 
WORLD'S LARGEST ONLINE SERVICE.
MORE THAN 90% OF SEARCHES 
ONLINE.
A BILLION USERS AND BROWSERS, 
SMART PHONES.
THEY STOOD OUT AS TITANS IN OUR 
ECONOMY.
STRONGER AND MORE POWERFUL THAN 
EVER BEFORE.
AS THEY SHIFT MORE OF THEIR 
WORK, THESE GIANTS STAND TO 
PROFIT.
LOCALLY OWNED BUSINESSES MEAN 
MOM AND POP STORES FACE AN 
ECONOMIC CRISIS LIKE ANY OTHER 
IN RECENT HISTORY.
AS HARD AS IT IS TO BELIEVE THAT
OUR ECONOMY WILL EMERGE FROM 
THIS CRISIS EVEN MORE 
CONSOLIDATED THAN BEFORE.
THESE COMPANIES SERVE AS 
CRITICAL ARTERIES OF COMMERCE 
AND COMMUNICATIONS.
BECAUSE THESE COMPANIES ARE SO 
CENTRAL TO OUR MODERN LIFE, 
THEIR BUSINESS PRACTICES AND 
DECISIONS HAVE AN OUTSIZED 
EFFECT ON OUR ECONOMY AND 
DEMOCRACY.
ANY SINGLE ACTION BY ONE OF 
THOSE COMPANIES CAN AFFECT 
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF US IN 
PROFOUND AND LASTING WAYS.
ALTHOUGH THESE FOUR CORPORATIONS
DIFFER IN IMPORTANT AND 
MEANINGFUL WAYS, WE'VE OBSERVED 
COMMON PROBLEMS OVER THE COURSE 
OF THIS INVESTIGATION.
FIRST, EACH PLATFORM IS A 
BOTTLENECK FOR A KEY CHANNEL OF 
DISTRIBUTION.
WHETHER THEY CONTROL CCESS TO 
INFORMATION OR A MARKETPLACE, 
THESE PLATFORMS HAVE THE 
INCENTIVE AND ABILITY TO EXPLOIT
THIS POWER.
THEY CAN CHARGE XOR BAH BITANT 
FEES AND EXTRACT VALUABLE DATA 
FROM THE PEOPLE AND BUSINESSES 
THAT RELY ON THEM.
SECOND, EACH PLATFORM USES ITS 
CONTROL OVER DIGITAL 
INFRASTRUCTURE TO SURVEIL OTHER 
COMPANIES, THEIR GROWTH, 
BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND WHETHER 
THEY MIGHT POSE A COMPETITIVE 
THREAT.
EACH PLATFORM HAS PROTECTED ITS 
POWER BY COPYING OR CUTTING OFF 
ACCESS FOR ANY ACTUAL OR 
POTENTIAL RIVAL.
THIRD, THESE PLATFORMS ABUSE 
THEIR CONTROL OVER CURRENT 
TECHNOLOGIES TO EXTEND THEIR 
POWER.
WHETHER IT'S THROUGH 
SELF-PREFERENCES, PREDATORY 
PRICING OR REQUIRING BUYING 
ADDITIONAL PRODUCTS.
THEY'VE WIELDING THEIR POWER IN 
DESTRUCTIVE, HARMFUL WAYS IN 
ORDER TO EXPAND.
AT TODAY'S HEARING, WE'LL 
DISCOVER HOW EACH A AFFECTS OUR 
DAILY LIVES.
SO, WHY DOES THIS MATTER?
MANY OF THE PRACTICES USED BY 
THESE COMPANIES HAVE HARMFUL 
ECONOMIC EFFECTS.
THEY DISCOURAGE 
ENTREPRENEURSHIP, HEIGHTEN COST.
SIMPLY PUT, THEY HAVE TOO MUCH 
POWER.
THIS POWER STAVES OFF NEW FORMS 
OF COMPETITION, CREATIVITY AND 
INNOVATION.
AND WHILE THESE DOMINANT FIRMS 
MAY STILL PRODUCE NEW, 
INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS, THEIR 
DOMINANCE IS KILLING SMALL 
BUSINESSES AND MANUFACTURING 
THAT ARE THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.
SOME HARVEST AND ABUSE PEOPLE'S 
DATA TO SELL ADS FROM EVERYTHING
TO NEW BOOKS TO DANGEROUS 
SO-CALLED MIRACLE CURES.
WHEN EVERY DAY AMERICANS LEARN 
HOW MUCH OF THEIR DATA IS BEING 
MINED, THEY CAN'T RUN AWAY FAST 
ENOUGH, BUT IN MANY CASES, 
THERE'S NO ESCAPE BECAUSE 
THERE'S NO ALTERNATIVE.
PEOPLE ARE STUCK WITH BAD 
OPTIONS.
THEY'RE PREDICATED ON THE IDEA 
THAT IF A COMPANY HARMS PEOPLE, 
THEY'LL CHOOSE ANOTHER OPTION.
WE'RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THAT 
CHOICE IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE.
IN CLOSING, I'M CONFIDENT THAT 
ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS WE SEE 
WILL LEAD TO A STRONGER, MORE 
VIBRANT ECONOMY BECAUSE 
CONCENTRATED ECONOMIC POWER 
LEADS TO CONCENTRATED POLITICAL 
POWER.
THIS GOES TO THE HEART OF 
WHETHER WE, AS A PEOPLE, GOVERN 
OURSELVES OR WHETHER WE LET 
OURSELVES BE GOVERNED BY PRIVATE
MONOPOLIES.
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY HAS ALWAYS 
BEEN A AT WAR AGAINST MOPLY 
POWER.
THROUGHOUT HISTORY, WE'VE 
RECOGNIZED THAT CONCENTRATED 
MARKETS AND POLITICAL CONTROL 
ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH DEMOCRATIC
IDEALS.
WHEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
CONFRONTED MONOPOLISTS IN THE 
PAST, OIL TYCOONS OR AT&T AND 
MICROSOFT, WE TOOK ACTION TO 
ENSURE NO PRIVATE CORPORATION 
CONTROLS OUR ECONOMY OR 
DEMOCRACY.
WE FACE SIMILAR CHANGES TODAY.
AS GATE KEEPERS OF THE ECONOMY, 
THEY ENJY THE POWER TO PICK 
WINNERS AND LOSERS, TO SHAKE 
DOWN SMALL BUSINESSES AND ENRICH
THEMSELVES WHILE CHOKING OFF 
COMPETITORS.
THEIR ABILITY TO CALL THE SHOTS,
UPENDED HIGHER SECTORS AND 
INSPIRE FEAR REPRESENT THE 
POWERS OF A PRIVATE GOVERNMENT.
OUR FOUNDERS WOULD NOT BOW 
BEFORE A KING, NOR SHOULD WE BOW
BEFORE THE EMPERORS OF THE 
ONLINE ECONOMY.
WITH THAT, I RECOGNIZE MR. 
SENSER FOR HIS OPENING 
STATEMENT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WANT TO THANK THE CEOs FOR 
QUICKLY WORKING WITH THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE TO APPEAR TODAY.
THE MEMORIAL SERVICE FOR JOHN 
LEWIS ON MONDAY REQUIRED OUR 
ATTENTION.
HOWEVER, THIS IS VITAL.
THROUGHOUT MY LONG TIME IN 
CONGRESS, I HAVE PRIORITIZED 
OVERSIGHT AS ONE OF OUR SEMINAL 
RESPONSIBILITIES.
PART OF THAT RESPONSIBILITY IS 
TO PERIODICALLY REVIEW THE 
EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR LAWS.
I THINK IT'S A GOOD AND TIMELY 
THING TO BRING TO ALL OF OUR 
COMPANIES.
THESE UNEXPECTED AND 
UNPRECEDENTED TIMES, YOUR 
COMPANIES HAVE PROVIDED 
MOTIVATIONS TO OUR NATIONS CAN 
MEET A MYRIAD OF OUR DAILY 
NEEDS.
THE DELIVERY OF GROCERIES, 
VIRTUAL BUSINESS FOR DOCTORS.
CONNECTING SOCIALLY DISTANT 
FAMILIES.
OR KEEPING OUR SMALL AND LARGE 
BUSINESSES CONNECTED.
THAT RESPONSIBILITY COMES AN 
INCREASED SCRUTINY OF YOUR 
DOMINANCE IN THE MARKETPLACE.
I WANT TO REITERATE SOMETHING I 
SAID THROUGHOUT THIS 
INVESTIGATION.
BEING BIG IS NOT INHERENTLY BAD.
QUITE THE OPPOSITE.
IN AMERICA, YOU SHOULD BE 
REWARDED FOR SUCCESS.
WE'RE HERE TO BETTER UNDERSTAND 
THE ROLE YOUR COMPANIES HAVE IN 
THE DIGITAL MARKETPLACE AND 
IMPORTANTLY, THE EFFECT THEY 
HAVE ON CONSUMERS AND THE PUBLIC
AT LARGE.
YOU LEAD SOME OF TODAY'S MORE 
POWERFUL COMPANIES AND MY 
COLLEAGUES AND I HAVE A GREAT 
INTEREST ABOUT WHAT YOUR 
COMPANIES DO WITH THAT 
ACCUMULATED POWER.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE TECH 
MARKETPLACE PLACE IS DRIVEN BY 
DATA.
SO IT FOUND THAT THEY CONTROL 
THE MARKETPLACE.
THERE ARE BROADER QUESTIONS 
SURROUNDING DATA.
WHO OWNS THE DATA?
WHAT RESPONSIBILITIES DO 
COMPANIES HAVE TO SHARE IT WITH 
THEIR CUSTOMERS OR COMPETITORS?
WHAT IS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF
THAT DATA?
IS THERE ANYTHING MONOPOLISTIC 
IN INQUIRING THIS AND WHAT ABOUT
MONOTIZING IT?
THESE ARE COMPLEX ISSUES THAT 
CONGRESS REGULATORS AND EVEN 
YOUR OWN COMPANIES ARE WRESTLING
WITH IN THE CURRENT 
TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE AND THE 
ANSWERS TO WHICH WE OWE THE 
AMERICAN CONSUMERS.
SINCE THE TECH INVESTIGATION 
BEGAN, WE HAVE HEARD 
RUMBLINGINGS THAT ARE QUICK TO 
SAY YOUR SUCCESSFUL COMPANIES 
HAVE GROWN TOO LARGE.
SINCE THIS HEARING WAS 
ANNOUNCED, SEEMS THOSE 
COMPLAINTS HAVE GOTTEN LOUDER.
WHILE I FIND THESE COMPLAINTS 
INFORMATIVE, I DON'T PLAN ON 
LITIGATING EACH OF THESE 
COMPLAINTS TODAY.
ATITRUST LAW OF A CONSUMER 
WELFARE STANDARD HAS SERVED THIS
COUNTRY WELL FOR OVER A CENTURY.
THOSE LAWS HAVE PROVIDED THE 
FRAMEWORK AND CREATIVITY TO MAKE
WAY FOR SOME OF OUR MOST 
SUCCESSFUL AND INNOVATIVE 
COMPANIES.
I WILL BE THE FIRST TO HIGHLIGHT
THAT.
HOWEVER, AS THE BUSINESS 
LANDSCAPE EVOLVES, WE MUST 
ENSURE THAT OUR EXISTING 
ANTITRUST LAWS ARE APPLIED TO 
MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR COUNTRY 
AND ITS CONSUMERS.
AS WE KNOW COMPANIES LIKE 
FACEBOOK, YOUTUBE AND TWITTER 
HAVE BECOME THE PUBLIC SQUARE OF
TODAY WHERE POLITICAL DEBATE 
UNFOLDS IN REAL TIME.
BUT REPORTS THAT DESCENDING 
VIEWS OFTEN CONSERVATIVE VIEWS 
ARE TARGETED OR CENSORED IS 
SERIOUSLY TROUBLING.
CONSERVATIVES ARE CONSUMERS, 
TOO.
AND THEY NEED THE PROTECTION OF 
THE ANTITRUST LAWS.
THE POWER TO INFLUENCE THE BIG 
CARRIERS WITH REMARKABLE 
RESPONSIBILITIES.
SO LET THE FACTS BE OUR GUIDE 
HERE.
YOUR COMPANIES ARE LARGE.
THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM.
YOUR COMPANIES ARE SUCCESSFUL.
THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM EITHER.
BUT I WANT TO LEAVE HERE TODAY 
WITH A MORE COMPLETE PICTURE OF 
HOW YOUR INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES 
USE YOUR SIZE, SUCCESS AND POWER
AND WHAT IT MEANS TO THE 
AMERICAN CONSUMER.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY 
TIME.
>> THANK THE GENTLEMEN.
THE CHAIR NOW RECOGNIZES THE 
DISTINGUISHED CHAIRMAN OF THE 
FULL COMMITTEE, MR. NADLER, FOR 
HIS OPENING STATEMENT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WANT TO THANK YOU AND THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR THE 
TREMENDOUS EFFORT THAT YOU HAVE 
ALL PUT INTO THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S 
INVESTIGATION.
I APPRECIATE YOUR QUELL CALLING 
THIS HEARING TODAY SO THAT WE 
CAN HEAR DIRECTLY FROM THE 
LEERSD OF AMAZON, APPLE, 
FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE L AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO AN IMPORTANT 
DIALOGUE.
TODAY, IT IS EFFECTIVELY 
IMPOSSIBLE TO USE THE INTERNET 
WITHOUT USING IN ONE WAY OR 
ANOTHER, THE SERVICES OF THESE 
FOUR COMPANIES.
I HAVE LONG BELIEVED WITH THOMAS
JEFFERSON AND LEWIS BRANDICE, 
THAT CONCENTRATION OF POWER IN 
ANY FORM, ESPECIALLY 
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC OR 
POLITICAL POWER, IS DANGEROUS TO
A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.
THAT IS WHY WE MUST EXAMINE 
THESE AND OTHER COMPANIES THAT 
PLAY A DOMINANT ROLE IN OUR 
ECONOMY AND IN OUR SOCIETY.
AND ENSURE THAT OUR ANTITRUST 
LAWS GIVE ENFORCERS THE TOOLS 
THEY NEED TO PRESERVE A HEALTHY 
MARKETPLACE.
THESE PRINCIPLES HAVE GUIDED 
THIS COMMITTEE'S YEAR LONG 
INVESTIGATION INTO COMPETITION 
AND DIGITAL MARKETS AND THEY ARE
THE LENS TO WHICH I APPROACH 
TODAY'S HEARING.
THE OPEN INTERNET HAS DELIVERED 
ENORMOUS BENEFITS TO AMERICANS.
INCLUDING A SURGE OF ECONOMIC 
OPPORTUNITY, MASSIVE INVESTMENT 
AND NEW PATHWAYS FOR EDUCATION 
ONLINE.
BUT THERE'S GROWING EVIDENCE 
THAT A HANDFUL OF CORPORATIONS 
HAVE COME TO CAPTURE AN OUTSIDE 
SHARE OF ONLINE COMMERCE.
FROM PROVIDING THE DOMINANCE 
SEARCH PLATFORM, RETAIL PLATFORM
AND ONLINE MESSAGING PLATFORM TO
PROVIDING THE CLOUD COMPUTING IN
WHICH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF 
OTHER BUSINESSES RELY, THESE 
DOMINANT PLATFORMS NOW COMPRISE 
THE ESSENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR
THE 21st CENTURY.
BY VIRTUE OF CONTROLLING 
ESSENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE, THESE 
COMPANIES HAVE THE ABILITY TO 
CONTROL ACCESS TO MARKET.
IN SOME BASIC WAYS, THE PROBLEM 
IS NOT WHAT WE FACED 130 YEARS 
AGO WHEN RAILROADS TRANSFORMED 
AMERICAN LIFE.
BOTH ENABLING FARMERS AND 
PRODUCERS TO ACCESS NEW MARKETS,
BUT ALSO CREATING A KEY CHOKE 
HOLD THAT THE RAILROAD 
MONOPOLIES COULD U EXPLOIT.
NOTORIOUSLY ABUSED THE POWER IN 
A VARIETY OF WAYS.
THEY CHARGED TOLLS.
THEY DISCRIMINATED AMONG 
FARMERS, PICKING WINNERS AND 
LOSERS ACROSS THE ECONOMY AND BY
EXPANDING INTO BUSINESS, THEY 
COMPETED DIRECTLY WITH 
PRODUCERS, THEY COULD USE THEIR 
DOMINANCE AND TRANSPORTATION TO 
PAY FOR THEIR OWN SERVICES.
THESE TACTICS BY THE RAILROADS 
SPURRED FURY AND DESPAIR ACROSS 
THE COUNTRY.
CONGRESS NICHE WAITING 
INVESTIGATIONS TO DOCUMENT THESE
PROBLEMS AND ENACTED LEGISLATIVE
SOLUTIONS TO OUTLAW THESE 
ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES IN THE
RAILROAD INDUSTRY AND OTHER 
INDUSTRIES DOMINATED BY 
UNREGULATED MONOPOLIES AND 
TRUSTS.
IMPORTANTLY, CONGRESSIONAL 
OVERSIGHT AND LEGISLATIVE 
REFORMS DURING THIS PERIOD DID 
NOT PREVENT THE ARRIVAL OF NEW 
TECHNOLOGY FOR HUMAN PROGRESS.
THAT IT WAS THEIR OLD CONGRESS 
TO ENSURE THE NEW MONOPOLISTS 
COULD NOT ABUSE THEIR POWER.
TODAY, THE DIGITAL ECONOMY POSES
SIMILAR CHALLENGES.
WHILE THE UNDERLYING TECHNOLOGY 
IS DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT, OF 
COURSE, NEW U DIGITAL 
INTERMEDIARIES HAVE THE ABILITY 
TO CONTROL ACCESS TO CRITICAL 
MARKETS.
IF YOU ARE AN INDEPENDENT 
MERCHANTS, DEVELOPER OR CONTENT 
PRODUCER, YOU ARE INCREASINGLY 
RELIANT ON THESE POWERFUL 
INTERMEDIARIES TO ACCESS MARKETS
AND CONSUMERS.
OF COURSE THE ECONOMY, MANY 
BUSINESSES LIVE IN FEAR OF 
EXCLUSION FROM THESE PLATFORMS.
THE FACT SOME COMPANIES HAVE 
SHARED WITH COMMITTEE OVER THE 
PAST YEAR OF THIS INVESTIGATION.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S CURRENT 
REVIEW IN THE DIGITAL 
MARKETPLACE CONTINUES A LONG 
TRADITION IN THIS COMMITTEE OF 
OVERSIGHT OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS 
IN OUR ECONOMY.
FROM THE DAYS OF CHAIRMAN 
EMANUEL SELLER, THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND HIS 
ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE HAVE 
CONDUCTED CAREFUL SECTORS VOEING
SIGNS OF CONSOLIDATION AND 
CONDUCT.
THIS HAS CONTINUED ON A 
BIPARTISAN BASIS OVER THE YEARS 
THROUGH CHAIRMAN BROOKS AND 
CONNIERS AND OTHERS.
AS A 1950 REPORT DESCRIBED OUR 
MANDATE, QUOTE, IT IS THE -- OF 
THIS SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE
FACTORS WHICH TEND TO ELIMINATE 
COMPETITION, STRENGTHEN 
MONOPOLIES, INJURE SMALL 
BUSINESSES OR PROMOTE UNDUE 
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER.
TO ASCERTAIN THE FACTS AND MAKE 
RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THOSE 
FINDINGS.
FOLLOWING IN THIS TRADITION, OUR
INVESTIGATION HAS HELD HEARINGS 
WITH INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT 
WITNESSES, CONSULTATIONS WITH 
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS AND A 
CAREFUL AND PAIN STAKING REVIEW 
OF LARGE VOLUMES OF EVIDENCE 
PROVIDED BY INDUSTRY 
PARTICIPANTS AND REGULATORS.
WHILE ULTIMATELY, IT IS THE 
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ANTITRUST 
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO ENFORCE 
THE LAW, CONGRESS HAS AN 
OBLIGATION TO ASSESS WHETHER THE
LAWS AND POLICIES AND THE WILL 
TO ENFORCE THOSE LAWS AND 
POLICIES ARE ADEQUATE TO ADDRESS
THE COMPETITION ISSUES FACING 
OUR COUNTRY AND TO TAKE ACTION 
IF THEY ARE FOUND TO BE LACKING.
GIVEN THE DOMINANT ROLE THESE 
FOUR COMPANIES PLAY IN OUR 
ECONOMY AND SOCIETY, IT IS ONLY 
REASONABLE THAT OUR CAREFUL 
EXAMINATION OF THE ANTITRUST 
LAWS BEGIN WITH THEM.
I APPRECIATE ALL OF OUR 
WITNESSES TODAY.
THE INVESTIGATION WOULD NOT BE 
COMPLETE, INDEED, IT'S HARDLY 
BEGUN, WITHOUT HEARING FROM THE 
DECISIONMAKERS OF THESE.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY 
TIME.
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMEN AND I 
NOW RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER
OF THE FULL COMMITTEE, THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO, MR. JORDAN,
FOR HIS OPENING STATEMENT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE RANKING
MEMBER.
NOT SURE HOW MANY MORE COMMITTEE
HEARINGS THIS SUBCOMMITTEE OR 
THE FULL COMMITTEE ARE GOING TO 
HAVE THIS CONGRESS, BUT I WANT 
TO THANK JIM FOR HIS GREAT WORK 
FOR THE CONSTITUENTS OF 
WISCONSIN FOR THIS MANY YEARS 
AND FOR THE WORK HE'S DONE THIS 
ENTIRE COMMITTEE.
BIG TECH'S OUT TO GET 
CONSERVATIVES.
THAT'S NOT A SUSPICIOUS.
NOT A HUNCH.
THAT'S A FACT.
JULY 20th, 2020, GOOGLE REMOVES 
BREITBART.
APRIL 19th, 2020, GOOGLE AND 
YOUTUBE ANNOUNCE A POLICY 
CENSORING THE CONTENT THAT 
CONFLICTS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS 
THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION.
THINK ABOUT THAT.
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION.
ORGANIZATION THAT LIED TO US.
THE ORGANIZATION THAT CHILLED 
FOR CHINA AND IF YOU CONTRADICT 
SOMETHING THEY SAY, THEY CAN SAY
WHATEVER THEY WANT.
THEY CAN LIE FOR CHINA.
THEY CAN CHILL FOR CHINA.
YOU SAY SOMETHING AGAINST THEM, 
YOU GET CENSORED.
JUNE 29th, 2020, AMAZON BANS 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACCOUNT ON 
TWITCH AFTER HE RAISES CONCERNS 
ABOUT DEFUNDING THE POLICE.
JUNE 4th, 2020, AMAZON BANS A 
BOOK CRITICAL OF THE CORONAVIRUS
LOCKDOWNS WRITTEN BY A 
CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR.
MAY 27th, 2020, AMAZON SMILE 
WON'T LET YOU U GIVE GIVE TO THE
FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL, BUT YOU
CAN GIVE TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD.
FACEBOOK, JUNE 19th, 2020, TAKES
DOWN POSTS FROM TRUMP'S 
RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
THEY SILENCE A PRO-LIFE 
ADVERTISEMENT.
MAY 19th, 2020, FORMER FACEBOOK 
EMPLOYEES ADMIT FACEBOOK 
ROUTINE
LY SUPPRESSES CONSERVATIVE 
VIEWS.
I HAVEN'T MENTIONED TWITTER.
I ASKED FOR YOU GUYS TO INVITE 
THEM AS A WITNESS.
YOU GUYS SAID NO, I HAVEN'T 
MENTIONED THEM TWO YEARS AGO.
FOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS WERE 
SHADOWED TWO YEARS AGO.
435 IN THE HOUSE.
ONLY FOUR.
ONLY FOUR.
GATES, MEADOWS, NUANCE, JORDAN, 
GET SHAH KOED.
WHAT DID MR. DORSEY TELL US?
IT WAS JUST A GLITCH IN OUR 
ALGORITHM.
WHAT DID YOU PUT IN?
IF I HAD A NICKEL FOR EVERY TIME
I HEARD IT WAS JUST A GLITCH, I 
WOULDN'T BE AS WEALTHY AS OUR 
WITNESSES, BUT I WOULD BE DOING 
ALL RIGHT.
WE'VE HEARD THAT EXCUSE TIME AND
TIME AGAIN.
MAY 28th, THEY SENSOR PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S TWEETS.
SENSORS THE WHITE HOUSE QUOTING 
THE PRESIDENT'S COMMENTS A ABOUT
THE RIOTS IN MINNEAPOLIS.
JUNE 2020, TWITTER SENSORS THE 
PRESIDENT AGAIN.
YOU CAN TWEET ALL YOU WANT ABOUT
THE AUTONOMOUS ZONE THAT 
HAPPENED IN SEATTLE, BUT THE 
PRESIDENT TWEETS HE'S GOING TO 
HAVE ONE IN WASHINGTON, D.C., 
OH, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
YOU GET BANNED.
CENSORED.
DOZENS OF EXAMPLES.
I FORGOT ONE.
I FORGOT ONE.
JUST LAST WEEK, JULY 21st.
JULY 21st.
THE LEADER OF IRAN, ISLAMIC 
REPUBLIC OF IRAN, LARGEST STATE 
SPONSOR OF TERRORISM.
TWITTER ALLOWS THIS TWEET.
QUOTE, THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF 
IRAN WILL NEVER FORGET THE MAR 
TOR DOM OF SUL MANNIE AND WILL 
STRIKE A BLOW IN THE UNITED 
STATES.
SO YOU CAN THREATEN THE CITIZENS
OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY, THE 
LEADER OF THE LARGEST STATE 
SPONSOR OF TERRORISM, THAT'S 
JUST FINE, BUT OH, THE PRESIDENT
SAYS HE'S NOT GOING TO ALLOW 
SOME AUTONOMOUS ZONE IN D.C. AND
HE GETS CENSORED.
ALL KINDS OF EXAMPLES.
MOST OF THEM FROM THIS YEAR AND 
THAT'S WHAT'S CRITICAL TO 
UNDERSTAND.
MOST OF THEM FROM THIS YEAR, AN 
ELECTION YEAR.
THAT'S WHAT CONCERNS ME AND SO 
MANY AMERICANS BECAUSE WE SAW 
WHAT GOOGLE DID IN 2016.
WE ALL KNOW ABOUT THE E-MAIL THE
DAY AFTER THE ELECTION WHERE TOP
EXECUTIVES AT GOOGLE TALKED 
ABOUT THE SILENT DONATION.
IN SPITE OF THEIR EFFORTS TO 
HELP CLINTON, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WON.
BUT WE'RE 97 DAYS BEFORE AN 
ELECTION.
AND THE POWER AS THE PREVIOUS 
CHAIRMAN AND RANKING MEMBER HAVE
SAID, THE POWER THESE COMPANIES 
HAVE TO IMPACT WHAT HAPPENS 
DURING AN ELECTION, WHAT PEOPLE,
WHAT AMERICAN CITIZENS GET TO 
SEE PRIOR TO THEIR VOTING IS 
PRETTY DARN IMPORTANT.
THAT'S WHY THIS COMMITTEE 
HEARING IS IMPORTANT.
WE ALL THINK THE FREE MARKET IS 
GREAT.
WE THINK COMPETITION IS GREAT.
WE LOVE THE FACT THESE ARE 
AMERICAN COMPANIES.
WHAT'S NOT GREAT IS CENSORING 
PEOPLE.
CENSORING CONSERVATIVES AND 
TRYING TO IMPACT ELECTIONS.
IF IT DOESN'T END, THERE HAS TO 
BE CONSEQUENCES.
THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT 
WHAT I THINK SO MANY AMERICANS 
ARE CONCERNED ABOUT.
I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM 
OUR WITNESSES, MR. CHAIRMAN.
BEFORE I YIELD BACK, WE HAVE A 
COLLEAGUE.
I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT 
THAT MR. JOHNSON, THE RANKING 
MEMBER OF THE CONSTITUTION 
SUBCOMMITTEE BE ALLOWED TO 
PARTICIPATE IN TODAY'S HEARING, 
OUR CUSTOMARY PRACTICE FOR 
SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS.
>> THE GENTLEMAN MAKES A 
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
>> I WOULD OBJECT.
OBJECTION IS HEARD.
>> AND NOW USING TODAY'S -- 
>> WHY ARE WE NOT ALLOWING, IT 
IS CUSTOMARY.
THERE WAS A ANONYMOUS CONSENT 
REQUEST.
OBJECTION WAS HEARD.
I WILL NOW INTRODUCE OUR 
WITNESS.
>> THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN 
THE HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE.
>> I WILL NOW INTRODUCE TODAY'S 
WITNESSES.
OUR FIRST, JEFF BEZOS.
MR. JORDAN, I HAVE THE TIME.
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE'S 
LIBERTIES HERE.
>> MR. JORDAN, YOU MADE A 
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST.
OBJECTION WAS HEARD.
THOSE ARE THE RULES.
IT IS NOW MY PLEASURE TO 
INTRODUCE THE RULES.
JEFF BEZOS -- 
>> PUT YOUR MASK ON.
>> OF AMAZON.COM.
MR. BEZOS FOUNDED AMAZON IN 
19 -- EXCUSE ME.
I'M GOING TO REMIND MEMBERS OF 
THIS COMMITTEE UNLESS YOU ARE 
SPEAKING, OUR RULES REQUIRE YOU 
TO WEAR A MASK ACCORDING TO THE 
ATTENDING PHYSICIAN.
I'M SPEAKING ABOUT ANOTHER 
MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE.
I'LL BEGIN AGAIN.
IT IS NOW MY PLEASURE TO 
INTRODUCE TODAY'S WITNESSES.
OUR FIRST IS JEFF BEZOS.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF 
AMAZON.COM.
HE FOUNDED IT IN 1994 AS AN 
ONLINE BOOKSTORE.
SINCE THEN, THEY'VE GROWN TO BE 
THE LARGEST RETAILER ON THE 
INTERNET.
HE ALSO OVERSEES INTO AREAS 
INCLUDING CLOUD COMPUTING, 
DIGITAL STREAMING AND ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE.
HE RECEIVED HIS BACHELOR'S OF 
SCIENCE FROM PRINCETON.
THE SECOND WITNESS, CHIEF 
EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ALPHABET 
AND GOOGLE.
HE JOINED GOOGLE IN 2004 AND HAS
HELPED MANAGE A NUMBER OF 
SUCCESSFUL PRODUCTS INCLUDING 
GOOGLE CHROME, G MAIL AND 
ANDROID OPERATING SYSTEM.
HE ALSO OVERSHOWED THE COMPANY'S
POPULAR SEARCH PRODUCTS.
PRIOR TO THIS, HE WORKED AT 
McKENZIE.
RECEIVED A DEGREE IN 
METALLURGICAL ENGINEERING, A 
MASTERS FROM STANFORD UNIVERSITY
AND AN MBA FROM THE WHARTON 
SCHOOL OF UNIVERSITY OF 
PENNSYLVANIA.
OUR THIRD WITNESS IS TIM COOK, 
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF 
APPLE.
MR. COOK JOINED APPLE IN 1998 
AND SERVED AS CHIEF OPERATIONAL 
OFFICER UNDER STEVE JOBS.
IN 2011, MR. COOK WAS NAMED CEO.
WHILE AT APPLE, HE HAS OVERSEEN 
THEIR EXPANSION INTO NEW 
MARKETS, THE LAUNCH AND 
DEVELOPMENTS OF APPLE PAY, APPLE
WATCH, iCLOUD, APPLE CARD AND 
HOME POD.
PRIOR TO JOINING APPLE, HE 
SERVED AS DIRECTOR OF NORTH 
AMERICAN FULFILLMENT FOR IBM.
HE RECEIVED A BASHLOR OF SCIENCE
FROM AUBURN AND MBA FROM DUKE 
UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF BUSINESS.
OUR LAST WITNESS IS MARK 
ZUCKERBERG.
FOUNDER, CHAIRMAN AND CEO OF 
FACEBOOK.
MR. ZUCKERBERG INITIALLY 
LAUNCHED FACEBOOK IN ORDER TO 
HELP CONNECT COLLEGE STUDENTS AT
HIS SCHOOL MORE EASILY.
SINCE THEN, THE COMPANY HAS 
GROWN INTO THE WORLD'S LARGEST 
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM WITH 1.7 
BILLION GLOBAL DAILY ACTIVE 
USERS.
HE ATTENDED HARVARD BEFORE 
LEAVING THE FOCUS FULL TIME ON 
DEVELOPING FACEBOOK.
WE WELCOME ALL OF OUR 
DISTINGUISHED WITNESSES AND 
THANK THEM FOR PARTICIPATING IN 
TODAY'S HEARING AND NOW, WE'LL 
BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU IN AND 
BEFORE I DO THAT, I WANTED TO 
ALSO REMIND YOU THAT YOU ARE THE
ONLY ONES FROM YOUR RESPECTIVE 
COMPANIES INVITED TO TESTIFY 
TODAY.
AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH NORMAL 
HOUSE PRACTICE IN SECTION G OF 
THE HOUSE REMOTE COMMITTEE 
PROCEEDING REGULATIONS, YOUR 
SWORN TESTIMONY MUST BE YOUR 
OWN.
LET ME KNOW IF AT ANY POINT, YOU
WISH TO MUTE YOURSELF IF YOU 
WISH TO CONFER WITH YOUR COUNTY 
COUNSEL.
WILL YOU MUTE YOUR MICROPHONES 
AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HANDS.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM UNDER 
PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE 
TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE 
IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST 
OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION 
AND BELIEF, SO HELP YOU GOD?
>> YES.
>> YES.
>> I DO.
>> LET THE RECORD SHOW THE 
WITNESSES ANSWEREDED IN THE 
AFFIRMATIVE.
THANK YOU AND YOU MAY REMAIN 
SEATED.
YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENTS WILL BE 
ENTERED INTO THE RECORD IN THEIR
ENTIRETY.
U I ASK YOU SUMMARIZE YOUR 
TESTIMONY IN FIVE MINUTES TO 
HELP YOU STAY WITHIN THAT TIME, 
THERE'S A TIMING LIGHT IN WEBX.
WHEN THE LIGHT SWITCHES FROM 
GREEN TO YELLOW, YOU HAVE ONE 
MINUTE TO CONCLUDE.
WHEN IT'S RED, IT SIGNALS YOUR 
FIVE MINUTES HAVE EXPIRED.
MR. BEZOS, YOU MAY BEGIN.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
RANKING MEMBER AND MEMBERS OF 
THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
I WAS BORN INTO GREAT WEALTH.
NOT MONETARY WEALTH, BUT THE 
WEALTH OF A LOVING FAMILY.
A FAMILY THAT FOSTERED MY 
CURIOSITY AND ENCOURAGED ME TO 
DREAM BIG.
MY MOM, JACKIE, HAD ME WHEN SHE 
WAS A 17-YEAR-OLD HIGH SCHOOL 
STUDENT IN ALBUQUERQUE.
BEING PREGNANT IN HIGH SCHOOL 
WAS NOT POPULAR.
THE SCHOOL TRIED TO KICK HER 
OUT.
BUT SHE WAS ALLOWED TO FINISH.
AFTER MY GRANDFATHER NEGOTIATED 
TERMS WITH THE PRINCIPAL.
SHE COULDN'T HAVE A LOCKER.
NO EXTRA KRIRK LARS AND COULDN'T
WALK ACROSS THE STAGE TO GET HER
DIPLOMA.
SHE GRADUATED AND WAS DETERMINED
TO CONTINUE HER ENL KAGS, SO SHE
ENROLLED IN NIGHT SCHOOL, 
BRINGING ME, HER INFANT SON, TO 
CLASS WITH HER THROUGHOUT.
MY DAD'S NAME IS MIGUEL.
HE ADOPTED ME WHEN I WAS 4.
HE WAS 16 WHEN HE CAME TO THE 
U.S. FROM CUBA BY HIMSELF 
SHORTLY AFTER CASTRO TOOK OVER.
MY DAD DIDN'T SPEAK ENGLISH AND 
DID NOT HAVE AN EASY PATH.
WHAT HE DID HAVE WAS GRIT AND 
DETERMINATION.
HE RECEIVED A SCHOLARSHIP TO 
COLLEGE IN ALBUQUERQUE, WHICH IS
WHERE HE MET MY MOM.
TOGETHER, WITH MY GRANDPARENTS, 
THESE HARD WORKING, RESOURCEFUL 
AND LOVING PEOPLE MADE ME WHO I 
AM.
I WALKED AWAY FROM A STEADY JOB 
ON WALL STREET INTO A SEATTLE 
GARAGE TO FIND AMAZON, FULLY 
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT MIGHT NOT 
WORK.
IT FEELS LIKE JUST YESTERDAY I 
WAS DRIVING THE PACKAGES TO THE 
POST OFFICE MYSELF, DREAM THAG 
ONE DAY, WE MIGHT AFFORD A 
FORKLIFT.
CUSTOMER OBSESSION HAS DRIVEN 
OUR SUCCESS.
I TAKE IT AS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH
THAT CUSTOMERS DO THE RIGHT 
THING.
YOU EARN TRUST SLOWLY OVER TIME 
BY DOING HARD THINGS WELL.
DELIVERING ON TIME.
OFFERING EVERY DAY LOW PRICES.
MAKING PROMISES AND KEEPING THEM
AND MAKING PRINIPLED DECISIONS,
EVEN WHEN UNPOPULAR.
OUR APPROACH IS WORKING.
80% OF AMERICANS HAVE A 
FAVORABLE IMPRESSION OF AMAZON 
OVERALL.
WHO KNEW AMERICANS TRUST AMAZON 
TO DO THE RIGHT THING?
ONLY THEIR DOCTORS AND THE 
MILITARY.
THE RETAIL MARKET IS 
EXTRAORDINARILY LARGE AND 
COMPETITIVE.
MORE THAN 4% OF U.S. RETAIL.
THERE'S ROOM IN RETAIL FOR 
MULTIPLE WINNERS.
WE COMPETE AGAINST LARGE PLAYERS
LIKE COSTCO, KROGER AND OF 
COURSE, WALMART.
A COMPANY MORE THAN TWICE 
AMAZON'S SIZE.
20 YEARS AGO, WE MADE THE 
DECISION TO INVITE OTHER SELLERS
TO SELL IN OUR STORE.
TO SHARE THE SAME VALUABLE REAL 
ESTATE WE SPEND BILLIONS TO 
BUILD MARKET AND MAINTAIN.
WE BELIEVE THAT COMBINING THE 
STRENGTHS OF AMAZON'S STORE WITH
THE VAST SELECTION OF PRODUCTS 
OFFERED BY THIRD PARTIES WOULD 
BE A BETTER EXPERIENCE FOR 
CUSTOMERS.
AND THAT THE GROWING PIE OF 
REVENUE AND PROFITS WOULD BE BIG
ENOUGH FOR ALL.
WE WERE BETTING THAT IT WAS NOT 
A ZERO SUM GAME.
FORTUNATELY, WE WERE RIGHT.
THERE ARE NOW 1.7 MILLION SMALL 
AND MEDIUM U SIZED BUSINESSES 
SELLING ON AMAZON.
THE TRUST CUSTOMERS PUT IN US 
EVERY DAY HAS ALLOWED AMAZON TO 
CREATE MORE JOBS IN THE UNITED 
STATES OVER THE PAST DECADE THAN
ANY OTHER COMPANY.
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS 
ACROSS 42 STATES.
AMAZON EMPLOYEES MAKE A MINIMUM 
OF $15 AN HOUR.
MORE THAN DOUBLE THE FEDERAL 
MINIMUM WAGE.
AND WE OFFER THE BEST BENEFITS.
BENEFITS THAT INCLUDE HEALTH 
INSURANCE, 401(k) RETIREMENT AND
PARENTAL LEAVE, WHICH INCLUDES 
20 WEEKS OF PAID MATERNITY 
LEAVE.
MORE THAN ANY PLACE ON EARTH, 
ENTREPRENEURIAL COMPANIES START,
GROW AND THRIVE HERE IN THE U.S.
WE NURTURE ENTREPRENEURS AND 
START UPS WITH STABLE RULE OF 
LAW.
THE FINEST UNIVERSITY SYSTEM IN 
THE WORLD.
THE FREEDOM OF DEMOCRACY.
AND A DEEPLY ACCEPTED CULTURE OF
RISK TAKING.
OF COURSE, THIS GREAT NATION OF 
OURS IS FAR FROM PERFECT.
EVEN AS WE REMEMBER CONGRESSMAN 
JOHN LEWIS AND HONOR HIS LEGACY,
WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A MUCH 
NEEDED RACE RECKONING.
WE ALSO FACE THE CHALLENGES OF 
CLIMATE CHANGE AND INCOME 
INEQUALITY AND ARE STUMBLING 
THROUGH THE CRISIS OF A GLOBAL 
PANDEMIC.
STILL, WITH ALL OF OUR FAULTS 
AND PROBLEMS, THE REST OF THE 
WORLD WOULD LOVE EVEN THE 
TINIEST SIP OF THE ELIXIR WE 
HAVE HERE IN THE U.S.
IMMIGRANTS LIKE MY DAD SEE WHAT 
A TREASURE THIS COUNTRY IS.
THEY HAVE PERSPECTIVE AND OFTEN 
CAN SEE IT EVEN MORE CLEARLY 
THAN THOSE OF US WHO WERE LUCKY 
ENOUGH TO BE BORN HERE.
IT IS STILL DAY ONE FOR THIS 
COUNTRY AND EVEN IN THE FACE OF 
TODAY'S HUMBLING CHALLENGES, I 
HAVE NEVER BEEN MORE OPTIMISTIC 
ABOUT OUR FUTURE.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY AND I'M 
VERY HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR 
QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. BEZOS.
MR. BACHAI, YO ARE NOW 
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
RANK KING MEMBER AND MEMBERS OF 
THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
BEFORE I START, I KNOW THIS 
HEARING WAS DELAYED FOR THE 
CEREMONIES TO HONOR THE LIFE OF 
JOHN LEWIS.
BECAUSE OF HIS COURAGE, THIS 
WORLD IS A BETTER PLACE.
HE'LL BE DEEPLY MISSED.
IT'S HARD, DISCUSSION OF 
OPPORTUNITY.
THIS HAS NEVER BEEN MORE 
IMPORTANT AS A THE GLOBAL 
PANDEMIC POSES DUAL CHALLENGE TO
OUR HEALTH AND OUR ECONOMY.
EXPANDING CCESS TO OPPORTUNITY 
THROUGH TECHNOLOGY IS PERSONAL 
TO ME.
I DIDN'T HAVE MUCH ACCESS TO A 
COMPUTER GROWING UP IN INDIA, SO
YOU CAN IMAGINE MY AMAZEMENT 
WHEN I ARRIVED IN THE U.S. FOR 
GRADUATE SCHOOL AND SAW A LAB OF
COMPUTERS TO USE WHEN EVER I 
WANTED.
ACCESSING THE INTERNET FOR THE 
FIRST TIME SET ME ON A PATH TO 
BRING TECHNOLOGY TO AS MANY 
PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE.
IT INSPIRED ME TO BUILD GOOGLE'S
FIRST BROWSER, CHROME.
I'M PROUD THAT 11 YEARS LATER, 
SO MANY PEOPLE EXPERIENCE CHROME
FOR FREE.
GOOGLE TAKES PRIDE IN THE NUMBER
OF PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE THEIR 
PRODUCT.
WE ARE EVEN PROUDER OF WHAT THEY
DO WITH THEM.
FROM THE 140 MILLION STUDENTS 
AND TEACHERS USING G SWEET FOR 
EDUCATION TO STAY CONNECTED 
DURING THE PANDEMIC.
TO THE 5 MILLION AMERICANS 
GAINING DIGITAL SKILLS TO GROW 
WITH GOOGLE.
TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE 
TURNED TO GOOGLE FOR HELP.
TO FINDING THE FASTEST PHONE TO 
LEARNING HOW TO COOK A NEW DISH 
ON YOUTUBE.
GOOGLE'S WORK WOULD NOT BE 
POSSIBLE WITHOUT A LONG 
TRADITION OF AMERICAN TRADITION.
WE EMPLOY MORE THAN 75,000 
PEOPLE IN THE U.S. ACROSS 26 
STATES.
THE PROMISE OF POLICIES 
ESTIMATED THAT IN 2018, WE 
ENLISTED MORE THAN $20 MILLION 
IN THE U.S., CITING AS THE 
LARGEST CAPITAL IN AMERICA THAT 
YEAR AND ONE OF THE TOP FIVE FOR
THE LAST THREE YEARS.
ONE WAY WE CONTRIBUTE IS BY 
BUILDING HELPFUL PRODUCTS.
RESEARCH FOUND FREE SERVICES 
LIKE SEARCH, G MAIL, MAPS AND 
PHOTOS PROVIDE THOUSANDS OF 
DOLLARS A YEAR TO THE AVERAGE 
AMERICAN AND MANY ARE SMALL 
BIDSES USING OUR DIGITAL TOOLS 
TO GROW.
A FAMILY OWNED STONE COMPANY IN 
WISCONSIN USES GOOGLE MY 
BUSINESS.
A A STORE IN VISTA, RHODE ISLAND
CREDITS GOOGLE WITH HELPING THEM
REACH CUSTOMERS ONLINE DURING 
THE PANDEMIC.
NEARLY ONE-THIRD OF SMALL 
BUSINESS OWNERS SAY THAT WITHOUT
DIGITAL TOOLS, THEY WOULD HAVE 
HAD TO CLOSE ALL OR PART OF 
THEIR BUSINESS DURING COVID.
ON THE WAY WE CONTRIBUTE IS BY 
BEING AMONG THE WORLD'S BIGGEST 
INVESTORS IN RESEARCH AND 
DEVELOPMENT.
BY THE END OF 2019, OUR RND 
SPEND HAD INCREASED TENFOLD OVER
TEN YEARS.
FROM $2.8 BILLION TO $26 
BILLION.
AND WE HAVE INVESTED $9 BILLION 
IN NINE YEARS.
OUR ENGINEERS HELP AMERICA 
REMAIN A GLOBAL LEAD NER 
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES LIKE 
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 
SELF-DRIVING CARS AND COMPUTING.
JUST AS AMERICA'S TECHNOLOGY 
LEADERSHIP IS NOT INEVITABLE, 
GOOGLE'S CONTINUEDGUARANTEED.
TODAY, USERS HAVE MORE ACCESS TO
INFORMATION THAN EVER BEFORE.
COMPETITION RISES TO INNOVATE 
AND LEADS TO BETTER PRODUCTS.
LOWER CHOICES AND MORE CHOICES 
FOR EVERYONE.
FOR EXAMPLE, COMPETITION HELPS 
LOWER COSTS BY 40% OVER THE LAST
DECADE, WITH SAVINGS PASSED DOWN
TO CONSUMERS.
OPEN PLATFORMS LIKE ANDROID ALSO
SUPPORT THE FOUNDATION OF 
OTHERS.
USING ANDROID, THOUSANDS OF 
MOBILE OPERATORS BUILD AND SELL 
THEIR OWN DEVICES WITHOUT PAYING
LICENSES FEES.
THIS HAS ENABLED BILLIONS OF 
CONSUMERS TO OFFER CUTTING EDGE 
SMART PHONES, SOME FOR LESS THAN
$50.
WHETHER BUILDING TOOLS FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES, GOOGLE SUCCEEDS WHEN
OTHERS SUCCEED.
TREATING IT RESPONSIBILITY.
I'VE NEVER FORGOTTEN HOW ACCESS 
TO TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION 
CHANGED THE COURSE OF MY LIFE.
GOOGLE AIMS TO BUILD PRODUCTS 
THAT INCREASE ACCESS TO 
OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE.
NO MATTER WHERE YOU LIVE, WHAT 
YOU BELIEVE OR HOW MUCH MONEY 
YOU EARN.
WE ARE COMMITTED TO DOING THIS 
RESPONSIBLY IN PARTNERSHIP WITH 
LAWMAKERS TO ENSURE EVERY 
AMERICAN HAS ACCESS TO THE 
INCREDIBLE OPPORTUNITY 
TECHNOLOGY CREATES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. COOK IS NOW RECOGNIZED FOR 
FIVE MINUTES.
>> CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER, 
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 OF NOT 
ONLY A HERO, BUT SOMEONE I KNEW 
PERSONALLY WHOSE EXAMPLE 
INSPIRES ME AND GUIDES ME STILL.
EVERY AMERICAN OWES JOHN LEWIS A
DEBT AND I FEEL FORTUNATE TO 
HAIL FROM A STATE AND A COUNTRY 
THAT BENEFITTED SO PROFOUNDLY 
FROM HIS LEADERSHIP.
MY NAME IS TIM COOK.
I'VE BEEN APPLE'S CEO SINCE 2011
AND A PROUD EMPLOYEE OF THIS 
UNIQUELY AMERICAN COMPANY SINCE 
1998.
AT APPLE, WE MAKE OURSELVES A 
PROMISE AND OUR CUSTOMERS A 
PROMISE.
IT'S A PROMISE THAT WE'LL ONLY 
BUILD THINGS THAT MAKE US PROUD.
AS STEVE PUT IT, WE ONLY MAKE 
THINGS FOR OUR FAMILY AND 
FRIENDS.
YOU COULD TRY TO DEFINE THIS 
DIFFERENCE IN A LOT OF WAYS.
YOU CAN CALL IT SIMPLICITY OF 
DESIGN ALL THOSE THINGS ARE 
E
TRUE, BUT IF YOU WANT TO PUT IT 
SIMPLY, PRODUCTS LIKE iPHONE 
JUST WORK.
WHEN CUSTOMERS GIVE iPHONE A A 
99% SATISFACTION RATING, THAT'S 
THE MESSAGE THEY'RE SENDING 
ABOUT THE USER EXPERIENCE.
BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT CUSTOMER 
HAVES A LOT OF CHOICES AND THAT 
OUR PRODUCTS FACE FIERCE 
COMPETITION.
COMPANIES LIKE SAMSUNG, LG, 
HUAWEI AND GOOGLE HAVE BUILT 
SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSES WITH 
DIFFERENT APPROACHES.
WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT.
OUR GOAL IS THE BEST.
NOT THE MOST.
IN FACT, WE DON'T HAVE A 
DOMINANT SHARE IN ANY MARKET OR 
IN ANY PRODUCT CATEGORY WHERE WE
DO BUSINESS.
WHAT DOES MOTIVATE US IS THAT 
TIMELESS DRIVE TO BUILD NEW 
THINGS WE'RE PROUD TO SHOW OUR 
USERS.
WE'RE FOCUSED ON THOSE 
INNOVATIONS, ON DEEPENING CORE 
PRINCIPLES LIKE PRIVACY AND 
SECURITY AND CREATING NEW U 
FEATURES.
IF 2008, WE INTRODUCED A NEW 
FUTURE OF THE iPHONE CALLED THE 
APP STORE.
LAUNCHED WITH 50 APPS, WHICH 
SEEMED LIKE A LOT AT THE TIME, 
THE APP STORE PROVIDED A SAFE 
AND TRUSTED WAY FOR USERS TO GET
MORE OUT OF THEIR PHONE.
PHYSICAL MEDIA LIKE CDs HAD TO 
BE SHIPPED AND WERE HARD TO 
UPDATE.
FROM THE BEGINNING, THE APP 
STORE WAS A REVOLUTIONARY 
ALTERNATIVE.
