERS VERSUS
COMPETITORS DOWN THE LINE.
HE SEEMED TO THINK THAT WAS A
THREAT.
HE CONFIDED IN AN INVESTOR AT
THE TIME THAT HE FEARED THAT YOU
WOULD GO INTO QUOTE, "DESTROY
MODE" IF HE DIDN'T SELL
INSTAGRAM TO YOU.
APPROACHED A COMPANY THAT YOU
IDENTIFIED AS A THREAT.
AND TOLD THEM IF THEY DIDN'T LET
YOU BUY THEM UP, THERE WOULD BE
CONSEQUENCES.
WERE THERE ANY OTHER COMPANIES
THAT YOU USED THIS SAME TACTIC
WITH WHILE ATTEMPTING TO BUY
THEM?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I WANT TO
RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH THE
CHARACTERIZATION.
I THINK IT WAS CLEAR THIS WAS A
SPACE WE WERE GOING TO COMPETE
WITH.
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 SPIEGAL AND
THE FOUNDERS OF SNAPCHAT WHILE
ATTEMPTING TO BUY SNAPCHAT?
>> I DON'T REMEMBER THOSE
SPECIFIC CONVERSATIONS BUT THAT
WAS ALSO AN AREA THAT WAS VERY
CLEAR THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE
BUILDING SOMETHING.
PEOPLE WANT TO BE ABLE TO
COMMUNICATE PRIVATELY WITH ALL
TEIR FRIENDS AT ONCE, AND WE'RE
GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE BUILD
THE BEST PRODUCTS AND ALL OF THE
SPACES THAT WE CAN AROUND.
>> I THINK THE QUESTION HERE IS
WHEN THE DOMINANT PLATFORM
THREATENS THIS POTENTIAL RIVALS,
THAT SHOULD NOT BE A NORMAL
BUSINESS PRACTICE.
FACEBOOK IS A CASE STUDY IN MY
OPINION IN MONOPOLY POWER
BECAUSE YOUR COMPANY HARVESTS
AND MONETIZED OUR DATA AND THEN
USES THAT DATA TO SPY ON
COMPETITORS AND TO COPY,
ACQUIRE, AND KILL RIVALS.
YOU'VE USED FACEBOOK'S POWER TO
THREATEN SMALLER COMPETITORS AND
TO ENSURE YOU ALWAYS GET YOUR
WAY.
THESE TACTICS RE-ENFORCE
FACEBOOK'S DOMINANCE WHICH YOU
THEN USE IN DESTRUCTIVE WAYS.
SO FACEBOOK'S MODEL MAKES IT
IMPOSSIBLE FOR NEW COMPANIES TO
FLOURISH AND THAT HARMS MOM AND
POPS BUSINESSES AND IT HARMS
CONSUMERS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLE WOMAN YIELDS BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO,
MR. BUCK, HAS 5 MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE
TODAY.
I'M CONCERNED YOU'VE USED
AMAZON'S DOMINANT MARKET
POSITION.
WE'VE HEARD A NUMBER OF
COMPANIES THAT AMAZON USES DATA
FROM THIRD PARTY DATA TO LAUNCH
ITS OWN PRODUCTS AND THEN USES
THAT PROPRIORTARY DATA.
SDURING THIS SUB COMMITTEE'S
FIELD IN BOLDER, CEO DAVID
BARNETT DETAILED HOW AMAZON
ALLOWED COUNTER FIT PRODUCTS TO
APPEAR ON AMAZON'S MARKETPLACE
AHEAD OF POP SOCKET'S PRODUCTS.
MR. BARNETT TOLD CNBC THAT POP
SOCKETS FOUND AT LEAST 1000
COUNTER FIT PRODUCTS FOR SALE ON
AMAZON'S MARKETPLACE WHICH
AMAZON FAILED TO REMEDY UNTIL
POP SOCKETS AGREED TO A NEARLY
$2 MILLION MARKETING DEAL WITH
AMAZON.
WE'VE ALSO SEEN TROUBLING
REPORTS IN THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL DETAILING AMAZON'S USE
OF THIRD PARTY SELLERS TO
DEVELOP AND MARKET ITS OWN
COMPETITIVE PRIVATE LABEL
PRODUCTS.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ALSO
REPORTED LAST WEEK THAT AMAZON'S
VENTURE CAPITAL FUND USED
MEETINGS WITH UNSUSPECTING START
UP COMPANIES TO SEEK PROPRY TEAR
INFORMATION.
THEY REPORTEDLY USED THAT
INFORMATION TO FORM COMPETING
PRODUCTS OFTEN DISASTROUS
RESULTS.
ONE ALLEGATION IN THE JOURNALS
REPORTING STICKS OUT IN
PARTICULAR.
IN 2011, AMAZON CONTACTED VOCAL
LIFE LLC'S INVENTOR ABOUT
INVESTING IN THE SPEECH
DETECTION TECHNOLOGY.
VOCAL LIFE'S EXPECTED THE
MEETING THINKING THIS WAS THE
COMPANY'S BIG BREAK.
AFTER DISPLAYING VOCAL HAVAL
LIFE'S TECHNOLOGY INCLUDING
ENGINEERING DATA TO AMAZON
EMPLOYEES, THE RELATIONSHIP CAME
TO AN ABRUPT HALT.
