 
SUBMITTED, AND 
WE WILL GIVE IT 
TO STAFF AS 
QUICKLY AS WE 
CAN. 
BASE COVERINGS 
ARE REQUIRED FOR 
ALL MEETINGS, 
AND ENCLOSED 
SPACES LIKE 
COMMITTEE 
HEARINGS, AND I 
EXPECT ALL 
MEMBERS ON BOTH 
SIDE OF THE %
AISLE TO WEAR 
MASKS EXCEPT SL
WHEN YOU ARE 
SPEAKING. 
I RECOGNIZE 
MYSELF FOR AN 
OPENING 
STATEMENT. 
>> A YEAR AGO 
THE SUBCOMMITTEE 
LAUNCHED AN 
INVESTIGATION 
INTO DIGITAL 
MARKETS. 
THE TWO 
OBJECTIVES HAVE 
BEEN TO DOCUMENT 
COMPETITION FROM 
THE DIGITAL 
ECONOMY AND TO 
EVALUATE WHETHER 
OR NOT THE 
ANTITRUST FRAMER 
IS PROPERLY ABLE 
%
TO ADDRESS THEM.  T 
AND 2019, THE TEOR
CHAIRMAN AND 
RANKING MEMBERS 
OF THE COMMITTEE 
AND THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE 
ISSUED SWEEPING 
BIPARTISAN 
REQUESTS FOR NEW 
INFORMATION, TO 
THE FOREFRONT 
THAT WILL 
TESTIFY IN 
TODAY'S HEARING. 
SINCE THEN WE 
HAVE RECEIVED 
MILLIONS OF 
PATIENTS, ALONG 
WITH THE 
DOCUMENTS AND 
SUBMISSIONS FROM %
PARTICIPANTS.TEHE T 
WE CONDUCTED 
HUNDREDS OF 
HOURS OF 
INTERVIEWS. 
PART OF THIS 
INVESTIGATION, 
WE HAVE HELD 
FIVE HEARINGS TO 
EXAMINE THE 
EFFECTS OF  O
ONLINE MARKET 
AND INNOVATION. 
DATA PRIVACY, 
PRESS, AND 
INDEPENDENT 
BUSINESSES ON 
THE ONLINE 
MARKETPLACE. 
WE FOUND 17 
BRIEFINGS AND 
ROUNDTABLES 
WHERE THERE WERE 
35 EXPERTS AND 
STAKEHOLDERS IN 
SUPPORT OF %THEROUR 
WORK. 
THIS 
INVESTIGATION 
HAS BEEN 
BIPARTISAN FROM 
THE START. 
IT IS AN HONOR 
TO WORK IO
ALONGSIDE MY 
COLLEAGUE, OF 
THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE'S 
RANKING MEMBERS, 
AND THE RANKING 
MEMBER OF THE %
FALL COMMITTEE, 
DOUG COLLINS. 
WE WORK CLOSELY 
WITH ALL MEMBERS 
OF THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
BOTH SIDES OF 
THE AISLE, 
TAKING THIS WORK 
SERIOUSLY, AND 
STUDYING THE 
ISSUES 
CAREFULLY. 
MY COLLEAGUE,  T%
RECENTLY 
COMMENTED SAYING 
THAT THIS IS THE 
MOST BIPARTISAN 
EFFORT THAT I 
HAVE BEEN 
INVOLVED WITH 
AND FIVE AND 
HALF YEARS OF 
CONGRESS. 
THE PURPOSE OF 
TODAY'S HEARING 
IS TO EXAMINE 
THE DOMINANCE OF 
AMAZON -- 
FACEBOOK, AND 
GOOGLE. 
AMAZON RUNS THE 
LARGEST 
MARKETPLACE, 
CAPTURING 70 
PERCENT OF 
MARKETPLACE 
SALES. 
THEY OPERATE 
ACROSS A VAST 
ARRAY OF 
BUSINESSES FROM 
CLOUD COMPUTING 
AND MOVIE 
PRODUCTION TO 
TRANSPORTATION 
LOGISTICS AND 
SMALL BUSINESS. 
AMAZONS MARKET 
EVALUATION 
RECENTLY HAD ONE 
AND A HALF 
TRILLION 
DOLLARS, MORE 
THAN WALMART, 
SALESFORCE, eBAY 
AND AT SEA 
COMBINED.ET%%ORET %
ANSE 
APPLE IS A 
DOMINANT 
PROVIDER OF 
SMART PHONES, 
WITH 100 MILLION 
iPHONE USERS IN 
THE UNITED 
STATES ALONE.
,
>>> IS AMERICAN 
FAMILIES SHIFT 
WORK, SHOPPING 
AND 
COMMUNICATION 
ONLINE, THESE 
GIANTS STAND TO 
PROFIT. 
LOCALLY OWNED 
BUSINESSES, MOM-
AND-POP STORES, 
FACING ECONOMIC 
CRISIS UNLIKE 
ANY IN RECENT 
HISTORY. 
AS HARD AS IT IS 
TO BELIEVE, IT 
IS POSSIBLE OUR 
ECONOMY WILL 
EMERGE FROM THE 
CRISIS EVEN MORE 
CONCENTRATED AND 
CONSOLIDATED 
THAN BEFORE. 
THESE COMPANIES 
SERVE AS 
CRITICAL 
ARTERIES OF 
COMMERCE AND 
COMMUNICATION. 
THESE COMPANIES 
ARE SO ESSENTIAL 
TO OUR MODERN 
LIFE, AND THE 
BUSINESS 
PRACTICES AND 
DECISIONS HAVE 
AN OUTSIDE 
EFFECT ON OUR 
ECONOMY, AND 
DEMOCRACY. 
ANY ACTION CAN 
AFFECT HUNDREDS 
OF MILLIONS OF 
US IN PROFOUND 
AND LASTING 
WAYS. 
ALTHOUGH THE 
CORPORATIONS 
DIFFER IN 
MEANINGFUL WAYS, 
WE OBSERVE 
COMMON PATTERNS 
AND COMPETITION 
PROBLEMS OVER 
THE COURSE OF 
THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
FIRST, EACH 
PLATFORM IS A 
BOTTLENECK FOR A 
KLEE CHANNEL OF 
DISTRIBUTION. 
CONTROLLED 
ACCESS TO 
INFORMATION, AND 
FOR 
MARKETPLACES, 
THESE HAVE THE 
INCENTIVE 
INABILITY TO 
EXPLOIT THIS 
POWER. 
THEY CAN CHARGE 
EXORBITANT FEES, 
IMPRESSIVE 
CONTRACTS AND 
EXTRACT VALUABLE 
DATA FROM THE 
PEOPLE AND 
BUSINESSES THAT 
RELY ON THEM. 
SECOND, EACH 
PLATFORM USES 
CONTROL OF 
PIVOTAL 
INFRASTRUCTURE 
TO SURVEY 
COMPANIES, 
GROWTH, AND 
WHETHER OR NOT 
THEY POSE A 
COMPETITIVE 
THREAT. 
EACH USES A 
STATUS TO 
PROTECT BY 
CUTTING OFF 
ACCESS FOR ANY 
ACTUAL OR 
POTENTIAL RIVAL. 
THIRD, THE 
PLATFORMS ABUSE 
CONTROL OVER 
CURRENT 
TECHNOLOGY IN 
ORDER TO EXTEND 
POWER, WHETHER 
IT IS THROUGH 
SELF 
REFERENCING, 
PREDATORY 
PRICING OR 
REQUIRING USERS 
TO BUY 
ADDITIONAL 
PRODUCTS, THEY 
HAVE WIELDED 
THEIR POWER IN 
DESTRUCTIVE AND 
POWERFUL WAYS IN 
ORDER TO EXPAND. 
AT TODAY'S 
HEARING, WE WILL 
HEAR HOW THE 
COMPANIES USE 
THE PLAYBOOK TO 
ACHIEVE AND 
MAINTAIN 
DOMINANCE, AND 
HOW THEIR POWER 
AFFECTS OUR 
DAILY LIVES. 
WHY DOES THIS 
MATTER? 
HARMFUL ECONOMIC 
EFFECTS. 
THEY DISCOURAGE 
ENTREPRENEURSHIP, 
DESTROY JOBS, 
HIKE UP COSTS 
AND DEGRADE 
PROPERTY. 
SIMPLY PUT, THEY 
HAVE TOO MUCH 
POWER. 
THIS POWER 
STAVES OFF NEW 
FORMS OF 
COMPETITION, 
CREATIVITY AND 
INNOVATION. 
THE DOMINANT 
FORMS WILL 
PRODUCE 
INNOVATIVE 
PRODUCTS, BUT, 
THEIR DOMINANCE 
IS KILLING SMALL 
BUSINESSES THAT 
MANUFACTURE, AND 
ARE ENGINES OF 
THE AMERICAN 
ECONOMY. 
SEVERAL OF THESE 
FIRMS HARVEST 
AND ABUSE DATA 
TO SELL 
DANGEROUS SO-
CALLED MIRACLE 
CURES. 
EVERYDAY 
AMERICANS, WHEN 
THEY LEARN HOW 
MUCH OF THEIR 
DATA IS MINED, 
THEY CANNOT RUN 
AWAY FAST 
ENOUGH. 
IN MANY CASES 
THERE IS NO 
ESCAPE FROM 
SURVEILLANCE. 
THERE IS NO 
ALTERNATIVE. 
PEOPLE ARE STUCK 
WITH THAT 
OPTION. 
OPEN MARKETS ARE 
PREDICATED ON 
THE IDEA THAT IF 
A COMPANY HARMS 
PEOPLE, 
CONSUMERS, 
WORKERS AND 
BUSINESS 
PARTNERS WOULD 
CHOOSE ANOTHER 
OPTION. 
WE ARE HERE 
TODAY BECAUSE 
THE CHOICE IS NO 
LONGER POSSIBLE. 
IN CLOSING, I AM 
CONFIDENT THAT 
ADDRESSING THE 
PROBLEM WE SEE 
ON THE MARKET 
WILL LEAD TO A 
STRONGER AND 
MORE VIBRANT 
ECONOMY. 
CONCENTRATED 
ECONOMIC POWER 
LEADS TO 
CONCENTRATED 
POLITICAL POWER, 
AND THE 
INVESTIGATION 
ALSO GOES TO THE 
HEART OF WHETHER 
OR NOT WE AS A 
PEOPLE GOVERN 
OURSELVES OR 
WHAT WE GET 
GOVERNED BY 
PRIVATE 
MONOPOLIES. 
AMERICAN 
DEMOCRACY HAS 
ALWAYS BEEN AT 
WAR AGAINST 
MONOPOLY POWER. 
THROUGHOUT OUR 
HISTORY, WE 
RECOGNIZE THE 
CONCENTRATED 
MARKETS AND 
CONCENTRATED 
POLITICAL 
CONTROL ARE 
INCOMPATIBLE 
WITH DEMOCRATIC 
IDEALS. 
THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE CAN FIND 
MONOPOLISTS, 
WHETHER IT IS 
RAILROADS OR OIL 
TYCOONS, AT&T OR 
MICROSOFT, WE 
TOOK ACTION TO 
MAKE SURE THAT 
NO CORPORATION 
CONTROLS ARE 
ECONOMY OUR 
DEMOCRACY. 
WE HAVE FACED 
SIMILAR 
CHALLENGES 
TODAY. 
HAS GATEKEEPERS, 
THE PLATFORMS 
CAN PICK WINNERS 
AND LOSERS AND 
SHAKEDOWN SMALL 
BUSINESSES. 
THEY CAN ENRICH 
THEMSELVES WHILE 
CHOKING OFF 
COMPETITORS. 
THEIR ABILITY TO 
DICTATE TERMS 
AND CALL THE 
SHOTS UPENDED 
HIGHER SECTORS 
AND INSPIRED 
FEAR, 
REPRESENTING THE 
POWERS OF A 
PRIVATE 
GOVERNMENT. 
OUR FOUNDERS 
WOULD NOT BOW 
BEFORE A KING, 
NOR SHOULD WE 
BOW BEFORE THE 
EMPEROR OF 
ONLINE ECONOMY. 
I RECOGNIZE THE 
RANKING MEMBER, 
SUB COMMUNITY 
OPENING 
STATEMENT. 
>> THANK YOU MR. 
CHAIRMAN. 
I WANT TO THANK 
THE CEOS FOR 
WORKING WITH THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE. 
THE MEMORIAL 
SERVICE FOR JOHN 
LEWIS ON MONDAY 
REQUIRED OUR 
ATTENTION. 
HOWEVER, THE 
HEARING IS VITAL 
TO OUR OVERSIGHT 
WORK AND I 
APPRECIATE YOUR 
FLEXIBILITY. 
MY LONG TIME AND 
CONGRESS, I HAVE 
PRIORITIZED 
OVERSIGHT IS ONE 
OF THE SEMINAL 
RESPONSIBILITIES. 
PART OF THE 
RESPONSIBILITY 
IS TO 
PERIODICALLY 
REVIEW THE 
EFFECTIVENESS OF 
OUR LAWS. 
IT IS A GOOD AND 
TIMELY THING 
THAT WE ARE 
TURNING OUR 
ATTENTION TO 
TECHNOLOGICAL 
INNOVATIONS, 
BRINGING US TO 
ALL OF YOUR 
COMPANIES. 
OUR COUNTRY IS 
STRICKEN BY A 
PANDEMIC 
BECOMING A 
DRAMATIC 
ILLUSTRATION OF 
THE 
EXTRAORDINARY 
RELIANCE THAT 
AMERICANS HAVE 
ON TECHNOLOGICAL 
INNOVATIONS. 
THESE UNEXPECTED 
AND UNPRECEDENTED
TIMES, YOUR 
COMPANIES HAVE 
PROVIDED 
SOLUTIONS FOR A 
MYRIAD OF DAILY 
NEEDS, DELIVERY 
OF GROCERIES, 
VIRTUAL BUSINESS 
WITH DOCTORS, 
CONNECTING WITH 
SOCIALLY 
DISTANCE TO 
FAMILIES, 
KEEPING SMALL 
AND LARGE 
BUSINESSES 
CONNECTED. 
THAT 
RESPONSIBILITY 
COMES WITH 
INCREASED 
SCRUTINY OF YOUR 
DOMINANCE IN THE 
MARKETPLACE. 
I WANT TO 
REITERATE 
SOMETHING I HAVE 
SAID THROUGHOUT 
THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
BEING BIG IS NOT 
BAD. 
QUITE THE 
OPPOSITE. 
IN AMERICA YOU 
SHOULD BE 
REWARDED FOR 
SUCCESS. 
WE ARE HERE TO 
BETTER 
UNDERSTAND THE 
ROLE THAT YOUR 
COMPANY HAS AND 
THE DIGITAL 
MARKETPLACE. 
IMPORTANTLY, WE 
NEED TO DISCUSS 
THE EFFECT THAT 
THEY HAVE ON 
CONSUMERS AND 
THE PUBLIC AT 
LARGE. 
TODAY'S MORE 
POWERFUL 
COMPANIES, MY 
ACCOUNTS AND I 
HAVE A GREAT 
INTEREST ABOUT 
WHAT YOUR 
COMPANY DOES 
WITH THAT 
ACCUMULATED 
POWER. 
WE ALSO KNOW 
THAT THE 
TECHNOLOGY 
MARKETPLACES 
DRIVEN BY DATA. 
THOSE THAT 
CONTROL THE 
DATA, IN 
ESSENCE, CONTROL 
THE MARKETPLACE. 
THERE ARE MORE 
BROAD QUESTION 
SURROUNDING DATA
. WHO OWNS THE 
DATA? 
WHAT 
RESPONSIBILITIES 
WILL COMPANIES 
HAVE TO SHARE 
WITH THEIR 
CUSTOMERS OR 
COMPETITORS? 
WHAT IS THE FAIR 
MARKET VALUE OF 
THAT DATA? 
IS THERE 
ANYTHING 
MONOPOLISTIC IN 
ACQUIRING THIS 
DATA? 
WHAT ABOUT 
MONETIZING IT? 
THESE ARE 
COMPLEX ISSUES 
THAT CONGRESS 
REGULATORS AND 
EVEN YOUR OWN 
COMPANIES ARE 
WRESTLING WITH 
IN THE CURRENT 
TECHNOLOGICAL 
LANDSCAPE. 
THE ANSWER TO 
WHICH WE OWE THE 
AMERICAN 
CONSUMER. 
THIS 
INVESTIGATION 
BEGAN AND WE 
HEARD RUMBLINGS 
FROM MANY WHO 
WERE QUICK TO 
SAY THAT YOUR 
SUCCESS FOR 
COMPANIES HAS 
GROWN TOO LARGE. 
IT SEEMS THAT 
THE COMPLAINTS 
HAVE GOTTEN EVEN 
LOUDER. 
I FIND THESE 
COMPLAINTS 
AFFIRMATIVE, BUT 
I DO NOT PLAN ON 
LITIGATING EACH 
OF THESE 
COMPLAINTS TODAY.
ANTITRUST LAW 
AND CONSUMER 
WELFARE STANDARDS
HAVE SERVED THIS 
COUNTRY WELL FOR 
OVER A CENTURY. 
THE LAWS 
PROVIDED THE 
FRAMEWORK FOR 
CREATIVITY IN 
ORDER TO MAKE 
WAY FOR SOME OF 
THE MOST 
SUCCESSFUL AND 
INNOVATIVE 
COMPANIES. 
I WILL BE THE 
FIRST TO 
HIGHLIGHT TO 
THAT. 
HOWEVER, AS THE 
BUSINESS 
LANDSCAPE 
EVOLVES, WE MUST 
ENSURE THAT OUR 
EXISTING 
ANTITRUST LAWS 
ARE APPLIED TO 
MEET THE NEEDS 
OF OUR COUNTRY, 
AND ITS 
CONSUMERS. 
I SHARE THE 
CONCERN THAT 
MARKET DOMINANCE 
IN THE DIGITAL 
SPACE IS RIPE 
FOR ABUSE, 
PARTICULARLY 
WHEN IT COMES TO 
FREE SPEECH. 
COMPANIES LIKE 
FACEBOOK, 
YOUTUBE, AND 
TWITTER HAVE 
BECOME THE 
PUBLIC SQUARE 
TODAY WHERE 
POLITICAL DEBATE 
UNFOLDS, 
DESCENDING 
VIEWS, OFTEN 
CONSERVATIVE 
VIEWS ARE 
TARGETED OR 
CENSORED HAS 
PUBLIC. 
THEY NEED THE 
PROTECTION OF 
THE ANTITRUST 
LAWS. 
THE POWER TO 
INFLUENCE 
REMARKABLE 
RESPONSIBILITIES. 
LET THE FACTS BE 
OUR GUIDE. 
COMPANIES ARE 
LARGE. 
THAT IS NOT A 
PROBLEM. 
COMPANIES ARE 
SUCCESSFUL? 
THAT'S NOT A 
PROBLEM EITHER. 
I WANT TO LEAVE 
HERE TODAY WITH 
A MORE COMPLETE 
PICTURE OF HOW 
YOU USE POWER 
AND WHAT IT 
MEANS FOR THE 
AMERICAN 
CONSUMER. 
>>> THE CHAIR 
RECOGNIZES THE 
CHAIRMAN OF THE 
POOL COMMITTEE, 
MR. MANDLER FOR 
HIS OPENING 
STATEMENTS. 
>> THANK YOU MR. 
CHAIRMAN. 
I WANT TO THANK 
YOU, FOR THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE 
MEMBERS FOR THE 
TREMENDOUS 
EFFORT YOU PUT 
INTO THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
I APPRECIATE YOU 
CALLING THIS 
HEARING SO WE 
CAN HEAR 
DIRECTLY FROM 
THE LEADERS OF 
AMAZON, APPLE 
AND GOOGLE. 
I LOOK FORWARD 
TO AN IMPORTANT 
DIALOGUE. 
TODAY IT IS 
IMPOSSIBLE TO 
USE THE INTERNET 
WITHOUT USING IT 
ONE WAY OR 
ANOTHER, THE 
SERVICES OF THE 
FOUR COMPANIES. 
THE 
CONCENTRATION OF 
POWER IN ANY 
FORM, ESPECIALLY 
CONCENTRATION OF 
ECONOMIC OR 
POLITICAL POWER 
IS DANGEROUS FOR 
A DEMOCRATIC 
SOCIETY. 
THAT IS WHY WE 
MUST EXAMINE 
THIS AND OTHER 
COMPANIES THAT 
PLAY A DOMINANT 
ROLE IN OUR 
ECONOMY. 
WE NEED TO ENSURE
THAT THE 
ANTITRUST LAW 
PRESERVES A 
HEALTHY 
MARKETPLACE. 
THESE PRINCIPLES 
HAVE GUIDED THE 
COMMUNITY IN 
YOUR LUNG 
INVESTIGATIONS 
INTO COMPETITION 
AND DIGITAL 
MARKETS. 
THEY ARE THE 
LENS THROUGH 
WHICH I 
APPROACHED 
TODAY'S HEARING. 
THE OPEN 
INTERNET HAS 
DELIVERED 
ENORMOUS 
BENEFITS TO 
AMERICANS. 
MASSIVE 
INVESTMENT, NEW 
PATHWAYS FOR 
EDUCATION, BUT 
THERE IS GROWING 
EVIDENCE THAT A 
HANDFUL OF 
CORPORATIONS 
HAVE COME TO 
CAPTURE AN 
OUTSIDE SHARE, 
PROVIDING A 
DOMINANT SEARCH 
PLATFORM, AND 
ONLINE MESSAGING 
PLATFORMS, THEY 
PROVIDE THE 
UNDERLYING 
MAPPING SERVICES 
FOR CLOUD 
COMPUTING, THEY 
COMPRISE THE 
STRUCTURE FOR 
THE 21st CENTURY.
BY CONTROLLING 
THIS 
INFRASTRUCTURE, 
THEY HAVE THE 
ABILITY TO 
CONTROL THE 
ACTIVE MARKET. 
IN BASIC WAYS, 
THE PROBLEM IS 
NOT UNLIKE WHAT 
WE FACED 130 
YEARS AGO. 
RAILROADS WERE 
TRANSFORMING 
AMERICAN LIFE. 
FARMERS AND 
OTHERS WOULD 
PRODUCE TO 
MARKET, BUT IT 
PRODUCED A 
MONOPOLY THAT 
THE RAILROADS 
COULD EXPLOIT. 
THEY KEPT THE 
POWER AND A 
VARIETY OF WAYS. 
THEY CHARGE 
TOLLS, EXCLUDING 
THE PRODUCERS 
RELIANCE ON 
RAILS, THEY 
DISCRIMINATED 
AMONG FARMERS, 
PICKING WINNERS 
AND LOSERS 
ACROSS THE 
ECONOMY. 
THEY EXPANDED 
THE LINES OF 
BUSINESS AND 
COMPETED 
DIRECTLY WITH 
PRODUCERS, 
FAVORING THEIR 
OWN SERVICES IN 
TERMS OF 
TRANSPORTATION. 
THESE CAUSED 
DESPAIR ACROSS 
THE COUNTRY. 
DOCUMENTING 
THESE PROBLEMS, 
AND ACTIVE 
LEGISLATIVE 
SOLUTION HAD 
ANTICOMPETITIVE 
PRACTICES AND 
THE RAILROAD 
INDUSTRIES AND 
OTHER INDUSTRIES 
DOMINATED BY 
MONOPOLIES AND 
TRUSTS. 
CONGRESSIONAL 
OVERSIGHT AND 
LEGISLATIVE 
PERFORMANCE 
DURING THIS 
PERIOD DID NOT 
PREVENT THE 
ARRIVAL OF NEW 
TECHNOLOGY, AND 
SAID, CONGRESS 
RECOGNIZES THE 
POWERFUL NEW 
TECHNOLOGIES 
HAVE RESHAPED 
THE BALANCE OF 
POWER IN OUR 
ECONOMY. 
IT IS THE RULE 
OF CONGRESS TO 
MAKE SURE THE 
MONOPOLISTS 
COULD NOT ABUSE 
THEIR POWER. 
TODAY, THE 
DIGITAL ECONOMY 
POSES CIVIL 
DIFFERENT 
CHALLENGES. 
TECHNOLOGY IS 
DIFFERENT OF 
COURSE, BUT 
DIGITAL 
INTERMEDIARIES 
HAVE THE ABILITY 
TO CONTROL 
ACCESS FOR 
MARKETS. 
IF YOU'RE AN 
INDEPENDENT 
MERCHANT, 
DEVELOPER OR 
CONTENT 
PRODUCER, YOU 
ARE INCREASINGLY 
RELIANT ON THE 
POWERFUL 
INTERMEDIARIES 
AND ACROSS THE 
ECONOMY, MANY 
BUSINESSES LIVE 
IN FEAR OF 
EXCLUSION. 
THE FACT THAT 
SOME COMPANIES 
CAN SHARE WITH 
THE COMMITTEE 
OVER THE PAST 
YEAR, DURING THE 
COURSE OF THIS 
INVESTIGATION, 
THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE'S 
CURRENT REVIEW 
OF COMPETITION 
ON THE DIGITAL 
MARKETPLACE 
CONTINUES A LONG 
TRADITION OF 
THIS COMMITTEE'S 
OVERSIGHT OF THE 
ANTITRUST LAWS 
AND OUR ECONOMY. 
FROM THE DAYS OF 
THE CHAIRMAN 
EMMANUEL SELLER, 
THE COMMITTEE 
HAS CONDUCTED 
INQUIRIES INTO 
INDUSTRIAL 
SECTORS, SHOWING 
SIGNS OF 
CONSOLIDATION 
AND 
ANTICOMPETITIVE 
CONDUCT. 
THIS IS 
CONTINUED ON A 
BIPARTISAN BASIS 
OVER THE YEARS, 
FROM CHAIRMAN 
BROOKS, TO 
OTHERS. 
FROM THE 1950 
REPORT ON 
MONOPOLY POWER 
MANDATES, IT 
SAYS, IT IS THE 
PROMISE OF THIS 
SUBCOMMITTEE TO 
INVESTIGATE 
PRACTICES THAT 
ELIMINATE 
COMPETITION, 
INJURING SMALL 
BUSINESSES ARE 
PROMOTING UNDUE 
CONCENTRATION OF 
ECONOMIC POWER. 
WE WILL MAKE 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
BASED ON 
FINDINGS. 
FOLLOWING THE 
PROUD TRADITION, 
INDUSTRY AND 
GOVERNMENT -- 
CONSULTATION 
WITH SUBJECT 
MATTER EXPERTS 
AND PAINSTAKING 
REVIEW OF LARGE 
VOLUMES OF 
EVIDENCE THAT 
ARE PROVIDED BY 
INDUSTRY 
PERCEPTION SINCE 
ALL OF THE 
PARTICIPANTS, 
AND REGULATORS. 
IT IS THE 
RESPONSIBILITY 
OF THE ANTITRUST 
ENFORCEMENT 
AGENCY TO 
ENFORCE THE LAW. 
THEY ASSESS 
WHETHER EXISTING 
ANTITRUST LAWS 
ARE COMPETITION 
POLICIES AND THE 
WILL TO ENFORCE 
THOSE LAWS AND 
POLICIES ARE 
ADEQUATE TO 
ADDRESS THE 
ISSUE FACING OUR 
COUNTRY, AND 
TAKE ACTION AS 
THEY ARE FOUND 
TO BE LACKING. 
IT IS ONLY 
REASONABLE THAT 
ARE CAREFUL 
EXAMINATION OF 
THE ANTITRUST 
LAW BEGINS WITH 
THAT. 
I APPRECIATE THE 
PARTICIPATION OF 
ALL OF THE 
WITNESSES TODAY. 
HER 
INVESTIGATION 
WOULD NOT BE 
COMPLETE, 
WITHOUT HEARING 
DIRECTLY FROM 
DECISION-MAKERS, 
THE COMPANIES, I 
LOOK FORWARD TO 
THEIR TESTIMONY 
AND DISCUSSION. 
I YIELD BACK THE 
BALANCE OF MY 
TIME. 
>> I THINK THE 
GENTLEMAN, I NOW 
INTRODUCE THE 
RANKING MEMBER 
OF THE FULL 
COMMITTEE, MR. 
JORDAN FOR HIS 
OPENING 
STATEMENT. 
>> I WANT TO 
THANK THE 
RANKING MEMBER, 
I AM NOT SURE 
HOW MANY 
COMMITTEE 
HEARINGS THIS 
SUBCOMMITTEE OR 
THE FULL 
COMMITTEE WILL 
HAVE THIS 
CONGRESS, BUT I 
WANT TO THANK 
JIM FOR HIS 
GREAT WORK, AND 
THE CONSTITUENTS 
OF HIS DISTRICT 
FOR THIS MANY 
YEARS, AND FOR 
THE WORK THAT HE 
IS DONE FOR THIS 
ENTIRE 
COMMITTEE. 
OKAY. 
I WILL CUT TO 
THE CHASE. 
BIG DIG IS OUT 
TO GET 
CONSERVATIVES, 
THAT IS NOT A 
HUNCH, IT IS A 
FACT. 
JULY 20, 2020, 
GOOGLE REMOVED 
BREITBART AND 
THE DAILY 
CALLER. 
GOOGLE HAS 
CENSORED 
BREITBART, SO 
MUCH, CHARLIE 
HAS DECLINED 99 
PERCENT. 
THEY THREATENED 
TO DE-MONETIZE, 
AND GOOGLE AND 
YOUTUBE 
ANNOUNCED A 
POLICY CENSORING 
CONTENT THAT 
CONFLICTS WITH 
THE 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
OF WORLD HEALTH 
ORGANIZATIONS. 
THINK ABOUT 
THAT. 
THE WORLD HEALTH 
ORGANIZATION, AN 
ORGANIZATION 
THAT LIED TO US 
MY AS A SHIELD 
FOR CHINA, IF 
YOU CONTRADICT 
SOMETHING THAT 
THEY SAY, THEY 
CAN SAY WHATEVER 
THEY WANT. 
THEY CAN LIE, 
AND IF YOU SAY 
SOMETHING 
AGAINST THEM, 
YOU GET CENSORED.
JUNE 29, 2020, 
AMAZON BAND 
PRESIDENT 
TRUMPS' ACCOUNT 
ON TWITCH, AFTER 
HE RAISES 
CONCERNS ABOUT 
DEFENDING 
POLICE. 
AMAZON BANS A 
BOOK CRITICAL OF 
CORONAVIRUS 
LOCKDOWN 
THREATENED BY 
CONSERVATIVE 
COMMENTATORS. 
2020, AMAZON 
SMILES WILL NOT 
LET YOU GIVE TO 
THE RESEARCH 
COUNCIL ON THE 
ALLIANCE DEFENSE 
FUND, BUT YOU 
CAN GIVE TO 
PLANNED 
PARENTHOOD. 
FACEBOOK, TAKES 
DOWN POSTS FROM 
THE REELECTION 
CAMPAIGN. 
FACEBOOK 
SILENCES A PRO-
LIFE 
ORGANIZATION 
ADVERTISEMENT, 
MAY 19, 
FACEBOOK, FORMER 
FACEBOOK 
EMPLOYEES HAD 
ADMITTED THAT 
THEY SPOKE 
ROUTINELY ABOUT 
THE PRESSES 
CONSERVATIVE 
YOUTH. 
I DID NOT EVEN 
MENTION TWITTER. 
WE ACTUALLY 
INVITED TO THE 
CHAIRMAN, WE 
ASKED FOR YOU 
GUYS TO INVITE 
HIM AS ONE OF 
OUR WITNESSES, 
YOU GUYS SAID 
NO. 