DEVELOPERS SET PRICES FOR THEIR 
APPS AND NEVER PAID FOR SHELF 
SPACE.
WE PROVIDE EVERY DEVELOPER WITH 
TOOLS LIKE COMPILERS, 
PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES AND MORE 
THAN 150,000 ESSENTIAL SOFTWARE 
BUILDING BLOCKS CALLED APIs.
THE APP STORE GUIDELINES ENSURE 
A HIGH QUALITY, RELIABLE AND 
SECURE USER EXPERIENCE.
THEY'RE TRANSPARENT AND APPLIED 
EQUALLY TO EVERY DEVELOPER.
FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF APPS, 
DEVELOPERS KEEP 100% OF THE 
MONEY THEY MAKE.
THE ONLY APPS THAT ARE SUBJECT 
TO A COMMISSION ARE THOSE WHERE 
THE DEVELOPER ACQUIRES A 
CUSTOMER ON AN APPLE DEVICE AND 
WHERE THE FEATURES OR SERVICES 
WOULD BE EXPERIENCED AND 
CONSUMED ON AN APPLE DEVICE.
IN THE APP STORES'S MORE THAN 
TEN-YEAR HISTORY, WE HAVE NEVER 
RAISED THE COMMISSION OR ADDED A
SINGLE FEE.
IN FACT, WE'VE REDUCED IT FOR 
SUBSCRIPTIONS AND EXEMPTED 
ADDITIONAL CATEGORIES OF APPS.
I'M HERE TODAY BECAUSE IT'S 
REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE.
WE APPROACHED THIS PROCESS WITH 
RESPECT AND HUMILITY.
BUT WE MAKE NO CONCESSION ON THE
FACTS.
WHAT BEGAN AS 500 APPS IS NOW 
MORE THAN 1.7 MILLION.
ONLY 60 OF WHICH ARE APPLE 
SOFTWARE.
IF APPLE IS THE GATE KEEPER, 
APPLE WANTS TO OPEN THE GATE 
WIDER.
WE WANT TO GET EVERY APP ON THE 
STORE, NOT KEEP THEM OFF.
CONTRIBUTIONS ARE CONSISTENT.
THE ECOSYSTEM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
9 MILLION JOBS AND FACILITATED 
138 BILLION IN COMMERCE IN 2019 
ALONE.
I SHARE THE COMMITTEE'S BELIEF 
THAT COMPETITION PROMOTES 
INNOVATION, THAT IT MAKES SPACE 
FOR THE NEXT GREAT IDEA.
AND THAT IT GIVES CONSUMERS MORE
CHOICES.
SINCE APPLE WAS FOUNDED, THESE 
THINGS HAVE DEFINED US.
THE FIRST MAC BROUGHT 
OPPORTUNITY AND POSSIBILITY INTO
THE HOME.
THE iPOD HELPED MUSICIANS AND 
ARTISTS TO SHARE THEIR CREATIONS
AND BE PAID FAIRLY FOR IT.
THIS LEGACY DOES MUCH MORE THAN 
MAKE US PROUD.
IT INSPIRES US TO WORK 
TIRELESSLY TO MAKE SURE TOMORROW
WILL BE EVEN BETTER THAN TODAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I LOOK FORWARD TO RESPONDING TO 
YOUR QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. COOK.
MR. ZUCKERBERG IS NOW RECOGNIZED
FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU.
BEFORE I BEGIN, I WANT TO ADD MY
VOICE TO THOSE HONORING 
CONGRESSMAN JOHN LEWIS AND HIS 
SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.
AMERICA HAS LOST A REAL HERO WHO
NEVER STOPPED FIGHTING FOR THE 
RIGHTS OF EVERY PERSON.
CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER, 
R
MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, 
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TESTIFY.
THE TECH INDUSTRY IS AN AMERICAN
SUCCESS STORY.
THE PRODUCTS WE BUILD HAVE 
CHANGED THE WORLD AND IMPROVED 
PEOPLE'S LIVES.
OUR INDUSTRY IS ONE OF THE WAYS 
THAT AMERICA SHARES ITS VALUES 
WITH THE WORLD AND ONE OF OUR 
GREATEST ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL 
EXPORTS.
FACEBOOK IS PART OF THIS STORY.
WE STARTED WITH AN IDEA TO GIVE 
PEOPLE THE POWER TO SHARE AND 
CONNECT.
AND WE BUILT SERVICES THAT 
BILLIONS OF PEOPLE FIND USEFUL.
I'M PROUD THAT WE'VE GIVEN 
PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER HAD A 
VOICE BEFORE THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
BE HEARD. BEFORE THE OPPORTUNIT 
BE HEARD AND GIVEN SMALL 
BUSINESSES ACCESS TO TOOLS THAT 
ONLY THE LARGEST PLAYERS USED TO
HAVE.
SINCE COVID EMERGED, I'M PROUD 
THAT PEOPLE HAVE USED OUR 
SERVICES TO STAY IN TOUCH WITH 
FRIENDS AND FAMILY WHO THEY 
CAN'T BE WITH IN PERSON AND TO 
KEEP THEIR SMALL BUSINESSES 
RUNNING ONLINE WHEN PHYSICAL 
STORES ARE CLOSED.
I BELIEVE THAT FACEBOOK AND THE 
U.S. TECH INDUSTRY ARE A FORCE 
FOR INNOVATION AND EMPOWERING 
PEOPLE.
BUT I RECOGNIZE 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 OF YOUR COMPETITORS HAVE 
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OR BILLIONS
OF USERS, SOME ARE UPSTARTS, BUT
OTHERS ARE GATE KEEPERS WITH THE
POWER TO DECIDE IF WE CAN EVEN 
RELEASE OUR APPS IN THEIR APP 
STORES TO COMPETE WITH THEM.
IN MANY AREAS, WE'RE BEHIND OUR 
COMPETITORS.
THE MOST POPULAR MESSAGING 
SERVICE IN THE U.S. IS 
I-MESSAGE.
THE FASTEST GROWING APP IS 
TIKTOK.
THE MOST POPULAR APP FOR VIDEO 
IS YOUTUBE.
THE FASTEST GROWING ADS PLATFORM
IS AMAZON.
THE LARGEST ADS PLATFORM IS 
GOOGLE.
AND FOR EVERY DOLLAR SPENT ON 
ADVERTISING IN THE U.S., LESS 
THAN 10 CENTS IS SPENT WITH US.
WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT ONLINE 
PLATFORMS, BUT I THINK THE TRUE 
NATURE OF COMPETITION IS MUCH 
BROADER.
WHEN GOOGLE BOUGHT YOUTUBE, THEY
COULD COMPETE AGAINST THE CABLE 
INDUSTRY.
WHEN AMAZON BOUGHT WHOLE FOOD 
FOODS, THEY COULD COMPETE 
AGAINST KROGER AND WALMART.
NOW PEOPLE CAN WATCH VIDEO, GET 
GROCERIES DELIVERED, AND SEND 
PRIVATE MESSAGES FOR FREE.
THAT'S COMPETITION.
NEW COMPANIES ARE CREATED ALL 
THE TIME ALL OVER THE WORLD.
AND HISTORY SHOWS THAT IF WE 
DON'T KEEP INNOVATING, SOMEONE 
WILL REPLACE EVERY COMPANY HERE 
TODAY.
THAT CHANGE CAN OFTEN HAPPEN 
FASTER THAN YOU EXPECT.
OF THE TEN MOST VALUABLE 
COMPANIES A DECADE AGO, ONLY 
THREE STILL MAKE THAT LIST 
TODAY.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE THE TOP
TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES COME FROM, 
A DECADE AGO THE VAST MAJORITY 
WERE AMERICAN.
TODAY, ALMOST HALF ARE CHINESE.
ASIDE FROM COMPETITION, THERE 
ARE OTHER SERIOUS ISSUES RELATED
TO THE INTERNET INCLUDING 
QUESTIONS ABOUT ELECTIONS, 
HARMFUL CONTENT AND PRIVACY.
WHILE THESE ARE NOT ANTITRUST 
ISSUES AND ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY 
THE TOPIC OF TODAY'S HEARING, I 
RECOGNIZE THAT WE'RE OFTEN AT 
THE CENTER OF THESE DISCUSSIONS.
WE BUILD PLATFORMS FOR SHARING 
IDEAS AND IMPORTANT DEBATES PLAY
OUT ACROSS OUR SERVICES.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS ULTIMATELY 
LEADS TO MORE PROGRESS.
BUT IT MEANS WE OFTEN FIND 
OURSELVES IN THE MIDDLE OF DEEP 
DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT SOCIAL 
ISSUES AND HIGH-STAKES 
ELECTIONS.
I PERSONALLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT 
PRIVATE COMPANIES SHOULD BE 
MAKING SO MANY DECISIONS ABOUT 
THESE ISSUES BY THEMSELVES.
AND THAT'S WHY LAST YEAR I MADE 
THE CASE THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE 
NEW REGULATION FOR THE INTERNET.
FACEBOOK STANDS FOR A SET OF 
BASIC PRINCIPLES, GIVING PEOPLE 
VOICE AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, 
KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE, UPHOLDING 
DEMOCRATIC TRADITIONS LIKE 
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND 
VOTING, AND ENABLING AND OPENING
A COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE.
THESE ARE FUNDAMENTAL VALUES FOR
MOST OF US, BUT NOT FOR EVERYONE
IN THE WORLD, NOT FOR EVERY 
COMPANY THAT WE COMPETE WITH OR 
THE COMPANIES THEY REPRESENT.
AS COMPETITION INCREASES, 
THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT OUR 
VALUES WILL WIN OUT.
I'M PROUD OF THE SERVICES WE 
BUILD AND HOW THEY IMPROVE 
PEOPLE'S LIVES.
WE COMPETE HARD.
WE COMPETE FAIRLY.
WE TRY TO BE THE BEST.
WHEN WE SUCCEED, IT'S BECAUSE WE
DELIVER GREAT EXPERIENCES THAT 
PEOPLE LOVE.
THANK YOU AND I WILL FORWARD TO 
ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU.
AND I THANK THE WITNESSES FOR 
YOUR OPENING STATEMENTS.
BEFORE I BEGIN RECOGNIZING 
MEMBERS FOR QUESTIONING UNDER 
THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE, WITHOUT 
OBJECTION I'M GOING TO ENTER 
INTO THE HEARING RECORD THE 
DOCUMENTS AND EXHIBITS MAJORITY 
MEMBERS WILL BE REFERENCING IN 
THEIR QUESTIONING TODAY.
THESE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN 
DISTRIBUTE TODAY THE WITNESSES.
I WILL NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR 
FIVE MINUTES.
>> OVER 85% OF ALL ONLINE 
SEARCHES GO THROUGH GOOGLE, 
EVERY ONLINE COMPANY IN THE 
UNITED STATES DEPENDS ON GOOGLE 
TO REACH USERS.
A BUSINESS MAY SINK OR SWIM 
BASED ON GOOGLE'S DECISIONS 
ALONE.
NUMEROUS ONLINE BUSINESSES TOLD 
US THAT GOOGLE STEALS THEIR 
CONTENT AND PRIVILEGES ITS OWN 
SITES IN WAYS THAT PROFIT GOOGLE
BUT CRUSH EVERYONE ELSE.
MOST BUSINESSES ASKED TO STAY 
ANONYMOUS DUE TO FEARS THAT 
GOOGLE WOULD RETALIATE AGAINST 
THEM.
HE HAD TO DOWNSIZE HIS BUSINESS 
AND LAYOFF HALF OF HIS STAFF.
HE TOLD US AND I QUOTE, IF 
SOMEONE CAME TO ME WITH AN IDEA 
FOR A WEBSITE TODAY, I WOULD 
TELL THEM TO RUN, RUN AS FAR 
AWAY FROM THE WEB AS POSSIBLE, 
LAUNCH A LAWN CARE BUSINESS, 
SOMETHING GOOGLE CAN'T TAKE AWAY
AS SOON AS HE OR SHE IS 
THRIVING.
SO MY FIRST QUESTION, WHY DOES 
GOOGLE STEAL CONTENT FROM HONEST
BUSINESSES?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH RESPECT, I
DISAGREE WITH THAT 
CHARACTERIZATION.
JUST LAST WEEK I MET WITH MANY 
SMALL BUSINESSES, IN FACT, TODAY
WE SUPPORT 1.4 MILLION SMALL 
BUSINESSES.
SUPPORTING OVER $385 BILLION IN 
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.
WE SEE MANY BUSINESSES TRY 
PARTICULARLY EVEN DURING THE 
PANDEMIC BUSINESSES AN EXAMPLE, 
KETTLE BELLS FROM TEXAS -- 
>> I HAVE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF 
TIME.
BUT MY QUESTION IS VERY 
SPECIFIC.
WE HEARD THROUGHOUT THIS 
INVESTIGATION THAT GOOGLE HAS 
STOLEN CONTENT TO BUILD YOUR OWN
BUSINESS.
THESE ARE CONSISTENT REPORTS AND
SO YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THAT 
DOESN'T HAPPEN IS INCONSISTENT 
WITH WHAT WE'VE LEARNED DURING 
THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION.
I'LL MOVE ON TO A NEW QUESTION.
MR. PICHAI, MOST AMERICANS 
BELIEVE WHEN THEY ENTER A SEARCH
QUERY, GOOGLE SHOWS THE MOST 
RELEVANT RESULTS.
MY QUESTION, ISN'T THERE A 
FUNDAMENTAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
BETWEEN SERVING USERS WHO WANT 
TO ACCESS THE MOST AND MOST 
RELEVANT INFORMATION AND 
GOOGLE'S BUSINESS MODEL WHICH 
INCENTIVIZES GOOGLE TO SELL ADS 
AND KEEP USERS ON GOOGLE'S OWN 
SITES. 
>> WE HAVE ALWAYS FOCUSED ON 
PROVIDING USERS THE MOST 
RELEVANT INFORMATION AND WE RELY
ON THE TRUST FROM USERS TO COME 
BACK FOR GOOGLE EVERY DAY.
IN FACT, THE VAST MAJORITY OF 
QUERIES IN GOOGLE, WE DON'T SHOW
ADS AT ALL.
AND WE SHOW ADS ONLY FOR A SMALL
SUBSET OF INKWERS.
THEY MAY BE LOOKING FOR 
SOMETHING LIKE TV SETS OR SO 
ON -- 
>> WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THE PART
THAT YOU DO USE THE GOOGLE ADS 
FOR.
IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF YOUR 
BUSINESS.
WHAT'S THE ACTUAL -- 200 
BILLION?
300 BILLION?
>> IN TERMS OF REVENUE, IT'S 
AROUND 100-PLUS BILLION DOLLARS,
BUT -- 
>> THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY, MR. 
PICHAI.
LET ME MOVE ON.
REALLY, MR. PICHAI, IT'S 
GOOGLE'S BUSINESS MODEL THAT'S 
THE PROBLEM.
GOOGLE EVOLVED FROM A TURNSTILE 
TO A WALLED GARDEN THAT 
INCREASINGLY KEEPS USERS WITHIN 
ITS SITES.
OVER A DECADE AGO, GOOGLE 
STARTED TO FEAR COMPETITION FROM
CERTAIN WEBSITES.
THESE DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT GOOGLE
STAFF DISCUSSED THE 
PROLIFERATING THREAT THAT THESE 
WEB PAGES POSE TO GOOGLE.
ANY TRAFFIC LOST TO OTHER SITES 
WAS A LOSS OF REVENUE.
CERTAIN WEBSITES WERE GETTING, 
AND I QUOTE, TOO MUCH TRAFFIC.
SO GOOGLE DECIDED TO PUT AN END 
TO THAT.
MR. PICHAI, YOU'VE BEEN AT 
GOOGLE SINCE 2004.
WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THESE 
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE THREAT 
FROM VERTICAL SEARCH?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WITHOUT KNOWING 
THE SPECIFICS, IT'S -- YOU KNOW,
I'M NOT FULLY CLEAR OF THE 
CONTEXT.
DEFINITELY, WHEN WE LOOK AT 
VERTICAL SEARCHES IT VALIDATES 
THE COMPETITION.
WHEN CONSUMERS SHOP ONLINE, OVER
55% OF PRODUCT SEARCHES 
ORIGINATE WITH AMAZON.
IN THE FEW CATEGORIES WHICH ARE 
COMMERCIAL IN NATURE, WE SEE 
VIGOROUS COMPETITION AND WE ARE 
WORKING HARD -- 
>> LET ME ASK VERY SPECIFICALLY,
THE EVIDENCE THAT WE COLLECTED 
SHOWS THAT GOOGLE PURSUED A 
MULTIPRONGED ATTACK.
THEY BEGAN TO STEAL OTHER WEB 
PAGES CONTENT.
IN 2010 GOOGLE STOLE RESTAURANT 
REVIEWS FROM YELP.
DO YOU KNOW HOW GOOGLE RESPONDED
WHEN YELP ASKED YOU TO STOP 
STEALING THEIR REVIEWS?
I'LL TELL YOU.
OUR INVESTIGATION SHOWS THAT 
GOOGLE'S RESPONSE WAS TO 
THREATEN TO DELIST YELP.
THE CHOOSE GAVE YELP WAS, LET US
STEAL YOUR CONTENT OR DISAPPEAR 
FROM THE WEB.
ISN'T THAT ANTICOMPETITIVE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WHEN I RUN THE 
COMPANY, I'M REALLY FOCUSED ON 
GIVING USERS WHAT THEY WANT.
WE CONDUCT OURSELVES TO THE 
HIGHEST STANDARD.
HAPPY TO ENGAGE AND UNDERSTAND 
THE SPECIFICS AND ANSWERS YOUR 
QUESTIONS FURTHER. 
>> I HAVE ONE FINAL SERIES OF 
QUESTIONS.
DID GOOGLE EVER USE ITS 
SURVEILLANCE OVER WEB TRAFFIC TO
IDENTIFY COMPETITIVE THREATS?
>> CONGRESSMAN, JUST LIKE OTHER 
BUSINESSES, WE TRIED TO 
UNDERSTAND TRENDS FROM, YOU 
KNOW, DATA, WHICH WE CAN SEE, 
AND WE USE IT TO IMPROVE OUR 
PRODUCTS FOR OUR USERS.
BUT WE'RE REALLY FOCUSED ON 
IMPROVING OUR -- 
>> I APPRECIATE THAT, MR. 
PICHAI.
GOOGLE'S OWN DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT
GOOGLE DID JUST THAT.
WHICH IS VERY DISTURBING AND 
VERY ANTICOMPETITIVE.
GOOGLE BEGAN TO PRIVILEGE ITS 
OWN SITES.
A REPORT PUBLISHED JUST 
YESTERDAY FOUND THAT 63% OF WEB 
SEARCHES THAT START ON GOOGLE 
ALSO END SOMEWHERE ON GOOGLE'S 
OWN WEBSITES.
AND TO ME, THAT'S EVIDENCE THAT 
GOOGLE IS A WALLED GARDEN WHICH 
KEEPS USERS ON GOOGLE'S 
WEBSITES.
AND IT'S CATASTROPHIC FOR OTHER 
COMPANIES ONLINE.
MY TIME IS RUNNING OUT.
MR. PICHAI, THE EVIDENCE SEEMS 
CLEAR TO ME.
AS GOOGLE BECAME THE GATEWAY TO 
THE INTERNET, IT USED ITS 
SURVEILLANCE TO IDENTIFY 
COMPETITIVE THREATS AND CRUSHED 
THEM.
IT'S DAMPENED INNOVATION AND 
DRAMATICALLY INCREASED THE PRICE
OF ACCESSING USERS ON THE 
INTERNET, ENSURING THAT ANY 
BUSINESS THAT WANTS TO BE FOUND 
ON THE WEB MUST PAY GOOGLE A 
TAX.
WITH THAT, I RECOGNIZE THE 
RANKING MEMBER OF THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE, MR. SENSENBRENNER 
FOR HIS FIRST ROUND OF 
QUESTIONS. 
>> THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.
I'VE BEEN IN CONGRESS 42 YEARS.
THAT'S COMING TO AN END AT THE 
END OF THIS YEAR.
DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, 
DURING THE DECADE OF THE '90s 
AND THE '00s, I WAS INVOLVED AS 
CHAIRMAN OF THE SCIENCE 
COMMITTEE AND CHAIRMAN OF THIS 
COMMITTEE AND TRYING TO MAKE THE
NET UNIVERSAL, OPEN IT UP TO 
EVERYBODY.
ONE OF THE -- ONE OF THE THESES 
THAT WE USED IS THE NET SHOULD 
END UP BECOMING BASICALLY THE 
DEBATE ON ISSUES, NOT ONLY IN 
OUR COUNTRY, BUT THROUGHOUT THE 
WORLD.
AND IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT, THIS 
COMMITTEE AND THE CONGRESS GAVE 
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS 
IMMUNITY SO IF SOMEBODY SAID 
SOMETHING DEFAMATORY IN WHAT 
THEY POSTED, THE ISPs COULD NOT 
BE A PART OF THE LAWSUIT FOR 
DEFAMATION.
AFTER HEARING MR. JORDAN GIVE A 
LONG LINE OF CENSORSHIP OF 
CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINTS, I'M 
CONCERNED THAT THE PEOPLE WHO 
MANAGE THE NET AND THE FOUR OF 
YOU MANAGE A BIG PART OF THE 
NET, ENDING UP USING THIS AS A 
POLITICAL SCREEN.
CONSERVATIVES ARE CONSUMERS TOO.
AND THE WAY THE NET WAS PUT 
TOGETHER IN THE EYES OF CONGRESS
IS THAT EVERYBODY SHOULD BE ABLE
TO SPEAK THEIR MIND.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, MR. JORDAN'S 
LITANY OF CENSORSHIP ZEROS IN ON
FACEBOOK.
EXACTLY WHAT ARE YOUR STANDARDS 
IN, QUOTE, FILTERING OUT 
POLITICAL SPEECH THAT MAYBE SOME
PEOPLE OUT THERE DON'T AGREE 
WITH.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO ADDRESS THIS.
OUR GOAL IS TO OFFER A PLATFORM 
FOR ALL IDEAS.
WE WANT TO GIVE EVERYONE IN THE 
WORLD A VOICE TO SHARE THEIR 
EXPERIENCES AND IDEAS, A LOT OF 
THAT IS DAY TO DAY THINGS THAT 
LAP IN THEIR LIVES, SOME OF IT 
IS POLITICAL.
WE DISTINGUISHED OURSELVES AS 
ONE OF THE COMPANIES THAT 
DEFENDS FREE SPEECH THE MOST.
WE HAVE STANDARDS AROUND WHAT 
YOU CAN AND CANNOT SAY.
I THINK YOU WOULD LIKELY AGREE 
WITH MOST OF THEM.
THEY BEGAN CATEGORIES OF HARM 
SUCH AS PROMOTING TERRORIST 
PROPAGANDA, CHILD EXPLOITATION, 
INCITEMENT OF VIOLENCE, SOME 
MORE LEGALISTIC THINGS LIKE 
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 
VIOLATIONS.
AND THEY ALSO BAN THINGS LIKE 
HATE SPEECH THAT COULD LEAD TO 
DEHUMANIZING PEOPLE -- 
>> IF I MAY ASK A SPECIFIC OF 
YOU.
IT WAS REPORTED THAT DONALD 
TRUMP JR. GOT TAKEN DOWN FOR A 
PERIOD OF TIME BECAUSE HE PUT 
SOMETHING UP ON THE EFFICACY OF 
HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE.
NOW, I COULDN'T TAKE IT MYSELF, 
BUT THERE STILL IS A DEBATE ON 
WHETHER IT IS EFFECTIVE IN 
TREATING OR PREVENTING COVID-19.
AND I THINK THAT THIS IS A 
LEGITIMATE MATTER OF DISCUSSION.
AND IT WOULD BE UP TO A PATIENT 
AND THEIR DOCTOR TO DETERMINE 
WHETHER HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE WAS 
THE CORRECT MEDICATION GIVEN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.
WHY DID THAT HAPPEN?
>> CONGRESSMAN, FIRST TO BE 
CLEAR, I THINK WHAT YOU MIGHT BE
REFERRING TO HAPPENED ON 
TWITTER.
IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SPEAK TO 
THAT.
I CAN TALK TO OUR POLICIES ABOUT
THIS.
WE DO PROHIBIT CONTENT THAT WILL
LEAD TO IMMINENT RISK OF HARM.
STATING THAT THERE'S A PROVEN 
CURE FOR COVID, WHEN THERE IS IN
FACT NONE, MIGHT ENCOURAGE 
SOMEONE TO TAKE SOMETHING THAT 
COULD HAVE SOME ADVERSE EFFECTS.
WE TAKE THAT DOWN.
WE DO NOT PROHIBIT DISCUSSION 
AROUND TRIALS OF DRUGS OR PEOPLE
SAYING THAT THEY THINK THAT 
THINGS MIGHT WORK OR PERSONAL 
EXPERIENCES WITH EXPERIMENTAL 
DRUGS.
BUT IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO SAY 
THAT SOMETHING IS PROVEN, WHEN 
IN FACT IT IS NOT, THAT COULD 
LEAD PEOPLE -- 
>> WOULDN'T THAT BE UP TO 
SOMEBODY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 
THE ISSUE TO SAY THAT THIS IS 
NOT PROVEN?
I KNOW AS A FACT THAT, YOU KNOW,
FOR PEOPLE WITH CERTAIN 
CONDITIONS, IT'S CONTRA 
INDICATED AND THEY SHOULDN'T 
TAKE IT ON THAT.
WOULDN'T THAT BE UP TO SOMEBODY 
ELSE TO SAY, OKAY, WHAT SOMEBODY
POSTED ON THIS REALLY ISN'T TRUE
AND HERE'S WHAT THE FACTS ARE 
RATHER THAN HAVING A TWITTER OR 
A FACEBOOK TAKE IT DOWN?
>> CONGRESSMAN, IN GENERAL, I 
AGREE WITH YOU AND WE DO NOT 
WANT TO BECOME THE ARBITERS OF 
TRUTH.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE A BAD 
POSITION FOR US TO BE IN AND NOT
WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING.
ON SPECIFIC CLAIMS, IF SOMEONE 
IS GOING TO GO OUT AND SAY THAT 
HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE IS PROVEN TO 
CURE COVID WHEN IN FACT IT HAS 
NOT BEEN PROVEN TO CURE COVID 
AND THAT STATEMENT COULD LEAD 
PEOPLE TO TAKE A DRUG THAT IN 
SOME CASES SOME OF THE DATA 
SUGGESTS IT MIGHT BE HARMFUL TO 
PEOPLE, WE THINK THAT WE SHOULD 
TAKE THAT DOWN.
THAT COULD CAUSE IMMINENT RISK 
OF HARM. 
>> THANK YOU, I YIELD BACK.
>> I RECOGNIZE THE DISTINGUISHED
CHAIR OF THE FULL JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE, MR. NADLER FROM NEW 
YORK FOR FIVE MINUTES. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, I WANT TO THANK 
YOU FOR PROVIDING US INFORMATION
DURING YOUR INVESTIGATION.
HOWEVER, THE DOCUMENTS YOU 
PROVIDED TELL A VERY DISTURBING 
STORY AND THAT STORY IS THAT 
FACEBOOK SOUGHT INSTAGRAM AS A 
POWERFUL THREAT THAT COULD 
SIEFEN BUSINESS AWAY FROM 
FACEBOOK.
RATHER THAN COMPETE WITH IT, 
FACEBOOK BOUGHT IT.
THIS IS THE TYPE OF ACQUISITION 
THAT THE LAWS WERE TRYING TO 
PREVENT.
ON THE DAY FACEBOOK BOUGHT 
INSTAGRAM, WHICH YOU DESCRIBED 
AS A THREAT, YOU WROTE, QUOTE, 
ONE THING ABOUT START-UPS IS YOU
CAN OFTEN ACQUIRE THEM.
YOU WERE REFERRING TO COMPANIES 
LIKE INSTAGRAM IN THAT QUOTE, 
WERE YOU?
>> I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT 
DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF ME.
I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CLEAR THAT WE
VIEWED INSTAGRAM AS A COMPETITOR
AND AS A COMPLEMENT TO OUR 
SERVICES.
IN THE GROWING SPACE AROUND -- 
AFTER SMARTPHONES STARTED 
GETTING BIG, THEY COMPETED WITH 
US IN THE SPACE OF MOBILE 
CAMERAS AND MOBILE PHOTO 
SHARING.
BUT AT THE TIME, NO ONE THOUGHT 
OF THEM AS A GENERAL SOCIAL 
NETWORK.
PEOPLE DIDN'T THINK OF THEM AS 
COMPETING WITH US IN THAT SPACE.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE 
ACQUISITION HAS BEEN WILDLY 
SUCCESSFUL.
WE WERE ABLE TO CONTINUE 
INVESTING IN IT AND GROWING IT 
AS A STAND ALONE BRAND THAT 
REACHES MANY MORE PEOPLE THAT I 
THINK THE CO-FOUNDER OR I 
THOUGHT WOULD BE POSSIBLE AT THE
TIME WHILE INCORPORATING SOME OF
THE TECHNOLOGY INTO MAKING 
FACEBOOK'S PHOTO-SHARING 
PRODUCTS BETTER.
SO YES.
>> OKAY.
IN EARLY 2012 WHEN FACEBOOK 
CONTEMPLATED ACQUIRING 
INSTAGRAM, A COMPETITIVE 
START-UP, YOU TOLD YOUR CFO THAT
INSTAGRAM COULD BE DISRUPTIVE TO
US, AND YOU DESCRIBED THEM AS A 
THREAT, SAYING THAT INSTAGRAM 
CAN MEANINGFULLY HURT US WITHOUT
BECOMING A HUGE BUSINESS.
WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU 
DESCRIBED INSTAGRAM AS A THREAT 
AND WHEN YOU SAID THAT INSTAGRAM
MEANINGFULLY HURT FACEBOOK?
DID YOU MEAN THAT CONSUMERS 
MIGHT SWITCH FROM FACEBOOK TO 
INSTAGRAM?
>> CONGRESSMAN, THANKS FOR THE 
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?
>> THANKS.
CONGRESSMAN -- 
>> YES OR NO, DID YOU -- 
>> IN THE SPACE OF MOBILE PHOTOS
AND CAMERA APPS, WHICH WAS 
GROWING, THEY WERE A COMPETITOR.
I'VE BEEN CLEAR -- 
>> FINE.
IN FEBRUARY OF THAT YEAR, 
FEBRUARY 2012, YOU TOLD 
FACEBOOK'S CHIEF FINANCIAL 
OFFICER THAT YOU WERE INTERESTED
IN BUYING INSTAGRAM.
HE ASKED YOU WHETHER THE PURPOSE
WAS TO NEUTRALIZE A COMPETITOR 
OR IMPROVE YOUR SERVICES.
YOU ANSWERED IT WAS A 
COMBINATION OF BOTH, SAYING WHAT
WE'RE REALLY BUYING IS TIME.
EVEN IF NEW COMPETITOR SPRINGS 
UP, THOSE PRODUCTS WON'T GET 
MUCH TRACTION.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, WHAT DID YOU 
MEAN WHEN YOU SAID THE PURPOSE 
OF THE DEAL WAS TO NEUTRALIZE A 
POTENTIAL COMPETITOR. 
>> THOSE AREN'T MY WORDS.
YES, I'VE BEEN CLEAR THAT 
INSTAGRAM WAS A COMPETITOR IN 
THE SPACE OF MOBILE PHOTO 
SHARING.
THERE WERE A LOT OF OTHERS AT 
THE TIME.
THEY COMPETED WITH OTHER APPS.
IT WAS A SUBSET OF THE OVERALL 
SPACE OF CONNECTING THAT WE 
EXIST IN AND BY HAVING THEM JOIN
US, THEY CERTAINLY WENT FROM 
BEING A COMPETITOR IN THE SPACE 
OF BEING A MOBILE CAMERA TO AN 
APP THAT WE COULD HELP GROW AND 
GET MORE PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO 
USE AND BE ON OUR TEAM -- 
>> MR. ZUCKERBERG, MERGERS AND 
ACQUISITIONS THAT BUY OFF 
POTENTIAL COMPETITIVE THREATS 
VIOLATE THE ANTITRUST LAWS.
YOU PURCHASED INSTAGRAM TO 
NEUTRALIZE A COMPETITIVE THREAT.
IF THIS WAS AN ILLEGAL MERGER AT
THE TIME OF THE TRANSACTION, WHY
SHOULDN'T INSTAGRAM NOW BE 
BROKEN OFF INTO A SEPARATE 
COMPANY?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I THINK THE FTC 
HAD ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS AND 
REVIEWED THIS AND UNANIMOUSLY 
VOTED AT THE TIME NOT TO 
CHALLENGE THE ACQUISITION.
I THINK WITH HINDSIGHT, IT 
PROBABLY LOOKS LIKE OBVIOUS THAT
INSTAGRAM WOULD HAVE REACHED THE
SCALE THAT IT HAS TODAY, BUT AT 
THE TIME IT WAS FAR FROM 
OBVIOUS.
A LOT OF THE COMPETITORS THAT 
THEY COMPETED WITH, INCLUDING 
COMPANIES LIKE PATH, WHICH WERE 
HOT AT THE TIME AND HAD GREAT 
FOUNDERS AND ENTREPRENEURS 
RUNNING THEM, DAVE MOORE AND I 
WORKED CLOSELY WITH THEM, I 
DON'T THINK PATH EXISTS TODAY.
IT WAS NOT A GUARANTEE THAT 
INSTAGRAM WAS GOING TO SUCCEED.
THE ACQUISITION HAS DONE WILDLY 
WELL LARGELY BECAUSE NOT JUST OF
THE FOUNDERS' TALENT, BUT 
BECAUSE WE INVESTED HEAVILY IN 
BUILDING UP THE INFRASTRUCTURE 
AND PROMOTING IT AND WORKING ON 
SECURITY AND WORKING ON A LOT OF
THINGS AROUND THIS.
AND I THINK THAT THIS HAS BEEN 
AN AMERICAN SUCCESS STORY.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, YOU'RE MAKING MY
POINT.
IN CLOSING, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT
TO END WHERE I BEGAN.
FACEBOOK, BY MR. ZUCKERBERG'S 
OWN ADMISSION, FACEBOOK SAW 
INSTAGRAM AS A THREAT THAT COULD
POTENTIALLY SIPHON BUSINESS AWAY
FROM FACEBOOK.
RATHER THAN COMPETE WITH IT, 
FACEBOOK BOUGHT IT.
THIS IS THE TYPE OF 
ANTICOMPETITIVE ACQUISITION THAT
THE LAWS WERE MEANT TO PREVENT.
IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN 
PERMITTED TO HAPPEN AND IT 
CANNOT HAPPEN AGAIN.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WOULD REMIND THE WITNESS THAT 
THE FAILURES OF THE FTC DO NOT 
ALLEVIATE THE ANTITRUST 
CHALLENGES THAT THE CHAIRMAN 
DESCRIBED.
I WILL RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN 
FROM COLORADO AND THANK HIM FOR 
CO-HOSTING ONE OF THE MOST 
IMPORTANT FIELD HEARINGS WE HAD 
IN COLORADO THAT WAS VERY 
CRITICAL IN THIS INVESTIGATION.
YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE 
MINUTES, MR. BUCK. 
>> I WANT TO OFFER MY 
APPRECIATION TO YOU FOR THE 
BIPARTISAN YOU HAVE APPROACHED 
THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S 
INVESTIGATION.
CAPITALISM IS THE GREATEST 
INSTRUMENT FOR FREEDOM THIS 
WORLD HAS EVER SEEN.
THIS ECONOMIC SYSTEM HAS LIFTED 
MILLIONS OUT OF POVERTY.
IT HAS MADE AMERICA THE FREEST, 
MOST PROSPEROUS NATION IN THE 
WORLD.
OUR WITNESSES HAVE TAKEN IDEAS 
BORN OUT OF A DORM ROOM, A 
GARAGE.
YOU HAVE ENJOYED THE FREEDOM TO 
SUCCEED.
I DO NOT BELIEVE BIG IS 
NECESSARILY BAD.
IN FACT, BIG IS OFTEN A FORCE 
FOR GOOD.
I WANT TO ADDRESS ONE ISSUE.
MR. PICHAI, IN OCTOBER 2018 
GOOGLE DROPPED OUT OF THE 
RUNNING FOR A PENTAGON CONTRACT 
TO COMPLETE THE JOINT ENTERPRISE
INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRACT WHICH 
WAS VALUED AT MORE THAN 
$10 BILLION.
GOOGLE'S STATED REASON FOR 
REMOVING ITSELF FROM THE BIDDING
PROCESS IS THAT THE U.S. 
MILITARY'S PROJECT DID NOT ALIGN
WITH GOOGLE'S CORPORATE VALUES 
AND PRINCIPLES.
THIS IS THE SAME U.S. MILITARY 
THAT FIGHTS FOR OUR FREEDOMS AND
STANDS AS A FORCE FOR GOOD 
ACROSS THE GLOBE.
THESE ARE THE SAME SOLDIERS, 
SAILORS AND AIRMEN THAT 
SACRIFICE THEIR LIVES TO ENSURE 
YOU HAVE THE FREEDOM TO BUILD 
YOUR COMPANY AND SET YOUR 
CORPORATE POLICIES WITHOUT FEAR 
OF GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE 
UNLIKE IN COMMUNIST CHINA.
I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT 
MONTHS AFTER MAKING THIS 
DECISION TO WITHDRAW FROM THE 
JEDI CONTRACT, MARINE GENERAL 
JOSEPH DUNFORD, THE CHAIRMAN OF 
THE U.S. JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, 
WARNED THE SENATE ARMED FORCES 
COMMITTEE THAT THE CHINESE 
MILITARY WAS DIRECTLY 
BENEFITTING FROM GOOGLE'S WORK.
IT MADE ME WONDER, WHAT VALUES 
GOOGLE AND COMMUNIST RED CHINA 
HAD IN COMMON.
I ASKED MYSELF, SELF, IS IT THAT
THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY 
IMPRISONS UYGHURS?
COULD IT BE THAT CHINA FORCES 
SLAVES TO WORK IN SWEAT SHOPS?
MAYBE THEY ALIGN ON THE DESIGN 
TO SUPPRESS FREE SPEECH.
DID GOOGLE AGREE WITH THE 
DECISION TO LIE TO THE WORLD 
ABOUT THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC?
THEN I THOUGHT ABOUT GOOGLE'S 
DRAGON FLY EXPERIMENT.
I WONDERED IF YOU AGREED WITH 
THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT'S USE OF 
TECHNOLOGY PLATFORMS TO SPY ON 
ITS OWN PEOPLE AND ENFORCE 
SECURITY LAWS.
IF MAYBE, IT'S THAT YOUR 
COMPANIES ALIGN WITH THE CHINESE
COMMUNIST ESPIONAGE POLICIES 
WHERE THE STRATEGY IS TO STEAL 
WHATEVER CAN'T BE PRODUCED 
DOMESTICALLY.
THESE VALUES THAT ALLOW GOOGLE 
TO WORK WITH THE CHINESE 
MILITARY BUT NOT THE AMERICAN 
MILITARY WITHOUT ANY HINT OF 
ATTRIBUTION.
DURING OUR FIELD HEARING IN MY 
HOME STATE OF COLORADO, I HEARD 
A STORY THAT SOUNDED SO BRAZEN 
AND CONTRARY TO FREE MARKET 
PRINCIPLES THAT I THOUGHT IT 
MUST HAVE BEEN IN THE CHINESE.
GOOGLE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF YOUR A 
COMPANY THAT RELIED ON YOUR 
SEARCH ENGINE.
GOOGLE MISAPPROPRIATED LYRICS 
AND PUBLISHED THOSE LYRICS ON 
GOOGLE'S OWN PLATFORM.
HOWEVER, GENIUS CAUGHT GOOGLE IN
THE ACT RED HANDED.
WHEN GENIUS SUSPECTED THIS 
CORPORATE THREAT WAS OCCURRING, 
THE COMPANY INCORPORATED A 
DIGITAL WATERMARK IN ITS LYRICS 
THAT SPELLED OUT, RED HANDED.
IN MORSE CODE.
GOOGLE'S LYRIC BOXES CONTAIN THE
WATERMARK.
AFTER GOOGLE EXECUTIVES STATED 
THAT THEY WERE INVESTIGATING 
THIS PROBLEMATIC BEHAVIOR, 
GENIUS CREATED ANOTHER 
EXPERIMENT TO DETERMINE THE 
SCOPE OF THE MISAPPROPRIATION.
IT TURNS OUT THAT 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 
THEIR FREEDOM TO COMPETE.
YOUR CORRESPONDENT VALUES ONCE 
STOOD FOR FREEDOM, A PLATFORM 
THAT THREAT CAPITALISM FLOURISH 
AND HELPED BRING COUNTLESS 
PEOPLE ACROSS THE GLOBE OUT OF 
POVERTY.
MY QUESTION TO YOU, MR. PICHAI, 
DO YOU THINK THAT GOOGLE COULD 
GET AWAY WITH FOLLOWING CHINA'S 
CORPORATE ESPIONAGE PLAYBOOK IF 
YOU DIDN'T HAVE A MONOPOLISTIC 
ADVANTAGE IN THE MARKET. 
>> I WANT TO ADDRESS THE 
IMPORTANT CONCERNS YOU RAISED.
FIRST OF ALL, WE ARE PROUD TO 
SUPPORT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.
WE RECENTLY SIGNED A BIG PROJECT
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
TO HELP PROTECT PENTAGON 
NETWORKS FROM CYBERSECURITY 
ATTACKS.
WE HAVE PROJECTS UNDER WAY WITH 
THE NAVY W THE DEPARTMENT OF 
VETERANS AFFAIRS, HAPPY TO 
FOLLOW UP AND EXPLAIN MORE.
WE HAVE A LIMITED PRESENCE IN 
CHINA.
WE DIDN'T OFFER ANY OF OUR 
SERVICES IN CHINA.
AND WITH RESPECT TO MUSIC, WE 
LICENSE CONTENT THERE, IN FACT, 
WE LICENSE CONTENT FROM OTHER 
COMPANIES AND SO THIS IS A 
DISPUTE BETWEEN GENIUS AND OTHER
COMPANIES IN TERMS OF WHERE THE 
SOURCE OF THE CONTENT IS.
HAPPY TO ENGAGE AND EXPLAIN WHAT
WE DO HERE FURTHER.
>> THANK YOU.
I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN
FROM GEORGIA, MR. JOHNSON, FOR 
FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. COOK, WITH OVER 100 MILLION 
iPHONE USERS IN THE UNITED 
STATES ALONE AND WITH APPLE'S 
OWNERSHIP OF THE APP STORE, 
GIVING APPLE THE ABILITY TO 
CONTROL WHICH APPS ARE ALLOWED 
TO BE MARKETED TO APPLE USERS, 
YOU WELD 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.
AND SO -- 
>> MY POINT IS, AND I'M SORRY TO
INTERRUPT, BUT I WANT TO GET TO 
THE POINT, 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 A NATIVE APP, YES, 
SIR.
IF IT'S A WEB -- 
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
THROUGHOUT OUR INVESTIGATION 
WE'VE HEARD CONCERNS THAT RULES 
GOVERNING THE APP STORE REVIEW 
PROCESS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE
APP DEVELOPERS.
THE RULES ARE MADE UP AS YOU GO.
THEY ARE ARBITRARILY INTERPRETED
AND ENFORCED AND ARE SUBJECT TO 
CHANGE WHENEVER APPLE SEES FIT 
TO CHANGE AND DEVELOPERS HAVE NO
CHOICE BUT TO GO ALONG WITH THE 
CHANGES OR THEY MUST LEAVE THE 
APP STORE.
THAT'S AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF 
POWER.
ALSO, THE RULES GET CHANGED TO 
BENEFIT APPLE AT THE EXPENSE OF 
APP DEVELOPERS AND THE APP STORE
IS SAID TO ALSO DISCRIMINATE 
BETWEEN APP DEVELOPERS WITH 
SIMILAR APPS.
ON THE PLATFORM AND ALSO AS TO 
SMALL APP DEVELOPERS VERSUS 
LARGE APP DEVELOPERS.
SO, MR. COOK, DOES APPLE NOT 
TREAT ALL APP DEVELOPERS 
EQUALLY?
>> WE TREAT EVERY DEVELOPER THE 
SAME.
WE HAVE OPEN AND TRANSPARENT 
RULES.
IT'S A RIGOROUS PROCESS.
BECAUSE WE CARE SO DEEPLY ABOUT 
PRIVACY AND SECURITY AND 
QUALITY, WE DO LOOK AT EVERY APP
BEFORE IT GOES ON.
BUT THOSE APPS -- THOSE RULES 
APPLY EVENLY TO EVERYONE.
AND AS YOU CAN TELL BY GOING 
FROM -- 
>> SOME DEVELOPERS ARE FAVORED 
OVER OTHERS, THOUGH, ISN'T THAT 
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS NOT CORRECT.
AND AS YOU CAN TELL FROM GOING 
FROM -- 
>> SIR -- I'LL GIVE YOU AN 
EXAMPLE.
HAS TWO APP STORES -- TWO APP 
STORE EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO HELP
IT NAVIGATE THE APP STORE 
BUREAUCRACY, IS THAT TRUE?
>> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT, SIR.
>> WELL, YOU DON'T HAVE OTHER 
APP DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE THAT 
SAME ACCESS TO APPLE PERSONNEL, 
DO YOU?
>> WE DO A LOT OF THINGS WITH 
DEVELOPERS INCLUDING LOOKING AT 
THEIR BETA TEST APPS REGARDLESS 
OF WHETHER THEY'RE SMALL OR 
LARGE.
>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION.
APPLE HAS NEGOTIATED EXCEPTIONS 
TO ITS TYPICAL 30% COMMISSION 
FOR SOME APPS LIKE AMAZON PRIME.
IS THAT -- IS A REDUCED 
COMMISSION SUCH AS THE ONE THAT 
AMAZON PRIME GIVES AVAILABLE TO 
OTHER APP DEVELOPERS?
>> IT'S AVAILABLE TO ANYONE 
MEETING THE CONDITIONS, YES.
>> OKAY.
LET ME YOU THIS, APPLE REQUIRES 
ALL APP DEVELOPERS TO USE 
APPLE'S PAYMENT PROCESSING 
SYSTEM IF THOSE DEVELOPERS WANT 
TO SELL THEIR GOODS OR SERVICES 
TO APPLE USERS THROUGH APPLE'S 
APP STORE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
BECAUSE IT'S -- 
>> BY PROCESSING PAYMENTS FOR 
APPS THAT YOU ALLOW INTO THE APP
STORE, YOU COLLECT THEIR 
CUSTOMER DATA AND YOU USE THAT 
DATA TO INFORM APPLE AS TO 
WHETHER APPLE SHOULD -- WHETHER 
OR NOT IT WOULD BE PROFITABLE 
FOR APPLE TO LAUNCH A COMPETING 
APP, ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
>> SIR, 84% OF THE APPS ARE 
CHARGED NOTHING.
THE REMAINING 16% EITHER PAY 15 
OR 30, DEPENDING UPON THE 
SPECIFICS.
IF IT'S IN THE SECOND YEAR OF A 
SUBSCRIPTION AS AN EXAMPLE, IT 
ONLY PAYS 15%.
IF YOU LOOK BACK AT HISTORY -- 
>> WHAT'S TO STOP APPLE FROM 
INCREASING ITS COMMISSION TO 
50%?
>> SIR, WE HAVE NEVER INCREASED 
COMMISSIONS IN THE STORE SINCE 
THE FIRST DAY IT OPERATED IN 
2008.
>> NOTHING TO STOP YOU FROM 
DOING SO, IS THERE?
>> NO, SIR.
I DISAGREE STRONGLY WITH THAT.
THERE'S A COMPETITION FOR 
DEVELOPERS JUST LIKE THERE'S A 
COMPETITION FOR DEVELOPERS.
THE COMPETITION FOR DEVELOPERS 
THEY CAN WRITE THEIR APPS FOR 
ANDROID OR WINDOWS OR XBOX OR 
PLAYSTATION.
WE HAVE FIERCE COMPETITION AT 
THE DEVELOPER SIDE AND THE 
CUSTOMER SIDE WHICH IS SO 
COMPETITIVE, I WOULD DESCRIBE IT
AS A STREET FIGHT FOR MARKET 
SHARE IN THE CELL PHONE 
BUSINESS.
>> HAS APPLE EVER RETALIATED 
AGAINST OR DISADVANTAGED A 
DEVELOPER WHO WENT PUBLIC ABOUT 
THEIR FRUSTRATIONS WITH THE APP 
STORE?
>> SIR, WE DON'T -- WE DO NOT 
RETALIATE OR BULLY PEOPLE.
IT'S STRONGLY AGAINST OUR 
COMPANY CULTURE.
>> TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS 
EXPIRED.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, 
MR. GAETS. 
>> MR. ZUCKERBERG MADE THE CLAIM
THAT FACEBOOK IS AN AMERICAN 
COMPANY WITH AMERICAN VALUES.
DO YOU TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW, 
THAT YOUR COMPANIES DON'T 
EMBRACE AMERICAN VALUES.
IT'S GREAT TO SEE THAT NONE OF 
YOU DO.
I'M WORRIED ABOUT GOOGLE'S 
MARKET POWER, HOW IT 
CONCENTRATES THAT POWER AND HOW 
IT WIELDS IT.
PROJECT MAEVEN WAS A PROJECT 
THAT GOOGLE PULLED OUT OF CITING
ETHICAL CONCERNS AND YOU MADE 
THE DECISION TO PULL OUT OF THAT
JOINT VENTURE, FOLLOWING RECEIPT
OF A LETTER FROM THOUSANDS OF 
YOUR EMPLOYEES SAYING THAT 
GOOGLE SHOULD NOT BE IN THE 
BUSINESS OF WAR.
MY QUESTION IS, DID YOU WEIGH 
THE INPUT FROM YOUR EMPLOYEES 
WHEN MAKING THE DECISION TO 
ABANDON THAT PROJECT WITH THE 
UNITED STATES MILITARY?
>> CONGRESSMAN, THANKS FOR YOUR 
CONCERN.
AS I SAID EARLIER, WE'RE DEEPLY 
COMMITTED TO SUPPORTING THE 
MILITARY AND THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT.
WE HAVE UNDERTAKEN SEVERAL 
PROJECTS SINCE THEN.
WE TAKE OUR EMPLOYEES -- ONE 
INPUT, WE MAKE DECISIONS BASED 
ON A VARIETY OF FACTORS.
AS A COMPANY, WE WERE NEW IN THE
CLOUD SPACE AT THAT TIME, SINCE 
THEN -- 
>> THANK YOU.
THAT'S A SUFFICIENT ANSWER.
YOU DID TAKE THEIR FEEDBACK INTO
ACCOUNT.
IN FACT, SOME OF YOUR GOOGLERS 
HAVE RECENTLY SENT YOU A LETTER 
WHERE THEY ASKED YOU TO EXIT 
OTHER PARTNERSHIPS AS A 
CONSEQUENCE OF ETHICAL CONCERNS.
THEY ASKED YOU TO STOP DOING 
BUSINESS WITH AMERICAN LAW 
ENFORCEMENT SAYING THAT POLICE 
BROADLY UPHOLD WHITE SUPREMACY 
AND GOOGLE SHOULD NOT BE ENGAGED
TO ANY SERVICE TO POLICE.