AMAZON STOPPED RESPONDING TO
E-MAILS BEFORE THE TECHNOLOGY
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 AMAZON'S
MONOPOLISTIC CONTROL OF THE
MARKETPLACE.
I'M ALSO CONCERNED THAT GIVEN
AMAZON'S ALLOWANCE OF COUNTER
FIT GOODS ON ITS MARKETPLACE,
ESPECIALLY COUNTER FIT GOODS
FROM CHINA THAT AMAZON'S
MARKETPLACE MAY BE KNOWINGLY OR
UNKNOWINGLY FURTHERING CHINA'S
USE OF SLAVED LABORINGS.
RECENT REPORTS THAT AT LEAST 80
GLOBAL COMPANY THAT IS SELL ON
THE AMAZON MARKETPLACE INCLUDING
NIKE, STARBUCKS, AND SAMSUNG
HAVE TIES TO CHINESE FACTORIES
THAT USE ENSLAVED WOOEGER
MUSLIM,.
SENATOR HOLLY INTRODUCED AN
IMPORTANT BILL LAST WEEK
REQUIRING CERTAIN BUSINESSES TO
CERTIFY THEIR SUPPLY CHAIN DOES
NOT RELY ON FORCED LABOR.
I WILL BE INTRODUCING THE HOUSE
COMPANION BILL LATER THIS
AFTERNOON.
I DO NOT EXPECT YOU TO HAVE
INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE, I DO WANT TO
ASK ALL FOUR OR OUR WITNESSES A
SIMPLE YES OR NO QUESTION.
>> WOULD YOU AGREE TO THIS 
IDEA? 
>> I WOULD LOVE TO ENGAGE ON 
THE LEGISLATION WITH YOU, BUT 
LET ME BE CLEAR, FORCED LABOR 
IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD NOT 
TOLERATE IT, SO I WOULD LOVE TO 
GET WITH YOUR OFFICE AND ENGAGE 
ON LEGISLATION. 
>> THANK YOU. 
SPENT MY CONGRESSMAN, YOUR 
CONCERN ON THIS AREA, I FIND I 
AM HAPPY TO ENGAGE WITH THEIR 
OFFICE AND DISCUSS THIS. 
>> I DON'T EVEN WANT TO ENGAGE 
WITH MY OFFICE HAVE THE TIME. 
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT SLAVE 
LABOR IS NOT SOMETHING YOU WERE 
TOLERATE IN MANUFACTURING YOUR 
PRODUCTS OR IN PRODUCTS SOLD ON 
YOUR PLATFORMS? 
I AGREE. 
>> MR. COOK? 
>> WE WOULD NOT TOLERATE IT, WE 
WOULD TERMINATE OUR 
RELATIONSHIP IF WE WERE FOUND. 
>> MR. ZUCKERBERG? 
>> I AGREE, WE WOULDN'T 
TOLERATE THIS, WE FOUND THIS, 
WE WOULD TERMINATE ANY 
RELATIONSHIP. 
>> MR. BENZOS? 
>> I AGREE COMPLETELY. 
>> I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. BUCK FOR THE 
EXCELLENT QUESTIONING AND THE 
UPCOMING LEGISLATION, I LOOK 
FORWARD TO JOINING MATT. 
IN THE 19th CENTURY, WE HAVE 
THE CYBER BARONS AND WE WANT TO 
MAKE SURE THAT THE 
EXTRAORDINARY POWER AND WEALTH 
YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO AMASS IS 
NOT USED AGAINST THE INTERESTS 
OF DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS 
AROUND THE WORLD. 
AND NOT AGAINST THE INTEREST OF 
A FREE-MARKET AT-HOME. 
SO, MR. BEZOS, LET ME TURN TO 
YOU. 
I AM INTERESTED IN THE ROLE YOU 
PLAY AS A GATEKEEPER , A LOT OF 
CONSUMERS WANT TO KNOW WHEN ME 
HBO MAX APP WILL BE AVAILABLE 
ON YOUR FIRE DEVICE AND I 
UNDERSTAND THAT NEGOTIATIONS 
ARE ONGOING BUT YOUR COMPANY IS 
NOT ONLY ASKING FOR FINANCIAL 
TERMS, BUT ALSO FOR CONTENT 
FROM WARNER MEDIA. 
IS THAT RIGHT AND IS THAT A 
FAIR WAY TO PROCEED? 
IN OTHER WORDS, IS IT FAIR TO 
YOURS YOU ARE GATEKEEPER STATUS 
ROLE 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, 
THEY ARE UNDERWAY RIGHT NOW. 
I PREDICT COMPANIES WILL 
EVENTUALLY COME TO AN AGREEMENT 
AND I THINK THIS IS KIND OF TO 
LARGE COMPANIES NEGOTIATING 
AGREEMENTS, IT'S KIND OF 
NORMAL. 
>> HERE IS WHY I PURSUE IT, 
PRECISELY BECAUSE 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 
IN RESPECT TO NEGOTIATING WITH 
YOU. 
I GUESS THE GENERAL PROPOSITION 
YOU CAN SPEAK TO IS IS IT OKAY 
TO NEGOTIATE NOT JUST FOR 
FINANCIAL TERMS AND HAVING 
SOMEONE BE PART OF YOUR FIRE 
UNIT, BUT ALSO TO TRY TO 
EXTRACT AND THAT NEGOTIATION 
LEVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO 
GETTING CONTENT FROM THEM? 
>> AGAIN, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH 
THE DETAILS 
>> I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT THAT 
ONE, IN GENERAL. 