I HAVE NOT EVEN 
MENTIONED HIM. 
IT TWO YEARS AGO 
THEY SHUT UP AND 
TO MEMBERS OF 
THIS COMMITTEE. 
FOR MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS WERE 
SHADOW BAND. 
ONLY FOUR, 
GATES, MEADOWS, 
NUNEZ, WERE 
SHADOW BAND. 
WHAT DID HE TELL 
US? 
HE SAID IT WAS A 
GLITCH IN THE 
ALGORITHM. 
I ASKED HIM, 
WHAT YOU PUT IN 
THE ALGORITHM? 
THEIR NAMES? 
IF I HAD A 
NICKEL FOR EVERY 
TIME I HEARD IT 
WAS JUST A GLITCH
, THE REASON WHY 
THEY WERE 
BANNED, I WOULD 
NOT BE AS 
WEALTHY AS OUR 
WITNESSES, BUT I 
WOULD BE ALL 
RIGHT. 
WE HAVE HEARD 
THAT EXCUSE TIME 
AND TIME AGAIN. 
MAY 28, TRUMPS' 
TWEETS WERE 
CENSORED. THE 
WHITE HOUSE 
QUOTED THE 
PRESIDENT'S 
COMMENTS ABOUT 
THE RIOTS IN 
MINNEAPOLIS, AND 
23rd, TWITTER 
SENSORS THE 
PRESIDENT 
PURSING HE WILL 
REINFORCE THE 
LAW FOR ANY 
AUTONOMOUS ZONE. 
YOU CAN TWEET 
WHAT YOU WANT 
ABOUT THE 
AUTONOMOUS ZONE 
IN SEATTLE, BUT 
THE PRESIDENT 
WHICH HE WILL 
NOT HAVE ONE IN 
WASHINGTON DC, 
HE CANNOT DO 
THAT. 
YOU GET BANNED, 
YOU GET 
CENSORED. 
AT DOZENS OF 
EXAMPLES, OH, I 
FORGOT ONE. 
THIS LAST WEEK, 
JULY 21. 
THIS IS WHAT 
TWITTER DID. 
THE LEADER OF 
IRAN, THE 
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC 
OF IRAN, THIS IS 
ONE OF THE 
LARGEST STATE 
SPONSORS OF 
TERRORISM, THEY 
ALLOW THIS 
TWEET, THE 
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC 
OF IRAN WILL 
NEVER FORGET THE 
MARTYRDOM OF 
SOLO MONEY AND 
WILL NOT 
HESITATE TO 
STRIKE A 
RECIPROCAL BLOW 
IN THE UNITED 
STATES. 
YOU CAN THREATEN 
THE CITIZENS OF 
THIS COUNTRY, 
THE LEADER OF 
THE LARGEST 
STATE-SPONSORED 
TERRORISM, THAT 
IS FINE, BUT THE 
PRESIDENT SAYS 
HE WILL NOT 
ALLOW AN 
AUTONOMOUS ZONE 
IN DC AND HE 
GETS CENSORED. 
THERE ARE ALL 
KINDS OF 
EXAMPLES. 
MOST FROM THIS 
YEAR. 
THAT IS WHAT IS 
CRITICAL FOR ALL 
OF US TO 
UNDERSTAND. 
MOST OF THEM 
FROM THIS YEAR, 
AN ELECTION 
YEAR, AND THAT 
IS WHAT IS 
CONCERNING ME 
AND SO MANY 
AMERICANS. 
WE SAW WHAT 
GOOGLE DID IN 
2016. 
WE ALL KNOW 
ABOUT THE EMAIL, 
THE DAY AFTER 
THE ELECTION, 
FOR TALK 
EXECUTIVES AT 
GOOGLE, AND 
EMAIL CHAMBER 
THEY TALKED 
ABOUT THE SILENT 
DONATION THAT 
GOOGLE HAD MADE 
TO THE CLINTON 
CAMPAIGN. 
THANK GOODNESS 
IT WAS NOT 
ENOUGH, IN SPITE 
OF THEIR 
EFFORTS, THINK 
GOD PRESIDENT 
TRUMP ONE. 
WE ARE 97 DAYS 
BEFORE AN 
ELECTION. 
POWER, AS THE 
PREVIOUS 
CHAIRMAN AND 
RANKING MEMBER 
HAD SAID, THE 
POWER THAT THESE 
COMPANIES HAVE 
IN ORDER TO 
IMPACT WHAT 
HAPPENS DURING 
AN ELECTION, 
WHAT CITIZENS GET
TO SEE PRIOR TO 
THEIR VOTING IS 
PRETTY 
IMPORTANT. 
THAT IS WHY THE 
COMMITTEE 
HEARING IS 
IMPORTANT. 
LOOK, WE ALL 
THINK THAT THE 
FREE MARKET IS 
GREAT. 
WE THINK THE 
COMPETITION IS 
GREAT. 
WE LOVE AMERICAN 
COMPANIES. 
WHAT IS NOT 
GREATEST 
CENSORING 
CONSERVATIVES 
AND TRYING TO 
IMPACT 
ELECTIONS. 
IF IT DOES NOT 
AND, THERE WILL 
HAVE TO BE 
CONSEQUENCES. 
THERE WILL HAVE 
TO BE 
CONSEQUENCES. 
THAT IS WHAT I 
AM CONCERNED 
ABOUT. 
THAT IS WHAT 
MANY AMERICANS 
ARE CONCERNED 
ABOUT. 
I LOOK FORWARD 
TO HEARING FROM 
OUR WITNESSES, 
BEFORE I YIELD 
BACK, WE HAVE A 
COLLEAGUE. 
I WOULD ASK 
UNANIMOUS 
CONSENT THAT 
JOHNSON, THE 
RANKING MEMBER 
OF THE 
CONSTITUTION 
SUBCOMMITTEE BE 
ALLOWED TO 
PARTICIPATE IN 
TODAY'S HEARINGS,
CUSTOMARY 
HEARINGS FOR 
PRACTICES. 
>> A UNANIMOUS 
CONSENT REQUEST. 
>> OBJECTION IS 
HEARD. 
>> WHY ARE WE 
NOT ALLOWING 
ANALYSIS 
>> MR. JORDAN! 
>> OBJECTION WAS 
HEARD. 
IT IS NOW MY 
PLEASURE TO 
INTRODUCE YOU TO 
TODAY'S 
WITNESSES. 
JEFF BASES, --  
MR. JORDAN, I 
HAVE THE TIME. 
>> WE ARE 
TALKING ABOUT 
PEOPLE'S 
LIBERTIES. 
>> YOU MADE A 
UNANIMOUS 
CONSENT REQUEST, 
OBJECTIONS WERE 
HEARD. 
PUT YOUR MASK ON.
>> JEFF PESOS 
FOUNDED AMAZON --
EXCUSE ME, I 
WILL SAY, UNLESS 
YOU ARE 
SPEAKING, YOU 
MUST WEAR A MASK,
I AM SPEAKING 
ABOUT ANOTHER 
MEMBER OF THIS 
COMMITTEE. 
I WILL BEGIN 
AGAIN. 
IT IS MY 
PLEASURE TO 
INTRODUCE 
TODAY'S 
WITNESSES. 
FIRST IS JEFF 
BEZOS, THE CHIEF 
EXECUTIVE 
OFFICER OF 
AMAZON.COM.  
MR. JEFF BEZOS  
FOUNDED AMAZON 
AS AN ONLINE 
BOOKSTORE. 
SINCE THEN, 
AMAZON IS GOING 
TO BE THE 
LARGEST ONLINE 
RETAILER ON THE 
INTERNET. 
JEFF BEZOS ALSO 
HAS OVERSEEN THE 
COMPANY'S 
EXPANSION INTO 
AREAS LIKE CLOUD 
COMPUTING, 
DIGITAL 
STREAMING AND 
ARTIFICIAL 
INTELLIGENCE.  
JEFF BEZOS 
RECEIVED A 
MASTERS OF 
SCIENCE FROM 
PRINCETON 
UNIVERSITY.  
THE CHIEF 
EXECUTIVE 
OFFICER, OF THE 
SUBSIDIARY 
GOOGLE, HE HAS 
HELPED MANAGE A 
NUMBER OF 
SUCCESSFUL 
PRODUCTS 
INCLUDING GOOGLE 
CHROME, GMAIL 
AND ANDROID 
OPERATING 
SYSTEMS. 
HE ALSO OVERSAW 
POPULAR SEARCH 
PRODUCTS PRIOR 
TO HIS TIME AT 
GOOGLE, HE 
WORKED AT 
MANAGEMENT 
CONSULTING. 
HE RECEIVED A 
DEGREE IN 
METALLURGICAL 
ENGINEERING FROM 
THE INDIAN 
INSTITUTE OF 
TECHNOLOGY, A 
MASTERS DEGREE 
FROM STANFORD 
UNIVERSITY AND 
AN MBA FROM THE 
SCHOOL OF 
UNIVERSITY OF 
PENNSYLVANIA. 
A THIRD 
WITNESSES CAN 
COOK, THE CHIEF 
EXECUTIVE 
OFFICER OF 
APPLE. 
HE JOINED APPLE 
IN 1998, SERVING 
AS A CHIEF 
OPERATIONAL 
OFFICER AFTER 
STEVE JOBS. 
HE WAS NAMED CEO.
AT APPLE HE HAS 
OVERSEEN THE 
EXPANSION INTO 
NEW MARKETS, THE 
LONDON 
DEVELOPMENT OF 
PRODUCTS AND 
SERVICES LIKE 
APPLE PAY, APPLE 
WATCH, ICLOUD 
AND MORE. 
PRIOR TO 
JOINING, HE 
SERVED AS A 
DIRECTOR FOR 
NORTH AMERICAN 
FULFILLMENT FOR 
IBM. 
HE RECEIVED A 
BACHELOR OF 
SCIENCE FROM THE 
UNIVERSITY AND 
AN MBA FROM DUKE 
UNIVERSITY'S 
BUSINESS. 
MARK ZUCKERBERG, 
FACEBOOK CEO, 
MARK ZUCKERBERG, 
HE LAUNCHED A 
FACEBOOK TO 
CONNECT COLLEGE 
STUDENTS AT 
SCHOOLS MORE 
EASILY. 
THE COMPANY HAS 
GROWN INTO THE 
LARGEST SOCIAL 
MEDIA PLATFORM 
WITH 1.7 BILLION 
GLOBAL DAILY 
ACTIVE USERS. 
MR. ZUCKERBERG 
ATTENDED HARVARD 
UNIVERSITY 
BEFORE LEAVING 
TO FOCUS FULL-
TIME ON 
DEVELOPING 
FACEBOOK. 
WE WELCOME ALL 
OF OUR 
DISTINGUISHED 
WITNESSES, FOR 
PARTICIPATING IN 
TODAY'S HEARING. 
WE WILL BEGIN BY 
SWEARING YOU IN, 
AND BEFORE I DO 
THAT, I WANT TO 
REMIND YOU THAT 
YOU ARE THE ONLY 
ONE FROM YOUR 
RESPECTIVE 
COMPANIES THAT 
ARE INVITED TO 
TESTIFY TODAY. 
ACCORDING TO 
NORMAL HOUSE 
PRACTICE AND 
SECTION G, 
PROCEEDING 
REGULATIONS, 
YOUR SWORN 
TESTIMONY MUST 
BE YOUR OWN. 
LET ME KNOW IF 
ANY POINT IN THE 
HEARING YOU USE 
TO YOU TO 
YOURSELF SO YOU 
CAN CONFER WITH 
COUNSEL. 
PLEASE UNMUTE 
YOUR MICROPHONE 
AND RAISE YOUR 
RIGHT HAND. 
DO YOU SWEAR OR 
AFFIRM UNDER 
PENALTY OF 
PERJURY THAT THE 
TESTIMONY YOU 
GAVE IS TRUE AND 
CORRECT TO THE 
BEST OF YOUR 
KNOWLEDGE, 
INFORMATION AND 
BELIEF SO HELP 
YOU GOD? 
>> YES. 
>> LET THE 
RECORD SHOW THAT 
THE WITNESSES 
ANSWERED IN THE 
AFFIRMATIVE. 
YOU MAY REMAIN 
SEATED. 
PLEASE NOTE THAT 
YOUR WRITTEN 
STATEMENTS WILL 
BE ENTERED INTO 
THE RECORD IN 
THEIR ENTIRETY. 
SUMMARIZE YOUR 
TESTIMONY AND 
FIVE MINUTES, 
AND HELP YOU 
STAY WITHIN THAT 
TIME THERE IS A 
TIMING IN WEBEX, 
WHEN IT SWITCHES 
FROM GREEN TO 
YELLOW YOU HAVE 
A MINUTE TO 
CONCLUDE YOUR 
TESTIMONY AND 
WHEN THE LIGHT 
TURNS RED IT 
SIGNALS THAT 
YOUR FIVE 
MINUTES HAS 
EXPIRED. 
JEFF BEZOS, YOU 
MAY BEGIN. 
>> THANK YOU, 
RANKING MEMBER  
OF THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE. 
I WAS BORN INTO 
GREAT WEALTH, 
NOT MONETARY 
WEALTH, INSTEAD, 
THE WEALTH OF A 
LOVING FAMILY. 
THE FAMILY THAT 
FOSTERED MY 
CURIOSITY, AND, 
MY 17-YEAR-OLD 
HIGH SCHOOL 
STUDENT 
ALBUQUERQUE, 
BEING PREGNANT 
AND ICICLE 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 CANNOT OF A 
LOCKER, NO EXTRA 
CURRICULAR IS, 
COULD NOT WALK 
ACROSS THE STAGE 
TO GET HER 
DIPLOMA. 
SHE GRADUATED TO 
CONTINUE HER 
EDUCATION. 
SHE ENROLLED THE 
NIGHT SCHOOL, 
BRINGING ME, HER 
INFANT SON TO 
CLASS THROUGHOUT.
MY DAD'S NAME IS 
MIGUEL, HE 
ADOPTED ME WHEN 
I WAS FOUR YEARS 
OLD. 
HE WAS 16 WHEN 
HE CAME TO THE 
U.S. FROM CUBA, 
BY HIMSELF 
SHORTLY AFTER 
CASTRO TOOK 
OVER. 
MY DAD DID NOT 
SPEAK ENGLISH, 
HE DID NOT HAVE 
AN EASY PATH. 
WHAT HE DID HAVE 
WAS GRIT AND 
DETERMINATION. 
HE RECEIVED A 
SCHOLARSHIP TO 
COLLEGE AND 
ALBUQUERQUE 
WHERE IS WHERE 
HE MET MY MOM. 
TOGETHER, WITH 
MY GRANDPARENTS, 
THESE HARD-
WORKING, 
RESOURCEFUL AND 
LOVING PEOPLE 
MADE ME WHO A.M. 
I WALKED AWAY 
FROM A STEADY 
JOB ON WALL 
STREET INTO A 
GARAGE, FULLY 
UNDERSTANDING 
THAT IT MAY NOT 
WORK. 
IT FEELS LIKE 
JUST YESTERDAY I 
WAS DRIVING THE 
PACKAGES TO THE 
POST OFFICE 
MYSELF, DREAMING 
THAT ONE DAY WE 
COULD AFFORD A 
FORKLIFT. 
CUSTOMER 
OBSESSION HAS 
DRIVEN OUR 
SUCCESS. 
I TAKE IT AS AN 
ARTICLE OF FAITH 
THAT THAT THE 
CUSTOMERS HAVE 
NOTICED WHEN YOU 
DO THE RIGHT 
THING. 
YOU EARN TRUST 
SLOWLY, OVER 
TIME, DOING HARD 
THINGS WELL. 
DELIVERING ON 
TIME, OFFERING 
EVERYDAY LOW 
PRICES AND 
MAKING PROMISES 
AND KEEPING 
THEM. 
YOU MAKE 
PRINCIPLED 
DECISIONS, EVEN 
WHEN THEY ARE 
UNPOPULAR. 
OUR APPROACH IS 
WORKING. 
80 PERCENT OF 
AMERICANS HAVE A 
FAVORABLE 
IMPRESSION OF 
AMAZON OVERALL. 
TWO DO AMERICANS 
TRUST MORE THAN 
AMAZON TO DO THE 
RIGHT THING? 
ONLY DOCTORS AND 
THE MILITARY. 
THE RETAIL 
MARKET THAT WE 
PARTICIPATE IN 
IS 
EXTRAORDINARILY 
LARGE AND 
COMPETITIVE. 
AMAZON ACCOUNTS 
FOR LESS THAN 10 
PERCENT OF 
RETAIL. 
THERE IS ROOM 
AND RETAIL FOR 
MULTIPLE 
WINNERS. 
WE COMPETE 
AGAINST LARGE 
ESTABLISHED 
PLAYERS LIKE 
TARGET, COSTCO, 
KROGER AND 
WALMART. 
WALMART IS A 
COMPANY MORE 
THAN TWICE 
AMAZON SIZE. 
20 YEARS AGO, WE 
MADE A DECISION 
TO INVITE OTHER 
SELLERS TO SELL 
IN OUR STORE, TO 
SHARE THE SAME 
VALUABLE REAL 
ESTATE THAT WE 
AND ALIENS TO 
MARKET AND 
MAINTAIN. 
WE BELIEVE THAT 
COMBINING THE 
STRENGTHS OF 
AMAZON STORES 
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 THAT 
CUSTOMERS PUT ON 
US EVERY DAY IS 
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. 
THEY OFFER THE 
BEST BENEFITS, 
BENEFITS THAT 
INCLUDE HEALTH 
INSURANCE, 
401(K) 
RETIREMENT PLANS 
AND PARENTAL 
LEAVE INCLUDING 
20 WEEKS OF PAID 
MATERNITY LEAVE. 
MORE THAN ANY 
OTHER PLACE ON 
EARTH, 
ENTREPRENEURIAL 
COMPANIES GROW 
AND THRIVE HERE 
IN THE U.S. WE 
NURTURE 
ENTREPRENEURS 
AND STARTUPS, 
WITH A STABLE 
RULE OF LAW AND 
FINANCE TUNA 
ZERO CITIES, 
FREEDOM OF 
DEMOCRACY, AND A 
DEEPLY ACCEPTED 
CULTURE OF RISK-
TAKING. 
EVEN AS WE 
REMEMBER, 
CONGRESSMAN JOHN 
LEWIS AND WE 
HONOR HIS 
LEGACY, WE ARE 
IN THE MIDDLE OF 
A MUCH NEEDED 
RACE RECKONING. 
WE ALSO FACE 
CLIMATE CHANGE 
AND INCOME 
INEQUALITY. 
WITH ALL OF OUR 
FALSE PROBLEMS, 
THE REST OF THE 
WORLD WOULD 
LOVE, EVEN THE 
TINIEST SIP OF 
THE ELIXIR THAT 
WE HAVE HERE IN 
THE U.S. 
IMMIGRANTS LIKE 
MY DAD TO SEE 
WHAT A TREASURE 
THIS COUNTRY IS, 
THEY HAVE 
PERSPECTIVE, AND 
OFTEN CAN SEE IT 
EVEN MORE 
CLEARLY THAN 
THOSE OF US WHO 
ARE LUCKY ENOUGH 
TO BE BORN HERE. 
IT IS STILL DAY 
ONE FOR THE 
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 
AM HAPPY TO TAKE 
YOUR QUESTIONS. 
>> THANK YOU 
JEFF BEZOS, YOU 
ARE RECOGNIZED.  
>> THANK YOU, 
MR. CHAIRMAN, 
MEMBERS OF THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE, 
BEFORE I START, 
I KNOW THIS WAS 
DELAYED BECAUSE 
OF THE CEREMONY 
TO HONOR THE 
LIFE OF YOUR 
COLLEAGUE 
REPRESENTATIVE 
JOHN LEWIS. 
BECAUSE OF HIS 
COURAGE, THIS 
WORLD IS A 
BETTER PLACE AND 
HE WILL BE 
DEEPLY MISSED. 
AT ITS HEART, A 
DESCRIPTION 
ABOUT 
COMPETITION, AND 
A DISCUSSION 
ABOUT 
OPPORTUNITY. 
IT HAS NEVER 
BEEN MORE 
IMPORTANT TO THE 
GLOBAL PANDEMIC, 
OPPOSING 
CHALLENGES TO 
OUR HEALTH AND 
ECONOMY. 
EXPANDING ACCESS 
TO OPPORTUNITY 
THROUGH 
TECHNOLOGY, I 
DID NOT HAVE 
MUCH ACCESS TO A 
COMPUTER GROWING 
UP. 
YOU CAN IMAGINE 
MY AMAZEMENT, 
WHEN I ENTERED 
THE GRADUATE 
SCHOOL AND 
ENTERED A LOVE 
OF COMPUTERS TO 
USE. 
ACCESSING THE 
INTERNET FOR THE 
FIRST TIME SETS 
ME ON A PATH TO 
BRING TECHNOLOGY 
TO AS MANY 
PEOPLE AS 
POSSIBLE. 
IT HAD INSPIRED 
ME TO BUILD 
GOOGLE CHROME. 
11 YEARS LATER, 
SO MANY PEOPLE 
EXPERIENCE 
CHROME FOR FREE. 
GOOGLE TAKES 
PRIDE AND THE 
NUMBER OF PEOPLE 
THAT WOULD 
IMPLY, WE'RE 
EVEN MORE PROUD 
OF WHAT THEY DO 
WITH THEM. 
FROM THE 140 
MILLION STUDENTS 
AND TEACHERS 
USING IT FOR 
EDUCATION, TO 
STAY CONNECTED 
DURING THE 
PANDEMIC, TO THE 
5 MILLION 
AMERICANS THAT 
GAINED DIGITAL 
SKILLS THROUGH 
GOOGLE, AND 
OTHER PEOPLE WHO 
HAVE TURNED TO 
GOOGLE TO HELP, 
FROM FINDING THE 
FASTEST ROUTE 
HOME AND 
LEARNING HOW TO 
COOK A NEW DISH 
ON YOUTUBE. 
GOOGLE'S WORK 
WOULD NOT BE 
POSSIBLE WITHOUT 
THE LONG 
TRADITION OF 
AMERICAN 
INNOVATION. 
WE ARE PROUD TO 
CONTRIBUTE TO 
THE FUTURE. 
THEY HAVE 
INVOLVED 75,000 
PEOPLE IN THE 
U.S. ACROSS 26 
STATES. 
THE POLICY 
INSTITUTE 
ESTIMATED THAT 
IN 2018, -- 
SIDING IS THE 
LARGEST CAPITAL. 
ONE WAY WE 
CONTRIBUTE IS BY 
BUILDING 
PRODUCTS. 
RESEARCH FOUNDED 
FREE SERVICES 
LIKE SEARCH, 
GMAIL, AND 
PHOTOS, FOR 
THOUSANDS OF 
DOLLARS A YEAR 
AND VALUE TO THE 
AVERAGE 
AMERICAN. 
MANY ARE SMALL 
BUSINESSES, 
USING TOOLS TO 
GROW. 
FAMILY-OWNED 
STORM COMPANY IN 
MILWAUKEE, 
WISCONSIN, USES 
GOOGLE MY 
BUSINESS TO DRAW 
MORE CUSTOMERS. 
A FAMILY-OWNED 
APPLIANCE STORE 
AND RHODE ISLAND 
CREDITS GOOGLE 
WITH HELPING 
THEM REACH 
CUSTOMERS ONLINE 
DURING THE 
PANDEMIC. 
NEARLY 1/3 OF 
SMALL BUSINESS 
OWNERS SAY THAT 
WITHOUT DIGITAL 
TOOLS, THEY 
WOULD HAVE HAD 
TO CLOSE ALL OR 
PART OF 
BUSINESSES 
DURING COVID-19. 
THE WAY YOU 
CONTRIBUTE AS 
BEING AMONG 
RESEARCH AND 
DEVELOPMENT. 
AT THE END OF 
2019, R&D 
SPENDING 
INCREASED TO $28 
BILLION, AND WE 
INVESTED $90 
BILLION FOR THE 
PAST FIVE YEARS. 
OUR ENGINEERS 
ARE HELPING 
AMERICANS CREATE 
A GLOBAL LEADER 
AND EMERGING 
TECHNOLOGIES 
LIKE ARTIFICIAL 
INTELLIGENCE, 
DRIVING CARS AND 
QUANTUM 
COMMUTING. 
NEW ECONOMY 
LEADERS EMERGE 
EVERY DAY, AND 
USERS HAVE MORE 
ACCESS TO 
INFORMATION THAN 
EVER BEFORE. 
IT LEADS TO 
BETTER PRODUCTS. 
MORE CHOICES, 
AND MORE CHOICE 
FOR EVERYONE. 
FOR EXAMPLE, 
LOWERING ONLINE 
COSTS BY 40 
PERCENT OVER THE 
PAST DECADE, 
SAVINGS ARE 
PASSED ON TO 
CONSUMERS. 
PLATFORMS LIKE 
ANDROID SUPPORT 
INNOVATION OF 
OTHERS. 
USING ANDROID, 
MOBILE OPERATORS 
BUILD AND SELL 
THEIR OWN 
DEVICES WITHOUT 
PAYING LICENSING 
FEES TO US. 
THIS IS ENABLED 
BILLIONS OF 
CONSUMERS TO 
OFFER UP CUTTING 
EDGE SMART 
PHONES FOR LESS 
THAN $50, AND 
BUILDING TOOLS 
FOR SMALL BUILD 
THIS IS, OR 
PLATFORMS LIKE 
ANDROID, GOOGLE 
SUCCEEDS WHERE 
OTHERS HAVE 
FAILED. 
THEY SET HIGHER 
STANDARDS OF 
PRIVACY AND 
SECURITY. 
I WILL ALWAYS 
BELIEVE THAT 
PRIVACY IS A 
UNIVERSAL RIGHT, 
AND THEY ARE 
KEEPING YOUR 
INFORMATION SAFE,
PUTTING YOU IN 
CONTROL, AND WE 
HAVE LONG 
SUPPORTED THE 
CREATION OF 
COMPREHENSIVE 
FEDERAL LAWS. 
I HAVE NEVER 
FORGOT HOW 
ACCESS TO 
INNOVATION 
CHANGE THE 
COURSE OF MY 
LIFE. 
GOOGLE AIMS TO 
CREATE PRODUCTS 
THAT INCREASE 
HIS OPPORTUNITY 
TO EVERYONE, NO 
MATTER WHERE YOU 
LIVE, WHAT YOU 
BELIEVE OR HOW 
MUCH MONEY YOU 
OWE. 
WE ARE COMMITTED 
TO DOING THIS 
RESPONSIBLY, IN 
PARTNERSHIP WITH 
LAWMAKERS, AND 
ENSURE THAT 
EVERY AMERICAN 
HAS ACCESS TO 
THE INCREDIBLE 
OPPORTUNITY 
TECHNOLOGY 
CREATES. 
THANK YOU. 
>> MR. COOK IS 
RECOGNIZED FOR 
FIVE MINUTES. 
>>> CHAIRMAN 
NADLER, AND 
RANKING MEMBERS, 
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 THAT I 
KNEW PERSONALLY 
WAS EXAMPLE 
EXPIRES AND 
GUIDES ME STILL. 
EVERY AMERICAN, 
AS JOHN LEWIS AT 
THAT. 
I AM FORTUNATE TO
COME FROM THE 
STATE AND 
COUNTRY THAT 
BENEFITED 
PROFOUNDLY FROM 
HIS LEADERSHIP. 
MY NAME IS TIM 
COOK, I HAVE 
BEEN APPLES CEO 
SINCE 2011, AND 
I AM A PROUD 
EMPLOYEE OF THIS 
UNIQUELY 
AMERICAN COMPANY 
SINCE 1998. 
AT APPLE, WE 
MAKE OURSELVES A 
PROMISE, THE 
CUSTOMER IS A 
PROMISE. 
I PROMISE THAT 
WE ONLY BUILD 
THINGS THAT MAKE 
US PROUD, AS 
STEVE HAD PUT 
IT, WE ONLY MAKE 
THINGS THAT WE 
WOULD RECOMMEND 
TO FAMILY AND 
FRIENDS. 
YOU CAN TRY TO 
DEFINE THIS 
DIFFERENCE AND A 
LOT OF WAYS. 
YOU CAN CALL IT 
THAT THE 
SEAMLESS 
INTEGRATION OF 
HARDWARE AND 
SOFTWARE, 
COLETTE 
SIMPLICITY OF 
THE DESIGN, OR A 
GREAT ECOSYSTEM, 
ALL OF THOSE 
THINGS ARE TRUE. 
IF YOU WANT TO 
PUT IT SIMPLY, 
PRODUCTS LIKE 
iPHONE JUST 
WORK. 
CUSTOMERS 
CONSISTENTLY 
GIVE iPHONE A 99 
PERCENT 
SATISFACTION 
RATING, THAT IS 
THE MESSAGE THEY 
SEND ABOUT THE 
USER EXPERIENCE. 
CUSTOMERS HAVE A 
LOT OF CHOICES, 
INCLUDING FIERCE 
COMPETITION. 
SAMSUNG, LG, 
HUAWEI AND 
GOOGLE BUILD 
SUCCESSFUL 
BUSINESSES WITH 
DIFFERENT 
APPROACHES. 
WE'RE OKAY WITH 
THAT. 
OUR GOAL IS THE 
BEST, NOT A 
MUST. 
WE DON'T HAVE A 
DOMINANT SHARE 
IN ANY MARKET OR 
IN ANY PRODUCT 
CATEGORY WHERE 
WE DO BUSINESS. 
WHAT DOES 
MOTIVATE US, IS 
THE TIMELESS A 
DRIVE TO BUILD 
NEW THINGS THAT 
WE ARE PROUD TO 
SHOW USERS. 
WE FOCUS 
RELENTLESSLY ON 
THOSE 
INNOVATIONS, 
DEEPENING CORE 
PRINCIPLES LIKE 
PRIVACY AND 
SECURITY, AND 
CREATING NEW 
FEATURES. 
IN 2008, WE 
INTRODUCED A NEW 
FEATURE OF THE 
iPHONE CALLED 
THE APP STORE. 
IT HAD 500 APPS, 
IT WOULD SEEM 
LIKE A LOT AT 
THE TIME. 
THE APP STORE 
PROVIDED A SAFE 
AND TRUSTWORTHY 
WAY FOR USERS TO 
GET MORE OUT OF 
THEIR PHONE. 
THE DISTRIBUTION 
OFFICE PRETENDS 
FOR SOFTWARE DID 
NOT WORK WELL. 
THE BRICK-AND-
MORTAR STORES 
CHARGE HIGH FEES
. PHYSICAL MEDIA 
HAD TO BE 
SHIFTED, AND, 
FROM THE 
BEGINNING, THE 
APP STORE WAS A 
REVOLUTIONARY 
ALTERNATIVE. 
APP STORE 
DEVELOPERS SAID 
PRICES FOR APPS, 
AND NEVER PAY 
FOR SHELF SPACE. 
WE PROVIDE EVERY 
DEVELOPER WITH 
CUTTING-EDGE 
TOOLS LIKE 
COMPILERS, 
PROGRAMMING 
LANGUAGES AND 
MORE THAN 
150,000 
ESSENTIALS 
SOFTWARE 
BUILDING BLOCKS 
THAT ARE CALLED 
APIS. 
THE STORE 
GUIDELINES 
ENSURE A HIGH 
QUALITY, 
RELIABLE, AND 
SECURE USER 
EXPERIENCE. 
THEY ARE 
TRANSPARENT AND 
APPLIED EQUALLY 
TO EVERY 
DEVELOPER. 