YOU PROVIDE SOME OF THE MOST 
BASIC SERVICES TO POLICE LIKE 
EMAIL.
BUT YOU ALSO PROVIDE SERVICES 
THAT HELP KEEP OUR COPS SAFE 
WHEN THEY'RE DOING THEIR JOB AND
SO MY QUESTION IS HERE IN FRONT 
OF CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE, WILL YOU TAKE THE PLEDGE
THAT GOOGLE WILL NOT ADOPT THE 
BIGOTED ANTIPOLICE POLICY THAT 
IS REQUESTED IN THE MOST RECENT 
LETTER. 
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE HAVE A LONG 
TRACK RECORD OF WORKING WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT WHEN IT IS SUPPORTED
BY DUE PROCESS AND THE LAW, WE 
PUSH BACK AGAINST OVERBROAD 
REQUESTS.
WE ARE TRANSPARENT ABOUT THE 
REQUESTS WE GET.
BUT WE HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF 
FOLLOWING THE LAW AND 
COOPERATING WITH -- 
>> I UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY.
I'M ASKING ABOUT THE FUTURE.
TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT WHO ARE 
WATCHING TODAY, CAN THEY REST 
ASSURED THAT UNDER YOUR 
LEADERSHIP, GOOGLE WILL NOT 
ADOPT THESE BIGOTED, ANTIPOLICE 
POLICIES?
>> WE ARE WORKING WITH LAW 
ENFORCEMENT IN THE WAY THAT IS 
CONSISTENT WITH LAW AND DUE 
PROCESSES IN THE U.S. 
>> I APPRECIATE THAT AND I KNOW 
THAT WILL BE COMFORTING TO THE 
POLICE WHO UTILIZE YOUR 
SERVICES.
YOU MENTIONED EARLIER IN YOUR --
IN THE DISCUSSION ABOUT CHINA 
THAT YOUR ENGAGEMENT IN CHINA 
WAS VERY LIMITED.
BUT YET GOOGLE HAS AN AI CHINA 
CENTER, THE CHINESE ACADEMY OF 
SCIENCES HAS PUBLISHED A PAPER 
SAYING THAT IT ENHANCED THE 
TARGETING CAPABILITIES OF A 
FIGHTER AIRCRAFT.
YOU COLLABORATE WITH CHINESE 
UNIVERSITIES.
ONE OF YOUR GOOGLERS WHILE UNDER
YOUR EMPLOY WAS CITED IN CHINESE
STATE MEDIA SAYING, CHINA IS 
LIKE A SLEEPING GIANT, WHEN SHE 
WAKES, SHE WILL TREMBLE THE 
WORLD.
THE FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
MR. SHANAHAN, SAID THAT THE 
LINES HAVE BEEN BLURRED IN CHINA
BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND MILITARY 
APPLICATION.
GENERAL DUNFORD SAYS YOUR 
COMPANY IS DIRECTLY AIDING THE 
CHINESE MILITARY AND PETER TEAL 
WHO SERVES ON MR. ZUCKERBERG'S 
BOARD AT FACEBOOK SAID THAT 
GOOGLE'S ACTIVITIES WITH CHINA 
ARE TREASONOUS.
HE USED YOU OF TREASON.
WHY WOULD AN AMERICAN COMPANY 
WITH AMERICAN VALUES SO DIRECTLY
AID THE CHINESE MILITARY BUT 
HAVE ETHICAL CONCERNS ABOUT 
WORKING ALONGSIDE THE U.S. 
MILITARY ON PROJECT MAEVEN.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT ABOUT 
CYBERSECURITY AND THOSE THINGS.
BUT PROJECT MAEVEN WAS A 
SPECIFIC WAY TO ENSURE THAT OUR 
TROOPS ARE SAFE ON THE 
BATTLEFIELD.
IF YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM MAKING 
THE J-20 CHINESE FIGHTER MORE 
EFFECTIVE IN ITS TARGETING, WHY 
WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO MAKE 
AMERICA AS EFFECTIVE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WITH RESPECT, WE
ARE NOT WORKING WITH THE CHINESE
MILITARY.
IT'S ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
I HAD A CHANCE TO MEET WITH 
GENERAL DUNFORD PERSONAL.
WE CLARIFIED WHAT WE DO IN 
CHINA.
IT'S VERY, VERY LIMITED IN 
NATURE.
OUR AI WORK IN CHINA IS LIMITED 
TO A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE WORKING 
ON OPEN-SOURCE PROJECTS.
I'M HAPPY TO SHARE AND ENGAGE 
WITH THE OFFICE TO -- 
>> MY GOSH.
WHEN THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT 
CHIEFS OF STAFF SAYS THAT AN 
AMERICAN COMPANY IS DIRECTLY 
AIDING CHINA, WHEN YOU'RE 
WORKING WITH UNIVERSITIES AND 
WHEN YOUR EMPLOYEES ARE TALKING 
ABOUT CHINA TREMBLING THE WORLD,
IT SEEMS TO CALL INTO QUESTION 
YOUR COMMITMENT TO OUR COUNTRY 
AND VALUES.
I SEE OUR TIME IS EXPIRED. 
>> I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN 
FROM MARYLAND FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, AS YOU KNOW THE 
PROLIFERATION OF FAKE FACEBOOK 
ACCOUNTS WAS A KEY TOOL IN THE 
STRATEGY OF RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE
IN THE AMERICAN ELECTION IN 
2016.
AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT, THE 
SENATE, THE HOUSE HAVE ALL FOUND
THAT VLADIMIR PUTIN ENGAGED IN A
SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGN
TO UNDERMINE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY 
IN 2016 AND TO WORK FOR A 
VICTORY FOR DONALD TRUMP.
IN HIS REMARKABLE BOOK, 
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA AND THE PLOT
TO BREAK AMERICA, A 
WHISTLE-BLOWER WHO WORKED FOR 
SEVERAL YEARS AT CAMBRIDGE 
ANALYTICA, STEVE BANNON'S GOAL 
WAS TO CHANGE POLITICS BY 
CHANGING CULTURE.
FACEBOOK DATA, ALGORITHMS WERE 
HIS KEY FOCUS.
THEY IDENTIFIED PEOPLE WHO 
EXHIBITED THE THREE TRAITS IN 
WHAT THEY CALL THE DARK TRIAD.
THEY PROCEEDED TO BOMBARD AND 
ACTIVATE THESE PEOPLE.
WITH INCREASINGLY DARK AND 
MANIPULATIVE MESSAGES FROM FAKE 
FACEBOOK PAGES BOTH TO GET THEM 
TO VOTE FOR TRUMP BUT MORE 
IMPORTANTLY TO ACTIVATE THEM AS 
RACISTS AND WHITE NATIONALISTS.
HE GOES ONTO DESCRIBE THE 
REMARKABLE SUCCESS OF THIS 
CAMPAIGN, BOTH ELECTORALLY, BUT 
ALSO POLITICALLY IN THE COUNTRY 
IN TERMS OF SOWING THE TERRIBLE 
RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIVISIONS THAT
YOU SEE IN AMERICA TODAY.
SO THEY WAGED A MASS CAMPAIGN OF
PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE TO 
POLARIZE AMERICA AROUND RACE AND
RELIGION.
AND IT WORKED FOR THEM BUT I 
DIDN'T WORK SO WELL FOR AMERICA.
SO, MR. ZUCKERBERG, WHICH PARTS 
OF THIS NARRATIVE HAVE YOU 
ADDRESSED, OR ARE YOU PLANNING 
TO ADDRESS, OR DO YOU JUST SEE 
THAT ESSENTIALLY AS THE COST OF 
BEING A FORUM IN A MARKETPLACE 
FOR IDEAS?
IS THERE NOTHING THAT CAN BE 
DONE ABOUT THE USE OF FACEBOOK 
TO IN GENDER SOCIAL DIVISION IN 
AMERICA?
>> CONGRESSMAN, THANK YOU.
SINCE 2016 THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT
OF STEPS THAT WE'VE TAKEN TO 
PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF 
ELECTIONS.
WE'VE HIRED -- I THINK IT'S MORE
THAN 30,000 PEOPLE TO WORK ON 
SAFETY AND SECURITY.
WE HAVE BUILT UP AI SYSTEMS TO 
BE ABLE TO FIND HARMFUL CONTENT 
INCLUDING BEING ABLE TO FIND 
MORE THAN 50 DIFFERENT NETWORKS 
OF COORDINATED AND AUTHENTIC 
BEHAVIOR, NATION STATES TRYING 
TO INTERFERE FEAR IN 
ELECTIONS -- 
>> LET ME JUST PAUSE YOU THERE 
FOR A SECOND.
I'M INTERESTED IN THAT.
THE STOP HATE FOR PROFIT 
CAMPAIGN IS A COALITION THAT 
INCLUDES THE COLOR OF CHANGE, 
THE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE AND 
OTHER GROUPS AND THEY'RE 
TARGETING FACEBOOK RIGHT NOW FOR
A BOYCOTT BECAUSE OF THE RAPID 
SPREAD OF HATE MESSAGES ONLINE, 
THE PRESENCE OF GROUPS TRYING TO
INTERRUPT BLACK LIVES MATTER 
PROTESTS.
SO THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO REMOVE 
THESE PAGES AND TO JOIN THE 
MOVEMENT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS BY NOT
ALLOWING THAT KIND OF CONTENT, 
THEY'RE BOYCOTTERS INCLUDING A 
LOT OF BIG COMPANIES, LEVI'S, 
McDONALDS, AND SO ON.
BUT YOU SEEM NOT TO BE THAT 
MOVED BY THEIR CAMPAIGN AND I 
JUST WONDER WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT
WHAT THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO DO.
>> CONGRESSMAN, THANKS.
WE'RE VERY FOCUSED ON FIGHTING 
AGAINST ELECTION INTERFERENCE 
AND FOCUSED ON FIGHTING AGAINST 
HATE SPEECH.
OUR COMMITMENTS TO THOSE ISSUES 
AND FIGHTING THEM GO BACK YEARS 
BEFORE THIS RECENT MOVEMENT.
SINCE 2016, THE DEFENSES THAT 
THE COMPANY HAS BUILT UP TO HELP
SECURE ELECTIONS NOT JUST IN THE
U.S. BUT AROUND THE WORLD, I 
THINK ARE SOME OF THE MOST 
ADVANCED THAT ANY COMPANY OR 
GOVERNMENT HAS IN THE WORLD NOW.
WE COLLABORATE WITH LAW 
ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE 
AGENCIES AND ARE ABLE TO 
SOMETIMES IDENTIFY THREATS 
COMING FROM OTHER COUNTRIES 
BEFORE GOVERNMENTS ARE EVEN ABLE
TO.
IN TERMS OF FIGHTING HATE, WE 
HAVE BUILT REALLY SOPHISTICATED 
SYSTEMS.
OUR GOAL IS TO IDENTIFY IT 
BEFORE ANYONE EVEN SEES IT ON 
THE PLATFORM.
AND WE'VE BUILT AI SYSTEMS AND 
AS I MENTIONED HAVE TENS OF 
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WORKING ON 
SAFETY AND SECURITY WITH THE 
GOAL OF GETTING THE STUFF DOWN 
SO THAT WAY BEFORE PEOPLE EVEN 
SEE IT.
AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE ABLE TO 
PROACTIVELY IDENTIFY 89% OF THE 
HATE SPEECH THAT WE TAKE DOWN 
BEFORE I THINK IT'S EVEN SEEN BY
OTHER PEOPLE.
I WANT TO DO BETTER THAN 89%.
I WOULD LIKE TO GET THAT TO 99%.
BUT WE HAVE A MASSIVE INVESTMENT
HERE.
WE INVEST -- 
>> CAN YOU JUST -- MY TIME IS 
ALMOST OUT.
CAN YOU JUST ADDRESS THE 
PROLIFERATION OF FAKE ACCOUNTS?
I UNDERSTAND YOU GET 6.5 BILLION
FAKE ACCOUNTS PRODUCED THERE, 
BUT YOU HAVE A PROFIT MOTIVE 
THAT'S LINKED TO THAT, BECAUSE 
THAT'S WHAT SHARED WITH YOUR 
INVESTORS.
ARE YOU WORKING TO TRY TO FAIR 
IT OUT, THESE FAKE ACCOUNTS?
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS 
EXPIRED.
THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE 
QUESTION.
>> CONGRESSMAN, ABSOLUTELY.
WE WORK HARD ON THIS.
WE TAKE DOWN BILLIONS OF FAKE 
ACCOUNTS A YEAR.
A LOT OF THAT IS JUST PEOPLE 
TRYING TO SET UP ACCOUNTS TO 
SPAM PEOPLE FOR COMMERCIAL 
REASONS.
A VERY SMALL PERCENT OF THAT ARE
NATION STATES TRYING TO 
INTERFERE IN ELECTIONS.
WE'RE VERY FOCUSED ON TRYING TO 
FIND THOSE.
HAVING FAKE AND HARMFUL CONTENT 
ON OUR PLATFORM DOES NOT HELP 
OUR BUSINESS.
IT HURTS OUR BUSINESS.
PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO SEE THAT 
STUFF AND THEY USE OUR SERVICES 
LESS WHEN THEY DO.
SO WE ARE ALIGNED WITH PEOPLE IN
ORDER TO TAKE THAT DOWN AND WE 
INVEST BILLIONS OF DOLLARS A 
YEAR IN DOING SO.
>> I YIELD BACK.
THANK YOU.
>> THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN 
RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES WHILE WE 
FIX A TECHNICAL FEED WITH ONE OF
YOUR WITNESSES.
>>> THIS COMMITTEE HEARING WITH 
CEOs FROM AMAZON, APPLE, GOOGLE 
AND FACEBOOK, DISCUSSING 
ANTITRUST LAW AND ONLINE 
PLATFORM MARKET POWER, TAKING A 
BRIEF BREAK.
SHOULD BE ABOUT TEN MINUTES.
THEY ARE EXPECTED TO RESUME 
SHORTLY.
WE WILL BRING YOU LIVE COVERAGE 
OF THIS HEARING FROM BEGINNING 
TO END HERE ON C-SPAN3.
WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE HEARING TO
RESUME, WE'LL TAKE YOU BACK TO 
THE BEGINNING AND SOME OF THE 
OPENING STATEMENTS FROM THE TECH
CEOs.
>> JEFF BEZOS, YOU MAY BEGIN. 
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN 
CICILLINE, RANKING MEMBER, AND 
MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
I WAS BORN INTO GREAT WEALTH.
NOT MONETARY WEALTH, BUT THE 
WEALTH OF A LOVING FAMILY.
A FAMILY THAT FOSTERED MY 
CURIOSITY AND ENCOURAGED ME TO 
DREAM BIG.
MY MOM, JACKIE, HAD ME WHEN SHE 
WAS A 17-YEAR-OLD HIGH SCHOOL 
STUDENT IN ALBUQUERQUE.
BEING PREGNANT IN HIGH SCHOOL, 
WAS NOT POPULAR.
THE SCHOOL TRIED TO KICK HER 
OUT, BUT SHE WAS ALLOWED TO 
FINISH AFTER MY GRANDFATHER 
NEGOTIATED TERMS WITH THE 
PRINCIPAL.
SHE COULDN'T HAVE A LOCKER AND 
COULDN'T WALK ACROSS THE STAGE 
TO GET HER DIPLOMA.
SHE GRADUATED AND WAS DETERMINED
TO CONTINUE HER EDUCATION.
SHE ENROLLED IN NIGHT SCHOOL 
BRINGING ME TO CLASS THROUGHOUT.
MY DAD'S NAME IS MIGUEL.
HE ADOPTED ME WHEN I WAS 4.
HE WAS 16 WHEN HE CAME TO THE 
U.S. FROM CUBA SHORTLY AFTER 
CASTRO TOOK OVER.
MY DAD DIDN'T SPEAK ENGLISH AND 
HE DID NOT HAVE AN EASY PATH.
WHAT HE DID HAVE WAS GRIT AND 
DETERMINATION.
HE RECEIVED A SCHOLARSHIP TO 
COLLEGE WHICH IS WHERE HE MET MY
MOM.
THESE HARD-WORKING, RESOURCEFUL 
AND LOVING PEOPLE MADE ME WHO I 
AM.
I WALKED AWAY FROM A STEADY JOB 
ON WALL STREET INTO A SEATTLE 
GARAGE TO FOUND AMAZON, FULLY 
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT MIGHT NOT 
WORK.
IT FEELS LIKE JUST YESTERDAY I 
WAS DRIVING THE PACKAGES TO THE 
POST OFFICE MYSELF, DREAMING 
THAT ONE DAY, WE MIGHT AFFORD A 
FORKLIFT.
CUSTOMER OBSESSION HAS DRIVEN 
OUR SUCCESS.
AND I TAKE IT AS AN ARTICLE OF 
FAITH THAT CUSTOMERS NOTICE WHEN
YOU DO THE RIGHT THING.
YOU EARN TRUST SLOWLY OVER TIME 
BY DOING HARD THINGS WELL, 
DELIVERING ON TIME, OFFERING 
EVERY DAY LOW PRICES, MAKING 
PROMISES AND KEEPING THEM AND 
MAKING PRINCIPLED DECISIONS, 
EVEN WHEN THEY ARE UNPOPULAR.
AND OUR APPROACH IS WORKING.
80% OF AMERICANS HAVE A 
FAVORABLE IMPRESSION OF AMAZON 
OVERALL.
WHO DO AMERICANS TRUST MORE THAN
AMAZON TO DO THE RIGHT THING?
ONLY THEIR DOCTORS AND THE 
MILITARY.
THE RETAIL MARKET WE PARTICIPATE
IN IS LARGE AND COMPETITIVE.
AMAZON ACCOUNTS FOR LEARN 1% OF 
THE $25 TRILLION GLOBAL RETAIL 
MARKET AND LESS THAN 4% OF U.S. 
RETAIL.
THERE'S ROOM IN RETAIL FOR 
MULTIPLE WINNERS.
WE COMPETE AGAINST TARGET, 
COSTCO, KROGER AND, OF COURSE, 
WALMART.
A COMPANY MORE THAN TWICE 
AMAZON'S SIZE.
20 YEARS AGO, WE MADE THE 
DECISION TO INVITE OTHER SELLERS
TO SELL IN OUR STORE, TO SHARE 
THE SAME REAL ESTATE WE SPENT 
BILLIONS TO BUILD, MARKET AND 
MAINTAIN.
WE BELIEVE THAT COMBINING THE 
STRENGTHS OF AMAZON'S STORE WITH
THE VAST SELECTION OF PRODUCTS 
OFFERED BY THIRD PARTIES WOULD 
BE A BETTER EXPERIENCE FOR 
CUSTOMERS AND THE GROWING PIE OF
REVENUE AND PROFITS WOULD BE BIG
ENOUGH FOR ALL.
WE WERE BETTING 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.
WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CREATE MORE
JOBS IN THE UNITED STATES OVER 
THE PAST DECADE THAN ANY OTHER 
COMPANY.
AMAZON EMPLOYEES MAKE A MINIMUM 
OF $15 AN HOUR.
AND WE OFFER THE BEST BENEFITS, 
BENEFITS THAT INCLUDE 
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE, 
401(k) RETIREMENT, AND LEAVE.
ENTREPRENEURIAL COMPANIES START,
GROW AND THRIVE HERE IN THE U.S.
WE NURTURE ENTREPRENEURS AND 
START-UPS WITH STABLE RULE OF 
LAW.
THE FINEST UNIVERSITY SYSTEM IN 
THE WORLD.
THE FREEDOM OF DEMOCRACY AND A 
DEEPLY ACCEPTED CULTURE OF 
RISK-TAKING.
OF COURSE THIS GREAT NATION OF 
OURS IS FAR FROM PERFECT.
EVEN AS WE REMEMBER CONGRESSMAN 
JOHN LEWIS AND HONOR HIS LEGACY,
WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A MUCH 
NEEDED RACE RECKONING.
WE ALSO FACE THE CHALLENGES OF 
CLIMATE CHANGE AND INCOME 
INEQUALITY AND STUMBLING THROUGH
THE CRISIS OF A GLOBAL PANDEMIC.
STILL, WITH ALL OF OUR FAULTS 
AND PROBLEMS, THE REST OF THE 
WORLD WOULD LOVE EVEN THE 
TINIEST SIP OF THE ELIXIR WE 
HAVE HERE IN THE U.S.
IMMIGRANTS LIKE MY DAD SEE WHAT 
A TREASURE THIS COUNTRY IS.
THEY HAVE PERSPECTIVE AND OFTEN 
CAN SEE IT EVEN MORE CLEARLY 
THAT BE THOSE OF US WHO WERE 
LUCKY ENOUGH TO BE BORN HERE.
IT'S DAY ONE FOR THIS COUNTRY, 
AND EVEN IN THE FACE OF TODAY'S 
HUMBLES CHALLENGES, I HAVE NEVER
BEEN MORE OPTIMISTIC ABOUT OUR 
FUTURE.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY AND I'M 
VERY HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR 
QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. BEZOS.
MR. PICHAI, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED 
FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
RANKING MEMBER AND MEMBERS OF 
THE SUBCOMMITTEE, BEFORE I 
START, I KNOW THIS HEARING WAS 
DISPLAYED BECAUSE OF THE 
CEREMONIES TO HONOR THE LIFE OF 
YOUR COLLEAGUE, REPRESENTATIVE 
JOHN LEWIS.
BECAUSE OF HIS COURAGE, THIS 
WORLD IS A BETTER PLACE.
IT WILL BE DEEPLY MISSED.
AT ITS HEART, A DISCUSSION ABOUT
COMPETITION IS A DISCUSSION 
ABOUT OPPORTUNITY.
THIS HAS NEVER BEEN MORE 
IMPORTANT AS THE GLOBAL PANDEMIC
POSES DUAL CHALLENGES TO OUR 
HEALTH AND ECONOMY.
EXPANDING ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY 
THROUGH TECHNOLOGY IS PERSONAL 
TO ME.
I DIDN'T HAVE MUCH ACCESS TO A 
COMPUTER GROWING UP IN INDIA.
SO YOU CAN IMAGINE MY AMAZESMENT
WHEN I ARRIVED IN THE U.S. FOR 
GRADUATE SCHOOL AND SAW AN 
ENTIRE LAB OF COMPUTERS TO USE 
WHENEVER I WANTED.
ACCESSING THE INTERNET FOR THE 
FIRST TIME SET ME ON A PATH TO 
BRING TECHNOLOGY TO AS MANY 
PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE.
IT INSPIRED ME TO BUILD GOOGLE'S
FIRST BROWSER, CHROME.
I'M PROUD THAT 11 YEARS LATER, 
SO MANY PEOPLE EXPERIENCE THE 
WEB THROUGH CHROME FOR FREE.
WE ARE EVEN PROUDER OF WHAT THEY
DO WITH THEM, FROM THE 140 
MILLION STUDENTS AND TEACHERS 
USING G SUITE FOR EDUCATION TO 
STAY CONNECTED DURING THE 
PANDEMIC, TO THE 5 MILLION 
AMERICANS GAINING DIGITAL SKILLS
THROUGH GROW WITH GOOGLE, TO ALL
THE PEOPLE WHO TURN TO GOOGLE 
FOR HELP, FROM FINDING THE 
FASTEST ROUTE HOME, TO LEARNING 
HOW TO COOK A NEW DISH ON 
GOOGLE.
WE ARE PROUD TO CONTRIBUTE TO 
AMERICA'S FUTURE.
WE EMPLOY MORE THAN 75,000 
PEOPLE IN THE U.S. ACROSS 26 
STATES.
THE PROGRESS OF POLICY INSTITUTE
ESTIMATED IN 2018, WE ENLISTED 
MORE THAN $20 BILLION IN THE 
U.S. CITING US AS THE LARGEST 
CAPITAL INVESTOR IN AMERICA THAT
YEAR AND ONE OF THE TOP FIVE IN 
THE LAST THREE YEARS.
ONE WAY WE CONTRIBUTE IS BY 
BUILDING HELPFUL PRODUCTS.
FREE SERVICES LIKE SEARCH, 
GMAIL, MAPS AND PHOTOS PROVIDE 
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A YEAR IN 
VALUE TO THE AVERAGE AMERICAN 
AND MANY ARE SMALL BUSINESSES 
USING OUR DIGITAL TOOLS TO GROW.
A FAMILY-OWNED STONE COMPANY IN 
WISCONSIN USES GOOGLE MY 
BUSINESS TO DRAW MORE CUSTOMERS,
A FAMILY-OWNED APPLIANCE STORE 
CREDITS GOOGLE ANALYTICS WITH 
HELPING THEM REACH CUSTOMERS 
ONLINE.
NEARLY ONE-THIRD OF SMALL 
BUSINESS OWNERS SAY WITHOUT 
DIGITAL TOOLS, THEY WOULD HAVE 
CLOSE ALL OR PART OF THEIR 
BUSINESS DURING COVID.
AT THE END OF 2019, OUR R&D 
SPEND HAS INCREASED TENFOLD OVER
TEN YEARS FROM $2.8 BILLION TO 
$26 BILLION.
AND WE HAVE INVESTED OVER 
$90 MILLION THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
OUR ENGINEERS ARE HELPING 
AMERICA REMAIN A GLOBAL LEADER 
IN EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES LIKE 
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 
SELF-DRIVING CARS AND QUANTUM 
COMPETING.
JUST AS AMERICA'S TECHNOLOGY 
LEADERSHIP IS NOT INEVITABLE, 
GOOGLE'S CONTINUED SUCCESSES IS 
NOT GUARANTEED.
NEW COMPETITORS EMERGE EVERY DAY
AND USERS HAVE ACCESS TO MORE 
INFORMATION THAN EVER BEFORE.
COMPETITION LEADS TO BETTER 
PRODUCTS AND MORE CHOICES FOR 
EVERYONE.
FOR EXAMPLE, COMPETITION HELPED 
LOWER ONLINE ADVERTISING COSTS 
BY 40% OVER THE LAST DECADE.
THE SAVINGS PASSED DOWN TO 
COORDINATION.
OPEN PLATFORMS LIKE ANDROID ALSO
SUPPORT THE INNOVATION OF 
OTHERS.
USING ANDROID, THOUSANDS OF 
MOBILE OPERATORS BUILD AND SELL 
THEIR OWN DEVICES WITHOUT PAYING
ANY LICENSING FEES TO US.
THIS HAS ENABLED CONSUMERS TO 
AFFORD SMARTPHONES, SOME FOR 
LESS THAN $50.
WHETHER BUILDING TOOLS FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES OR PLATFORMS LIKE 
ANDROID, GOOGLE SUCCEEDS WHEN 
OTHERS SUCCEED.
IT ALSO SETS HIGHER STANDARDS 
FOR PRIVACY AND SECURITY.
I'VE BELIEVED THAT PRIVACY IS A 
UNIVERSAL RIGHT AND GOOGLE IS 
COMMITTED TO KEEPING YOUR 
INFORMATION SAFE, TREATING IT 
RESPONSIBLY, PUTTING YOU IN 
CONTROL, AND WE HAVE LONG 
SUPPORTED THE CREATION OF 
COMPREHENSIVE FEDERAL PRIVACY 
LAWS.
I'VE NEVER FORGOTTEN HOW ACCESS 
TO TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION 
CHANGED THE COURSE OF MY LIFE.
GOOGLE AIMS TO BUILD PRODUCTS 
THAT INCREASE ACCESS TO 
OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE.
NO MATTER WHERE YOU LIVE, WHAT 
YOU BELIEVE OR HOW MUCH MONEY 
YOU EARN.
WE ARE COMMITTED TO DOING THIS 
RESPONSIBLY, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
LAWMAKERS TO ENSURE EVERY 
AMERICAN HAS ACCESS TO THE 
INCREDIBLE OPPORTUNITY 
TECHNOLOGY CREATES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MR. PICHAI.
MR. COOK IS NOW RECOGNIZED FOR 
FIVE MINUTES. 
>> CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER, 
MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, 
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
OFFER TESTIMONY.
BEFORE I BEGIN, I WANT TO 
RECOGNIZE THE LIFE AND LEGACY OF
JOHN LEWIS.
I JOIN YOU IN MOURNING NOT ONLY 
A HERO, BUT SOMEONE I KNEW 
PERSONALLY WHOSE EXAMPLE 
INSPIRES AND GUIDES ME STILL.
EVERY AMERICAN OWES JOHN LEWIS A
DEBT AND I FEEL FORTUNE TO HAIL 
FROM A STATE AND COUNTRY THAT 
BENEFITTED FROM HIS LEADERSHIP.
MY NAME IS TIM APPLE'S CEO SINC 
2011.
>> I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN
FROM NORTH DAKOTA, MR. ARMSTRONG
FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> GOOGLE HAS RECEIVED CRITICISM
ABOUT BIAS FROM CONSERVATIVES 
AND CONTENT MODERATION.
AS A RESULT, A SIGNIFICANT 
PORTION OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC 
HAS LOST TRUST IN YOUR COMPANY.
A LACK OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN A
PRODUCT USUALLY MEANS THERE'S 
ECONOMIC HARM TO THE COMPANY.
BUT THAT JUST ISN'T IN THE CASE 
WITH GOOGLE.
SO IT'S A LEGITIMATE QUESTION AS
TO WHETHER GOOGLE'S MARKET POWER
INSULATES IT.
I ALSO THINK IT'S A LEGITIMATE 
QUESTION TO ASK IF OTHER 
ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE YOUR 
INDUSTRIES HAVE WORKED.
SO MR. PACHI, GOOGLE HAS 
RESTRICTED THE PORTABILITY OF 
USER DATA DUE TO COMPLIANCE WITH
THE GENERAL DATA PROTECTION 
REGULATION.
SPECIFICALLY IN 2018, GOOGLE 
RESTRICTED THE ABILITY TO EXPORT
THE DOUBLE I.D. OF COOKIE BASED 
IDENTIFIER THAT CREATES PROFILES
THROUGH GOOGLE DATA TRANSFER.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, NOT FAMILIAR 
WITH THE SPECIFICS OF THAT 
PARTICULAR ISSUE.
BUT HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP MORE ONCE
I UNDERSTAND IT BETTER.
>> SO YOU'RE NOT PARTICULARLY 
FAMILIAR WITH HOW YOU'RE 
COMPLYING WITH GDPR.
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE'VE LONG BEEN 
WORKING TO COMPLY WITH GDPR.
WE THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT 
REGULATION, AND WE HAVE -- WE 
ARE IN FULL COMPLIANCE TO THE 
EXTENT OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
I JUST MEANT NOT WITH THAT 
SPECIFIC ISSUE YOU MENTIONED 
THERE.
>> SO TO COMPLY, GOOGLE MUST 
RESTRICT THE -- WITH OTHER 
PLATFORMS TO CONDUCT CROSS 
PLATFORM ANALYSIS.
IT SEEMS AS IF THAT ULTIMATELY 
LIMITS THE ABILITY OF 
ADVERTISERS TO MAKE COMPARISONS 
BETWEEN GOOGLE BASED CAMPAIGNS 
AND NONGOOGLE BASD CAMPAIGNS.
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
>> IN ALL THE SYSTEMS, WE ARE 
BALANCING WITHIN USERS, 
ADVERTISERS AND PUBLISHERS.
WE CARE ABOUT THE PRIVACY OF OUR
USERS.
SO WHEN WE SERVE THESE 
ECOSYSTEMS, WE HAVE TO TAKE THAT
INTO ACCOUNT.
WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH IMPORTANT
LAWS AND REGULATIONS IN EVERY 
COUNTRY WE OPERATE IN.
SO THAT'S THE DELICATE BALANCE 
WE ARE STRIKING.
BUT WE ARE FOCUSED ON USERS AND 
TRYING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN.
>> I WANT TO BE CLEAR, I 
PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT JUST THE
MARKET POWER CONSOLIDATION IS 
SIGNIFICANT.
BUT I WANT TO BE CLEAR WHEN 
WE'RE MOVING FORWARD TO REGULATE
THIS, THAT WE AREN'T SQUEEZING 
OUT COMPETITION IN OUR QUEST TO 
DO SOMETHING.
BECAUSE I'VE SAID THAT BEFORE IN
THIS HEARING AND I'LL SAY IT 
AGAIN, USUALLY IN OUR QUEST TO 
REGULATE BIG COMPANIES, WE END 
UP HURTING SMALL COMPANIES MORE.
I'M A STRONG PRIVACY ADVOCATE, 
BUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF GDPR 
HAVE BEEN TO ENTRENCH LARGE 
ACTORS LIKE GOOGLE, LEADING TO 
REGULATORY CAPTURE THAT 
EXASPERATES COMPETITION 
CONCERNS.
AND THE AD MARKET SHARE HAS 
INCREASED SINCE THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF GDPR.
DO YOU KNOW THAT TO BE CORRECT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, TO JUST GIVE YOU
A SENSE OF THE ROBUST 
COMPETITION WE SEE, AD PRICES 
HAVE FALLEN BY 40% IN TEN YEARS.
IN FACT, IN THE U.S., 
ADVERTISING AS A SHARE OF GDP 
HAS COME DOWN TO LESS THAN 1% 
TODAY.
SO WE SEE ROBUST COMPETITION IN 
THE MARKETPLACE.
AS I SAID EARLIER, WE HAVE TO 
COMPLY WITH REGULATION.
WE HAVE TO INTERPRET IT STRICTLY
AND BALANCE THE ECOSYSTEM.
BUT OUR UTMOST CARE IS ENSURING 
PRIVACY AND SECURITY OF OUR 
USERS.
>> I'M GLAD YOU MENTIONED 
PRIVACY, BECAUSE I WOULD BE 
REMISS IF I DIDN'T FEEL WITH 
THIS ISSUE.
GENERALLY SPEAKING OUTSIDE OF 
THE BIASES WITH ALL OF THIS, AND
THIS IS FOR ESSENTIALLY ALL FOUR
OF OUR WITNESSES, I THINK ONE OF
THE BIGGER CONCERNS WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT THAT DATA HAVING VALUE AND
PRIVACY, WHICH IS WHERE PEOPLE 
GET CONCERNED WITH HOW THE 
DIGITAL AGE IS MOVING FORWARD.
THERE ARE REPORTS LAW 
ENFORCEMENT HAS MADE USE OF WHAT
IS CALLED GEOFENCE WARMS THAT 
ALLOW AUTHORITIES TO COMPEL 
TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES TO DISCLOSE
LOCATION FOR ANY DEVICE AT A 
PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME.
COURT FILINGS SUGGEST THAT 
GOOGLE RECEIVED A 1500% INCREASE
IN GEOFENCE REQUESTS.
AND SO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT 
REQUIRES PROBABLE CAUSE AND 
SPECIFICITY.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THESE ARE.
THESE WARRANTS ARE FOR ANY 
PERSON IN AN AREA AT A 
PARTICULAR TIME.
AND GEOFENCE WARRANTS REQUIRE 
NEITHER.
SO THEY ARE ESSENTIAL IT WILL 
GENERAL WARRANTS.
I BELIEVE THE LOCATION 
INFORMATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
AS CONTENTS UNDER THE HISTORIC 
COMMUNICATIONS ACT.
DO YOU AGREE?
>> UMM, I'M HAPPY TO UNDERSTAND 
MORE.
WE DEEPLY CARE ABOUT -- THIS 
IS -- WE THINK THIS IS AN 
IMPORTANT AREA.
OVERSIGHT AND WE SIMPLY MADE A 
CHANGE BY WHICH WE AUTOMATICALLY
DELETE LOCATION ACTIVITY AFTER A
CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME BY 
DEFAULT FOR USERS.
SO WE ARE HAPPY TO ENGAGE WITH 
THE OFFICE, CONGRESSMAN.
>> I'M USING YOU, BECAUSE THIS 
IS GOING ON IN VIRGINIA AND NEW 
YORK RIGHT NOW.
BUT THIS E QUAUQUATES TO EVERYT.
PEOPLE WOULD BE TERRIFIED THAT 
LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN GET 
ANYBODY'S INFORMATION.
SO IT REQUIRES CONGRESS TO ACT.
IT IS THE SINGLE MOST ISSUE -- 
>> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS
EXPIRED.
>> I HAVE A UNANIMOUS CONCEPT 
REQUEST FOR "WALL STREET 
JOURNAL" ARTICLE, POLICE REQUEST
FOR GOOGLE USERS FACE NEW 
SCRUTINY.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
>> AND I HAVE TWO LETTERS FROM 
CONGRESSMAN WALDEN AND 
CONGRESSWOMAN ROGERS.
THE FIRST IS TO MR. COOK OF 
APPLE, THE SECOND TO MR. PACHI.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLE LADY 
FROM WASHINGTON.
>> THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING WITH 
US.
MR. BEZOS, IN JULY 2019, YOUR 
EMPLOYEE NATE SUTTON TOLD ME 
UNDER OATH IN THIS COMMITTEE 
THAT AMAZON DOES NOT USE ANY 
SPECIFIC SELLER DATA WHEN 
CREATING ITS OWN PRIVATE BRAND 
PRODUCT.
SO DOES AMAZON EVER ACCESS AND 
USE THIRD PARTY SELLER DATA WHEN
MAKING BUSINESS DECISIONS.
JUST A YES OR NO WILL SUFFICE, 
SIR.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
I KNOW IT'S AN IMPORTANT TOPIC.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR 
REPRESENTING US.
I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION YES
OR NO.
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS, WE HAVE 
A POLICY AGAINST USING SELLER 
SPECIFIC DATA TO AID OUR PRIVATE
LABEL BUSINESS.
BUT I CAN'T GUARANTEE YOU THAT 
THAT POLICY HAS NEVER BEEN 
VIOLATED.
>> MR. BEZOS, YOU'RE PROBABLY 
AWARE THAT IN APRIL 2020, A 
REPORT IN "THE WALL STREET 
JOURNAL" REVEALED THAT YOUR 
COMPANY DOES ACCESS DATA ON 
THIRD PARTY SELLERS, BY 
REVIEWING DATA ON SELLERS AND 
PRODUCTS AND CREATING TINY 
CATEGORIES THAT ALLOW YOUR 
COMPANY TO CATEGORICALLY ACCESS 
DETAILED SELLER INFORMATION IN A
SUPPOSEDLY AGGREGATE CATEGORY.
DO YOU DENY THAT REPORT?
>> I'M FAMILIAR WITH "THE WALL 
STREET JOURNAL" ARTICLE THAT 
YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH.
WE CONTINUE TO LOOK INTO THAT 
VERY CAREFULLY.
I'M NOT SATISFIED THAT WE HAVE 
GOTTEN TO THE BOTTOM OF IT, AND 
WE'LL KEEP LOOKING AT IT.
SOME OF THE SOURCES IN THE 
ARTICLE ARE ANONYMOUS, BUT WE 
CONTINUE TO LOOK INTO IT.
>> I TAKE THAT AS YOU'RE NOT 
DENYING THAT.
A FORMER AMAZON EMPLOYEE TOLD 
THIS COMMITTEE "THERE'S A RULE 
BUT THERE'S NOBODY ENFORCING OR 
SPOT CHECKING.
THEY JUST SAY DON'T HELP 
YOURSELF TO THE DATA.
EVERYONE CAN HAVE ACCESS TO 
ANYTHING THEY WANT."
DO CATEGORY MANAGERS HAVE ACCESS
TO THIRD PARTY PRODUCTS AND 
BUSINESSES?
>> HERE'S WHAT I CAN TELL YOU.
WE DO HAVE CERTAIN SAFEGUARDS IN
PLACE.
WE EXPECT PEOPLE TO FOLLOW THE 
POLICY THE SAME WE WOULD ANY 
OTHER.
IT'S A VOLUNTARY POLICY -- 
>> SO THERE'S NO ACTUAL 
ENFORCEMENT OF THAT POLICY?
SO MAYBE THAT ANSWERS MY -- 
>> I'M SORRY, NO, I THINK I MAY 
HAVE MISSPOKE.
I'M TRYING TO SAY AMAZON -- THE 
FACT THAT WE HAVE SUCH A POLICY 
IS VOLUNTARY.
I THINK NO OTHER RETAILER HAS 
SUCH A POLICY.
ENFORCEMENT OF THAT POLICY, IF 
WE FOUND SOMEONE VIOLATED IT, WE
WOULD TAKE ACTION AGAINST THEM.
>> THERE'S NUMEROUS REPORTS, AND
THE COMMITTEE HAS CONDUCTED 
INTERVIEWS WITH FORMER 
EMPLOYEES, WHO CONFIRM EMPLOYEES
HAVE ACCESS TO THAT DATA AND ARE
USING IT.
AND SO MY NEXT QUESTION WAS 
GOING TO BE IF YOU THOUGHT YOU 
WERE ENFORCING THESE RULES, DO 
YOU THINK THAT'S WORKING?
AND, AGAIN, I WOULD JUST SAY 
THERE'S CREDIBLE REPORTING 
THAT'S DOCUMENTED BREACHES OF 
THESE RULES THAT YOU HAVE PUT 
INTO PLACE.
AND THE COMMITTEE HAS 
INTERVIEWED EMPLOYEES THAT 
TYPICALLY SAY THAT THESE 
BREACHES TYPICALLY OCCUR.
LET'S TALK ABOUT AGGREGATE DATA 
FOR A MINUTE.
RULES ALLOW FOR YOU TO ACCESS 
COMBINED DATA ON A PRODUCT.
WHEN THERE ARE ONLY ONE OR TWO 
SELLERS IN THE MARKETPLACE, 
CORRECT?
>> YES.
AGGREGATE DATA IS ALLOWED UNDER 
OUR POLICIES, THAT'S CORRECT.
>> OKAY.
INTERVIEWS WITH FORMER EMPLOYEES
HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THAT 
DATA ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS ACCESS 
TO HIGHLY DETAILED DATA IN THE 
PRODUCT CATEGORIES.
THERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF A SMALL 
BUSINESS THAT HAD NO DIRECT 
COMPETITORS EXCEPT FOR AMAZON 
WAREHOUSE.
AN AMAZON EMPLOYEE ACCESSED A 
REPORT ON THEIR PRODUCT WITH 
INFORMATION ON HOW MUCH THE 
COMPANY SPENT ON ADVERTISING.
AND THEN AMAZON LAUNCHED ITS OWN
COMPETING PRODUCTS IN OCTOBER 
2019.
THAT'S A MAJOR LOOPHOLE.
I GO BACK TO THE GENERAL 
L
COUNSEL'S STATEMENT, CLEARLY 
THERE WAS NO ACCESS TO THIS 
DATA, THAT AMAZON DOES NOT USE 
THAT DATA FOR ITS OWN BENEFIT.
AND I'M NOW HEARING YOU SAY 
YOU'RE NOT SO SURE THAT'S GOING 
ON.
AND THE ISSUE WE'RE CONCERNED 
WITH HERE IS VERY SIMPLE.
YOU HAVE ACCESS TO DATA THAT 
EXCEEDS THE SELLERS ON YOUR 
PLATFORMS WITH WHOM YOU COMPETE.
YOU CAN TRACK CONSUMER 
INTERESTS, YOU CAN ACCESS TO THE
ENTIRE OF SELLERS PRICING AND 
INVENTORY INFORMATION PAST, 
PRESENT, AND FUTURE.
AND YOU DICTATE THE 
PARTICIPATION OF THIRD PARTY 
SELLERS ON YOUR PLATFORM, SO YOU
CAN SET THE RULES FOR YOUR 
COMPETITORS BUT NOT FOLLOW THOSE
SAME RULES FOR YOUR SELF-.
DO YOU THINK THAT'S FAIR FOR THE
MOM AND POP BUSINESSES TRYING TO
SELL ON YOUR PLATFORM?
>> I APPRECIATE THAT QUESTION.
I LIKE IT A LOT, BECAUSE I WANT 
A CHANCE TO ADDRESS THAT.
I'M VERY PROUD OF WHAT WE HAVE 
DONE FOR THIRD PARTY SELLERS ON 
THIS PLATFORM.
WE STARTED OUR THIRD PARTY 
PLATFORM 20 YEARS AGO, AND WE 
HAD ZERO SELLERS ON IT.
>> THE QUESTION I'M ASKING -- 
I'M SORRY.
MY TIME IS EXPIRING.
THE QUESTION I WANTED TO ASK YOU
IS THAT YOU HAVE ACCESS TO DATA 
THAT YOUR COMPETITORS DO NOT 
HAVE.
SO YOU MIGHT ALLOW THIRD PARTY 
SELLERS ONTO YOUR PLATFORM.
BUT IF YOU'RE MONITORING THE 
DATA TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE 
NEVER GOING TO GET BIG ENOUGH 
THAT THEY CAN COMPETE WITH YOU, 
THAT IS THE CONCERN THAT THE 
COMMITTEE HAS.
AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOUR 
COMPANY STARTED IN MY DISTRICT, 
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT AND
THE WORK YOU'VE DONE AND SAY 
THAT THE WHOLE GOAL OF THIS 
COMMITTEE'S WORK IS TO MAKE SURE
THAT THERE ARE MORE AMAZONS, 
THAT THERE ARE MORE APPLES, THAT
THERE ARE MORE COMPANIES THAT 
GET TO INNOVATE AND SMALL 
BUSINESSES GET TO THRIVE.
AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
GET AT.
THAT IS WHY WE NEED TO REGULATE 
THESE MARKETPLACES, SO THAT NO 
COMPANY HAS A PLATFORM SO 
DOMINANT THAT IT IS COMPANILY A 
MONOPOLY.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I YIELD BACK.
>> I JUST WANTED TO REMIND THE 
WITNESSES, WE APPRECIATE THE 
GRATITUDE FOR THE QUESTIONS AND 
YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THEM AS GOOD
QUESTIONS.
WE JUST ASSUME THEY'RE GOOD 
QUESTIONS, SO WE CAN MAKE SURE 
YOU'RE MAKING GOOD USE OF YOUR 
TIME.
WITH THAT, I RECOGNIZE THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. PACHI, I'M GOING TO 
ILLUSTRATE MY QUESTION WITH A 
FACTUAL INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED 
TO ME.
SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, MY WIFE 
CALLED AND SAID THERE'S A GOOD 
ARTICLE THAT YOU SHOULD READ.
OUT OF CURIOSITY, I WAS UP HERE 
IN WASHINGTON, AND I GOOGLED 
GATEWAY PUNDIT.
AND IT DIDN'T SHOW UP ON THE 
FIRST OR SECOND PAGE.
THERE WAS A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT 
BLOGGING SITES ABOUT HOW THERE 
WERE DISAGREEMENTS WITH WHAT WAS
ON THE GATEWAY PUNDIT.
BUT I HAD TO TYPE IN 
GATEWAYPUNDIT.COM TO GET TO IT.
AND GOOGLE DIDN'T ALLOW ME TO 
GET TO THE WEBSITE.
THAT WAS A COUPLE MONTHS AGO 
BEFORE THIS HEARING WAS SET TO 
BE HEARD, BEFORE YOU KNEW YOU 
WOULD BE APPEARING BEFORE US 
TODAY AND THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE 
THAT CONSERVATIVES AND 
REPUBLICANS HAVE HAD.
LAST WEEK, AFTER THIS WAS 
NOTICED, THIS WEARING WAS 
NOTICED, I DID THE SAME THING.
I GOOGLED GATEWAY PUNDIT, AND 
THAT WAS THE FIRST WEBSITE THAT 
CAME UP.
THIS ISN'T FROM A CONSTITUENT IN
PI DISTRICT, I DID THIS ON MY 
LAPTOP HERE SEVERAL MONTHS AGO 
AND THEN TODAY.
SO CLEARLY, SOMETHING HAD 
HAPPENED BETWEEN NOT BEING 
NOTIFIED THAT YOU WERE GOING TO 
BE APPEARING BEFORE OUR 
COMMITTEE AND LAST WEEK, KNOWING
YOU WOULD BE APPEARING BEFORE 
OUR COMMITTEE AND SUDDENLY 
CONSERVATIVE WEBSITES ARE AT THE
TOP OF THE BAR WHEN YOU SEARCH 
FOR THEM.
SO WAS THERE ANYTHING DONE AT 
GOOGLE BETWEEN A COUPLE MONTHS 
AGO AND LAST WEEK OR THE WEEK 
BEFORE YOU APPEARING TODAY, THAT
HAS CHANGED YOUR APPROACH TO 
SILENCING CONSERVATIVE WEBSITES?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE APPROACH OUR 
WORK WITH A DEEP SENSE OF 
RESPONSIBILITY IN A NONPARTISAN 
WAY.
WE WANT TO SEVEN ALL OUR USERS, 
NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE.
IN FACT, IT'S IN OUR LONG-TERM 
BUSINESS INCENTIVE TO DO SO.
AND I BELIEVE ON OUR PLATFORMS, 
INCLUDING YOUTUBE, THERE ARE 
MORE CONSERVATIVE VOICES THAN 
EVER BEFORE, AND WE BELIEVE IN 
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
ON THE SPECIFIC ISSUE, I WILL 
HAVE TO LOOK INTO IT.
I OBVIOUSLY WASN'T AWARE OF IT.
IT COULD BE A NUMBER OF REASONS.
WE CONSTANTLY GET REPORTS -- 
>> IF YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK INTO 
IT 
IT APPEARS TO ONLY BE HAPPENING 
TO CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS.
I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE NEWS
OR ANYTHING IN THE PRESS OR 
OTHER MEMBERS ON THE OTHER SIDE 
OF THE AISLE TALKING ABOUT THEIR
CAMPAIGN EMAILS GETTING THROWN 
INTO JUNK FOLDERS IN G MAIL.
SO WHY IS THIS ONLY HAPPENING TO
REPUBLICANS?
AND IT'S A FACT IT'S HAPPENING, 
BECAUSE I CAN HAVE MY SUPPORTERS
TESTIFY THEY RECEIVED MY EMAILS 
FOR EIGHT, NINE YEARS AND 
SUDDENLY THIS LAST YEAR, ALL OF 
THEIR GMAIL, MY CAMPAIGN EMAILS 
ARE GOING TO THEIR SPAM FOLDER.
SO IF YOU CAN GIVE ME SOME 
CLARIFICATION ON THAT, I WOULD 
APPRECIATE IT.
>> IN GMAIL, WE ARE FOCUSED ON 
WHAT USERS WANT, AND USERS HAVE 
INDICATED THEY WANT US TO 
ORGANIZE THEIR PERSONAL EMAILS, 
EMAILS THEY RECEIVE FROM FRIENDS
AND FAMILY SEPARATELY.
SO ALL WE HAVE DONE IS AN 
ORGANIZATION, THE PRIMARY TAB 
HAS E-MAILS FROM FRIENDS AND 
FAMILY -- 
>> WELL, IT WAS MY FATHER, WHO 
IS NOT RECEIVING NOW MY CAMPAIGN
EMAILS.
SO CLEARLY THAT
IN 49 STATES ACROSS THE U.S. SO 
THAT WE CAN CAPTURE ALL THE 
POINTS.
>> THANK YOU.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRE.
I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLE LADY FROM
FLORIDA.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
LET ME JUST SAY FOR THE RECORD, 
I'M A DEMOCRAT FROM FLORIDA AND 
I'VE HEARD COMPLAINTS ABOUT MY 
EMAILS GOING INTO SPAM, AS WELL.
