 
TO ORDER.
WE WELME EVERYONE TO TODAY'S 
HEARING ON ONLINE PLATFORND 
MARKET POWER PART SIX, EXAMINING
THE DONANCE OF AMAZON, APPLE, 
FACEBOOK, AND GOOGLE.
BEFORE WE BEGI I'D LIKE TO 
REMIND MEMBERS WE HAVE 
ESTABLISHED AN EIL ADDRESS AND
DISTRIBUTION LIST DEDICATED TO 
CIRCULATING EXHIBITIONS, 
TIONS, OR OTHER MATERIALS.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT 
MATERIALS, PLEASE SEND TM TO 
THE EMAIL ADDSS THAT HAS BEEN 
PREVIOUS DISTRIBUTED TO YOUR 
OFFICE AND WE WILL CIRCULATE THE
MATERIALS TO MEMBERS A STAFF 
AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.
I WOD ALSO REMIND ALL MEMBERS 
THAT GUIDANCE FROM THE OFFICE OF
THE ATTENDING PHYSICIANS STATE 
THAT PHYSICIAN COVERIN ARE 
REQUIRED F ALL MEETINGS IN AN 
ENCLOSED SPACE SUCH AS COMMITTEE
HEARINGS.
I EXPECT ALL MEMBERS ON BOTH 
SIDES OF THE AISLE TO WEAR A 
MASK EXCEPT WHEN YOURE SPEAK.
I WILL RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR AN 
OPENING STATEMENT.
MORE THAN A YEAR AGO THIS 
SUBCOMMITTEE LAUNCHED AN 
INSTIGATION INTO DIGITAL 
MARKETS.
OUTWO OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN TO 
DOCUMENT COMPETITION PROBLEM IN
THE DIGITAL ECONOMY AND TO EVAL 
ANTITRUST FRAMEWORK IS ABLE TO 
PROPERLY ADDRESS THEM N. 
SEPTEMBER 2019, THE CIRMAN AND
RANKING MEMBERS OF THE FULL 
COMMITTEE AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE 
ISSUED SWEEPING BIPARTISAN 
REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION FOR THE
FOUR FIRMS THAWILL AT TODAY'S 
HEARING.
SINCE THEN, WE'VE RECEID 
MILLIONS OF PAGES FROM EVIDENCE 
FROM THESE FIRMS AS WELL AS 
DOCUMES AND SUBMISSIONS TO 
MORE THAN 100 MARKE 
PARTICIPANTS.
WE ALSO CONDUCTED HUNEDS OF 
HOURS OF INTERVIEWS.
WE HAVE HELD FIVE HEARINGS TO 
EXAMINE THE AFFECTS ON 
INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHI
A FREE AND DIVERSE PRESS, AND I 
ONLINE MARKETPLACE.
WE'VE HELD 17 BRIEFINGS AND 
ROUND TABLES WITHVER 35 
EXPERTS A STAKEHOLDERS IN 
SUPPORT OFUR WORK.
THISNVESTIGATION HAS BEEN BIPAR.
IT'S BEEN AN HONOR TO WORK 
ALONGSIDE MY COLLEAGUE, 
CONGRESSMAN AS WELL AS THE 
FORMER RKING MEMBER OF THE 
FULL COMMITTEE, CONGRESSMAN DOUG
COLLINS.
WE WORKED CLOSELYITH ALL 
MEMBERS ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE AND HAVE
TAKEN THIS WORK SERIOUSLY AND 
STUDIEDHESE ISSUES CAREFULLY.ASN
BUCK RECENTLY COMMENTED A I 
QUOTE, THIS IS THE MOST 
BIPARTISAN EFFORT THAT I'VE BEEN
INVOLVED WITH IN FIVE D A HALF
YEARS OF CONGRESS, END QUOTE.
THE PURPOSE O TODAY'S HEARING 
IS TO EXAMINE THE DOMINANCE O 
AMAZON, APPLE, FACEBOOK, D 
GOOGLE.
AMAZON RUNS THEARGEST ONLINE 
MARKETPLACE IN AMERICA, 
PTURING 70% OF ALL ONLINE 
MARKETPLACE SALES.