THE VAST 
MAJORITY OF 
APPS, DEVELOPERS 
KEEP 100 PERCENT 
OF THE MONEY 
THAT THEY MAKE. 
THE ONLY APPS 
THAT ARE SUBJECT 
TO A COMMISSION 
ARE THOSE WHERE 
THE DEVELOPER 
ACQUIRES A 
CUSTOMER ON AN 
APPLE DEVICE, OR 
WHERE THE 
FEATURES OR 
SERVICES ARE 
EXPERIENCED AND 
CONSUMED ON AN 
APPLE DEVICE. 
IN THE APP STORE 
IS, TEN-YEAR 
HISTORY, WE HAVE 
NEVER RAISED THE 
COMMISSIONER 
ADDED A SINGLE 
RATE, WE HAVE 
EXEMPTED 
ADDITIONAL 
CATEGORIES FOR 
THE 
APPLICATIONS. 
I AM HERE TODAY 
BECAUSE WE 
APPROACH THE 
PROCESS WITH 
RESPECT AND 
HUMILITY, WE NOW 
HAVE 1.7 MILLION,
60 OF WHICH ARE 
APPLE SOFTWARE. 
IF APPLE IS A 
GATEKEEPER, WHAT 
WE HAVE DONE IS 
OPEN THE GATE 
WHITER, AND WE 
WANT TO GET EVERY
APP WE CAN ON 
THE STORE, NOT 
KEEP THEM OFF. 
THE ECONOMIC 
CONTRIBUTIONS 
ARE SIGNIFICANT. 
THE ECOSYSTEM IS 
RESPONSIBLE FOR 
1.9 MILLION JOBS 
AND ALL 50 
STATES, AND 
FACILITATING 138 
BILLION IN 
COMMERCE AND 
2019 ALONE. 
I SHARE THE 
COMMITTEE'S 
BELIEF THAT THE 
COMPETITION 
PROMOTES 
INNOVATION AND 
IT MAKES SPACE 
FOR THE NEXT 
GREAT IDEA, AND, 
IT GIVES 
CONSUMERS MORE 
CHOICES. 
THESE THINGS 
HAVE DEFINED US, 
THE iPOD HELPED 
MUSICIANS AND 
ARTISTS TO BE 
FORWARD. 
THIS LEGACY DOES 
MUCH MORE THAN 
MAKE US PROUD. 
IT INSPIRES US 
TO WORK 
TIRELESSLY TO 
MAKE SURE THAT 
TOMORROW WILL BE 
EVEN BETTER THAN 
TODAY. 
THANK YOU VERY 
MUCH. 
I LOOK FORWARD 
TO RESPONDING TO 
YOUR QUESTIONS. 
>> THINK YOU MR. 
COOK, MR. 
ZUCKERBERG IS 
RECOGNIZED FOR 
FIVE MINUTES. 
>> THANK YOU, 
BEFORE I BEGIN, 
I WANT TO ASK 
HUSBAND JOHN 
LEWIS, AND HIS 
SERVICE FOR OUR 
COUNTRY, AMERICA 
HAS LOST A REAL 
HERO WHO NEVER 
STOPPED FIGHTING 
FOR THE RIGHTS 
OF EVERY PERSON. 
CHAIRMAN SISTER 
LANEY, RANKING 
MEMBERS OF THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE, 
THANK YOU FOR 
THE OPPORTUNITY 
TO TESTIFY. 
THE TECH 
INDUSTRY IS AN 
AMERICAN SUCCESS 
STORY. 
THE PRODUCT 
CHANGES THE 
WORLD AND 
IMPROVES 
PEOPLE'S LIVES. 
OUR INDUSTRY IS 
ONE OF THE WAYS 
THAT AMERICA 
SHARES AND THE 
VALUES WITH THE 
WORLD, AND ONE 
OF OUR GREATEST 
ECONOMIC AND 
CULTURAL 
EXPLOITS. 
FACEBOOK IS PART 
OF THE STORY, WE 
START WITH AN 
IDEA, TO GIVE 
PEOPLE THE POWER 
TO SHARE AND 
CONNECT. 
WE BUILD 
SERVICES THAT 
BILLIONS OF 
PEOPLE FIND 
USEFUL. 
WE HAVE GIVEN 
PEOPLE THAT HAVE 
NEVER HAD A 
VOICE BEFORE THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD. 
WE HAVE GIVEN 
SMALL BUSINESSES 
ACCESS TO TOOLS 
THAT ONLY THE 
LARGEST PLAYERS 
USED TO HAVE. 
SINCE COVID-19 
HAS EMERGED,  
PEOPLE USE 
SERVICES TO STAY 
IN TOUCH WITH 
FRIENDS AND 
FAMILY THAT THEY 
CANNOT BE WITH 
IN PERSON. 
TO KEEP SMALL 
BUSINESSES 
RUNNING ONLINE, 
WHEN PHYSICAL 
STORES ARE 
CLOSED, I 
BELIEVE THAT 
FACEBOOK AND THE 
U.S. TECH 
INDUSTRY IS A 
FORCE FOR 
INNOVATION AND 
EMPOWERING 
PEOPLE. 
I RECOGNIZE THAT 
THERE ARE 
CONCERNS ABOUT 
THE SIZE AND 
POWER OF TECH 
COMPANIES. 
OUR SERVICES ARE 
ABOUT 
CONNECTION, AND 
OUR BUSINESS 
MODEL IS 
ADVERTISING. 
WE FACE INTENSE 
COMPETITION IN 
BOTH. 
MANY COMPETITORS 
HAVE HUNDREDS OF 
MILLIONS, OR 
EVEN BILLIONS OF 
USERS. 
OTHERS ARE 
GATEKEEPERS WITH 
THE POWER TO 
DECIDE IF WE CAN 
RELEASE APPS, 
AND APP STORES 
TO COMPETE WITH 
THEM. 
IN MANY AREAS WE 
ARE BUYING 
COMPETITORS. 
THE MOST POPULAR 
MESSAGING 
SERVICE AND THE 
U.S. IS IMESSAGE.
THE FASTEST-
GROWING APP IS 
TICK-TOCK, THE 
MOST POPULAR APP 
FOR VIDEO IS 
YOUTUBE. 
THE FASTEST-
GROWING AD 
PLATFORM IS 
AMAZON. 
THE LARGEST AD 
PLATFORM IS 
GOOGLE. 
FOR EVERY DOLLAR 
SPENT ON 
ADVERTISING IN 
THE U.S., LESS 
THAN $.10 IS 
SPENT WITH US. 
WE'RE HERE TO 
TALK ABOUT 
ONLINE 
PLATFORMS, BUT 
IS THE TRUE 
NATURE OF 
COMPETITION, 
WHEN YOU GOOGLE 
YOUTUBE IT WILL 
COMPETE AGAINST 
THE DOMINATING 
PLAYER IN THE 
CABLE INDUSTRY. 
WHOLE FOODS 
COULD COMPETE 
AGAINST KROGER 
AND WALMART. 
FACEBOOK AND 
WHAT'S UP, WE 
CAN COMPETE, NOW 
YOU CAN SEND 
PRIVATE MESSAGES 
FOR FREE. 
THAT IS 
COMPETITION. 
NEW COMPANIES 
ARE CREATED ALL 
THE TIME, ALL 
OVER THE WORLD. 
THAT CHANGE CAN 
HAPPEN FASTER 
THAN YOU EXPECT. 
THE 10 MOST 
VALUABLE 
COMPANIES A 
DECADE AGO, ONLY 
THREE MAKE THE 
LIST TODAY. 
IF YOU LOOK AT 
WHERE THE TOP 
TECHNOLOGY 
COMPANIES COME 
FROM, A DECADE 
AGO THE VAST 
MAJORITY WERE 
AMERICAN. 
TODAY, HALF ARE 
CHINESE. 
ASIDE FROM 
COMPETITION, 
THERE ARE 
SERIOUS ISSUES 
RELATED TO THE 
INTERNET, 
INCLUDING 
QUESTIONS ABOUT 
ELECTIONS, 
HARMFUL CONTENT 
AND PRIVACY, AND 
WHILE THESE ARE 
NOT ANTITRUST 
ISSUES, NOT 
SPECIFICALLY THE 
TOPIC OF TODAY'S 
HEARING, WE 
RECOGNIZE THAT 
WE ARE AT THE 
CENTER OF THESE 
DISCUSSIONS. 
WE BUILD 
PLATFORMS FOR 
SHARING IDEAS, 
IMPORTANT ACROSS 
HER SERVICES. 
I BELIEVE THAT 
THIS ULTIMATELY 
LEADS TO MORE 
PROGRESS, BUT IT 
ALSO MEANS THAT 
WE FIND 
OURSELVES IN THE 
MIDDLE OF DEEP 
DISAGREEMENTS, 
WITH HIGH-STAKES 
ELECTIONS. 
I DO NOT BELIEVE 
THAT PRIVATE 
COMPANIES SHOULD 
NOT BE MAKING 
THESE ISSUES FOR 
THEMSELVES. 
I MADE A CASE 
THAT THERE NEEDS 
TO BE REGULATION 
FOR THE 
INTERNET. 
FACEBOOK HAS A 
SET OF BASIC 
PRINCIPLES, 
GIVING PEOPLE A 
VOICE AND 
ECONOMIC 
OPPORTUNITY, AND 
UPHOLDING 
DEMOCRATIC VALUES
LIKE ENABLING 
COMPETITIVE 
MARKETPLACES. 
THESE ARE 
FUNDAMENTAL 
VALUES FOR MOST 
OF US, BUT NOT 
FOR EVERYONE AT 
THE WORLD. 
AND A GLOBAL 
COMPETITION 
INCREASE, THERE 
IS NO GUARANTEE 
THAT VALUES LIKE 
OURS WILL WIN 
OUT. 
I AM PROUD OF 
THE SERVICES 
THAT WE HAVE 
BUILT, AND HOW 
THEY IMPROVE 
PEOPLE'S LIVES. 
WE COMPETE HARD, 
WE CAN BE 
FAIRLY. 
WE TRY TO BE THE 
BEST. 
THAT IS WHAT I 
WAS TAUGHT TO 
MATTERS IN THIS 
COUNTRY. 
WHEN WE 
SUCCEEDED IS 
BECAUSE OF GREAT 
EXPERIENCES THAT 
PEOPLE LOVE. 
THANK YOU, I 
LOOK FORWARD TO 
ANSWERING YOUR 
QUESTIONS. 
>> THANK YOU, I 
THINK THE 
WITNESSES FOR 
YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENTS. 
RECOGNIZING 
QUESTIONS ON A 
FIVE MINUTE 
RULE, I'LL ENTER 
INTO THE HEARING 
RECORD, 
DOCUMENTS AND 
EXHIBITS THAT 
MAJORITY MEMBERS 
WELL EXHIBIT AND 
THE QUESTIONING 
TODAY. 
THEY HAVE BEEN 
DISTRIBUTED TO 
THE WITNESSES, 
AND I RECOGNIZE 
MYSELF FOR FIVE 
MINUTES. 
>> 85 PERCENT OF 
ALL ONLINE 
SEARCHES GO 
THROUGH GOOGLE, 
EVERY ONLINE 
COMPANY DEPENDS 
ON GOOGLE, TO 
REACH USERS. 
SINK OR SWIM 
BASED ON THE 
LOAN, NUMEROUS 
ONLINE 
BUSINESSES THAT 
TELL US THAT 
GOOGLE STEALS 
CONTENT AND 
PRIVILEGES THEIR 
OWN SITE, AND A 
WAY THAT GOOGLE 
WOULD CRUSH 
EVERYONE ELSE. 
BUSINESSES STAY 
ANONYMOUS AND 
DUE TO FEARS 
THAT GOOGLE WILL 
RETALIATE 
AGAINST THEM. 
BRYAN WARNER AND 
TOLD US THAT  
GOOGLE'S TALLEST 
CONTENT, AFTER 
THE DECISION, 
TRAFFIC DROPPED 
BY 80 PERCENT 
AND HE HAD TO 
DOWNSIZE HIS 
BUSINESS AND LAY 
DOWN -- LAYOFF 
HAVE HIS STAFF. 
HE SAID IF 
SOMEONE CAME 
WITH AN IDEA OR 
A WEB SERVICE 
TODAY, I WOULD 
TELL THEM TO 
RUN, RUN AS FAR 
AWAY FROM THE 
WEB AS POSSIBLE. 
LAUNCH A LAWN 
CARE BUSINESS OR 
A DOG GROOMING 
BUSINESS, 
SOMETHING THAT 
GOOGLE CANNOT 
TAKE AWAY AS 
SOON AS YOU ARE 
THRIVING. 
MY QUESTION IS 
WHY DOES GOOGLE 
STEAL CONTENT 
FROM HONEST 
BUSINESSES? 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, 
WITH RESPECT, I 
DISAGREE WITH 
THAT 
CATEGORIZATION. 
IN FACT, TODAY 
WE SUPPORT 1.4 
MILLION SMALL 
BUSINESSES, $385 
BILLION ARE 
SUPPORTED WITH 
THE ECONOMIC 
COMMITTEE. 
WE SEE MANY 
BUSINESSES TRY --
>> A LIMITED 
AMOUNT OF TIME, 
I DON'T WANT TO 
INTERRUPT YOU, 
BUT MY QUESTION 
IS SPECIFIC. 
IF THEY STEAL 
CONTENT TO BUILD 
THE BUSINESS. 
THESE ARE 
CONSISTENT 
REPORTS, SO, 
HERE TESTIMONY 
THAT THAT DOES 
NOT HAPPEN IS 
INCONSISTENT 
WITH WHAT WE 
HAVE LEARNED 
DURING THE 
COURSE OF THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
I'LL MOVE ON TO 
A NEW QUESTION. 
MOST AMERICANS 
BELIEVE THAT 
WHEN THEY ENTER 
A SEARCH QUERY, 
THAT WHAT GOOGLE 
SHOWS IS THE 
MOST RELEVANT 
RESULTS. 
INCREASINGLY 
GOOGLE SHOWS 
WHATEVER IS MOST 
PROFITABLE FOR 
GOOGLE. 
GOOGLE ADS OR 
GOOGLE'S OWN 
SITE. 
MY QUESTION IS, 
ISN'T THERE A 
FUNDAMENTAL 
CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST BETWEEN 
SERVING USERS 
WHO WANT TO 
ACCESS THE BEST 
AND MOST 
RELEVANT 
INFORMATION, AND 
THE BUSINESS 
MODEL WHICH 
INCENTIVIZES 
GOOGLE TO KEEP 
GOOGLE ON THE 
SITE? 
>> WE HAVE 
ALWAYS FOCUSED 
ON PROVIDING 
USERS THE MOST 
RELEVANT 
INFORMATION. 
WE TRUST THEM TO 
COME BACK TO 
GOOGLE EVERY 
DAY. 
THE VAST MAJORITY
DO NOT SHOW ADS 
AT ALL. 
THERE'S A SMALL 
SUBSET, WHERE IT 
IS HIGHLY 
COMMERCIAL. 
THEY MAY BE 
LOOKING FOR 
SOMETHING -- 
>> WHAT IS THE 
VALUE OF THE 
PARTS THAT YOU 
USE THE GOOGLE 
ADS FOR? 
IT IS A 
SUBSTANTIAL PART 
OF YOUR 
BUSINESS. 
200 BILLION, 300 
BILLION? 
>> IN TERMS OF 
REVENUE, IT IS 
AROUND $100 
BILLION. 
>> THAT'S A LOT 
OF MONEY. 
LET ME MOVE ON. 
IT IS GOOGLE'S 
BUSINESS MODEL 
THAT IS A 
PROGRAM. 
GOOGLE EVOLVED 
FROM A 
TURNSTILE, TO 
THE REST OF THE 
WEB, TO A WALLED 
GARDEN THAT 
CREEPS USERS 
WITHIN ITS SITE. 
EMAILS SHOW A 
DECADE AGO 
GOOGLE FEARED 
COMPETITION FROM 
WEBSITES, AND 
WEBPAGES THAT 
WOULD DIVERT 
SEARCH TRAFFIC 
AND REVENUE FROM 
GOOGLE. 
THESE DOCUMENTS 
SHOW THAT GOOGLE 
STAFF DISCUSSED 
A PROLIFERATING 
THREAT, THAT THE 
WEBPAGES POSED 
TO GOOGLE. 
TRAFFIC LOSS TO 
OTHER SITES WAS 
A LOSS AND 
REVENUE. 
MMO OBSERVED 
THAT CERTAIN 
WEBSITES ARE 
GETTING TOO MUCH 
TRAFFIC, SO 
GOOGLE DECIDED 
TO PUT AN END TO 
THAT. 
HE SAID YOU HAVE 
BEEN A GOOGLE 
SINCE 2004. 
WERE YOU 
INVOLVED IN 
THESE 
DISCUSSIONS 
ABOUT THE THREAT 
FROM VERTICAL 
SEARCH? 
>> CONGRESSMAN, 
WITHOUT GOING 
INTO SPECIFICS, 
DEFINITELY, WHEN 
WE LOOK AT DATA 
IT VALIDATES THE 
COMPETITION WE 
SEE. 
USERS LOOKING TO 
SHOP ONLINE, 
INDEPENDENT 
STUDIES SHOW 
THAT 50 PERCENT 
WENT WITH 
AMAZON, AND A 
FEW CATEGORIES 
IN NATURE, WE SEE
BIGGER 
COMPETITION, 
REAL ESTATE, AND 
WE ARE WORKING 
ANALYSIS 
>> LET ME ASK 
YOU 
SPECIFICALLY, 
THE EVIDENCE WE 
COLLECTED SHOWS 
THAT GOOGLE 
PURSUED A 
MULTIPRONGED 
ATTACK, THEY 
BEGAN TO STEAL 
OTHER WEBPAGES 
CONTENT, IN 
2010, THEY STOLE 
RESTAURANT 
REVIEWS FROM 
YELP TO 
BOOTSTRAP THE 
RIFLE SEARCH 
BUSINESS. 
DO YOU KNOW HOW 
GOOGLE RESPONDED 
WHEN YELP HAD 
ASKED YOU TO 
STOP STEALING 
THEIR REVIEWS? 
I WILL TELL YOU. 
OUR 
INVESTIGATION 
SHOWS THAT 
GOOGLE'S 
RESPONSE WAS TO 
THREATEN TO 
DELIST YELP 
ENTIRELY.
,
ISN'T THAT 
ANTICOMPETITIVE? 
>> I AM FOCUSED 
ON GIVING IT TO 
THE HIGHEST 
STANDARD AND 
ANSWER YOUR 
QUESTIONS. 
>> ONE OUFINAL 
QUESTION, DID 
GOOGLE USE THE 
SURVEILLANCE 
OVER WEB TRAFFIC 
TO IDENTIFY 
COMPETITIVE 
THREATS? 
>> JUST E LIKE LI
OTHER 
BUSINESSES, WE 
TRY %TO 
UNDERSTAND 
TRENDS FROM DATA 
THAT WE WETOCAN SEE 
AND USE IT TO 
IMPROVE OUR 
PRODUCT FOR THE 
USERS BUT WE ARE 
FOCUSED ON 
IMPROVING OUR 
PRODUCT AND 
THAT'S HOW -- 
>> I APPRECIATE 
THAT. 
GOOGLE'S OWN 
DOCUMENTS . 
AFFECTED BY THE 
CONDUCT SHOWS 
THAT GOOGLE DID 
JUST THAT, VERY RY
DISTURBING AND 
ANTICOMPETITIVE. 
IN ADDITION TO 
STEALING CONTENT 
GOOGLE 
PRIVILEGED IT'S 
ON SITE. 
63% OF  IWEB 
SEARCHES THAT %
START ON GOOGLE 
ALSO END 
SOMEWHERE ON 
GOOGLE'S OWN 
WEBSITE. 
TO ME % THAT IS 
EVIDENCE THAT 
GOOGLE IS 
INCREASINGLY A 
RURAL GARDEN 
THAT KEEPS 
SEARCHES ON THE 
SITE EVEN THOUGH 
THEY DON'T HAVE 
THE INFORMATION 
AND ECONOMICALLY 
CATASTROPHIC FOR 
OTHER COMPANIES 
ONLINE. 
SO, 
MY TIME IS 
RUNNING OUT. 
GOOGLE BEGAN TO 
ABUSE ITS POWER, 
USED 
SURVEILLANCE 
OVER WEB TRAFFIC 
TO IDENTIFY 
COMPETITIVE 
THREATS AND 
CRUSHED THEM. 
DAMPENED 
INNOVATION AND 
BUSINESS GROWTH 
AND ACCESSING 
USERS ON THE 
INTERNET 
VIRTUALLY 
ENSURING THAT 
ANY BUSINESS 
THAT WANTS TO 
BE 
ON THE  WWEB MUST 
PAY GOOGLE A 
TAX. 
WITH THAT, I 
RECOGNIZE THE 
RANKING MEMBER 
OF THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE, 
MR. BENER FOR 
HIS FIRST ROUND 
OF QUESTIONING. 
>> I HAVE BEEN 
IN CONGRESS 42 
YEARS. 
THAT IS COMING 
TO AN END  
AT THE 
END OF THIS 
YEAR. 
I'M BREATHING A 
SIGH OF RELIEF. 
DURING THAT 
PERIOD OF TIME, 
DURING THE 
DECADES OF THE ' 
0s AND 00s, I 
WAS INVOLVED AS 
CHAIRMAN OF THE 
SCIENCE 
COMMITTEE AND 
THIS COMMITTEE 
AND TRYING TO 
MAKE THE NET 
UNIVERSAL -- 
OPEN IT UP TO 
EVERYBODY. 
AND ONE OF THE 
THINGS WE USED 
IS THAT THE NET 
SHOULD END UP 
BECOMING 
BASICALLY A 
DEBATE ON 
ISSUES, NOT ONLY 
IN OUR COUNTRY 
BUT THROUGHOUT 
THE WORLD. 
AND IN EXCHANGE 
FOR THAT, THIS 
COMMITTEE AND 
THE CONGRESS 
ENTERED ITS 
SERVICE 
PROVIDERS 
IMMUNITY SO IF 
SOMEBODY SAID 
SOMETHING 
DEFAMATORY ON 
WHAT THEY 
POSTED, THE ISP 
COULDN'T BE PART 
OF A LAWSUIT FOR 
DEFAMATION. 
NOW, AFTER 
HEARING MR. . 
JORDAN, A LONG 
LINE OF 
CENSORSHIP OF 
CONSERVATIVE VA
VIEWPOINTS, I'M 
CONCERNED THAT 
THE PEOPLE WHO 
MANAGE THE NET 
AND FOUR OF YOU 
MANAGE A BIG 
PART OF THE NET, 
ENDING UP USING 
THIS AS A 
POLITICAL 
SCREEN. 
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 
FILTERING OUT 
POLITICAL SPEECH 
THAT MAY BE SOME 
PEOPLE OUT THERE 
DON'T AGREE 
WITH? 
>> CONGRESSMAN, 
THANK YOU FOR 
THE OPPORTUNITY 
TO ADDRESS THAT. 
OUR GOAL IS TO 
OFFER A PLATFORM 
FOR ALL A 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 IS 
POLITICAL. 
AND FRANKLY I %
THINK THAT WE 
HAVE 
DISTINGUISHED TH
OURSELVES AS ONE 
OF THE COMPANIES 
THAT DEFENDS 
FREE EXPRESSION 
THE MOST. 
WE DO HAVE 
COMMUNITY 
STANDARD AROUND 
THINGS THAT 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, 
INCITEMENT OF 
VIOLENCE. 
MORE LEGAL LIST 
STICK THINGS 
LIKE 
INTELLECTUAL 
PROPERTY 
VIOLATIONS AND 
BAN THINGS LIKE 
THAT SPEECH K % 
COULD LEAD TO 
DEHUMANIZING UL 
PEOPLE. 
>> IF I MAY ASK 
YOU SPECIFIC OF 
YOU, IT WAS 
REPORTED THAT 
DONALD TRUMP, 
JUNIOR 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 IS A 
DEBATE ON 
WHETHER IT IS 
EFFECTIVE IN 
TREATING OR 
PREVENTING COVID-
19. 
I THINK THAT 
THIS IS A 
LEGITIMATE 
MATTER OF 
DISCUSSION. 
IT WOULD BE UP 
TO A PATIENT AND 
THEIR DOCTOR TO 
DETERMINE 
WHETHER 
HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE 
WAS THE CORRECT 
MEDICATION GIVEN 
THE 
CIRCUMSTANCES. 
WHY %HAS THAT 
HAPPENED? 
>> CONGRESSMAN, 
FIRST TO BE 
CLEAR, WHAT YOU 
MIGHT BE 
REFERRING TO 
HAPPENED ON 
TWITTER, SO IT'S 
ME TO OR 
SPEAK TO THAT. 
I CAN TALK ABOUT 
OUR POLICIES. 
WE DO PROHIBIT 
CONTENT THAT 
WILL LEAD TO 
IMMINENT RISK OF 
HARM. 
STATING THAT 
THERE IS A 
PROVEN CURE FOR 
COVID WHEN THERE 
IS IN FACT NONE 
MIGHT ENCOURAGE 
SOMEONE TO TAKE 
SOMETHING THAT 
COULD HAVE 
ADVERSE EFFECTS. 
WE DO TAKE THAT 
DOWN. 
WE DO NOT 
PROHIBIT 
DISCUSSION 
AROUND TRIALS ITOF 
DRUGS OR PEOPLE 
SAYING THAT THEY 
THINK THAT 
THINGS MIGHT 
WORK OR 
EXPERIENCE 
EXPERIENCES WITH 
EXPERIMENTAL 
DRUGS BUT IF 
SOMEONE SAYS 
THAT SOMETHING %
IS PROVEN WHEN IS
IN FACT IT IS 
NOT, THAT COULD 
LEAD PEOPLE -- 
>> WOULDN'T THAT %
BE SOMETHING ON 
THE OTHER SIDE 
OF THE ISSUE TO 
SAY THAT THIS IS 
NOT PROVEN. 
I KNOW AS A FACT 
THAT FOR PEOPLE 
WITH CERTAIN 
CONDITIONS THIS 
IS 
CONTRAINDICATED 
AND THEY 
SHOULDN'T TAKE 
IT. 
BUT WOULDN'T HID 
THAT BE UP TO 
SOMEBODY ELSE TO 
SAY, OKAY, 
SOMEBODY POSTED 
ON THIS, REALLY 
ISN'T TRUE AND 
HERE IS WHAT THE 
FACTS ARE RATHER 
THAN HAVING A 
TWITTER OR 
FACEBOOK TAKE IT 
DOWN? 
>> CONGRESSMAN 
IN GENERAL 
I 
AGREE WITH YOU 
AND WE DO NOT 
WANT TO BECOME 
THE ARBITERS OF 
TRUTH. 
THAT WOULD BE A TE
BAD POSITION TO 
BE IN AND NOT 
WHAT WE SHOULD 
BE DOING. 
BUT ON SPECIFIC 
CLAIMS, IF 
SOMEONE GOES OUT 
AND SAYS THAT 
THE 
HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE 
CHLOR IS PROVEN 
COVID E 
WHEN IT HAS NOT 
BEEN PROVEN TO 
CURE COVID AND 
THAT STATEMENT 
COULD LEAD 
PEOPLE TO TAKE NTA 
DRUG THAT IN 
SOME CASES -- 
SOME OF THE DATA 
SUGGESTS IT IS 
MAY BE HARMFUL 
TO PEOPLE, WE 
THINK WE SHOULD 
TAKE THAT DOWN. 
THAT COULD CAUSE 
IMMINENT RISK OF 
HARM. 
>> I 
YIELD BACK. 
>> I THANK YOU 
THE GENTLEMAN. 
I RECOGNIZE MR. 
NADLER FROM NEW 
YORK FOR FIVE 
MINUTES. 
>> THANK YOU, 
MR. CHAIRMAN. 
MR. ZUCKERBERG, 
I WANT TO THANK 
YOU FOR 
PROVIDING THIS 
INFORMATION 
DURING OUR 
INFORMATION. 
HOWEVER, THE 
DOCUMENTS %YOU 
PROVIDED TELL A 
DISTURBING 
STORY. 
AND THAT URSTORY 
IS THAT FACEBOOK 
SAW THINSTAGRAM AS 
A POWERFUL 
THREAT THAT 
COULD SIPHON 
BUSINESS AWAY 
FROM FACEBOOK. 
RATHER THAN 
COMPETE WITH IT, 
FACEBOOK BOUGHT 
IT. 
THIS IS EXACTLY 
THE TYPE OF 
ANTICOMPETITIVE 
ACQUISITION THAT 
THE ANTITRUST 
LAWS WERE 
DESIGNED TO 
PREVENT. 
YOU WROTE THAT 
FACEBOOK CAN 
LIKELY JUST BUY 
ANY COMPETITIVE 
START UPS. 
IN FACT, IVON THE 
DAY FACEBOOK 
BOUGHT 
INSTAGRAM, WHICH 
CE
YOU DESCRIBED AS 
A THREAT, YOU 
WROTE ONE THING 
ABOUT START UPS 
-- MR. 
ZUCKERBERG, YOU 
WERE REFERRING 
TO 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 
AND A COMPETITOR 
AND AS A 
COMPLIMENT TO 
OUR SERVICES. 
IN THE GROWING 
SPACE AROUND -- 
AFTER 
SMARTPHONES 
STARTED GETTING 
BIG AND THEY 
COMPETED WITH US 
IN THE SPACE OF 
MOBILE CAMERAS 
AND MOBILE 
SHARING. 
BUT AT THE TIME ASLE
ALMOST NONE OF 
THEM WERE 
THOUGHT OF AS A 
GENERAL SOCIAL 
NETWORK. 
PEOPLE DIDN'T ALOP
THINK OF THEM AS 
COMPETING WITH 
US IN THAT 
SPACE. 
I THINK THE 
ACQUISITION IS 
WILDLY 
SUCCESSFUL. 
WE WITH WERE 
ABLE BY 
ACQUIRING THEM 
CONTINUE TO 
INVEST IT AS A 
STAND ALONE 
BRAND THAT 
REACHES MANY 
MORE PEOPLE THAN 
I THINK KEVIN, 
THE COFOUNDER OR 
I THOUGHT WOULD 
BE POSSIBLE AT 
THE TIME. 
I INCORPORATE 
SOME OF THE 
TECHNOLOGY INTO 
MAKING FACEBOOK 
PHOTO SHARING 
PRODUCTS BETTER. 
SO, YES. 
>> OKAY. 
NOW, IN S.EARLY 
2012 WHEN 
FACEBOOK 
CONTEMPLATING 
ACQUIRING 
INSTAGRAM, YOU 
TOLD THE CFO %%
THAT IT COULD BE 
DISRUPTIVE AND 
IN THE WEEKS  
LEADING UP TO 
THE DEAL, YOU 
DESCRIBED 
INSTAGRAM AS A 
THREAT SAYING 
INSTAGRAM CAN 
MEANINGFUL HURT 
US WITHOUT 
BECOMING A HUGE 
BUSINESS. 
MR. ZUCKERBERG 
WHAT DID YOU 
MEAN WHEN YOU 
DESCRIBED 
INSTAGRAM AS A 
THREAT AND 
DISRUPTIVE AND 
YOU SAID THAT 
INSTAGRAM COULD 
MEANINGFUL HURT 
FACEBOOK? 
DID YOU MEAN 
THAT CONSUMERS 
MIGHT SWITCH 
FROM FACEBOOK TO 
INSTAGRAM? 
>> CONGRESSMAN 
THANKS FOR TOTHE 
OPPORTUNITY TO 
ADDRESS THIS. 