I'M HUR OTHER DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS
HAVE HAD THE SAME EXPERIENCE.
MR. PACHI, IN 2007, GOOGLE 
PURCHASED DOUBLE CLICK, THE 
LEADING PROVIDER OF CERTAIN 
ADVERTISING TOOLS, IS THAT 
CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT, 
CONGRESSWOMAN.
>> WHEN GOOGLE PROPOSED THE 
MERGER, ALARM BELLS WERE RAISED 
ABOUT THE ACCESS TO DATA GOOGLE 
WOULD HAVE.
SPECIFICALLY THE ABILITY TO 
CONNECT A USER'S PERSONAL 
IDENTITY WITH THEIR BROWSING 
ACTIVITY.
GOOGLE COMMITTED TO CONGRESS 
THAT THE DEAL WOULD NOT REDUCE 
USER PRIVACY.
GOOGLE CHIEF LEGAL ADVISER 
TESTIFIED BEFORE THE SENATE 
ANTI-TRUST SUBCOMMITTEE THAT 
GOOGLE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MERGE
THIS DATA, EVEN IF IT WANTED TO,
GIVEN CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTIONS.
BUT IN JUNE 2016, GOOGLE MERGED 
THIS DATA ANY WAY, DESTROYING 
ANONYMITY ON THE INTERNET.
YOU BECAME CEO OF GOOGLE IN 
2015, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> OKAY.
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, PLEASE,
DID YOU SIGN OFF ON THE DECISION
OR NOT?
>> I REVIEWED AT A HIGH LEVEL 
ALL THE IMPORTANT DECISIONS WE 
MADE.
WE DEEPLY CARE ABOUT PRIVACY -- 
>> SO YOU SIGNED OFF ON THE 
DECISION.
PRACTICALLY THIS DECISION MEANT 
THAT YOUR COMPANY WOULD NOT 
COMBINE ALL OF -- WOULD NOW 
COMBINE, FOR EXAMPLE, ALL OF MY 
DATA ON GOOGLE, MY SEARCH 
HISTORY, MY LOCATION FROM GOOGLE
MAPS, INFORMATION FROM MY EMAILS
FROM GMAIL, AS WELL MY PERSONAL 
IDENTITY WITH A RECORD OF ALMOST
ALL OF THE WEBSITES I VISITED.
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY STAGGERING.
ACCORDING TO AN EMAIL FROM A 
DOUBLE CLICK EXECUTIVE, THAT WAS
EXACTLY THE TYPE OF REDUCTION 
AND USER PRIVACY THAT GOOGLE'S 
FOUNDERS HAD PREVIOUSLY WORRIED 
WOULD LEAD TO A BACKLASH.
AND I QUOTE, THEY WERE 
UNWAVERING ON THE POLICY DUE TO 
PHILOSOPHICAL REASONS, WHICH IS 
NOT WANTING USERS ASSOCIATED 
WITH THE CROSS SITE COOKIE.
THEY WERE ALSO WORRIED ABOUT A 
PRIVACY STORM, AS WELL AS DAMAGE
TO GOOGLE'S BRAND.
SO IN 2007, GOOGLE'S FOUNDERS 
FEARED MAKE THING CHANGE, 
BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT WOULD UPSET
THEIR USERS.
BUT IN 2016, GOOGLE DIDN'T SEEM 
TO CARE.
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, IF I COULD 
EXPLAIN.
WE TODAY MAKE IT VERY EASY FOR 
USERS TO BE IN CONTROL OF THEIR 
DATA.
WE HAVE SIMPLIFIED THEIR 
SETTINGS.
THEY CAN TURN ADS ON OR OFF.
WE HAVE COMBINED MOST OF 
ACTIVITY SETTINGS INTO THREE 
GROUPINGS.
WE REMIND USERS TO GO TO A 
PRIVACY CHECKUP -- 
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH 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 PURPOSES OF 
SURVEILLING AMERICANS AND 
BECAUSE OF GOOGLE'S DOMINANCE, 
USERS HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO 
SURRENDER.
IN 2019, GOOGLE MADE OVER 80% OF
ITS TOTAL REVENUE THROUGH 
SELLING OF AD PLACEMENT, IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> MAJORITY.
>> ADS TARGETED TO EACH OF US AS
INDIVIDUALS, THE MORE USER DATA 
GOOGLE COLLECTS, THE MORE GOOGLE
CAN MAKE.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IN GENERAL, THAT'S NOT TRUE.
FOR EXAMPLE -- 
>> MORE USER DATA, NOT THE MORE 
MONEY GOOGLE CAN COLLECT?
I'M SORRY, PLEASE.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THE MORE USER 
DATA DOES NOT MEAN THE MORE 
MONEY THAT GOOGLE CAN COLLECT?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, MOST OF THE 
DATA THAT WE COLLECT IS TO HELP 
USERS.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK.
>> THE CHAIR NOW RECOGNIZES THE 
RANKING MEMBER OF THE FULL 
COMMITTEE, MR. JORDAN FOR FIVE 
MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
IS GOOGLE GOING TO TAILOR ITS 
FEATURES TO HELP JOE BIDEN IN 
THE 2020 ELECTION?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE APPROACH OUR 
WORK -- WE SUPPORT BOTH 
CAMPAIGNS TODAY.
WE THINK POLITICAL ADS IS AN 
IMPORTANT PART OF FREE SPEECH 
AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES, AND WE
ENGAGE WITH CAMPAIGNS, YOU KNOW,
ACCORDING TO LAW AND WE APPROACH
OUR WORK IN A NONPARTISAN WAY.
>> IT WAS A YES OR NO QUESTION.
CAN YOU ASSURE AMERICANS TODAY 
YOU WON'T TAILOR YOUR FEATURES 
TO HELP JOE BIDEN IN THE 
UPCOMING ELECTION?
>> YOU KNOW, WE SUPPORT WORK 
THAT CAMPAIGNS DO.
I JUST WANT TO -- 
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.
WE ALL DO ALL KINDS OF ONLINE 
SOCIAL MEDIA, ALL KINDS OF THAT 
OUTREACH, THAT COMMUNICATION.
THIS IS A SIMPLE QUESTION, CAN 
YOU TODAY ASSURE AMERICANS YOU 
WILL NOT TAILOR YOUR FEATURES IN
ANY WAY TO HELP SPECIFICALLY ONE
CANDIDATE OVER ANOTHER?
WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS 
HELPING JOE BIDEN OVER PRESIDENT
TRUMP.
>> WE WON'T DO ANY WORK TO 
POLITICALLY TILT ONE WAY OR THE 
OTHER.
>> BE YOU DID IT IN 2016.
THERE'S AN EMAIL IN 2016 THAT 
WAS WIDELY CIRCULATED AMONGST 
THE EXECUTIVES AT YOUR COMPANY 
THAT GOT PUBLIC WHERE THE HEAD 
OF YOUR MULTICULTURAL MARKETING 
TALKS ABOUT THE SILENT DONATION 
GOOGLE MADE TO THE CLINTON 
CAMPAIGN, AND YOU APPLAUDED HER 
WORK.
IF YOU DID IT IN '16, IN SPITE 
OF THE FACT YOU DID IT IN 
SHE ASSUMED IS GOING TO HELP 
CANDIDATE CLINTON, AND SHE'S 
DOING THAT IN KEY STATES.
IT'S ONE THING IF YOU'RE GOING 
TO INCREASE THE LATINO VOTE 
AROUND THE COUNTRY, YOU'RE 
URGING PEOPLE TO VOTE.
IT'S QUITE ANOTHER WHEN YOU'RE 
FOCUSING ON IN KEY STATES.
YOU KNOW WHAT THOSE KEY STATES 
WERE?
NEVADA AND FLORIDA, THE SWING 
STATES.
SO, AGAIN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE 
THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN IN 
2020.
>> I CAN ASSURE YOU WE COMPLIED 
WITH LAWS IN 2016.
ANY WORK WE DO AROUND ELECTIONS 
IS NONPARTISAN.
USERS COME TO US FOR 
UNDERSTANDING WHERE POLLING 
PLACES ARE, WHICH IS THE VOTING 
HOURS ARE.
WE ARE COMMITTED TO PROVIDING 
THAT INFORMATION AND WE'LL 
APPROACH OUR WORK -- 
>> SO HERE'S THE QUESTION I 
THINK IS ON SO MANY AMERICAN'S 
MINDS.
THEY SAW THE LIST WE READ HERE 
EARLIER.
ALL THE THINGS GOOGLE HAS DONE.
GOOGLE IS SIDING WITH THE WORLD 
HEALTH ORGANIZATION OVER ANYONE 
WHO DISAGREES WITH THEM, EVEN 
THOUGH THE WORLD HEALTH 
ORGANIZATION OBVIOUSLY LIED TO 
AMERICA AND SHILLS FOR CHINA.
YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE IS SIDING 
WITH THEM.
WE HAVE THE HISTORY OF WHAT 
GOOGLE HAS DONE AND THE HISTORY 
OF 2016, WHERE THEY OBVIOUSLY, 
ACCORDING TO ONE OF YOUR 
MARKETING EXECUTIVES, TRIED TO 
HELP CLINTON.
AND HERE WE ARE 97 DAYS BEFORE 
THE ELECTION AND WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN 
AGAIN.
CAN YOU ASSURE US YOU'RE NOT 
GOING TO TAILOR OR CONFIGURE 
YOUR PLATFORM TO HELP JOE BIDEN?
AND SECOND, THAT YOU'RE NOT 
GOING TO USE YOUR SEARCH ENGINE 
TO SILENCE CONSERVATIVES?
CAN YOU GIVE US THOSE TWO 
ASSURANCES TODAY?
>> CONGRESSMAN, ON OUR SEARCH 
ENGINE, CONSERVATIVES HAVE MORE 
ACCESS TO -- 
>> THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION.
CAN YOU ASSURE US YOU'RE NOT 
GOING TO SILENCE CONSERVATIVES 
AND ASSURE US THAT YOU'RE NOT 
GOING TO CONFIGURE YOUR FEATURES
AS YOU DID FOR CLINTON IN '16, 
CAN YOU ASSURE US YOU'RE NOT 
GOING TO DO THE SAME THING FOR 
JOE BIDEN IN 2020?
>> YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE MY 
COMMITMENT.
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN TRUE AND WE 
WILL CONTINUE TO CONDUCT 
OURSELVES IN A NEUTRAL WAY.
>> I YIELD BACK.
>> THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE 
GENTLE LADY FROM PENNSYLVANIA.
>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMAN.
I WOULD LIKE TO REDIRECT YOUR 
ATTENTION TO ANTI-TRUST LAW.
MR. BEZOS, OUR INVESTIGATION -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WE HAVE THE 
EMAIL.
THERE IS NO -- 
>> YOU DO NOT HAVE THE TIME.
>> BUT, BUT, SHE -- 
>> PUT YOUR MASK ON!
>> MR. RAS KIN -- 
>> MR. JORDAN, SHE HOLDS THE 
TIME.
[ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ]
>> WHAT I WANT TO KNOW, WHEN 
SOMEONE COMES AFTER MY MOTIVES 
FOR ASKING QUESTIONS -- 
>> THE JEMTLE LADY IS 
RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. BEZOS, OUR INVESTIGATION 
UNCOVERED DOCUMENTS THAT SHOW 
THAT AMAZON SOMETIMES DOESN'T 
PLAY FAIRLY, CROSSING THE LINE 
FROM COMPETITION TO PREDATORY 
PRICING TO DESTROY RIVALS RATHER
THAN OUTCOMPETE THEM.
LET'S TAKE THE EXAMPLE OF QUINCY
THAT PROVIDED ONLINE BABY CARE 
PRODUCTS.
IN 2009, YOUR TEAM VIEWED 
DIAPERS.COM AS AMAZON'S LARGEST 
AND FASTEST GROWING ONLINE 
COMPETITOR FOR DIAPERS.
ONE OF AMAZON'S TOP EXECUTIVES 
SAID DIAPERS.COM KEEPS THE 
PRESSURE ON PRICING ON US, AND 
STRONG COMPETITION FROM 
DIAPERS.COM MEANT THAT AMAZON 
WAS HAVING TO WORK HARDER SO 
CUSTOMERS DIDN'T PICK 
DIAPERS.COM OVER AMAZON.
NOW, BECAUSE DIAPERS.COM WAS SO 
SUCCESSFUL, AMAZON SAW IT AS A 
THREAT.
THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE 
OBTAINED SHOW THAT AMAZON 
EMPLOYEES BEGAN STRATEGIZING 
ABOUT WAYS TO WEAKEN THIS 
COMPANY.
AND IN 2010, AMAZON HATCHED A 
PLOT TO GO AFTER DIAPERS.COM AND
TAKE IT OUT.
IN AN EMAIL THAT I REVIEWED, AND
WE HAVE THESE ON THE SLIDES, ONE
OF YOUR TOP EXECUTIVES PROPOSED 
A "AGGRESSIVE PLAN TO WIN" 
AGAINST DIAPERS.COM.
WE SAW ONE OF YOUR PROFIT AND 
LOSS STATEMENTS, AND IT APPEARS 
IN ONE MONTH ALONE, AMAZON WAS 
WILLING TO LEAD OVER $200 
MILLION IN DIAPER PROFIT LOSSES.
MR. BEZOS, HOW MUCH MONEY WAS 
AMAZON WILLING TO LOSE ON THIS 
CAMPAIGN TO UNDERLINE 
DIAPERS.COM?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
I DON'T KNOW THE DIRECT ANSWER 
TO YOUR QUESTION.
THIS IS GOING BACK IN TIME, 
MAYBE 10, 11 YEARS OR SO.
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT THE 
IDEA OF USING DIAPERS AND 
PRODUCTS LIKE THAT TO ATTRACT 
NEW CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE NEW 
FAMILIES IS A VERY TRADITIONAL 
IDEA.
>> SURE, BUT LET'S DELVE INTO 
THIS A LITTLE FURTHER.
I'M SORRY, YOU KNOW I ONLY HAVE 
A FEW MINUTES HERE.
>> OF COURSE.
>> I WANT TO PRESS ON.
YOUR OWN DOCUMENTS MAKE CLEAR 
THAT THE PRICE WAR AGAINST 
DIAPERS.COM WORKED AND WITHIN A 
FEW MONTHS IT WAS STRUGGLING.
SO AMAZON BOUGHT IT.
AFTER BUYING YOUR LEADING 
COMPETITOR HERE, AMAZON CUT 
PROMOTIONS LIKE AMAZON.MOM AND 
THE DISCOUNTS IT USED TO LURE 
CUSTOMERS AWAY FROM DIAPERS.COM 
AND INCREASED THE PRICE OF 
DIAPERS FOR NEW MOMS AND DADS.
DID YOU SIGN OFF ON THE PLAN TO 
RAISE PRICES AFTER AMAZON 
ELIMINATED ITS COMPETITION?
>> I DON'T REMEMBER THAT AT ALL.
>> THANK YOU.
>> WHAT I REMEMBER IS THAT WE 
MATCH COMPETITIVE PRICES AND I 
BELIEVE WE FOLLOWED DIAPERS.COM.
I CAN TELL YOU AFTER WE BOUGHT 
DIAPERS.COM, WE PUT -- 
>> JUST MOVING ON.
I'M SORRY.
SO YOU SAID THAT AMAZON FOCUSES 
EXCESSIVELY ON CUSTOMERS.
SO HOW WOULD CUSTOMERS, 
ESPECIALLY SINGLE MOMS, NEW 
FAMILIES, HOW WOULD THEY BENEFIT
WHEN THE PRICES WERE DRIVEN UP 
BY THE FACT YOU ELIMINATED YOUR 
MAIN COMPETITOR?
>> I DON'T AGREE WITH GREAT 
RESPECT, I DON'T AGREE WITH THE 
PREMISE.
AT THE SAME TIME, YOU SHOULD 
RECOGNIZE IN CONTEXT DIAPERS -- 
[ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ]
>> I'M SORRY, MR. BEZOS, I NEED 
TO PUSH ON.
THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT THE 
PREDATORY PRACTICES WEREN'T 
UNIQUE HERE.
IN 2013, IT WAS REPORTED THAT 
YOU INSTRUCTED AMAZON EMPLOYEES 
TO APPROACH DISCUSSIONS WITH 
CERTAIN BUSINESS PARTNERS, AND I
QUOTE, THE WAY A CHEETAH WOULD 
PURSUE A SICKLY GAZELLE.
IS THE GAZELLE PROJECT STILL IN 
PLACE, AND DOES AMAZON PURSUE 
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 THAT WE 
ARE VERY, VERY FOCUSED ON THE 
CUSTOMER AS YOU STARTED, AND OF 
COURSE -- 
>> I'M CONCERNED WITH THE 
CUSTOMERS, AS WELL.
ESPECIALLY THE FAMILIES IN MY 
DISTRICT.
[ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ]
I'M CONCERNED, TOO.
ESPECIALLY WITH THE CURRENT 
PANDEMIC, ONE OF THE BIGGEST 
NEEDS I'M SEEING AT THE FOOD 
DRIVES AND THE GIVEAWAYS WE'RE 
HAVING TO RUN IN MY DISTRICT IS 
THAT FAMILIES DON'T HAVE 
DIAPERS, AND WE HAVE TO COLLECT 
THEM TO GIVE THEM OUT.
SO IT 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.
AND I YIELD BACK.
>> I JUST ANNOUNCED THAT BOTH --
WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE WITH THE
HEARING, SO I INVITE COLLEAGUES 
TO VOTE.
SO VOTE ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN 
SCHEDULE.
I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
COLORADO FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WANT TO THANK EACH OF THE 
WITNESSES TODAY.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN 2004, WHEN 
YOU HAD LAUNCHED FACEBOOK, IT'S 
FAIR TO SAY, I THINK YOU WOULD 
AGREE WITH ME, YOU HAD QUITE A 
FEW COMPETITORS.
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, YES.
>> MY SPACE, FRIENDSTER, YAHOO 
360, AOL, THEY WERE ALL 
COMPETITORS?
NONE OF THOSE COMPANIES I JUST 
IDENTIFIED EXISTED.
YOU'RE CERTAINLY AWARE OF THAT?
THEY WERE ALL BASICALLY GONE.
FACEBOOK, IN MY VIEW, WAS IN A 
MONOPOLY BY THEN.
I WONDER WHETHER YOU WOULD AGREE
WITH THAT.
I TAKE IT YOU DON'T?
>> CONGRESSMAN, THAT'S CORRECT.
I DON'T.
WE FACE A LOT OF COMPETITORS.
AND EVERY PART OF WHAT WE DO, 
FROM CONNECTING WITH FRIENDS 
PRIVATELY TO PEOPLE IN 
COMMUNITIES TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS 
AT ONCE, TO CONNECTING WITH ALL 
KINDING OF USER GENERATED 
CONTENT.
I WOULD BET THAT YOU OR MOST 
PEOPLE HERE HAVE MULTIPLE APPS 
FOR EACH OF THOSE ON YOUR 
PHONES.
>> MR. ZUCKERBERG, WHY DON'T WE 
DIG INTO THIS A BIT FURTHER.
WE CLEARLY DISAGREE ABOUT THAT.
IN 2012, I'M LOOKING AT A 
DOCUMENT PRODUCED BY FACEBOOK.
IT'S A PRESENTATION PREPARED FOR
CHERYL SANDBERG TO DELIVER TO 
THE BOARD OF A 
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FIRM, 
BOASTING THAT FACEBOOK IS 95% OF
ALL SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE UNITED 
STATES.
THE TITLE OF THE SLIDE IS EVEN 
THE INDUSTRY CONSOLIDATES AS IT 
MATURES.
SO AS I LOOK AT THAT GRAPH, I 
THINK MOST FOLKS WOULD CONCEDE 
THAT FACEBOOK WAS A MONOPOLY AS 
EARLY AS 2012.
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT 
FACEBOOK, ITS STRATEGY SINCE 
THAT TIME, TO ESSENTIALLY 
PROTECT WHAT I DESCRIBE AS A 
MONOPOLY, BUT OBVIOUSLY WHAT YOU
WOULD DESCRIBE AS MARKET POWER, 
THAT FACEBOOK HAS BEEN ENGAGED 
IN PURCHASING COMPETITION, IN 
SOME CASES REPLICATING 
COMPETITION, AND IN SOME CASES 
ELIMINATING COMPETITION.
WOULD THAT BE A FAIR STATEMENT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, THE SPACE OF 
PEOPLE CONNECTING WITH OTHER 
PEOPLE IS A VERY LARGE FACE.
I WOULD AGREE THAT THERE WERE 
DIFFERENT APPROACHES WE TOOK TO 
ADDRESS DIFFERENT PARTS OF THAT 
SPACE.
BUT ALL IN SERVICE OF BUILDING 
THE BEST SERVICES -- 
>> I APPRECIATE THAT, MR. 
ZUCKERBERG.
IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE CONCEDING
AT LEAST SOME OF THOSE 
STRATEGIES ARE WHAT I 
IDENTIFIED.
IN 2014, HERE'S AN EMAIL.
IT'S FROM FACEBOOK'S CURRENT 
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
DESCRIBED AT THE COMPANY'S 
ACQUISITION STRATEGY AS A LAND 
GRAB.
AND SAYING THAT WE ARE GOING TO 
SPEND 5% TO 10% OF OUR MARKET 
CAP EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS TO 
SHORE UP OUR POSITION.
MY SENSE OF THE FACTS IS THAT 
THAT IN FACT IS WHAT OCCURRED.
FACEBOOK AS YOU CONCEDED 
EARLIER, THAT INSTAGRAM WAS A 
COMPETITOR OF FACEBOOK.
SO YOU ACQUIRED INSTAGRAM IN 
2012.
INSTAGRAM IS NOW THE SIXTH 
LARGEST SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM IN
THE WORLD, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE 
WHAT RANK IT IS, BUT IT'S 
CERTAINLY GROWING BEYOND OUR 
WILDEST EXPECTATIONS.
>> STATISTICS SHOW IT'S THE 
SIXTH LARGEST.
IN 2014, FACEBOOK BROUGHT 
WHATSAPP, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, YES, WHATSAPP 
WAS A COMPETITOR AND 
COMPLEMENTARY.
THEY COMPETED WITH US IN THE 
SPACE OF MOBILE MESSAGING, WHICH
IS A GROWING AND IMPORTANT 
SPACE.
IT IS, AGAIN, ONE PART OF THE 
GLOBAL SPACE OF HOW PEOPLE 
CONNECT.
>> AND AT THAT TIME, IT HAD 400 
MILLION MONTHLY USERS.
AND WHATSAPP IS NOW THE SECOND 
LARGEST SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM IN
THE WORLD WITH 2 MILLION USERS 
WORLDWIDE, MORE THAN FACEBOOK 
MESSENGER AND YOUR COMPANY OWNS 
WHATSAPP.
FACEBOOK TRIED TO BUY OTHER 
COMPETITIVE STARTUPS.
AS CHAIRMAN NADLER NOTED, YOU 
DID TELL A SENIOR ENGINEER IN 
2012, THAT YOU CAN LIKELY BUY 
ANY COMPETITIVE STARTUP, 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 
INDIVIDUAL, THIS ENGINEER TO YOU
WAS, "WELL PLAYED."
YOUR RESPONSE WAS, "THANKS.
ONE REASON PEOPLE UNDER ESTIMATE
THE IMPORTANCE OF WATCHING 
GOOGLE IS WE CAN LIKELY BUY ANY 
COMPETITIVE STARTUPS, BUT IT 
WILL BE A WHILE BEFORE WE CAN 
BUY GOOGLE."
GIVEN THE PURCHASES FACEBOOK HAD
MADE PREVIOUS TO THIS, FACEBOOK 
MADE SEVERAL OVERTURES TO SNAP 
CHAT, CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT 
EMAIL WAS NOT IN JEST.
HERE'S WHY I ASK THESE 
QUESTIONS, MR. ZUCKERBERG.
IT STRIKES ME THAT OVER THE 
COURSE OF THE LAST SEVERAL 
YEARS, FACEBOOK HAS USED ITS 
MARKET POWER TO EITHER PURCHASE 
OR REPLICATE THE COMPETITION.
AND FACEBOOK, FACEBOOK 
MESSENGER, INSTAGRAM, WHATSAPP 
ARE THE MOST DOWNLOADED APPS OF 
THE LAST DECADE.
YOUR COMPANY OWNS THEM ALL.
WE HAVE A WORD FOR THAT, THAT 
WORD IS MONOPOLY.
WITH THAT I WOULD YIELD BACK, 
MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> YOU KNOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLE
LADY FROM GEORGIA MS. McBATH.
>> MR. BEZOS, YOU REFERRED TO 
THIRD PARTY SELLERS AS AMAZON'S 
PARTNERS AND YOUR SUCCESS 
DEPENDS ON THEIR SUCCESS.
BUT OVER THE PAST YEAR, WE'VE 
HEARD A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT 
STORY.
AS PART OF THIS INVESTIGATION, 
WE HAVE INTERVIEWED MANY SMALL 
BUSINESSES, AND THEY USE THE 
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 ACTUALLY AFFECTING THE LIVES 
OF EVIDENCE PEOPLE AND WHY THIS 
TRULY MATTERS.
>> WE ARE A BOOK SELLER ON 
AMAZON.COM.
WE WORKED HARD DAY AND NIGHT 
TOWARDS GROWING OUR BUSINESS AND
MAINTAINING A FIVE-STAR FEEDBACK
RATING.
THE BUSINESS FEEDS A TOTAL OF 14
PEOPLE, AND AS WE GREW, IN 
RETALIATION, AMAZON STARTED 
RESTRICTING US FROM SELLING.
THEY STARTED WITH A FEW TITLES 
IN 2019, AND WITHIN A FEW 
MONTHS, AMAZON BLOCKED US FROM 
SELLING THE FULL TEXTBOOK.
WE HAVEN'T SOLD A SINGLE BOOK IN
THE PAST TEN MONTHS.
AMAZON DIDN'T EVEN PROVIDE WITH 
US A NOTICE AS TO WHY WE WERE 
BEING RESTRICTED.
THERE WAS NO WARNING, THERE WAS 
NO PLAN.
>> SO MR. BEZOS, AFTER AMAZON 
DELISTED THIS SMALL BUSINESS 
WITHOUT ANY PPARENT REASON OR 
NOTICE, SHE SAID THEY SENT MORE 
THAN 500 SEPARATE COMMUNICATIONS
TO AMAZON, INCLUDING TO YOU, MR.
BEZOS, OVER THE PAST YEAR, AND 
THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE 
MEANINGFUL RESPONSE.
DO YOU THINK THIS IS AN 
ACCEPTABLE WAY TO TREAT SOMEONE 
THAT YOU DESCRIBE AS BOTH A 
PARTNER AND A CUSTOMER?
>> NO, CONGRESSWOMAN.
AND I APPRECIATE YOU SHOWING ME 
THAT ANECDOTE.
I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO HER.
IT DOES NOT AT ALL TO ME SEEM 
LIKE THE RIGHT WAY TO TREAT HER.
AND I'M SURPRISED BY THAT.
AND IT'S NOT THE SYSTEMATIC 
APPROACH WE TAKE, I CAN ASSURE 
YOU.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING 
ON IN THAT ANECDOTE, BECAUSE WE 
WOULD LOVE FOR THIRD PARTY 
SELLERS TO SELL BOOKS -- 
>> RESPECTIVELY, SIR -- 
>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, BUT I 
WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IT 
BETTER.
WITH YOUR PERMISSION I WOULD 
LIKE TO GET IN TOUCH WITH HER.
>> I THINK YOU'RE MISSING THE 
POINT.
THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT ONE 
BUSINESS.
I'M CONCERNED THAT THIS IS A 
PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR.
AND BASICALLY, THIS PATTERN OF 
BEHAIOR HAS TO CHANGE.
MR. BEZOS, MY QUESTION IS 
SIMPLY, ARE YOU WILLING TO MAKE 
SURE GOING FORWARD THAT, YOU 
KNOW, THE NUMEROUS SELLERS THAT 
WE HAVE TALKED TO, THEY HAVE 
PROBLEMS JUST LIKE THIS.
AND THERE ARE MORE SELLERS WHO 
TOLD US THAT THEY HAVE EXHAUSTED
ALL OF THEIR OPTIONS BEFORE 
FINALLY REACHING OUT TO YOU 
DIRECTLY AS A LAST RESORT, BUT 
THEY'RE STILL WAITING FOR YOUR 
RESPONSE.
WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY TO SMALL
BUSINESSES THAT ARE TALKING TO 
CONGRESS BECAUSE YOU WON'T 
LISTEN TO THEM?
>> I WOULD SAY THAT'S NOT 
ACCEPTABLE.
IFFER NOT LISTENING TO YOU, I'M.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S 
SYSTEMATICALLY WHAT'S GOING ON.
THE EVIDENCE TO CONSIDER IN THAT
REGARD IS THAT THIRD PARTY 
SELLERS IN AGGREGATE ARE DOING 
EXTREMELY WELL ON AMAZON.
THEY GREW FROM 20 YEARS AGO IT 
WAS ZERO, AND TODAY IT'S 60% OF 
SALES.
THIRD PARTY SELLERS ARE GROWING 
EVEN FASTER.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
MR. BEZOS, YOU SAID THAT SELLERS
HAVE MANY OTHER ATTRACTIVE 
OPTIONS TO REACH CUSTOMERS.
BUT THAT'S NOT AT ALL WHAT WE 
FOUND IN OUR INVESTIGATION.
ACCORDING TO E-MARKETER, A 
SOURCE AMAZON SITED IN 
SUBMISSIONS TO THIS COMMITTEE, 
AMAZON HAS SEVEN TIMES THE 
MARKET SHARE OF ITS CLOSEST 
E-COMMERCE COMPETITOR.
ONE SELLER TOLD US THAT AMAZON 
CONTINUES TO BE THE ONLY SHOW IN
TOWN.
NO MATTER HOW ANGRY SELLERS GET,
THEY HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO.
SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THESE 
PEOPLE RESPECT BEING TRUTHFUL 
WHEN THEY SAY THAT AMAZON IS THE
ONLY GAME IN TOWN?
>> YEAH.
CONGRESSWOMAN, WITH GREAT 
RESPECT, I DO DISAGREE WITH 
THAT.
I BELIEVE THERE ARE A LOT OF 
OPTIONS.
AND SOME OF THEM ARE NOT EVEN 
LISTED ON THAT CHART I JUST 
LOOKED AT.
BUT I DID SEE SOME THAT I KNOW 
OF.
I THINK THERE ARE -- 
>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU FOR 
THAT.
MR. BEZOS, MY TIME IS SHORT.
IF AMAZON DIDN'T HAVE MONOPOLY 
POWER OVER THESE SELLERS, DO YOU
THINK THEY WOULD CHOOSE TO STAY 
IN A RELATIONSHIP 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.
IN FACT, WE WORK VERY GOOD TO 
PROVIDE -- 
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
MR. BEZOS, I'M GOING TO CLOSE 
WITH GIVING THE BOOK SELLER THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO FINALLY BE HEARD 
BY YOU.
>> MR. BEZOS, WE INCREASED OUR 
SALES ON AMAZON BY FIVE TIMES IN
THE PAST THREE YEARS.
AND WE HAVE CONTRIBUTED THAT 
MUCH OF SELLER FEES TO AMAZON.
WE HAVE CONTRIBUTED THAT MUCH TO
YOUR BUSINESS, TO FIVE TIMES.
WE FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES THAT 
WERE SET BY YOU.
PLEASE JUST HELP US, WE BEG YOU,
THERE ARE 14 LIVES AT STAKE.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE HELP US 
GET BACK ON TRACK.
>> WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK THE 
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
>>CLUDED OUR 
FIRST ROUND.
MR. BEZOS, THE MARKETPLACE IS 
COMPETITIVE.
BUT AMAZON CONTROLS AS MUCH AS 
75% OF ALL ONLINE MARKETPLACE 
SALES.
AND E MARKETERS, A SOURCE YOU 
CITED TO US, REPORTS THAT AMAZON
HAS SEVEN TIMES THE MARKET SHARE
OF ITS CLOSEST COMPETITOR.
ISN'T IT TRUE THAT SMALL 
BUSINESSES HAVE NO REAL OPTION 
BUT TO RELY ON AMAZON TO CONNECT
WITH CUSTOMERS AND MAKE ONLINE 
SALES?
>> NO, SIR.
WITH GREAT RESPECT, I DO HAVE A 
DIFFERENT OPINION ON THAT.
I BELIEVE THERE ARE A LOT OF 
OPTIONS FOR SMALL SELLERS.
I BELIEVE AMAZON IS A GREAT ONE 
AND WE HAVE WORKED VERY HARD.
I THINK WE ARE THE BEST ONE.
WE HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT 
PROGRAMS THAT HELP SELLERS.
>> THANK YOU.
THERE ARE 2.2 MILLION SELLERS AS
OF YESTERDAY, 37% OF THEM RELY 
ON AMAZON AS THEIR SOLE SOURCE 
OF INCOME.
THAT IS OVER 800,000 PEOPLE 
RELYING ON AMAZON TO FEED THEIR 
FAMILIES AND KEEP A ROOF OVER 
THEIR HEADS.
YOU HAVE REFERRED TO THIRD PARTY
SELLERS AS PARTNERS AND 
CUSTOMERS.
BUT AMAZON ALSO REFERS TO THEM 
AS INTERNAL COMPETITORS?
>> I THINK IT WOULDN'T SURPRISE 
ME IN SOME WAYS WE ARE 
COMPETING, AND THEY'RE COMPETING
WITH EACH OTHER.
>> YOUR OWN DOCUMENTS THAT YOU 
PRODUCED REFER TO THE VERY SAME 
SELLERS THAT YOU DESCRIBED AS 
AMAZON PARTNERS AS INTERNAL 
COMPETITORS.
WE HEARD FROM THIRD PARTY 
SELLERS AGAIN AND AGAIN DURING 
THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION 
THAT AMAZON IS THE ONLY GAME IN 
TOWN.
ONE SMALL BUSINESS OWNER 
DESCRIBED IT THIS WAY.
AND I QUOTE, WE'RE STUCK.
WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE BUT TO 
SELL THROUGH AMAZON.
ANOTHER SAID, AND I QUOTE, 
THEY'VE NEVER BEEN A GREAT 
PARTNER, BUT YOU HAVE TO WORK 
WITH THEM.
DURING THIS INVESTIGATION, WE 
HEARD SO MANY HEARTBREAKING 
STORIES OF SMALL BUSINESSES WHO 
SUNK SIGNIFICANT TIME AND 
RESOURCES INTO BUILDING A 
BUSINESS AND SELLING ON AMAZON, 
ONLY TO HAVE AMAZON POACH THEIR 
BEST SELLING ITEMS AND DRIVE 
THEM OUT OF BUSINESS.
SO ONE COMPANY THAT STOOD OUT 
FROM THE REST.
I WANT YOU TO PAY CLOSE 
ATTENTION TO HOW THEY DESCRIBE 
YOUR PARTNERSHIP.
WE HEARD FROM A SMALL APPAREL 
COMPANY THAT MAKES AND SELLS 
WHAT THEY CALL USEFUL APPAREL 
FOR PEOPLE THAT WORK ON THEIR 
FEET AND WITH THEIR HANDS LIKE 
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AND 
FIREFIGHTERS.
THIS BUSINESS DISCOVERED ABOUT 
STARTED SELLING A UNIQUE ITEM.
THEY WERE MAKING ABOUT $60,000 A
YEAR ON JUST THIS ONE ITEM.
ONE DAY THEY WOKE UP AND FOUND 
THAT AMAZON HAD STARTED LISTING 
THE EXACT SAME PRODUCT, CAUSING 
THEIR SALES TO GO TO ZERO 
OVERNIGHT.
AMAZON UNDERCUT THEIR PRICE, 
SETTING IT BELOW WHAT THE 
MANUFACTURER WOULD ALLOW IT TO 
BE SOLD, SO EVEN IF THEY WANTED 
TO, THEY COULDN'T MATCH THE 
PRICE.
HERE'S HOW THE APPAREL COMPANY 
DESCRIBED WORKING WITH AMAZON, 
AND I QUOTE, AMAZON STRINGS YOU 
ALONG FOR A WHILE BECAUSE IT 
FEELS SO GOOD TO GET THAT 
PAYCHECK EVERY WEEK.
AND IN THE PAST, FOR LACK OF A 
BETTER TERM, WE CALLED IT AMAZON
HEROIN, BECAUSE YOU JUST KEPT 
GOING AND YOU HAD TO GET YOUR 
NEXT CHECK.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU 
FIND OUT THIS PERSON, WHO IS 
SEEMINGLY BENEFIT YOU, WAS JUST 
ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE YOUR 
DOWNFALL.
SO THIS IS ONE OF YOUR PARTNERS,
MR. BEZOS.
WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY COMPARE 
YOUR COMPANY TO A DRUG DEALER?
>> SIR, I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR
YOU AND THIS COMMITTEE, BUT I 
COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH THAT 
CHARACTERIZATION.
WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS KREE Y5I9 
IN THE STORE A PLACE -- CREATE 
IN THE STORE A PLACE -- WE SOLD 
ONLY OUR OWN INVENTORY.
WE DID THAT BECAUSE WE WERE 
CONVINCED IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR
THE CONSUMER AND THE CUSTOMER.
>> MR. BEZOS -- 
>> I THINK WE WERE RIGHT, AND I 
THINK IT'S WORKED OUT WELL.
>> RECLAIMING MY TIME.
THIS IS ONE OF MANY SMALL 
COMPANIES THAT HAVE TOLD US 
DURING THIS YEAR-LONG 
INVESTIGATION THAT THEY WERE 
MISTREATED AND TOLSED ASIDE BY 
AMAZON.
YOU SAID THAT AMAZON IS ONLY 
FOCUSED ON WHAT'S BEST FOR THE 
CUSTOMER.
HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE WHEN YOU 
COMPETE DIRECTLY WITH THIRD 
PARTY SELLERS WITH YOUR OWN 
PRODUCTS THAT UNDERCUT THE 
COMPETITION?
-- 
>> THANK YOU.
NO, I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS.
WE HAVE -- WE HAVE THE CONSUMERS
IS THE ONE ULTIMATELY MAKING THE
DECISIONS.
THEY'RE MAKING THE DECISIONS 
ABOUT WHAT TO BUY, WHAT PRICE TO
BUY IT AT, WHO TO BUY IT FROM.
>> THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION, MR. 
BEZOS, THE QUESTION, IS IS THERE
A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BECAUSE 
YOU ARE A DATA COMPANY, YOU KNOW
WHEN CUSTOMERS PUT SOMETHING IN 
THEIR CART, WHEN THEY TAKE IT 
OUT, TRADITIONAL BRICK AND 
MORTAR STORES DON'T HAVE THAT.
SO I WANT TO FOLLOW UP AND 
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION YOU GAVE,
YOU SAID YOU CAN'T GUARANTEE THE
POLLTY OF NOT SHARING THIRD 
PARTY SELLER'S DATA HASN'T BEEN 
VIOLATED.
CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT TO 
ME.
CAN YOU LIST EXAMPLES WHERE THAT
POLICY HAS BEEN VIOLATED?
BECAUSE IT'S CONCERNING TO ME, 
MR. BEZOS, SHOULDN'T THIRD 
PARTIES KNOW FOR SURE THE DATA 
SUSPECT BEING SHARED WITH YOUR 
OWN LINE?
WHY SHOULD A THIRD PARTY SELLER 
LIST THEIR PRODUCT ON AMAZON IF 
THEY'RE JUST GOING TO BE 
UNDERCUT BY AMAZON'S ONLY 
PRODUCT AS A RESULT OF DATA YOU 
TAKE FROM THEM?
>> SIR, I THINK WHAT I WANT YOU 
TO UNDERSTAND, AND I THINK IT'S 
IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND, IS THAT
WE HAVE A POLICY AGAINST USING 
INDIVIDUAL SELLER DATA TO 
COMPETE WITH OUR PRIVATE LABELED
PRODUCTS.
>> YOU COULDN'T ASSURE THAT THAT
POLICY ISN'T VIOLATED ROUTINELY.
>> WE ARE INVESTIGATING THAT.
AND I DO NOT WANT TO SIT HERE 
AND I DO NOT WANT TO GO BEYOND 
WHAT I KNOW RIGHT NOW.
BUT WE ARE, AS A RESULT OF THAT 
"WALL STREET JOURNAL" ARTICLE, 
WE ARE LOOKING AT THAT VERY 
CAREFULLY AND -- 
>> THANK YOU, MR. BEZOS.
THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE COLLECTED 
SHOWS THAT AMAZON IS ONLY 
INTERESTED IN EXPLOITING ITS 
MONOPOLY POWER TO FURTHER EXPAND
AND PROTECT THIS POWER.
THIS INVESTIGATION MAKES CLEAR 
THAT AMAZON'S DUAL ROLE AS A 
COMPETING SELLER ON THAT 
PLATFORM IS FUNDAMENTALLY 
ANTI-COMPETITIVE AND CONGRESS 
MUST TAKE ACTION.
WITH THAT, I RECOGNIZE THE 
RANKING MEMBER OF THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK HISTORY
PROVES THAT HISTORY DOES A POOR 
JOB IN PICKING WINNERS AND 
LOSERS.
I'VE LOOKED OVER A LOT OF THE 
MATERIAL THAT HAS BEEN 
ASSEMBLED.
I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE 
CHAIRMAN FOR OVER A YEAR ON THIS
BIPARTISAN INVESTIGATION.
AND I HAVE REACHED THE 
CONCLUSION THAT WE DO NOT NEED 
TO CHANGE OUR ANTI-TRUST LAWS.
THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING JUST 
FINE.
THE QUESTION HERE IS, THE 
QUESTION OF ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE
ANTI-TRUST LAWS.
NOW, WE 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, THIS ACQUISITION DID 
PASS THE SMELL TEST OF THE 
REGULATORS INVOLVED.
MAYBE THEY MADE A MISTAKE OR 
MAYBE SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENED, I
DON'T KNOW.
BUT THE FACT IS, 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 MONOPOLIES.
AND AT&T, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO 
GET YOUR LONG DISTANCE SERVICE 
FROM YOUR LOCAL PHONE COMPANY, 
THAT WAS MONOPOLYISTIC.
SO A WHOLE LOT HAS HAPPENED 
SINCE THEN.
THERE WERE MERGERS AND 
ACQUISITIONS IN THE TELECOM 
INDUSTRY.
TECHNOLOGY ADVANCED A HUGE 
AMOUNT AND GUESS WHAT?
WE'RE BACK TO EXACTLY WHERE WE 
WERE IN 1984.
SO THIS GOES TO SHOW THE 
CONGRESSIONAL PRESSURE IS NOT 
THE BEST.
USING THE AT&T EXAMPLE, WHICH I 
THINK WAS A BIG FLOP AND 
COUNTERPRODUCT 
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, LET ME ASK 
MR. BEZOS, SAY THE AT&T EXAMPLE 
WAS ACQUIRED TO AMAZON, SO YOU 
MIGHT NOT HAVE NO MORE OF A ONE 
STOP SHOP, BUT YOU HAVE TO GO TO
SEPARATE PLACES FOR BOOKS OR 
GROCERIES OR ELECTRONICS, HOW 
ARE THE CONSUMERS HELPED BY 
THAT?
>> SIR, THANK YOU.
THEY WOULD NOT BE.
>> RIGHT.
>> VERY CLEAR.
>> NOW, MR. PACHI, LET ME ASK 
ABOUT GOOGLE.
IF YOU WERE FORCED TO SPLIT UP 
YOUR BUSINESSLINE, SAY 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 PRICES 
FALLING AND THEY GET MORE CHOICE
THAN EVER BEFORE.
SO I THINK IT SERVES THEM WELL.
>> AND YOU'RE RIGHT THERE.
SO I'M NOT GOING TO BE ON THIS 
COMMITTEE IN THE NEXT CONGRESS.
I AM GOING TO PUT MY FEET UP AND
BECOME A SENIOR STATESMAN.
BUT, YOU KNOW, LET ME SAY THAT 
WE HAVE HEARD A WHOLE LOT OF 
COMPLAINTS ABOUT BIG TECH.
SOME OF THEM ARE POLITICAL IN 
NATURE, AND I SHARE THE 
COMPLAINTS AND THE CONCERN OF 
MR. JORDAN AND OTHERS.
AND OTHERS TALK ABOUT ALLEGEDLY 
ANTI-COMPETITIVE ACTIVITY.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT'S NOT FOR
CONGRESS THAT LEGISLATES TO TOSS
ALL OF OUR ANTI-TRUST LAWS AND 
THE PRECEDENT THAT HAS BEEN 
ESTABLISHED THROUGH LITIGATION 
OVER THE LAST HUNDRED PLUS 
YEARS.
BUT IT'S SOMETHING WHERE WE 
OUGHT TO GO BACK TO THE 
REGULATORS, TO THE ENFORCERS, 
HAVE THEM LOOK AT THIS STUFF AND
HAVE THEM MAKE A DETERMINATION 
ON WHETHER OR NOT THE LAWS HAVE 
BEEN VIOLATED.
I THINK THE LAW IS GOOD.
ON THAT.
AND 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.
AND IF IT REQUIRES AN AGENCY 
LIKE THE FTC TO SAY THAT THEY 
HAVE MADE MISTAKES IN THE PAST, 
SO BE IT.
WE'RE ALL HUMAN.
WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES.
EVEN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES DO 
THAT.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLE LADY FROM
WASHINGTON.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN MARCH OF 
2012, YOU SUGGESTED BY EMAIL TO 
YOUR MANAGEMENT TEAM THAT MOVING
FASTER AND COPYING OTHER APPS 
COULD PREVENT OUR COMPETITORS 
FROM GETTING FOOTHOLDS.
CHERYL SANDBERG RESPONDED THAT, 
IT IS BETTER TO DO MORE AND MOVE
FASTER, ESPECIALLY IF THAT MEANS
YOU DON'T HAVE COMPETITORS BUILD
PRODUCTS THAT TAKE SOME OF OUR 
USERS.
FACEBOOK'S PRODUCT MANAGER 
ADDED, I WOULD LOVE TO BE FAR 
MORE AGGRESSIVE AND NIMBLE IN 
COPYING COMPETITORS.
HAS FACEBOOK EVER TAKEN STEPS TO
PREVENT COMPETITORS FROM GETTING
FOOTHOLDS BY COPYING 
COMPETITORS?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I VIEW IT AS 
OUR JOB TO UNDERSTAND WHAT 
PEOPLE ARE FINDING VALUABLE IN 
ALL OF THE SERVICES THAT THEY 
USE.
AND CERTAINLY IF SOMEONE -- 
>> DO YOU COPY YOUR COMPETITORS?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, WE HAVE 
CERTAINLY ADAPTED FEATURES THAT 
OTHERS HAVE -- AS OTHERS HAVE 
COPIED AND ADAPTED -- 
>> I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT 
OTHERS.
SINCE MARCH OF 2012, AFTER THAT 
EMAIL CONVERSATION, HOW MANY 
COMPETITORS DID FACEBOOK END UP 
COPYING?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I CAN'T GIVE 
YOU A NUMBER OF COMPANIES.
>> LESS THAN FIVE?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I DON'T KNOW.
>> LESS THAN 50?
ANY ESTIMATES?
YOUR TEAM WAS MAKING A PLAN.
HOW DID IT PLAY OUT?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M NOT SURE I
AGREE WITH THE PREMISE HERE.
OUR JOB IS TO MAKE SURE WE BUILD
THE BEST SERVICES FOR PEOPLE TO 
CONNECT WITH ALL THE PEOPLE THEY
CARE ABOUT.
AND A LOT OF THAT IS DONE BY 
INNOVATING AND BY BUILDING 
NEW -- 
>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, MR. 
ZUCKERBERG.
LET ME GO ON.
HAS FACEBOOK EVER THREATENED TO 
CLONE THE PRODUCTS OF ANOTHER 
COMPANY WHILE ATTEMPTING TO 
ACQUIRE THAT COMPANY?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, NOT THAT I 
WOULD -- NOT THAT I RECALL. 
>> AND I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND 
YOU THAT YOU ARE UNDER OATH AND 
THERE ARE QUOTES FROM FACEBOOK'S
OWN DOCUMENTS.
PRIOR TO ACQUIRING INSTAGRAM, 
FACEBOOK BEGAN DEVELOPING A 
SIMILAR PRODUCT CALLED FACEBOOK 
CAMERA, CORRECT?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, THAT'S 
CORRECT.
I'VE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES THAT 
WE -- WE'RE COMPETING IN THE 
SPACE OF BUILDING MOBILE CAMERAS
WITH INSTAGRAM.
THAT'S WHAT THEY NEED AT THE 
TIME.
THEY'RE SET WAS COMPANIES LIKE 
WHAT WE WERE BUILDING WITH 
FACEBOOK CAMERA AND VSCO CAM -- 
>> THANK YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG.
DID YOU EVER USE THIS VERY 
SIMILAR FACEBOOK CAMERA PRODUCT 
TO THREATEN INSTAGRAM'S FOUNDER?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M NOT SURE 
WHAT YOU MEAN BY THREATEN.
WE WERE BUILDING A CAMERA APP AT
THE TIME.
THAT WAS A WELL-DOCUMENTED 
THING.
>> LET ME TELL YOU THAT -- IN A 
CHAT YOU SAID THAT FACEBOOK WAS,
QUOTE, DEVELOPING OUR OWN PHOTO 
STRATEGY SO HOW WE ENGAGE NOW 
WILL ALSO DETERMINE HOW MUCH 
WE'RE PARTNERS VERSUS 
COMPETITORS DOWN THE LINE.
INSTAGRAM'S FOUNDER SEEMED TO 
THINK THAT WAS A THREAT.
HE CONFIDED IN AN INVESTOR AT 
THE TIME THAT HE FEARED YOU 
WOULD GO -- THAT YOU WOULD GO 
INTO, QUOTE, DESTROY MODE IF HE 
DIDN'T SELL INSTAGRAM TO YOU.
SO LET'S JUST RECAP.
FACEBOOK CLONED A POPULAR 
PRODUCT, APPROACHED THE COMPANY 
YOU IDENTIFIED AS A COMPETITIVE 
THREAT EXPERT TOLD THEM THAT IF 
THEY DIDN'T LET YOU BUY THEM UP,
THERE WOULD BE CONSEQUENCES.
WERE THERE ANY OTHER COMPANIES 
THAT YOU USED THIS SAME TACTIC 
WITH WHILE ATTEMPTING TO BUY 
THEM?
>> I WANT TO RESPECTFULLY 
DISAGREE WITH THE 
CHARACTERIZATION.
I THINK IT WAS CLEAR THAT THIS 
WAS A SPACE THAT WE WERE GOING 
TO COMPETE IN ONE WAY OR 
ANOTHER.
I DON'T VIEW THOSE CONVERSATIONS
AS A THREAT IN ANY WAY.
>> I JUST -- I'M JUST USING THE 
DOCUMENTS AND THE TESTIMONY THAT
THE COMMITTEE HAS COLLECTED FROM
OTHERS.
DID YOU WARN THE FOUNDER OF 
SNAPCHAT THAT FACEBOOK WAS IN 
THE PROCESS OF CLONING THE 
FEATURES OF HIS COMPANY WHILE 
ALSO ATTEMPTING TO BUY SNAPCHAT?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I DON'T 
REMEMBER THE SPECIFIC 
CONVERSATIONS.