IT OPERATES ACROSS AAST ARRAY 
OF BUSINESSES FROM CLOUD 
COMPUTING AND MOVIE PRODUION 
TO TRANSPORTATION LOGISTICS AND 
SMALL BUSINESS LENDING.
AMAZON'S MARKET VALUATION HIT 
$1.5 TRILLION, MORE TH THAT OF
WALMART, TARGET, SALESFORCE, 
IBM, AY, AND ETSY COMBINED.
APPLE IS A DOMINANT PROVIDER OF 
SMARTPHONES WI MORE THAN 100 
MILLION USERS ALON
IN ADDITION TO HARDWARE, APPLE 
SES FINANCIAL SERVICES, MEDIA,
AND GAMES.
FACEBOOK IS THE WORLD'S LGEST 
PROVIDER OF SOCIAL NETWORKIN 
SERVICES WITH A BUSINESSODEL 
THAT SELLS DIGITAL ADS.
DESPITE A LITANY OF PRIVACY 
SCANDALS AND RECORD-BREAKING 
FINES,ACEBOOK CONTINUES TO ENJO 
$18 LLION LAST YEAR ALONE.
LASTLYGOOGLE IS THE WORLS 
LARGEST ONLINE SEARCH GINE, 
CAPTURING MORE THAN 90% OF 
ARCHING ONLINE.IT CONTROLS KEY D
DIGITAL AD MARKETS AND ENJOYS 
MORE THAN 1 BILLION USERS ACROSS
SIX PRODUCTS, INCLUDING 
BROWRS, SMARTPHONES, AND 
DIGITAL MAPS.
PRIOR TO THEOVID-19 PANDEMIC, 
THESE CORPORATIONS AEADY STOOD
OUT AS TITAN IN OUR ECONOMY.
IN THE WAKE OF VID-19, 
HOWEVER, THEY'RE LIKELY TO 
EMERGE STRONGER AND MORE POWERF.
AS AMERICAN FAMILIES SHIFT MORE 
OF THE WORK, SHOPPING, AND 
MMUNICATION ONLINE, THESE 
GIANTS STAND TO PROFIT.
LOCALLY OWNED BUSINESSES 
MEANWHILE, MOM AND POP STORES ON
MAIN STREET FACE AN ECOMIC 
CRISIS UNLIKE ANY IN RECENT 
HISTORY.
AS HARD AS IT IS TO BELIEVE, 
IT'S POSSIBLE OUR ECONOMY WERE 
EMERGE MORE CONCENTRATED THAN
BEFORE.
THESE COMPANIES SERVE AS 
CRITICAL ARTERIES OF COMMERCE 
ANDCOMMUNICATIONS.
BECAUSE THESE COMPAES ARE SO 
CENTRAL TO OUR LIFE, THEIR 
BUSINESS PRACTICES AND DECISIONS
HAVE A OUTSIZEDFFECT ON OUR 
ECONOMY AND DEMOCRACY.
ANY SINGLE ACTION BY ONE OF 
THESE COMPANS CAN AFFECT 
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF US IN 
PROFOUND AND LASTING WAYS.
ALTHOUGH THESE FOUR CORPORATIONS
DIFFER IN IMPOANT, MEANINGFUL 
WAYS, WE OBSERVE CMON PARTNERS
AND COMPETITION PROBLEMS OVER 
THE T COURSE OF THIS 
VESTIGATION.
FIRST, EACH PLATFORM IS A BOTTLE
NE FOR A KEY CHANNEL OF 
STRIBUTION WHERE THEY CONTROL 
ACCESS TO INFORTION OR A 
MAETPLACE, THESE PLATFORMS 
HAVE THE INCTIVE AND ABILITY 
TO EXPLOIT THISPOWER.
THEY CAN CHARGE EXORBITANT FEES.
SECOND, EACH PLATFORM USES ITS 
CONTROL OVE DIGITAL INFRASTRUCT 
COMPANIES, THAT I SHALL GROWTH, 
BUSINESS ACTIVITY ANDHETHER 
THEY MIGHT POSE A COMPETITIVE 
THREAT.