AT THE TIME 
THERE WAS A 
SMALL BUT 
GROWING FIELD -- 
>> DID YOU MEAN 
THAT CONSUMERS 
MIGHT SWITCH 
FROM FACEBOOK TO 
INSTAGRAM. 
THAT'S THE 
QUESTION. 
>> CONGRESSMAN 
-- 
ANNO.  OR  
>> IN THE SPACE 
OF MOBILE PHOTOS 
AND CAMERA APPS 
THAT WERE 
GROWING THEY 
WERE A 
COMPETITOR. 
>> FINE. 
IN ITFEBRUARY OF 
THAT YEAR, 
FEBRUARY OF 
2012, YOU TOLD 
FACEBOOK CHIEF'S 
FINANCIAL 
OFFICER THAT 12
YOU 
WERE INTERESTED 
IN BUYING 
INSTAGRAM. 
ASKED WHETHER 
THE PURPOSE G OF 
THE DEAL WAS TO 
NEUTRALIZE THE 
COMPETITOR, 
INTEGRATE THEIR 
PRODUCTS IN 
OURS. 
YOU ANSWERED 
THAT IT WAS 
A 
COMBINATION OF 
BOTH SAYING WHAT 
WE ARE REALLY 
BUYING IS TIME. 
EVEN FACEBOOK 
NEWCOMB PET TORS 
SPRINGS UP, 
THOSE PRODUCTS 
WON'T GET MUCH 
TRACTION SINCE 
WE WILL HAVE THE 
MECHANICS 
DEPLOYED TO 
SCALE. 
WHAT DID YOU  T
MEAN WHEN YOU 
ANSWERED THAT 
THE PURPOSE OF 
THE DEAL WAS TO TO
NEUTRALIZE A 
COMPETITOR? 
>> CONGRESSMAN 
THOSE AREN'T MY 
WORDS BUT, 
YES, 
I HAVE BEEN 
CLEAR THAT 
INSTAGRAM WAS A 
COMPETITOR IN 
THE SPACE OF 
MOBILE PHOTO 
SHARING. 
THERE WERE A LOT 
OF OTHERS AT THE 
TIME. 
THEY COMPETED 
WITH APPS LIKE 
DISCO CAM AND 
QUICK PLEASE AND 
COMPANIES LIKE 
PASS. 
IT WAS A SUBSET 
OF THE OVERALL 
SPACES OF 
CONNECTING THAT 
WE EXIST IN. 
AND T BY HAVING 
THEM JOIN US, 
THEY CENTER WENT 
FROM BEING A -- 
CERTAINLY WENT 
FROM BEING A 
COMPETITOR TO AN 
APP THAT WE 
COULD HELP P GROW 
AND HELP GET 
MORE PEOPLE TO 
BE ABLE TO USE 
AND BE ON OUR 
TEAM. 
>> MR. 
ZUCKERBERG, 
MERGES AND 
ACQUISITIONS 
THAT BUY OFF 
POTENTIAL 
COMPETITIVE 
THREATS VIOLATE 
THE ANTITRUST 
LAWS. 
IN YOUR OWN 
WORDS YOU 
PURCHASED 
INSTAGRAM TO 
NEUTRALIZE A 
COMPETITIVE 
THREAT. 
IF THIS 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 THE 
DOCUMENTS AND 
REVIEWED THIS 
AND UNANIMOUSLY 
VOTED TO NOT 
CHALLENGE THE 
ACQUISITION. 
WITH HINDSIGHT 
IT PROBABLY 
LOOKS OBVIOUS 
THAT INSTAGRAM 
WOULD HAVE 
REACHED THE RA
SCALE THAT IT IS 
IS TODAY BUT AT 
THE TIME IT WAS 
NOT OBVIOUS. 
THE COMPETITORS 
LIKE PATH WHICH 
WERE HOT H AT THE 
TIME, HAD GREAT 
FOUNDERS AND 
ENTREPRENEURS 
RUNNING THEM, 
DAVE MOORE T AND I 
WORKED CLOSE 
WITH THEM, I 
DON'T THINK PATH 
EXISTS. 
IT WAS NOT A 
GUARANTEE THAT 
INSTAGRAM WOULD 
SUCCEED. 
IT HAS ULDONE 
WILDLY WELL 
LARGELY BECAUSE 
-- NOT JUST OF 
THE FOUNDER'S 
TALENT BUT WE 
INVESTED IN 
BUILDING UP THE 
INFRASTRUCTURE 
AND PROMOTING IT 
AND WORKING ON %
SECURITY AND A 
LOT OF THINGS 
AROUND THIS. 
AND I THINK THAT 
THIS IS AN 
AMERICAN SUCCESS 
STORY. 
>> THANK YOU. 
MR. ZUCKERBERG, 
YOU ARE MAKING 
MY POINT. 
IN CLOSING, MR. 
CHAIRMAN I WANT 
TO END WHERE I 
BEGAN. 
FACEBOOK BY MR. 
ZUCKERBERG'S OWN 
ADMISSION AND 
THE DOCUMENTS 
THAT WE HAVE, 
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 
ANTICOMPETITIVE 
ACQUISITION THAT 
THE ANTITRUST 
LAWS WERE 
DESIGNED TO 
PREVENT. 
THIS SHOULD 
NEVER HAVE  T
HAPPENED IN THE 
FIRST PLACE, 
NEVER HAVE BEEN 
PERMITTED TO 
HAPPEN AND IT 
CANNOT HAPPEN 
AGAIN. 
I YIELD BACK. AP
>> THANK I YOU, 
MR. CHAIRMAN. 
REMIND  
THE WITNESS THAT 
THE FAILURES OF 
THE FTC IN 2012 
DO NOT ALLEVIATE 
THE ANTITRUST 
CHALLENGES THAT 
THE CHAIRMAN 
DESCRIBED. 
I RECOGNIZE THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM 
COLORADO AND %
AGAIN THANK HIM 
FOR COHOSTING 
ONE OF THE MOST 
IMPORTANT FIELD 
HEARINGS THAT WE 
HAD AND WAS 
CRITICAL IN THIS 
INVESTIGATION. 
YOU ARE %E 
RECOGNIZED FOR 
FIVE MINUTES, 
MR. BUCK. 
>> I WAY TO 
OFFER MY 
APPRECIATION FOR 
THE BIPARTISAN 
WAY YOU HAVE 
APPROACHED THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
CAPITALISM IS 
THE GREATEST 
INSTRUMENT FOR 
FREE THAT MANY 
THAT WE %
HAVE 
SEEN. 
IT HAS GIVEN THE 
UNITED STATES 
THE FREEDOM AND 
MEANS TO DEFEAT 
THE SOVIET 
UNION, BEAT BACK 
FASTISM AND PUT 
A MAN ON THE 
MOON. 
THE ECONOMIC 
SYSTEM% HAS 
LIFTED MILLIONS 
OUT OF POVERTY, 
MADE AMERICA THE 
FREEST MOST PROS 
PER ROUSE NATION 
IN THE WORLD. 
WITNESSES HAVE 
TAKEN IDEAS BORN 
OUT OF A DORM 
ROOM, A 
WAREHOUSE AND 
INTO  IT 
FOUR OF THE 
BIGGEST POWER 
PLAYERS. 
YOU HAVE 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, 
GOOGLE DROPPED 
OUT OF THE 
RUNNING FOR  A NG
PENTAGON 
CONTRACT TO 
COMPLETE THE 
DEFENSE 
INFRASTRUCTURE 0 
OR JEDI CONTRACT 
WHICH WAS VALUED 
AT MORE THAN $10 
BILLION. 
GOOGLE'S STATED 
REASON FOR 
REMOVING ITSELF 
FROM THE BIDDING 
PROCESS D IS THAT 
THE U.S. 
MILITARY'S 
PROJECT DID NOT 
ALIGN WITH 
GOOGLE'S 
CORPORATE VALUES 
AND PRINCIPLES. 
THIS IS THE WISAME 
U.S. MILITARY 
THAT FIGHTS FOR 
OUR FREEDOMS AND 
STANDS AS A 
FORCE FOR GOOD 
ACROSS THE 
GLOBE. 
THESE ARE THE 
SAME SOLDIERS, 
SOLDIERS AND 
AIRMEN THAT 
SACRIFICE THEIR 
LIVES FOR YOU TO 
HAVE THE FREEDOM 
TO BUILD THE 
COMPANY. 
UNLIKE COMMUNIST 
CHINA. 
I FOUND IT 
INTERESTING THAT 
ST
MONTHS AFTER 
MAKING 
THIS 
DECISION TO 
WITHDRAW FROM 
THE JEDI 
CONTRACT, MARINE 
GENERAL JOSEPH 
DUNFORD, THE %%
CHAIRMAN OF THE 
JOINT CHIEF OF 
STAFF WARNED A 
SENATE ARMED 
FORCES COMMITTEE 
THAT THE CHINESE 
MILITARY WAS 
DIRECTLY 
BENEFITING FROM 
GOOGLE'S  WWORK I. 
MADE ME WONDER, 
WHAT VALUES 
GOOGLE AND 
COMMUNIST RED 
CHINA HAD IN 
COMMON. 
I ASKED MYSELF, 
SELF, IS IT THAT 
THE CHINESE 
COMMUNIST PARTY 
-- MUSLIMS IN 
CONCENTRATION 
CAMPS? 
COULD IT BE TRTHAT 
CHINA FORCES 
SLAVES TO WORK 
IN SWEATSHOPS. 
MAYBE THEY ALIVE 
ON THE DESIGN TO 
SUPPRESS E FREE 
SPEECH IN HONG 
KONG. 
DID GOOGLE AGREE 
WITH CCP 
DECISION TO E LIE 
TO THE WORLD 
ABOUT THE COVID-
19 PANDEMIC. 
THEN I THOUGHT 
ABOUT GOOGLE'S 
DRAGONFLY 
EXPERIMENT. 
PERHAPS YOU 
AGREED WITH THE 
CHINESE 
GOVERNMENT'S USE 
OF PLATFORMS TO 
SPY ON ITS OWN 
PEOPLE AND 
ENFORCE 
DRACONIAN 
SECURITY LAWS. 
MAYBE THAT YOUR %
COMPANY IS 
ALIGNED WITH THE 
CHINESE 
COMMUNIST PARTY 
ESPIONAGE 
POLICIES WHERE 
THE STRATEGY IS 
STEAL 
WHATEVER CAN'T 
BE PRODUCED 
DOMESTICALLY. 
THESE VALUES 
THAT ALLOW 
GOOGLE TO WORK 
WITH THE CHINESE 
MILITARY BUT NOT 
THE U.S. 
MILITARY HELP 
EXPLAIN WHY 
GOOGLE WOULDN'T OG
THINK TWICE 
ABOUT BLATANTLY 
STEALING A 
COMPETITOR'S 
PRODUCT DOWN TO Y 
THE WATERMARK 
WITHOUT A HINT 
OF ATTRIBUTION. 
DURING OUR FIELD 
HEARING IN 
COLORADO, I 
HEARD A STORY 
THAT WAS SO 
BRAZEN AND 
CONTRARY TO 
PRINCIPLES THAT 
I THOUGHT IT 
MUST HAVE BEEN 
STRAIGHT FROM 
THE CHINESE 
PARTY PLAYBOOK. 
GOOGLE TOOK 
ADVANTAGE OF A 
COMPANY THAT 
RELIED ON YOUR 
SEARCH ENGINE EDTO 
BUILD ITS BRAND 
AN COMPETE. 
GOOGLE 
MISAPPROPRIATED 
LYRICS FROM 
GENIUS MEDIA 
MP
GROUP WEBSITE 
AND PUBLISHED 
THEM ON GOOGLES 
OWN PLATFORM. 
GENIUS CAUGHT 
THEM IN THE ACT. 
WHEN GENIUS 
SUSPECTED THIS 
CORPORATE THEFT 
WAS OCCURRING, 
THE COMPANY 
INCORPORATED A 
DIGITAL 
WATERMARK IN THE 
LYRICS THAT 
SPELLED OUT RED 
HANDED IN IN 
MORSE CODE. 
THE WATER 
MORNING SHOWED 
YOUR COMPANY 
STOLE WHAT YOU 
COULDN'T OR 
WOULDN'T WANT TO T 
PRODUCE 
YOURSELF. 
AFTER GOOGLE 
EXECUTIVES 
STAYED THAT %THEY 
WERE 
INVESTIGATING 
THE PROBLEMATIC 
BEHAVIOR, GENIUS 
CREATED ANOTHER 
EXPERIMENT TO 
DETERMINE THE 
SCOPE OF THE 
MISS 
APPROPRIATION. 
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. 
GOOGLE IS 
SUPPOSED TO 
CONNECT PEOPLE 
TO INFORMATION. 
YOUR CORPORATE 
VALUES ONCE 
STOOD FOR 
FREEDOM, LET 
CAPITALISM 
FLOURISH AND 
BRING COUNTLESS 
PEOPLE ACROSS  
THE GLOBE OUT OF 
POVERTY. 
MY QUESTION TO 
YOU T 
IS, DO YOU 
THINK THAT 
GOOGLE COULD GET 
AWAY WITH 
FOLLOWING 
CHINA'S 
CORPORATE 
ESPIONAGE 
PLAYBOOK IF YOU 
DON'T HAVE A 
MONOPOLIES STICK 
ADVANTAGE IN THE 
MARKET. 
>> I WANT TO 
ADDRESS THE 
IMPORTANT 
CONTENT YOU 
RAISED. 
RECENTLY SIGNED 
A BIG PROJECT 
WITH THE 
DEPARTMENT OF 
DEFENSE WHERE WE 
ARE BRINGING THE 
SECURITY 
APPROACH TO HELP 
PROTECT PENTAGON 
NETWORK FROM 
CYBER SECURITY 
ATTACKS. 
WE HAVE PROJECTS 
UNDERWAY WITH 
THE NAVY, 
DEPARTMENT OF 
VETERANS 
AFFAIRS. 
HAPPY TO FOLLOW-
UP AND NSEXPLAIN 
MORE. 
WE HAVE A 
LIMITED PRESENCE 
IN CHINA. 
WE DON'T OFFER 
ANY OF OUR 
SERVICES, MAPS, 
G MALL IN CHINA. 
WITH RESPECT TO 
MUSIC, WE 
LICENSED CONTENT 
THERE 
LIKE OTHER 
COMPANIES. 
THIS IS A 
DISPUTE BETWEEN 
GENIUS AND THE 
OTHER COMPANIES 
IN TERMS OF THE 
SOURCE OF TETHE -- 
I AM HAPPY TO 
EXPLAIN WHAT WE 
DO FURTHER. 
>> I YIELD BACK. 
>> 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 AT
WITH APPLE'S 
OWNERSHIP OF THE 
APP STORE GIVING 
APPLE THE 
ABILITY TO 
CONTROL WHICH 
APPS ARE ALLOWED 
TO BE MARKED TO 
APPLE USERS, YOU 
WIELD IMMENSE 
POWER OVER SMALL 
BUSINESSES TO 
GROW AND 
PROSPER. 
APPLE IS THE 
SOLE DECISION 
MAKER AS TO 
WHETHER AN APP 
IS MADE 
AVAILABLE TO APP 
USERS THROUGH 
APPLE'S APP 
STORE. 
ISN'T THAT 
CORRECT? 
>> SIR, 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. 
>> MY POINT IS 
-- SORRY TO 
INTERRUPT BUT I 
WANT TO GET TO 
THE POINT. 
THE POINT IS 
THAT APPLE IS 
THE SOLE 
DECISION MAKER 
AS TO WHETHER AN 
APP IS MADE 
AVAILABLE TO APP 
USERS THROUGH 
THE APPLE STORE. 
ISN'T THAT 
CORRECT? 
>> IF IT'S 
NATIVE APP, YES, 
SIR. 
A WEB APP, NO. 
>> THROUGHOUT 
OUR 
INVESTIGATION, 
WE HEARD %
CONCERNS THAT 
RULES GOVERNING 
THE APP STORY 
VIEW PROCESS ARE 
NOT AVAILABLE TO 
THE APP 
DEVELOPERS. 
THE RULES ARE 
MADE UP AS YOU 
GO. 
THEY ARE ASH 
TERRORLY 
INTERPRETED AND 
ENFORCED AND ARE 
SUBJECT TO 
CHANGE WHENEVER 
APPLE SEES FIT 
TO CHANGE. 
DEVELOPERS HAVE ITLO
NO CHOICE BUT TO 
GO WITH THE 
CHANGES OR THEY 
MUST LEAVE THE 
APP STORE. 
THAT'S AN 
ENORMOUS AMOUNT 
OF POWER. 
ALSO, THE RULES 
GET CHANGED TO 
BENEFIT APPLE AT 
THE EXPENSE OF 
APP DEVELOPERS 
AND THE APP 
STORE IS SAID TO 
ALSO 
DISCRIMINATE 
BETWEEN APP 
DEVELOPERS WITH 
SIMILAR APPS ON 
THE APPLE 
PLATFORM AND 
SMALL APP 
DEVELOPERS 
VERSUS LARGE APP 
DEVELOPERS. 
MR. COOK, DOES 
APPLE NOT TREAT 
ALL APP 
DEVELOPERS 
EQUALLY? 
>> SIR, PEWE TREAT 
EVERY DEVELOPER 
THE SAME. 
WE HAVE OPEN AND 
TRANSPARENT 
RULES. 
IT'S A RIGOROUS 
PROCESS. 
BECAUSE WE CARE SPS 
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. 
AS YOU CAN TELL 
BY -- 
>> SOME 
DEVELOPERS ARE 
FAVORED OVER 
OTHERS. 
ISN'T THAT 
CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS NOT RSAT
CORRECT. 
AS YOU CAN TELL 
FROM GOING FROM 
-- 
>> I  WILL GIVE 
YOU AN EXAMPLE. 
TWO APP STORES 
EMPLOYEES 
ASSIGNED TO HELP 
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 OUTS 
REGARDLESS OF 
WHETHER THEY ARE 
SMALL OR LARGE. 
>> LET SMME ASK 
YOU THIS 
QUESTION, APPLE 
HAS NEGOTIATED 
EXCEPTIONS TO 
ITS TYPICAL 30% 
COMMISSION FOR 
SOME APPS LIKE 
AMAZON PRIME. 
IS THAT A 
REDUCED 
COMMISSION SUCH 
AS THE ONE THAT 
AMAZON PRIME 
GETS AVAILABLE 
TO OTHER APP 
DEVELOPERS? 
>> IT'S 
AVAILABLE TO 
ANYONE MEETING 
THE CONDITIONS, 
YES. 
>> %LET IOME ASK 
YOU THIS. 
APPLE REQUIRES 
ALL APP 
DEVELOPERS TO 
USE APPLE'S 
PAYMENT 
PROCESSING 
SYSTEM. 
IF THOSE 
DEVELOPERS WANT T %
TO SELL THEIR 
GOODS AND 
SERVICES TO 
APPLE USERS 
THROUGH APPLE'S 
APP STORE. 
ISN'T THAT 
CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS 
CORRECT. 
>> 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% P.ATOF 
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 
PAYS 15%. 
IF YOU LOOK AT 
THE HISTORY -- 
>> WHAT IS TO 
STOP APPLE FROM 
INCREASING ITS 
COMMISSIONS TO 
50%? 
>> SIR, WE HAVE 
NEVER INCREASED 
COMMISSIONS IN 
THE STORE SINCE 
THE FIRST DAY IT 
OPERATED IN 
2008. 
>> IS THERE 
ANYTHING TO STOP 
YOU FROM DOING 
SO? 
>> NO, SIR, I 
DISAGREE. 
THERE IS A 
COMPETITION FOR 
DEVELOPERS LIKE 
THERE IS A 
COMPETITION FOR 
CUSTOMERS. 
SO, THE 
COMPETITION FOR 
DEVELOPERS WRITE 
THE APPS FOR 
ANDROID, 
WINDOWS, Xbox OR 
PLAY STATION. 
WE HAVE FIERCE 
COMPETITION AT 
THE DEVELOPER 
SIDE AND 
CUSTOMER SIDE 
WHICH IS 
ESSENTIALLY IT'S 
SO COMPETITIVE I
 
WOULD DESCRIBE 
IT AS A STREET 
FIGHT FOR MARKET 
SHARE IN THE 
SMARTPHONE 
BUSINESS. 
>> HAS APPLE 
EVER RETALIATED 
AGAINST OR 
DISADVANTAGE 
TANNINGED A 
DEVELOPER THAT 
WENT PUBLIC WITH 
THEIR 
FRUSTRATIONS 
ABOUT THE STORE? 
>> WE 
DO NOT 
RETALIATE OR 
BULLY PEOPLE. 
IT'S STRONGLY 
AGAINST OUR 
COMPANY CULTURE. 
OF THE TIME 
THE GENTLEMAN EX 
PISHED. 
THE CHAIR 
RECOGNIZES THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM 
FLORIDA. 
>> MR. 
ZUCKERBERG MADE %OM
THE CLAIM THAT 
MYRTLE BEACH IS 
AN AMERICAN 
COMPANY WITH 
AMERICAN VALUES. 
DO ANY OF THE 
REST 
OF YOU TAKE 
A DIFFERENT DI
VIEW? 
THAT IS TO SAY 
THAT YOUR 
COMPANIES DON'T 
EMBRACE AMERICAN 
VALUES? 
GREAT TO SEE 
THAT NONE OF YOU 
DO. 
MR. PICHAI I AM 
WORRIED ABOUT 
GOOGLE'S MARKET 
POWER, HOW IT 
CONCENTRATES THE 
POWER THEN WELDS 
IT. 
PROJECT MAVEN 
WAS A 
COLLABORATION 
BETWEEN GOOGLE 
AND THE 
DEPARTMENT OF 
DEFENSE THAT 
GOOGLE PULLED F 
OUT OF CITING 
ETHICAL 
CONCERNS. 
YOU MADE THAT 
DECISION 
FOLLOWING 
RECEIPT OF A HA
LETTER FROM 
THOUSANDS OF 
YOUR EMPLOYEES 
SAYING THAT 
GOOGLE SHOULD 
NOT %BE IN THE 
BUSINESS OF WAR. 
MY QUESTION IS, 
DID YOU WEIGH 
THE IN PUT FROM 
YOUR EMPLOYEES 
WHEN MAKING THE 
DECISION TO 
ABANDON THAT 
PROJECT WITH THE 
UNITED STATES 
MILITARY. 
>> %CONGRESSMAN, 
THANKS FOR YOUR 
CONCERN. 
AS I YOSAID 
EARLIER, WE ARE 
DEEPLY COMMITTED 
TO SUPPORTING 
THE MILITARY AND 
U.S. GOVERNMENT. 
WE HAVE 
UNDERTAKEN 
SEVERAL 
PROJECTS. 
WE MAKE 
DECISIONS BASED 
ON A VARIETY OF 
FACTORS. 
AS A COMPANY, WE Y A
WERE NEW IN THE 
CLOUD SPACE AT 
THAT TIME. 
>> % THANK YOU, 
YOU DID TAKE 
THEIR FEEDBACK 
INTO ACCOUNT. 
IN FACT, SOME OF 
YOUR GOOGLERS 
SENT YOU A 
LETTER WHERE 
THEY ASKED YOU 
TO EXIT OTHER 
PARTNERSHIPS AS 
ETHICAL 
CONCERNS, STOP 
DOING %BUSINESS 
WITH AMERICAN 
LAW EVEN 
FORBESMENT 
SAYING THAT SA
POLICE BROADLY 
UPHOLD WHITE 
SUPREMACY AND  
THAT GOOGLE 
SHOULD NOT BE 
ENGAGED IN ANY 
SERVICES TO 
POLICE AND AS 
YOU WELL KNOW, 
YOU PROVIDE SOME U 
OF THE MOST 
BASIC SERVICES 
TO POLICE LIKE E-
MAIL BUT YOU 
PROVIDE SERVICES 
THAT HELP KEEP 
THE COPS SAFE 
WHEN THEY ARE 
DOING THEIR JOB. 
MY QUESTION IS 
HERE IN FRONT OF 
CONGRESS AND THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE, 
WILL YOU TAKE 
THE PLEDGE THAT 
GOOGLE WILL NOT 
ADOPT THE 
BIGOTED 
ANTIPOLICE 
POLICY THAT IS 
REQUESTE IN THE 
MOST RECENT 
LETTER. 
>> WE WORK WITH 
LAW ENFORCEMENT 
WHEN IT IS 
SUPPORTED BY DUE 
PROCESS AND THE 
LAW -- THE PUSH 
BACK. 
[ INAUDIBLE ] 
BUT WE HAVE A 
LONG HISTORY OF 
FOLLOWING THE 
LAW AND 
COOPERATING. 
>> I UNDERSTAND 
THE HISTORY. 
I'M ASKING %ABOUT 
THE FUTURE. 
TO THE LAW 
ENFORCEMENT 
WATCHING TODAY, 
CAN THEY REST 
ASSURED THAT 
UNDER YOUR 
LEADERSHIP, 
GOOGLE WILL NOT 
ADOPT THE 
BIGOTED 
ANTIPOLICE 
POLICIES. 
>> WE HAVE 
COMMITTED THE %
COUNTRY TO WORK 
WITH LAW 
ENFORCEMENT IN 
AWAY WITH LAW 
AND %DUE PROCESS 
IN THE U.S. 
>> I GREATLY 
APPRECIATE THAT. 
I KNOW 
THAT WILL 
BE COMFORTING TO 
POLICE THAT 
UTILIZE YOUR 
SERVICES. 
YOU MENTIONED 
EARLIER IN THE 
DISCUSSION ABOUT 
CHINA THAT YOUR 
ENGAGEMENT IN 
CHINA WAS 
LIMITED. 
BUT, YET, GOOGLE 
HAS AN AI CHINA 
CENTER. 
THE CHINESE 
ACADEMY OF 
SCIENCE 
PUBLISHED A 
PAPER SAYING 
THAT ENHANCED 
THE TARGETING 
CAPABILITIES OF 
CHINA'S J 20 
FIGHTER GH
AIRCRAFT. 
YOU COLLABORATE 
WITH CHINESE 
UNIVERSITIES 
THAT TOOK 
MILLIONS UPON 
MILLIONS FROM 
THE CHINESE 
MILITARY. 
ONE OF YOUR 
GOOGLERS WHILE 
UNDER YOUR LE
EMPLOY WAS CITED 
IN CHINESE STATE 
MEDIA SAYING 
CHINA IS LIKE A  
SLEEPING GIANT. 
WHEN SHE WAKES 
SHE WILL TREMBLE 
THE WORLD. 
THE LEFORMER 
SECRETARY OF 
DEFENSE, MR. 
SHANAHAN SAID 
THE LINES WERE 
BLURRED IN CHINA 
BETWEEN 
COMMERCIAL AND 
MILITARY 
APPLICATION AND 
AS MR. BUCK 
CITED GENERAL 
DUNFORD SAID 
THAT YOUR 
COMPANY IS 
DIRECTLY AIDING 
THE CHINESE 
MILITARY AND 
PETER TEAL WHO 
SERVED OR MR. 
ZUCKERBERG'S 
BOARD AT 
FACEBOOK SAID 
THAT GOOGLE'S 
ACTIVITIES WITH 
CHINA ARE TREES 
SON NEWS. 
HE ACCUSED YOU 
OF TREASON. 
WHY WOULD AN 
AMERICAN COMPANY 
WITH AMERICAN AN
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 
BUT PROJECT 
MAVEN WAS A 
SPECIFIC WAY TO 
ENSURE THAT THE 
TROOPS ARE SAFE 
ON THE 
BATTLEFIELD. 
IF 
YOU HAVE NO 
PROBLEM MAKING 
THE J 20 CHINESE 
FIGHTER MORE 
EFFECTIVE, WHY 
WOULDN'T 
YOU 
WANT TO MAKE 
AMERICA AS 
EFFECTIVE. 
>> CONGRESSMAN, AS
WITH RESPECT, WE 
ARE NOT WORKING 
WITH THE CHINESE 
MILITARY. 
THAT IS FALSE. 
I HAD A 
CHANCE 
TO MEET WITH 
DUNFORD 
PERSONALLY. 
WE CLARIFIED 
WHAT WE DO IN 
CHINA. 
OUR AI WORK IN 
CHINA IS LIMITED 
TO A HANDFUL OF 
PEOPLE WORKING 
ON OPEN SOURCE 
PROJECTS AND I'M 
HAPPY TO SHARE 
AND ENGAGE TO 
EXPLAIN THE WORK 
IN CHINA. 
>> GOSH, WHEN 
THE CHAIRMAN OF 
THE JOINT CHIEFS 
OF STAFF SAYS AN 
AMERICAN COMPANY 
IS DIRECTLY 
AIDING CHIN 
NARCS AN AI 
CENTER, WORKING 
WITH 
UNIVERSITIES AND 
EMPLOYEES ARE 
TALKING ABOUT 
CHINA TREMBLING 
THE WORLD, IT 
SEEMS TO CALL IN 
TO QUESTION YOUR 
COMMITMENT. 
I HOPE WE HAVE 
AN EXTRA ROUND. 
>> I RECOGNIZE 
THE GENTLEMAN 
FROM MARYLAND. 
>> MR. SUCK 
SUCK, 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, 
SENATE, %HOUSE 
HAVE ALL FOUND 
THAT VLADIMIR 
PUTIN ENGAGED IN 
A SWEEPING AND 
SYSTEMATIC 
CAMPAIGN TO 
UNDERMINE 
AMERICAN 
DEMOCRACY IN 
2016 AND IN
TO WORK 
FOR A VICTORY 
FOR DONALD 
TRUMP. 
IN HIS 
REMARKABLE BOOK 
MIND BLANK, REI'M 
BEING PO LET 
HERE, CAMBRIDGE 
ANALYTICA AND 
THE PLOT TO 
BREAK AMERICA, 
CHRISTOPHER 
WILEY RECOUNTS 
HOW THE RUSSIAN 
ASSAULT ON 
AMERICA DEPENDED 
ON FACEBOOK, 
QUOTE. 
WHEN CAMBRIDGE EB
ANALYTICA 
LAUNCHED IN THE 
SUMMER OF 2014, 
STEVE BANNON'S 'S
GOAL WAS TO 
CHANGE FACEBOOK 
ALGORITHMS. 
THEY USED 
TOOLS 
TO IDENTIFY 
PEOPLE WHO 
EXHIBITED THE 
THREE TRAITS 
WHAT THEY CALLED 
THE DARK TRIAD, 
FAST CIVIL. 
THEY PROCEEDED 
TO BOTTOM BOARD 
AND ACTIVATE THE 
PEOPLE, A SMALL 
PERCENTAGE OF 
THE AMERICAN 
PUBLIC WITH DARK 
MESSAGES FROM 
FAKE FACEBOOK 
PAGES TO GET 
THEM TO VOTE FOR 
TRUMP BUT MORE 
IMPORTANTLY TO 
ACTIVATE THEM AS 
RACISTS AND 
NATIONALISTS. 
HE DESCRIBES THE 
SUCCESS OF THE 
CAMPAIGN 
ELECTORALLY AND 
POLITICALLY  TIN 
THE COUNTRY IN 
TERMS OF SEWING 
THE TERRIBLE 
RACIST THAT YOU 
SEE NOW. 
POLARIZE AMERICA 
AROUND RACE AND 
RELIGION. 
IT WORKED FOR 
THEM. 
BUT IT DIDN'T  W
WORK SO WELL FOR 
AMERICA. 