>> IN GENERAL, WHEN TWO 
COMPANIES ARE NEGOTIATING, YOUR 
NEGOTIATING NOT ONLY THE AMOUNT 
OF MONEY THAT IS CHANGING HANDS 
BUT WHAT YOU WILL GET IN 
EXCHANGE FOR THE MONEY. 
THAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL WAY THAT 
BUSINESS WORKS WORK 
>> AT LEAST TO OUTSIDERS, THAT 
WOULD LOOK LIKE A STRUCTURAL 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 
YOU ARE 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. 
YOU ESSENTIALLY CONVERTING 
POWER IN ONE DOMAIN INTO POWER 
AND ANOTHER DOMAIN WHERE IT 
DOESN'T BELONG? 
>> I THINK WHAT I SHOULD DO IS 
OFFER TO GET YOU INFORMATION, 
I'LL GET IT TO YOUR OFFICE FOR 
YOU BECAUSE I AM NOT FAMILIAR 
ENOUGH WITH THIS AND I CAN 
IMAGINE THERE WOULD BE 
SCENARIOS IF WE ARE TALKING IN 
THE ABSTRACT WHERE WOULD BE 
INAPPROPRIATE AND I CAN IMAGINE 
SCENARIOS WHERE IT WOULD BE 
VERY NORMAL BUSINESS AND VERY 
APPROPRIATE. 
>> FAIR ENOUGH. 
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SMART 
HOMES I WANT TO START WITH THE 
HUB, SMART SPEAKERS, DOES 
AMAZON PRICE THE A DEVICE BELOW 
COST? 
>> NOT ITS LIST PRICE BUT IT'S 
OFTEN ON PROMOTION AND 
SOMETIMES WHEN UPON PROMOTION, 
IT MIGHT BE BELOW COST. 
>> SEVERAL COMPANIES TOLD US 
YOU ARE PRICING THEM WAY BELOW 
COST MAKING IT NEARLY 
IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO COMPETE. 
AND AGGRESSIVELY DISCOUNTING 
ALEXA ENABLED SPEAKERS AS A 
STRATEGY TO ON THE SMART HOME. 
SMART SPEAKERS WITH VOICE 
ASSISTANCE LIKE ALEXIS, ALONG 
WITH A MYRIAD OF APPLIANCES 
ALEXA CAN INTERACT WITH MAKE UP 
THE NEXT PLATFORM FOR TECH 
COMPANIES TO LOCK IN CUSTOMERS. 
WOULD YOU SAY THE ECHO AND RING 
SECURITY SYSTEM IS THE ONE TAKE 
ALL MARKET, YES OR NO? 
NOW, ESPECIALLY IF WE ARE ABLE 
TO SUCCEED AT WHAT WE WANT, WE 
WOULD LIKE, OUR VISION FOR THIS 
IS SMART HOMES SPEAKERS SHOULD 
ANSWER TO DIFFERENT CORDS. 
>> WHEN CONSIDERING THAT 
POSITION. 
>> IF WE COULD ACHIEVE THAT, 
THEN WE COULD GET GOOD BEHAVIOR 
ON THE COMPETITIVE AGENTS 
HELPING YOU. 
>> YOU WROTE, QUOTE WE ARE 
BUYING MARKET POSITION, NOT 
TECHNOLOGY AND NOT MOMENTUM IS 
VERY VALUABLE. 
IF SMART HOMES ARE NOT A MARKET 
WITH LICHEN EFFECTS, WHY WOULD 
A LEADING MARKET POSITION AND 
MOMENTUM BE VERY VALUABLE? 
>> MARKET POSITION IS VALUABLE 
AT ANY BUSINESS AND IT'S ONE OF 
THE PRIMARY THINGS WE WANTED TO 
LOOK LET IN AN ACQUISITION. 
THERE ARE MULTIPLE REASONS WE 
MIGHT BUY A COMPANY, IF WE ARE 
BUYING TECHNOLOGY OR IP, BUT 
THE MOST COMMON CASES ARE 
MARKET POSITION, THEY HAVE 
BUILT A SEARCH, MAYBE THEY WERE 
THE FIRST NEIGHBOR, MANY NUMBER 
OF REASONS THEY COULD HAVE 
THAT, BUT THAT'S A COMMON 
REASON TO ACQUIRE A COMPANY. 
>> AIKEN FAVORITES ON PRODUCTS 
AND SERVICES, ALEXA MAKES UP 
OVER 60% OF THE SMART SPEAKER 
MARKET. 
WHEN I ASK A LESS GOT TO PLAY 
MY FAVORITE SONG COMMENTS THE 
DEFAULT MUSIC PLAYER, IS LARRY? 
>> I THINK THAT'S TRUE IF YOUR 
PRIME MEMBER. 
>> A NEW YORK TIMES REPORT SHOW 
THAT WHEN I YOU ALEXA USER BY 
BATTERIES WOULD YOU LIKE TO BUY 
AA AMAZON BASIC BATTERIES? 
>> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS 
EXPIRED BY HE MAY WITNESS THE 
QUESTION. 
>> I'M SURE THERE ARE CASES 
WHERE WE PROMOTE OUR OWN 
PRODUCTS. 
A COMMON PRACTICE IN BUSINESS, 
WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME IF ALEXA 
SOMETIMES DOES PROMOTE OUR OWN 
PRODUCTS. 