EACH PLATFORM HAS USEDHIS DATA
TO PROTECTTS POWER BY EITHE 
BUYING, COPYG, OR CUTTING OFF 
ACCESS FOR ANY ACTUAL  
POTENTIAL RIVAL.
THIRD, THESE PLATFORMS ABUSE 
THEIR CONTROL OVER CURRENT 
TECHNOLOGIES TOXTEND THEIR 
POWE WHETHER IT'S THROUGH 
SELF-PREFENCING, PREDATORY 
PRICING, OR REQUIRING USERS TO 
BUY ADDITIONAL PDUCTS THE 
DOMINANT PLATFORMS HAVE WIELDED 
THEIR POWER IN DESTRUCTIVE, 
HARMFUL WAYS IN ORDER TO EXPAND.
AT TODAY'S HEARING, WLL 
EXAMINE HOW EACH COMPA HAS 
USED THIS PLAYBOOK TO ACHIEVE 
AND MAINTAIN DINANCE AND HOW 
THEIR POWER SHAPES AND AFFTS 
OUR DAILY LIVES.WHY DOES THIS M?
MANY OF E PRACTICES USED BY 
THESE COMPAES HAVE HARMFUL 
ECONOMIC EFFECTS.
THEY DISCOURAGE 
ENTREPRENEURSHIP, DESTROY JOBS, 
HIKE COSTS,ND DEGRADE QUALITY.
SIMPLYUT, THEY HAVE TOO MUCH 
POWER.
TH POWER STAVES OFF NEW FORMS 
OF COMPETITION, EATIVITY, AND 
INVATION.
ILE THESE DOMINANT FORMS MAY 
PRODUCE INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS, 
THEIR DOMINANCE IS KILLING SMALL
BUSINESSES, MANUFACTURING, AND 
OVERALL DYNAMISM THAT ARE THE 
ENGINES OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.
SEVERAL OF THESE FIRMS ALSO 
HARVEST AND ABUSE PEOPLE'S DA 
TO SELL ADS F EVERYTHING FROM 
NEWOOKS TO DANGEROUS SO-CAED
MIRACLECURES.
WHEN EVEDAY AMERICANS LEARNED 
HOW MUCH O THEIR DATA IS BNG 
MINED, THEY CAN'T RUN AWAY FAST 
ENOU.
BUT IN MANY CASES, THERE IS NO 
CAPE FROM THE SURVEILLANCE 
BECAUSEHERE'S NO ALTERNATIVE.
PEOPLE ARETUCK WITHAD 
OPTIONS.
OPEN MARKETS ARE PREDICATED ON S
PEOPLE, CONSUMERS, WORKERS AND 
BUSINESS PARTNERS WILL CHOOSE 
ANOTHER TION.
WE'RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THAT 
CHOICE IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE.
IN CLOSING, I'M CONFIDENT THAT 
ADDRESSINGHE PROBLEMS WE SEE 
IN THESE MARKETS WILL LEAD TO A 
STRONGER, MORE VIBRATE ECONOMY 
BECAUSE CONCENTRATED ECOMIC 
POWER ALSO LEADS TO CONCENTRATED
POLICAL POWER, THIS 
INVESTIGATN ALSO GOES TO THE 
HEART OF WHERE THE W"WE" AS A 
PEOPLEOVERNOR OURSELVES OR 
WHETHER WE LET OURSELVES BE 
GOVERNED BY PRIVATE MONOPOLIES.
CONCENTRATED POLITICAL CONTROL 
ARE COMPATIBLE WITH DEMOCRATIC
IDEALS.
WHEN THEY WERE CONFRONTED IN THE
PAST, OIL TIECONS, AT&T OR 
MICROSOFT, WE TOOK ACTION TO 
ENSURE NO PRIVATE CORPORATI 
CONTROLS OURCONOMY OR OUR 
DEMOCRAC
WE FACE SIMILAR CHALLGES 
TODAY.
AS GATEKEEPERS OF THE DIGITAL 
ECONY, THESE PLATFORMS ENJOY 
THE POWER TO PICK WINNERS D 
LOSERS, TO SHAKE DOWN SMALL 
BUSINESSES AND ENRI THEMSELVES
BY CHOKING OFF COMPETITORS
THEIR ABILITY TO DICTATE TERMS, 
CALLHE SHOTS, UP END ENTIRE 
SECTORS AND INSPIRE FEAR 
REPRENT THE POWERS OF A 
PRIVATE GOVERNMENT.