MR. ZUCKERBERG, 
WHICH PARTS OF 
THIS NARRATIVE 
HAVE YOU 
ADDRESSED OR ARE %VE
YOU PLANNING TO 
ADDRESS OR
 DO 
YOU SEE THAT AS 
ESSENTIALLY THE 
COST OF BEING A 
FORUM IN A 
MARKETPLACE FOR 
IDEAS? 
IS THERE NOTHING E 
THAT CAN BE DONE 
ABOUT THE USE OF 
FACEBOOK TO 
ENGENDER SOCIAL 
DIVISION IN 
AMERICA. 
>> CONGRESSMAN, 
THANK YOU. 
SINCE 2016, 
THERE HAVE BEEN 
A LOT OF %STEPS 
THAT WE HAVE 
TAKEN TO PROTECT 
THE INTEGRITY OF 
ELECTIONS. 
WE HIRED MORE 
THAN 30,000 OF
PEOPLE TO WORK 
ON SAFETY AND 
SECURITY. 
WE BUILT UP AI 
SYSTEMS TO FIND 
HARMFUL CONTENT 
INCLUDING BEING 
ABLE TO FIND 
MORE THAN 50 
DIFFERENT 
NETWORKS OF 
COORDINATED AND 
AUTHENTIC 
BEHAVIOR, NATION 
STATES TRYING TO 
INTERFERE IN 
ELECTIONS. 
>> CAN I PAUSE 
YOU -- LET ME 
PAUSE  YOU THERE 
FOR A SECOND. 
I'M INTERESTED 
IN THAT. 
THE STOP HATE HA
FOR PROFIT 
CAMPAIGN IS A 
COALITION THAT 
INCLUDES THE 
COLOR OF CHANGE, 
ANTIDEFAMATION 
LEAGUE %AND 
OTHERS AND THEY 
ARE TARGETING 
FACEBOOK FOR A 
BOYCOTT BECAUSE T 
OF THE RAPID 
SPREAD OF HATE 
MESSAGES ONLINE, 
THE PRESENCE OF 
WHITE WING 
EXTREMIST GROUPS 
TO INTERRUPT 
BLACK LIVES 
MATTER PROTESTS 
AND ALT-RIGHT 
CONTENT 
FLOURISHES ON 
FACEBOOK. 
THEY ARE ASKING 
YOU TO REMOVE 
THESE YOPAGES AND 
ESSENTIALLY JOIN 
THE MOVEMENT FOR 
CIVIL RIGHTS BY 
NOT ALLOWING 
THAT KIND OF 
CONTENT. 
THE BOYCOTTERS 
INCLUDE 
PATAGONIA, 
LEVIS, HEINEKEN 
AND SO ON. 
YOU SEEM NOT TO KE
BE THAT MOVED BY 
THEIR CAMPAIGN. 
I WONDER WHAT 
YOU THINK ABOUT 
WHAT THEY ARE 
ASKING YOU TO 
DO? 
>> CONGRESSMAN, 
THANKS. 
WE ARE VERY 
FOCUSED ON 
FIGHTING AGAINST 
ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE AND 
FIGHTING AGAINST 
HATE SPEECH. 
OUR COMMITMENTS 
TO THOSE ISSUES 
IN FIGHTING THEM TH
GO BACK YEARS 
BEFORE THIS 
RECENT MOVEMENT. 
SINCE 2016, 
THE 
DEFENSES THAT 
THE COMPANY Y 
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 
GOVERNMENT 
HAVE 
IN THE WORLD. 
WE ROUTINELY 
COLLABORATE WITH 
LAW ENFORCEMENT, 
INTELLIGENCE 
AGENCIES %AND ARE 
ABLE TO 
SOMETIMES 
IDENTIFY THREATS 
COMING FROM 
OTHER COUNTRIES 
BEFORE 
GOVERNMENTS ARE 
ABLE TO. 
IN TERMS OF 
FIGHTING HATE, 
WE HAVE BUILT 
REALLY 
SOPHISTICATED 
SYSTEMS. 
OUR GOAL IS TO 
IDENTIFY IT 
BEFORE ANYONE E D 
SEES IT ON THE 
PLATFORM. 
WE BUILT AI 
SYSTEMS AND AS I 
MENTIONED, HAVE 
TENS OF 
THOUSANDS OFAV 
PEOPLE WORKING 
ON SAFETY AND 
SECURITY WITH 
THE GOAL 
OF 
GETTING THE 
STUFF DOWN SO 
THAT WAY -- 
BEFORE PEOPLE 
SEE IT. 
RIGHT NOW WE ARE 
ABLE TO 
PROACTIVELY 
IDENTIFY 89% OF 
THE HATE SPEECH 
THAT WE TAKE 
DOWN BEFORE IT'S 
EVEN SEEN BY 
OTHER PEOPLE. 
I WANT TO DO 
BETTER THAN 89%. 
I WOULD LIKE TO 
GET THAT TO 99%. 
BUT WE HAVE A 
MASSIVE 
INVESTMENT. 
>> MY TIME IS 
ALMOST OUT. 
CAN YOU ADDRESS 
THE 
PROLIFERATION OF 
FAKE ACCOUNTS? 
I UNDERSTAND 
ANNUALLY 6.5 
BILLION FAKE  
ACCOUNTS 
PRODUCED BUT IN 
SOME SENSE YOU 
HAVE APPROVE 
VITT MOTIVE 
LINKED TO THAT 
BECAUSE THAT IS 
WHAT IS REPORTED 
TO YOUR 
INVESTORS, THE 
NUMBER OF 
ACCOUNTS. 
ARE YOU WORKING 
ZEALOUSLY TO 
FERRET OUT THE 
ACCOUNTS THAT 
ARE USED TO 
SPREAD HATE 
INFORMATION. 
>> 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 
PEOPLE TRYING TO 
SET UP ACCOUNTS 
TO SPAM PEOPLE 
FOR COMMERCIAL 
REASON. 
A SMALL PERCENT 
ARE NATION 
STATES TRYING TO 
INTERFERE IN 
ELECTIONS. 
WE ARE FOCUSED IN
ON TRYING TO 
FIND THOSE. 
HARMFUL CONTENT 
ON THE PLATFORMS 
DOES NOT HELP 
OUR BUSINESS. 
IT HURTS. 
PEOPLE DON'T 
WANT TO SEE THAT 
STUFF. 
THEY USE OUR 
SERVICES LESS 
WHEN THEY DO. 
WE ARE ALIGNED %
WITH PEOPLE IN 
ORDER TO TAKE IT 
DOWN AND WE 
INVEST BILLIONS 
IN DOING SO A 
YEAR. 
>> YIELD BACK. 
>> THE 
COMMITTEE 
WILL STAND IN 
RECESS FOR  TEN 
MINUTES WHILE WE 
FIX A TECHNICAL 
FEED WITH ONE OF 
OUR WITNESSES. 
%
OUR WITNESSES. ,
>>> YOU ARE 
WATCHING NBC 
NEWS NOW. TH THE 
SPECIFICS OF THE 
ISSUE BUT HAPPY 
TO FOLLOW-UP 
ONCE I 
UNDERSTAND IT 
BETTER. 
>> YOU ARE NOT 
PARTICULARLY 
FAMILIAR WITH 
HOW YOU ARE 
COMPLAINING WITH 
GDPR. 
>> CONGRESSMAN 
WE ARE LONG 
COMPLYING WITH 
GDPR, IT'S AN 
IMPORTANT 
REGULAR DID YOU 
GUY LOS ANGELES. 
WE ARE IN FULL 
COMPLIANCE TO MY 
KNOWLEDGE. 
I JUST MEANT NOT 
AWARE OF THE 
SPECIFIC ISSUE 
WITH THE ITEM 
THAT YOU 
MENTIONED THERE, 
BUT HAPPY TO 
UNDERSTAND IT 
BETTER AND 
FOLLOW-UP. 
>> IN ORDER TO 
COMPLY GOOGLE 
MUST CONTAIN 
CONTROL OVER 
MORE USER DATA 
AND RESTRICT THE 
USER DATA WITH 
OTHER PLATFORM 
TO PERFORM CROSS 
PLATFORM 
ANALYSIS. 
>> SEEMS THAT 
LIMITS THE 
ABILITY OF 
ADVERTISERS TO 
MAKE COMPARISONS 
BETWEEN GOOGLE 
BASED CAMPAIGNS 
AND NONGOOGLE 
BASED CAMPAIGNS. 
WOULD YOU AGREE 
WITH THAT. 
>> WE ARE 
BALANCING 
BETWEEN USERS, 
EXPEDITERS AND 
PUBLISHERS. 
WE CARE ABOUT 
OUR USERS AND 
WHEN WE SERVE 
THESE 
ECOSYSTEMS, WE 
HAVE TO TAKE 
THAT INTO 
ACCOUNT. 
WE HAVE TO 
COMPLY WITH -- 
IN EVERY COUNTRY 
WE OPERATE IN. 
THAT IS THE 
BALANCE THAT WE 
ARE STRIKING. 
WE ARE FOCUSED 
ON THE USERS IN 
TRYING TO DO THE 
BEST WE CAN. 
>> I WANT TO BE 
PERFECTLY CLEAR, 
I PERSONALLY 
BELIEVE THAT THE 
MARKET POWER CON 
VOLUNTARY DAYS 
IS SIGNIFICANT. 
WHEN WE MOVE 
FORWARD TO 
REGULATE THIS 
THAT WE AREN'T 
SQUEEZING OUT 
COMPETITION IN 
OUR QUEST TO DO 
SOMETHING. 
I SAID IT BEFORE 
AND I WILL. 
IN OUR REQUEST 
TO REGULATE BIG 
COMPANIES WE END 
UP HURTING SMALL 
COMPANIES MORE. 
I AM A STRONG 
PRIVACY ADVOCATE 
BUT THE 
CONSEQUENCES 
HAVE BEEN TO 
LIKE GOOGLE 
LEADING TO 
REGULATORY 
CAPTURE. 
GOOGLE'S DIGITAL 
AD MARKET SHARE 
INCREASED SINCE 
THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF
GDPR. 
>> TO GIVE YOU A 
SENSE, PRICES 
HAVE FALLEN 40% 
IN THE PAST 10 
YEARS. 
IN THE U.S., 
ADVERTISING IS A 
SHARE OF GDP, 
1.4% IN 1992 TO 
LESS THAN 1% 
TODAY. 
WE ZERO BUST 
COMPETITION IN 
THE MARKETPLACE. 
AS I SAID 
EARLIER, WE HAVE 
TO COMPLY WITH 
REGULATION AND 
BALANCE THE 
ECOSYSTEM. 
BUT THE UTMOST 
CARE IS ENSURING 
PRIVACY OF OUR 
USERS. 
>> I'M GLAD YOU 
MENTIONED 
PRIVACY. 
I WOULD BE 
REMISS IF I 
DIDN'T DEAL WITH 
THIS ISSUE. 
GENERALLY 
SPEAKING OUTSIDE 
OF THE POLITICAL 
ISSUES AND BIAS, 
WITH ALL OF 
THIS, THIS IS 
FOR ALL FOUR OF 
OUR WITNESSES, 
ONE OF OUR 
BIGGER CONCERNS 
WHEN WE TALK 
ABOUT DATA AND 
VALUE AND THAT 
DATA HAVING 
VALUE AND 
PRIVACY, WHERE 
PEOPLE GET 
CONCERNED WITH 
HOW THE DIGITAL 
AGE IS MOVING 
FORWARD. 
THERE ARE NEWS 
REPORTS THAT LAW 
ENFORCEMENT MADE 
USE OF GEO FENCE 
WARRANTS. 
THESE WARRANTS 
ALLOW 
AUTHORITIES TO 
COMPEL 
TECHNOLOGY 
COMPANIES TO 
DISCLOSE 
LOCATION RECORDS 
FOR ANY DEVICE 
AT A CERTAIN 
TIME. 
GOOGLE RECEIVED 
ABOUT 1,500% 
INCREASE IN GEO 
FENCE REQUESTS 
FROM 2017 TO 
2018 AND A 5 A 
0% INCREASE FROM 
2018 TO 2019. 
SO, THE FOURTH 
AMENDMENT 
REQUIRES 
PROBABLE CAUSE 
AND SPECIFICITY. 
THESE WARRANTS 
ARE FOR ANY 
PERSON IN AN 
AREA AT ANY TIME 
AND GEO FENCE 
WARRANTS REQUIRE 
NEITHER. 
UNLESS THE 
COMPANY PROVIDES 
PARTICULAR 
INFORMATION IN 
IDENTIFYING A 
SUBJECT, GEO 
WARRANTS ARE 
ESSENTIALLY 
GENERAL WARNS. 
I BELIEVE THE 
INFORMATION 
SHOULD BE 
CONSIDERED IN 
CONTENT OF THE 
ELECTRONIC 
COMMUNICATION 
ACT. 
DO YOU AGREE? 
>> I WOULD BE 
HAPPY TO 
UNDERSTAND MORE. 
WE THINK THIS IS 
AN IMPORTANT 
AREA FOR 
CONGRESS TO HAVE 
OVERSIGHT AND WE 
MADE A CHANGE BY 
WHICH WE 
AUTOMATICALLY 
DELETE THE 
LOCATION 
ACTIVITY AFTER A 
CERTAIN PERIOD 
OF TIME FOR OUR 
USERS. 
WE ARE HAPPY TO 
ENGAGE WITH YOU. 
>> THESE ARE 
GOING ON IN 
VIRGINIA, NEW 
YORK I THINK 
RIGHT NOW. 
THIS EQUATES FOR 
EVERYTHING. 
PEOPLE WOULD BE 
TERRIFIED TO 
KNOW THAT LAW 
ENFORCE BUILT 
CAN GRAB GENERAL 
WARRANTS AND GET 
EVERYBODY'S 
INFORMATION 
EVERYWHERE. 
IT REQUIRES 
CONGRESS TO ACT 
AND EVERYBODY A 
WITNESS IN THIS 
HEARING TO MAKE 
IT WORK. 
IT'S THE SINGLE 
-- 
>> THE TIME 
EXPIRED BUT I 
BELIEVE HE HAS 
THE UNANIMOUS 
CONSENT REQUEST. 
>> I DO. 
I HAVE IT FOR 
"WALL STREET 
JOURNAL" 
ARTICLE, GOOGLE 
USER LOCATION 
HISTORY. 
>> WITHOUT 
OBJECTION AND 
THEN I HAVE TWO 
LETTERS FROM 
CONGRESS 
WALTERS. 
MR. COOK OF 
APPLE AND THE 
SECOND TO MR. -- 
>> WITHOUT 
OBJECTION BOTH 
MAY BE ENTERED 
INTO THE RECORD. 
>> THANK YOU ALL 
FOR BEING WITH 
US. 
MR. BEZOS JULY 
2019 YOUR 
EMPLOYEE NATE 
SUTTON TOLD ME 
UNDER COAT IN IN 
COMMITTEE THAT 
AMAZON DOES NOT 
USE ANY SPECIFIC 
SELLER DATA WHEN 
CREATING IT IS 
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 
THE QUESTION. 
IT'S AN 
IMPORTANT TOPIC. 
I WANT TO THANK 
YOU FOR 
REPRESENTING US. 
BUT I CAN'T 
ANSWER THAT 
QUESTION YES OR 
NO. 
I CAN TELL THANK 
YOU 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 
ARE PROBABLY 
AWARE APRIL 2020 
REPORT IN "THE 
WALL STREET 
JOURNAL" 
REVEALED THAT 
YOUR COMPANY 
DOES ACCESS DATA 
ON THIRD PARTY 
SELLERS BY 
REVIEWING DATA 
ON POPULAR 
INDIVIDUALS AND 
PRODUCTS AND 
CREATING TINY 
PRODUCT 
CATEGORIES THAT 
ALLOWED YOUR 
COMPANY TO 
CATEGORICALLY 
ACCESS DETAILED 
SELLER 
INFORMATION IN A 
SUPPOSEDLY 
AGGREGATE 
CATEGORY. 
DO YOU DENY THAT 
REPORT? 
>> I AM FAMILIAR 
WITH "THE WALL 
STREET JOURNAL" 
ARTICLE THAT YOU 
ARE TALKING 
ABOUT. 
>> WE CONTINUE 
TO LOOK INTO 
THAT VERY 
CAREFULLY. 
I AM NOT YET 
SATISFIED THAT 
WE GOT TO THE 
BOTTOM OF IT. 
WE ARE GOING TO 
KEEP LOOKING AT 
IT. 
SOME OF THE 
SOURCES IN THE 
ARTICLE ARE 
ANONYMOUS BUT WE 
CONTINUE TO LOOK 
INTO IT. 
>> I AM TAKE 
THAT AS A YOU 
ARE NOT DENYING 
IT. 
A FORMER AMAZON 
EMPLOYEE TOLD 
THIS COMMITTEE, 
THERE IS A RULE 
BUT NOBODY 
ENFORCING OR 
SPOT CHECKING. 
THEY JUST SAY 
DON'T HELP 
YOURSELF TO THE 
DATA. 
IT'S A CANDY 
SHOP. 
EVERYONE CAN 
HAVE ACCESS TO 
ANYTHING THEY 
WANT. 
DO CATEGORY 
MANAGERS HAVE 
INFORMATION 
ABOUT THIRD 
PARTY PRODUCTS 
AND BUSINESSES? 
>> HERE IS WHAT 
I CAN TELL YOU. 
WE DO HAVE 
CERTAIN 
SAFEGUARDS IN 
PLACE. 
WE TRAIN PEOPLE 
ON THE POLICY. 
WE EXPECT PEOPLE 
TO FOLLOW THE 
POLICY THE SAME 
AS ANY OTHER. 
IT'S A VOLUNTARY 
POLICY. 
AS FAR AS I'M 
AWARE -- 
>> THERE IS NO 
ACTUAL 
ENFORCEMENT OF 
THAT POLICY? 
IT'S VOLUNTARILY 
AND NO ACTUAL 
ENFORCEMENT. 
>> SORRY. 
NO, I THINK I 
MAY HAVE 
MISSPOKE. 
I'M TRYING TO 
SAY THAT AMAZON, 
THE FACT THAT WE 
HAVE SUCH A 
POLICY IS 
VOLUNTARY. 
I THINK NO OTHER 
RETAILER HAS 
SUCH A POLICY. 
>> THERE ARE
NUMEROUS REPORTS
AND THERE HAVE
BEEN EMPLOYEES
THAT DO HAVE
ACCESS TO THAT
DATA
AND ARE USING IT.
SO MY NEXT
QUESTION WAS
GOING TO
BE IF YOU THOUGHT
YOU WERE
ENFORCING THE
RULES, YOU THINK
THAT IS WORKING,
AGAIN, I WOULD
SAY THERE IS
CREDIBLE
REPORTING
THAT HAS
DOCUMENTED
BREACHES OF
THESE RULES YOU
HAVE PUT INTO
PLACE.
AND A COMMITTEE
HAS INTERVIEWED
EMPLOYEES THAT
TYPICALLY SAY
THAT THESE
BREACHES
TYPICALLY
OCCUR.
LET'S TALK ABOUT
AGGREGATE DATA
FOR A MINUTE.
THERE ARE ONLY
ONE OR TWO
SELLERS IN THE
MARKET PLACE.
>> YES, AGGREGATE
DATA IS
ALLOWED UNDER OUR
POLICIES,
THAT'S CORRECT.
>> INTERVIEWS
WITH FORMER
EMPLOYEES HAVE
MADE IT CLEAR
THAT THAT
ACROIGATE DATA
ALLOWS
ACCESS TO HIGHLY
DETAILED DATA
IN THOSE PRODUCT
CATEGORIES.
FORTEM, A SMALL
BUSINESS THAT
HAD NO DIRECT
COMPETITORS
EXCEPT
FOR AN AMAZON.
AN AMAZON
EMPLOYEE ACCESSED
A
DETAILED SALES
REPORT ON THE
PRODUCT WITH
INFORMATION ON
HOW
MUCH THE COMPANY
SPENDS ON
ADVERTISING PER
UNIT AND THE
COST TO SHIP EACH
TRUNK.
AMAZON LAUNCHED
ITS OWN
COMPETING PRODUCT
IN OCTOBER,
2019.
THAT IS A MAJOR
LOOP HOLE.
I GO BACK TO THE
STATEMENT TO
THE COMMITTEE,
CLEARLY, THERE
WAS NO ACCESS TO
THE DATA.
AMAZON DOES NOT
USE THE DATA FOR
THE OWN BENEFIT
AND NOW I'M
HEARING YOU SAY
YOU ARE NOT SO
SURE THAT'S GO
ON.
THE ISSUE WE ARE
CONCERNED WITH
HERE IS SIMPLE,
YOU HAVE ACCESS
TO DATA THAT FAR
EXCEEDS THE
SELLERS ON YOUR
PLATFORMS WITH
WHOM YOU COMPETE.
YOU CONTRACT
CONSUMER HABITS,
INTEREST, WHAT
THEY CLICKED ON
BUT DIDN'T BUY.
YOU HAVE THE
ACCESS TO 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
RULES FOR
YOURSELF.
DO YOU THINK THAT
IS FAIR TO THE
MOM AND POP THIRD
PARTY
BUSINESSES WHO
ARE TRYING TO
SELL ON YOUR
PLATFORM?
>> I APPRECIATE
THE QUESTION AND
I APPRECIATE IT
BECAUSE I WANT
THE CHANCE TO
ADDRESS IT.
I'M PROUD OF WHAT
WE HAVE DONE
FOR THIRD PARTY
SELLERS ON THE
PLATFORM.
WE STARTED THE
THIRD PARTY
PLATFORM 20 YEARS
AGO.
WE HAD 0 SELLERS
ON IT.
>> THE QUESTION
I'M ASKING -- MY
TIME IS EXPIRING.
THE QUESTION I
WANTED TO ASK YOU
IS THAT YOU HAVE
ACCESS TO DATA
THAT YOUR
COMPETITORS DO
NOT
HAVE SO YOU MAY
ALLOW THIRD
PARTY SELLERS ON
YOUR PLATFORM
BUT IF YOU ARE
CONTINUOUSLY
MONITORING THE
DATA TO MAKE SURE
THEY WILL NEVER
GET BIG ENOUGH
TO COMPETE WITH
YOU, THAT IS THE
CONCERN THAT THE
COMMITTEE HAS.
I THINK YOUR
COMPANY STARTED
IN
MY DISTRICT, I
WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR THAT AND THE
WORK YOU HAVE
DONE AND SAY THAT
THE WHOLE GOAL
OF THE
COMMITTEE'S WORK
IS TO
MAKE SURE THERE
ARE MORE
AMAZONS, MORE
APPLES, MORE
COMPANIES THAT
GET TO INOVATE
AND SMALL
BUSINESSES GET TO
THRIVE.
THAT IS WHAT WE
ARE TRYING TO
GET AT.
THAT IS WHY WE
NEED TO REGULATE
THE PLATFORMS SO
NO COMPANY HAS
A PLATFORM SO
DOMINATE.
>> I WANT TO
REMIND THE
WITNESSES, WE
APPRECIATE THE
GRATITUDE FOR THE
QUESTIONS AND
YOUR DESCRIPTION
OF THEM AS GOOD
QUESTIONS BUT WE
WILL JUST
ASSUME THEY ARE
GOOD QUESTIONS
AND YOU ARE HAPPY
TO ANSWER THEM
SO WE IT MAKE
GOOD USE OF YOUR
TIME.
I RECOGNIZE THE
GENTLEMAN FROM
FLORIDA, MR.
STUBY.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. PICHAI, I
WOULD LIKE TO
START WITH YOU.
I WOULD
ILLUSTRATE MY
QUESTION
WITH A FACTUAL
INCIDENT THAT
OCCURRED TO ME.
SEVERAL MONTHS
AGO, MY WIFE
CALLED AND SAID
THERE IS A GOOD
ARTICLE ON THE
GATEWAY PUNDANT
YOU COULD READ.
I WAS UP HERE IN
WASHINGTON AND
I GOOGLED GATEWAY
PUNDANT.
IT DIDN'T SHOW UP
ON THE FIRST
OR SECOND PAGE.
THERE WERE
BLOGGING SITES ON
HOW
THERE WERE
DISAGREEMENTS
WITH
WHAT WAS ON THE
GATEWAY PUN DENT
BUT I HAD TO TYPE
IN GATEWAY
PUNDANT.COM TO
GET TO THE
WEBSITE.
THAT WAS A COUPLE
OF MONTHS
BEFORE THIS
HEARING WAS
NOTICED,
BEFORE YOU KNEW
THAT YOU WOULD
BE APPEARING
BEFORE US TODAY
AND
THIS IS AN ISSUE
THAT
CONSERVATIVES AND
REPUBLICANS
HAVE IT.
LAST WEEK, AFTER
THIS HEARING
WAS NOTICED, I
DID THE SAME
THING IN THE
CAPITOL AND
WOULDN'T YOU
KNOW, I GOOGLED
IT
AND THAT WAS THE
FIRST WEBSITE
THAT CAME UP.
THIS ISN'T FROM A
CONSTITUENT IN
MY DISTRICT.
THIS ISN'T A NEWS
REPORT.
I PHYSICALLY DID
THIS ON MY
LAPTLE IN THE
CAPITAL SEVERAL
MONTHS AGO AND
THEN TODAY.
SO SOMETHING
HAPPENED BETWEEN
NOT BEING
NOTIFIED THAT YOU
WOULD APPEAR
BEFORE MY
COMMITTEE
AND THEN LAST
WEEK KNOWING YOU
WOULD APPEAR
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE AND NOW
CONSERVATIVE
SITES ARE 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
THE WEEK BEFORE
APPEARING TODAY
THAT HAS CHANGED
YOUR APPROACH TO
SILENCING
CONSERVATIVE
WEBSITES?
>> CONGRESSMAN,
WE APPROACH OUR
WORK WITH A DEEP
SENSE OF
RESPONSIBILITY IN
A NONPARTISAN
WAY.
WE WANT TO PUT
ALL OF OUR USERS,
NO MATTER WHERE
THEY ARE AND IT
IS OUR INCENTIVE
TOD SO.
I BELIEVE ON OUR
PLATFORM
INCLUDING
YOUTUBE, THERE
ARE
MORE CONSERVATIVE
VOICES THAN
EVERY BEFORE.
WE BELIEVE IN
FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION.
ON THE SPECIFIC
ISSUE, I WILL
HAVE TO LOOK INTO
IT.
I OBVIOUSLY
WASN'T AWARE OF
IT.
WE KNEW IT COULD
BE A NUMBER OF
REASONS.
WE CONSTANTLY GET
REPORTS.
>> SO CAN I
EXPECT A RESPONSE
FROM YOU SAY IN
THE NEXT TWO
WEEKS AS TO WHY
THAT OCCURRED?
>> CONGRESSMAN,
WE WILL DO OUR
BEST TO FOLLOW UP
AND I'LL
ENGAGE WITH YOUR
OFFICE.
>> WE'LL FOLLOW
UP ON THAT.
I HAVE A SIMILAR
QUESTION.
I HAVE 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 TOJUNK
FOLDERS OR
ANYTHING
ALONG THOSE
LINES.
WE HAD
40,00050,000
PEOPLE ON
THE EMAIL LIST.
SUDDENLY, I GET
ELECTED TO
CONGRESS AND I'M
UP HERE IN
WASHINGTON D.C.
AND MY PARENTS
WHO HAVE A G MAIL
ACCOUNT ARE
NOT GETTING MY
EMAILS.
ONE OF MY
SUPPORTERS TOLD
ME
THAT THEIR G MAIL
ACCOUNT IS
TAKING EMAILS AND
SUDDENLY GOING
TO JUPG FOLDER.
THIS APPEARS TO
ONLY BE
HAPPENING TO
CONSERVATIVE
REPUBLICANS.
I DON'T SEE
ANYTHING IN THE
NEWS
OR PRESS OR
MEMBERS ON THE
OTHER
SIDE OF THE AISLE
ABOUT THEIR
CAMPAIGN EMAILS
GETTING THROWN
INTO JUNK FOLDERS
ON G MAIL.
SO WHY IS THIS
ONLY HAPPENING TO
REPUBLICANS?
AND THIS IS A
FACT BECAUSE I
CAN
HAVE MY
SUPPORTERS
TESTIFY THAT
THEY RECEIVED MY
EMAILS FOR 8 OR
9 YEARS AND
SUDDENLY, ALL OF
MY
CAMPAIGN EMAILS
ARE NOW GOING TO
THEIR SPAM
FOLDERS.
IFFIA COULD GIVE
ME
CLAIREIFICATION
ON THAT, I WOULD
APPRECIATE IT.
>> WITH G MAIL
RGS WE ARE
FOCUSED ON WHAT
USERS WANT.
WHEN THEY HAVE
INDICATED THEY
WANT US TO
ORGANIZE THEIR
PERSONAL EMAILS
SEPARATELY, ALL
WE HAVE DONE IS
WE HAVE A
PRIMARY TAB FOR
FRIENDS AND
FAMILY, AND THE
SECONDARY TAB
HAS
NOTIFICATIONS.
>> IT WAS MY
FATHER WHO WAS
NOT
RECEIVING MY
CAMPAIGN EMAILS.
SO CLEARLY THAT
IS FAMILIAR
THING YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT
DIDN'T APPLY TO
MY EMAIL.
>> OUR SYSTEMS
ARE PROBABLY NOT
ABLE TO
UNDERSTAND THAT
FROM
YOUR CAMPAIGN
THAT IS YOUR
FATHER.
WE JUST SUPPLY
NEWTERALLY ACROSS
ALL
ORGANIZATIONS.
>> WHAT
ASSURANCES CAN
YOU GIVE
ME THAT ANY BIAS
AMONGST YOUR
EMPLOYEES ISN'T
INFLUENCING YOUR
SPAM FOLDER
ALGORITHMS?
>> CONGRESSMAN,
THERE IS NOTHING
IN THE ALGORITHM
THAT HAS
ANYTHING TO DO
WITH POLITICAL
IDEOLOGY.
WE GET COMPLAINTS
ACROSS THE
AISLE.
THE WORLD
SOCIALIST REVIEW
COMPLAINED IN
JANUARY OF THIS
YEAR THAT THEIR
SITE WAS NOT
FOUND IN GOOGLE
SEARCH RESULTS.
WE GET
COMPLAINTS.
WE LOOK INTO IT.
WE APPROACH OUR
WORK IN A
NONPARTISAN WAY.
WE SERVE USERS
ACROSS THE
COUNTRY AND TODAY
THAT'S WHY WE
INVESTIGATE SO WE
CAN CAPTURE
ALL.
>> THANK YOU.
THE GENTLEMEN'S
TIME HAS
EXPIRED.
I RECOGNIZE THE
GENTLE LADY FROM
FLORIDA.
>> LET ME JUST
SAY FOR THE
RECORD, I'M A
DEMOCRAT FROM
FLORIDA AND I
HAVE HEARD
COMPLAINTS ABOUT
MY EMAIL GOING
INTO SPAM AS WELL
AND I'M SURE
OTHER DEMOCRATIC
MEMBERS HAVE
HAD THE SAME
EXPERIENCES,
UNFORTUNATELY.
MR. PICHAI, IN
2007 GOOGLE
PURCHASED GOOGLE
PLAY, THE
LEADING
ADVERTISING COOL,
IS
THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S
CORRECT.
>> WHEN GOOGLE
PROPOSED THE
MURMGER, ALARM
BELLS WERE RAISED
ON THE ACCESS TO
DATA GOOGLE
WOULD HAVE
ESPECIALLY
CONNECTING
PERSONAL IDENTITY
WITH BROWSING
ACTIVITY.