THAT WAS ALSO AN AREA WHERE IT 
WAS VERY CLEAR THAT WE WERE 
GOING TO BE BUILDING SOMETHING.
PEOPLE WANT TO BE ABLE TO 
COMMUNICATE PRIVATELY AND WITH 
ALL OF THEIR FRIENDS AT ONCE.
WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
BUILD THE BEST PRODUCTS IN ALL 
OF THE SPACES THAT WE CAN AROUND
HELPING PEOPLE STAY CONNECTED 
WITH THE PEOPLE THEY CARE ABOUT.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
WHEN THE PLATFORM THREATENS ITS 
RIVALS, THAT SHOULD NOT BE A 
NORMAL BUSINESS PRACTICE.
FACEBOOK IS A CASE STUDY IN 
MONOPOLY POWER BECAUSE YOUR 
COMPANY HARVESTS AND MONETIZES 
OUR DATA AND THEN YOUR COMPANY 
USES THAT DATA TO SPY ON 
COMPETITORS AND TO COPY, 
ACQUIRE, AND KILL RIVALS.
YOU'VE USED FACEBOOK'S POWER TO 
THREATEN SMALLER COMPETITORS AND
TO ENSURE YOU ALWAYS GET YOUR 
WAY.
THESE TACTICS REINFORCE 
FACEBOOK'S DOMINANCE WHICH YOU 
USE IN INCREASING DESTRUCTIVE 
WAYS.
FACEBOOK'S VERY MODEL MAKES IT 
IMPOSSIBLE FOR NEW COMPANIES TO 
FLOURISH SEPARATELY AND THAT 
HARMS OUR DEMOCRACY, IT HARMS 
MOM AND POP BUSINESSES AND 
CONSUMERS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEWOMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. BUCK IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE 
MINUTES. 
>> THANK YOU.
MR. BEZOS, THANK YOU FOR BEING 
HERE TODAY.
I'M CONCERNED THAT YOU'VE USED 
AMAZON'S MARKET POSITION TO 
UNFAIRLY HARM COMPETITION.
WE'VE HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF 
COMPANIES THAT AMAZON USES 
PROPRIETARY DATA.
MEETS WITH START-UPS TO DISCUSS 
INVESTING IN THE PRODUCT AND 
USES THE DATA TO CREATE ITS OWN 
PRIVATE LABEL PRODUCTS.
ALLOWS THE SALE OF COUNTERFEIT 
ITEMS THROUGH ITS WEB PLATFORM.
DURING THIS FIELD HEARING IN 
JANUARY, POP SOCKETS CEO 
DETAILED HOW AMAZON ALLOWED 
COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS TO APPEAR 
ON AMAZON'S MARKETPLACE AHEAD OF
POP SOCKET'S PRODUCTS.
HE SAID THAT POP SOCKET'S FOUND 
1,000 COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS FOR 
SALE ON AMAZON'S MARKETPLACE 
WHICH AMAZON ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO
REMEDY UNTIL POP SOCKET'S AGREED
TO A NEARLY $2 MILLION MARKETING
DEAL WITH AMAZON.
WE'VE ALSO SEEN TROUBLING 
REPORTS IN "THE WALL STREET 
JOURNAL" DETAILING AMAZON'S USE 
OF THIRD-PARTY SELLERS 
PROPRIETARY DATA TO DEVELOP AND 
MARKETS ITS OWN COMPETITIVE 
PRIVATE LABEL PRODUCTS.
"THE WALL STREET JOURNAL" 
REPORTED LAST WEEK THAT AMAZON'S
VENTURE CAPITAL FUND USED 
MEETINGS WITH START-UP COMPANIES
TO GAIN ACCESS TO SECRET PRODUCT
INFORMATION AND FINANCIAL 
DETAILS.
AMAZON THEN REPORTEDLY USED THAT
INFORMATION TO LAUNCH COMPETING 
PRODUCTS OFTEN DISASTROUS 
RESULTS FOR THE ORIGINAL 
START-UP COMPANY.
THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES OF THIS 
BEHAVIOR.
ONE ALLEGATION IN THE REPORTING 
STICKS OUT IN PARTICULAR.
IN 2011, AMAZON CONTACTED VOCAL 
LIFE'S INVENTOR ABOUT THE 
POSSIBILITY OF INVESTING IN THE 
TECHNOLOGY.
THE FOUNDER ACCEPTED THE MEETING
THINKING THIS WAS THE COMPANY'S 
BIG BREAK.
AFTER DISPLAYING THE MICROPHONE 
TECHNOLOGY AND PROVIDING 
INFORMATION TO AMAZON EMPLOYEES 
THE RELATIONSHIP CAME TO A HALT.
EMPLOYEES STOPPED RESPONDING TO 
EMAILS BEFORE THE TECHNOLOGY 
EVENTUALLY FOUND ITS WAY INTO 
THE AMAZON'S ECHO DEVICE.
THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE SERIOUS.
ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE SIZE AND 
SCOPE OF THESE PRACTICES 
COULDN'T HAPPEN WITHOUT AMAZON'S
MONOPOLISTIC CONTROL OF THE 
MARKETPLACE.
I'M CONCERNED THAT GIVEN 
AMAZON'S ALLOWANCE OF 
COUNTERFEIT GOODS ON ITS 
MARKETPLACE, THAT AMAZON'S 
MARKETPLACE MAY BE KNOWINGLY OR 
UNKNOWINGLY FURTHERING CHINA'S 
USE OF SLAVE LABOR CONDITIONS.
THIS IS IMPORTANT FOLLOWING 
RECENT REPORTS THAT AT LEAST 80 
GLOBAL COMPANIES THAT SELL ON 
THE AMAZON MARKETPLACE, 
INCLUDING NIKE, STARBUCKS AND 
SAMSUNG, HAVE TIES TO CHINESE 
FACTORIES THAT USE ENSLAVED 
UYGHUR MUSLIMS.
A BILL WAS INTRODUCED LAST WEEK 
REQUIRING AMERICAN BUSINESSES TO
CERTIFY THAT THEIR SUPPLY CHAIN 
DOES NOT RELY ON FORCED LABOR.
I WILL INTRODUCE A BILL LATER 
THIS AFTERNOON.
I DO NOT EXPECT YOU TO HAVE 
KNOWLEDGE OF THE LEGISLATION, I 
DO WANT TO ASK ALL FOUR OF OUR 
WITNESSES A SIMPLE YES OR NO 
QUESTION.
WILL YOU CERTIFY HERE TODAY THAT
YOUR COMPANY DOES NOT USE AND 
WILL NEVER USE SLAVE LABOR TO 
MANUFACTURE YOUR PRODUCTS OR 
ALLOW PRODUCTS TO BE SOLD ON 
YOUR PLATFORM THAT ARE 
MANUFACTURED USING SLAVE LABOR.
MR. COOK, YOU WERE KIND ENOUGH 
TO VISIT WITH ME ON THE PHONE.
WE BRIEFLY DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE.
IF YOU CAN, GIVE A YES OR NO.
I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVEN'T READ 
THE DETAILS OF THE BILL.
BUT WOULD YOU AGREE TO THIS 
IDEA?
>> I WOULD LOVE TO ENGAGE ON THE
LEGISLATION.
BUT LET ME BE CLEAR, FORCED 
LABOR IS ABHORRENT AND WE WOULD 
NOT TOLERATE IN APPLE.
I WOULD LOVE TO GET WITH YOUR 
OFFICE AND ENGAGE ON THE 
LEGISLATION. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> CONGRESSMAN, I SHARE YOUR 
CONCERN IN THIS AREA.
I FIND IT ABHORRENT AS WELL.
HAPPY TO ENGAGE WITH THE OFFICE 
AND DISCUSS THIS FURTHER. 
>> I REALLY DON'T WANT TO ENGAGE
WITH MY OFFICE HALF THE TIME.
WILL YOU AGREE THAT SLAVE LABOR 
IS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU WILL 
TOLERATE IN MANUFACTURING YOUR 
PRODUCTS OR IN PRODUCTS THAT ARE
SOLD ON YOUR PLATFORMS. 
>> I AGREE, CONGRESSMAN. 
>> MR. COOK?
WE WOULDN'T TOLERATE IT.
WE WOULD TERMINATE A 
RELATIONSHIP IF IT WERE FOUND. 
>> MR. ZUCKERBERG?
>> I AGREE.
WE WOULDN'T TOLERATE THIS.
IF E WITH FOUND ANYTHING LIKE 
THIS, WE WOULD ALSO TERMINATE 
ANY RELATIONSHIP. 
>> MR. BEZOS?
>> YES, I AGREE COMPLETELY.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, 
GENTLEMEN, AND I YIELD BACK. 
>> I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN 
FROM MARYLAND. 
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO THANK MR. BUCK FOR 
THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING AND FOR
THE UPCOMING LEGISLATION.
I LOOK FORWARD TO JOINING THAT.
IN THE 19th INDUSTRY, WE HAD THE
ROBIN BEARINGS AND NOW WE HAVE 
THE CYBER BEARINGS.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE 
EXTRAORDINARY POWER AND WEALTH 
THAT YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO AMASS 
IS NOT UNITED STATES AGAINST 
HUMAN RIGHTS AROUND THE WORLD 
AND NOT AGAINST THE INTEREST OF 
A FREE MARKET AT HOME.
MR. BEZOS, LET ME TURN TO YOU.
I'M INTERESTED IN THE ROLE THAT 
YOU PLAY AS A GATEKEEPER.
A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW 
WHEN THE HBO MAX APP WILL BE 
AVAILABLE ON YOUR DEVICES AND I 
UNDERSTAND THAT NEGOTIATIONS ARE
ONGOING.
BUT YOUR COMPANY IS NOT ONLY 
ASKING FOR FINANCIAL TERMS, BUT 
ALSO FOR CONTENT FROM WARNER 
MEDIA.
IS THAT RIGHT AND IS THAT A FAIR
WAY TO PROCEED?
IN OTHER WORDS, IS IT FAIR TO 
USE YOUR GATEKEEPER STATUS ROLE 
TO PROMOTE YOUR POSITION AS A 
COMPETITOR IN THE VIDEO 
STREAMING MARKET WITH RESPECT TO
CONTENT?
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE 
DETAILS OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS.
AS YOU SAID, THEY'RE UNDER WAY 
RIGHT NOW.
I PREDICT THAT THE COMPANIES 
WILL EVENTUALLY COME TO AN 
AGREEMENT AND I THINK THIS IS 
KIND OF TWO LARGE COMPANIES 
NEGOTIATING AGREEMENTS, KIND OF 
NORMAL CASE OF -- 
>> HERE'S WHY I PURSUE.
IT'S A LARGE COMPANY AND IN A 
WAY, THEY STAND IN FOR HUNDREDS 
OF THOUSANDS OF MUCH SMALLER 
COMPANIES WHO ARE EVEN IN A MORE
DISADVANTAGED POSITION WITH 
RESPECT TO NEGOTIATING WITH YOU.
I GUESS THE GENERAL PROPOSITION 
YOU CAN SPEAK TO, IF YOU DON'T 
KNOW THE DETAILS OF THIS, IS IT 
OKAY TO NEGOTIATE NOT JUST FOR 
FINANCIAL TERMS IN HAVING 
SOMEONE BE PART OF YOUR FIRE 
UNIT, BUT ALSO TO TRY TO EXTRACT
IN THAT NEGOTIATION LEVERAGE 
WITH RESPECT TO GETTING CONTENT 
FROM THEM?
>> WELL, AGAIN, I'M NOT FAMILIAR
WITH THE DETAILS -- 
>> I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT THAT 
ONE.
IN GENERAL. 
>> IN GENERAL, I THINK WHEN TWO 
COMPANIES ARE NEGOTIATING, 
YOU'RE NEGOTIATING NOT JUST THE 
AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S GOING TO 
CHANGE HANDS, BUT ALSO WHAT 
YOU'RE GOING TO GET IN EXCHANGE 
FOR THE AMOUNT OF MONEY.
THAT'S A FUNDAMENTAL WAY THAT 
BUSINESS WORKS. 
>> DO YOU SEE AT LEAST -- DO YOU
SEE AT LEAST TO OUTSIDERS THAT 
WOULD LOOK LIKE A STRUCTURAL 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
YOU'RE USING YOUR CONTROL OVER 
ACCESS TO PEOPLE'S LIVING ROOMS,
ESSENTIALLY, YOU'RE USING THAT 
IN ORDER TO OBTAIN LEVERAGE IN 
TERMS OF GETTING CREATIVE 
CONTENT THAT YOU WANT AND ARE 
YOU ESSENTIALLY CONVERTING POWER
IN ONE DOMAIN INTO POWER IN 
ANOTHER DOMAIN WHERE IT DOESN'T 
BELONG. 
>> I SHOULD OFFER TO GET YOU 
INFORMATION -- I'LL GET IT TO 
YOUR OFFICE FOR YOU BECAUSE I'M 
NOT FAMILIAR ENOUGH WITH THIS 
AND I COULD IMAGINE THAT THERE 
WOULD BE SCENARIOS IF WE'RE 
TALKING IN ABSTRACT WHERE IT 
WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE AND I 
COULD IMAGINE SCENARIOS WHERE IT
WOULD BE VERY NORMAL BUSINESS 
AND VERY APPROPRIATE. 
>> FAIR ENOUGH.
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SMART HOMES
AND I WANT TO START WITH SMART 
SPEAKERS.
DOES AMAZON PRICE THE ECHO 
DEVICE BELOW COST?
>> NOT ITS LIST PRICE.
IT'S OFTEN ON PROMOTION.
SOMETIMES WHEN IT'S ON 
PROMOTION, IT MAY BE BELOW COST,
YES. 
>> SEVERAL OTHER COMPANIES SAID 
THAT AMAZON IS PRICING ECHO 
DEVICES WAY BELOW COST MAKING IT
NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO 
COMPETE AND AGGRESSIVELY 
DISCOUNTING ALEXA ENABLED 
SPEAKERS IS A STRATEGY TO OWN 
THE SMART HOME.
LIKE MANY MARKETS, SMART 
SPEAKERS ALONG WITH THE MYRIAD 
OF SMART HOME APPLIANCES MAKE UP
THE NEXT PLATFORM FOR TECH 
COMPANIES TO LOCK IN CUSTOMERS.
WOULD YOU SAY THE SMART HOME 
MARKET FOR WHICH THE ECHO, RING 
SECURITY SYSTEMS IS A WINNER'S 
TAKE ALL MARKET?
YES OR NO?
>> NO, I WOULDN'T.
ESPECIALLY IF WE -- IF WE'RE 
ABLE TO SUCCEED AT WHAT WE WANT,
WE WOULD LIKE OUR -- OUR VISION 
FOR THIS IS THAT SMART HOME 
SPEAKERS SHOULD ANSWER TO 
DIFFERENT -- 
>> WHEN CONSIDERING THE 
ACQUISITION -- 
>> ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
IF WE COULD ACHIEVE THAT, THEN I
THINK YOU WOULD GET REALLY GOOD 
BEHAVIOR ON THE PART OF 
COMPETITIVE VOICE AGENTS HELPING
YOU. 
>> YOU WROTE, WE'RE BUYING 
MARKET POSITION, NOT TECHNOLOGY 
AND THAT MARKET POSITION IS VERY
VALUABLE.
SO IF SMART HOMES ARE NOT A 
MARKET WITH LOCK-IN EFFECTS, WHY
WOULD A LEADING MARKET POSITION 
AND MOMENTUM BE SO VERY 
VALUABLE?
>> SIR, MARKET POSITION IS 
VALUABLE AT ALMOST ANY BUSINESS 
AND IT'S ONE OF THE PRIMARY 
THINGS THAT ONE WOULD LOOK AT IN
AN ACQUISITION.
THERE ARE MULTIPLE REASONS THAT 
WE MIGHT -- SOMETIMES WE'RE 
TRYING TO BUY TECHNOLOGY OR IP, 
SOMETIMES IT'S TALENT 
ACQUISITION.
BUT THE MOST COMMON CASE IS 
MARKET POSITION.
THE COMPANY HAS TRACTION WITH 
CUSTOMERS.
MAYBE THEY WERE THE FIRST MOVER,
ANY NUMBER OF REASONS WHY THEY 
HAVE THAT MARKET POSITION.
THAT'S A COMMON REASON TO 
ACQUIRE A COMPANY. 
>> ONCE A COMPANY BECOMES 
DOMINANT IN A MARKET, IT CAN 
FAVOR ITS OWN PRODUCTS AND 
SERVICES.
WHEN I ASK ALEXA TO PLAY MAY 
FAVORITE SONG, PRIME MUSIC IS 
THE DEFAULT MUSIC PLAYER?
>> I THINK THAT'S TRUE IF YOU'RE
A PRIME MEMBER, YES.
>> AND A "NEW YORK TIMES" REPORT
FOUND THAT WHEN USERS SAY, 
ALEXA, BUY BATTERIES, SHE 
RESPONDS WOULD YOU LIKE TO BUY 
AMAZON BATTERIES?
HAS ALEXA BEEN TRAINED TO FAVOR 
AMAZON PRODUCTS?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BEEN 
TRAINED IN THAT WAY.
I'M SURE THERE ARE CASES WHERE 
WE DO PROMOTE OUR OWN PRODUCTS.
OF COURSE, A COMMON PRACTICE IN 
BUSINESS.
IT WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME IF ALEXA
SOMETIMES DOES PROMOTE OUR OWN 
PRODUCTS. 
>> THANK YOU, AND I YIELD BACK.
>> THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA FOR FIVE 
MINUTES. 
>> DURING OUR PRIOR DURGS 
EARLIER TODAY YOU SAID THAT 
GOOGLE DOESN'T WORK WITH THE 
CHINESE MILITARY.
THAT ANSWER WAS DECEPTIVE 
BECAUSE GOOGLE WORKS WITH MANY 
OF THE ENTITIES THAT WORK WITH 
THE CHINESE MILITARY IN COMMON 
COLLABORATION AND JUST AS ONE 
EXAMPLE WOULD BE A UNIVERSITY 
WHERE JEFF DEAN, WHO IS THE HEAD
OF GOOGLE AI SERVED ON THE 
COMPUTER SCIENCE ADVISORY 
COMMITTEE FOR THE UNIVERSITY AND
THEN THE UNIVERSITY TAKES A 
NEARLY $15 MILLION FROM CHINA'S 
CENTRAL MILITARY COMMISSION.
IF YOU DON'T SHOW UP AT THE 
OFFICES OF THE CHINESE MILITARY,
IF YOU'RE ALL SHOWING UP AT THE 
SAME PLACE, WORKING TOGETHER ON 
AI, THAT WOULD LEAD TO MY 
CONCERN.
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SEARCH 
BECAUSE THAT'S AN AREA WHERE I 
KNOW GOOGLE HAS REAL MARKET 
DOMINANCE.
ON DECEMBER 11th YOU RECEIVED IN
RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM MY 
COLLEAGUE ABOUT SEARCH, YOU 
SAID, WE DON'T MANUALLY 
INTERVENE ON ANY PARTICULAR 
SEARCH RESULT.
LEAKED MEMOS OBTAINED SHOW THAT 
THAT ISN'T TRUE.
IN FACT, THOSE MEMOS WERE 
ALTERED DECEMBER 3rd JUST A WEEK
BEFORE YOUR TESTIMONY AND THEY 
DESCRIBE A DECEPTIVE NEWS 
BLACKLIST, AND A PROCESS FOR 
DEVELOPING THAT BLACKLIST 
APPROVED BY SOMEONE WHO LEADS 
SEARCH WITHIN YOUR COMPANY AND 
SOMETHING CALLED A FRINGE 
RANKING WHICH SEEMS TO BEG THE 
QUESTION, WHO GETS TO DECIDE 
WHAT'S FRINGE.
AND IN YOUR ANSWER, YOU KNOW, 
YOU SAID THAT THERE IS NO MANUAL
INTERVENTION OF SEARCH.
THAT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY.
NOW I'M GOING TO CITE 
SPECIFICALLY FROM THIS MEMO, 
FROM THE DAILY CALLER OBTAINED 
FROM YOUR COMPANY, THE BEGINNING
OF THE WORK FLOW STARTS WHEN A 
WEBSITE IS PLACED ON A WATCH 
LIST.
IT CONTINUES THIS WATCH LIST IS 
MAINTAINED AND STORED WITH 
ACCESS RESTRICTED TO POLICY AND 
ENFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS.
IT BEGS THE QUESTION WHO THESE 
ENFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS ARE.
ACCESS TO THE LISTING CAN ALSO 
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, THE 
REASONABLE REVIEW TOOL.
YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS NO 
MANUAL REVIEW TOOL AND THEN YOUR
DOCUMENTS INDICATE THAT THERE IS
A MANUAL REVIEW TOOL.
HELP US UNDERSTAND THE 
INCONSISTENCY?
>> CONGRESSMAN, THERE ARE TWO 
PARTS TO THIS.
IN GENERAL, YOU KNOW, WE 
ALGORITHMIC APPROACH OUR SEARCH 
RESULTS.
WE HAVE ROBUST POLICIES TO DO SO
AND WE TEST THE FEEDBACK AND 
VALIDATE EXPERIMENTS AND 
LAUNCHED AROUND 3,000 
IMPROVEMENTS TO SEARCH.
AND WE DON'T MANUALLY TUNE.
IS THERE SOMEONE BEHIND THE 
CURTAIN TUNING A SEARCH RESULT?
WE DON'T.
IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW 
IN EVERY COUNTRY WE OPERATE IN, 
FOR EXAMPLE, THERE MAY BE AN 
ACTOR OR A WEBSITE IDENTIFIED AS
INTERFERING IN ELECTIONS, AND WE
THEN HAVE TO PUT THAT SITE ON A 
LIST SO THAT DOESN'T APPEAR IN 
OUR SEARCH RESULTS AGAINST 
QUERIES.
VIOLENT EXTREMISM -- 
>> IS THAT DONE MANUALLY, THAT 
PROCESS YOU DESCRIBED?
IS THAT DONE MANUALLY. 
>> WE COULD GET REPORTS FROM LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, YOU KNOW, 
WE'RE COMPLYING WITH -- OR IT'S 
A KNOWN -- 
>> THERE'S A MANUAL COMPONENT OR
THERE'S NOT A MANUAL COMPONENT.
WHICH IS IT?
>> FOR CREATING THOSE LISTS, 
THAT PROCESS CAN INVOLVE MANUAL 
PORTIONS. 
>> THAT'S THE CONCERN THAT I 
HAVE.
YOU'VE NOW SAID SOMETHING 
DIFFERENT TODAY THAN YOU SAID 
EARLIER BECAUSE YOU'VE CONFESSED
THAT THERE IS A MANUAL COMPONENT
TO THE WAY IN WHICH YOU 
BLACKLIST CONTENT.
AND IT SEEMS TO BE NO 
COINCIDENCE THAT ITS CITES LIKE 
THE WESTERN JOURNAL, AMERICAN 
SPECTATOR, DAILY CALLER, AND 
BREITBART THAT RECEIVED THE IRE 
OR THE NEGATIVE TREATMENT AS A 
CONSEQUENCE OF YOUR MANUAL 
TOOLING AND IT ALSO SEEMS 
NOTEWORTHY THAT WHISTLE-BLOWERS 
AT YOUR OWN COMPANY HAVE SPOKEN 
OUT.
YOU SAID THAT ONE OF THE REASONS
YOU MAINTAIN THIS MANUAL TOOL IS
TO STOP ELECTION INTERFERENCE.
I BELIEVE IT IS IN FACT YOUR 
COMPANY THAT IS ENGAGING IN 
ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND IT'S 
NOT JUST MY VIEW.
MIKE WHACKER CAME OUT AND WAS A 
WHISTLE-BLOWER INDICATING THAT 
THE MANUAL BLACKLIST TARGETS 
THAT GOOGLE SPECIFICALLY GOES 
AFTER ARE THOSE WHO SUPPORT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHO HOLD A 
CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT, AND HE 
LEFT YOUR COMPANY IN 2019 
BECAUSE HE WAS SPEAKING OUT 
AGAINST THESE OUTRAGE MOBS.
CAN YOU SEE HOW WHEN YOU EMPOWER
INDIVIDUALS, SOME OF THE SAME 
INDIVIDUALS THAT PROJECT VERATAS
HAS EXPOSED, THAT CAN BE THE 
VERY ELECTION INTERFERENCE THAT 
WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT AND YOU'RE
USING YOUR MARKET DOMINANCE IN 
SEARCH TO ACCOMPLISH THAT 
ELECTION INTERFERENCE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WITH RESPECT, I 
STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THAT 
CHARACTERIZATION.
WE DON'T APPROACH THIS WORK WITH
ANY POLITICAL VIEWPOINT.
WE DO THAT TO COMPLY WITH LAW, 
COPY RIGHT VIOLATIONS, AND WE 
HAVE TO DO THAT TO COMPLY WITH 
THE LAW.
IN MANY CASES, THOSE REQUESTS 
CAN COME FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT 
AGENCIES. 
>> YOU'RE OWN EMPLOYEES ARE 
SAYING IT'S A POLITICAL BIAS.
I YIELD BACK.
MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST GIVEN THE 
PRODUCTIVITY OF OUR DISCUSSION, 
I WOULD REQUEST THAT WE BE 
PERMITTED A THIRD ROUND OF 
QUESTIONING. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
>> I NOW RECOGNIZE THE CHAIRMAN 
OF THE FULL COMMITTEE, 
MR. NADLER.
>> YEAH.
YOU KNOW, THE DOCUMENTS PROVE --
THE JOURNALISM INDUSTRY IN THIS 
COUNTRY ARE IN ECONOMIC FREE 
FALL.
OVER 200 COUNTIES IN AMERICA NO 
LONGER HAVE A LOCAL NEWSPAPER 
AND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF 
JOURNALISTS HAVE BEEN LAID OFF 
IN RECENT YEARS.
THE REASON JOURNALISM IS IN FREE
FALL IS THAT GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK
NOW CAPTURE THE VAST MAJORITY OF
DIGITAL AD REVENUE.
NEWS PUBLISHERS PRODUCE VALUABLE
CONTENT, IT'S GOOGLE AND 
FACEBOOK THAT INCREASINGLY 
PROFIT OFF THAT CONTENT.
ESTABLISHERS HAVE TOLD US THAT 
GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK MAINTAIN 
THEIR DOMINANCE IN THESE MARKETS
THROUGH ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT 
AS WELL AS CONFLICT OF 
INTERESTS.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN 2015, 
FACEBOOK REPORTED HIGH AND 
QUICKLY GROWING RATES OF VIDEO 
VIEWERSHIP ON ITS PLATFORM.
BASED ON THESE METRICS, NEWS 
PUBLISHERS FIRED HUNDREDS OF 
JOURNALISTS, CHOOSING TO BOOST 
THEIR VIDEO DIVISIONS.
IN 2018, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT 
FACEBOOK HAS INFLATED THESE 
METRICS AND HAD KNOWN ABOUT THE 
INACCURACY SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE 
FACEBOOK DISCLOSED THIS.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, DID YOU KNOW 
THAT THESE METRICS WERE INFLATED
BEFORE THEY WERE PUBLICLY 
RELEASED?
>> CONGRESSMAN, NO, I DID NOT.
AND WE REGRET THAT MISTAKE AND 
WE HAVE PUT IN PLACE A NUMBER OF
OTHER MEASURES SINCE THEN TO 
MAKE SURE THAT WE -- 
>> AND DO YOU REALIZE THE HARM 
THAT THIS CAUSED JOURNALISTS 
ACROSS THE COUNTRY?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I CERTAINLY KNOW
HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THAT THE 
METRICS THAT WE REPORT ARE 
ACCURATE AND WE'VE PUT IN PLACE 
ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO MAKE SURE
WE CAN AUDIT THOSE. 
>> WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY TO 
THE JOURNALISTS WHO LOST THEIR 
JOBS BECAUSE OF FACEBOOK'S 
DECEPTION?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I DISAGREE WITH 
THAT CHARACTERIZATION.
AND ALSO YOUR DESCRIPTION OF -- 
>> RECLAIMING MY TIME.
GOOGLE, MEANWHILE, MAINTAINS ITS
DOMINANCE THROUGH AGGREGATING 
DATA FROM ACROSS ITS PRODUCTS 
AND SERVICES.
I UNDERSTAND THAT GOOGLE 
COLLECTS USER DATA ON BROWSING 
ACTIVITY THROUGH ITS CHROME 
BROWSER.
DOES GOOGLE USE THAT FOR ITS OWN
PURPOSES EITHER IN ADVERTISING 
OR DEVELOP AND REFINE ITS 
ALGORITHMS?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WE DO USE DATA 
TO IMPROVE OUR PRODUCTS AND 
SERVICES FOR OUR USERS.
ANY TIME WE DO IT, WE BELIEVE IN
GIVING USERS CHOICE, CONTROL AND
TRANSPARENCY.
WE GIVE THEM SETTINGS TO CHOOSE 
HOW THEY WOULD LIKE THEIR DATA 
USED. 
>> YOU DO USE THE DATA THAT YOU 
GET FROM THESE COMPANIES FOR 
YOUR PURPOSES?
>> MY UNDERSTAND WAS WHETHER WE 
USE DATA IN GENERAL TO IMPROVE 
OUR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.
WE USE DATA TO SHOW ADS.
BUT WE GIVE USERS A CHOICE.
THEY CAN TURNS ADS 
PERSONALIZATION ON OR OFF. 
>> THIS OBVIOUSLY -- USE OF THAT
DATA FROM ALL OF THESE -- FROM 
ALL OF THESE COMPANIES GIVES YOU
A TREMENDOUS ADVANTAGE OVER THEM
AND OVER ANY COMPETITOR.
DOES THE ABILITY TO MAKE MONEY 
IN ANY WAY AFFECT GOOGLE'S 
ALGORITHM IN TERMS OF WHAT NEWS 
APPEARS IN SEARCH RESULTS?
>> THE WAY WE RANK OUR SEARCH 
RESULTS, WE DON'T TAKE INTO 
ACCOUNT COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIP 
THAT WE HAVE. 
>> OKAY.
BUT FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE HAVE 
GRAVELY THREATENED JOURNALISM IN
THE UNITED STATES.
REPORTERS HAVE BEEN FIRED, LOCAL
NEWSPAPERS HAVE BEEN SHUT DOWN, 
AND NOW WE HEAR THAT GOOGLE AND 
FACEBOOK ARE MAKING MONEY OVER 
WHAT NEWS THE -- THEY LET THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE.
THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS 
SITUATION AND UNFORTUNATELY MY 
TIME IS EXPIRED AND I HAVE TO 
YIELD BACK. 
>> I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN
FROM FLORIDA FOR FIVE MINUTES. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I'M GOING TO PICK UP WHERE I 
LEFT OFF.
THERE ARE RIOTING GROUPS THAT 
ARE GOING UNCHECKED WITH THE 
POSTING OF WHAT I WOULD CONTEND 
IS VERY VIOLENT VIDEO.
YESTERDAY I WAS SENT A YOUTUBE 
VIDEO ABOUT DOCTORS DISCUSSING 
HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE AND 
DISCUSSING THE NOT DANGERS OF 
CHILDREN RETURNING TO SCHOOL.
WHEN I CLICKED ON THE LINK, IT 
WAS TAKEN DOWN.
I WAS SENT A DIFFERENT LINK ON 
YOUTUBE AND IT WAS TAKEN DOWN.
I JUST CHECKED AGAIN TO MAKE 
SURE, IT SAYS THIS VIDEO HAS 
BEEN REMOVED FOR VIOLATING 
GUIDELINES.
HOW CAN DOCTORS GIVING THEIR 
OPINION ON A DRUG THAT THEY 
THINK IS EFFECTIVE FOR THE 
TREATMENT OF COVID-19 AND 
DOCTORS WHO THINK IT'S 
APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN TO 
RETURN BACK TO SCHOOL VIOLATE 
YOUTUBE'S COMMUNITY GUIDELINES?
WHEN ALL OF THESE VIDEOS OF 
VIOLENCE IS ALL POSTED ON 
YOUTUBE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE BELIEVE IN 
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND 
THERE'S A LOT OF DEBATE ON 
YOUTUBE ABOUT EFFECTIVE WAYS TO 
DEAL WITH COVID.
WE ALLOW ROBUST DEBATE.
BUT DURING A PANDEMIC, WE LOOK 
TO LOCAL HEALTH AUTHORITIES.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE U.S., IT 
WOULD BE CDC, FOR GUIDELINES 
AROUND MEDICAL MISINFORMATION 
WHICH COULD CAUSE HARM IN THE 
REAL WORLD.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE'S A 
ASPECTS OF A VIDEO AND IF IT 
STATES SOMETHING COULD BE A 
PROVEN CURE, THAT DOESN'T MEET 
CDC GUIDELINES, WE WOULD -- 
>> IT'S FREE EXPRESSION OF 
SPEECH AND YOU HAVE THESE 
DOCTORS WHO ARE GIVING THEIR 
OPINION AS DOCTORS AND I DON'T 
UNDERSTAND WHY YOUTUBE AND 
THEREFORE GOOGLE THINKS IT'S 
APPROPRIATE TO SILENCE 
PHYSICIANS AND THEIR OPINION OF 
WHAT CAN HELP AND CURE PEOPLE 
WITH COVID-19.
I'M GOING TO SWITCH TO 
MR. ZUCKERBERG.
I THINK IT'S OBVIOUSLY THAT 
TECHNOLOGY PLATFORMS HAVE BEEN 
STIFLING CONSERVATIVE NEWS AND 
OPINIONS.
YOU EMPLOY A PANEL OF CONTENT 
MODERATORS.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW FACEBOOK 
CHOOSES WHO THESE MODERATORS 
ARE?
>> THANKS, CONGRESSMAN.
WE DO HIRE A LOT OF PEOPLE 
AROUND THE WORLD TO WORK ON 
SAFETY AND SECURITY.
OUR TEAM IS MORE THAN 30 OR 
35,000 PEOPLE WORKING ON THAT 
NOW.
WE CERTAINLY TRY TO DO THIS IN A
WAY THAT IS NEUTRAL TO ALL 
VIEWPOINTS.
WE WANT TO BE A PLATFORM FOR ALL
IDEAS.
I DON'T THINK YOU BUILD A SOCIAL
PRODUCT WITH THE GOAL OF GIVING 
PEOPLE A VOICE IF YOU DON'T 
BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE BEING ABLE 
TO EXPRESS A WIDE VARIETY OF 
THINGS IS ULTIMATELY VALUABLE 
FOR THE WORLD AND WE TRY TO MAKE
SURE THAT YOUR 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'RE HIRED ALL OVER THE 
WORLD.
THERE'S CERTAINLY A BUNCH IN THE
U.S.
THERE'S DIVERSITY IN WHERE 
THEY'RE HIRED.
BUT CERTAINLY WE DON'T WANT TO 
HAVE ANY BIASED IN WHAT WE DO 
AND WE WOULDN'T TOLERATE IT IF 
WE DISCOVERED THAT. 
>> YOU DON'T SPECIFICALLY HIRE 
CONSERVATIVE MODERATORS AND 
DEMOCRAT OR LIBERAL MODERATORS 
SO THERE'S A BALANCE IN YOUR 
CONTENT MODERATORS?
>> CONGRESSMAN, IN TERMS OF THE 
30 TO 35,000 PEOPLE OR MORE AT 
THIS POINT WHO ARE DOING SAFETY 
AND SECURITY REVIEW, THAT IS 
CORRECT.
IN TERMS OF THE PEOPLE SETTING 
THE POLICIES, I THINK IT IS 
VALUABLE TO HAVE PEOPLE WITH A 
DIVERSITY OF VIEWPOINTS INVOLVED
SO WE CAN MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE 
DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS REPRESENTED
IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT 
PROCESS AND WE ALSO CONSULT WITH
A NUMBER OF OUTSIDE GROUPS 
WHENEVER WE DEVELOP NEW POLICIES
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TAKING 
INTO ACCOUNT ALL PERSPECTIVES. 
>> WHAT ARE SOME OF THOSE 
OUTSIDE GROUPS THAT WOULD BE 
CONSERVATIVE-LEANING?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I NEED TO GET 
BACK TO YOU WITH A LIST OF 
SPECIFIC GROUPS.
BUT IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT THE 
TOPIC IS.
>> CAN YOU JUST THINK OF ONE?
YOU SAID YOU REACH OUT TO 
OUTSIDE GROUPS.
CAN YOU THINK OF ONE KREF 
 -- 
CONSERVATIVE GROUP THAT YOU 
REACH OUT TO?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M TALKING 
ABOUT THE DIFFERENT EXTERNAL 
STAKEHOLDERS AND GROUPS THAT ARE
INPUTS TO OUR POLICY DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS AND I'M NOT INVOLVED IN 
THOSE CONVERSATIONS DIRECTLY.
SO I WOULD HAVE TO GET BACK TO 
YOU WITH SPECIFICS ON THAT.
BUT I'M QUITE CONFIDENT THAT WE 
SPEAK WITH PEOPLE ACROSS THE 
IDEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM WHEN WE'RE 
DEVELOPING OUR POLICIES. 
>> I WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE 
A FOLLOWUP ON THAT.
CAN YOU BRIEFLY EXPLAIN THE 
APPROVAL PROCESS FOR THIRD-PARTY
FACT-CHECKERS AND HOW MANY 
FACT-CHECKERS DOES FACEBOOK 
EMPLOY?
>> YES.
THANKS.
WE WORK WITH ABOUT 70 
FACT-CHECKING PARTNERS AROUND 
THE WORLD AND THE GOAL OF THE 
PROGRAM IS TO LIMIT THE 
DISTRIBUTION OF VIRAL HOAXES, SO
THINGS THAT ARE CLEARLY FALSE, 
FROM GETTING A LOT OF 
DISTRIBUTION.
BUT WE DON'T OURSELVES WANT TO 
BE IN THE BUSINESS OF 
DETERMINING WHAT IS TRUE AND 
WHAT IS FALSE, THAT FEELS LIKE 
AN INAPPROPRIATE ROLE FOR US TO 
PLAY.
WE RELY ON AN ORGANIZATION 
CALLED THE POINTER INSTITUTE AND
I THINK IT'S CALLED THE 
INDEPENDENT FACT-CHECKING 
ORGANIZATION THAT HAS A SET OF 
GUIDELINES OF WHAT MAKES AN 
INDEPENDENT FACT-CHECKER AND 
THEY CERTIFY THOSE FACT-CHECKERS
AND ANY ORGANIZATION THAT GETS 
CERTIFICATION FROM THAT GROUP IS
QUALIFIED TO BE A FACT-CHECKING 
PARTNER WITHIN FACEBOOK. 
>> THANK YOU.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS EXPIRED.
I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE 
MR. JOHNSON FOR FIVE MINUTES AND
TAKE A SHORT BREAK OF THE 
COMMITTEE.
MR. JOHNSON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. BEZOS, AMAZON HAS A 
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM WITH 
COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS BEING SOLD 
ON ITS PLATFORM.
COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS NOT ONLY 
RIP OFF THE OWNER'S OF 
LEGITIMATE BUSINESSES, THEY ALSO
CAN BE DANGEROUS.
COUNTERFEIT MEDICINE, BABY FOOD,
AUTOMOBILE TIRES AND OTHER 
PRODUCTS CAN KILL.
AMAZON HAS SAID ITS FIXING ITS 
COUNTERFEIT PROBLEM, BUT 
COUNTERFEITING SEEMS TO BE 
GETTING WORSE, NOT BETTER.
AMAZON IS A TRILLION DOLLAR 
COMPANY BUT AMAZON CUSTOMERS ARE
NOT GUARANTEED THAT THE PRODUCTS
PURCHASED ON YOUR PLATFORM ARE 
AUTHENTIC.
AMAZON ACTS LIKE IT'S NOT 
RESPONSIBLE FOR COUNTERFEITS 
BEING SOLD BY THIRD-PARTY 
SELLERS ON ITS PLATFORM AND WE 
HEARD THAT AMAZON PUTS THE 
BURDEN AND COST ON BRAND OWNERS 
TO POLICE AMAZON'S SITE, EVEN 
THOUGH AMAZON MAKES MONEY WHEN A
COUNTERFEIT GOOD IS SOLD ON ITS 
SITE.
MORE THAN HALF OF AMAZON'S SALES
COME FROM THIRD-PARTY SELLER 
ACCOUNTS.
WHY ISN'T AMAZON MORE AGGRESSIVE
IN ENSURING THAT COUNTERFEIT 
GOODS ARE NOT SOLD ON ITS 
PLATFORM AND WHY ISN'T AMAZON 
RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING ALL 
COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS OFF OF ITS 
PLATFORM?
>> THANK YOU.
THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT 
ISSUE AND ONE THAT WE WORK VERY 
HARD ON.
COUNTERFEIT ARE A SCOURGE.
THEY ARE A PROBLEM THAT IS 
NOT -- DOES NOT HELP US EARN 
TRUST WITH CUSTOMERS.
IT'S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS.
IT'S BAD FOR HONEST THIRD-PARTY 
SELLERS.
WE DO A LOT TO PREVENT 
COUNTERFEITING.
WE HAVE A TEAM OF MORE THAN 
1,000 PEOPLE THAT DOES THIS.
WE INVEST HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS 
OF DOLLARS.
WE HAVE PROJECT ZERO WHICH HELPS
BRANDS SERIALIZE INDIVIDUAL 
PRODUCTS WHICH REALLY HELPS WITH
COUNTERFEITING.
WE HAVE -- 
>> I'M GLAD THAT YOU HAVE 
THOSE -- I'M GLAD THAT YOU HAVE 
THOSE FEATURES IN PLACE.
BUT WHY ISN'T AMAZON RESPONSIBLE
FOR KEEPING ALL COUNTERFEIT 
PRODUCTS OFF OF ITS PLATFORM?
>> WE CERTAINLY WORK TO DO SO, 
CONGRESSMAN, AND WE DO NOT NOT 
JUST FOR OUR OWN RETAIL 
PRODUCTS, BUT FOR THIRD-PARTY 
PRODUCTS AS WELL -- 
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
WE'VE HEARD FROM NUMEROUS 
THIRD-PARTY SELLERS AND BRAND 
OWNERS THAT AMAZON HAS USED 
KNOCKOFFS AS LEVERAGE TO 
PRESSURE SELLERS TO DO WHAT 
AMAZON WANTS.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE FOUNDER OF POP 
SOCKET TESTIFIED IN JANUARY THAT
AMAZON ITSELF WAS SELLING 
KNOCKOFFS OF ITS PRODUCT.
AFTER REPORTING THE PROBLEM, IT 
WAS ONLY AFTER HIS COMPANY 
COMMITTED TO SPENDING $2 MILLION
ON ADVERTISEMENTS THAT AMAZON 
APPEARS TO HAVE STOPPED 
DIVERTING SALES TO THESE 
KNOCKOFFS.
WHAT IS YOUR EXPLANATION FOR 
THAT BUSINESS PRACTICE?
>> THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE.
IF THAT IS -- IF THOSE ARE THE 
FACTS AND IF SOMEONE SOMEWHERE 
INSIDE AMAZON SAID, YOU KNOW, BY
"X" DOLLARS IN ADS AND WE'LL 
HELP YOU WITH YOUR COUNTERFEIT 
PROBLEM.
THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE.
I'LL LOOK INTO THAT.
WE HAVE A COUNTERFEIT CRIMES 
UNIT.
WE ATTEMPT TO PROSECUTE 
COUNTERFEITERS.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE THIS BODY TO 
PASS STRICTER PENALTIES FOR 
COUNTERFEITERS.
IF IT DOES, IT WOULD ONLY BE IN 
THE SHORT TERM.
I WOULD MUCH RATHER LOSE A SALE 
THAN A CUSTOMER. 
>> FAIR ENOUGH, SIR.
MAKING COMPANIES PAY EXTRA TO 
AVOID HAVING THEIR PRODUCTS 
DISAPPEAR IN RANKINGS SEEMS TO 
BE SO UNFAIR, ESPECIALLY THE 
SMALL BUSINESSES, THE AMERICAN 
DREAM IS THREATENED WHEN THAT 
HAPPENS, DON'T YOU THINK SO?
>> SIR, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE 
WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.
IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE 
WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT A SECOND
AGO, I AGREE 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 AN ACCEPTABLE PRACTICE?
>> SIR, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE 
REFERRING TO IS THE FACT THAT WE
OFFER A -- AN ADVERTISING 
SERVICE BASICALLY FOR 
THIRD-PARTY SELLERS TO DRIVE 
ADDITIONAL PROMOTION TO THEIR 
PRODUCTS.
SOME SELLERS USE IT.
SOME DON'T.
IT'S BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE AT 
HELPING PEOPLE PROMOTE THEIR 
PRODUCTS.
>> WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.
THANK YOU.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN 
BRIEF RECESS.
>>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, RANKING
MEMBER, AND MEMBERS OF THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE.
I WAS BORN INTO GREAT WEALTH.
NOT MONETARY WEALTH, BUT THE 
WEALTH OF A LOVING FAMILY.
A FAMILY THAT FOSTERED MY 
CURIOSITY AND ENCOURAGED ME TO 
DREAM BIG.
MY MOM, JACKIE, HAD ME WHEN SHE 
WAS A 17-YEAR-OLD HIGH SCHOOL 
STUDENT.
BEING PREGNANT IN HIGH SCHOOL 
WAS NOT POPULAR.
THE SCHOOL TRIED TO KICK HER 
OUT, BUT SHE WAS ALLOWED TO 
FINISH AFTER MY GRANDFATHER 
NEGOTIATED TERMS WITH THE 
PRINCIPAL.
SHE COULDN'T HAVE A LOCKER, NO 
EXTRACURRICULARS AND COULDN'T 
WALK ACROSS THE STAGE AT 
GRADUATION.
MY DAD ADOPTED ME WHEN I WAS 4.
HE WAS 16 WHEN HE CAME TO THE 
U.S. FROM CUBA BY HIMSELF 
SHORTLY AFTER CASTRO TOOK OVER.
MY DAD DIDN'T SPEAK ENGLISH AND 
HE DID NOT HAVE AN EASY PATH.
WHAT HE DID HAVE WAS GRIT AND 
DETERMINATION.
HE RECEIVED A SCHOLARSHIP TO 
COLLEGE WHICH IS WHERE HE MET MY
MOM.
TOGETHER WITH MY GRANDPARENTS, 
THESE HARD-WORKING RESOURCEFUL 
AND LOVING PEOPLE MADE ME WHO I 
AM.
I WALKED AWAY FROM A STUDY JOB 
ON WALL STREET.
IT FEELS LIKE JUST YESTERDAY I 
WAS DRIVING THE PACKAGES TO THE 
POST OFFICE MYSELF, DREAMING 
THAT ONE DAY WE MIGHT AFFORD A 
FORKLIFT.
CUSTOMER OBSESSION HAS DRIVEN 
OUR SUCCESS.
AND I TAKE IT AS AN ARTICLE OF 
FAITH THAT CUSTOMERS NOTICE WHEN
YOU DO THE RIGHT THING.
YOU EARN TRUST SLOWLY OVER TIME 
BY DOING HARD THINGS WELL, 
DELIVERING ON TIME, OFFERING 
EVERY DAY LOW PRICES, MAKING 
PROMISES IS KEEPING THEM AND 
MAKING PRINCIPLED DECISIONS EVEN
WHEN THEY ARE UNPOPULAR.
AND OUR APPROACH IS WORKING.
80% OF AMERICANS HAVE A 
FAVORABLE IMPRESSION OF AMAZON 
OVERALL.
WHO DO AMERICANS TRUST MORE THAN
AMAZON TO DO THE RIGHT THING?
ONLY THEIR DOCTORS AND THE 
MILITARY.
THE RETAIL MARKET WE PARTICIPATE
IN IS EXTRAORDINARILY LARGE AND 
COMPETITIVE.
AMAZON ACCOUNTS FOR LESS THAN 1%
OF THE $25 TRILLION GLOBAL 
RETAIL MARKET AND LESS THAN 4% 
OF U.S. RETAIL.
THERE'S ROOM IN RETAIL FOR 
MULTIPLE WINNERS.
WE COMPETE AGAINST LARGE 
ESTABLISHED PLAYERS LIKE TARGET,
COSTCO, KROGER AND OF COURSE 
WALMART, A COMPANY MORE THAN 
TWICE AMAZON'S SIZE.
20 YEARS AGO, WE MADE THE 
DECISION TO INVITE OTHER SELLERS
TO SELL IN OUR STORE, TO SHARE 
THE SAME VALUABLE REAL ESTATE WE
SPENT BILLIONS TO BUILD, MARKET 
AND MAINTAIN.
WE BELIEVE THAT COMBINING THE 
STRENGTHS OF AMAZON STORE WITH 
THE VAST SELECTION OF PRODUCTS 
OFFERED BY THIRD PARTIES WOULD 
BE A BETTER EXPERIENCE FOR 
CUSTOMERS.
AND THE GROWING PIE OF REVENUE 
AND PROFITS WOULD BE BIG ENOUGH 
FOR ALL.
WE WERE BETTING THAT IT WAS NOT 
A ZERO-SUM GAME.
FORTUNATELY WE WERE RIGHT.
THERE ARE 1.7 MILLION SMALL AND 
MEDIUM-SIZED BUSINESSES SELLING 
ON AMAZON.
THE TRUST CUSTOMERS PUT IN US 
EVERY DAY HAS ALLOWED AMAZON TO 
CREATE MORE JOBS IN THE UNITED 
STATES OVER THE PAST DECADE THAN
ANY OTHER COMPANY.
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS 
ACROSS 42 STATES.
AMAZON EMPLOYEES MAKE $15 AN 
HOUR, MORE THAN DOUBLE THE 
FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE AND WE 
OFFER THE BEST BENEFITS, 
BENEFITS THAT INCLUDE 
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE 
AND PARENTAL LEAVE.
ENTREPRENEURIAL COMPANIES START 
AND GROW HERE IN THE U.S.
WE NURTURE ENTREPRENEURS AND 
START-UPS WITH STABLE RULE OF 
LAW, THE FINEST UNIVERSITY 
SYSTEM IN THE WORLD, THE FREEDOM
OF DEMOCRACY, AND A DEEPLY 
ACCEPTED CULTURE OF RISK-TAKING.
OF COURSE, THIS GREAT NATION OF 
OURS IS FAR FROM PERFECT.
EVEN AS WE REMEMBER CONGRESSMAN 
JOHN LEWIS AND HONOR HIS LEGACY,
WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A 
MUCH-NEEDED RACE RECKONING.
WE ALSO FACE THE CHALLENGES OF 
CLIMATE CHANGE AND INCOME 
INEQUALITY AND STUMBLING THROUGH
THE CRISIS OF A GLOBAL PANDEMIC.
STILL, WITH ALL OF OUR FAULTS 
AND PROBLEMS, THE REST OF THE 
WORLD WOULD LOVE EVEN THE 
TINIEST SIP OF THE ELIXIR IN A 
WE HAVE HERE IN THE U.S.
IMMIGRANTS LIKE MY DAD SEE WHAT 
A TREASURE THIS COUNTRY IS.
THEY HAVE PERSPECTIVE AND OFTEN 
CAN SEE IT EVEN MORE CLEARLY 
THAN THOSE OF US WHO ARE LUCKY 
ENOUGH TO BE BORN HERE.