OUR FOUNDERS WOULD NOT BOW 
BEFORE A KING, NOR SHOULD WE BOW
BEFORE THE EMPERORS OF THE
ONLINE ECONOMY.
WITH THAT, I NOW RECOGNIZE THE 
RANKING MEMBER OF THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE, MR. CILLINE FOR.
>> A MEMORANDUM SERVICE FOR JOHN
LEWIS ON MONDAY REQUIRED OUR 
ATTENTION.
HOWEVER, THIS HEARING IS VITAL 
TO OUR OVERSIGH WORK AND I 
APPRECIATE YOUR FLEXIBILITY.
THROUGHOUT MY LONG TIME IN 
CONGRESS, I HAVE PRIORITIZED 
OVERSITE IS ONE OF OUR 
RESPONSIBILITIES, TO 
RIODICALLY REVIEW IF 
EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR LAWS, AND I
THINIT'S A GOOD AND TIMEL 
THING WE ARE NOW TURNING OUR 
ATTENTION TO TECHNOLOGICAL 
INNOVATIONS WHICH BNGS US TO 
ALL OF YOU COMPANIES.
EXTRAORDINARILYELIANCE 
AMERICANS HAVE ON TECHNOLOGICAL 
INNOVATIONS AND THESE EXPECTED
AND UNPRECEDENTED TIMES, YOUR 
COMPANIES HAVE PRODED 
INNOVATIONS THROUGH OUR NATION'S
CREATING A MYRIAD O OUR DAILY 
NEEDS.
THE DELIVERY OF GROCERIES, 
VIUAL BUSINESS FOR DOCTOR 
CONNECTING SOCIALLY DISTANT 
FAMILIES, KEEPING OUR SMALL AND 
LARGE BUSINESSES CONNECT.
WITH TT RESPONSIBILITY COMES 
AN INCREASED SCRUTINY OF YOUR 
DOMINANCE IN THE MARKETPLA.
I WANT TO REITERATE SOMETNG I 
SAID THROUGHOUT THIS 
INVEIGATION, BEING BIG IS NOT 
INHERENTLY BAD.
QUITE THE OPPOSITE.
IN AMERICA YOU SHOULD BE 
REWARDED FOR SUCCESS.
WE'RE HERE TO BTER UNDERSTAND 
THE ROL YOUR COMPANIES HAVE IN 
THE DIGIT MARKETPLACE AND 
IMPORTANTLY, THE EFFECT THEY 
HAVE ON CONSUMERS AND THE PUBLIC
AT LARGE.
YOU L
YOU LEAD SOME OF TODAY'S MOST 
POWERFUL COMPANIES AND WHAVE 
AN INTEREST IN WHAT YOUR 
COMPANIES DO WITH AT 
ACCUMULATED POR.
WILLIAMSONNOW THAT THE TECH 
MARKETPLE IS DRIVEN BY DATA, 
SO IT FOLLOWS THAT OSE WHO 
CONTROLHE DATA IN ESSENCE 
CONTROTHE MARKETPLACE.
THERE ARE BROADER QUESTIONS 
SURROUNDG DATA, WHO OWNS THE 
DATA, WHAT RESPONSIBILITIES TO 
COMPANIES HAVE TO SHARE WITH 
THEIR CUSTOMERS OR THEIR 
COMPETITORS, WHAT IS THEAIR 
MARKET VALUE O THAT DATA, IS 
THERE ANYTHING MONABOUT REQUIRI 
IS DATA AND WHAT ABOUT 
MONETIZING IT.
THESE ARE COMPLEX ISSUES THAT 
EVEN YOUR OWN COMPANIES ARE
WRESTLING TH IN THE CURRENTLY 
TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE, AND THE
ANSWERS TO WHICH WE OWE THE 
AMERICAN CONSUMERS.