GOOGLE COMMITTED
TO CONGRESS AND
THE ANTITRUST
FORCES THAT THE
DEAL WOULD NOT
REDUCE USER
PRIVACY.
GOOGLE'S CHIEF
LEGAL ADVISOR
TESTIFIED BEFORE
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE THAT
GOOGLE
WOULDN'T BE ABLE
TO MERGE THIS
DATA EVEN IF IT
WANTED TO, GIVEN
CONTRACTILE
RESTRICTIONS.
BUT GOOGLE
EMERGED THE DATA,
DESTROYING AN
NMTY ON THE
INTERNET.
MR. PICHAI, YOU
BECAME CEO OF
GOOGLE IN 2015,
IS THAT CORRECT.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> AND THIS
CHANGE WAS MADE
IN
2016, IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> THAT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING.
>> OKAY, THANK
YOU FOR THAT.
DID YOU SIGN OFF
ON THIS
DECISION TO
COMBINE THE SETS
OF
DATA THAT GOOGLE
HAD TOLD
CONGRESS WOULD BE
KEPT SEPARATE?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN,
ANY CHANGES WE
MADE.
>> WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT, DID YOU
SIGN OFF ON THE
DECISION OR NOT?
>> I REVIEW AT A
HIGH LEVEL ALL
OF THE DECISIONS
WE MAKE.
WE CARE ABOUT
PRIVACY OF OUR
USER.
>> SO YOU SIGNED
OFF ON IT THE
DECISION?
OKAY.
THIS DECISION
MEANT YOUR
COMPANY
WOULD NOW COMBINE
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 THE
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 GOOGLE
FOUNDERS HAD
PREVIOUSLY
WORRIED
WOULD LEAD TO A
BACKLASH.
AND I QUOTE, THEY
WERE
UNWAVERING ON THE
POLICY DUE TO
PHILOSOPHICAL
REASONS WHICH WAS
NOT WANTING USERS
ASSOCIATED
WITH THE CROSS
SITE COOKIE.
THEY WERE 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,
IT IS AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE,
IF I COULD
EXPLAIN.
WE TODAY MAKE IT
VERY EASY FOR
USERS TO BE IN
CONTROL OF THEIR
DATA.
WE HAVE
SIMPLIFIED THE
SETTINGS.
THEY CAN TURN AD
PERSONALIZATION
ON OR OFF.
THERE ARE THREE
GROUPINGS.
WE REMIND USERS
TO GO TO A
PRIVACY CHECK UP.
>> THANK YOU FOR
THAT.
I AM CONCERNED
THAT GOOGLE'S
BAIT AND SWITCH
WITH DOUBLE
CLICK IS PART OF
A BROADER
PATTERN WHERE
GOOGLE BUYS UP
COMPANIES FOR THE
PURPOSE OF
SURVEILLING
AMERICANS.
BECAUSE OF
GOOGLE'S
DOMINDEPENDENCE,
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?
AND BECAUSE
GOOGLE SELLS
BEHAVIORAL ADS,
THE MORE USER
DATA THAT GOOGLE
COLLECTS, THE
MORE MONEY GOOGLE
CAN MAKE, MORE
USER DATA MEANS
MORE MONEY, IS
THAT CORRECT?
>> IN GENERAL,
THAT IS NOT TRUE.
>> THE MORE DATA,
NOT THE MORE
MONEY GOOGLE
COLLECTS?
YOU ARE SAYING
THE MORE USER
DATA DOES NOT
MEAN MORE MONEY
THAT GOOGLE CAN
COLLECT?
>> CONGRESSMAN,
MOST OF THE DATA
WE COLLECT IS TO
HELP USERS.
>> THANK YOU SO
MUCH MR. PICHAI.
>> THANK YOU.
THE CHAIR
RECOGNIZES THE
RANKING
MEMBER OF THE
FULL COMMITTEE,
MR. JORDAN FOR 5
MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. PICHAI IS
GOOGLE GOING TO
TAILOR FEATURES
TO HELP BIDEN IN
THE 2020
ELECTION?
>> CONGRESSMAN,
WE APPROACH OUR
WORK, YOU KNOW WE
SUPPORT BOTH
CAMPAIGNS TODAY.
WE THINK
POLITICAL ADS IS
AN
IMPORTANT PART OF
FREE SPEECH.
WE ENGAGE WITH
CAMPAIGNS
ACCORDING TO LAW
AND WE APPROACH
OUR WORK IN A
NONPARTISAN WAY.
>> IT IS A YES OR
NO QUESTION.
CAN YOU ASSURE
AMERICANS TODAY
THAT YOU WON'T
TAILOR YOUR
FEATURES TO HELP
JOE BIDEN IN
THE UPCOMING
ELECTION?
>> YOU KNOW WE
SUPPORT WORK THAT
CAMPAIGNS DO.
>> I UNDERSTAND
THAT.
WE ALL DO ALL
KINDS OF ONLINE
SOCIAL MEDIA, ALL
KINDS OF THAT
OUT REACH, THAT
COMMUNICATION.
THIS IS A SIMPLE
QUESTION, CAN
YOU TODAY ASSURE
AMERICANS THAT
YOU WILL NOT
TAILOR YOUR
FEATURES IN ANY
WAY TO HELP
SPECIFICALLY HELP
ONE CANDIDATE
OVER ANOTHER, IN
THIS CASE
HELPING JOE BIDEN
OVER TRUMP?
>> WE WILL NOT DO
ANY WORK YOU
KNOW, TO
POLITICALLY HELP
ONE
THING OR THE
OTHER.
IT IS AGAINST OUR
CORE VALUES.
>> BUT YOU DID IT
IN 2016.
THERE IS AN EMAIL
IN 2016 THAT
WAS WIDELY
CIRCULATED AMONG
THE
EXECUTIVES AT
YOUR COMPANY THAT
GOT PUBLIC WHERE
THE HEAD OF THE
MULTICULTURAL
MARKETING TALKS
ABOUT THE SILENT
DONATION GOOGLE
MADE TO THE
CLINTON CAMPAIGN.
AND YOU APPLAUDED
HER WORK.
SHE POINTS THAT
OUT IN THE
EMAIL.
I'M JUST CURIOUS,
IF YOU DID IT
IN 16, AND
PRESIDENT TRUMP
WON
BUT I WANT TO
MAKE SURE YOU ARE
NOT GOING TO DO
IT AGAIN IN
2020?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I
RECALL OUR
CONVERSATION AT
THAT TIME AND I
APPRECIATE YOUR
CONCERN.
WE DIDN'T FIND
ANY EVIDENCE OF
SUCH ACTIVITY.
AND I TOOK THE
OPPORTUNITY AFTER
OUR CONVERSATION
TO REINFORCE TO
THE COMPANY, WE
REALIZE EVEN AN
APPEARANCE COULD
BE IMPROPER.
SO WE HAVE
CLEARLY
COMMUNICATED
TO OUR EMPLOYEES,
ANY PERSONAL
POLITICAL ACT
NEEDS TO HAPPEN
ON
THEIR OWN TIME
AND RESOURCES AND
SHOULD AVOID ANY
USE.
>> OF COURSE,
EVERYONE HAS
THEIR
PERSONAL RIGHT TO
CAMPAIGN FOR
WHOEVER THEY
WANT.
WHAT THEY CAN'T
DO IS KIN FIGURE
YOUR FEATURES TO
HELP ONE
CANDIDATE OVER
THE OTHER.
YOU MAY NOT HAVE
FOUND ANY
EVIDENCE BUT HERE
IS WHAT SHE
WROTE TO A NUMBER
OF KEY
EXECUTIVES IN THE
COMPANY.
WE PUSHED TO GET
OUT THE LATINO
VOTE WITH OUR
FEATURES IN KEY
STATES.
SEEMS TO ME THOSE
LAST THREE
WORDS ARE THE
REAL QUALIFYING.
WHEN YOU ARE
TRYING TO
INCREASE
THE LATINO VOTE
IN KEY STATES.
SHE ALREADY
INDICATED SHE WAS
SUPPORTING
CLINTON.
SO WHEN SHE TALKS
ABOUT
INCREASING LATINO
VOTE THAT SHE
WOULD ASSUME
WOULD HELP
CANDIDATE CLINTON
IN KEY STATES.
IT IS ONE THING
IF YOU ARE
INCREASING THE
VOTE ALL AROUND
THE COUNTRY.
IT IS QUITE
ANOTHER WHEN YOU
A
FOCUSING ON IN
KEY STATES.
AND THEY WERE
NEVADA AND
FLORIDA, THE
SWING STATES.
AGAIN, I WANT TO
MAKE SURE THIS
ISN'T GOING TO
HAPPEN IN 2020.
>> I CAN ASSURE
YOU THAT WE
COMPLIED WITH
LAWS IN 2016.
AS A COMPANY, ANY
WORK WE DO
AROUND ELECTIONS
IS NONPARTISAN.
THE USERS COME TO
US TO
UNDERSTAND WHERE
POLL S PLACES
ARE WHAT THE
VOTING HOURS ARE.
WE ARE COMMITTED
TO PROVIDING
THAT INFORMATION.
>> SO HERE'S THE
QUESTION ON SO
MANY AMERICANS
MINDS.
THEY SAW THE LIST
WE READ
EARLIER ON, ALL
OF THE THINGS
GOOGLE HAS DONE,
SIDING WITH THE
WORLD HEALTH
ORGANIZATION OVER
ANYONE WHO
DISAGREES WITH
THEM,
EVEN THOUGH THEY
LIED TO AMERICA
AND THEY ARE A
SHIELD FOR CHINA.
YOUTUBE IS SIDING
WITH THEM.
WE HAVE A HISTORY
OF WHAT GOOGLE
HAS DONE AND THE
HISTORY OF WHAT
HAPPENED IN 2016
IN THE ELECTION
WHEN THEY
OBVIOUSLY,
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 IS NOT
GOING TO HAPPEN
AGAIN?
CAN YOU GIVE US
TWO ASSURANCES,
ONE THAT YOU WILL
NOT CONFIGURE
YOUR PLATFORM TO
HELP JOE BIDEN
AND THAT YOU ARE
NOT GOING TO
USE YOUR SEARCH
ENGINE TO
SILENCE
CONSERVATIVES?
CAN YOU GIVE US
THOSE ASSURANCES
BEFORE?
>> CONSERVATIVES
HAVE MORE
ACCESS THAN EVER.
>> THAT WASN'T
THE QUESTION.
CAN YOU ASSURE US
THAT YOU WILL
NOT TRY TO
SILENCE
CONSERVATIVES
AND TRY TO
CONFIGURE YOUR
FEATURES AS SHE
SAID YOU DID IN
2016 FOR CLINTON?
CAN YOU ASSURE
YOU WILL NOT DO
THE SAME FOR JOE
BIDEN IN 2020?
>> YOU KNOW, YOU
HAVE MY
COMMITMENT, IT
HAS ALWAYS BEEN
TRUE AND WE WILL
APPROACH P
CANDIDATES IN A
NEUTRAL WAY.
>> NOW
RECOGNIZING THE
GENTLE
WOMAN FROM
PENNSYLVANIA.
>> I WOULD LIKE
TO ADDRESS TO
LAW RATHER THAN
FRINGE
CONSPIRACY
THERIES.
>> WE HAVE THE
EMAILS.
IT IS NOT FRINGE.
>> YOU DO NOT
HAVE THE TIME.
>> SHE CONTROLS
THE TIME.
>> PUT YOUR MASK
ON.
PUT YOUR MASK ON.
>> MR. JORDAN.
>> WHY WOULD YOU
MICHAEL FLYNN'S
NAME?
>> WHEN SOMEONE
COMES AFTER MY
MOTIVE FOR ASKING
QUESTIONS, I
GET A CHANCE TO
RESPOND.
THE GENTLE LADY
IS RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU.
OUR INVESTIGATION
UNCOVERED
DOCUMENTS THAT
AMAZON DOESN'T
SOMETIMES PLAY
FAIRLY SOMETIMES
CROSSING THE LINE
FROM TO
DESTROY RIVALS
RATHER THAN OUT
COMPETE THEM.
LET'S LOOK AT ONE
WHO PROVIDED
ONLINE BABY CARE
PRODUCTS.
IN 2009, YOU
VIEWED
DIAPERS.COM
AS ONE OF THE
FASTEST GROWING
ONLINE
COMPETITORS FOR
DIAPERS.
ONE OF THE TOP
EXECUTIVES SAID
THAT DIAPERS.COM
KEEPS THE
PRESSURE ON
PRICING ON US AND
STRONG
COMPETITION FROM
DIAPERS.COM MEANT
AMAZON WAS
HAVING TO WORK
HARDER AND HARDER
TO MAKE SURE
CUSTOMERS DIDN'T
PICK DIAPERS.COM
OVER AMAZON.
THE CUSTOMERS WE
ARE TALKING
ABOUT ARE
HARD-WORKING
FAMILIES
WITH YOUNG
CHILDREN.
BECAUSE
DIAPERS.COM WAS
SO
SUCCESSFUL,
AMAZON SAW IT AS
A
THREAT.
THE DOCUMENTS WE
OBTAINED SHOW
THAT AMAZON
EMPLOYEES BEGAN
TO
STRATJZ ABOUT
WAYS TO WEAKEN
THE
COMPANY.
THEY HASHED A
PLOT TO GO AFTER
IT AND TAKE IT
OUT.
IN AN EMAIL I
REVIEWED, ONE OF
THE TOP
EXECUTIVES
PROPOSED TO A
QUOTE 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
LAWS STATEMENTS.
IT APPEARS IN ONE
MONTH ALONE,
AMAZON WAS
WILLING TO BLEED
OVER
$200 MILLION IN
DIAPER PROFIT
LOSSES.
MR. BAIZOSE, HOW
MUCH MONEY WAS
AMAZON ULTIMATELY
WILLING TO
LOSE ON THIS
CAMPAIGN TO
ULTIMATELY
DIAPERS.COM?
>> I DON'T KNOW
THE DIRECT
ANSWER TO YOUR
QUESTION.
THIS IS GOING
BACK 10 OR 11
YEARS OR SO.
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, YOU KNOW
I ONLY HAVE A
FEW MINUTES HERE,
I WANT TO
PRESS ON.
YOUR OWN
DOCUMENTS MAKE
CLEAR
THAT THE PRICE
WAR AGAINST
DIAPERS.COM
WORKED.
WITHIN A FEW
MONTHS IT WAS
STRUGGLING.
THEN AMAZON
BOUGHT IT.
AFTER BUYING YOUR
LEADING
COMPETITOR,
AMAZON CUT
PROMOTIONS LIKE
AMAZON.COM AND
THE STEEP
DISCOUNT IT USED
TO
LURE CUSTOMERS
AWAY FROM
DIAPERS.COM AND
INCREASED THE
PRICE OF DIAPERS
FOR NEW MOMS
AND DADS.
MR. BEZOS, DID
YOU SIGN OFF ON
THE PLAN TO RAISE
PRICES AFTER
AMAZON ELIMINATED
ITS COMTITIAN?
>> I DON'T
REMEMBER THAT AT
ALL.
WHAT I REMEMBER
IS WE MATCHED
COMPETITOR
PRICES.
I BELIEVE WE
FOLLOWED
DIAPERS.COM.
THIS IS 11 YEARS
AGO BUT I
BELIEVE WE
FOLLOWED
DIAPERS.COM.
AFTER WE BOUGHT
IT WE PUT MORE
THAN $300 MILLION
INTO TRYING TO
MAKE IT
SUCCESSFUL.
>> YOU SAID
AMAZON FOCUSES
EXCESSIVELY ON
CUSTOMERS.
SO HOW WOULD
CUSTOMERS,
ESPECIALLY SINGLE
MOMS, NEW
FAMILIES, HOW
WOULD THEY
BENEFIT
WHEN THE RICES
WERE DRIVEN UP BY
THE FACT THAT YOU
HAD ELIMINATED
YOUR MAIN
COMPETITOR?
>> 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, NOT JUST
AT
AMAZON.
>> THIS IS THE
ONLINE DIAPER
MARKET.
>> THEY ARE SOLD
AT DRUGSTORES
AND WALMART.
>> I NEED TO PUSH
ON HERE.
THE EVIDENCE WE
COLLECTED
SUGGESTS
PREDATORY
PRACTICES
WERE NOT UNIQUE
HERE.
IN 2013 IT WAS
REPORTED THAT YOU
INSTRUCTED AMAZON
EMPLOYEES TO
APPROACH
DISCUSSIONS WITH
CONCERN BUSINESS
PARTNERS, AND I
QUOTE, THE WAY A
CHEETAH WOULD
PURSUE A SICKLY
GAZELLE.
IS THAT PROJECT
STILL IN PLACE
AND DOES AMAZON
PURSUE OTHER
PREDATORY
CAMPAIGNS IN
OTHER
PARTS OF ITS
BUSINESS?
>> I CANNOT
COMMENT ON THAT
BECAUSE I DON'T
REMEMBER IT.
WHAT I CAN TELL
YOU IS WE ARE
VERY FOCUSED ON
THE CUSTOMER WE
ARE WORKING WITH
BUYERS.
>> I'M SORRY, I'M
ALMOST OUT OF
TIME.
WITH THE CURRENT
PANDEMIC, ONE
OF THE BIGGEST
NEEDS I'M SEEING
AT THE FOOD
DRIVES AND GIVE
AWAYS THAT WE ARE
HAVING TO RUN
IN MY DISTRICT IS
THAT FAMILIES
DON'T HAVE
DIAPERS AND WE
HAVE
TO SELECT THEM TO
GIVE THEM 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
BUT WE WILL
CONTINUE WITH THE
HEARING AND I
INVITE COLLEAGUES
TO HAVE A
ROLLING VOTE
ACCORDING TO YOUR
OWN SCHEDULE.
I RECOGNIZE THE
GENTLEMAN FROM
COLORADO.
>> I WANT TO
THANK EACH OF THE
WITNESSES TODAY
FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY.
MR. ZUCKERBERG IN
2004 WHEN YOU
LAUNCHED
FACEBOOK, IT IS
FAIR
SOOSAY YOU HAD
QUITE A FEW
COMPETITORS.
WOULD YOU AGREE
WITH THAT?
>> CONGRESSMAN,
YES.
>> MY SPACE,
FRIENDSTER,MIXY,
YAHOO 360, THAT
WERE ALL
COMPETITORS?
THOSE WERE SOME
OF THE
COMPETITORS AT
THE TIME AND IT
HAS GOTTEN MORE
COMPETITIVE
SINCE.
>> LET'S TALK
ABOUT THAT.
BY 2012, NONE OF
THOSE COMPANIES
I IDENTIFIED
EXISTED?
YOU WERE AWARE OF
THAT.
THEY WERE GONE.
FACEBOOK IN MY
VIEW WAS IN A
MONOPOLY BY THEN.
I WONDER WHETHER
YOU AGREE WITH
THAT, I TAKE IT
YOU DON'T?
>> THAT IS
CORRECT, I DON'T.
WE FACE A LOT OF
COMPETITORS.
EVERY PART OF
WHAT WE DO FROM
CONNECTING WITH
FRIENDS
PRIVATELY TO
CONNECTING WITH
PEOPLE IN
COMMUNITIES AND
ALL OF
YOUR FRIENDS AT
ONCE, AND ALL
KINDS OF USER
GENERATED
CONTENT,
I WOULD BET THAT
YOU OR MOST
PEOPLE HERE HAVE
MULTIPLE APPS
FOR EACH OF THOSE
ON YOUR PHONE.
>> MR.
ZUCKERBERG, LET'S
DIG
INTO THIS A BIT
FURTHER.
YOU AND I AGREE
ABOUT THAT.
IN 2012, I'M
LOOKING AT A
DOCUMENT PRODUCED
BY FACEBOOK,
IT IS A
PRESENTATION
PREPARED
FOR SHERYL
SANDBERG TO
DELIVER
TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS FOR A
MAJOR
COMMUNICATIONS
FIRM SAYING
FACEBOOK IS 99%
OF ALL SOCIAL
MEDIA IN UNITED
STATES.
THE TITLE OF THE
SLIDE IS QUOTE,
THE INDUSTRY
CONSOLIDATES AS
IT
MATURES.
I THINK MOST
PEOPLE CAN SEE
THAT
FACEBOOK WAS A
MONOPOLY IN 2012.
I UNDERSTAND WE
DISAGREE ON THAT
POINT.
WOULD YOU AGREE
WITH ME THAT
FACEBOOK, ITS
STRATEGY SINCE
THAT TIME TO
ESSENTIALLY
PROTECT
WHAT I DESCRIBED
AS A MONOPOLY
BUT YOU WOULD
DESCRIBE AS
MARKET
POWER, FACEBOOK
HAS BEEN ENGAGED
IN PURCHASING
COMPETITION, AND
IN SOME CASES
ELIMINATING
COMPETITION.
WOULD THAT BE A
FAIR STATEMENT?
>> CONGRESSMAN,
THE SPACES OF
PEOPLE CONNECTING
TO OTHER
PEOPLE IS A VERY
LARGE SPACE.
I WOULD AGREE
THAT THERE WERE
DIFFERENT
APPROACHES THAT
WE
TOOK TO
ADDRESSING
DIFFERENT
PARTS OF THAT
SPACE.
IT IS ALL IN
SERVICE OF
BUILDING
THE BEST
SERVICES.
>> I APPRECIATE
THAT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE
YOU ARE CONCEDING
THAT SOME OF THE
STRATEGIES ARE
WHAT I
IDENTIFIED.
IN 2014, HERE'S
AN EMAIL FROM
FACEBOOK'S
CURRENT FINANCIAL
OFFICER
DESCRIBING THE
ACQUISITION
STRATEGY AS A
LAND
GRAB AND SAYING
WE ARE GOING TO
SPEND 5% TO 10%
OF THE MARKET
CAP EVERY COUPLE
OF YEARS TO
SHORE UP THE
POSITION.
MY SENSE OF THE
FACTS IS THAT
THAT IS WHAT
OCCURRED.
FACEBOOK AS YOU
CONCEDED
EARLIER,
INSTAGRAM WAS A
COMPETITOR.
YOU ACQUIRED
INSTAGRAM IN
2012.
INSTAGRAM IS NOW
THE 6th LARGEST
SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORM IN THE
WORLD.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I'M NOT SURE
WHAT RANK IT IS
BUT IT HAS GROWN.
>> IN 2014,
FACEBOOK BOUGHT
ITS
COMPETITOR WHAT'S
APP, IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> CONGRESSMAN,
YES.
WHAT'S APP WAS
ALSO A COMPETITOR
AND COMMRMENTARY.
THEY COMPETED IN
MOBILE MESSAGES
WHICH IS A
GROWING SPACE AND
IS
ONE PART OF HOW
THE WORLD
CONNECTS MORE
BROADLY.
>> IT HAD OVER
400 MILLION
MONTHLY USERS, A
PACT TOWARDS A
BILLION.
WHAT'S APP IS NOW
THE SECOND
LARGEST SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORM IN
THE WORLD WITH 2
BILLION USERS
WORLD WIDE, 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
SENIOR ENGINEERS
IN 2012 THAT
YOU CAN LIKELY
BUY ANY
COMPETITIVE START
UP BUT IT WILL
BE A WHILE BEFORE
WE CAN BUY
GOOGLE.
DO YOU RECALL
WRITING THAT
EMAIL?
>> I DON'T
SPECIFICALLY BUT
IT
SOUNDS LIKE A
JOKE.
>> WELL, I DON'T
TAKE IT AS A
JOKE.
AS I REVIEW THE
EMAIL, IT WAS IN
REGARDS TO HAVING
JUST CLOSED
THE INSTAGRAM
SALE AND THE
RESPONSE FROM
THIS 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 BUY ANY
COMPETITIVE START
UPS BUT IT WILL
BE A WHILE
BEFORE WE CAN BUY
GOOGLE.
GIVEN THE
PURCHASES
FACEBOOK HAD
MADE PREVIOUS TO
THIS AND THE
ATTEMPTED
PURCHASES, I
THINK YOU
MADE SEVERAL TO
SNAPCHAT, IT IS
MY VIEW THAT
EMAIL WAS NOT IN
JEST.
BUT I ASK THESE
QUESTIONS
BECAUSE OVER THE
COURSE OF THE
SEVERAL YEARS,
FACEBOOK HAS USED
ITS MARKET POWER
TO PURCHASE OR
REPLICATE THE
COMPETITION.
FACEBOOK,
FACEBOOK
MESSENGER,
INSTAGRAM ARE NOW
THE MOST
DOWNLOADED APPS
OF THE LAST
DECADE.
YOUR COMPANY OWNS
THEM ALL.
WE HAVE A WORD
FOR THAT AND THAT
WORD IS A
MONOPOLY.
I YIELD BACK.
>> I RECOGNIZE
THE GENTLE WOMAN
FROM GEORGIA.
>> YOU REFERRED
TO THIRD PARTY
SELLERS AT AMAZON
PARTNERS AND
YOUR SUCCESS IT
PENDS ON THEIR
SUCCESS.
BUT OVER THE PAST
YEAR, WE HAVE
HEARD A
COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT
STORY.
AS PART OF THIS
INVESTIGATION,
WE INTERVIEWED
MANY SMALL
BUSINESSES AND
THEY USED WORDS
LIKE BULLYING,
FEAR, AND PANIC
TO DESCRIBE THEIR
RELATIONSHIP
WITH AMAZON.
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 AFFECTING THE
LIVES OF EVERY
DAY PEOPLE AND
WHY THIS MATTERS.
>> WE WERE
SELLING BOOKS ON
SAM
ZON.COM.
WE WORKED DAY AND
NIGHT TO
GROWING OUR
BUSINESS.
MOST IMPORTANTLY,
THE BUSINESS
HELPS PEOPLE
INCLUDING
TEACHERS
AND A
90-YEAR-OLD.
WE WERE A MARKET
SHARE IN THE
TEXT BOOK
CATEGORY.
NOW AMAZON
STARTED
RESTRICTING
US FROM SELLING.
THEY STARTED WITH
A FEW TITLES
IN EARLY 2019.
WITHIN 6 MONTHS,
AMAZON
SYSTEMICALLY
BLOCKED US FROM
THE
FULL TEXT BOOK
CATEGORY.
WE HAVEN'T SOLD A
SINGLE BOOK IN
MONTHS OR MORE.
WE WERE NEVER
GIVEN A REASON.
AMAZON DIDN'T
PROVIDE US FOR A
NOTICE AS WHY WE
WERE BEING
RESTRICTED.
THERE WAS NO
WARNING, NO PLAN.
>> SO MR. BEZOS,
AFTER AMAZON
DELISTED THIS
SMALL BUSINESS
WITHOUT ANY
APPARENT REASON
OR
NOTICE, SHE SAYS
THEY SENT OVER
500 SEPARATE
COMMUNICATIONS TO
AMAZON INCLUDING
TO YOU 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,
CONGRESSWOMAN AND
I
APPRECIATE YOU
SHOWING ME THAT
ANECDOTE AND I
WOULD LIKE TO
TALK TO HER.
IT DOES NOT AT
ALL SEEM LIKE THE
RIGHT WAY TO
TREAT HER AND I'M
SURPRISED BY
THAT.
IT IS NOT THE
SYSTEMATIC
APPROACH WE TAKE.
WE LOVE FOR THIRD
PARTY SELLERS
TO SELL BOOKS.
BUT I DON'T
UNDERSTAND IT BUT
I
WOULD LIKE TO
UNDERSTAND IT
BETTER.
I WOULD LIKE TO
GET IN TOUCH
WITH YOUR OFFICE.
>> I THINK YOU
ARE MISSING THE
POINT.
THIS IS NOT JUST
ABOUT ONE
BUSINESS.
I'M CONCERNED
THIS IS A PARTERN
OF BEHAVIOR.
THIS PATTERN HAS
TO CHANGE.
MR. BEZOS, MY
QUESTION IS
SIMPLY, ARE YOU
WILLING TO MAKE
SURE GOING
FORWARD THAT THE
NUMEROUS SELLERS
THAT WE HAVE
TALKED TO, THEY
HAVE PROBLEMS
JUST LIKE THIS.
THERE ARE MORE
SELLERS WHO SAY
THEY HAVE
EXHAUSTED ALL OF
THEIR
OPTIONS BEFORE
FINALLY REACHING
OUT TO YOU
DIRECTLY FOR A
LAST
RESORT.
THEY ARE STILL
WAITING FOR YOUR
RESPONSE.
WHAT DO YOU HAVE
TO SAY TO THE
SMALL BUSINESSES
WHO ARE TALKING
TO CONGRESS
BECAUSE YOU WON'T
LISTEN TO THEM?
>> I WOULD SAY
THAT IS NOT
ACCEPTABLE.
IF WE ARE NOT
LISTENING TO YOU,
I'M NOT HAPPY
ABOUT THAT AT
ALL.
IF YOU WOULD
ALLOW ME TO
DISAGREE WITH A
PIECE OF THIS, I
DO NOT THINK THAT
IS
SYSTEMATICALLY
GOING ON.
THE EVIDENCE I
THINK WOULD BE
USEFUL IS THAT
THIRD PARTY
SELLERS IN
AGGREGATE ARE
DOING
EXTREMELY WELL ON
AMAZON.
IT GREW TO 60% OF
SALES.
IT IS GROWING
EVEN FASTER THAN
FIRST PARTY
RETAIL.
>> THANK YOU.
YOU SAID SELLERS
HAVE MANY OTHER
OPTIONS TO REACH
CUSTOMERS BUT
THAT IS NOT AT
ALL WHAT WE FOUND
IN OUR
INVESTIGATION.
AMAZON HAS NEARLY
SEVEN TIMES
THE MARKET SHARE
OF ITS CLOSEST
ECOMMERCE
COMPETITOR.
ONE SELLER SAID
AMAZON CONTINUES
TO BE THE ONLY
SHOW IN TOWN NO
MATTER HOW ANGRY
SELLERS GET.
THEY HAVE NOWHERE
ELSE TO GO.
ARE YOU SAYING
THESE PEOPLE
AREN'T BEING
TRUTHFUL WHEN
THEY
SAY AMAZON IS THE
ONLY GAME IN
TOWN?
WITH GREAT
RESPECT, I DO
DISAGREE WITH
THAT.
I BELIEVE THERE
ARE A LOT OF
OPTIONS AND SOME
OF THEM ARE NOT
EVEN LISTED AT
THE CHART.
I DIDN'T SEE SOME
I KNOW OF.
>> THANK YOU FOR
THAT.
MY TIME IS SHORT.
IF AMAZON DIDN'T
HAVE MONOPOLY
POWER OVER THE
SELLERS, DO YOU
THINK THEY WOULD
CONTINUE TO
STAY IN A
RELATIONSHIP THAT
IS
CHARACTERIZED BY
BULLYING, FEAR
AND PANIC?
>> WITH ALL
RESPECT,
CONGRESSWOMAN, I
DO NOT ACCEPT
THE PREMISE OF
YOUR QUESTION.
THAT IS NOT HOW
WE OPERATE THE
BUSINESS.
WE WORK VERY HARD
TO PROVIDE THE
POOL FOR SELLERS.
AND THAT'S WHY
THEY HAVE BEEN
SUCCESSFUL.
>> I WILL CLOSE
WITH GIVING THE
BOOK SELLER THE
OPPORTUNITY TO
BE HEARD BY YOU.
>> MR. BEZOS, WE
INCREASED OUR
SALES ON AMAZON
BY FIVE TIMES IN
THE PAST THREE
YEARS.
WE HAVE
CONTRIBUTED THAT
MUCH IN
SELLER FEES TO
AMAZON.