>> THAT CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. 
>> YOU SAID GOOGLE DOESN'T WORK 
WITH THE CHINESE MILITARY AND 
NOT ANSWER WAS DECEPTIVE 
BECAUSE GOOGLE WORKS WITH MANY 
OF THE ENTITIES THAT WORK WITH 
THE CHINESE MILITARY IN COMMON 
COLLABORATION AND ONE EXAMPLE 
WOULD BE THE UNIVERSITY WHERE 
JEFF DEAN, WHO IS THE HEAD OF 
GOOGLE AI SERVED ON THE 
COMPUTER SCIENCE ADVISORY 
COMMITTEE FOR THE UNIVERSITY 
AND THEN THE UNIVERSITY TAKES 
NEARLY $15 MILLION FROM CHINA'S 
CENTRAL MILITARY COMMISSION. 
EVEN IF YOU DON'T SHOW UP AT 
THE OFFICES OF THE CHINESE 
MILITARY, IF YOU'RE ALL SHOWING 
UP AT THE SAME PLACE, WORKING 
TOGETHER, THAT WOULD LEAD TO MY 
CONCERN. 
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SEARCH, 
NOW THAT'S AN AREA WHERE GOOGLE 
HAS REAL MARKET DOMINANCE, YOU 
TESTIFIED TO THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE 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, 
THEY WERE ALTERED DECEMBER 3rd 
JUST A WEEK BEFORE YOUR 
TESTIMONY AND THEY DESCRIBE A 
DECEPTIVE NEWS BLACKLIST AND A 
PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING THAT, 
APPROVED BY BEN COMBS, AND ALSO 
SOMETHING CALLED A FRIEND 
RANKING WHICH SEEMS TO BEG THE 
QUESTION WHO GETS TO DECIDE 
WHAT IS FRINGE? 
YOUR ANSWER, YOU KNOW, YOU SAID 
THERE IS NO MANUAL INTERVENTION 
OF SEARCH. 
THAT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY, NOW I 
WILL CITE SPECIFICALLY FROM 
THIS MEMO, I'M SORRY, THE DAILY 
CALLER OBTAINED, THE BEGINNING 
OF THE WORKFLOW STARTS WHEN A 
WEBSITE IS PLACED ON A 
WATCHLIST. 
IT CONTINUES THE WATCHLIST IS 
MAINTAINED AND STORED BY AREAS 
WITH ACCESS RESTRICTED TO 
POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT 
SPECIALIST PICKETT BEGS THE 
QUESTION OF THESE ENFORCEMENT 
SPECIALISTS ARE. 
ACCESS CAN ALSO BE SHARED ON A 
NEED TO KNOW BASIS TO ENFORCE 
OR ENRICH THE POLICY VIOLATIONS 
BACK THE INVESTIGATION OF THE 
LIST WAS DONE IN THE TOOL 
ATHENA, THE ARIES MANUAL REVIEW 
TOOL. 
SO YOU SAID TO CONGRESSMAN THAT 
THERE WAS NO MANUAL REVIEW TOOL 
AND THEN THE DOCUMENTS INDICATE 
THERE IS. 
HELP US UNDERSTAND THE 
INCONSISTENCY. 
>> THERE ARE TWO PARTS TO THIS. 
IN GENERAL, WE ADD LOMELI 
UPLOAD SEARCH RESULTS AND WE 
TESTED WITH USER FEEDBACK AND 
VALIDATE OVER 300,000 
EXPERIMENTS AND LAUNCHED AROUND 
3000 IMPROVEMENTS. 
THE QUESTION LAST TIME WAS 
SOMEONE BEHIND THE CURTAIN 
MANUALLY ACCUMULATING 
INDIVIDUAL SEARCH RESULTS. 
WE GENERALLY APPROACH IT 
ALGORITHMICALLY. 
IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW 
AND EVERY COUNTRY WE OPERATE 
IN, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE MAY BE A 
WEBSITE IDENTIFIED AS 
INTERFERING IN ELECTIONS AND 
THEN WE HAVE TO PUT THAT SITE 
ON A LIST SO THAT DOESN'T 
APPEAR IN OUR SEARCHES. 
OTHER EXAMPLES WOULD BE VIOLENT 
EXTREMISM. 
SAMAK IS THAT DONE MANUALLY? 
THAT PROCESS, IS THAT DONE 
MANUALLY? 
>> GETTING REPORTS FROM LAW 
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, WE ARE 
COMPLYING WITH A NOW DMC-BASED. 
SPAM ACT THERE IS EITHER A 
MANUAL COMPONENT WHERE THERE IS 
NOT, WHICH IS A? 
>> FOR CREATING THIS LIST, THAT 
PROCESS -- 
>> THAT IS SORT OF THE CONCERN 
I HAVE. 
NOW SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT 
TODAY BECAUSE YOU HAVE 
CONFESSED THERE IS A MANUAL 
COMPONENT TO THE WAY IN WHICH 
YOU BLACKLIST CONTENT. 
IT SEEMS TO BE NO COINCIDENCE 
THAT IT SITE LIKE GATEWAY 
PUNDIT, THE WESTERN JOURNAL, 
AMERICAN SPECTATOR, DAILY 
CALLER AND BRIGHT BARK RECEIVED 
THE IR OR THE NEGATIVE 
TREATMENT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF 
YOUR MANUAL TOOLING AND IT ALSO 
SEEMS NOTEWORTHY THAT 
WHISTLEBLOWERS AT YOUR OWN 
COMPANY HAVE SPOKEN OUT. 