SINCE THE TECH INVESTIGATION 
BEGAN, WE'VE HEARD RUMBLINGS 
FROM MANY WHO WERE QUICK TO SAY 
YOUR SUCCESSFUL COMPANIES HAVE 
GROWN TOO LARGE.
IT SEEMS THOSE COMPLAINTS HE 
GOTTEN EVEN LOUDER.
WHILE I FIND THESEOMPLAINTS 
INFORMATIVE, I DON'T PLAN ON 
LITIGATING EACH OF ESE 
COMPLAINTS TODAY.
ANTITRUST LAW AND THE CONSUMER 
WELFARE STANDARD HAS SERVED THIS
COUNTRY WELL FOR OVER A CENTURY.
THE LAWS HAVE PROVIDED THE 
AMEWORK AND CREATIVY TO MAKE
WAY FOR SOME OF OUR MOST
SUCCESSFUL AND INNOVATIVE 
COMPANIES.
I WILL BE THE FIRST TO HIGHLIGHT
THAT.
WEVER, AS THE BUSINESS 
LANDSCAPE INVOLVES, WE ST 
ENSURE THAT OUR EXISTING 
ANTITRUST LAWS ARE APPLIED TO
MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR COUNTRY 
AND ITS CONSUMERS.
I SHARE THE CONCERN THAT MARKET 
DOMINANCE IN THE DITAL SPACE 
IS RIPE FOR ABUS PARTICULARLY 
WHEN IT COMES TO FREE SPEECH.
AS WE KNOW, COMPANIES LIKE 
FACEBOOK, GOOGLE'SOUTUBE AND 
TWITTER HAVE BECOME THE PUBLIC 
SQUARE OF TODAY WHERE POLICAL 
DEBATE UNFOLDS IN REAL TIME.
BUT REPORT THAT DESCENDING 
VIEWS, OFTEN CONSERVATIVE VIEWS,
ARE TARGETED OR CSORED IS 
TROUBLING.
CONSERVATIVES ARE OUR CONSUMERS 
TO AND THEY NEED THE 
PROTECTION OF THE TITRUST 
LAWS.
THE POWER TO INFLUENCE DEBATE 
CARRIES WITH IT REMARKABLE 
RESPONSIBITIES.
SO LET THE FACTS BE OUR GUIDE 
HERE.
YOUR COMPANIES ARE LARGE, THAT'S
NOT A PROBLEM.YOUR COMPANIES AR.
THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM EITHER.
BUT I WANT TO LEAVE HERE TODAY 
WITH A MORE COMPLETE PICTURE OF 
HOW YOUR INDIVIDL COMPANIES 
USE YOUR SIZE, SUCCESS, AND 
POWER AND WHAT IT MEANS TO THE 
AMERICAN CONSUMER.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY 
TIME
>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.
NOW THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE 
DISTINGUISHED CHAMAN OF THE 
FULL COMPEMITTEE, MR. NADLER, F 
HIS OPENING STATEMENT. 
 THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WANT TO THANK YOU, RANKING 
MEMBER SENSENBRENNER AND THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSOR THE 
TREMENDOUS EFFORT YOUUT TO 
THIS INVESTIGATION.
I APPRECIATE YOUR CLING THIS 
HEARINGODAY SO THAT WE CAN 
HEARIRECTLY FROM THE LEADERS 
OF AMAZON, APPLE, FACEBOOK, AND 
GOOGLE, AND I LOOK FORWARDO AN
IMPORTANT DIALOGUE.
TODAY IT IS EFFECTIVELY 
IMPOSSIBLE TO USE THE INTERNET 
WITHOUT USING IN ONEAY OR 
ANOTHER THE SERVICES OF THESE 
FOUR COMPANIES.
I LONGED BELIEVEDITH THOMAS 
JEFFERSON AND LOUIS BRANDEIS THE
CONCENTRATION OF POWER IN MY 
FORM, EMS ECONOMIC OR POLITICAL 
POWER, IS DANGEROUS TO A 
DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.
THAT IS WHY WE MUST EXAMINE
THESE AND OTHER COMPANI THAT 
PLAY A DOMINANT ROLE IN OUR 
ECONOMY AND IN OUR SOCIETY AND 
ENSURE THAT OUR ANTITRUST LS 
PRESERVES A HEALTHY MARKETPLACE.