WE HAVE
CONTRIBUTED THAT
MUCH TO
YOUR BUSINESS.
WE FOLLOWED ALL
OF THE RULES
THAT WERE SET BY
YOU.
WE HELPED US IN
EARNING A LIVE
LEHOOD.
WE BEG YOU, THERE
ARE LIVES AT
STAKE.
PLEASE, PLEASE,
HELP US GET BACK
ON TRACK.
>> WITH THAT I
YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF OUR
TIME.
WE HAVE
CONEXCLUDED THE
FIRST
ROUND.
I NOW RECOGNIZE
MYSELF FOR 5
MINUTES.
MR. BEZOS, YOU
ASSAY THE MARKET
PLACE IS
COMPEZATIVE BUT
AMAZON
CONTROLS 75% OF
ALL ONLINE
SALES.
AND EMARKET SITES
REPORTS THAT
AMAZON IS NEARLY
7 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
CUSTOMERS AND
MAKE ONLINE
SALES?
>> NO, SIR, WITH
GREAT RESPECT,
I HAVE A
DIFFERENT OPINION
ON
THAT.
I BELIEVE THERE
ARE A LOT OF
OPTIONS FOR
SELLERS.
I BELIEVE AMAZON
IS A GREAT ONE
AND WE HAVE
WORKED HARD.
I THINK WE ARE
THE BEST ONE.
WE HAVE A LOT OF
DIFFERENT
PROGRAMS THAT
HELP SELLERS BUT
WE ARE NOT THE
ONLY OPTION.
>> THERE ARE 2.2
MILLION ACTIVE
SELLERS.
ABOUT 37% OF THE
SELLERS RELY ON
AMAZON AS THE
SOLE SOURCE OF
INCOME.
THEY ARE RELYING
ON AMAZON TO
FEED FAMILIES AND
KEEP A ROOF
OVER THEIR HEADS.
YOU HAVE REFERRED
TO THIRD PARTY
SELLERS AS YOUR
PARTNERS AND
CUSTOMERS.
ISN'T IT TRUE
THAT AMAZON
REFERS
TO THIRD PARTY
SELLERS AS
INTERNAL
COMPETITORS.
>> IN SOME WAYS
WE ARE
COMPETING.
>> AMAZON'S OWN
DOCUMENTS YOU
PRODUCED REFER TO
THE SAME
SELLERS THAT YOU
DESCRIBED AS
AMAZON PARTNERS
AS INTERNAL
COMPUTTERS.
WE HEARD FROM
THIRD PARTY
SELLERS AGAIN AND
AGAIN THAT
AMAZON IS THE
ONLY GAME IN
TOWN.
ONE SMALL
BUSINESS OWNER
DESCRIBED IT THIS
WAY.
WE ARE STUCK.
WE DON'T HAVE A
CHOICE BUT TO
SELL THROUGH
AMAZON.
ANOTHER SAID AND
I QUOTE, THEY
HAVE NEVER BEEN A
GREAT PARTNER
BUT YOU HAVE TO
WORK WITH THEM.
DURING THIS
INVESTIGATION WE
HAVE 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.
I WANT TO TALK TO
YOU ABOUT ONE
COMPANY THAT
STOOD OUT FROM
THE
REST.
I WANT YOU TO PAY
CLOSE
ATTENTION TO HOW
THEY DESCRIBED
YOUR PARTNERSHIP.
WE ARE A SMALL
APPAREL COMPANY
THAT MAKES USEFUL
APPAREL FOR
PEOPLE WHO WORK
ON THEIR FEET
AND WITH THEIR
HANDS LIKE
CONSTRUCTION
WORKERS AND
FIREFIGHTERS.
THIS 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 FOUBD
THAT AMAZON HAD
STARTED LISTING
THE EXACT SAME
PRODUCT CAUSING
THEIR SALES TO GO
TO 0
OVERNIGHT.
AMAZON UNDER CUT
THE PRICE,
BELOW WHAT THE
MANUFACTURER
WOULD ALLOW IT TO
BE SOLD SO
THEY COULDN'T
MATCH THE PRICE.
HERE'S HOW THE
APPAREL COMPANY
DESCRIBED WORKING
WITH AMAZON.
I QUOTE, AMAZON
STRINGS YOU
ALONG FOR A WHILE
BECAUSE IT
FEELS SO KN TO
GET THAT PAYCHECK
EVERY WEEK.
AND IN THE PAST,
WE CALLED IT
AMAZON HEROIN
BECAUSE YOU JUST
KEPT GOING AND
YOU HAD TO GET
YOUR NEXT FIX,
YOUR NEXT CHECK.
AT THE END OF THE
DAY IT SEEMS
LIKE THIS PERSON
WHO MAKING YOU
FEEL GOOD WOULD
BE YOUR DOWN
FALL, END QUOTE.
MR. BEZOS, THIS
IS ONE OF YOUR
PARTNERS.
WHY WOULD THEY
COMPARE YOUR
COMPANY TO A DRUG
DEALER?
>> SIR, I HAVE
GREAT RESPECT AND
YOUR COMMITTEE
BUT I COMPLETELY
DISAGREE WITH
THAT
CHARACTERIZATION.
WE HAVE CREATED A
PLACE IN THE
STORE -- YOU CAN
GO BACK IN A
TIME WHEN WE SOLD
ONLY OUR OWN
INVENTORY.
A CONTROVERSIAL
DECISION ALLOWED
THIRD SELLERS TO
COME INTO OUR
MOST VALUED REAL
ESTATE, OUR
PRODUCT DETAIL
PAGES.
WE WERE CONVINCED
IT WOULD BE
BETTER FOR THE
CONSUMER TO HAVE
ALL OF THAT
SELECTION.
I THINK WE WERE
RIGHT AND IT HAS
WORKED FOR THIRD
PARTY SELLERS.
>> THIS IS ONE OF
MANY SMALL
COMPANIES THAT
HAVE TOLD US
DURING THIS
INVESTIGATION
THAT
THEY WERE
MISTREATED,
ABUSED AND
TOSSED ASIDE BY
AMAZON.
YOU SAID AMAZON
IS ONLY FOCUSED
ON DOING WHAT IS
BEST FOR THE
CUSTOMER AND ALSO
THIRD PARTY
SELLERS.
BUT HOW IS THAT
POSSIBLE WHEN
YOU COMPETE WITH
THIRD PARTY
SELLERS WITH YOUR
OWN PRODUCTS
THAT UNDERCUT THE
COMPETITION?
ISN'T IT AN
INHERENT CONFLICT
OF
INTEREST TO SELL
PRODUCTS THAT
COMPETE WITH
THIRD PARTY
SELLERS
ESPECIALLY WHEN
YOU SET THE
RULES OF THE
GAME?
?
>> NO, I DON'T
BELIEVE IT IS.
THE CONSUMER IS
MAKING THE
DECISION.
THE DECISION
ABOUT WHO TO BUY
IT
FROM AND WHAT TO
BUY.
>> IS THERE AN
INHERENT CONFLICT
OF INTEREST
BECAUSE YOU ARE A
DATA COMPANY?
TRADITIONAL BRICK
AND MORTAR
STORES DON'T HAVE
TAT.
SO I JUST WANT TO
FOLLOW UP
FINALLY AND AN
ANSWER TO THE
QUESTION YOU
GAVE, YOU SAID
YOU
CAN'T GUARANTEE
THAT THE POLICY
OF NOT SHARING
THIRD PARTY
SELLERS DATA
ONLINE HAS NOT
BEEN
VIOLATED.
YOU COULDN'T BE
CERTAIN.
CAN YOU LIST
EXAMPLES OF WHERE
THAT POLICY HAS
BEEN VIOLATED?
IT IS CONCERNING
BECAUSE
SHOULDN'T THIRD
PARTIES KNOW FOR
SURE THAT DATA
ISN'T BE SHARED
WITH THEIR
COMPETITORS?
WHY SHOULD A
BUSINESS LIST A
PRODUCT ON AMAZON
IT THEY WILL
BE UNDERCUT BY
AMAZON'S PRODUCT
AS A RESULT OF
DATA YOU TAKE
FROM THEM?
>> SIR, I THINK
WHAT I WANT YOU
TO UNDERSTAND AND
IT IS
IMPORTANT TO
UNDERSTAND, WE
HAVE
A POLICY AGAINST
USING
INDIVIDUAL SELLER
DATA TO
COMPETE WITH OUR
PRIVATE LABEL
PRODUCTS.
>> YOU COULDN'T
ASSURE THAT
POLICY ISN'T
VIOLATED
ROUTINELY?
>> WELL, WE ARE
INVESTIGATING
THAT.
I DO NOT WANT TO
GO BEYOND WHAT
I KNOW NOW BUT AS
A RESULT OF
THAT ARTICLE, WE
ARE LOOKING AT
THAT CAREFULLY
AND WE WANT TO
GET TO THE FACTS
AND HEAR THEM
WITH YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
THE EVIDENCE WE
HAVE COLLECTED
SHOWS THAT AMAZON
IS ONLY
INTERESTED IN
EXPLOITING
MONOPOLY POWER TO
FURTHER AND
PROTECT THE
POWER.
THIS
INVESTIGATION
MADE CLEAR
THAT AMAZON'S
DUAL ROLE AS A
COMPETING SELLER
ON THE PLATFORM
IS FUNDAMENTALLY
ANTICOMPETITORY
AND WE MUST TAKE
ACTION.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN,
I THINK THE
HISTORY PROVES
THAT CONGRESS
DOES A POOR JOB
OF PICKING
WINNERS AND
LOSERS.
I HAVE LOOKED
OVER A LOT OF THE
MATERIAL THAT HAS
BEEN
ASSEMBLED.
I HAVE BEEN
WORKING WITH THE
CHAIRMAN FOR OVER
A YEAR ON THIS
BIPARTISAN
INVESTIGATION.
I HAVE REACHED
THE CONCLUSION
THAT WE DO NOT
CHANGE OUR
ANTITRUST LAWS.
THEY HAVE BEEN
WORKING JUST
FINE.
THE QUESTION HERE
IS THE
QUESTION OF
ENFORCEMENT OF
THOSE
ANTITRUST LAWS.
WE 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
BUT THE FACT IS
THAT THERE IS
NOT A PROBLEM
WITH THE LAW.
NOW BACK ABOUT 35
YEARS AGO,
AT&T WAS BROKEN
UP BECAUSE IT
WAS DETERMINED
THAT ONE STOP
SHOPS WERE
MONOPOLISTIC.
AND AT&T BECAUSE
YOU HAD TO GET
YOUR LONG
DISTANCE SERVICE
FROM
YOUR LOCAL PHONE
COMPANY, THAT
WAS MONOPOLISTIC.
SO A WHOLE LOT
HAS HAPPENED
SINCE THEN.
THERE WERE
MERGERS AND
ACQUISITIONS IN
THE
TELECOMINDUSTRY,
TECHNOLOGY
ADVANCED A HUGE
AMOUNT AND GUESS
WHAT?
WE ARE BACK TO
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 A BIG
FLOP AND
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE,
LET ME ASK
MR. BEZOS, SAY
THE AT&T EXAMPLE
WAS APPLIED TO
AMAZON AND YOU
WERE REQUIRED TO
SPIN STUFF OFF.
SO YOU MAY NOT
HAVE NO MORE OF A
ONE STOP SHOP BUT
YOU HAVE TO GO
TO SEPARATE
PLACES FOR BOOKS,
GROCERIES ,
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 AND
SPIN OFF YOUTUBE.
CAN YOU DESCRIBE
WHAT HAPPENS TO
CONSUMERS THERE?
>> CONGRESSMAN,
TODAY CONSUMERS
IN MOST OF THE
AREAS WE ARE
DEALING WITH,
THEY SEE PRICE IS
FALLING AND THEY
GET MORE CHOICE
AND IT SERVES
THEM WELL.
>> AND YOU'RE
RIGHT THERE.
I'M NOT GOING TO
BE ON THIS
COMMITTEE IN THE
NEXT CONGRESS.
I'M GOING TO PUT
MY FEET UP AND
BECOME A SENIOR
QUOTE UNQUOTE
STATESMAN BUT LET
ME SAY THAT WE
HAVE HEARD A LOT
OF COMPLAINTS
ABOUT BIG TECH.
SOME OF THEM ARE
POLITICAL IN
NATURE.
AND I SHARE THE
COMPLAINTS AND
CONCERNS OF MR.
JORDAN AND
OTHERS.
OTHERS TALK ABOUT
ALLEGEDLY
ANTICOMPETITIVE
ACTIVITIES.
IT SOMES TO ME
THAT IT IS NOT
FOR CONGRESS THAT
LEGISLATES TO
TAUS ALL OF OUR
ANTITRUST LAWS
ON THE PRECEDENT
THAT HAS BEEN
ESTABLISHED IN
LITIGATION OVER
THE LAST 100 PLUS
YEARS.
BUT IT IS
SOMETHING WHERE
WE
OUGHT TO GO BACK
THROUGH THE
REGULATORS, TO
THE ENFORCERS,
AND HAVE THEM
LOOK AT THIS
STUFF
AND 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.
IF IT REQUIRES AN
AGENCY LIKE
THE FTC TO SAY
THEY HAVE MADE
MISTAKES IN THE
PAST, SO BE IT.
WE ARE ALL HUMAN
AND WE ALL MAKE
MISTAKES.
EVEN GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES DO.
I YIELD BACK.
>> I NOW
RECOGNIZE THE
GENTLE
LADY FROM
WASHINGTON.
>> THANK YOU MR.
CHAIRMAN.
MR. ZUCKERBERG,
IN MARCH OF
2012, YOU
SUGGESTED BY
EMAIL TO
YOUR MANAGE TEAM
THAT MOVING
FASTER AND
COPYING OTHER
APPS
COULD QUOTE
PREVENT OUR
COMPETITORS FROM
GETTING FOOT
HOLDS.
THE RESPONSE WAS
IT IS BETTER TO
DO MORE AND
FASTER ESPECIALLY
IF
THAT MEANS YOU
DON'T HAVE
COMPETITORS BUILD
PRODUCT THAT
FAKES SOME OF OUR
USERS.
THE MANAGER ADDED
I WOULD LOVE
TO BE MORE
AGGRESSIVE AND
NIMBLE
IN COPYING
COMPETITORS.
HAS FACEBOOK EVER
PREVENTED
COMPETITORS FROM
TAKING FOOTHOLD
BY COPYING
COMPETITORS.
>> CONGRESSWOMAN,
I VIEW IT AS
OUR JOB TO KNOW
WHAT PEOPLE FIND
VALUBLE IN ALL OF
THE SERVICES
THEY USE.
CERTAINLY --.
>> DO YOU COPY
YOUR COMPETITORS?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN,
WE CERTAINLY
ADAPTED FEATURES
THAT OTHERS
HAVE AS HAVE
OTHERS COPIED AND
ADAPTED FEATURES.
>> I'M NOT
CONCERNED WITH
OTHERS.
IN MARCH OF 2012
AFTER THAT
CONVERSATION, HOW
MANY
COMPETITORS DID
FACEBOOK END UP
COPYING?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN,
I CAN'T GIVE
YOU A NUMBER OF
COMPANIES.
>> WAS IT LESS
THAN FIVE?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN,
I DON'T KNOW.
>> LESS THAN 50?
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
OF THE PEOPLE
THEY CARE ABOUT.
A LOT OF THAT IS
DONE BY
INOVATING AND BY
DOING NEW
THINGS.
>> THANK YOU, MR.
ZUCKERBERG.
LET ME GO ON.
AS FACEBOOK EVER
THREATEN TODAY
CLONE THE PRODUCT
OF ANOTHER
COMPANY WHILE
THREATENING TO
ACQUIRE THE
COMPANY?
>> NOT THAT I
RECALL.
>> I WOULD LIKE
TO REMIND YOU
YOU ARE UNDER
OATH.
THERE ARE QUOTES
FROM FACEBOOK'S
OWN DOCUMENTS.
AFTER ACQUIRING
INSTAGRAM,
FACEBOOK BEGAN TO
DEVELOP
FACEBOOK CAMERA.
>> THAT IS
CORRECT.
I SAID MULTIPLE
TIMES WE WERE
COMPETING IN THE
SPACE OF
BUILDING MOBILE
CAMERAS WITH
INSTAGRAM.
THAT'S WHAT THEY
DID AT THE
TIME.
THEIR COMPETITIVE
SET WAS
COMPANIES LIKE
WHAT WE WERE
BUILDING WITH
FACEBOOK CAMERA.
>> THANK YOU MR.
ZUCKERBERG.
DID YOU USE THIS
SIMILAR
FACEBOOK CAMERA
PRODUCT TO
THREATEN
INSTAGRAM FOUNDER
KEVIN
SIDES STROM?
I'M NOT SURE WHAT
YOU MEAN BY
THREATEN.
IT WAS PUBLIC
THAT WE WERE
BUILDING A
CAMERA.
>> YOU TOLD HIM
IN A CHAT THAT
FACEBOOK WAS
DEVELOPING THEIR
OWN PHOTO
STRATEGY SO HOW
WE
ENGAGE WILL
DETERMINE HOUCHL
WE
ARE PARTNERS
VERSUS
COMPETITORS
DOWN THE LINE.
THE INSTAGRAM
FOUNDER SEEMED TO
THINK THAT WAS A
THREAT.
HE CONFIDED IN AN
INVESTOR AT
THE TIME AND
FEARED THAT YOU
WOULD GO INTO
DESTROY MODE IF
HE
DIDN'T SELL
INSTAGRAM TO YOU.
LET'S JUST RECAP.
FACEBOOK CLONED A
POPULAR
PRODUCT,
APPROACHED THE
COMPANY
YOU IDENTIFIED AS
A COMPETITIVE
THREAT AND TOLD
THEM THAT IF YOU
DIDN'T LET THEM
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 A SPACE WE
WERE GOING TO
COMPETE IN IN ONE
WAY OR ANOTHER.
I DON'T VIEW THE
CONVERSATIONS
AS A THREAT IN
ANY WAY.
>> I'M JUST USING
THE DOCUMENTS
AND TESTIMONY THE
COMMITTEE HAS
COLLECTED FROM
OTHERS.
DID YOU WARN THE
FOUNDER OF
SNAPCHAT THAT
FACEBOOK WAS IN
THE PRODUCT OF
CLONING THE
FEATURES OF HIS
COMPANY WHILE
ALSO ATTEMPTING
TO BUY SNAPCHAT?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN,
I DON'T
REMEMBER THOSE
SPECIFIC
CONVERSATIONS BUT
THAT WAS ALSO
AN AREA WHERE IT
WAS VERY CLEAR
THAT WE WERE
GOING TO BE
BUILDING
SOMETHING.
IF PEOPLE WANT TO
BE ABLE TO
COMMUNICATE WITH
ALL OF THEIR
FRIENDS AT ONCE,
WE WILL MAKE
SURE WE BUILD THE
BEST PRODUCTS
IN ALL OF THE
SPACES THAT WE
CAN
AROUND HELPING
PEOPLE STAY
CONNECTED TO ALL
OF THE PEOPLE
AROUND THAT THEY
CARE ABOUT.
>> I THINK THE
QUESTION IS WHEN
THE DOMINATE
PLATFORM
THREATENS
POTENTIAL RIVALS,
THAT SHOULD
NOT BE A NORMAL
BUSINESS
PRACTICE.
FACEBOOK IS A
STUDY IN MONOPOLY
POWER BECAUSE YOU
HARVEST DATA
AND THEN YOU USE
THE DATA TO SPY
ON COMPETITORS TO
COPY, RIVAL,
AND KILL THE
COMPETITORS.
THESE TACTICS
REINFORCE
FACEBOOK'S DAWN
NNS THAT YOU USE
IN DESTRUCTIVE
WAY.
SO FACEBOOK'S
VERY MODEL MAKES
IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR
NEW COMPANIES
TO FLOURISH
SEPARATELY.
THAT HARMS THE
DEMOCRACY.
IT HARMS MOM AND
POP BUSINESSES
AND IT HARMS
CONSUMERS.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN
FROM COLORADO
IS RECOGNIZED.
>> MR. BEZOS,
THANK YOU FOR
BEING HERE TODAY.
I'M CONCERNED YOU
HAVE USED
AMAZON'S DOMINANT
MARKET
POSITION TO HARM.
WE HAVE HEARD
THAT AMAZON USES
DATA TO LAUNCH
ITS OWN PRIVATE
LABEL PRODUCTS,
MEETS WITH START
UPS TO DISCUSS
THE PRODUCT AND
THEN USES THE
DATA FROM THE
MEETINGS TO
CREATE ITS OWN
PRIVATE LABEL
PRODUCTS, ALLOWS
THE SALE OF
COUNTERFEIT ITEMS
THROUGH THE WEB
PLATFORM.
DURING THIS
HEARING IN
BOULDER
THIS JANUARY,
DAVID BARNETT
DETAILED HOW
AMAZON ALLOWED
COUNTERFEIT
PRODUCTS TO
APPEAR
ON AMAZON'S
MARKET PLACE
AHEAD
OF POP SOCKET'S
PRODUCTS.
HE TOLD CNBC THAT
POP SOCKETS
FOUND AT LEAST
1,000 COUNTERFEIT
PRODUCTS FOR SALE
ON AMAZON'S
MARKET PLACE
WHICH AMAZON
FAILED
TO REMEDY UNTIL
POP SOCKETS
AGREED TO A $2
MILLION MARKETING
DEAL WITH AMZAUP.
WE HAVE SEEN
TROUBLING REPORTS
IN THE WALL
STREET JOURNAL
WITH
STORIES OF USING
THE DATA TO
DEVELOP A MARKET
ITS OWN
COMPETITIVE
PRODUCTS.
THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL REPORTED
THAT THE VENTURE
CAPITAL FUND
USED MEDIA TO
GAIN ACCESS TO
SECRET
INFORMATION AND
FINANCIAL
DETAILS.
AMAZON THEN
REPORTEDLY USED
THE
INFORMATION TO
LAUNCH COMPETING
PRODUCTS, OFTEN
WITH DISASTEROUS
RESULTS.
ONE ALLEGATION
STICKS OUT.
IN 2011, AMAZON
CONTACTED VOCAL
LIFE ABOUT THE
POSSIBILITY OF
INVESTING IN THE
SPEECH
DETECTION
TECHNOLOGY.
VOCAL LIFE
ACCEPTED THE
MEETING
THINKING IT WAS
THE COMPANY'S
BIG BREAK.
AFTER DISPLAYING
THE MICROSTONE
TECHNOLOGY AND
PROVIDING
INFORMATION
INCLUDING
ENGINEERING DATA,
TWO AMAZON
EMPLOYEES, THE
RELATIONSHIP CAME
TO AN ABRUPT
HALT.
AMAZON EMPLOYEES
STOPPED
RESPONDING TO
EMAILS BEFORE THE
TECHNOLOGY FOUND
ITS WAY INTO
THE AMAZON'S ECHO
DEVICE.
THESE ALLEGATIONS
ARE SERIOUS
ESPECIALLY
BECAUSE OF THE
SIZE
AND SCOPE OF
THESE PRACTICES
COULDN'T HAPPEN
WITHOUT AMAZON'S
MONOPOLISTIC
CONTROL OF THE
MARKET PLACE.
I'M ALSO
CONCERNED GIVEN
AMAZON'S
ALLOWANCE IN THE
COUNTERFEIT GOODS
IN THE MARKET
PLACE THAT IT MAY
BE KNOWINGLY
OR UNKNOWINGLY
FURTHERING
CHINA'S USE OF
FORCED AND SLAVE
LABOR CONDITIONS.
THIS IS IMPORTANT
FOLLOWING
RECENT REPORTS
THAT AT LEAST 80
GLOBAL COMPANIES
THAT SELL ON
THE AMAZON MARKET
PLACE
INCLUDING NIKE,
SAMSUNG AND
STARBUCKS HAVE
TIES TO CHINESE
FACTORIES THAT
USE SLAVES.
THERE WAS AN
IMPORTANT BILL
STRDED LAST WEEK
REQUIRING
AMERICAN
BUSINESSES TO
CERTIFY
THAT THE SUPPLY
CHAIN DOES NOT
RELY ON FORCED
LABOR.
I WILL BE
INTRODUCING THE
HOUSE
COMPANION BILL
THIS AFTERNOON.
I DO NOT EXPECT
YOU TO HAVE
INTIMATE
KNOWLEDGE OF THE
LEGISLATION, I
WANT A SIMPLE YES
OR NOR TO A
QUESTION.
WILL YOU CERTIFY
THAT YOUR
COMPANY WILL
NEVER USE SLAVE
LABOR TO
MANUFACTURE YOUR
PRODUCTS OR ALLOW
YOUR PRODUCTS
TO BE ON A
PLATFORM THAT
USES
SLAVE LABOR?
MR. COOK, YOU
WERE KIND ENOUGH
TO VISIT WITH ME
ON THE PHONE.
IF YOU CAN GIVE A
YES OR NO
ANSWER.
I UNDERSTAND YOU
HAVEN'T READ
THE DETAILS OF
THE BILL.
BUT WHAT YOU
AGREE TO THIS
IDEA?
>> I WOULD LOVE
TO ENGAGE ON THE
LEGISLATION WITH
YOU CONGRESSMAN
BUT LET ME BE
CLEAR.
FORCEDED LABOR IS
ABHORRENT AND
WE WOULD NOT
TOLERATE IT AT
APPLE.
I WOULD LOVE TO
GET WITH YOUR
OFFICE AND ENGAGE
ON THE
LEGISLATION.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. PICHAI?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I
FIND IT
ABHORRENT AS
WELL.
AND HAPPY TO
ENGAGE WITH YOUR
OFFICE.
>> I DON'T EVEN
WANT TO ENGAGE
WITH MY OFFICE
HALF THE TIME.
WOULD YOU AGREE
THAT SLAVE LABOR
IS NOT SOMETHING
YOU TOLERATE IN
THE MANUFACTURING
OF YOUR
PRODUCTS?
>> I AGREE.
>> MR. COOK?
>> WE WOULD NOT
TOLERATE IT.
WE WOULD
TERMINATE A
RELATIONSHIP IF
IT WERE FOUND.
>> MR.
ZUCKERBERG?
>> I AGREE, WE
WOULDN'T TOLERATE
IT AND IF WE
FOUND ANYTHING
LIKE
THIS, WE WOULD
ALSO TERMINATE
ANY RELATIONSHIP.
>> AND MR. BEZOS?
>> YES, I AGREE
COMPLETELY.
>> THANK YOU
GENTLEMEN.
I YIELD BACK.
>> I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN.
I RECOGNIZE THE
GENTLEMAN FROM
ARIZONA.
>> I WANT TO
THANK MR. BUCK
FOR
THE QUESTIONS AND
THE UPCOMING
LEGISLATION.
I LOOK FORWARD TO
JOINING THAT.
WE WANT -- YOU
KNOW IN THE 19th
CENTURY WE HAD
THE ROBBER
BARRONS AND NOW
WE HAVE THE
CYBERBARRONS.
WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THE WEALTH
IS NOT USED
AGAINST THE
INTEREST
OF HUMAN RIGHTS
AND DEMOCRACY
AROUND THE WORLD
AND NOT AGAINST
THE INTEREST OF A
FREE MARKET AT
HOME.
SO MR. BEZOS, LET
ME TURN TO
YOU, I'M
INTERESTED IN THE
ROLE
YOU PLAY AS A
GATE KEEPER.
A LOT OF
CONSUMERS WANT TO
KNOW
WHEN THE HBO MAX
APP WILL BE
AVAILABLE ON
URFIRE DEVICE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT
NEGOTIATIONS
ARE ONGOING BUT
THAT YOUR
COMPANY IS NOT
ONLY ASKING FOR
FINANCIAL TERMS
BUT ALSO FOR
CONTENT FROM
WARNER MEDIA.
IS THAT RIGHT AND
IS THAT A FAIR
WAY TO PROCEED?
IN OTHER WORDS,
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 THE
NEGOTIATIONS .
I JUST SAID THEY
WERE UNDERWAY
FOR NOW.
THEY WILL
EVENTUALLY COME
TO AN
AGREEMENT.
I THINK THIS IS
TWO LARGE
COMPANIES
GAUCHING AN
AGREEMENT.
KIND OF NORMAL
CASE.
ARE EVEN IN A 
MORE 
DISADVANTAGEOUS 
POSITION WITH 
RESPECT TO 
NEGOTIATING WITH 
YOU. 
THE GENERAL 
PROPOSITION THEN 
YOU CAN SPEED TO 
IF YOU DON'T 
KNOW THE DETAILS 
OF THIS, IS IS 
IT OKAY TO 
NEGOTIATE NOT 
JUST FOR 
FINANCIAL TERMS 
IN HAVING 
SOMEONE BE PART 
OF YOUR UNIT BUT 
ALSO TO EXTRACT 
IN THAT 
NEGOTIATION 
LEVERAGE WITH 
RESPECT TO 
GETTING CONTENT 
FROM THEM? 
>> IN GENERAL. 
>> IN GENERAL 
WHEN TWO 
COMPANIES ARE 
NEGOTIATING YOU 
NEGOTIATE NOT 
JUST IS THE 
AMOUNT OF MONEY 
THAT CHANGES 
HANDS BUT WHAT 
YOU GET IN THE 
EXCHANGE OF 
MONEY. 
THAT IS A 
FUNDAMENTAL WAY 
THE BUSINESS 
WORKS. 
>> DO YOU SEE AT 
LEAST TO 
OUTSIDERS THAT 
WOULD LOOK LIKE 
A STRUCTURAL 
CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST? 
LIKE YOU ARE 
USING YOUR 
CONTROL OVER 
ACCESS TO 
PEOPLE'S LIVING 
ROOMS 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 AND 
IF YOU ALLOW, I 
WILL GET IT TO 
YOUR OFFICE FOR 
YOU. 
I'M NOT FAMILIAR 
ENOUGH WITH THIS 
AND I COULD 
IMAGINE THAT 
THERE WOULD BE 
SCENARIOS IF WE 
ARE TALKING 
ABSTRACT WHERE 
IT WOULD BE 
INAPPROPRIATE 
AND I CAN 
IMAGINE SCENE 
FAR IOS WHERE IT 
WOULD BE NORMAL 
AND VERY 
APPROPRIATE. 
>> OKAY. 
I WANT TO TALK 
ABOUT EMERGING 
MARKET 
SMARTPHONES AND 
THE HUB OF THE 
SMART HOME SMART 
SPEAKERS. 
DOES AMAZON 
PRICE THE ECHO 
DEVICE BELOW 
COST? 
>> NOT THE LIST 
PRICE BUT IT IS 
OFTEN ON 
PROMOTION. 
SOMETIMES WHEN 
IT'S ON 
PROMOTION IT MAY 
BE BELOW COST, 
YES. 
>> SEVERAL 
COMPANIES SAID 
AMAZON IS 
PRICING ECHO 
DEVICES BELOW 
COST MAKING IT 
NEARLY 
IMPOSSIBLE FOR 
THEM TO  
COMPETE. 
AND DISCOUNTING 
ALEXA IS A 
STRATEGY TO OWN 
THE SMART HOME. 
LIKE MANY 
MARKETS, SMART 
SPEAKERS LIKE 
ALEXA AND SMART 
HOME APPLIANCES 
THAT ALEXA 
INTERACT WITH 
MAKE UP THE NEXT 
PLATFORM FOR 
TECH COMPANIES 
TO LOCK IN 
CUSTOMERS. 
WOULD YOU SAY 
THE SMART HOME 
MARKET FOR WHICH 
ECHO AND RING 
AND OTHERS IS A 
WINNER TAKE ALL 
MARKET, YES OR 
NO? 