IT IS STILL DAY ONE FOR THIS 
COUNTRY AND EVEN IN THE FACE OF 
TODAY'S HUMBLING CHALLENGES, I 
HAVE NEVER BEEN MORE OPTIMISTIC 
ABOUT OUR FUTURE.
I'M VERY HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR 
QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. BEZOS.
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE 
MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, 
RANKING MEMBER SENSENBRENNER AND
MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
BEFORE I START, I KNOW THIS 
HEARING WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF 
THE CEREMONIES TO HONOR THE LIFE
OF YOUR COLLEAGUE, 
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN LEWIS.
BECAUSE OF HIS COURAGE, THIS 
WORLD IS A BETTER PLACE.
HE'LL BE DEEPLY MISSED.
A DISCUSSION ABOUT COMPETITION 
IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT 
OPPORTUNITY.
IT'S NEVER BEEN MORE IMPORTANT 
AS THE GLOBAL PANDEMIC FORCES 
DUAL CHALLENGES TO OUR HEALTH 
AND ECONOMY.
EXPANDING ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY 
THROUGH TECHNOLOGY IS PERSONAL 
TO ME.
I DIDN'T HAVE MUCH ACCESS TO A 
COMPUTER GROWING UP IN INDIA.
SO YOU CAN IMAGINE MY AMAZEMENT 
WHEN I ARRIVED IN THE U.S. FOR 
GRADUATE SCHOOL AND SAW AN 
ENTIRE LAB OF COMPUTERS TO USE 
WHENEVER I WANTED.
ACCESSING THE INTERNET FOR THE 
FIRST TIME SET ME ON A PATH TO 
BRING TECHNOLOGY TO AS MANY 
PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE.
IT INSPIRED ME TO BUILD GOOGLE'S
FIRST BROWSER CHROME.
I'M PROUD THAT 11 YEARS LATER 
EXPERIENCE CHROME FOR FREE.
GOOGLE TAKES PRIDE IN THE NUMBER
OF PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE THEIR 
PRODUCTS.
WE'RE PROUDER OF WHAT THEY DO 
WITH THEM.
FROM THE 140 MILLION STUDENTS 
AND TEACHERS USING G-SUIT FOR 
EDUCATION TO STAY CONNECTED 
DURING THE PANDEMIC TO THE 5 
MILLION AMERICANS GAINING 
DIGITAL SCALES TO, ALL THE 
PEOPLE WHO TURN TO GOOGLE FOR 
HELP, TO FINDING THE FASTEST 
ROUTE HOME, TO LEARNING HOW TO 
COOK A NEW DISH ON YOUTUBE.
GOOGLE'S WORK WOULD NOT BE 
POSSIBLE WITHOUT THE LONG 
TRADITION OF AMERICAN INNOVATION
AND WE ARE PROUD TO CONTRIBUTE 
TO ITS FUTURE.
WE EMPLOY MORE THAN 75,000 
PEOPLE IN THE U.S. ACROSS 26 
STATES.
IT WAS ESTIMATED THAT IN 2018, 
WE ENLISTED MORE THAN 
$20 BILLION IN THE U.S., CITING 
US AS THE LARGEST CAPITAL 
INVESTOR FOR THAT YEAR.
ONE WAY WE CONTRIBUTE IS BY 
BUILDING HELPFUL PRODUCTS.
RESEARCH FOUND THAT FREE 
SERVICES LIKE SEARCH, GMAIL, 
MAPS AND PHOTOS PROVIDE 
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A YEAR IN 
VALUE TO THE AVERAGE AMERICAN 
AND MANY ARE SMALL BUSINESSES 
USING OUR DIGITAL TOOLS TO GROW.
A FAMILY-OWNED STONE COMPANY 
USES GOOGLE MY BUSINESS TO DRAW 
MORE CUSTOMERS.
A FAMILY-OWNED APPLIANCE STORE 
IN RHODE ISLAND CREDITS GOOGLE 
ANALYTICS WITH HELPING THEM 
REACH CUSTOMERS ONLINE DURING 
THE PANDEMIC.
NEARLY ONE-THIRD OF SMALL 
BUSINESS OWNERS SAY THAT WITHOUT
DIGITAL TOOLS, THEY WOULD HAVE 
HAD TO CLOSE ALL OR PART OF 
THEIR BUSINESS DURING COVID.
AT THE END OF 2019, OUR R&D 
SPEND HAS INCREASED TENFOLD OVER
TEN YEARS FROM $2.8 BILLION TO 
$26 BILLION AND WE HAVE INVESTED
OVER $90 MILLION THE LAST FIVE 
YEARS.
OUR ENGINEERS ARE HELPING 
AMERICA REMAIN A GLOBAL LEADER 
IN EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES LIKE 
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 
SELF-DRIVING CARS AND QUANTUM 
COMPUTING.
JUST AS AMERICA'S TECHNOLOGY 
LEADERSHIP IS NOT INEVITABLE, 
GOOGLE'S CONTINUED SUCCESSES IS 
NOT GUARANTEED.
TODAY USERS HAVE MORE ACCESS TO 
INFORMATION THAN EVER BEFORE.
COMPETITION DRIVES US TO 
INNOVATE AND IT LEADS TO BETTER 
PRODUCTS, LOWER CHOICES AND MORE
CHOICES FOR EVERYONE.
FOR EXAMPLE, COMPETITION HELPED 
LOWER ONLINE ADVERTISING COSTS 
BY 40%, THE SAVINGS PASSED DOWN 
TO CONSUMERS.
OPEN PLATFORMS LIKE ANDROID 
SUPPORT THE INNOVATION OF 
OTHERS.
USING ANDROID, THOUSANDS OF 
MOBILE OPERATORS SELL THEIR OWN 
DEVICES WITHOUT PAYING ANY 
LICENSING FEES TO US.
THIS HAS ENABLED BILLIONS OF 
CONSUMERS TO AFFORD CUTTING-EDGE
CELL PHONES.
WHETHER BUILDING TOOLS FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES OR PLATFORMS LIKE 
ANDROID, GOOGLE SUCCEEDS WHEN 
OTHERS SUCCEED.
COMPETITION SETS HIGHER 
STANDARDS FOR PRIVACY AND 
SECURITY.
I BELIEVE THAT PRIVACY IS A 
UNIVERSAL RIGHT AND GOOGLE IS 
COMMITTED TO KEEPING THE 
INFORMATION SAFE, TREATING IT 
REASONABLY, PUTTING YOU IN 
CONTROL AND WE'VE LONG SUPPORTED
THE CREATION OF COMPREHENSIVE 
FEDERAL PRIVACY LAWS.
GOOGLE AIMS TO BUILD PRODUCTS 
THAT INCREASE ACCESS TO 
EVERYONE, NO MATTER WHERE YOU 
LIVE, WHAT YOU BELIEVE, OR HOW 
MUCH MONEY YOU EARN.
WE'RE COMMITTED TO DOING THIS 
RESPONSIBLY IN PARTNERSHIP WITH 
LAWMAKERS TO ENSURE EVERY 
AMERICAN HAS ACCESS TO THE 
INCREDIBLE OPPORTUNITY THAT 
TECHNOLOGY CREATES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. COOK IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE 
MINUTES. 
>> CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER, 
MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, 
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
OFFER TESTIMONY.
BEFORE I BEGIN, I WANT TO 
RECOGNIZE THE LIFE AND LEGACY OF
JOHN LEWIS.
I JOIN YOU IN MOURNING NOT ONLY 
A HERO, BUT SOMEONE I KNEW 
PERSONALLY WHOSE EXAMPLE 
INSPIRES AND GUIDES ME STILL.
EVERY AMERICAN OWES JOHN LEWIS A
DEBT AND I FEEL FORTUNATE TO 
HAIL FROM A STATE THAT 
BENEFITTED FROM HIS LEADERSHIP.
MY NAME IS TIM COOK.
I'VE BEEN APPLE'S CEO SINCE 2011
AND A PROUD EMPLOYEE OF THIS 
UNIQUELY AMERICAN COMPANY SINCE 
1998.
AT APPLE, WE MAKE OURSELVES A 
PROMISE AND OUR CUSTOMERS A 
PROMISE.
IT'S A PROMISE THAT WE'LL ONLY 
BUILD THINGS THAT MAKE US PROUD.
AS STEVE PUT IT, WE ONLY MAKE 
THINGS THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND 
TO OUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
YOU CAN TRY TO DEFINE THIS 
 
DIFFERENCE IN A LOT OF WAYS, YOU
CAN CALL IT THE SEAMLESS 
INTEGRATION OF SOFTWARE OR 
HARDWARE.
BUT IF YOU WANT TO PUT IT 
SIMPLY, PRODUCTS LIKE iPHONE 
JUST WORK.
WHEN CUSTOMERS CONSISTENTLY GIVE
iPHONE A 99% SATISFACTION 
RATING, THAT'S THE MESSAGE 
THEY'RE SENDING ABOUT THE USER 
EXPERIENCE.
BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT CUSTOMERS 
HAVE A LOT OF CHOICES AND THAT 
OUR PRODUCTS FACE FIERCE 
COMPETITION.
COMPANIES LIKE SAMSUNG, LG, 
HUAWEI AND GOOGLE HAVE BUILT 
SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSES WITH 
DIFFERENT APPROACHES.
WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT.
OUR GOAL IS THE BEST.
NOT THE MOST.
IN FACT, WE DON'T HAVE A 
DOMINANT SHARE IN ANY MARKET OR 
IN ANY PRODUCT CATEGORY WHERE WE
DO BUSINESS.
WHAT DOES MOTIVATE US IS THAT 
TIMELESS DRIVE TO BUILD NEW 
THINGS THAT WE'RE PROUD TO SHOW 
OUR USERS.
WE FOCUS RELENTLESSLY ON THOSE 
INNOVATIONS, ON DEEPENING CORE 
PRINCIPLES LIKE PRIVACY AND 
SECURITY, AND ON CREATING NEW 
FEATURES.
IN 2008 WE INTRODUCED A NEW 
FEATURE CALLED THE APP STORE.
LAUNCHED WITH 500 APPS, WHICH 
SEEMED LIKE A LOT AT THE TIME, 
THE APP STORE PROVIDED A SAFE 
AND TRUSTED WAY FOR USERS TO GET
MORE OUT OF THEIR PHONE.
WE KNEW THE DISTRIBUTION OPTIONS
FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS AT THE 
TIME DIDN'T WORK WELL.
BRICK-AND-MORTAR STORES CHARGED 
HIGH FEES, PHYSICAL MEDIA LIKE 
CDs HAD TO BE SHIPPED AND WERE 
HARD TO UPDATE.
FROM THE BEGINNING, THE APP 
STORE WAS A REVOLUTIONARY 
ALTERNATIVE.
APP STORE DEVELOPERS SET PRICES 
FOR THEIR APPS AND NEVER PAY FOR
SHELF SPACE.
WE PROVIDE EVERY DEVELOPER WITH 
CUTTING-EDGE TOOLS LIKE 
COMPILERS, PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES
AND MORE THAN 150,000 ESSENTIAL 
SOFTWARE BUILDING BLACKS CALLED 
APIs.
THE GUIDELINES ENSURE A HIGH 
QUALITY, RELIABLE, AND SECURE 
USER EXPERIENCE.
THEY'RE TRANSPARENT.
FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF APPS, 
DEVELOPERS KEEP 100% OF THE 
MONEY THEY MAKE.
THE ONLY APPS THAT ARE SUBJECT 
TO A COMMISSION ARE THOSE WHERE 
THE DEVELOPER ACQUIRES A 
CUSTOMER AND WHERE THE 
EXPERIENCES WILL BE CONSUMED ON 
AN APPLE DEVICE.
IN THE APP STORE'S MORE THAN 
TEN-YEAR HISTORY, WE HAVE NEVER 
RAISED THE COMMISSION.
WE'VE REDUCED IT FOR 
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
I'M HERE TODAY BECAUSE SCRUTINY 
IS REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE.
WE APPROACH THIS PROCESS WITH 
RESPECT AND HUMANITY.
BUT WE MAKE NO CONCESSION ON THE
FACTS.
WHAT BEGAN AS 500 APPS IS NOW 
MORE THAN 1.7 MILLION.
ONLY 60 OF WHICH ARE APPLE 
SOFTWARE.
IF APPLE IS A GATEKEEPER, WHAT 
WE'VE DONE IS OPEN THE GATE 
WIDER.
WE WANT TO GET EVERY APP WE CAN 
ON THE STORE, NOT KEEP THEM OFF.
THE APP STORE'S ECONOMIC 
CONTRIBUTIONS ARE SIGNIFICANT.
THE ECOSYSTEM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
1.9 MILLION JOBS IN ALL 50 
STATES AND IT FACILITATED 138 
BILLION IN COMMERCE IN THE U.S. 
IN 2019 ALONE.
I SHARE THE COMMITTEE'S BELIEF 
THAT COMPETITION PROMOTES 
INNOVATION, THAT IT MAKES SPACE 
FOR THE NEXT GREAT IDEA, AND 
THAT IT GIVES CONSUMERS MORE 
CHOICES.
SINCE APPLE WAS FOUNDED, THESE 
THINGS HAVE DEFINED US.
THE FIRST MAC BROUGHT 
OPPORTUNITY AND POSSIBILITY INTO
THE HOME.
THE iPOD HELPED MUSICIANS AND 
ARTISTS SHARE THEIR CREATIONS 
AND BE PAID FAIRLY FOR IT.
THIS LEGACY DOES MUCH MORE THAN 
MAKE US PROUD.
IT INSPIRES US TO WORK 
TIRELESSLY TO MAKE SURE TOMORROW
WILL BE EVEN BETTER THAN TODAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I LOOK FORWARD TO RESPONDING TO 
YOUR QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. COOK.
MR. ZUCKERBERG IS RECOGNIZED FOR
FIVE MINUTES. 
>> THANK YOU, BEFORE I BEGIN, I 
WANT TO ADD MY VOICE TO THOSE 
HONORING CONGRESSMAN JOHN LEWIS 
AND HIS SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.
AMERICA HAS LOST A REAL HERO WHO
NEVER STOPPED FIGHTING FOR THE 
RIGHTS OF EVERY PERSON.
CHAIRMAN CICILLINE, RANKING 
MEMBER SENSENBRENNER, MEMBERS OF
THE SUBCOMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR 
THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY.
THE TECH INDUSTRY IS AN AMERICAN
SUCCESS STORY.
THE PRODUCTS WE BUILD HAVE 
CHANGED THE WORLD AND IMPROVED 
PEOPLE'S LIVES.
OUR INDUSTRY IS ONE OF THE WAYS 
THAT AMERICA SHARES ITS VALUES 
WITH THE WORLD AND ONE OF OUR 
GREATEST ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL 
EXPORTS.
FACEBOOK IS PART OF THIS STORY.
WE STARTED WITH AN IDEA, TO GIVE
PEOPLE THE POWER TO SHARE AND 
CONNECT.
AND WE BUILT SERVICES THAT 
BILLIONS OF PEOPLE FIND USEFUL.
I'M PROUD THAT WE'VE GIVEN 
PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER HAD A 
VOICE BEFORE THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
BE HEARD.
AND GIVEN SMALL BUSINESSES 
ACCESS TO TOOLS THAT ONLY THE 
LARGEST PLAYERS USED TO HAVE.
SINCE COVID EMERGED, I'M PROUD 
THAT PEOPLE HAVE USED OUR 
SERVICES TO STAY IN TOUCH WITH 
FRIENDS AND FAMILY WHO THEY 
CAN'T BE WITH IN PERSON AND TO 
KEEP THEIR SMALL BUSINESSES 
RUNNING ONLINE WHEN PHYSICAL 
STORES ARE CLOSED.
I BELIEVE THAT FACEBOOK AND THE 
U.S. TECH INDUSTRY ARE A FORCE 
FOR INNOVATION AND EMPOWERING 
PEOPLE.
BUT I RECOGNIZE 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 SOME TENSE COMPETITION 
IN BOTH.
MANY OF OUR COMPETITORS HAVE 
HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OR BILLIONS
OF USERS --
 
OF USERS --
-
>>> COMMITTEE WILL COME TO 
ORDER.
I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLE LADY FROM
FLORIDA, MS. DEMINGS -- I'M 
SORRY.
I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
NORTH DAKOTA FOR FIVE MINUTES. 
>> THANK YOU.
MR. BEZOS, EARLIER MY COLLEAGUE 
BROUGHT UP WHAT I THINK IS AN 
IMPORTANT ISSUE AND THEY WERE 
DISCUSSING AMAZON'S STATED 
POLICY AGAINST USING THIRD PARTY
SELLER INFORMATION TO INFORM 
BUSINESS DECISIONS REGARDING 
AMAZON'S PRIVATE LABEL BRANDS.
IT WAS SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT A
POSSIBLE LOOPHOLE THAT ALLOWS 
AMAZON TO LOOK AT DATA IN 
INSTANCES WHERE THERE ARE ONLY A
FEW THIRD-PARTY SELLERS.
I WANT TO DRILL DOWN ON THAT A 
LITTLE MORE.
WHERE DOES AMAZON DRAW THE LINE?
>> I'M SORRY.
AGGREGATE DATA WOULD BE MORE 
THAN ONE SELLER.
AND YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT 
THE PERSON SEEING THE REPORT 
WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW
MANY SELLERS ARE INSIDE THAT 
GROUP OR WHAT THE -- YOU KNOW, 
WHAT THE BREAKDOWN WOULD BE 
BETWEEN THOSE SELLERS.
IT'S NOT THAT DIFFERENT FROM 
PERHAPS A LIST OR A PRODUCT 
RANKING WHICH WE MAKE PUBLIC FOR
ALL. 
>> DOES AMAZON ALLOW THE USE OF 
AGGREGATE DATA TO INFORM PRIVATE
LABEL BRANDS WHEN THERE ARE ONLY
THREE SELLERS FOR A PRODUCT.
>> YES, SIR.
>> AM I CORRECT IN MY 
UNDERSTANDING THAT AMAZON IS 
CONDUCTING AN INTERNAL 
INVESTIGATION ON THE USE OF 
THIRD-PARTY YES.
WE'RE BASICALLY TRYING TO 
UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE ANECDOTES
THAT WE SAW IN THE "WALL STREET 
JOURNAL" ARTICLE.
>> WILL YOU COMMIT TO INFORMING 
THIS COMMITTEE ON THE OUTCOME OF
THAT INVESTIGATION INCLUDING THE
EXACT CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHEN 
AMAZON IS ALLOWED TO VIEW AND/OR
USE AGGREGATE DATA?
>> YES, WE WILL DO THAT.
>> NOW I WANT TO MOVE -- JUST 
REALLY QUICK, MUSIC CAN BE USED 
TO DRIVE REVENUE.
OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A REASON IT'S 
IMPORTANT NOW.
I'LL TALK ABOUT TWITCH FOR A 
SECOND.
NEWS REPORTS HAVE INDICATED THAT
TWITCH USERS ARE RECEIVING 
NOTICE AND TAKEDOWN REQUESTS 
PURSUANT TO THE DIGITAL 
MILLENNIAL COPYRIGHT ACT.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT TWITCH 
ALLOWS USERS TO STREAM MUSIC BUT
DOES NOT LICENSE THE MUSIC.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ASK THAT
I COULD GET BACK TO YOUR OFFICE 
WITH AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
I DON'T KNOW.
>> SO, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
AND THEN I JUST HAVE TWO MORE 
QUESTIONS RELATED TO THAT.
IF TWITCH IS RESPONDING TO DMCA 
NOTICE AND TAKEDOWN 
REQUIREMENTS, SHOULD, ONE, 
TWITCH CONSIDER PROACTIVE 
LICENSING MUSIC INSTEAD OF 
RETROACTIVELY ADHERING TO THOSE 
NOTICES?
THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS I'M 
CONCERNED IN.
I'M PRIMARILY CONCERNED ABOUT 
SMALL UP AND COMING, MAKING IT 
EASY FOR THEM TO GET CEASE AND 
DESIST NOTICES OUT AS WELL AND 
AS WE CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD.
>> YES, CONGRESSMAN, THAT'S AN 
IMPORTANT ISSUE AND WE 
UNDERSTAND IT.
AND I WILL GET BACK TO YOUR 
OFFICE ON THAT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
EARLIER THIS YEAR, GOOGLE 
ANNOUNCED PLANS TO RETIRE THIRD 
PARTY COOKIES THAT WEBSITES 
ATTACH TO USERS WEB BROWSERS.
AND THIS ALLOWS USERS TO BE 
TRACKED ACROSS THE INTERNET.
THE CONSEQUENCE OF THAT CHANGE 
IS THAT IT WILL PUT OTHER 
PARTICIPANTS AT A DISADVANTAGE 
BECAUSE THEY CAN NO LONGER TRACK
USERS.
AT THE VERY, VERY DANGER OF 
BEING PRO-COOKIE, BECAUSE I'M 
NOT WHEN I USE MY COMPUTER AS 
WELL, AND I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE
LEGITIMATE PRIVACY CONCERN WITH 
THIRD PARTY COOKIES, BUT I WANT 
TO FOCUS ON THE COMPETITION 
ASPECT.
DID THIS ACTION ALSO PLACE 
GOOGLE AT A DISADVANTAGE OR DOES
GOOGLE HAVE ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF
COLLECTING THE DATA TO INFORM 
ACTIVITIES?
>> THIS IS AN AREA WHERE WE HAVE
FOCUSED ON USER PRIVACY, AND 
USERS CLEARLY DON'T WANT TO BE 
TRACKED WITH THIRD PARTY 
COOKIES.
IN FACT, OTHER BROWSER WINDOWS 
INCLUDING APPLE HAVE ALSO 
IMPLEMENTED THESE CHANGES.
WE ARE DOING IT, THOUGHTFULLY 
GIVING TIME FOR THE INDUSTRY TO 
ADAPT BECAUSE WE KNOW 
PUBLISHERING DEPEND ON REVENUE 
IN THIS AREA.
BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT CHANGE, 
AND I THINK WE HAVE TO BE 
FOCUSED ON PRIVACY TO DRIVE THE 
CHANGE FORWARD.
>> BUT YOU HAVE OTHER WAY OF 
COLLECTING THAT INFORMATION, 
CORRECT?
>> ON OUR FIRST-PARTY SERVICES, 
WE DON'T RELY ON COOKIES.
AND OBVIOUSLY WHEN PEOPLE COME 
AND TYPE INTO -- 
>> I'M NOT ASKING IF YOU RELY ON
COOKIES.
I'M ASKING IF YOU HAVE OTHER 
WAYS OF COLLECTING THROUGH 
G-MAIL OR CONSUMER FACING 
PLATFORMS, RIGHT?
>> WE DON'T USE DATA FROM G-MAIL
FOR ADS, CONGRESSMAN.
TO THE EXTENT ON THE SERVICES 
WHERE WE PROVIDE ADS AND IF 
USERS HAVE CONSENTED TO ADS 
PERSONALIZATION, YES, WE DO HAVE
DATA.
>> THANK YOU.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLE LADY FROM
FLORIDA FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
DURING DISCUSSIONS OF CHANGING 
FACEBOOK'S PLATFORM POLICY IN 
2012, YOU SAID THAT, AND I 
QUOTE, IN ANY MODEL I'M ASSUMING
WE ENFORCE POLICIES AGAINST 
COMPETITORS MUCH MOORE STRONGLY.
IT SOUNDS LIKE FACEBOOK 
WEAPONIZES ITS POLICIES TO 
TARGET COMPETITORS.
WHY WOULD FACEBOOK ENFORCE ITS 
POLICIES AGAINST COMPETITORS 
MORE STRONGLY?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, WHEN WE WERE A
MUCH SMALLER COMPANY, WE SAW 
THAT -- 
>> THIS IS 2012, NOW.
THIS WAS IN 2012, SO PLEASE GO 
RIGHT AHEAD.
>> SURE.
WE'VE HAD POLICIES IN THE PAST 
THAT HAVE PREVENTED OUR 
COMPETITORS, WHICH AT THE TIME 
WE WERE PRIMARILY WORRIED ABOUT 
LARGER COMPETITORS FROM USING 
OUR PLATFORMS TO GROW AND 
COMPETE WITH US.
SO, WE HAD SOME OF THOSE 
POLICIES.
WE CONTINUALLY REVIEWED THEM 
OVER TIME, AND -- 
>> SINCE 2013, A SENIOR FACEBOOK
EMPLOYEE IDENTIFIED ME AS A FAST
GROWING APPLE ON FACEBOOK AND 
SAID WE WOULD RESTRICT THEIR 
ACCESS.
WAS THIS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF 
ENFORCING FACEBOOK'S POLICIES 
AGAINST COMPETITORS MUCH MORE 
STRONGLY?
MESSAGE ME?
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT 
SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, BUT WE DID 
HAVE THAT POLICY.
>> LET'S MOVE TO ANOTHER ONE.
IN 2014, OTHER FACEBOOK PRODUCT 
MANAGERS OPENLY DISCUSS REMOVING
PINTEREST'S ACCESS TO FACEBOOK'S
PLATFORM TOOLS AS ONE EMPLOYEE 
SAID, I AM 100% IN FAVOR OF THE 
IDEA OF MOVING IT FROM 
PINTEREST, BUT I AM NOT 
RECOMMENDING REMOVING IT FROM 
NETFLIX GOING FORWARD.
WHY WOULD FACEBOOK PRODUCT 
MANAGERS WANT TO RESTRICT 
PINTEREST'S ACCESS TO FACEBOOK 
BUT NOT NETFLIX?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M NOT 
FAMILIAR WITH THAT EXCHANGE.
I DON'T THINK I WAS ON THAT.
>> WHY DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD 
HAVE TO BE ON THAT, BUT WHY DO 
YOU THINK THEY WOULD MAKE THAT 
DECISION OR WOULD MAKE A 
DECISION LIKE THAT?
>> WELL, CONGRESSWOMAN, AS I 
SAID, WE USED TO HAVE A POLICY 
THAT RESTRICTED COMPETITORS FROM
USING OUR PLATFORM AND PINTEREST
IS A SOCIAL COMPETITOR WITH US.
IT'S ONE OF THE MANY COMPETITORS
THAT ALLOW PEOPLE TO SHARE -- 
>> ALL RIGHT.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, THESE EXAMPLES 
AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 
STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT FACEBOOK 
DOES WEAPONIZE ITS PLATFORM 
POLICIES, ENFORCING THEM 
SELECTIVELY TO UNDERMINE 
COMPETITORS.
BUT LET'S MOVE ON.
MR. COOK, I AM CONCERNED THAT 
APPLE'S POLICIES ARE ALSO 
PICKING WINNERS AND USERS IN THE
APP ECONOMY AND THAT APPLE RULES
MEAN APPLE APPS ALWAYS WIN.
MR. COOK, IN 2019, APPLE REMOVED
FROM THE APPLE STORE CERTAIN 
APPS THAT HELPED PARENTS CONTROL
THEIR CHILDREN'S DEVICES.
DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT 
JUSTIFICATION APPLE CITED?
>> YES, CONGRESSWOMAN, I DO.
IT WAS THAT THE USE OF 
TECHNOLOGY CALLED MDM, MOBILE 
DEVICE MANAGEMENT, PLACED KID'S 
DATA AT RISK.
SO, WE WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE 
SAFETY OF KIDS.
>> OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
SO, YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT 
THAT THE APP BASICALLY 
UNDERMINED KID'S PRIVACY.
BUT ANOTHER APP THAT USED THIS 
SAME TOOL WAS APPURE, AN APP 
CONTROLLED BY THE SAUDI ARABIAN 
GOVERNMENT.
DO YOU RECALL APPLE'S POSITION 
ON THIS?
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT 
APP.
>> OKAY.
APPLE ALLOWED THIS SAUDI APP TO 
REMAIN.
THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF APPS THAT
USE THE SAME TOOL.
APPLE KICKS ONE OUT AND SAID 
THAT THAT WAS ONE THAT WAS 
HELPING PARENTS BUT KEEPS THE 
ONE OWNED BY A POWERFUL 
GOVERNMENT.
IF THAT IS CORRECT, MR. COOK, 
THAT APPS THAT SUPPOSEDLY DID 
THE SAME THING, WHY DO YOU -- 
WHY WOULD YOU KEEP THE ONE OWNED
BY A POWERFUL GOVERNMENT?
>> I'D LIKE TO LOOK INTO THIS 
AND GET BACK WITH YOUR OFFICE.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU APPLIED 
DIFFERENT RULES TO THE SAME 
APPS.
>> WE APPLY THE RULES TO ALL 
DEVELOPERS EVENLY.
>> DO THE FACT THAT APPLE HAD 
ITS OWN -- LET ME JUST ASK YOU 
THIS.
DID THE FACT THAT APPLE HAD ITS 
OWN PARENTAL CONTROL APPS THAT 
WERE COMPETING WITH THESE THIRD 
PARTY APPS CONTRIBUTE TO APPLE'S
DECISION TO KICK THEM OFF THE 
APPLE STORE, MR. COOK?
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?
>> IT DID NOT.
THERE'S OVER 30 PARENTAL 
CONTROLS ON THE APP STORE TODAY 
SO, THERE'S PLENTY OF 
COMPETITION IN THIS AREA.
I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THIS IS 
NOT AN AREA WHERE APPLE GETS ANY
REVENUE AT ALL.
WE DO -- 
>> MR. COOK, I DIDN'T ASK 
ANYTHING ABOUT REVENUE.
THAT WAS NOT MY QUESTION, BUT 
I'M OUT OF TIME, AND THANK YOU 
SO MUCH.
MR. CHAIR, I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK THE GENTLE LADY, FOR 
YIELDING BACK.
I YIELD TO MR. JORDAN FOR FIVE 
MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU, I YIELD TO THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA.
>> THANK YOU FOR YIELDING.
JUST AS MR. PA CHI GAVE 
INFORMATION, YOU HAVE GIVEN 
TESTIMONY TO CONGRESS SAYING 
THERE IS NOT EDITORIAL 
MANIPULATION THAT DISADVANTAGES 
CONSERVATIVES AND JUST LIKE IN 
THE CASE OF GOOGLE THERE HAVE 
BEEN WHISTLEBLOWERS FROM 
FACEBOOK THAT NOT ONLY HAVE 
OFFERED EVIDENCE INDICATING THE 
TESTIMONY WAS NOT TRUTHFUL BUT 
THERE'S EVEN VIDEO THAT SUGGEST 
CONTENT MODERATORS YOU EMPLOY 
ARE OUT THERE DISADVANTAGING 
CONSERVATIVE CONTENT.
I'M WONDERING IF YOU ARE 
FAMILIAR WITH THE EXPERIENCES OF
ZACK McILROY AND RYAN EL WIG AND
WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THE 
VERY DAMNING VIDEO EVIDENCE AND 
THE TESTIMONY FROM THEM THAT THE
CULTURE THAT YOU LEAD WITHIN 
FACEBOOK IS ONE THAT 
DISADVANTAGES CONSERVATIVES AND 
LEADS TO CONTENT MANIPULATION?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M SOMEWHAT 
FAMILIAR WITH THE CONCERNS THEY 
HAVE RAISED.
AS I'VE SAID, WE AIM TO BE A 
PLATFORM FOR ALL IDEAS.
WE GOT INTO THIS BECAUSE WE WANT
TO GIVE EVERYONE A VOICE.
I CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT OUR 
PLATFORMS TO BE RUN IN A WAY 
THAT HAS ANY IDEOLOGICAL BIAS, 
AND I WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO 
DISCUSS A RANGE OF ISSUES.
WHEN PEOPLE RAISE CONCERNS LIKE 
THAT, WE DO LOOK INTO THEM TO 
MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IN OUR 
OPERATION IS BEHAVING AND 
UPHOLDING THE STANDARDS THAT WE 
WOULD LIKE.
AND IF THE BEHAVIOR THAT THEY 
CITED IS TRUE, THEN THAT WOULD 
BE UNACCEPTABLE IN OUR 
OPERATION.
>> AND FOLLOWING THE RELEASE OF 
THOSE VIDEOS AND THAT EVIDENCE 
FROM PROJECT VARY TAS, WHEN YOU 
DESCRIBE THE INFORMATION 
FACEBOOK UNDERTOOK TO ROOT OUT 
THE CORROSIVE EFFECTS ON YOUR 
PLATFORM?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I WOULD HAVE TO 
GET BACK TO YOU WITH MORE 
DETAILS ON THAT, BUT I KNOW THAT
WE HAVE ONGOING TRAINING IN WHAT
WE DO, AND WE CERTAINLY WILL 
LOOK INTO ANY COMPLAINTS THAT 
COME UP.
AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT 
HOW WE RUN THE CONTENT REVIEW 
TEAMS THAT IT'S DONE IN A WAY 
THAT REFLECTS THE VALUES OF THE 
COMPANY AROUND GIVING A VOICE 
AND BEING A PLATFORM FOR ALL 
IDEAS.
>> I'M CONCERNED THAT THE 
CONTENT REVIEW DOES REFLECT THE 
VALUES OF THE COMPANY BUT THOSE 
VALUES DON'T GIVE EVERYONE A 
VOICE.
THEY PREJUDICE AGAINST CONCERN 
CONTENT.
WHILE I APPRECIATE TRAINING AS A
PROPHYLACTIC ENDEAVOR TO TRY TO 
GUIDE FUTURE CONTENT, IT SEEMS 
DISINGENUOUS FOR YOU TO SUGGEST 
THAT THESE VIDEOS COME OUT THAT 
ARE VERY DAMNING THAT SHOW THE 
PEOPLE THAT YOU TRUST WITH 
CONTENT MODERATION ADMITTING ON 
VIDEO THAT THEY DISADVANTAGED 
CONSERVATIVES, THEY THEY LABEL 
PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THE 
PRESIDENT, FOR YOU TO THEN COME 
TO US MANY MONTHS LATER AFTER 
THAT WAS ALL OVER THE NEWS AND 
THE INTERNET AND SAY, WELL, 
YOU'LL GET BACK TO US AND DO A 
LITTLE TRAINING.
IT SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT YOU 
DON'T TAKE THESE ALLEGATIONS AND
THIS EVIDENCE VERY SERIOUSLY.
SO, I'LL ASK THE QUESTION, 
PERHAPS, IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
WOULD YOU REVISE -- IN YOUR 
PRIOR TESTIMONY AT ENERGY AND 
COMMERCE, YOU SAID THIS DOES NOT
HAPPEN, IT CANNOT HAPPEN.
WOULD YOU AT LEAST BE WILLING TO
ACKNOWLEDGE BASED ON THE 
IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE BEFORE US 
THAT YOU DON'T SEEM TO HAVE 
INVESTIGATED THAT IT IS THAT AT 
FACEBOOK YOUR EMPLOYEES DO HAVE 
THE POWER TO DISADVANTAGE 
CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINTS AND THEY
IN FACT HAVE USED THAT POWER IN 
WAYS THAT WE NEED TO ROUT OUT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, MY TESTIMONY IN 
THE PAST AND TODAY IS ABOUT WHAT
OUR PRINCIPLES ARE AS A COMPANY 
AND WHAT WE TRY TO DO.
OF COURSE WHEN YOU HAVE TENS OF 
THOUSANDS OF EMPLOYEES, PEOPLE 
MAKE MISTAKE, PEOPLE HAVE SOME 
OF THEIR OWN GOALS.
SO TIME AND IT'S OUR JOB IN 
RUNNING THE COMPANY TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE MINIMIZE ERRORS AND THAT
WE MAKE SURE THAT THE COMPANY'S 
OPERATIONS REFLECT THE 
PRINCIPLES THAT WE INTEND TO RUN
IT ON.
>> AND WHEN YOU FIRE PEOPLE AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR POLITICS, 
DO YOU THINK THAT IMPACTS THE 
CULTURE AND EMPOWERS THE CONTENT
MODERATORS TO ALSO TREAT PEOPLE 
WORSE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR 
POLITICS?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE 
WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.
I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY CASE WHERE 
WE HAVE FIRED SOMEONE ON BEHALF 
OF THEIR POLITICS.
I WOULD SAY THAT WOULD BE AN 
INAPPROPRIATE THING FOR US TO 
DO.
>> WHY DID YOU FIRE PAUL?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE 
IT'S APPROPRIATE TO GET INTO A 
SPECIFIC PERSONNEL ISSUE 
PUBLICLY.
>> I MEAN, I COULD JUST TELL YOU
THAT I ONLY HAVE TEN MINUTES.
IT DOESN'T ALLOW HIM TO TALK TO 
ANYONE EXCEPT GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIALS.
OOIP GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL.
I'VE SEEN THE MESSAGES WHERE YOU
HAVE SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED 
MR. LUCKY TO MAKE STATEMENTS 
REGARDING HIS POLITICS FOR THE 
BENEFIT OF YOUR COMPANY.
I THINK BOTH IN THE CASE OF THE 
CONTENT MODERATORS AND THE CASE 
OF THE TESTIMONY YOU JUST GAVE 
REGARDING MR. LUCKY AND FIRING 
PEOPLE OVER THEIR POLITICS, 
THERE'S SERIOUS QUESTION AS TO 
WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE GIVING 
TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY HERE OR 
WHETHER IT'S LYING BEFORE LONG.
I SEE MY TIME HAS EXPIRED AND 
I'LL YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLELADY FROM 
PENNSYLVANIA.
>> THANK YOU.
I WANTED TO FOCUS A LITTLE BIT 
ON GOOGLE'S ACQUISITION OF 
YOUTUBE AND SOME OF THE 
CONSEQUENCE OSSOFF THAT MOVE FOR
CONSUMER PRIVACY AND 
COMPOSITION.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING GOOGLE 
PAID 1.65 BILLION MORE THAT 
ACQUISITION.
SO, COULD YOU TELL US WHY GOOGLE
WAS WILLING TO PAY SO MUCH MORE 
BEYOND THE INITIAL PROPOSED BID 
AND WAS THIS THE RESULT OF ANY 
HARM?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, WE ACQUIRED 
YOUTUBE IN 2006 AND THIS IS 
RELEVANT FOR MY TIME AS CEO.
BUT I RECALL IS WE SAW IT AS A 
NEW EMERGENT AREA AND WE SAW IT 
AS OPPORTUNITY. 
>> WAS MR. PAGE IN CHARGE OF 
THAT DECISION?
OR YOU DON'T KNOW?
OKAY.
>> I'M PRETTY SURE SENIOR 
LEADERSHIP TEAM AT THE TIME 
LOOKED INTO IT.
>> I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE TO TAKE WHATEVER 
STEPS TO HEAR FROM THAT.
GOOGLE IS THE TOP ONLINE SITE 
WHERE AMERICANS WATCH VIDEOS 
INCLUDING CHILDREN'S VIDEOS.
AS I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE FEDERAL
LAW PREVENTS COMPANIES FROM 
COLLECTING DATA ON CHILDREN 
UNDER 13.
THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 
FOUND THAT GOOGLE SPENT YEARS 
KNOWINGLY COLLECTING DATA ON 
CHILDREN UNDER 13 ON YOUTUBE AND
OFFERING ADVERTISERS THE ABILITY
TO TARGET THOSE USERS DIRECTLY.
DID YOUTUBE USE THE DATA IT 
ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED TO TARGET ADS
TO CHILDREN?
>> WE ARE -- YOU KNOW, THIS AN 
AREA, TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY.
I'M A PARENT TOO?
WE MAKE SURE WE HAVE CLEAR 
POLICIES.
WE ENFORCE THEM RIGOROUSLY.
JUST IN Q4 OF 2019 WE REMOVED 
ALMOST CLOSE TO A MILLION VIDEOS
POTENTIALLY FOR CONCERNS AROUND 
CHILD SAFETY.
SO, IT IS AN AREA WE ARE 
ENLISTING RIGOROUSLY AND WILL 
CONTINUE TO DO SO.
>> I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE 
FACT YOU'RE INVESTING RIGOROUSLY
IN LURING IN ADVERTISERS LIKE 
TOY MAKERS MA TELL AND HASBRO BY
TELLING THEM YOUTUBE IS THE 
NUMBER ONE WEBSITE REGULARLY 
VISITED BY KIDS.
SO, THAT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE 
TARGETING THE KIDS AND THEN 
TARGETING ADVERTISERS TO BRING 
THEM ON BOARD.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THERE ARE SCENARIOS TO BE 
FAMILY VIEWING AND CONTENT 
ORIENTED TOWARDS FAMILIES AND 
THERE ARE ADVERTISERS WHICH ARE 
INTERESTED IN CONNECTING WITH 
THOSE USERS.
BUT EVERYTHING HERE WE OBVIOUSLY
COMPLY WITH ALL THE APPLICABLE 
REGULATIONS.
>> OKAY.
LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF THE 
CONTENT THAT IS SPECIFICALLY FOR
CHILDREN.
IF A SHOW LIKE "SESAME STREET" 
DOESN'T WANT TO SHOW ADS FOR 
JUNK FOOD ON YOUTUBE, DOES 
YOUTUBE ALLOW IT TO MAKE THAT 
CHOICE?
>> TODAY WE HAVE CHOICES FOR 
BOTH CREATORS IN TERMS OF TOOLS 
AND PREFERENCES AND WE HAVE 
EXTENSIVE TOOLS FOR ADVERTISERS.
AND ALTHOUGH FOR USERS WE GIVE A
CHOICE THEY CAN EITHER USE 
YOUTUBE AS A SUBSCRIPTION 
SERVICE WITHOUT SEEING THOSE 
TYPES OF ADS OR THEY CAN USE IT 
FOR FREE WITH ADS.
SO, WE GIVE CHOICE.
AND FOR US, IT IS MOST 
IMPORTANCE THAT YOUTUBE IS A 
PLACE WHERE PEOPLE COME TO LEARN
AND WE FIND INCREASINGLY SMALL 
AND MEDIUM BUSINESS USE YOUTUBE.
>> OKAY.
LET'S GO BACK TO CONTENT THAT'S 
DESIGNED FOR CHILDREN.
SO, IF THERE'S AN ORGANIZATION 
LIKE "SESAME STREET" THAT WANTS 
TO PROVIDE CHILD-CENTERED 
CONTENT, BUT THEY DON'T WANT 
THAT CONTENT TO BE SULLIED, 
SHALL WE SAY, WITH JUNK FOOD ADS
OR SOMETHING, MY UNDERSTANDING 
IS YOU SAY THE CONTENT CREATORS 
CAN DO THAT.
BUT WE'VE GOT A RECENT REPORT 
FROM THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL" 
SAYING YOUTUBE HASN'T BEEN 
HONORING THAT REQUEST AND IT'S 
BEEN MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO 
INDEPENDENTLY AUDIT THAT AND 
REPORT BACK TO THE CONTENT 
CREATORS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT 
YOUTUBE IS HONORING THOSE.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE 
PARTICULAR REPORT, BUT I'M HAPPY
TO UNDERSTAND IT BETTER AND HAVE
MY OFFICE FOLLOW UP WITH YOUR 
STAFF, CONGRESSWOMAN.
>> I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.
MY TIME HAS EXPIRED.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEWOMAN YIELDS BACK.
THE SHARE WILL NOW RECOGNIZE 
HIMSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MR. BEZOS, THANK YOU FOR BEING 
HERE TODAY.
IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOU 
REVIEWED YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY,
YOU INDICATED AMAZON ACCOUNTS 
FOR LESS THAN 1% AND LESS THAN 
4% OF THE RETAIL IN THE U.S.
WHEN YOU REFER TO RETAIL, I TAKE
IT BASED ON THE EMPIRICAL 
STUDIES YOU'RE REFERRING TO A 
BROAD DEFINITION OF RETAIL THAT 
INCLUDES RESTAURANTS, BARS, GAS 
STATIONS.
IT'S A FAIRLY ALL ENCOMPASSING 
VIEW OF RETAIL.
I WONDER IF YOU KNOW WHAT 
PERCENTAGE OF AMAZON'S SALES ARE
REPRESENTED IN THE TERMS OF 
ONLINE RETAIL SALES, eCOMMERCE, 
MARKETS?
>> THE FIGURES I'VE SEEN.
WITH ALL RESPECT, I DON'T ACCEPT
IS eCOMMERCE IS A DIFFERENT 
MARKET.
I'VE SEEN THE OUTSIDE STUDIES 
WERE AMAZON'S SHARE OF THE 
eCOMMERCE CHANNEL.
>> THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE 
DATA I'VE SEEN.
THE LATEST FIGURE I SAW WAS 40%.
IN TERMS OF HOW WE DEFINE IT 
WHETHER IT'S A STREAM OR A 
CHANNEL, NONETHELESS, FACTUALLY 
IT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION I 
WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CLEAR HERE.
OBVIOUSLY I SUSPECT YOU 
UNDERSTAND MORE THAN MOST THAT 
THE EARLY STAGES OF A START UP 
WHERE ENTREPRENEURS ARE 
UNDERTAKING RISKS TO BRING 
PRODUCTS AND SERVICES TO MARKET,
OVER THE COURSE OF THE 
INVESTIGATION, WE'VE HEARD FROM 
START UPS WHO RELY ON SERVICE 
WITH RESPECT TO CONCERNS ABOUT 
THE WAY IN AMAZON USES 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
WE'VE ALSO HEARD AMAZON'S CLOUD 
COMPUTING ARM, AWS, THE NOTION 
THAT THAT COMPUTING ARM 
IDENTIFIES START UP, BEST 
TECHNOLOGIES, AND ROLLS OUT 
REPLICA PRODUCTS ANDER IS VISS.
MR. BEZOS DOES AMAZON USE 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION TO 
BUILD COMPETING SERVICES?
>> NO, SIR, NOT THAT I'M AWARE 
OF.
AWS DOES OFTEN -- THEY DO KEEP 
EXPANDING THEIR SERVICES.
AWS STARTED 15 YEARS AGO -- 
>> LET ME JUST CLARIFY THAT, 
MR. BEZOS.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
APOLOGIES FOR INTERRUPTS.
LAST WEEK, ONE OF AMAZON'S 
FORMER ENGINEERS POSTED ONLINE 
THAT HE AND HIS TEAM PROACTIVELY
IDENTIFIED GROWING BUSINESSES ON
AWS, THEY BUILT COMPETING 
PRODUCTS AND TARGETED PRODUCTS 
TO THE BUSINESS'S CUSTOMERS.
THERE'S BEEN PUBLIC REPORTING ON
THAT STRATEGY.
SO, I GUESS I WONDER IF YOU CAN 
COMMENT ON THAT AND HOW YOU 
WOULD ACCOUNT FOR THOSE 
STATEMENTS.
>> WELL, I THINK THERE MAY BE 
CATEGORIES -- DATABASES OF 
DIFFERENT KINDS AND SO ON WHERE 
WE SEE AN IMPORTANT PRODUCT FOR 
CUSTOMERS AND MAKE OUR OWN 
PRODUCT OFFERING IN THAT ARENA.
BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN WE STOP 
SERVICING THE OTHER COMPANIES 
THAT ARE ALSO MAKING THOSE 
PRODUCTS.
WE HAVE COMPETITORS USING AWS, 
AND WE WORK VERY HARD TO MAKE 
THEM SUCCESSFUL.
NETFLIX IS ONE EXAMPLE.
HULU IS ANOTHER AND SO ON.
>> I THINK THE CONCERN, 
MR. BEZOS, WITH RESPECT IS THAT 
THE PATTERN EMERGES ACROSS THE 
DIFFERENT COMPONENTS IN AMAZON, 
WHETHER IT'S THE MARKET OR 
WHETHER IT'S THE CLOUD SERVICE 
AS I MENTIONED.
IN ADDITION THERE WAS AN 
ARTICLE, I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE, 
IN THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL" 
REGARDING THE ALEXA FRONT, 
ACCORDING TO NEWS REPORTS, ALEXA
FUND INVESTED IN FOR EXAMPLE 
DEFINED CROWD CORP. DOES THAT 
RING A BELL?
>> NO, SIR, I'M AFRAID IT 
DOESN'T.
>> WELL, I'LL REPRESENT TO YOU 
ACCORDING TO "THE WALL STREET 
JOURNAL," AND I'LL JUST QUOTE 
FROM THEM, WHEN AMAZON 
INCORPORATED VENTURE CAPITAL 
FUND, IT GAINED ACCESS TO THE 
START UP FINANCES AND OTHER 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
FOUR YEARS LATER IN APRIL 
AMAZON'S UNIT LAUNCHED 
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PRODUCT 
THAT DOES WHAT DEFINED CROWD 
DOES SAID DEFINED CLOUD.
ARE YOU AWARE OF THOSE AL GASE.
>> I READ THAT ARTICLE BUT I 
DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF THAT
SITUATION.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO GET BACK TO 
YOUR OFFICE WITH MORE 
INFORMATION BT THAT.
>> I WOULD APPRECIATE -- I 
CERTAINLY WOULD WELCOME THAT TO 
THE EXTENT YOU ALL CAN FOLLOW UP
WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE WITH 
RESPECT TO THIS PARTICULAR 
ARTICLE AND THE DIFFERENT 
EPISODES THAT ARE REFERENCED 
BOTH IN TERMS OF DEFINING CROWD 
CORP. THERE'S ANOTHER NUCLEUS 
YOU MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH.
THE REASON I ASK THESE 
QUESTIONS, THE REASON IT MATTERS
TO ME IS WE ARE VERY CONCERNED 
ABOUT THIS INNOVATION KILL ZONE 
THAT SEEMS TO BE EMERGING.
I REPRESENT BOULDER AND FORT 
COLLINS, ENT TREMENDOUS 
PRENEUROS AND FOUNDERS SHARED 
THESE STORIES WITH OUR FIELD 
HEARING JUST EARLIER THIS YEAR 
AND THEY ARE EXTREMELY DEPENDENT
ON BIG TECHNOLOGY FIRMS 
INCLUDING IN TERMS OF INVESTMENT
AND CAPITAL YET THEY LIVE IN 
CONSTANT FEAR THAT THE PLATFORMS
COULD STEAL THEIR CORE 
TECHNOLOGIES OR IDEAS MAKING IT 
IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPETE BECAUSE OF
THOSE EXISTING ADVANTAGES.
I SEE MY TIME HAS EXPIRED BUT 
WE'LL BE FOLLOWING UP WITH 
RESPECT TO THE EPISODES I 
REFERENCED W. THAT, I YIELD 
BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS 
EXPIRED.
AND THE GENTLEWOMAN IS 
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
FACEBOOK ACQUIRED WHATSAPP IN 
2014 AND AT THE TIME, THE DEAL 
WAS CRITICAL FOR COUNTERING THE 
APP STORE POWER OF APPLE AND 
GOOGLE WHO CHOKE OFF FACEBOOK'S 
ACCESS TO MOBILE DEVICES.
DOES APPLE HAVE THE POWER TO 
EXCLUDE APPS FROM THE APP STORE?
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF
THIS, CONGRESSWOMAN, WE'VE 
INCREASED THE NUMBER OF APPS 
FROM 500 TO 1.7 MILLION.
SO, THERE'S A VERY WIDE GATE 
FROM THE APP STORE.
AND THERE'S FIERCE COMPETITION 
FOR DEVELOPERS.
AND WE WANT EVERY APP WE CAN ON 
THE PLATFORM.
>> OKAY.