THESE PRINCIPLES HAVE GUIDE 
THIS COMPETE'S YEAR-LONG 
INVESTIGATION INTO COMPETITION 
IN DIGITAL MARKETS, A THEY ARE
THE LENS THROUGH WCH 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  
COMMERCE.
FROM PROVIDING THE DMOND IN 
SEARCH PLATFORM RETAIL 
PLATFORM, AND ONLINE MSAGING 
PLATFORM TO PROVIDING THE 
UNDERLYING MAPPING SERVICES AND 
CLOUD COMPUTING OWHICH 
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER 
BUSINESSES RELY, TSE DOMINANT 
PLATFOS NOW COMPRISE THE 
ESSENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE
21st CENTURY.
BY VIRTUE OF CONTROLLING THE 
INFRASTRUCTURE, TH HAVE ACCESS
TO MARKETS.
IN SOME BASIC WAYS THE PROBLEM 
 NOT UNLIKE WHAT WE FACED 130 Y 
TRANSFORMED AMERICAN LIFE, BOTH 
THALSO CREATING A KEY CHOKE HOL 
THE RAROAD MONOPOLIES COULD 
EXPLOIT.
THEY CHARGED LLS, THEY 
DISCRIMINATED AMONG FARMERS, 
PIING WINNERS AND LOSERS 
ACROSS THECONOMY, AND BY 
EXPANDING INTO LINES OF BUSINESS
THAT COMPETED DIRECTLY WITH 
PRODUCERS, THEY COULD USE THEIR 
DONANCE IN TRANSPORTATION TO 
FAVOR THEIR OWN SERVICES
THESE TACTICS BY THE RAILROADS 
SPURRED FURY ANDESPAIR ACROSS 
THE COUNTRY.
CONGRESS INITIATED 
INVEIGATIONS TO DOCUMENT THESE
PROBLEMS AND OUTLAWED THESE 
ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES IN 
THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY AND OTHER 
INDUSTRIES DOMINATED BY 
UNRELATED MONOPOLIES AND 
TRUSTS.
IMPORTANTLY, CONGRESSIONAL 
OVERSIGHT DURING THIS PERIOD 
DIDN'T PREVENT THE ARRIVAL OF 
NEW TECHNOLOGY OR HUMAN 
PROGRESS.
INSTEAD, CONGRESS RECOGNIZED 
THAT THESE POWERFUL NEW 
TECHNOLOES HAD RESHAPED THE 
BALANCE OF POWER IN OUR ECONOMY
AND THAT IT WAS THE ROLEF 
CONGRESS TO ENSURE THAT THE NEW 
MONOLIZES COULD NOT ABUSE 
THEIR POWER.
TODAY THE ECONOMY POSES SIMILAR 
CHALLENGES.
WHILE THE UNDERLYING TECHNOLOGY 
IS DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT, OF 
COURSE, NEW DIGITAL 
INTERMEDIARIES HAVE THE ABILITY 
TO CONTROL ACCESS TO CRITICAL 
MARKETS.
IF Y'RE AN INDEPENDENT 
MERCHANT, DEVELOPER, OR CONTENT 
PRODUCER, YOU ARE INCREASINGLY 
RIGHT NOW ON THESE POWERFUL 
INTERM
INTERMEDIATE 
INTERMEDIARIES.
THE FACT THAT SOME COMPANIES 
HAVE SHARED WITH THE COMMITTEE 
OVER THE PAST YEAR DURING TH 
INVEIGATION.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S CURNT 
REVIEW OF COMPETITION IN THE 
DIGITALARKETPLACE TANS LONG 
TRADITION OF THIS COMMITTEE OF 
OVERSIGHT OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS 
D OUR ECONOMY.
FROM THE DAYS OF CHAIRMAN 
EMANUEL SELLER, THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND ITS 
ANTITRT SUBCOMMITTEE HAVE 
CONDUCTED CAREFUL INQUIRIES INTO
INDUSTRIAL SECTORS SHOWING 
CONSOLIDATION AND 
ANTI-COMPETITIVE CONDUCT.