>> NO, I 
WOULDN'T, 
ESPECIALLY IF WE 
ARE ABLE TO 
SUCCEED AT WHAT 
WE WANT WHICH IS 
-- WE WOULD LIKE 
-- OUR VISION IS 
SMART HOME 
SPEAKERS SHOULD 
ANSWER TO 
DIFFERENT WAY 
COURTS. 
SO -- 
>> WHEN 
CONSIDERING THAT 
POSITION -- 
>> A CASE-BY-
CASE BASIS. 
IT'S IMPORTANT. 
IF WE COULD 
ACHIEVE THAT, 
THEN I THINK YOU 
WOULD GET REALLY 
GOOD BEHAVIOR ON 
THE PART OF 
COMPETITIVE 
AGENTS HELPING 
YOU. 
>> WHEN YOU WERE 
LOOKING AT 
ACQUIRING RING 
YOU WROTE WE ARE 
BUYING MARKET 
POSITION, NOT 
TECHNOLOGY. 
THAT MARKET 
POSITION IS VERY 
VALUABLE. 
IF SMART HOMES 
ARE NOT A LOCATE 
WITH --
>> DOCTOR ARE 
MULTIPLE REASONS 
WE MIGHT BUY A 
COMPANY. 
SOMETIMES WE TRY 
TO BUY 
TECHNOLOGY OR 
IP, SOMETIMES A 
TALENT 
ACQUISITION. 
THE MOST COMMON 
CASE IS MARKET 
POSITION. 
IF THE COMPANY 
HAS TRACTION 
WITH CUSTOMERS, 
BUILT A SERVICE, 
THE FIRST MOVER, 
ANY NUMBER OF 
REASONS WHY THEY 
HAVE THE MARKET 
POSITION. 
BUT THAT IS A 
COMMON REASON TO 
ACQUIRE A 
COMPANY. 
>> ONCE A 
COMPANY BECOMES 
DOMINANT IN A 
MARKET IT CAN 
FAVOR ITS OWN 
PRODUCTS AND 
SERVICES. 
ALEXA SMART 
SPEAKERS MADE UP 
60% OF THE SMART 
MARKET. 
WHEN I ASK IT TO 
PLAY MUSIC, 
PRIME MUSIC IS 
THE DEFAULT 
PLAYER. 
>> IF YOU ARE A 
PRIME MEMBER, 
YES. 
>> "NEW YORK 
TIMES" REPORT 
FOUND WHEN USERS 
SAY ALEXA BUY 
BATTERIES, ALEXA 
SAYS DO YOU WANT 
TO BUY DOUBLE A 
AMAZON 
BATTERIES. 
>> HAS ALEXA 
BEEN TRAINED TO 
USE AMAZON 
PRODUCTS. 
>> THE TIME HAS 
EXPIRED BUT THE 
WITNESS MAY 
ANSWER THE 
QUESTION. 
>> I DON'T KNOW 
IF IT IS TRAINED 
IN THAT WAY. 
I'M SURE THERE 
ARE CASES WHERE 
WE PROMOTE OUR 
OWN PRODUCTS, 
COMMON PRACTICE 
IN BUSINESS. 
SO, IT WOULDN'T 
SURPRISE ME IF 
ALEXA PROMOTES 
OUR PRODUCTS. 
>> 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 WITH THE 
CHINESE MILITARY 
IN COMMON 
COLLABORATION. 
ONE IS SINGWA 
UNIVERSITY, JEFF 
DEAN IS THE HEAD 
OF GOOGLE AI 
SERVED ON THE 
COME COME 
SCIENCE ADVISORY 
COMMITTEE FOR 
THE UNIVERSITY 
THEN THE 
UNIVERSITY TAKES 
A NEARLY $15 
MILLION FROM 
CHINA'S CENTRAL 
MILITARY 
COMMISSION. 
YOU CAN SEE HOW 
IF YOU DON'T 
LITERALLY SHOW 
UP AT THE 
OFFICES OF THE 
CHINESE 
MILITARY, IF YOU 
SHOW UP AT ALL 
PLACE WORKING ON 
AI, THAT WOULD 
LEAD TO MY 
CONCERN. 
BUT I WANT TO 
TALK ABOUT 
SEARCH. 
THAT IS AN AREA 
WHERE I KNOW 
GOOGLE HAS 
MARKET 
DOMINANCE. 
DECEMBER 11th, 
YOU TESTIFIED 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. 
THOSE PEOPLE 
MOSES WERE 
ALTERED DECEMBER 
3rd A WEEK 
BEFORE YOUR 
TESTIMONY AND 
THEY DESCRIBE A 
DECEPTIVE NEWS 
BLACKLIST. 
A PROCESS FOR 
DEVELOPING THAT 
BLACKLIST 
APPROVED BY BEN 
GOMES HE LEADS 
THE SEARCH WITH 
YOUR COMPANY AND 
SOMETHING CALLED 
A FRINGE RANKING 
WHICH SEEMS TO 
BEG THE 
QUESTION, WHO 
GETS TO DECIDE 
WHAT IS FRINGE. 
AND IN YOUR 
ANSWER, YOU SAID 
TO MISS LOFGREN 
THAT THERE IS NO 
MANUAL 
INTERVENTION OF 
SEARCH. 
THAT WAS YOUR 
SYSTEM BUT NOW I 
WILL SIGHT 
SPECIFICALLY 
FROM THIS MEMO 
FROM THE DAILY 
CALLER, IT SAYS 
THAT -- SORRY, 
THE DAILY CALLER 
OBTAINED FROM 
YOUR COMPANY, IT 
STARTS WHEN A 
WEBSITE IS 
PLACED ON A 
WATCH LIST. 
IT CONTINUES THE 
WATCH LIST IS 
MAINTAINED AND 
STORED WITH 
ACCESS 
RESTRICTED TO 
POLICY AND 
ENFORCEMENT 
SPECIALISTS. 
SO, IT DOES BEG 
THE QUESTION WHO 
THE ENFORCEMENT 
SPECIALISTS ARE. 
ACCESS TO THE 
LISTING CAN 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 
ARREST MANUAL 
REVIEW TOOL. 
SO, YOU SAID TO 
CONGRESSWOMAN 
LOFGREN THERE 
WAS NO MANUAL 
REVIEW TOOL THEN 
YOUR DOCUMENTS 
INDICATE THAT 
THERE IS. 
SO, HELP US 
INDICATE THE 
INCONSISTENCY. 
>> CONGRESSMAN, 
THERE ARE TWO 
PARTS TO THIS. 
IN GENERAL, WE 
APPROACH THE 
SEARCH RESULTS 
WITH ROBUST 
POLICIES TO DO 
SO. 
AND USER 
FEEDBACK AND 
RATINGS TO 
VALIDATED. 
WITH 300,000 
EXPERIMENTS AND 
LAUNCHED 300,000 
IMPROVEMENTS TO 
SEARCH. 
WE DON'T 
MANUALLY -- THE 
QUESTION LAST 
TIME WAS IN THE 
CONTEXT OF 
SOMEONE BEHIND 
THE CURTAIN 
MANUALLY TUNING 
INDIVIDUAL 
SEARCH RESULTS. 
WE DON'T -- IN 
ORDER TO COMPLY 
WITH THE LAW IN 
EVERY COUNTRY WE 
OPERATE IN FOR 
EXAMPLE, THERE 
MAY BE A WEBSITE 
IDENTIFIED AS 
INTERFERING IN 
ELECTIONS. 
WE THEN HAVE TO 
PUT THAT SITE ON 
A LIST SO THAT 
DOESN'T APPEAR 
IN THE SEARCH 
RESULTS. 
>> IS THAT DONE 
MANUALLY, THAT 
PROCESS YOU 
DESCRIBED IS 
THAT DONE 
MANUALLY? 
>> AND WE COULD 
GET REPORTS FROM 
LAW ENFORCEMENT 
AGENCIES, YOU 
KNOW, COMPLYING 
WITH ALL -- IT'S 
A -- 
>> THERE IS 
EITHER A MANUAL 
COMPONENT OR 
NOT. 
WHICH IS IT? 
>> FOR CREATING 
THOSE LISTS, 
THAT SCANNING -- 
>> GREAT. 
THAT IS THE 
CONCERN THAT I 
HAVE. 
YOU HAVE NOW 
SAID SOMETHING 
DIFFERENT THAN 
WHAT YOU SAID TO 
MISS LOFGREN. 
YOU CONFESSED 
THAT THERE IS A 
MANUAL COMPONENT 
TO THE WAY IN 
WHICH YOU 
BLACKLIST 
CONTENT. 
AND IT IS -- 
SEEMS TO BE NO 
COINCIDENCE THAT 
SITES LIKE 
GATEWAY PUNDIT, 
WESTERN JOURNAL, 
DAILY CALLER AND 
BREITBART THAT 
RECEIVE THE IRE 
OR NEGATIVE 
TREATMENT AS A 
CONSEQUENCE OF 
YOUR MANUAL 
TOOLING AND IT 
SEEMS NOTE WORRY 
THAT 
WHISTLEBLOWERS 
AT YOUR OWN 
COMPANY HAVE 
SPOKEN OUT. 
YOU SAID ONE OF 
THE REASONS YOU 
MAINTAIN THE 
MANUAL TOOL IS 
TO STOP ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE. 
I BELIEVE IT'S 
YOUR COMPANY 
THAT IS ENGAGING 
IN ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE. 
IT'S NOT JUST MY 
VIEW BY MIKE 
LACQUER CAME OUT 
AND WAS A 
WHISTLEBLOWER 
INDICATING THAT 
THE MANUAL 
BLACKLIST 
TARGETS THAT 
GOOGLE 
SPECIFICALLY 
GOES AFTER ARE 
THOSE THAT 
SUPPORT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, 
WHO HOLD A 
CONSERVATIVE 
VIEWPOINT AND HE 
LEFT YOUR 
COMPANY IN 2019 
BECAUSE HE WAS 
SPEAKING OUT 
AGAINST THESE 
OUTRAGED -- CAN 
YOU SEE HOW WHEN 
YOU EMPOWER SOME 
OF THE SAME 
INDIVIDUALS THAT 
THE PROJECT HAS 
EXPOSED AS 
LABELING PEOPLE 
AS TERRORISTS 
WHO SAY MAKE 
AMERICA GREAT 
AGAIN OR SUPPORT 
THE PRESIDENT, 
THAT THAT IN 
FACT CAN BE THE 
VERY ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE 
THAT WE ARE 
CONCERNED ABOUT 
AND YOU ARE USE 
THE MARKET 
DOMINATES TO -- 
>> I STRONGLY 
DISAGREE WITH 
THAT 
CHARACTERIZATION. 
WE DON'T 
APPROACH WITH 
WITH A POLITICAL 
VIEWPOINT. 
WE DO THAT TO 
COMPLY WITH THE 
LAW. 
IN VERY NARROW 
CIRCUMSTANCES 
WHEN WE HAVE TO 
DO THAT TO 
COMPLY WITH THE 
LAW. 
IN MANY CASES 
THOSE REQUESTS 
COME FROM LAW 
ENFORCEMENT 
AGENCIES. 
>> YOUR OWN 
EMPLOYEES ARE 
SAYING POLITICAL 
BIAS. 
I YIELD BACK. 
SORRY. 
MR. CHAIRMAN 
GIVEN THE 
PRODUCTIVITY OF 
OUR DISCUSSION I 
WOULD REQUEST 
THAT WE BE 
PERMITTED A 
THIRD ROUND OF 
QUESTIONS. 
>> WITHOUT 
OBJECTION? 
I RECOGNIZE THE 
FULL COMMITTEE 
CHAIRMAN MR. 
NADLER. 
>> YOU KNOW, THE 
DOCUMENTS PROVE 
-- THE 
JOURNALISM 
INDUSTRY IN THIS 
COUNTRY ARE IN 
AN ECONOMIC FREE-
FALL. 
OVER 200 
COUNTIES IN 
AMERICA NO 
LONGER HAVE A 
LOCAL NEWSPAPER. 
TENS OF 
THOUSANDS OF 
JOURNALISTS ARE 
LAID OFF IN 
RECENT YEARS. 
THE REASON 
JOURNALISM IS IN 
FREE-FALL 
BECAUSE GOOGLE 
AND FACEBOOK 
CAPTURE THE VAST 
MAJORITY OF 
DIGITAL AD 
REVENUE. 
IT IS GOOGLE AND 
FACEBOOK THAT 
PROFIT OFF THE 
CONDUCT. 
PUBLISHERS HAVE 
TOLD US THAT 
GOOGLE AND 
FACEBOOK 
MAINTAINED 
DOMINANCE IN 
THESE MARKETS IN 
PART THROUGH 
ANTICOMPETITIVE 
CONDUCT AS WELL 
AS -- MR. 
ZUCKERBERG, IN 
2015 FACEBOOK 
REPORTED QUICKLY 
GROWING RATES OF 
VIEWERSHIP ON 
ITS PLATFORM. 
BASED ON THESE 
METRICS,. 
[ INAUDIBLE ] IN 
2018 IT WAS 
DISCOVERED THAT 
FACEBOOK 
INFLATED THE 
MEASURES AND HAD 
KNOWN ABOUT THE 
INACCURACIES 
SEVERAL YEARS 
BEFORE FACEBOOK 
DISCLOSED IT. 
DID YOU KNOW 
THAT THESE 
METRICS WERE IN 
PLACE BEFORE 
THEY WERE 
PUBLICLY 
RELEASED? 
>> CONGRESSMAN, 
NO, I DID NOT. 
AND WE REGRET 
THAT MISTAKES 
AND HAVE PUT IN 
PLACE A NUMBER 
OF OTHER 
MEASURES SINCE 
THEN TO MAKE 
SURE -- 
>> DO YOU 
REALIZED HARM 
THAT THIS CAUSED 
JOURNALISTS 
ACROSS THE 
COUNTRY? 
>> CONGRESSMAN, 
I CERTAINLY KNOW 
HOW IMPORTANT IT 
IS THAT THE 
METRICS WE 
REPORT ARE 
ACCURATE AND WE 
-- 
>> 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 YOUR 
DESCRIPTION. 
>> GOOGLE 
MEANWHILE 
MAINTAINS ITS 
DOMINANCE 
THROUGH 
AGGREGATING DATA 
FROM ACROSS 
PRODUCTS AND 
SERVICES. 
MR. PICHAI, I 
UNDERSTAND THAT 
GOOGLE COLLECTS 
USER DATA AND 
BROWSING 
ACTIVITY THROUGH 
THE CHROME 
BROWSER. 
DOES DATA USE IT 
FOR ADVERTISING 
OR TO DEVELOP 
AND REFINE ITS 
AL ALGORITHM? 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN 
WE USE DATA TO 
IMPROVE PRODUCTS 
AND SERVICES FOR 
OUR USERS. 
ANY TIME WE DO 
IT, WE BELIEVE 
IN GIVING 
VIEWERS CHOICE 
AND TRANSPARENCY
. 
>> AND SO YOU DO 
USE THE DATA 
THAT YOU GET 
FROM THESE 
COMPANIES FOR 
YOUR PURPOSES? 
>> MY 
UNDERSTANDING 
WAS WE USE DATA 
TO IMPROVE THE 
PRODUCTS AND 
SERVICES AND WE 
DO USE DATA TO 
SHOW ADS BUT WE 
GIVE A CHOICE TO 
TURN ADS 
PERSONALIZATION 
ON OR OFF. 
>> THE USE OF 
THIS DATA FROM 
ALL THESE 
COMPANIES GIVES 
YOU A TREMENDOUS 
ADVANTAGE OVER 
THEM OR ANY 
COMPETITOR. 
THE ABILITY TO 
MAKE MONEY IN 
ANY WAY AFFECT 
GOOGLE'S 
ALGORITHMS OF 
WHAT APPEARS IN 
A SEARCH RESULT? 
>> THE WAY WE 
RANK OUR SEARCH 
RESULTS, WE 
DON'T TAKE INTO 
ACCOUNT 
COMMERCIAL 
RELATIONSHIP 
THAT 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 OR 
THE NEWS THAT 
THEY LET THE HE 
AMERICANS SEE. 
THIS IS 
DANGEROUS 
SITUATION. 
UNFORTUNATELY MY 
TIME HAS EXPIRED 
AND I HAVE TO 
YIELD BACK. 
>> THANK YOU FOR 
YIELDING. 
I RECOGNIZE THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM 
FLORIDA. 
>> THANK YOU, 
MR. CHAIRMAN. 
I PICK UP WHERE 
I LEFT OFF. 
MR. PICHAI, 
THERE ARE 
RIOTING 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 DOCTORS 
DISCUSSING 
CHLOROQUINE AND 
DISCUSSING THE 
NOT DANGERS OF 
CHILDREN 
RETURNING TO 
SCHOOL. 
WHEN I CLICKED 
ON THE LINK IT 
WAS TAKEN DOWN. 
THEN I WAS SENT 
A DIFFERENT LINK 
ON YOUTUBE. 
I CHECKED AGAIN 
TO MAKE SURE AND 
IT SAYS THIS HAS 
BEEN REMOVED FOR 
VIOLATING 
COMMUNITY 
GUIDELINES. 
HOW CAN DOCTORS 
GIVING THEIR 
OPINION ON A 
DRUG THAT THEY 
THINK IS 
EFFECTIVE FOR 
THE TREATMENT OF 
COVID-19 AND 
DOCTORS THAT 
THINK IT'S 
APPROPRIATE FOR 
CHILDREN TO 
RETURN TO SCHOOL 
VIOLATE 
COMMUNITY 
GUIDELINES WHEN 
ALL OF THESE 
VIDEOS OF 
VIOLENCE IS 
POSTED ON 
YOUTUBE? 
>> WE BELIEVE IN 
FREEDOM OF 
EXPRESSION. 
THERE ARE WAYS 
TO DEAL WITH 
COVID. 
WE ALLOW ROBUST 
DEBATE. 
DURING A 
PANDEMIC, WE 
LOOK TO LOCAL 
HEALTH 
AUTHORITIES. 
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 IS ASPECTS 
OF A VIDEO, IF 
IT EXPLICITLY 
STATES SOMETHING 
COULD BE A 
PROVEN CURE AND 
THAT DOESN'T 
MEET CDC 
GUIDELINES. 
>> IT'S FREE 
EXPRESSION OF 
SPEECH. 
YOU HAVE THESE 
DOCTORS GIVING 
THEIR OPINION AS 
DOCTORS. 
I DON'T 
UNDERSTAND WHY 
YOUTUBE AND 
THEREFORE GOOGLE 
THINK IT'S 
APPROPRIATE TO 
SILENCE FINANCE 
IN WHAT CAN HELP 
AND CURE PEOPLE 
IN COVID-19. 
I WILL SWITCH TO 
MR. ZUCKERBERG. 
I THINK AT THIS 
POINT IT'S 
OBVIOUS THAT 
TECHNOLOGY 
PLATFORMS ARE 
STIFLING 
CONSERVATIVE 
NEWS AND 
OPINIONS. 
YOU HAVE CONTENT 
MODERATORS. 
HOW DOES 
FACEBOOK CHOOSE 
WHO THE 
MODERATORS ARE? 
>> THANKS, 
CONGRESSMEN. 
WE HIRE A LOT OF 
PEOPLE AROUND 
THE WORLD TO 
WORK ON SAFETY 
AND SECURITY. 
OUR TEAM IS MORE 
THAN 30 OR 
35,000 PEOPLE 
WORKING ON THAT 
NOW. 
WE TRY TO BE 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 
CAN EXPRESS A 
WIDE VARIETY OF 
THINGS IS 
VALUABLE FOR THE 
WORLD AND WE TRY 
TO MAKE SURE 
THAT OUR 
POLICIES AND 
OPERATIONS 
ULTIMATELY 
REFLECT AND 
CARRY THAT OUT. 
>> IS THERE AN 
IDEOLOGICAL 
DIVERSITY 
AMONGST THE 
CONTENT 
MODERATORS? 
>> CONGRESSMAN, 
I DON'T THINK WE 
CHOOSE TO HIRE 
THEM ON THE 
BASIS OF AN 
IDEOLOGY. 
THEY ARE HIRED 
ALL OVER THE 
WORLD. 
THERE ARE A 
BUNCH IN THE 
U.S. THERE IS 
DIVERSITY IN 
WHERE THEY ARE 
HIRED BUT WE 
DON'T WANT TO 
HAVE ANY BIAS IN 
WHAT WE DO AND 
WE WOULDN'T 
TOLERATE IT IF 
WE DISCOVERED 
THAT. 
>> YOU DON'T 
SPECIFICALLY 
HIRE, SAY, 
CONSERVATIVE 
MODERATORS OR 
LIBERAL 
MODERATORS SO 
THERE IS A 
BALANCE IN YOUR 
CONTENT 
MODERATORS. 
>> CONGRESSMAN, 
IN TERMS OF THE 
30 TO 35,000 
PEOPLE OR MORE 
AT THIS POINT 
DOING SAFETY AND 
SECURITY REVIEW, 
THAT IS CORRECT. 
IN TERMS OF THE 
PEOPLE SETTING 
THE POLICIES, I 
THINK IT'S 
VALUABLE TO HAVE 
PEOPLE WITH THE 
DIVERSE 
VIEWPOINTS TO 
MAKE SURE THAT 
WE HAVE THE 
DIFFERENT 
VIEWPOINTS 
REPRESENTED IN 
THE DEVELOPMENT 
PROCESS AND WE 
CONSULT WITH A 
NUMBER OF 
OUTSIDE GROUPS, 
WHENEVER WE 
DEVELOP NEW 
POLICIES TO MAKE 
SURE THAT WE 
TAKE INTO 
ACCOUNT ALL 
PERSPECTIVES. 
>> WHAT ARE SOME 
OF THOSE OUTSIDE 
GROUPS THAT 
WOULD BE 
CONSERVATIVE 
LEANING? 
>> CONGRESSMAN, 
I NEED TO GET 
BACK TO YOU WITH 
A LIST OF 
SPECIFIC GROUPS. 
IT WOULD DEPEND 
ON THE TOPIC. 
>> CAN YOU JUST 
THINK OF ONE? 
YOU SAID YOU 
REACH OUT TO 
OUTSIDE GROUPS. 
CAN YOU THINK OF 
ONE CONSERVE 
ATIVE GROUP THAT 
YOU REACH OUT AS 
A CONTENT 
MODERATOR. 
>> CONGRESSMAN, 
I'M TALKING 
ABOUT DIFFERENT 
EXTERNAL STAKE 
HOLDERS AND 
GROUPS IN OUR 
DEVELOPMENT 
PROCESS. 
I AM NOT 
INVOLVED IN 
THOSE 
CONVERSATIONS 
DIRECTLY. 
I WOULD HAVE TO 
GET BACK TO YOU 
WITH SPECIFICS 
ON THAT. 
I AM CONFIDENT 
THAT WE SPEAK 
WITH PEOPLE 
ACROSS THE 
IDEOLOGICAL 
SPECTRUM 
DEVELOPING OUR 
POLICIES. 
>> I WOULD 
APPRECIATE A 
FOLLOW-UP ON 
THAT. 
>> CAN YOU 
BRIEFLY EXPLAIN 
THE APPROVAL 
PROCESS FOR 
THIRD PARTY FACT 
CHECKERS AND HOW 
MANY DOES 
FACEBOOK EMPLOY? 
>> YEAH, THANKS. 
WE WORK WITH 
ABOUT 70 FACT-
CHECKING 
PARTNERS AROUND 
THE WORLD. 
THE GOAL OF THE 
PROGRAM IS TO 
LIMIT THE 
DISTRIBUTION OF 
VIRAL HOAXES. 
THINGS THAT ARE 
CLEARLY 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 FEELS LIKE 
AN INAPPROPRIATE 
ROLE TO PLAY. 
WELL RELY ON AN 
ORGANIZATION 
CALLED THE 
POYNTER 
INSTITUTE, 
INDEPENDENT FACT-
CHECKING 
ORGANIZATION 
THAT HAS A SET 
OF GUIDELINES OF 
WHAT MAKES AN 
INDEPENDENT FACT 
CHECKER AND THEY 
CERTIFY THOSE 
FACT CHECKERS. 
ANY ORGANIZATION 
THAT GETS 
CERTIFICATION 
FROM THAT GROUP 
IS QUALIFIED TO 
BE A FACT-
CHECKING PARTNER 
WITHIN FACEBOOK. 
>> THE 
GENTLEMAN'S TIME 
HAS EXPIRED. 
I WILL RECOGNIZE 
MR. JOHNSON FOR 
FIVE MINUTES 
THEN WE WILL 
TAKE A SHORT 
BREAK. 
MR. JOHNSON, YOU 
ARE RECOGNIZED. 
>> THANK YOU, 
MR. CHAIRMAN. 
MR. BEZOS, 
AMAZON HAS A 
SIGNIFICANT 
PROBLEM WITH 
COUNTERFEIT 
PRODUCTS BEING 
SOLD ON ITS 
PLATFORM, 
COUNTERFEIT 
PRODUCTS RIP OFF 
THE OWNERS OF 
LEGITIMATE 
BUSINESSES BUT 
THEY CAN BE 
DANGEROUS. 
COUNTERFEIT 
MEDICINE, BABY 
FOOD, AUTOMOBILE 
TIRES AND OTHER 
PRODUCTS CAN 
KILL. 
AMAZON IS FIXING 
ITS COUNTERFEIT 
PROBLEM BUT 
COUNTERFEITING 
IS WORSE NOT 
BETTER. 
AMAZON IS A 
TRILLON-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 SOLD BY 
THIRD PARTY 
SELLERS ON ITS 
PLATFORM. 
WE HEARD THAT 
AMAZON PUTS THE 
BURDEN AND COST 
ON BRAND OWNERS 
TO POLICE AMAZON 
SITES EVEN 
THOUGH AMAZON 
MAKES MONEY WHEN 
A COUNTERFEIT 
GOOD IS SOLD ON 
ITS SITE. 
MORE THAN HALF 
OF AMAZON SALES 
COME FROM THIRD 
PARTY SELLER 
ACCOUNTS. 
WHY ISN'T AMAZON 
MORE AGGRESSIVE 
IN ENSURING THAT 
COUNTERFEIT 
GOODS ARE NOT 
SOLD ON ITS 
PLATFORM AND WHY 
ISN'T AMAZON 
RESPONSIBLE FOR 
KEEPING ALL 
COUNTERFEIT 
PRODUCTS OFF THE 
PLATFORM. 
>> THIS IS AN 
INCREDIBLY 
IMPORTANT ISSUE 
AND ONE THAT WOE 
WORK HARD ON. 
COUNTERFEITS ARE 
A SCOURGE. 
THEY ARE A 
PROBLEM THAT IS 
NOT -- DOESN'T 
HELP US EARN 
TRUST WITH 
CUSTOMERS. 
IT'S BAD FOR 
CUSTOMERS. 
BAD FOR HONEST 
THIRD PARTY 
SELLERS. 
WE DO A LOT TO 
PREVENT 
COUNTERFEITING. 
WE HAVE A TEAM 
OF -- MORE THAN 
A THOUSAND 
PEOPLE THAT DO 
THIS. 
WE INVEST 
HUNDREDS OF 
MILLIONS OF 
DOLLARS DOING 
THIS. 
WE HAVE PROJECT 
ZERO WHICH HELPS 
BRANDS SERIAL 
LIZ INDIVIDUAL 
PRODUCTS THAT 
HELP WITH 
COUNTERFEITING 
AND OTHER 
PROGRAMS AS 
WELL. 
>> I'M GLAD THAT 
YOU HAVE THOSE 
FEATURES IN 
PLACE, BUT WHY 
ISN'T AMAZON 
RESPONSIBLE FOR 
KEEPING ALL 
COUNTERFEIT 
PRODUCTS OFF THE 
PLATFORM? 
>> WE CERTAINLY 
WORK TO DO SO, 
CONGRESSMAN. 
WE DO SO NOT 
JUST FOR OUR OWN 
RETAIL PRODUCTS 
BUT THIRD PARTY 
PRODUCTS AS 
WELL. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> WE HAVE HEARD 
FROM NUMEROUS 
THIRD PARTY 
SELLERS AND 
BRAND OWNERS 
THAT AMAZON HAS 
USED KNOCK OFFS 
AS LEVERAGE TO 
PRESSURE SELLERS 
TO DO WHAT 
AMAZON WANTS. 
FOR EXAMPLE, THE 
FOUNDER OF POP 
SOCKETS 
TESTIFIED IN 
JANUARY THAT 
AMAZON ITSELF 
WAS SELLING 
KNOCK OFFS OF 
THE PRODUCT. 
AFTER REPORTING 
THE PROBLEM, 
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 THAT -- IF 
THOSE ARE THE 
FACTS AND 
SOMEONE 
SOMEWHERE INSIDE 
AMAZON SAID, YOU 
KNOW, BUY X 
DOLLARS IN ADS 
AND WE WILL HELP 
YOU WITH YOUR 
COUNTERFEIT 
PROBLEM, THAT IS 
UNACCEPTABLE. 
I WILL LOOK INTO 
THAT AND GET 
BACK TO YOUR 
OFFICE WITH 
THAT. 
WHAT I CAN TELL 
YOU IS THAT WE 
HAVE A 
COUNTERFEIT 
CRIMES 
UNIT. 
WE ATTEMPT TO 
PROSECUTE 
COUNTERFEITERS. 
I WOULD ASK THIS 
BODY TO RESTRICT 
-- HAVE STRICTER 
PENALTIES. 
>> BUT YOUR 
COMPANY MAKES 
MONEY OFF 
COUNTERFEIT 
GOODS BEING SOLD 
OFF THE 
PLATFORM. 
>> IF IT DOES, 
IT'S IN THE 
SHORT TERM. 
I WOULD RATHER 
USE A SALE THAN 
A CUSTOMER. 
>> MAKING 
COMPANIES PAY 
EXTRA TO AVOID 
HAVING THE 
PRODUCTS 
DISAPPEAR IN 
RANKINGS IS 
UNFAIR, 
ESPECIALLY TO 
SMALL 
BUSINESSES. 
THE AMERICAN 
DREAM IS 
THREATENED WHEN 
THAT HAPPENS, 
DON'T YOU THINK 
SO. 
>> I'M NOT SURE 
WHAT YOU ARE 
REFERRING TO. 
A SECOND AGO, I 
AGREE 
COMPLETELY. 
>> TOTALLY 
DIFFERENT 
SITUATION NOW 
WHERE A COMPANY 
THAT IS SELLING 
ON YOUR PLATFORM 
BUT IS NOT 
PAYING ANYTHING 
EXTRA GETS 
BURIED IN THE 
RANKINGS AND -- 
BUT COMPANIES 
THAT PAY EXTRA 
ARE ABLE TO GET 
THEIR PRODUCTS 
PUSHED UP AND 
THEY AVOID 
GETTING PUSHED 
DOWN. 
IS THAT 
ACCEPTABLE. 
>> I THINK YOU 
ARE REFERRING TO 
THE FACT THAT WE 
OFFER AN 
ADVERTISING 
SERVICE 
BASICALLY FOR 
THIRD PARTY 
SELLERS TO DRIVE 
ADDITIONAL 
PROMOTION TO 
THEIR PRODUCTS. 
THAT IS A 
VOLUNTARY 
PROGRAM. 
SOME SELLERS USE 
IT AND SOME 
DON'T. 
IT IS EFFECTIVE 
AT HELPING 
PEOPLE PROMOTE 
THEIR PRODUCTS. 
I YIELD BACK. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THE COMMITTEE 
STANDS IN A 
BRIEF RECESS