YOU SAID ONE OF THE REASONS YOU 
MAINTAIN THIS TOOL IS TO STOP 
ELECTION INTERFERENCE, I 
BELIEVE IT IS IN FACT YOUR 
COMPANY THAT IS ENGAGING IN 
ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND IT'S 
NOT JUST MY VIEW, MIKE LACHER 
CAME OUT AND WAS A 
WHISTLEBLOWER, INDICATING THAT 
THE MANUAL BLACKLIST TARGETS 
THAT GOOGLE SPECIFICALLY GOES 
AFTER ARE THOSE WHO SUPPORT 
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, WHO 
HOLD A CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT 
AND HE LEFT YOUR COMPANY IN 
2019 BECAUSE HE WAS SPEAKING 
OUT AGAINST THESE OUTRAGED 
MOMS. 
CAN YOU SEE HOW WHEN YOU 
EMPOWER INDIVIDUALS, PROJECT 
VERITAS HAS EXPOSED LABELING 
PEOPLE AS TERRORISTS, SAYING 
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN THAT 
THAT CAN BE THE VERY ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE WE ARE CONCERNED 
ABOUT IN YOUR USING YOUR MARKET 
DOMINANCE AND A SEARCH TO 
ACCOMPLISH THAT INTERFERENCE. 
>> I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH 
THAT CHARACTERIZATION. 
WE DON'T HAVE ANY POLITICAL 
VIEWPOINT, WE DO THAT TO COMPLY 
WITH LAW, KNOWN COPYRIGHT 
VIOLATIONS AND WE HAVE TO DO 
THAT TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW AND 
IN MANY CASES, THEY 
>>> THE USE OF THIS DATA FROM 
ALL OF THESE, ALL OF THESE 
COMPANIES GAVE YOU TREMENDOUS 
ADVANTAGE OVER THEM AND ANY 
COMPETITOR. 
THE ABILITY TO MAKE MONEY 
ANYWAY AFFECTED GOOGLE'S 
ALGORITHM IN TERMS OF WHAT 
APPEARS AND I USERS SEARCH 
RESULTS? 
>> THE WAY WE RANK OUR RESULTS, 
WE DON'T HAVE A COMMERCIAL 
RELATIONSHIP. 
>> GOOGLE HAS GRAVELY THREATENED
JOURNALISM IN THE U.S., 
REPORTERS HAVE BEEN FIRED, 
LOCAL NEWSPAPERS HAVE BEEN SHUT 
DOWN AND WE HEAR GOOGLE AND 
FACEBOOK ARE MAKING MONEY OVER 
WHAT NEWS THE ELECTED AMERICAN 
PEOPLE SEE. 
THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS 
SITUATION. 
UNFORTUNATELY, MY TIME IS 
EXPIRED AND I HAVE TO YIELD 
BACK. 
>> THANK YOU FOR YIELDING, I 
NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN 
FROM FLORIDA FOR FIVE MINUTES? 
THANK YOU, GOING TO PICK UP 
WHERE I LEFT OFF, THERE ARE 
WRITING GROUPS THAT ARE GOING 
UNCHECKED WITH THE POSTING OF 
WHAT I WOULD CONTEND IS VERY 
VIOLENT VIDEO, YET YESTERDAY I 
WAS SENT A YOUTUBE VIDEO ABOUT 
DR. YOURS DISCUSSING 
HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE AND 
DISCUSSING THE DANGERS OF 
CHILDREN RETURNING TO SCHOOL 
AND WHEN I CLICKED ON THE LINK, 
WAS TAKEN DOWN AND I WAS SENT A 
DIFFERENT LINK ON YOUTUBE, 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 THEY THINK IS 
AFFECT  THE 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 ON YOUTUBE ABOUT 
EFFECTIVE WAYS TO DEAL WITH 
COVID-19. 
BUT DURING A PANDEMIC, WE LOOK 
TO LOCAL HEALTH AUTHORITIES, 
FOR EXAMPLE, THE CDC, FOR 
GUIDELINES AROUND MEDICAL 
MISINFORMATION WHICH WOULD 
CAUSE HARM IN THE REAL WORLD. 
FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE ARE 
ASPECTS OF A VIDEO AND IT 
EXPLICITLY STATES THAT 
SOMETHING COULD BE A PROVEN 
CARE THAT DOESN'T MEET CDC 
GUIDELINES, WE WILL -- 
>> IT'S FREE EXPRESSION OF 
SPEECH AND YOU HAVE THESE 
DOCTORS GIVING THEIR OPINION AS 
DOCTORS AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND 
WHY YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE THINK 
IT'S APPROPRIATE TO SILENCE 
PHYSICIANS AND THEIR OPINION OF 
WHAT CAN HELP AND CURE PEOPLE 
OF COVID-19. 
I'M GOING TO SWITCH TO MR. 
ZUCKERBERG, I THINK IT'S THIS 
OBVIOUS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN 
STIFLING CONSERVATIVE VIEWS AND 
OPINIONS. 
CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW FACEBOOK 
CHOOSES WHO THE MODERATORS ARE? 
>> THANKS, WE DO HIRE A LOT OF 
PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD TO WORK 
ON SAFETY AND SECURITY. 