THIS HAS CTINUED ON A 
BIPARTISAN BASIS OVER THE YEARS.
AS A 10 REPORT FROM THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MONOPOLY POWER 
DESCRIBED, QUOTE, IT IS THE 
PRINCE OF THIS SUBCOMMITTEE TO
INVESTIGATE FACTORS WHICH TENDED
TO ELIMINA COMPETITION, 
STRENGTHEN MONOPOLIES, INJURE 
ALL BUSINESSES OR PROMOTE UNDO
YOU CCENTRATE OF ECONOMIC
POWER, TO ASCERTAIN THE FACTS 
AND MAKE RECOMNDATIONS BASED 
ON THOSE FINDINGS.
FOLLOWING IN THIS PROUD 
TRADITION, OUR INVESTIGATING HAS
HELD HERE GOES WIT INDUSTRY AND
GOVERNMENT WITNESSES, 
CONSULTATIS WITH SUBJECT 
TTER EXPERTS, AND A CAREFUL 
AND AT TIMES PAINSTAKING REVIEW 
OF LARGE VOLUMES O EVIDENCE 
PROVIDED BY INDUSTRY SKPARPTS 
REGULATORS.
WHILE ULTIMATELY IT IS THE 
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ANTITRUST 
ENFORCEMEN AGENCIES TO ENFORCE 
THE LAW, CONGRESSAS AN 
OBLIGATION TO ASSESS WHETHER 
EXISTING ANTITRUST LAWS AND 
COMPETITN POLICIES AND THE 
WILL TO ENFORCE THOSE LAWS AND 
POLICIES ARE ADEQUATE T ADDRESS
E COMPETITION ISSUES FACING 
OUR COUNTRY AND TO TAKE ACTION 
IF THEY ARE FIND TO BE LACKING.
GIVEN DOMINANT RE THEY PLA IN
OUR ECONOMY AND SOCIETY, IT IS 
ONLY REASONABLE THAT OUR CAREFUL
EXAMINATION OF THE ANTRUST 
LAWS BEGIN WITH THEM.
I APPRECIATE THE PARTICIPATION 
OF ALL OF OUR WITNESSES TODAY.
THE INVESTIGATION WOULD NOT BE 
COMPLETE.
INDEEDT HAS HARDLY BEGUN 
WITHOUT HEARING DIRECTLY FM 
THE CISION-MAKERS OF THESE 
COMPANIES.
I LOOK FORWARD TO THEIR 
TESTIMONY AND TO THE DAY'S 
DISCUSSIONS.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY 
FULL TIME. 
 I THANK THE GENTLEMAN AND I 
NOW RECOGNIZE THEANKING MEMBER
OF THE FULL COMMITTEE, THE 
GENTLEMA FROM OHIO, MR. JORDAN,
FOR HIS OPENING STATEMENT. 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHRMAN.
I WANT TO THANK THE RANKING 
MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, MR. 
SENSENBRENNER.
I'M T SURE HOW MANY MOR
MEETINGS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IN 
THIS CONGRESS, BUT I WAN TO 
THANK JIM FOR THE CONSTITUENTS 
OF HIS DISTRICT IN WISCONSIN FOR
THIS MANY YEARS A FOR THE WORK
HE'S DONE FOR THIS ENTIRE 
COMMITTEE.I'LL JUST CUT TO THE .
BIG TECH IS OUT TO GET 
NSERVATIVES.
THAT'S NOT A HUNCH, THAT'S A 
FACT.
JULY 20th, 2020, GOOGLE TROOUFZ 
HOME PAGES OF BREITBART AND THE 
DAILY COLLAR.
JUST LAST NIGHT WE LEARNED 
GOOGLE HAS CENSURED SO MUCH, 
TRFIC HAS DECLINED 99%.
JUNE 6th, GOOGLE BANS THE 
FEDERALIST.
APRIL, GOOGLE AND YOUTUBE 
ANNOUNCE A POLICY CENSURING THE 
CONTENT THAT CONFLICTS WITH THE 
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WORLD 
HEALTH ORGANIZATION.
AN ORGANIZATION THAT LIED TO US,
THAT SHIELDED CHINA.