SO, BUT MR. COOK, THEN WHAT 
YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT APPLE CAN 
EXCLUDE APPS FROM THE APP STORE 
N. FACT, IT HAS.
IN 2018, APPLE INTRODUCED AN APP
CALLED SCREEN TIME WHICH HELPS 
PEOPLE LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF TIME 
THEY OR THEIR KIDS SPEND ON 
THEIR iPHONES.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IT SOUNDS RIGHT.
>> OKAY.
BUT BEFORE SCREEN TIME EXISTED, 
THERE WERE OTHER APPS IN THE APP
STORE THAT GAVE PARENTS CONTROL 
OVER THEIR KIDS PHONE USAGE, 
APPS LIKE OUR PACT AND KIDS 
LOCKS.
AND PARENTS DEPENDED ON THEM.
SOON AFTER YOU INTRODUCED SCREEN
TIMES, HOWEVER, YOU REMOVED THE 
COMPETING APPS FROM THE APP 
STORE.
ONE MOTHER WROTE TO APPLE 
SAYING, AND I QUOTE HER, I AM 
DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED THAT YOU 
HAVE DECIDED TO REMOVE THIS APP 
AND OTHERS LIKE IT, THEREBY 
REDUCING CONSUMER ACCESS TO 
MUCH-NEEDED SERVICES TO KEEP 
CHILDREN SAFE AND PROTECT THEIR 
MENTAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING.
MR. COOK, WHY DID APPLE REMOVE 
COMPETING APPS RIGHT AFTER YOU 
RELEASED SCREEN TIME?
>> WE WERE CONCERNED, 
CONGRESSWOMAN, ABOUT THE PRIVACY
AND SECURITY OF KIDS.
THE TECHNOLOGY THAT WAS BEING 
USED AT THAT TIME WAS CALLED 
NDM, AND IT HAD THE ABILITY TO 
SORT OF TAKE OVER THE KID'S 
SCREEN, AND A THIRD PARTY COULD 
SEE IT.
SO, WE WERE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR 
SAFETY.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
>> TODAY WE HAVE -- 
>> I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT THE 
TIMING SEEMS COINCIDENTAL.
IF APPLE WASN'T INTENDING TO 
HARM COMPETITORS TO HELP ITS OWN
APP, WHY DID PHIL PROMOTE THE 
SCREEN TIME APP TO CUSTOMERS WHO
COMPLAINED ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF 
RIVAL PARENTAL CONTROL APPS?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I CAN'T SEE 
THIS EMAIL.
I'M SORRY.
MY EYES ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO 
READ IT.
BUT I SEE SCREEN TIME AS JUST AN
ALTERNATIVE.
BUT THERE ARE OVER 30 PARENTAL 
CONTROL APPS THAT ARE IN THE APP
STORE TODAY.
SO, THERE'S VIBRANT COMPETITION 
FOR PARENTAL CONTROLS OUT THERE.
>> WELL, MR. COOK, THE FACT IS 
THAT APPLE SIDELINED SCREEN 
TIME'S COMPETITION BY KEEPING 
THEM OUT OF THE APP STORE.
AND WHILE APPLE CLAIMS THESE 
COMPETITORS WEREN'T MEETING 
APPLE'S PRIVACY STANDARDS, THESE
APPS CREATORS SAY THAT YOU 
ADMITTED THEM BACK IN SIX MONTHS
LATER WITHOUT REQUIRING 
SIGNIFICANT PRIVACY CHANGES.
AND OF COURSE, SIX MONTHS IS 
TRULY AN ETERNITY FOR SMALL 
BUSINESSES TO BE SHUTDOWN, EVEN 
WORSE IF ALL THE WHILE A LARGER 
COMPETITOR IS ACTUALLY TAKING 
AWAY CUSTOMERS.
AND THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME 
SOMETHING LIKE THIS SEEMS TO 
HAVE HAPPENED, MR. COOK.
LET ME GIVE YOU ANOTHER EXAMPLE 
OF THE HARM THAT'S BEEN CAUSED 
TO YOUR COMPETITORS N. 2010, 
APPLE INTRODUCED AN ONLINE 
BOOKSTORE CALLED THE iBOOKSTORE 
WHERE IT OFFERED eBOOKS AND THE 
ONLY MAJOR PUBLISHER THAT DIDN'T
AGREE TO JOIN iBOOKSTORE WAS 
RANDOM HOUSE.
RANDOM HOUSE WANTED TO OFFER ITS
OWN eBOOKS THROUGH ITS OWN APPS 
AND SUBMITTED THEIR APPS TO BE 
ADDED TO THE APP STORE.
AMIDST CONTINUED NEGOTIATIONS 
BETWEEN APPLE AND RANDOM HOUSE, 
SENIOR VP EDDIE Q. SAID, IT 
PREVENTED AN APP FROM RANDOM 
HOUSE FROM GOING LIVE IN THE APP
STORE.
Q. HIMSELF CITED THIS APP 
REJECTION AS A FACTOR IN FINALLY
GETTING RANDOM HOUSE TO GIVE IN 
AND JOIN iBOOKSTORE.
IS IT FAIR FOR APPLE TO USE ITS 
POWER OVER THE APP STORE TO 
PRESSURE A BUSINESS TO JOIN 
APPLE'S OWN APP?
>> I CAN'T SEE THE EMAIL, SO I 
DON'T KNOW THE CONTEXT OF IT.
BUT THERE ARE REASONS WHY AN AD 
MIGHT NOT INITIALLY GO THROUGH 
THE APP STORE GATE.
IT MAY NOT WORK PROPERLY.
THERE MAY BE OTHER ISSUES WITH 
IT.
SO, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE.
WHAT I WOULD SAY THOUGH, ON A 
MACRO BASIS, THE GATE TO THE APP
STORE IS VERY WIDE.
WE HAVE 1.7 MILLION APPS IN IT.
IT'S BECOME AN ECONOMIC 
MIRACLE -- 
>> OKAY.
>> -- WITH OVER $138 BILLION OF 
COMMERCE JUST SNT UNITED STATES.
>> I REALLY, REALLY APPRECIATE 
THAT SENTIMENT.
I WANT TO SAY TO YOU APPLE 
ENJOYS ENORMOUS POWER TO WHICH 
APPS CAN REACH CONSUMERS.
EVEN SOME OF THE LARGEST IN THE 
COUNTRY FEAR YOUR POWER.
OUR EVIDENCE SUGGESTS YOUR 
COMPANY HAS USED THE POWER TO 
BOOST YOUR BUSINESS.
THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR AND
HARMS SMALL BUSINESSES THAT RELY
ON YOU TO REACH CUSTOMERS.
IT STIFLES THE INNOVATION THAT 
IS THE LIFE BLOOD OF OUR 
ECONOMY.
ULTIMATELY IT REDUCES THE 
COMPETITION AND CHOICES THAT ARE
MADE AVAILABLE TO CONSUMERS, AND
THAT IS A GREAT CONCERN TO ALL 
OF US.
AND I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
THAT CONCLUDES THAT ROUND.
IN LIGHT OF THE REQUEST OF 
MR. GAETZ FOR A THIRD ROUND AND 
BECAUSE MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES 
WOULD LIKE TO GET MORE ANSWERS 
ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES, WE'LL 
PROCEED TO A FINAL ROUND.
MY EXPECTATIONS, WE WILL 
CONCLUDE WITHIN THE HOUR.
I'LL RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE 
MINUTES.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, WE'VE SEEN THE 
DOMINANCE OF SEVERAL OF THE 
COMPANIES APPEARING BEFORE US 
TODAY THAT IT'S NOT JUST HARMFUL
TO OUR ECONOMY AND COMPETITION 
BUT IT'S HARMFUL TO THE FOUNDING
PRINCIPLES OF OUR DEMOCRACY.
FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE ARE DESIGNED
TO KEEP USERS ON THEIR PLATFORMS
WHATEVER THE COST BECAUSE 
DISINFORMATION, PROPAGANDA AND 
HATEFUL SPEECH ARE GOOD FOR 
ENGAGEMENT, THEY'RE GOOD FOR 
BUSINESS.
BUT OVER-100 YEARS AGO THE 
SUPREME COURT OLIVER WINDAL 
HOLMES JR. WROTE WOULD NOT 
PROTECT A MAN FROM FALSELY 
SHOUTING FIRE IN A THEATER AND 
CAUSING PANIC.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT 
PRINCIPLE, THAT THERE ARE LIMITS
TO HARMFUL AND FALSE SPEECH, AND
THAT ARE PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT 
WHEN IT COMES TO THE HEALTH AND 
SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I CERTAINLY DO, 
AND I ACTUALLY THINK THAT OUR 
POLICIES GO FURTHER THAN JUST 
LIMITING THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
>> WELL, MR. ZUCKERBERG, YOU 
HAVE A BILLION USERS AND ALMOST 
50,000 EMPLOYEES SO YOU AGREE 
YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO 
REMOVE HARMFUL LIES FROM YOUR 
PLATFORM, CORRECT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I THINK WE HAVE 
A RESPONSIBILITY TO LIMIT THE 
SPREAD OF CONTENT THAT'S GOING 
TO BE HARMFUL FOR PEOPLE.
AND ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO ADD 
THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE 
HAVE ANY INCENTIVE TO HAVE THIS 
CONTENT ON OUR SERVICE.
>> EXCEPT THAT, MR. ZUCKERBERG, 
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, EXCEPT 
THAT IT IS OFTEN THE MOST 
ENGAGING.
IT'S THE MOST -- IT BRINGS THE 
MOST LIKES OR BRINGS THE MOST 
ACTIVITY WHICH OF COURSE 
PRODUCES GREAT PROFIT.
SO, YOU DO HAVE AN INCENTIVE.
THE MORE ENGAGEMENT THERE IS, 
THE MORE MONEY YOU MAKE ON 
ADVERTISING.
LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.
LET ME GIVE YOU SPECIFIC 
EXAMPLES THAT ILLUSTRATE BY 
CONCERNS.
THESE ARE SOME OF THE TOP TEN 
MOST SHARED ASPECTS ON 2020.
TRUMP SUGGESTS INJECTION OF 
DISINFECTANT TO BEAT THE 
CORONAVIRUS.
CORONAVIRUS HYPE BIGGEST HOAX IN
HISTORY.
U.S. HOSPITALS GETTING PAID TO 
LABEL FOR CAUSE OF DEATH AS 
CORONAVIRUS.
IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS OF 
OUR LIFETIME, DON'T YOU AGREE 
THAT THESE ARTICLES VIEWED BY 
MILLIONS ON YOUR PLATFORM WILL 
COST LIVES?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WITH RESPECT, WE
CERTAINLY HAVE POLICIES THAT 
PROHIBIT FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT
COVID THAT WOULD LEAD TO 
IMMINENT HARM, AND WE'VE BEEN 
QUITE AGGRESSIVE ABOUT TAKING 
THAT DOWN AS SOME OF THE 
QUESTIONING FROM THE OTHER SIDE 
OF THE AISLE HAS SHOWN SO FAR.
I'M PROUD OF OUR EFFORTS HERE.
>> MR. ZUCKERBERG, WITH ALL DUE 
RESPECT, THE PROBLEM IS FACEBOOK
IS PROFITING OFF AND AMPLIFYING 
DISINFORMATION THAT HARMS OTHERS
BECAUSE IT'S PROFITABLE.
THIS ISN'T A SPEECH ISSUE.
IT'S ABOUT FACEBOOK'S BUSINESS 
MODEL THAT PRIORITIZES 
ENGAGEMENT IN ORDER TO KEEP 
PEOPLE ON FACEBOOK'S PLATFORM TO
SERVE UP MORE ADVERTISEMENTS.
I'LL ASK YOU SPECIFICALLY WHAT 
ARE YOU DOING RIGHT NOW TO 
PROTECT PEOPLE FROM DEMONSTRABLY
FALSE CLAIMS RELATED TO THE 
DEADLY PANDEMIC?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'LL CERTAINLY 
ANSWER THAT, BUT I HAVE TO 
DISAGREE WITH THE ASSERTION THAT
YOU'RE MAKING THAT THIS CONTENT 
IS SOMEHOW HELPFUL FOR OUR 
BUSINESS.
IT IS NOT WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO 
SEE, AND WE RANK OUR WHAT WE 
SHOW IN FEED BASED ON WHAT IS 
GOING TO BE THE MOST MEANINGFUL 
TO PEOPLE AND IS GOING TO CREATE
LONG-TERM SATISFACTION, NOT JUST
WHAT'S GOING TO GET ENGAGEMENT 
OR CLICKS TODAY.
>> IF THAT'S TRUE, 
MR. ZUCKERBERG, HOW DO YOU 
EXPLAIN THAT ON MONDAY THE 
SECOND MOST POPULAR POST ON 
FACEBOOK WAS A BREITBART VIDEO 
CLAIMING THAT YOU DON'T NEED A 
MASK AND HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE IS A
CURE FOR COVID.
AND IN THE FIRST FIVE HOURS 
AFTER BEING POSTED ON FACEBOOK, 
IT WRACKED UP 20 MILLION VIEWS 
AND OVER 100,000 COMMENTS BEFORE
FACEBOOK ACTED TO REMOVE IT.
>> CONGRESSMAN, A LOT OF PEOPLE 
SHARED THAT AND WE DID TAKE IT 
DOWN BECAUSE IT VIOLATES OUR 
POLICIES.
>> AFTER 20 MILLION PEOPLE SAW 
IT OVER THE PERIOD OF 5 HOURS.
DOESN'T THAT SUGGEST, 
MR. ZUCKERBERG, THAT YOUR 
PLATFORM IS SO BIG THAT EVEN 
WITH THE RIGHT POLICIES IN 
PLACE, YOU CAN'T CONTAIN DEADLY 
CONTENT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I DON'T THINK 
SO.
I THINK WE HAVE ON COVID 
MISINFORMATION IN PARTICULAR A 
RELATIVELY GOOD TRACK RECORD OF 
FIGHTING AND TAKING DOWN LOTS OF
FALSE CONTENT AS WELL AS PUTTING
UP AUTHORITATIVE INFORMATION.
WE HAVE BUILT A COVID 
INFORMATION CENTER WITH 
AUTHORITATIVE INFORMATION FROM 
HEALTH OFFICIALS -- 
>> THANK YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG.
ONE MORE QUESTION.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, A TELEVISION 
RUNS A FALSE POLITICAL 
ADVERTISEMENT, THEY'RE HELD 
LIABLE FOR THAT.
WHY SHOULD FACEBOOK OR ANY OTHER
PLATFORM BE DIFFERENT?
WHILE YOU MAY NOT BE A 
PUBLISHER, YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE 
MAYBE NOT FOR THE FIRST POSTING 
BUT YOU TAKE THE POSTING AND 
APPLY ALGORITHMS THAT DECIDE HOW
TO DISSEMINATE THAT WHICH IS A 
BUSINESS DECISION, NOT A FIRST 
AMENDMENT DECISION.
IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND WHY 
FACEBOOK SHOULD NOT BE 
RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE BUSINESS 
DECISIONS.
>> IN TERM OF POLITICAL ADS, WE 
FOLLOW A LOT OF POLICIES OFF FCC
GUIDELINES ON BROADCASTERS AND 
THEIR REQUIREMENTS TO RUN 
POLITICAL ADS EQUALLY FROM ALL 
DIFFERENT SIDES.
>> I THINK THIS DID -- YEAH.
I THINK THESE EXAMPLES 
UNFORTUNATELY MR. ZUCKERBERG ARE
JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG.
IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT COVID.
FACEBOOK HOSTS COUNTLESS PAGES 
AND ADS DEDICATED TO CONSPIRACY 
THEORIES AND CALLS TO VIOLENCE 
INCLUDING CONTENT THAT LED TO 
THE WHITE SUPREMACY RALLY IN 
CHARLOTTESVILLE IN 2018.
FACEBOOK GETS AWAY WITH IT 
BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONLY GAME IN 
TOWN.
THERE'S NO COMPETITION FORCING 
YOU ON YOUR PLATFORM.
ALLOWING THIS TO SPREAD CAN LEAD
TO VIOLENCE AND STRIKES AT THE 
HEART OF THE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.
WITH THAT, I RECOGNIZE THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA FOR FIVE 
MINUTES.
>> IN 2016, THERE WAS AN 
INTERNAL GOOGLE MEETING.
YOU ATTENDED THAT MEETING ALONG 
WITH SERGEY BRIN.
A VIDEO OF THAT MEETING WAS 
LEAKED TO BREITBART AND CAMP 
WALKER LAMENTED TRUMP'S VICTORY,
COMPARED TRUMP VOTERS TO 
EXTREMISTS, AND THERE WAS 
ATTEMPT TO MANGE THE TRUMP WIN 
IN THE POPULIST MOVEMENT IN 
HISTORY.
I KNOW YOU TESTIFIED IN RESPONSE
TO MY QUESTIONS AND MR. JORDAN'S
QUESTIONS THAT YOU DON'T INTEND 
THIS TIME TO ENGAGE IN ELECTION 
NEARING ON BEHALF OF THE FORMER 
VICE PRESIDENT, BUT GIVEN THE 
VIDEO EVIDENCE OF SENIOR MEMBERS
OF YOUR TEAM IN YOUR PRESENCE 
SAYING THAT THEY HAD THE INTENT 
TO MAKE THE TRUMP VICTORY A 
BLIP, WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THAT
TESTIMONY TODAY?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE DO NOT HAVE A
VIEW ON -- WE RESPECT THE 
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.
WE ARE DEEPLY COMMITTED TO IT.
AS A COMPANY, WE TAKE PRIDE IN 
THE INFORMATION WE PROVIDE TO 
HELP PEOPLE PARTICIPATE IN FREE 
ELECTIONS AND WE ARE DEEPLY 
COMMITTED TO IT.
>> DO YOU REMEMBER THAT MEETING?
2016?
>> YES, I DO.
IT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE 
ELECTION.
ACROSS BOTH SIDES THERE WAS A 
LOT OF OPINIONS.
AND AS YOU KNOW, ELECTIONS ARE 
KIND OF A POLARIZING MOMENT 
GENERALLY IN THE COUNTRY, AND 
THERE WAS A LOT OF RHETORIC 
ABOUT CERTAIN ISSUES WHICH 
WERE -- 
>> I UNDERSTAND RHETORIC.
I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHEN THE
SENIOR MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM IN 
YOUR PRESENCE SAID THAT THEY DID
HAVE THE INTENT TO CHANGE THE 
OUTCOME IN A SUBSEQUENT ELECTION
AND THEN SINCE THAT MOMENT IN 
TIME WHERE WE'VE SEEN ALL THESE 
CONSERVATIVE WEBSITES AND 
CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINTS 
CENSORED, YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY
PEOPLE WOULD BE CONCERNED.
AFTER YOUR EMPLOYEES AND TOP 
EXECUTIVES SAID IN YOUR PRESENCE
THAT THEY INTENDED TO MALK THE 
TRUMP VICTORY A BLIP, WHAT 
ACTION DID YOU TAKE AS THE CEO 
TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE KNEW
TRAIL OF YOUR PLATFORM?
>> CONGRESSMAN, NO ONE HAD A 
VIEW ON EVER INTERFERING WITH 
THE ELECTIONS OR SO ON.
BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS WE 
MADE IT VERY CLEAR ABOUT TWO 
YEARS AGO.
WE ANNOUNCED NEW COMMUNITY 
GUIDELINES, ORBIT AND GOOGLE, 
CLEARLY MAKE IT CLEAR THAT 
EMPLOYEES OBVIOUSLY ARE FREE TO 
HAVE THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS, BUT 
NONE OF THAT SHOULD EVER -- THEY
SHOULDN'T BRING THAT AS THEY 
WORK ON ANY OF OUR PRODUCTS.
AND IF WE FOUND ANY EVIDENCE 
THAT PEOPLE ARE USING POLITICAL 
AGENDA TO MANIPULATE ANY OF 
OUR -- 
>> UNFORTUNATELY THERE'S A 
STRING OF EVENTS HERE.
WE HAD THE 2016 MEETING WHERE 
PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED INTENT TO 
HURT THE PRESIDENT.
THEN WE HAVE THE TESTIMONY 
DIFFERENT FROM THE TESTIMONY 
FROM DECEMBER WHERE PEOPLE SAY 
PEOPLE CAN MANIPULATE BLACKLISTS
AND YOU HAVE THE OUTCOME WHERE 
SITES LIKE BRIGHT BART AND 
GATEWAY PUNDIT AND OTHERS SEE 
THAT RETREATMENT.
IT DOESN'T TAKE SHERLOCK HOLMES 
HERE TO SEE WHAT GOOGLE IS 
DOING.
MR. BEZOS, I AM DEEPLY MOVED BY 
YOUR PERSONAL STORY.
I AM NOT ACCUSING YOU OF SOMEONE
THAT WOULD TRAFFIC IN HATE.
BUT IT SEEMS YOU HAVE EMPOWERED 
PEOPLE WHO DO.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SOUTHERN 
POVERTY LAW CENTER WHO CAN 
RECEIVE DONATIONS ON YOUR AMAZON
SMILE PLATFORM HAVE SAID THE 
CATHOLIC FAMILY NEWS, CATHOLIC 
FAMILY MINISTRIES, FEDERATION 
FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM,
FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL, JEWISH 
DEFENSE LEAGUE, AND EVEN DR. BEN
CARSON ARE EXTREMISTS AND SHOULD
BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY.
DR. CARSON IS ON THE CABINET AS 
ONE OF THE MOST RENOWNED MINDS 
IN AMERICA.
I'M JUST WONDERING WHY YOU WOULD
PLACE YOUR CON I IF DENSE IN A 
GROUP THAT SEEMS TO BE SO OUT OF
STEP AND SEEMS TO TAKE MAIN 
STREAM CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND 
LABEL IT AS HATE.
>> AMAZON SMILE IS A PROGRAM 
THAT ALLOWS CUSTOMERS TO 
DESIGNATE A CERTAIN FRACTION OF 
THEIR PURCHASES TO GO TO CHARITY
THAT WE THEN PAY FOR AND THEY 
CAN SELECT FROM ANY ONE OF 
MILLIONS OF CHARITIES.
AND WE USE THE SOUTHERN POVERTY 
LAW CENTER DATA TO SAY WHICH 
CHARITIES ARE EXTREMIST 
ORGANIZATIONS.
WE ALSO USE THE U.S. FOREIGN 
OFFICE TO DO THE SAME THING.
>> WHY SINCE THEY'RE COMMON 
CATHOLICS AND JEWISH PEOPLE 
GROUPS, WHY WOULD YOU TRUST 
THEM?
>> SIR, I'M GOING TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THIS IS AN IMPERFECT SYSTEM -- 
>> NO DOUBT.
>> -- AND I WOULD LIKE 
SUGGESTIONS ON ADDITIONAL 
SOURCES -- 
>> MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE A 
DIVORCE FROM THE SPLC AND I SEE 
I'M OUT OF TIME.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK, I 
RECOGNIZE MR. JOHNSON.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
FACEBOOK IS DOMINANT NOT JUST IN
THE SOCIAL MEDIA MARKET BUT ALSO
IN ITS DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE 
CAPABILITIES.
IN 2012, FACEBOOK HAD SEVERAL 
TOOLS THAT ALLOWED IT TO CONDUCT
DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE INCLUDING 
TRACKERS, FACEBOOK'S LIKE 
BUTTON, FACEBOOK LOG IN, AND A 
SERIES OF APPLICATION 
PROGRAMMING INTERFACES OR APIs.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, THESE TOOLS 
PROVIDE FACEBOOK WITH INSIGHTS 
INTO ITS COMPETITORS WEBSITES 
AND APPS, ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
YES OR NO?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I THINK BROADLY 
THE ANSWER TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING
IS YES.
>> OKAY.
>> WE -- EVERY OTHER COMPANY 
HERE DO MARKET RESEARCH TO 
UNDERSTAND WHAT PEOPLE ARE 
FINDING VALUABLE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
OKAY.
SO, YOU'RE GOING BEYOND THE 
SCOPE OF MY QUESTION.
I APPRECIATE THAT ANSWER THOUGH.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, A FEW DAYS 
BEFORE FACEBOOK ACQUIRED 
INSTAGRAM, A FACEBOOK VICE 
PRESIDENT EMAILED YOU SUGGESTING
WAYS TO IMPROVE FACEBOOK'S, 
QUOTE, COMPETITIVE RESEARCH, END
QUOTE.
BY BUILDING A CUSTOM MODEL, 
FACEBOOK COULD IMPROVE ITS 
UNDERSTANDING OF ITS COMPETITORS
AND, QUOTE, MAKE MORE BOLD 
DECISIONS ON WHETHER THEY ARE 
FRIENDS OR FOES, END QUOTE.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, HOW DOES 
FACEBOOK IMPROVE RESEARCH TO 
DISTINGUISH FRIENDS FROM FOE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE 
EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO
IN THAT EMAIL THERE.
BUT HE IS ONE OF THE PEOPLE 
INVOLVED IN RUNNING OUR 
ANALYTICS ORGANIZATION.
AND I THINK IT'S NATURAL THAT HE
WOULD AS PART OF HIS 
RESPONSIBILITY BE FOCUSED ON 
MARKET RESEARCH AND 
UNDERSTANDING MORE THERE.
>> CERTAINLY ISN'T IT TRUE THAT 
FACEBOOK AFTER THAT CONVERSATION
PURCHASED THE WEB ANALYTICS 
COMPANY IN 2013 TO GIVE FACEBOOK
MORE CAPABILITY TO MONITOR ITS 
COMPETITORS?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I THINK YOU HAVE
THE TIMING CORRECT.
WE PURCHASED O-NAVO AS PART OF 
BROADER MARKET RESEARCH.
>> AND THAT WOULD GIVE YOU THE 
CAPABILITY TO MONITOR YOUR 
COMPETITORS, CORRECT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, IT GAVE 
AGGREGATE ANALYTICS AS TO WHAT 
PEOPLE WERE USING AND WHAT 
PEOPLE WERE FINDING VALUABLE.
SORT OF LIKE THE TYPE OF PRODUCT
YOU WOULD GET FROM NIELSEN OR 
COME SOURCE, THESE OTHER THIRD 
PARTIES THAT PROVIDE DATA.
>> MR. ZUCKERBERG, THAT 
ACQUISITION GAVE YOU NON-PUBLIC 
REAL TIME DATA ABOUT ENGAGEMENT,
USAGE AND HOW MUCH TIME PEOPLE 
SPEND ON APPS.
AND WHEN IT BECAME PUBLIC THAT 
FACEBOOK WAS USING ONNAVO TO 
CONDUCT DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE, 
YOUR COMPANY GOT KICKED OUT OF 
THE APP STORE.
ISN'T THAT TRUE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE I 
WOULD CHARACTERIZE IT IN THAT 
WAY.
I THINK -- 
>> O-NAVO DID GET KICKED OUT OF 
THE APP STORE, ISN'T THAT TRUE?
>> WE TOOK IT OUT AFTER THEY 
CHANGED POLICIES.
>> AND IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE USE
OF THE SURVEILLANCE TOOLS.
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE 
THAT THE POLICY WAS WORDED THAT 
WAY OR THAT THAT'S EXACTLY THE 
RIGHT CHARACTERIZATION OF IT.
>> OKAY.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION.
AFTER ONAYVO WAS BOOTED OUT OF 
THE APP STORE, YOU TURNED TO 
OTHER SURVEILLANCE TOOLS SUCH AS
FACEBOOK RESEARCH APP, CORRECT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, IN GENERAL, YES,
WE DO A BROAD VARIETY OF -- 
>> SO, ALSO ISN'T IT TRUE 
MR. ZUCKERBERG THAT FACEBOOK 
PAID TEENAGER TO SELL THEIR 
PRIVACY BY INSTALLING FACEBOOK 
RESEARCH APP?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT FAMILIAR
WITH THAT, BUT I THINK IT'S A 
GENERAL PRACTICE TO BE ABLE 
TO -- THAT THE COMPANIES USE TO 
HAVE DIFFERENT SURVEYS -- 
>> FACEBOOK -- 
>> -- AND UNDERSTAND DATA AND 
WHAT PREFERENCES ARE.
>> FACEBOOK RESEARCH APP GOT 
THROWN OUT OF THE APP STORE TOO,
ISN'T THAT TRUE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT FAMILIAR
WITH THAT.
>> OKAY.
WELL, OVER NEARLY A DECADE, 
MR. ZUCKERBERG, YOU LED A 
SUSTAINED EFFORT TO SURVEIL 
COMPETITORS TO BENEFIT FACEBOOK.
THESE WERE STEPS TAKEN TO ABUSE 
DATA, TO HARM COMPETITORS, AND 
TO SHIELD FACEBOOK FROM 
COMPETITION.
YOU TRIED ONE THING AND THEN YOU
GOT CAUGHT, MADE SOME APOLOGIES,
THEN YOU DID IT ALL OVER AGAIN.
ISN'T THAT TRUE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I RESPECTFULLY 
DISAGREE WITH THAT 
CHARACTERIZATION.
I THINK EVERY COMPANY ENGAGES IN
RESEARCH TO UNDERSTAND WHAT 
THEIR CUSTOMERS ARE ENJOYING SO 
THAT THEY CAN LEARN AND MAKE 
THEIR PRODUCTS BETTER.
THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO 
DO.
THAT'S WHAT OUR ANALYTICS TEAM 
WAS DOING.
I THINK IT ALLOWS US TO MAKE OUR
SERVICES BETTER FOR PEOPLE TO BE
ABLE TO CONNECT IN A LOT OF 
DIFFERENT WAYS WHICH IS OUR 
GOAL.
>> DID YOU USE THAT CAPABILITY 
TO PURCHASE WHATSAPP?
>> CONGRESSMAN, IT WAS ONE OF 
THE SIGNALS THAT WE HAD ABOUT 
WHATSAPP'S TRAJECTORY, BUT WE 
DIDN'T NEED IT.
WITHOUT THAT, IT WAS PRETTY 
CLEAR THAT WHATSAPP WAS A GREAT 
PRODUCT.
>> AND IT WAS A COMPETITOR -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS 
EXPIRED.
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN 
FROM FLORIDA, MR. STEUBE.
>> THANK YOU.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR ALL FOUR, 
YES OR NO ANSWER.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE CHINESE 
GOVERNMENT STEALS TECHNOLOGY 
FROM U.S. COMPANIES?
START WITH MR. COOK.
>> I DON'T KNOW OF SPECIFIC 
CASES WHERE WE HAVE BEEN STOLEN 
FROM BY THE GOVERNMENT.
>> SO, YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT 
THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT IS 
STEALING TECHNOLOGY FROM U.S. 
COMPANIES, OR YOU'RE JUST SAYING
THAT NOT FROM YOURS?
>> I'M SAYING I KNOW OF NO CASE 
ON OURS WHERE IT OCCURRED, WHICH
I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO FIRST-HAND 
KNOWLEDGE.
>> DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE 
CHINESE GOVERNMENT STEALS 
TECHNOLOGY FROM UNITED STATES 
COMPANIES?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I HAVE NO 
FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF ANY 
INFORMATION STOLEN FROM GOOGLE.
>> MR. ZUCKERBERG?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I THINK IT'S 
WELL DOCUMENTED THAT THE CHINESE
GOVERNMENT STEALS TECHNOLOGY 
FROM AMERICAN COMPANIES.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. BEZOS?
YOU'RE ON MUTE.
>> MR. BEZOS, I BELIEVE YOU'RE 
ON MUTE.
>> I'M SORRY.
I WAS SAYING I HAVE HEARD MANY 
REPORTS OF THAT.
I HAVEN'T SEEN IT PERSONALLY, 
BUT I'VE HEARD MANY REPORTS OF 
IT.
>> SO, OF ALL THE DIFFERENT 
PRODUCTS AMAZON CARRIES YOU 
HAVEN'T SEEN IT IN THE PRODUCTS 
ON AMAZON OR YOUR COMPANY OR 
YOURSELF?
>> CERTAINLY THERE ARE KNOCK OFF
PRODUCTS IF THAT'S WHAT YOU 
MEAN.
THERE ARE COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS 
AND ALL OF THAT.
BUT THE CHINESE -- THE ANSWER IS
THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT STEALING 
TECHNOLOGY, THAT'S THE THING I 
READ REPORTS OF BUT DON'T HAVE 
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH.
>> IT'S NO SECRET THAT EUROPE 
INCREASINGLY SEEMS TO HAVE 
AGENDA OF ATTACKING LARGE 
SUCCESSFUL TECH COMPANIES YET 
EUROPE'S APPROACH TO REGULATION 
IN GENERAL AND ANTITRUST IN 
PARTICULAR SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN 
MUCH LESS SUCCESSFUL THAN 
AMERICA'S APPROACH.
AS YOU ALL KNOW FROM DIRECT 
EXPERIENCE, THIS IS A COUNTRY 
WHERE IT'S POSSIBLE TO START A 
COMPANY AND SEERNS TREMENDOUS 
SUCCESS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS 
ON HOW CONGRESS CAN BETTER 
PROTECT U.S. FIRMS AND U.S. 
COMPANIES FROM AGGRESSION AND 
GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION ABROAD, 
NOT JUST IN EUROPE BUT IN CHINA 
AS WELL?
ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO CHIME
IN?
I'LL OPEN IT UP TO ANY OF YOU.
NONE OF YOU HAVE ANY 
RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW CONGRESS 
CAN BETTER PROTECT U.S. 
COMPANIES LIKE YOURSELF?
-- 
>> IN THE EMAILS THAT YOUR 
COMPANY PRODUCED TO THE 
COMMITTEE, THERE'S ONE FROM 
DAVID WAYNER IN 2014 WHERE HE'S 
DESCRIBING UNDER THE MERGERS AND
ACQUISITIONS ADVICE WITHIN THE 
COMPANY WHERE YOU NEED TO ENGAGE
IN A LAND GRAB.
HE SAYS I HATE THE WORD LAND 
GRAB BUT THAT'S THE MOST 
CONVINCING ARGUMENT AND WE 
SHOULD OWN THAT.
HE GOES ON TO DESCRIBE MARKET 
CAP EACH YEAR.
DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR 
RECOLLECTION?
YES, CONGRESSMAN.
THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
ADDRESS THIS.
AND FRANKLY CORRECT THE RECORD 
BECAUSE I BELIEVE WHAT HE WAS 
REFERRING TO WAS A QUESTION THAT
WAS INCOMING FROM INVESTORS 
ABOUT WHETHER WE WOULD CONTINUE 
TO ACQUIRE DIFFERENT COMPANIES.
I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WAS -- 
THAT WASN'T REFERRING TO AN 
INTERNAL STRATEGY.
IT WAS REFERRING TO AN EXTERNAL 
QUESTION THAT WE WERE FACING 
ABOUT HOW WE WOULD -- HOW 
INVESTORS SHOULD EXPECT US TO 
ACT GOING FORWARD.
AND I THINK HE WAS DISCUSSING 
THE FACT THAT AS MOBILE PHONES 
WERE GROWING IN POPULARITY, 
THERE WERE A LOT OF NEW WAYS 
THAT PEOPLE COULD CONNECT AND 
COMMUNICATE THAT WERE PART OF 
THIS OVERALL BROADER SPACE AND 
MARKET AROUND HUMAN CONNECTION 
AND HELPING PEOPLE STAY 
CONNECTED AND SHARE THEIR 
EXPERIENCES.
>> MR. ZUCKERBERG, IT SEEMS TO 
BE BOTH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL 
BECAUSE THEN IN AN EMAIL FROM 
YOU IN 2012 WE SEE A SIMILAR 
SENTIMENT EXPRESSED.
YOU WRITE, WE CAN LIKELY ALWAYS 
JUST BUY ANY COMPETITIVE START 
UPS.
SO, IS YOUR DESIRE TO LIMIT 
COMPETITION BY PURCHASING YOUR 
COMPETITORS CONSISTENT WITH THE 
MESSAGE TO YOUR INVESTORS THAT 
THE WAY YOU'LL RUN YOUR COMPANY 
IS THROUGH DIGITAL LAND GRABS?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE I 
AGREE WITH THE CHARACTERIZATION 
OF HOW WE COMMUNICATED WITH 
INVESTORS.
>> IT'S YOUR WORDS, 
MR. ZUCKERBERG.
>> BUT I THINK THE BROADER POINT
IS THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF NEW 
WAYS THAT PEOPLE CAN CONNECT 
THAT WERE CREATED BY 
SMARTPHONES.
>> THIS IS ABOUT YOUR MERGER AND
ACQUISITION STRATEGY.
YOU WENT ON TO SAY ONE THING 
ABOUT START UPS IS YOU CAN OFTEN
ACQUIRE THEM.
SO, I'M NOT INTERESTED IN HOW 
PEOPLE CONNECT.
I'M INTERESTED IN HOW YOU 
ACQUIRE BUSINESSES TO LIMIT 
COMPETITION.
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS 
EXPIRED BUT THE WITNESS MAY 
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>> CONGRESSMAN, IN ORDER TO 
SERVE PEOPLE BETTER AND HELP 
PEOPLE CONNECT IN ALL THE WAYS 
THEY WOULD WANT, WE INNOVATED 
AND BUILT A LOT OF NEW USE CASES
INTERNALLY AND ACQUIRED OTHERS.
AND THAT, I THINK, HAS BEEN A 
VERY SUCCESSFUL STRATEGY AT 
SERVING PEOPLE WELL.
AND A LOT OF THE COMPANIES THAT 
WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO ACQUIRE HAVE 
DONE -- HAVE GONE ON TO REACH 
AND HELP CONNECT MANY MORE 
PEOPLE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO ON THEIR OWN.
>> YOU'VE GRABBED A LOT OF LAND.
I YIELD BACK.
>> I RECOGNIZE THE CHAIR OF THE 
FULL COMMITTEE, MR. NADLER, FOR 
FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. COOK, WE'VE HEARD FROM 
BUSINESSES THAT APPLE IS 
CANVASSING THE APP STORE TO 
DETERMINE WHETHER IT CAN EXTRACT
COMMISSIONS FROM APPS THAT HAVE 
CHANGED THEIR BUSINESS MODELS IN
RESPONSE TO THE PANDEMIC.
BUSINESSES THAT RELIED ON IN 
PERSON INTERACTIONS HAVE MOVED 
ON AND APPLE IS LOOKING FOR ITS 
CUT.
MY STAFF HAS HEARD FROM SOME OF 
THE AFFECTED BUSINESSES.
THEY SAY YOU'RE CALLING THEM UP 
DEMANDING YOUR 30%.
ISN'T THIS PANDEMIC 
PROFITEERING?
>> WE WOULD NEVER DO THAT, 
MR. CHAIRMAN.
THE PANDEMIC IS A TRAGEDY, AND 
IT'S HURTING AMERICANS AND MANY 
PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE WORLD.
AND WE WOULD NEVER TAKE 
ADVANTAGE OF THAT.
I BELIEVE THE CASES THAT YOU'RE 
TALKING ABOUT ARE CASES WHERE 
SOMETHING HAS MOVED TO A DIGITAL
SERVICE WHICH TECHNICALLY DOES 
NEED TO GO THROUGH OUR 
COMMISSION MODEL.
BUT IN BOTH OF THE CASES THAT 
I'M AWARE OF, WE ARE WORKING 
WITH THE DEVELOPERS.
TO ZOOM OUT AND GIVE YOU 
HISTORICAL CONTEXT ON THIS, WE 
ENTERED THE APP STORE MARKET.
THE COST OF DISTRIBUTING 
SOFTWARE WAS 50% TO 70%.
SO, WE TOOK THE RATE IN HALF TO 
30% AND WE'VE HELD NIT THAT SAME
LEVEL OVER TIME OR LOWERED IT.
IT'S NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR 2 
MILLION JOBS ACROSS AMERICA, AND
84% OF THE APPS ON THE STORE ARE
DISTRIBUTED FOR FREE WHERE 100% 
OF THE PROCEEDS GO TO THE 
DEVELOPER.
ONLY THAT 16% IS SUBJECT TO A 
COMMISSION OF EITHER 15 OR 30%.
>> AND SCHOOL IS ABOUT TO START 
AROUND THE COUNTRY.
MILLIONS OF PARENTS AND STUDENTS
WILL ATTEND SCHOOL ONLINE.
THEY WILL RELY ON APPS TO TALK 
TO TEACHERS, TUTORS, AND VIRTUAL
LEARNING TOOLS.
ARE THESE ONLINE LEARNING TOOLS 
NEXT ON APPLE'S -- ARE THEY ON 
APPLE'S LIST TO MONETIZE?
>> THEY'RE NOT, MR. CHAIRMAN.
WE WOULD -- WE WILL -- WE'RE 
VERY PROUD OF WHAT WE'VE DONE IN
EDUCATION.
WE ARE SERVING THAT MARKET IN A 
SIGNIFICANT WAY AND INCLUDING 
TONS OF DONATIONS.
AND WE WILL WORK WITH THE PEOPLE
THAT HAPPEN TO MOVE FROM A 
PHYSICAL -- MOVE FROM A PHYSICAL
TO A VIRTUAL WORLD BECAUSE OF 
THE PANDEMIC.
WE'VE DONE A LOT TO ADDRESS 
COVID IN GENERAL AS A COMPANY.
WE'VE SOURCED AND DONATED 30 
MILLION MASKS, TURNING OUR 
SUPPLY CHAIN INTO SOMETHING THAT
WOULD BE GREAT FOR AMERICA.
WE'VE DESIGNED A FACE SHIELD, 
DONATED 10 MILLION OF THOSE.
WE'RE DONATED SIGNIFICANT 
AMOUNTS OF MONEY ACROSS THE U.S.
>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> WE'VE HEARD THAT APPLE IS NOW
TRYING TO EXTRACT COMMISSIONS 
FROM VARIOUS APPS THAT 
PREVIOUSLY DIDN'T PAY YOU 
ANYTHING.
YOU APPROVED, WE'RE TOLD, THE 
EMAIL AND DAYS LATER THREATENED 
TO KICK IT OUT OF THE APP STORE 
UNLESS IT FIGURED OUT A WAY TO 
GIVE YOU A CUT OF REVENUE.
THE COO OF BASE CAMP TESTIFIED 
BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE THIS YEAR.
HE WAS CONCERNED OVER APPLE'S 
DISTY BUGS OVER DEVICES.
HE SEEMS TO SBRN RIGHT.
HE SAYS APPLE SERVICES HAVE 
REQUIRED TO CUT APPLE IN.
BUT YOU DIDN'T ENFORCE YOUR 
RULES THIS WAY.
SO, WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THIS 
PLEASE?
>> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD.
HEY IS IN THE STORE TODAY AND 
WE'RE HAPPY THAT THEY'RE THERE.
I BELIEVE THEY HAVE A VERSION OF
THEIR PRODUCT IS FOR FREE, SO 
THEY'RE NOT PAYING ANYTHING ON 
THAT.
I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT 30% -- I 
HOPE YOU GIVE ME TIME TO EXPLAIN
THIS -- OR 15% IS FOR LOTS OF 
DIFFERENT SERVICES FROM 
PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES TO 
COMPILERS TO 150,000 APIs.
IT HAS BEEN AN ECONOMIC MIRACLE 
TO ALLOW THE PERSON IN THEIR 
BASEMENT TO START A COMPANY, A 
GLOBAL COMPANY, AND SERVE 175 
COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD.
IT IS AMAZING.
LIKELY THE HIGHEST JOB CREATOR 
IN THE LAST DECADE.
>> I SEE.
AND YOU HAVEN'T CHANGED THE 
RULES IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAKE 
APPS PAY WHEN THEY WEREN'T 
PAYING BEFORE.
>> I KNOW OF NO CASE WHERE WE'VE
DONE THAT.
I'M SURE WE'VE MADE ERRORS 
BEFORE.
WE GET 100,000 DIFFERENT APPS 
SUBMITTED A WEEK AND WE GOT 
1.7 MILLION ON THE STORE.
BUT ACROSS THAT PEER OF TIME 
WE'VE NEVER RAISED COMMISSIONS 
FROM THE FIRST DAY THE APP STORE
WENT INTO EFFECT BACK IN 2008.
WE'VE ONLY LOWERED THANK YOU.
I SEE MY TIME IS EXPIRED AND I
YIELD BACK.
>> CHAIRMAN YIELDS BACK.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
>> I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN
FROM NORTH DAKOTA, MR.
ARMSTRONG.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN.
MR. PICHAI, GOOGLE ANNOUNCED IT
WOULD NOT ALLOW THIRD PARTIES
TO BUY YOUTUBE ADS.
THAT MEANS ADVICE ON YOUTUBE
ARE CONDUCTED ONLY THROUGH
GOOGLE DEMAND SIDE PRODUCTS.
GOOGLE JUSTIFY THIS CHANGE BY
CITING PRIVACY AND USER
EXPERIENCE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT DOUBLE
SIDED A CONCERN THAT THIRD
PARTY DIGITAL AD PARTICIPANTS
WOULD DEVELOP USER PROFILES
BASED ON THIS THEORY.
IT'S ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
EVEN UNDER THE GDPR, YOU ALLOW
USERS TO PROVIDE CONSENT WHICH
WOULD AUTHORIZE THIS TYPE OF
ACTIVITY.
IT SEEMS THAT THIS POLICY,
REGARDLESS OF THE PRIVACY
CONCERNS, REDUCED COMPETITION
FOR DEMAND SIDE PLATFORMS ON
YOUTUBE.
DO YOU AGREE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE ARE ALWAYS
LOOKING TO IMPROVE THE YOUTUBE
EXPERIENCE.
PART OF BEING ABLE TO INTEGRATE
THIS SPACE AND WHAT WE'VE BEEN
ABLE TO INNOVATE AND YOUTUBE
WHERE USERS GETS CAPABLE ADS.
IF THEY FIND ADS NOT TO BE
RELEVANT, THEY CAN SKIP PASS
THOSE ADS.
MONETIZING YOUTUBE IS WHAT
ALLOWS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
CREATORS EARNING A LIVELIHOOD.
MANY OF THEM ARE SMALL AND
MEDIUM BUSINESSES.
WE WANT TO SUPPORT THAT WEALTH
AND SO WE ARE FOCUSED ON THAT.
ALLOWING THIS TYPE OF
INTEGRATION IS WHAT ALLOWS US
TO CREATE THAT USER EXPERIENCE.
>> AFTER GOOGLE STOPPED
ALLOWING THIRD PARTIES TO BUY
GOOGLE AT THE AT EX, GOOGLE
LIMIT TO THE INTEROPERABILITY
OF THIRD-PARTY ANALYTICS ON
YOUTUBE.
YOU NOW ALLOW THE REQUIRING
ABUSE OF AT SOME DATA.
IT'S BASED ON USER PRIVACY ONCE
AGAIN.
OTHER MARKET PARTICIPANTS MAY
NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THAT DATA
WHAT IT DOES NOT DISAPPEAR DOES
IT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, THIS IS
CONSISTENT WITH HOW MANY
SERVICES BE AT FACEBOOK OR
SNAPCHAT OR PINTEREST, YOU WORK
TO BUY ADS ON THEIR PROPERTIES.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, THE
EXCUSE IS PRIVACY BUT THE DATA
DOES NOT DISAPPEAR.
YOU JUST HAVE GREATER CONTROL
OVER IT RIGHT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, IT'S A SERVICE
WE PROVIDE TO OUR USERS.
WE OBVIOUSLY WANT TO MAKE SURE
WE PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF USERS
THERE.
WE DO MONETIZE WITH ADS.
WE GIVE USERS A CHOICE OF
EITHER CONSUMING IT AS A
SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE OR USING
IT WITH ADS.
WE'VE BEEN VERY FOCUSED ON
MAKING YOUTUBE A GREAT PLATFORM
FOR CREATORS AND I THINK THE
MODEL IS WORKING WELL.
IT'S REALLY HELPED MANY SMALL
AND MEDIUM BUSINESSES TO INVEST
ON THE PLATFORM.
AS WELL AS GROW THEIR
BUSINESSES.
>> REGARDLESS OF THE INTENT,
WAS THE LESSON COMPETITION ARE
NOT?
THE ACTION RESULTED IN SMALLER
COMPETITORS NOT BEING ABLE TO
PARTICIPATE IN PLACING ADS ON
YOUTUBE.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE SEE ROBUST
CHOICE FOR ADVERTISERS.
THERE ARE SEVERAL ALL INTERNET
AREAS.
THERE'S OBVIOUSLY FACEBOOK.
THERE'S AMAZON WITH THEIR ADS
MARKETPLACE.
THERE'S COMPANIES LIKE SNAPCHAT,
PINTEREST AND TWITTER OR NEW
COMPETITORS THAT HAVE EMERGED.
THAT'S WHY WE SEE ADVERTISING
COSTS DECLINED BY 40% IN THE
LAST TEN YEARS.
WE SEE DYNAMISM IN THE
MARKETPLACE ... >> HERE'S MY
ISSUE.
THERE ARE POLICIES THAT
ACTUALLY PROTECT USER PRIVACY.
APPLES POLICY, MICROSOFT JUST
CAME OUT ON FACIAL RECOGNITION
POLICY.
MY CONCERN IS THAT YOUR --
ONE WERE USING PRIVACY, WE'RE
TRYING TO USE PRIVACY AS A
SHIELD.
WHAT YOUR COMPANY IS REALLY
DOING IS USING IT AS A CUDGEL
TO BEAT DOWN THE COMPETITION.
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
PRIVACY, IT'S A GREAT WORD THAT
PEOPLE CARRY ABOUT, BUT NOT
WHEN IT'S UTILIZED TO CONTROL
MORE OF THE MARKETPLACE AND
SQUEEZE OUT SMALLER
COMPETITORS.
WITH THAT I YIELD THE REMAINDER
OF MY TIME TO MR. GAETZ.
>> I THANK YOU FOR YIELDING.
MR. BEZOS, WE WERE CUT SHORT IN
OUR LAST CONVERSATION.
I WANT TO DECLARE THIS UP.
YOU DON'T BELIEVE DOCTOR BEN
CARSON IS AN EXTREMIST DO YOU?
>> NO SIR I DON'T.
>> HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY YOU
WOULD PARTNER WITH A GROUP THAT
LABELS HIM AS SOMEONE WORTHY OF
AN EXTREMIST WATCHLIST?
>> I WANT YOU TO HOPEFULLY
APPRECIATE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO
MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO
DONATE MILLIONS OF DIFFERENT
CHARITIES.
WE NEED TO HAVE SOME SOURCE OF
DATA TO USE.
I ACCEPT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING
THAT THE U.S. FOREIGN ASSET
OFFICE ARE NOT PERFECT AND I
WOULD LIKE A BETTER SOURCE IF
WE COULD GET IT.
THAT IS WHAT WE USE TODAY.
>> THAT'S BREAKING NEWS.
IT'S GREAT TO HEAR THAT YOU DO
RECOGNIZE THE INFIRMITIES IN
THE SOUTHERN LAW HAVE A LOT
CENTER.
I GUESS MR. SUCKER BRICK AND
MR. PICHAI COMPANY USE THEM AS
WELL.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, DO YOU BELIEVE
DOCTOR BEN CARSON IS AN
EXTREMIST?
>> NO CONGRESSMAN.
>> SO, WHY WOULD YOU TRUST THE
PEOPLE WHO THINK HE IS?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT AWARE
OF WHERE WE WORK WITH THE
ORGANIZATION THAT YOU ARE
SAYING.
>> GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS
EXPIRED.