OUR TEAM IS MORE THAN 30 OR 
35,000 PEOPLE WORKING ON THAT 
RIGHT NOW. 
WE 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 PEOPLE BEING ABLE 
TO EXPRESS A WIDE VARIETY OF 
THINGS IS ULTIMATELY VALUABLE 
FOR THE WORLD AND WE TRY TO 
MAKE SURE OUR POLICIES AND 
OPERATIONS ULTIMATELY REFLECT 
AND CARRY THAT OUT. 
>> IS THERE AN IDEOLOGICAL 
DIVERSITY AMONGST THE CONTENT 
MODERATORS? 
>> I DON'T THINK WE CHOOSE TO 
HIRE THEM BASIS OF IDEOLOGY. 
THEY ARE HIRED ALL OVER THE 
WORLD. 
THERE ARE CERTAINLY A BUNCH IN 
THE U.S. THERE IS DIVERSITY AND 
WHERE THEY ARE HIRED, BUT 
CERTAINLY, WE DON'T HAVE TO 
HAVE ANY BIAS AND WE WOULD NOT 
TOLERATE IT IF WE DISCOVERED 
THAT. 
>> YOU DON'T SPECIFICALLY HIRE 
CONSERVATIVE MODERATORS AND 
DEMOCRATS ARE LIBERAL 
MODERATORS SO THERE IS A 
BALANCE IN YOUR CONTENT 
MODERATORS? 
>> IN TERMS OF THE 30 TO 35,000 
PEOPLE OR MORE WHO ARE DOING 
SAFETY AND SECURITY REVIEW, 
THAT IS CORRECT. 
IN TERMS OF PEOPLE SETTING THE 
POLICIES, I THINK IT IS 
VALUABLE TO HAVE A DIVERSITY OF 
VIEWPOINTS SO WE CAN MAKE SURE 
WE HAVE THE DIFFERENT 
VIEWPOINTS REPRESENTATIVE IN 
THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. 
WE CONSULTED A NUMBER OF 
OUTSIDE GROUPS TO MAKE SURE WE 
ARE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL 
PERSPECTIVE. 
>> WHAT ARE SOME OF THE OUTSIDE 
GROUPS THAT WOULD BE 
CONSERVATIVE LEANING? 
>> I NEED TO GET BACK TO YOU 
WITH A LIST OF SPECIFIC GROUPS 
BUT IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT THE 
TOPIC IS. 
>> CAN YOU JUST THINK OF ONE? 
IS THAT HE REACH OUT TO OUTSIDE 
GROUPS, KENNY THINK OF ONE 
GROUP YOU REACH OUT TO AND USE 
OF THE CONTENT MODERATOR? 
>> CONGRESSMAN, I AM TALKING 
ABOUT DIFFERENT EXTERNAL 
STAKEHOLDERS AND GROUPS THAT 
ARE INPUTS TO OUR POLICY 
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. 
I'M NOT INVOLVED IN THOSE 
CONVERSATIONS DIRECTLY SO I 
WOULD HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU 
ON SPECIFICS ON THAT BUT I AM 
QUITE CONFIDENT WE SPEAK WITH 
PEOPLE ACROSS THE IDEOLOGICAL 
SPECTRUM WHEN WE ARE DEVELOPING 
OUR POLICIES. 
>> I WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE 
A FOLLOW-UP ON THAT. 
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE APPROVAL 
PROCESS FOR FACT CHECKERS AND 
HOW MANY DOES FACEBOOK EMPLOY? 
>> YES. 
WE WORKED WITH ABOUT 70 FACT 
CHECKING PARTNERS AROUND THE 
WORLD IN THE GOAL OF THE 
PROGRAM IS TO LIMIT THE 
DISTRIBUTION OF VIRAL HOAXES, 
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 FALSE, THAT FEELS 
INAPPROPRIATE. 
WE RELY ON AN ORGANIZATION 
CALLED THE POINTER INSTITUTE 
AND THE INDEPENDENT FACT 
CHECKING ORGANIZATION THAT HAS 
A SET OF GUIDELINES OF WHAT 
MAKES AN INDEPENDENT FACT 
CHECKER AND THEY CERTIFY THOSE 
AND THEN ANY ORGANIZATION THAT 
GET CERTIFICATION FROM THE 
GROUP IS QUALIFIED TO BE A FACT 
CHECKING PARTNER WITH AND 
FACEBOOK. 
SPEND MY TIME AS IS EXPIRED. 
I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE MR. 
JOHNSON FOR FIVE MINUTES, THEN 
WE WILL TAKE A SHORT BREAK OF 
THE COMMITTEE. 
MR. JOHNSON, YOU ARE 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
MR. BEZOS,  AMAZON HAS A 
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM WITH 
COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS BEING SOLD 
ON ITS PLATFORM, NOT ONLY RIPS 
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 IS FIXING 
ITS COUNTERFEIT PROBLEM BUT 
COUNTERFEITING SEEMS TO BE 
GETTING WORSE NOT BETTER PICK 
AMAZON IS $1 TRILLION COMPANY 
BUT CUSTOMERS ARE NOT 
GUARANTEED THAT THE PRODUCTS 
PURCHASED ON YOUR PLATFORM ARE 
AUTHENTIC. 