I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MARYLAND, MR. RASKIN, FOR FIVE
MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN.
I READ MR. ACOSTA YEARS THE
PARANOID STYLE OF AMERICAN
POLITICS.
I SUPPOSE IT IS FUTILE TO TRY
TO CURE THE OBSESSIVE
PERSECUTION COMPLEX AND VICTIM
ALL EDGY OF SOME OF OUR
COLLEAGUES.
THEY SHOULD CHECK OUT THESE TOP
PERFORMING FACEBOOK LINK POSTS
BY THE UNITED STATES PAGES
TODAY OR YESTERDAY OR ANY DAY
FOR THE LAST WEEK.
IN SEVEN OUT OF THE TEN FOR
EACH DAY, THEY ARE RIGHT WING
SITES.
THEN SHAPIRO, FOX NEWS, THEN
BEEN GENO, WHO LIVES MATTER AND
SO ON.
IF FACEBOOK IS OUT THERE TRYING
TO REPRESS CONSERVATIVE TO --
SPEECH, THEY'RE DOING A
TERRIBLE JOB AT IT.
SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE
ENDLESS WHINING ABOUT HOW
FACEBOOK AND TWITTER ARE
SOMEHOW DISCRIMINATING AGAINST
CONSERVATIVES.
THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP AND
DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR FROM
TWITTER WAS ALL ABOUT THEIR
SPREADING DISINFORMATION.
FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT
COVID-19.
THAT WAS AN ABSOLUTE PUBLIC
HEALTH MEASURE WHICH I HOPE ALL
OF US WOULD ENDORSE.
WE DON'T WANT ANYBODY,
INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, SPREADING FALSE
INFORMATION ABOUT COVID-19.
THEY ESSENTIALLY DESTROY THEIR
OWN CASE WHEN THEY PICK THAT AS
THEIR CAUSE FOR GOING AFTER ALL
OF YOU.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND FOR THE LIFE
OF ME THE LINE OF QUESTIONING
ABOUT ELECTIONEERING TAKING
PLACE BY SOME OF YOUR
COMPANIES.
IF YOU ARE OPPOSED BY
ELECTIONEERING BY CORPORATIONS,
AS I AM, AND OPPOSED TO
CITIZENS UNITED, THEN YOU HAVE
NO PROBLEM.
CITIZENS UNITED IS WHAT GAVE
CORPORATIONS THE POWER TO GO
OUT AND SPEND MONEY.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY SOME
COMPANIES ARE SPENDING MONEY,
THEN EITHER START YOUR OWN
COMPANY OR TELL THEM WHAT IS
WRONG WITH IT.
BUT THE IDEA THAT
ELECTIONEERING IS SOMETHING YOU
ARE --
OPPOSED TO STRIKES ME IS
SOMETHING THAT IS COMPLETELY
INCONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORY
AND FACTS.
I WANT TO GO TO MR. COOK IF WE
COULD.
FIRST, A QUICK QUESTION.
ARE ANY OF YOUR COMPANIES
BENEFIT CORPORATIONS?
THAT IS THAT SOMETHING YOU HAVE
CONSIDERED DOING?
AS ANY OF YOU CONSIDERED
BECOMING A BENEFIT CORPORATION?
I WILL TAKE YOUR SILENCE AS NO.
MR. COOK, I'M HUNG UP ON THIS
30% QUESTION THAT SEVERAL
MEMBERS HAVE TALKED TO YOU
ABOUT.
YOU SAY SOMETIMES IT'S 15%,
SOMETIMES IT'S 30%, CAN YOU
EXPLAIN WHEN IT'S 15 AND WHEN
IT'S 30 AND WHY IT'S 15
SOMETIMES AND WHITES 30 OTHERS?
>> SURE.
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION
CONGRESSMAN.
84% OF THE TIME, IT'S ZERO.
16% OF THE TIME IT'S 15 OR 30.
IT'S 15 IF IT'S IN THE SECOND
YEAR OF A SUBSCRIPTION.
>> SO YOU JUST GRADUATE FROM
YOUR FIRST YEAR, YOU ARE TAKING
NOTICE ESSENTIALLY.
THE SECOND YEAR IT'S 15 AND
IT'S 30 AFTER THE?
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> NO.
IF IT'S A SUBSCRIPTION PRODUCT,
IT'S 30% IN THE FIRST YEAR
ENDED IN DROPS 15% AND THE
SECOND YEAR AND EVERY YEAR
THEREAFTER.
>> I GOT YOU.
OKAY.
WHAT TROUBLES ME IS WHAT ONE
BUSINESS WOMAN TOLD ME WHEN I
WAS LOOKING AT THIS.
SHE SAID I PAY AROUND 25% OF MY
INCOME TO UNCLE SAM, TO THE
GOVERNMENT.
THEN, I PAY 30% OF MY INCOME TO
APPLE.
SO I GET HALF OF IT AND IT'S
VERY HARD TO MAKE ENDS MEET.
I JUST WONDER --
LOOK, ALL OF YOU ARE IN
BUSINESS AND TREMENDOUSLY
SUCCESSFUL AT WHAT YOU DO.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS MODEL HAS
WORKED FOR YOU.
BUT THE QUESTION IS DOES THIS
MODEL ACTUALLY SQUEEZE OUT THE
NEXT GENERATION OF
ENTREPRENEURS?
AND IS IT AN UNJUST ARRANGEMENT
BECAUSE YOU ARE THE 10,000
POUND GORILLA AND THEY ARE JUST
TRYING TO GET STARTED?
>> I DON'T THINK SO.
IN FACT, KEEP IN MIND WE'VE
GONE FROM 500 APPS TO 1.7
MILLION.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF APPS ON THE
STORE AND A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE
MAKING A VERY GOOD LIVING FROM
IT.
>> YOU'VE SAID THAT.
FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING,
WHAT YOU SAID THAT SEVERAL
TIMES.
THAT, TO ME, MIGHT JUST
UNDERSCORE THE MONOPOLY NATURE
OF YOUR BUSINESS.
THAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO GO
THROUGH YOU.
THERE'S REALLY NO ALTERNATIVE.
I DON'T BLAME YOU FOR TAKING
THEM ALL, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN
THAT THE TERMS BEING DICTATED
ARE IN FACT FAIR TERMS.
SO, HOW WOULD YOU DEFEND THAT
BARGAIN SUBSTANTIVELY?
>> WHETHER YOU LOOK AT IT FROM
A CUSTOMER POINT OF VIEW OR A
DEVELOPER POINT OF VIEW, THERE
ARE ENORMOUS CHOICES OUT THERE.
IF YOU ARE A DEVELOPER, YOU CAN
WRITE FOR ANDROID.
YOU CAN WRITE FOR WINDOWS.
YOU CAN WRITE FOR XBOX OR
PLAYSTATION.
IF YOU ARE A CUSTOMER AND YOU
DON'T LIKE THE SETUP, THE
CURATED EXPERIENCE OF THE APP
STORE, YOU CAN BUY A SAMSUNG.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
FORGIVE ME FOR CUTTING YOU OFF
AGAIN.
I HAVE A FINAL QUESTION FOR MR.
ZUCKERBERG.
YOU SPEND A LOT OF TAKE YOUR
TIME SPEAKING TO OUR
CONSERVATIVE COLLEAGUES WHO HAD
THIS PERSECUTION COMPLEX THAT
YOU ARE SOMEHOW GOING AFTER
THEM.
WILL YOU HAVE TIME TO MEET WITH
THIS BROAD COALITION OF CIVIL
RIGHTS GROUPS THAT ARE ENGAGED
IN A BOYCOTT BECAUSE OF WHAT
THEY THINK IS THE PROLIFERATION
OF HATE SPEECH AND HOLOCAUST
REVISIONIST AND OTHER
AFFILIATED TOPICS ON FACEBOOK?
>> CONGRESSMAN, YES.
I'VE ALREADY TAKEN THE TIME TO
MEET WITH THEM.
I THINK THE TOPICS THEY ARE
PUSHING ON ARE IMPORTANT ON A
LOT OF THE GOALS WE AGREE.
THESE ARE ISSUES AROUND
FIGHTING HATE THAT WE HAVE
FOCUSED ON FOR YEARS.
WE ARE COMMITTED TO CONTINUING
TO IMPROVE THE WAY OUR COMPANY
WORKS AND JUST CONTINUALLY
GETTING BETTER ON THESE ISSUES.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
>> THANK YOU MR. ZUCKERBERG.
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN
FROM OHIO, MR. JORDAN, FOR FIVE
MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. COOK, IS THE CANCEL CULTURE
MOB DANGEROUS?
>> IT'S SOMETHING I'M NOT ALL
THE WAY UP TO SPEED ON.
IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WHERE
SOMEONE WITH A DIFFERENT POINT
OF VIEW TALKS AND THEY ARE
CANCELED, I DON'T THINK THAT'S
GOOD.
I THINK IT'S GOOD FOR PEOPLE TO
HEAR DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW
AND DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES.
>> I AGREE WITH THAT.
I WANT TO REFERENCE A LETTER.
BARRY WEISS, WHO RESIGNED AS AN
EDITOR FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES,
WROTE A LETTER EXPLAINING WHY
SHE RESIGNED.
I WILL READ THREE SENTENCES FOR
ALL OF YOU.
SHE SAYS, FIRST OF ALL MY OWN
FORAYS INTO WRONG THICK MADE ME
THE SUBJECT OF CONSTANT
BULLYING BY MY COLLEAGUES WHO
DISAGREED WITH MY VIEWS.
SHE LATER SAYS, EVERYONE LIVES
IN FEAR OF THE DIGITAL THUNDER
DOME.
THE ONLINE VENOMOUS EXCUSE AS
LONG AS IT IS DIRECTED AT THE
PROPER TARGETS.
THE TARGETS ARE NOT ONLY
CONSERVATIVE.
MISS VICE IS ACTUALLY CENTER
LEFT.
SHE'S NOT CONSERVATIVE.
THE TARGETS ARE ANYONE WHO
DISAGREES WITH THE MOB.
ARE THE REST OF YOU CONCERNED
ABOUT THE CANCEL CULTURE MOB
AND WHAT IT IS UP TO?
MR. PICHAI?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I COULDN'T HEAR
VERY WELL FOR THE MOMENT.
WE BUILD PLATFORMS WHICH ALLOW
FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
WE TAKE PRIDE IN THE FACT THAT
ACROSS OUR PLATFORMS, INCLUDING
YOUTUBE, THERE ARE MORE DIVERSE
VOICES THAN EVER BEFORE.
IT IS SOMETHING ... >> THAT'S
FUN.
I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT IT.
AGAIN, I'M NOT JUST CONCERNED
BECAUSE CONSERVATIVES GETS
ATTACKED, I'M CONCERNED THAT
ANYONE GETS ATTACKED FOR
EXPRESSING VIEWPOINT.
I THOUGHT WE HAD A FIRST
AMENDMENT AND YET, THEY
CONSTANTLY GET ATTACKED.
HOW ABOUT YOU MR. ZUCKERBERG?
>> YES CONGRESSMAN.
I BELIEVE STRONGLY IN FREE
EXPRESSION.
GIVING UP PEOPLE A VOICE IS AN
IMPORTANT PART OF WHAT OUR
SERVICES DO.
I'M VERY WORRIED ABOUT SOME OF
THE FORCES OF ILLIBERALISM THAT
I SEE IN THIS COUNTRY THAT ARE
PUSHING AGAINST FREE
EXPRESSION.
I THINK THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE
FUNDAMENTAL DEMOCRATIC
TRADITIONS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR
COUNTRY.
IT IS HOW WE MAKE PROGRESS OVER
THE LONG TERM ON A NUMBER OF
ISSUES.
OUR COMPANY IS COMMITTED TO
DOING WHAT WE CAN TO PROTECT
MR. --
PEOPLES VOICE.
>> THANK YOU MR. ZUCKERBERG.
MR. BEZOS?
>> YES, SIR.
I'M CONCERNED IN GENERAL ABOUT
THAT.
I FIND A LITTLE DISCOURAGING
THAT IT APPEARS TO ME THAT
SOCIAL MEDIA IS A NUANCED
DESTRUCTION MACHINE.
I DON'T THINK THAT IS HELPFUL
FOR A DEMOCRACY.
>> DO YOU AGREE WITH THE TERMS
SHE USED?
DIGITAL THUNDER DOME?
>> I SEE THAT, YES.
>> I SEE IT TO.
I GUESS MY POINT IS, YOU ARE
FOR PRETTY IMPORTANT GUYS
LEADING FOUR OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT COMPANIES ON THE
PLANET.
IT WOULD SHORT BE HELPFUL IF
YOU SPOKE OUT AGAINST THIS.
MR. COOK, THERE WAS A 1984
SUPER BOWL AD AND BLACK AND
WHITE THAT HAD THIS BIG BROTHER
TYPE FIGURE AS THE NARRATOR
SAYING OVER THE SCREEN TO THE
WORKERS, OUR UNIFICATION OF
THOUGHTS IS MORE POWERFUL
WEAPON ON THAN ANY FLEET OR
ARMY ON THE EARTH.
IT SEEMS TO BE STRAIGHT OUT OF
THE SOVIET UNION.
THEN YOU SEE A WOMEN COMING IN
AND SMASHING THE SCREEN.
BUSTING THE GROUP THINK.
BUSTING THE MOB THANK.
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT AD MR.
COOK?
>> I REMEMBER IT VERY WELL.
IT WAS APPLE VERSUS IBM AT THE
TIME.
>> YES.
BUT THE POINT WAS, MOB THANK,
CANCEL CULTURE, GROUP THANK, IS
NOT WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS ABOUT.
WE ARE SEEING IT PLAY OUT EVERY
SINGLE --
JUST TAKE THE SPORTS WORLD FOR
GOODNESS SAKE.
IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS, DREW
BREES HAD TO --
BOWED TO THE MOB BECAUSE HE
SIMPLY SUGGESTED YOU SHOULD
STAND FOR THE ANTHEM.
THERE IS A FOOTBALL COACH AT
OKLAHOMA STATE WHO WORE THE
WRONG T-SHIRT FISHING WITH HIS
BOYS.
HE GOT IN ALL KINDS OF TROUBLE.
JAMES HARDEN GETS ATTACKED FOR
SUPPORTING THE POLICE.
WHY DON'T WE JUST LET THE FIRST
AMENDMENT WORK?
THAT IS ALL WE ARE ASKING.
YOU ARE FOUR INDIVIDUALS WHO
HAVE SO MUCH INFLUENCE, IT
WOULD YOUR HELP IF YOU ARE OUT
THERE CRITICIZING WHAT THE
CANCEL CULTURE MOB IS DOING TO
THIS COUNTRY.
PEOPLE SEE IT EVERY SINGLE DAY.
I HOPE YOU WILL DO IT.
YOU ALL SAID YOU DISAGREE WITH
IT, I HOPE YOU WILL REALLY
SPEAK OUT AGAINST IT AND BE
FAIR.
WITH ALL VIEWPOINTS.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
I RECOGNIZE THE GENERAL --
GENTLELADY FROM WASHINGTON.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN.
MR. PICHAI, I DIRECT MY
QUESTIONS TO YOU.
MANY OF US FEEL A DEEP URGENCY
TO PROTECT INDEPENDENT
JOURNALISM.
I WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT AD REVENUE AND
INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM.
GOOGLE MAKES MOST OF ITS
REVENUE THROUGH SELLING
ADVERTISING AND GOGGLES
ADVERTISING EXCHANGE IS A QUOTE,
REALTIME MARKETPLACE TO SELLING
DISPLAY ADVERTISING SPACE.
CORRECT?
>> YES CONGRESS WOMAN, THAT'S
CORRECT.
>> OVER 2 MILLION WEBSITES
INCLUDING NEWSPAPERS USE THAT
EXCHANGE.
CORRECT?
>> WE ARE VERY PROUD TO SUPPORT
PUBLISHERS.
WE DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBERS,
BUT YES THAT SEEMS CORRECT.
>> THAT'S AN ESTIMATE PUT
FORWARD --
FORTH BY A TECH EXPERT.
YOUR OWN WEBSITE SAYS YOU HAVE
ACCESS TO OVER 2 MILLION SITES.
WHAT IS GOOGLE'S SHARE OF THE
AD EXCHANGE MARKET?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT EXACT
ARE FAMILIAR.
I'VE SEEN VARIOUS REPORTS.
WE ARE POPULAR CHOICE.
>> GREAT, LET ME PUT IT UP FOR
YOU.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SCREEN YOU
WILL SEE THAT 50 TO 60%
ACCORDING TO ONLINE PLATFORMS
AND DIGITAL ADVERTISING MARKET
STUDY THAT WAS RELEASED.
IN ORDER TO EXCHANGE --
WEBSITES AND ADVERTISERS GO
THROUGH A MIDDLEMAN LIKE GOOGLE
ADS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SLIDE, YOU
CAN SEE THAT THE SHARE OF THIS
BY SIDE MARKET THAT GOOGLE HAS
IS 50 TO 90% ACCORDING TO THE
SAME STUDY.
I WANT TO SIMPLIFY HOW THESE
EXCHANGES WORK.
LET'S SAY IN SEATTLE, A MOM AND
POP BUSINESS WANTS TO BUY
ONLINE AT SPACE IN THE SEATTLE
TIMES.
THE COMPANY WOULD NEED TO GO TO
A MIDDLEMAN LIKABLE ADDS, WHICH
WOULD THEN VIVID FOR A SPACE ON
AN AD EXCHANGE.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT GOOGLE
CONTROLS ALL OF THE ENTITIES.
SO IT'S RUNNING THE MARKETPLACE,
IT'S ACTING ON THE BY SIDE AND
IT'S ACTING ON THE SILL SIDE AT
THE SAME TIME WHICH IS A MAJOR
CONTRACT --
CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
IT ALLOWS YOU TO SET RATES VERY
LOW AS A BUYER OF AT SPACE FOR
NEWSPAPERS, DEPRIVING THEM OF
THEIR AD REVENUE.
THEN IT ALSO ALLOWS YOU TO SELL
HIGH TO SMALL BUSINESSES WHO
ARE DEPENDENT ON ADVERTISING ON
YOUR PLATFORM.
IT SOUNDS A BIT LIKE A STOCK
MARKET, EXCEPT UNLIKE A STOCK
MARKET, THERE'S NO REGULATION
ON YOUR AD EXCHANGE MARKET.
IF THERE WERE REGULATION, IT
WOULD ACTUALLY PROHIBIT INSIDER
TRADING.
THAT MEANS THE BROKER CAN'T USE
THE DATA IN THE BROKER DIVISION
TO BUY AND SELL FOR THEIR OWN
INTERESTS.
INSTEAD, BROKERS HAVE TO SERVE
THE CLIENTS.
DOES GOOGLE HAVE A SIMILAR
OBLIGATION TO SERVE ITS CLIENTS?
THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE SELLING
AND BUYING AT SPACE.
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, IF I COULD
EXPLAIN THIS FOR A MINUTE.
WE PAID OVER 14 BILLION DOLLARS
TO PUBLISHERS.
WE ARE DEEPLY COMMITTED TO
JOURNALISM.
IN THIS AREA, ON AN AVERAGE, WE
PAY ABOUT 69% OF THE REVENUE
WENT PUBLISHERS USE GOGGLES
SIDE WEBSITES.
IT'S A LOW BUSINESS MARGIN FOR
US.
WE DO IT BECAUSE WE WANT TO
HELP SUPPORT PUBLISHERS.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, WHAT I'M
TRYING TO GET AT IS THAT WHEN
ANY COMPANY CONTROLS BOTH THE
BUY AND SELL SIDE.
I WORKED AT LONG --
WALL STREET LONG AGO.
THIS AD EXCHANGE IS ESSENTIALLY
THE SAME THING.
WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY, IT
ISN'T MEANINGFUL TO JUST CARE
ABOUT THE NEWSPAPERS.
WE ARE SEEING THEM DIE
EVERYWHERE AND AD REVENUE IS A
BIG REASON.
LET ME PUT UP A GRAPHIC THAT
SHOWS THAT GOGGLES AD REVENUES
INCREASINGLY COMING FROM ADS ON
GOOGLE OWNED SITES AND LESS
FROM OTHER WEBSITES.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE TREND?
>> I CAN'T QUITE SEE IF THIS IS
NET REVENUE OR GROSS REVENUE.
WHEN IT COMES TO NON GOOGLE
PROPERTIES, WE SHARE THE
MAJORITY OF REVENUE BACK TO
PUBLISHERS.
ON OUR OWN PROPERTIES, WE HAVE
THE INVENTORY.
I WOULD NEED TO UNDERSTAND MORE,
I JUST QUICKLY LOOKED AT IT.
>> WE CAN SEND IT TO YOU AND
MAKE SURE YOU HAVE IT.
GOOGLE HAS NOT MADE ITS SEARCH
TRAFFIC VOLUMES PUBLIC AND
BEARS SO THERE'S NO WAY FOR US
TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S
HAPPENING.
THERE IS NO WAY FOR BUSINESSES
TO VERIFY WHETHER THEY HAVE
BEEN TREATED FAIRLY OR LEFT
BEHIND IN FAVOR OF GOOGLE OWNED
COMPANIES.
IS GOOGLE STARING ADVERTISING
REVENUE TO GOOGLE SEARCH?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, USERS ON
GOOGLE SEARCH, THAT'S WHERE OUR
SOURCE OF REVENUE COMES FROM.
WE WORK HARD TO EARN THEIR
TRUST.
WE KNOW COMPETITION FOR
INFORMATION IS JUST A CLICK
AWAY.
>> THANK YOU MISTER PICHAI.
I WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT
INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM IS
INCREDIBLY NECESSARY FOR OUR
DEMOCRACY AND WE WANT TO DO
WHAT WE CAN TO PROTECT IT.
I WANT TO ASK ONE LAST QUESTION
OF MR. ZUCKERBERG.
OVER 1100 COMPANIES AND
ORGANIZATIONS PULLED THEIR
ADVERTISING BUSINESS FROM
FACEBOOK AS PART OF THE STOCK
MEAT FOR PROFIT CAMPAIGN TO
PROTEST THE SPREAD OF HATE
SPEECH AND DISINFORMATION.
BUT YOU AT A STAFF MEETING
EARLIER THIS MONTH TOLD
EMPLOYEES YOU ARE NOT GOING TO
CHANGE YOUR POLICIES OR
APPROACH BECAUSE OF A THREAT TO
ANY PERCENT OF YOUR REVENUE.
MY GUESS IS ALL THESE
ADVERTISERS WILL BE BACK ON THE
PLATFORM SOON ENOUGH.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, ARE YOU SO BIG
THAT YOU DON'T CARE HOW YOU ARE
IMPACTED BY A MAJOR BOYCOTT OF
1100 ADVERTISERS?
>> NO CONGRESSWOMAN.
OF COURSE WE CARE.
BUT, WE'RE ALSO NOT GOING TO
SET OUR CONTENT POLICIES
BECAUSE OF ADVERTISERS.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE WRONG
THING FOR US TO DO.
WE'VE CARED ABOUT ISSUES LIKE
FINDING HATE SPEECH FOR A LONG
TIME AND WE'VE INVESTED
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
WE HAVE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
CONTENT REVIEWERS.
WE BUILT A SYSTEMS THAT
PROACTIVELY IDENTIFY THE
MAJORITY, WERE NINE AT 89% OF
THE HATE SPEECH REMOVED BEFORE
IT IS EVEN REPORTED TO US.
WE WILL CONTINUE GETTING BETTER
AT THAT.
I THINK THE RESULTS WE PUT UP
WILL BE RECOGNIZED BY PEOPLE
SINCE I BELIEVE THEY ARE
INDUSTRY LEADING.
I THINK OUR ADVERTISING IS ALSO
THE MOST EFFECTIVE FOR MANY
SMALL BUSINESSES.
>> THANK YOU MR. ZUCKERBERG, MY
TIME HAS EXPIRED.
I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I KNOW
YOU COMMISSIONED YOUR OWN CIVIL
RIGHTS AUDIT.
I DON'T THINK THAT YOU
IMPLEMENTED ALL THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS YET.
I HOPE YOU WILL MOVE QUICKLY TO
IMPLEMENT THOSE.
THIS IS A CRITICAL TIME AS
WE'VE WATCHED THE BODY OF JOHN
LEWIS LEAVE US HERE IN THE
CAPITAL, THAT WE FOCUS ON CIVIL
RIGHTS.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN, I
YIELD BACK.
>> BEFORE I CALL ON THE NEXT
WITNESS, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE
MR. PICHAI WHO I THINK WANTS TO
MAKE A CORRECTION FOR THE
HEARING.
>>, THERE WAS A QUESTION
EARLIER ABOUT INFORMATION WITH
RESPECT TO CHINA.
I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE ON
RECORD THAT IN 2009, WE HAD A
WELL PUBLICIZED CYBERATTACK
WHICH ORIGINATED FROM THEIR.
I WANTED TO CORRECT THAT.
>> THANK YOU MISTER PICHAI, THE
RECORD WILL REFLECT THAT.
I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLE LADY
FROM PENNSYLVANIA FOR FIVE
MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN.
IN MARCH 2020, AMAZON ANNOUNCED
IT WOULD START DELAYING
SHIPMENTS OF NON ESSENTIAL
PRODUCTS IN ORDER TO BETTER
SERVE CUSTOMERS AND MEET NEEDS
WHILE HELPING TO ENSURE THE
SAFETY OF THEIR WAREHOUSE
WORKERS.
IN PRACTICE, HOWEVER, IT
APPEARS THAT THIS POLICY WAS
APPLIED SELECTIVELY AS AMAZON
CONTINUE TO DESIGNATE ITS OWN
PRODUCTS AS ESSENTIAL EVEN AS
IT DELAYED COMPETING PRODUCTS
FROM THIRD-PARTY SELLERS.
ESSENTIAL ITEMS WERE SUPPOSED
TO INCLUDE MEDICAL SUPPLIES,
HOUSEHOLD STAPLES, HIGH DEMAND
PRODUCTS AND MANY FACTORS WERE
CONSIDERED WERE USED WHEN
DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR
BEING ESSENTIAL.
WE'VE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE REPORT
THAT AMAZON CONTINUED TO SHIP
NONESSENTIAL ITEMS LIKE
HAMMOCKS, FISH TANKS, FLOATY
ETC.
MR. BEZOS, WERE AMAZON DEVICES
LIKE FIRE TV, ECHO SPEAKERS AND
RINGING DOORBELL DESIGNATED AS
ESSENTIAL DURING THE PANDEMIC?
>> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO
THAT QUESTION.
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT WE
HAD --
THERE WAS NO PLAYBOOK FOR THIS.
WE MOVED VERY QUICKLY.
DEMAND WENT THROUGH THE ROOF.
IT WAS LIKE HAVING HOLIDAY
SELLING SEASON BUT IN MARCH.
WE HAD TO MAKE A LOT OF
DECISIONS VERY RAPIDLY.
OUR GOAL WAS TO LIMIT IT TO
ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES, BUT I'M
SURE WE DID NOT DO THAT
PERFECTLY.
>> OKAY.
I KNOW THE RING DOORBELL HAS
TWO COMPETING PRODUCTS
INCLUDING OUR LOW AND YOU FEET.
DO YOU KNOW IF THEY WERE
DESIGNATED AS ESSENTIAL?
I DO NOT.
>> OKAY.
ARE YOU ABLE TO TESTIFY TO
CONGRESS TODAY WHETHER AMAZON'S
PROFIT FACTOR WAS A FACTOR IN
GIVING ESSENTIAL CLASSIFICATION
DISTINCTION?
>> NO.
NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
WE WERE WORKING TO TWO
OBJECTIVES.
ONE WAS TO GET ESSENTIAL
PRODUCTS TO CUSTOMERS AND THE
SECOND WAS TO KEEP OUR
FRONTLINE EMPLOYEES SAFE.
WE DID A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF
WORK IN BOTH CATEGORIES.
THAT'S WHAT WE WERE FOCUSED ON.
WE WERE NOT FOCUSED ON
PROFITABILITY AT THAT TIME.
>> PUSHING OUT THE ELUSIVE
CLOROX WIPES I GUESS.
AT ANY RATE, MOVING ALONG,
LET'S TALK ABOUT THE FEES
AMAZON CHARGES SELLERS.
ACCORDING TO A RECENT REPORT,
SELLER FEES NETTED AMAZON
ALMOST 60 BILLION IN 2019.
NEARLY DOUBLE THE 35 BILLION IN
REVENUE FROM A DOUBLE U.S.,
AMAZON'S MASSIVE CLOUD
COMPUTING DIVISION.
FIVE YEARS AGO, AMAZON TOOK AN
AVERAGE OF 19% OF EACH SALE
MADE BY THIRD-PARTY ON ITS
SITE.
TODAY, AMAZON KEEPS AN AVERAGE
OF 30%.
DOESN'T AMAZON'S ABILITY TO
HIKE THOSE FEES SO STEEPLY
SUGGEST THAT AMAZON ENJOYS
MARKET POWER OVER THOSE SELLERS?
>> NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO
CONGRESSWOMAN.
WHEN YOU SEE IT GO FROM 19 TO
30%, IT'S THAT MORE SELLERS ARE
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF OUR
INCREMENTAL SERVICES THAT WE
OFFER.
BUT TODAY, 60% OF SELLERS ARE
GOING THROUGH THIRD-PARTY
SELLERS UP FROM ZERO 20 YEARS
AGO.
>> RIGHT, I THINK A LITTLE MORE
CONCERNING IS THE 11% HEIGHT.
SINCE 2014, AMAZON'S REVENUE
FROM CELLAR FEES HAS GROWN
ALMOST TWICE AS FAST AS ITS
OVERALL SALES.
SELLER FEES NOW ACCOUNT FOR 21%
OF AMAZON'S TOTAL REVENUE.
MR. BEZOS, AREN'T SELLER FEES
NOW EFFECTIVELY SUBSIDIZING
AMAZON RETAIL DIVISION?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I DON'T
BELIEVE SO.
WHEN YOU SEE FEES GOING UP,
WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING IS THAT
SELLERS ARE CHOOSING TO USE
MORE OF OUR SERVICES THAT WE
MAKE AVAILABLE.
THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, PREVIOUSLY
THEY WERE SHIPPING THEIR OWN
PRODUCTS.
THEY WOULD'VE HAD COST DOING
THAT.
BUYING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
TO THE CUSTOMER THROUGH THE
POSTAL SERVICE OR THROUGH UPS
OR WHOEVER IT WOULD BE.
>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE
FULFILLMENT CENTERS.
RIGHT, OKAY.
WE'VE GOT FULFILLMENT BY AMAZON
AND A YEAR AGO WE ASKED WHETHER
A MERCHANT WHO IS ENROLLED IN
FULFILLMENT BY AMAZON IS A
FACTOR IN IF THEY CAN BE
AWARDED THE BY BOX.
AT THAT TIME, AMAZON SAID NO.
BUT THE EVIDENCE IS INDICATING,
AND YOUR OWN DOCUMENTS ARE
SHOWING, THAT BEING ENROLLED IN
THAT PROGRAM IS A MAJOR FACTOR
AND EFFECTIVELY FORCES SELLERS
TO PAY FOR FULFILMENTS SERVICES
FROM AMAZON IF THEY WANT TO
MAKE SALES.
MR. BEZOS, AS AMAZON'S BY BOX
ALGORITHM EVERY FAVORED
THIRD-PARTY SELLERS WHO BY
FULFILLMENT SERVICES FROM
AMAZON OVER OTHER SELLERS?
>> I THINK, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY I'M NOT SURE, BUT
INDIRECTLY I THINK THE BUY BOX
DISFAVOR PRODUCTS WHICH CAN BE
SHIPPED WITH PRIME.
ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE A PRIME
MEMBER, THE BUY BOXES TRYING TO
PICK THE OFFER.
IF WE HAVE MULTIPLE OFFERS FROM
MULTIPLE SELLERS FOR THE SAME
ITEM, THE CUSTOMER WANTS TO BUY
THAT ITEM.
THE BUY BOX TRIES TO PICK THE
OFFER THAT THE CUSTOMER WE
PREDICTED WOULD MOST LIKE.
IF YOU ARE A PRIME MEMBER, AND
INCLUDES IF THE ITEM IS
ELIGIBLE FOR PRIME.
>> THANK YOU MR. BEZOS.
I THINK MY TIME HAS EXPIRED.
>> BEFORE I RECOGNIZE OUR LAST
TWO COLLEAGUES, I THINK MR.
ZUCKERBERG WOULD LIKE TO
CLARIFY SOMETHING FOR THE
RECORD AS WELL.
>> CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU.
IN RESPONSE TO CONGRESSMAN
JOHNSON'S QUESTION, I SAID I
WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE
FACEBOOK RESEARCH APP.
I WASN'T FAMILIAR WITH THE NAME
FOR IT, BUT I WANT TO BE CLEAR
THAT I DO RECALL THAT WE USED A
APP FOR RESEARCH THAT HAS SINCE
BEEN DISCONTINUED.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP
WITH HIS STAFF ON ANY MORE
DETAILS THAN HE WOULD LIKE ON
THAT.
>> THANK YOU MR. ZUCKERBERG.
THE RECORDS SHALL SO REFLECTED.
I RECOGNIZE THE DEBT GENTLE MEN
FROM COLORADO.
>> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN.
I WANT TO DIRECT A FEW
QUESTIONS TO YOU MR.
ZUCKERBERG.
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE APP
STORE AND AT DEVELOPMENT.
TAKING A STEP BACK, MY
UNDERSTANDING FROM YOUR
TESTIMONY IS THAT APPLE HAS TO
OPERATE BY THE SAME RULES THAT
THE APP DEVELOPERS OPERATE BY
IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO
ACCESS THE APP STORE.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WE HAVE 60 APPS ON THE APP
STORE.
THEY GO THROUGH THE SAME RULES
THAT THE 1.7 MILLION DO.
>> OKAY.
HERE IS WHY I ASKED THE
QUESTION.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE APP
STORE REVIEW GUIDELINES TELL
APP DEVELOPERS NOT TO SUBMIT
COPYCAT APPS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I'M NOT TOTALLY FAMILIAR,
BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE
BECAUSE WE WERE GETTING A
NUMBER OF APPS THAT WERE
ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING.
A SORT OF COOKIE CUTTER.
>> I COULD REPRESENT TO YOU
THAT WE'VE REVIEWED THE
GUIDELINES AND THEY SAY THAT
APP DEVELOPERS SHOULD HAVE
ORIGINAL IDEAS, THAT COPYCAT
IDEAS ARE NOT FAIR AND THAT
APPLES CUSTOMERS DO NOT WANT
THOSE.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APP
DEVELOPER AGREEMENT WHICH YOU
REQUIRE EVERY DEVELOPER TO
AGREE TO DOES GIVE APPLE THE
RIGHT TO COFFEE OTHER APPS.
THE QUESTION IS WHY ONE RULE
FOR THE DEVELOPERS THEY COMPETE
WITH YOU AND THE OPPOSITE RULE
FOR APPLE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT
FAMILIAR WITH THAT.
I CAN FOLLOW UP WITH YOUR
OFFICE ON IT.
>> I WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU
COULD FOLLOW UP WITH OUR
OFFICE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE
APP DEVELOPER AGREEMENT
EXPLICITLY SAYS THAT APPLE CAN
USE ANY INFORMATION THAT
INACTIVE L UPPER THE --
PROVIDES FOR ANY PURPOSE.
OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE COMPLAINTS
FROM A NUMBER OF APP DEVELOPERS
WHO HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE OUR
COMMITTEE.
WE HEARD FROM A COMPANY CALLED
TILE WHICH SAID APPLE HAD
ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION ABOUT THE APPS
DISTRIBUTED BY THE APP STORE.
GIVEN THAT, JUXTAPOSED AGAINST
THE LANGUAGE IN THE EXCLUSIVE
AGREEMENT, YOU CAN UNDERSTAND
WHY WE WOULD HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT ANTI COMPETITIVE CONDUCT.
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE RUN THE APP
STORE TO HELP DEVELOPERS, NOT
HURT THEM.
WE RESPECT INNOVATION.
IT'S WHAT OUR COMPANY IS BUILT
ON.
WE WOULD NEVER STEAL SOMEBODY'S
IP.
BUT I WILL FOLLOW UP WITH YOUR
OFFICE ON MORE DETAIL ON THIS.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT MR. COOK.
I THINK TO THE EXTENT THAT
APPLE IS GOING TO COMMIT, I
WOULD ASK MR. PICHAI SIMILAR
QUESTIONING BECAUSE THIS IS
CONSISTENT ACROSS SEVERAL
PLATFORMS, WITHIN THE DEVELOPER
AGREEMENT WHICH SAYS YOU HAVE
ACCESS TO THE DATA WHICH WILL
NOT USE IT TO REPLICATE YOUR
OWN MAP.
THAT WOULD CERTAINLY, IN MY
VIEW, THE REFLECTION OF A STEP
AWAY FROM ANY TYPE OF ANTI
COMPETITIVE CONDUCT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'LL FOLLOW UP
AND WE CAN LEARN MORE WITH
RESPECT TO THAT ISSUE.
MR. PICHAI, SIMILARLY, THERE
WAS AN ARTICLE JUST TODAY OR
YESTERDAY RATHER FROM THE
VERGE.
THE TITLE IS GOOGLE REPORTEDLY
KEEPS TABS ON USAGE OF RIVAL
ANDROID APPS TO DEVELOP
COMPETITORS.
I WILL QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE.
GOOGLE SAID THAT THE DATA
DOESN'T GIVE INFORMATION ABOUT
HOW PEOPLE BEHAVE WHILE THEY
ARE USING INDIVIDUAL APPS, BUT
IT WOULDN'T SAY WHETHER IT HAD
BEEN USED TO DEVELOP COMPETING
APPS.
FIRST, I TAKE IT YOU WOULD
CONFIRM THAT GOOGLE DOES HAVE
ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION OR COMPETITIVE
SENSITIVE INFORMATION ON
ANDROID APP DEVICES.
>> CONGRESSMAN, IF I CAN
CLARIFY THIS.
TODAY WE HAVE AN API WHICH IS
AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPERS AS
LONG AS USERS CONSENT.
THIS GIVES US SYSTEM HEALTH
METRICS.
THIS IS HOW WE CAN LAUNCH
DIGITAL FEATURES ON ANDROID.
THIS IS HOW WE UNDERSTAND WHICH
APPS ARE USING A BATTERY.
IT WILL SHOW FOR CRASHING OR
QUALITY CONTROL OR DIGITAL
WELL-BEING OR BETTER USAGE.
THIS DATA IS AVAILABLE THROUGH
A PUBLIC API AND OTHER
DEVELOPERS CAN USE IT AS LONG
AS THE USERS TO GIVE CONSENT TO
IT.
>> MR. PICHAI I JUST WANT TO
CLARIFY.
THE ARTICLE REFERS TO THIS DATA
AS SENSITIVE DATA ABOUT OTHER
APPS INCLUDING HOW OFTEN THEY
ARE OPEN AND FOR HOW LONG THEY
ARE USED.
I'M NOT ASKING HOW YOU USE THAT
INFORMATION, I'M JUST ASKING
WHETHER OR NOT THE ARTICLE IS
CORRECT.
THAT YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THAT
DATA.
>> YES, WITH USER CONSENT AND
THE APIS, WE DO.
IT'S CRITICAL FOR US TO HAVE
ACCESS TO THAT SO WE CAN
MAINTAIN, THIS IS HOW WE
UNDERSTAND AND IMPROVE
RESOURCES, USE OF APPLICATIONS
... >> UNDERSTOOD.
MY TIME IS LIMITED.
I WANT TO GET TO THIS CORE
QUESTION.
GIVEN THAT GOOGLE DOES HAVE
ACCESS TO THAT DATA, DOES
GOOGLE USE THAT DATA TO DEVELOP
COMPETING APPS?
IF YOUR ANSWER IS NO, WILL
GOOGLE COMMIT TO MAKING THE
NECESSARY CHANGES WITHIN ITS
ANDROID DEVELOPER APP
AGREEMENTS TO ENSURE THAT
DEVELOPERS HAVE THAT SENSE OF
CLARITY?
THAT, IN FACT, THE DATA WILL
NOT BE USED FOR GOOGLE TO
DEVELOP A COMPETING
APPLICATION.
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE LOOK AT
TRANS AND WE PUBLISHED A NUMBER
OF RESULTS IN THE BOOSTER.
WE TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S
HAPPENING IN THE MARKET IN
VARIOUS WAYS.
I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN ABOUT
MAKING SURE THERE IS CLARITY IN
THIS AREA AND WE WILL CONTINUE
TO INVESTIGATE.
>> I WANT TO FOLLOW VERY
QUICKLY, MISTER CHAIRMAN IF
YOU'RE WILLING.
I WANT YOU TO ANSWER THAT
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION.
DOES GOOGLE USE THAT
INFORMATION TO DEVELOP
COMPETING APPS?
I UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSES
YOU'VE DESCRIBED IN TERMS OF
HOW YOU USE THE INFORMATION.
I'M ASKING IF ONE OF THOSE IS
TO DEVELOP COMPETING APPS?
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS
EXPIRED BUT THE WITNESS MAY
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>> CONGRESSMAN, BECAUSE WE TRY
TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON
IN THE MARKET AND WE ARE AWARE
OF POPULARITY OF APPS, I WANT
TO BE ACCURATE AND MY ANSWER.
BUT IN GENERAL, THE PRIMARY USE
OF THE DATA IS TO IMPROVE THE
HEALTH OF ANDROID.
ANY DATA THAT WE GET, WE HAVE
USER CONSENT FOR IT AND WE MAKE
IT AVAILABLE THROUGH AN API TO
OTHER DEVELOPERS AS WELL.
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS
EXPIRED.
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLELADY
FROM GEORGIA.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN.
GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR SPENDING SO MUCH OF YOUR
TIME WITH US TODAY.
WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
MANY OF YOU HAVE MENTIONED JOHN
LEWIS TODAY.
I KNOW ALL MY COLLEAGUES AND I
WILL BURN CARRY ON HIS FIGHT
FOR EQUALITY.
CAN YOU COMMIT TO ENSURING
RACIAL AND GENDER EQUITY MAJOR
COMPANIES INCLUDING BLACK
LEADERSHIP AND WOMEN IN YOUR
SENIOR RANKS?
JUST A YES OR NO ANSWER PLEASE.
MR. ZUCKERBERG?
>> YES.
>> MR. COOK?
>> YES, I AM VERY PERSONALLY
COMMITTED.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. BEZOS?
>> ABSOLUTELY, YES.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. PICHAI?
>> U.S..
WE'VE MADE PUBLIC COMMITMENTS
TO THIS REGARD.
>> THANKS VERY MUCH.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN 2004 THERE
WERE DOZENS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
COMPANIES.
FACEBOOK DISTINGUISHED ITSELF
FROM COMPETITORS BY FOCUSING
SPECIFICALLY ON PRIVACY.
YOU HAVE A SHORT CLEAR PRIVACY
POLICY THAT'S JUST 950 WORDS.
IT MADE A PROMISE TO USERS, AND
I QUOTE, WE DO NOT AND WILL NOT
USE COOKIES TO COLLECT PRIVATE
INFORMATION FROM ANY USER.
YOU SAID WE WILL NOT.
THAT'S A COMMITMENT ABOUT THE
FUTURE AND THAT WAS 2004.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, TODAY, DOES
FACEBOOK USE COOKIES TO COLLECT
PRIVATE INFORMATION ON USERS?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, MY
UNDERSTANDING TO THAT IS NO.
WE ARE NOT USING COOKIES TO
COLLECT PRIVATE INFORMATION
ABOUT PEOPLE WHO USE OUR
SERVICES.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE UPHELD THAT
COMMITMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, DO YOU THINK
YOUR COMPANY WOULD BE AS
SUCCESSFUL IF IT HAD STARTED
WITH TODAY'S COOKIES POLICY IN
PLACE?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M NOT SURE
EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING
TO.
IN GENERAL, COOKIES IS NOT A
BIG PART OF HOW WE'RE
COLLECTING INFORMATION.
WE PRIMARILY USE THEM TO MAKE
SURE THAT SOMEONE CAN STAY
LOCKED IN ON THE WEB.
WE USE THEM, TO SOME DEGREE,
FOR SECURITY TO MAKE SURE THAT
YOU DON'T HAVE SOMEONE TRYING
TO LOG IN UNDER A LOT OF
DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS FOR ONE
COMPUTER OR SOMETHING LIKE
THAT.
>> MR. ZUCKERBERG, ONCE AGAIN,
YOU DO NOT USE COOKIES?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, WE DO USE
COOKIES.
YES, WE DO USE COOKIES.
>> MR. ZUCKERBERG, THE BOTTOM
LINE HERE IS THAT YOU BROKE A
COMMITMENT TO YOUR USERS.
WHO CAN SAY IF YOU MAY OR MAY
NOT DO THAT AGAIN IN THE FUTURE?
THE REALITY IS THAT FACEBOOK'S
MARKETPLACE POWER GREW AND
FACEBOOK SACRIFICED ITS USERS
POLICY.
MR. BEZOS, MY COLLEAGUES HAVE
TOUCHED ON COUNTERFEIT GOODS
AND I SHARE THEIR CONCERNS VERY
DEEPLY.
I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT STOLEN
GOODS.
MR. BEZOS, ARE STOLEN GOODS
SOLD ON AMAZON?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, NOT TO MY
KNOWLEDGE.
MORE --
THERE IS MORE THAN 1 MILLION
SELLERS, SO I'M SURE THERE HAVE
BEEN STOLEN GOODS AT TIMES.
>> REALLY MR. BEZOS?
THERE IS NOT?
>> I'M SORRY?
>> THAT SURPRISES ME.
>> WITH OVER 1 MILLION SELLERS,
I'M SURE THAT IT HAS HAPPENED.
BUT CERTAINLY, I DON'T THINK
IT'S A LARGE PART OF WHAT WE
ARE SELLING.
>> SO BASICALLY MR. BEZOS
YOU'RE SAYING YES.
>> I GUESS SO.
>> I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT
INFORMATION THAT YOU REQUIRE
FROM SELLERS TO PREVENT THE
SALE OF STONE GOODS.
DO YOU REQUIRE A REAL NAME AND
ADDRESS, YES OR NO?
>> FOR SELLERS?
>> ONCE AGAIN, DO YOU REQUIRE A
REAL NAME AND ADDRESS FROM
SELLERS?
>> I BELIEVE WE DO.
LET ME GET BACK TO YOUR OFFICE
WITH --
I'D RATHER GIVE YOU THE ACT
ACCURATE ANSWER.
I THINK WE DO.
>> YES YOU DO REQUIRE A NAME
AND ADDRESS.
DO YOU REQUIRE A PHONE NUMBER?
YES OR NO.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S
REQUIRED.
I THINK WE OFTEN HAVE IT, BUT I
DON'T KNOW.
>> SO BRIEFLY, HOW DO YOU
VERIFY THAT EACH OF THESE
PIECES OF INFORMATION IS
ACCURATE?
>> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO
YOUR QUESTION.
>> SO, YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY
PEOPLE WORK ON VERIFYING SELLER
VERIFICATION BEFORE THE SELLER
IS ALLOWED TO SELL ON AMAZON?
>> NO CONGRESSWOMAN, I DON'T.
>> I WILL ASK YOU SIR, WILL YOU
COMMIT TO REPORTING ALL REPORTS
OF COUNTERFEIT GOODS TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT?
WILL YOU TRACK LARGE-SCALE
VENDORS ORGAN --
ENGAGED IN ORGANIZED RETAIL
CRIME?
>> TO THE DEGREE THAT WE ARE
AWARE OF IT, WE WILL CERTAINLY
PURSUE IT.
IN FACT ... >> SIR, CAN YOU
MAKE A BLANKET COMMITMENT?
CAN YOU JUST MAKE A BLANKET
COMMITMENT?
WHETHER YOU ARE AWARE OF IT OR
NOT.
>> A BLANKET COMMITMENT TO WHAT?
I'M SORRY, CONGRESSWOMAN.
>> REPORTING ALL SALES OF
COUNTERFEIT GOODS TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND VICTIMS TO
TRACE LARGE-SCALE OFFENDERS
INVOLVED IN RETAIL CRIME?
>> IF WE'RE AWARE OF IT, I SEE
NO REASON WHY WE WOULD NOT
REPORT IT.
WE WANT THE CORRECTED
AUTHORITIES TO BE INVOLVED.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I YIELD BACK MY TIME.
>> THANK YOU GENTLEWOMAN.
I WANT TO THANK THE WITNESSES
FOR OUR TESTIMONY TODAY AND
COLLEAGUES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE.
WE ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE
EXTRAORDINARY WORK OF OUR TEAM
LED BY SLATE BOND, LENA KHAN,
AMANDA LEWIS, PHIL BARON BROOKE,
AND A LION HEART AND JOE VENUE
I HAVE DONE AN EXTRAORDINARY
JOB THROUGHOUT THIS
INVESTIGATION AND PREPARATION
FOR THE HEARING TODAY.
TODAY, WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY
TO HEAR FROM THE
DECISION-MAKERS FROM FOR THE
MOST POWERFUL COMPANIES IN THE
WORLD.
THIS HEARING HAS MADE ONE FACT
CLEAR TO ME, THESE COMPANIES AS
THEY EXIST TODAY HAVE A
MONOPOLY POWER.
SOME NEED TO BE BROKEN UP, ONLY
TO BE PROPERLY REGULATED AND
HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
WE NEED TO ENSURE THE ANTI
TRUST LAWS FIRST WRITTEN MORE
THAN A CENTURY GO WORK AND THE
DIGITAL AGE.
WHEN THESE LAWS WERE WRITTEN,
MONOPOLISTIC WERE MEN NAMED
ROCKEFELLER AND TRYING TO GET.
THEIR CONTROL OF THE
MARKETPLACE ALLOWED THEM TO DO
WHATEVER IT TOOK TO CRUSH
INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES AND
EXPAND THEIR OWN POWER.
THE NAMES HAVE CHANGED, BUT THE
STORY IS THE SAME.
TODAY, THE MEN ARE NAMED
ZUCKERBERG, KOCH PICHAI AND
BEZOS.
ONCE AGAIN, THEIR CONTROL OF
THE MARKETPLACE ALLOWS THEM TO
DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO CRUSH
INDEPENDENT BUSINESS AND EXPAND
THEIR OWN POWER.
THIS MUST END.
THIS SUBCOMMITTEE WILL NEXT
PUBLISHED A REPORT ON THE
FINDINGS OF OUR INVESTIGATION.
WE WILL PROPOSE SOLUTIONS TO
THE PROMISE BEFORE US.
AS A GREAT AMERICAN SUPREME
COURT LUIS BRANDEIS ONCE SAID,
WE MUST MAKE OUR CHOICE.
WE MAY HAVE DEMOCRACY OR WE MAY
HAVE WEALTH CONCENTRATED IN THE
HANDS OF A FEW, BUT WE CAN'T
HAVE BOTH.
THIS CONCLUDES TODAY'S HEARING.
THANK YOU AGAIN TO OUR
WITNESSES FOR ATTENDING.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, ALL MEMBERS
WILL HAVE FIVE LEGISLATIVE DAYS
TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL WRITTEN
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES OR
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS FOR THE
RECORD.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THIS HEARING
IS ADJOURNED.