AMAZON ACTS LIKE IT'S NOT 
RESPONSIBLE FOR COUNTERFEITS 
BEING SOLD BY THIRD-PARTY 
SELLERS ON ITS PLATFORM AND WE 
HAVE HEARD THAT AMAZON PUTS THE 
BURDEN AND COST ON BRAND OWNERS 
TO POLICE AMAZONS SITE, EVEN 
THOUGH AMAZON MAKES MONEY WHEN 
IT COUNTERFEIT GOOD IS SOLD ON 
THAT SITE. 
MORE THAN HALF OF AMAZON'S 
SALES COME FROM THIRD-PARTY 
SELLER ACCOUNTS. 
WHY AS AN AMAZON MORE 
AGGRESSIVE IN ENSURING THAT 
COUNTERFEIT GOODS ARE NOT SOLD 
ON ITS PLATFORM AND WHY IS IT 
AMAZON RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING 
ALL COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS OFF OF 
ITS PLATFORM? 
>> THANK YOU, THIS IS AN 
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT ISSUE IN 
ONE WAY WORKED VERY HARD ON, 
COUNTERFEITS ARE A SCOURGE. 
THEY ARE A PROBLEM THAT DOES 
NOT HELP US EARN TRUST WITH 
CUSTOMERS. 
IT IS BAD FOR CUSTOMERS, IT IS 
BAD FOR HONEST, THIRD-PARTY 
SELLERS. 
WE DO A LOT TO PREVENT 
COUNTERFEITING. 
WE HAVE A TEAM OF MORE THAN 
1000 PEOPLE THAT DO THIS. 
WE INVEST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS 
OF DOLLARS, WE HAVE SOMETHING 
CALLED PROJECT ZERO WHICH HELPS 
BRANDS SERIALIZE INDIVIDUAL 
PRODUCTS WHICH HELPS 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 
JUST FOR OUR OWN RETAIL 
PRODUCTS BUT FOR THIRD-PARTY 
PRODUCTS AS WELL. 
>> WE HAVE 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 TOP 
SOCKETS TESTIFIED IN JANUARY 
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 IS UNACCEPTABLE. 
IF THOSE ARE THE FACTS AND 
SOMEWHERE SOMEWHERE AND SIDE 
AMAZON SAID BIDE X DOLLARS IN 
ADS AND WE WILL HELP YOU WITH 
YOUR COUNTERFEIT PROBLEM, THAT 
IS UNACCEPTABLE AND I WILL LOOK 
INTO THAT. 
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS WE HAVE 
A COUNTERFEIT CRIMES UNIT, WE 
ATTEMPT TO PROSECUTE 
COUNTERFEITERS. 
I WOULD ENCOURAGE THIS BODY TO 
PASS STRICTER PENALTIES FOR 
COUNTERFEITERS AND TO INCREASE 
RESOURCES TO GO AFTER 
COUNTERFEITERS. 
>> BUT YOUR COMPANY DOES MAKE 
MONEY OFF OF COUNTERFEIT GOODS 
BEING SOLD ON YOUR PLATFORM, 
ISN'T THAT CORRECT? 
>> IF IT DOES, IT WOULD ONLY BE 
IN THE SHORT TERM. 
I WOULD LOSE A SALE OVER LOSING 
A CUSTOMER. 
>> 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? 
>> I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT 
YOU'RE REFERRING TO, IF YOU'RE 
TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE WERE JUST 
TALKING ABOUT A SECOND AGO, I 
AGREE. 
>> A DIFFERENT SITUATION NOW 
WHERE A COMPANY THAT IS SELLING 
ON YOUR PLATFORM BUT IS NOT 
PAYING ANYTHING EXTRA GET 
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? 
>> I THINK WHAT YOU ARE 
REFERRING TO IS THE FACT WE 
OFFER AN ADVERTISING SERVICE 
BASICALLY FOR THIRD-PARTY 
SELLERS TO DRIVE ADDITIONAL 
PROMOTION, THAT IS A VOLUNTARY 
PROGRAM. 
GET HAS BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE IN 
HELPING PEOPLE PROMOTE THEIR 
PRODUCTS. 
WITH THAT, I YELLED BACK, THANK 
YOU. 
>> THE COMMUNITY WILL STAND IN 
THE BRIEF RECESS. 
>>> GO TO THE ENDS OF THE 
EARTH. 
>> WE GOT SOMETHING CRAZY. 
>> AND REACH FOR THE STARS. 
>> THERE WE ARE. 
>> IT IS MY COMEBACK. 
>> BUT WAIT, THERE IS MORE, 
EXPERIENCE THAT PROVOKING, 
INNOVATIVE, AND TRULY ORIGINAL 
REPORTING. 
BECAUSE THERE IS ALWAYS 
SOMETHING NEW UNDER THE SUN ON 
CBS SUNDAY MORNING. 
>>> COVID-19 HAS TAKEN THE 
LIVES OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF 
AMERICANS. 
RURAL AREAS LIKE THIS I HIT 
ESPECIALLY HARD. 
>> 15 TO 30% OF NAVAJO CITIZENS 
DON'T HAVE RUNNING WATER. 
>> THERE IS A SHORTAGE OF 
POSITIONS. 
>> NATIVE AMERICANS ARE THE 
MOST VULNERABLE AND HARDEST HIT 
BY COVID-19. 
>> THE MORE WE LOSE, THE MORE 
WE LOSE OUR LANGUAGE AND LIFE. 
>> WE NEED TO BRING AWARENESS 
TO THE UNITED STATES CITIZENS 
THAT THERE IS A NEED TO FOCUS 
ON THE FIRST CITIZENS OF THIS 
COUNTRY. 
>>> IN 60 YEARS WE WENT ABOUT 
100,000 FACTORY WORKERS TO 
PROBABLY ABOUT 7000. 
>> OFF IN THE DISTANCE, YOU CAN 
SEE SOME FACTORIES STILL 
HUMMING. 
MOST OF THEM ARE JUST KIND OF 
ABANDONED. 
>> THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY 
RIGHT NOW IS ONE OF THE LARGEST 
AND FASTEST GROWING INDUSTRIES 
IN AMERICA. 
AND YET IT CONTINUES TO BE THE 
ABSOLUTE LOWEST PAYING EMPLOYER 
IN THE UNITED STATES. 
>> BARELY ANYONE IS MAKING 
ENOUGH TO LIVE. 
>> YOUR DONATING PLASMA TO GET 
BY? 
>> IT IS LITERALLY A SLAVE 
WAGE. 
>> I DON'T REMEMBER GROWING UP 
LIKE THIS. 
MY MOM DIDN'T HAVE TO GO TO 
FOOD BANKS. 
>> AT IS PRETTY SAD. 
>>> EVEN REALLY YOUNG KIDS ARE 
FEELING WHAT IS GOING ON RIGHT 
NOW. 
HOW SHOULD PARENTS BE TALKING 
TO THEM ABOUT THIS WHOLE 
QUESTION OF RACIAL JUSTICE? 
>> HOW DO WE EMBRACE THIS AND 
TURN IT INTO REAL CHANGE? 
>> WHAT WE MUST FOCUS ON IS 
MOVING FROM PROTESTER TO 
POLICY. 
>> JOIN GAIL, ANTHONY, AND TONY 
ON "CBS THIS MORNING.". 
>>> CBSN LOS ANGELES, GET NEWS, 
ANYTIME, ANYWHERE. 
>> IT'S EASY TO FIND A SENATES 
FREE. 
>> DOWNLOAD THE APP ON YOUR 
FAVORITE DEVICES, CBSN LOS 
ANGELES, STREAMING 24/7.  
>>> CBSN DENVER, COVERING 
COLORADO FIRST. 
EVERYTHING THAT MATTERS WHERE 
YOU LIVE, RIGHT NOW. 
EVERYWHERE YOU ARE.  
IT IS YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD NEWS, 
STREAMING ON ALL YOUR DEVICES, 
24 HOURS A DAY, THE COLOR RED 
ONIONS YOU NEED STREAMING FREE. 
CBS 4 AND CBSN DENVER, ALWAYS 
ON, RIGHT NOW, COVERING 
COLORADO FIRST. 
>>> I WANT TO TAKE YOU TO 
MIDLAND, TEXAS NOW WHERE 
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP IS 
SPEAKING AFTER A FUNDRAISER AND 
A TOUR OF THE DOUBLE EAGLE OIL 
RIG. 
>> TED CRUZ. 
10, THANK YOU. 
HE HAS OUT THERE FIGHTING FOR 
YOU, I WANT TO TELL YOU. 
THANK YOU, TED. 
REPRESENTATIVES, THESE ARE 
FRIENDS OF MINE THAT ARE 
WARRIORS IS JODY HARRINGTON AND 
MIKE CONAWAY, THANK YOU, 
FELLAS. 
THANK YOU. 
THANK YOU, GREAT JOB. 
A VERY SPECIAL MAN AND A VERY 
SPECIAL TALENT, GOVERNOR GREG 
ABBOTT. 
THANK YOU, GREG. 
GREAT JOB. 
HE IS WORKING HARD AND YOU'RE 
DOING A FANTASTIC JOB AND 
PEOPLE ARE WORKING TOGETHER IN 
YOU GETTING EVERYTHING YOU 
NEED. 
GOOD, THANK YOU FOR DOING SUCH 
A GOOD JOB. 
THANK YOU ALSO, DAN PATRICK, 
YOUR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, MY 
FRIEND. 
THANK YOU, DAN. 
GREAT TO HIM. 
NO BETTER TEAM IN THE COUNTRY, 
THANK YOU. 
MEDLIN COUNTY JUDGE, TERRY 
JOHNSON. 
THANK YOU, TERRY. 
THANK YOU. 
YOU A FORMER GOVERNOR, A GREAT 
MAN, A FRIEND OF MINE, 
SECRETARY OF ENERGY, RICK 
PERRY. 
NOBODY DID A BETTER JOB THAN MY 
RICK. 
THANK YOU, RICK. 
AND WE HAVE SO MANY OTHER 
DISTINGUISHED GUESTS AND LOCAL 
LEADERS AND WE WANT TO THANK 
YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. 
THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. 
GREAT HONOR, THANK YOU FOR 
BEING HERE. 
UNDER THE LAST ADMINISTRATION, 
AMERICAS INDUSTRY WAS UNDER 
RELENTLESS AND UNCEASING 
ATTACKS. 
YOU KNOW THAT, BUT THE DAY I 
TOOK THE OATH OF OFFICE, WE 
ENDED THE WAR ON AMERICAN 
ENERGY AND WE STOPPED THE FAR 
LEFT ASSAULT ON AMERICAN ENERGY 
WORKERS. 
NOW, THE ASSAULT, YOU SEEN WHAT 
YOU DAD, YOU COULD COME AGAI