IF YOU CTRADICT SOMETHING THEY
SAY, THEY CAN SAY WHATEVE THEY 
WANT.
THEY CAN LIE FOR CHINA.
THEY CAN SHIELD FOR CHINA.
YOU Y SOMETHING AGAINST THEM, 
YOU GET CENSURED.
JUNE 29, 2020, AEMGZ BANS 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACCOUNT ON 
TWIT AFTER HE RAISES CONCERNS 
ABOUT DEFUNDING THE POLICE.
JUNE 4t 2020, AMAZON BANS A 
BOOK CRITICAL OF THE CORONAVUS
LOCKDOWNS WRITTEN BY A 
CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR.
MAY 27th, 2020, AMAZON SMILE 
WON'T LET YOU GIVE TO THE FAMILY
RESEARCH COUNL, BUT YOU CAN 
GIVE TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD.
FACEBOOK, JUNE 19th, 2020, TAKES
DOWN POSTS FROM PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
NOVEMBER 1st, 2018,ACEBOOK 
SILENCES A PRO-LIFE 
ORGANIZATION'S ADVERTISEMENT.
FORMER FACEBOOK EMPLOYEES AIT 
FACEBOOK ROUTINELY SUPPRESSES 
CONSERVAVE VIEWS.
AND I HAN'T EVEN MENTIONED 
TWITTER WHO WE ACTUALLY INVITED,
MR. CHAIRMAN.
WE ASKED FOR YOU GUY TO INVITE 
HIM AS ONE OF OUR WITNESSES.
YOU GUYS SAID NO.
I HAVEN'T EVEN MENTIONED THEM.
TWO YEARS AGO THEY SHADOW BANNE.
FOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WERE 
SHADOW BANNED TWO YEA AGO.
435 IN THE HOUSE, ONLY FOUR GET 
SHADOW BANNED.
WHAT DID MR. DORY TELL US?
OH, IT WAS JUST A GLITCH IN OUR 
ALGORITHM.
ISKED HIM WHAT DID YOU PUT, 
THE NAMES GATES, NUNES, JORDAN?
IF HAD A NIBBLING FOR EVERY 
TIME I HEARD IT WAS JUST A 
GLITCH, I WOULDN'T BE AS WEALTHY
AS OUR WITNESSES, BUT I'BE 
DOING ALL RIGHT.
WE'VE HEARD TT EXCUSE TIME AND
TIME AGAIN, MAY 28th, TWITTER CT
ON THE RIOTS IN MINNEAPOLIS.JUN 
CENSURES THE PRESIDENT SAYING 
HE'LL ENFORCE THE RULE OF LAW 
AGAINST ANY AUTONOMOUS ZONE IN 
WASHINGTON, D.C.
THE PRESIDENT TWEET THAT HE'S 
NO GOING TO FIND ONE IN 
WASHINGT, D.C., NOPE, YOU 
CAN'T DO TH.
YOU GET BAED, YOU GET 
CENSUREDDOZENS OF EXAMPLES -- 
I FORGOT ONE.
I FORGOT ONE.
JUST LAST WEEK JULY 21st, HERE'.
THE LEADER OF IRAN, THE ISLAMICM
THE LARGEST STATE SPONSOR OF 
TERRORISM, TWITTER ALLOWS THIS 
TWEET.
QUOTE, THE IAMIC REPUBLIC OF 
IRAN WILL NEVER FORGET THE 
MARTYRDOM OF SOLEIMANI AND WILL 
DEFINITELY STRIKE A RECROCAL 
BLOW IN THE UNITED STATES.
SO YOU CAN THEN THE CITIZENS OF 
THIS GREAT COUNTRY, THE LEADER 
OF THE LARGEST STE SPONSOR OF 
TERRORM, THAT'S JUST FINE.
BUT ALL THE PRESIDENT SAYS HE'S 
NOT GOING TO ALLOW SOME 
AUTONOMOUS ZONE IN D.C. AND HE 
GETS -- HE GETS CEURED.
ALL KINDS OF EXAMPLES,OST OF 
THEM FROM THIS AR, AND THAT'S 
WHAT'S, I THK, CRITICAL FOR US
ALL TO UNDERSTAND.
MOST OF THEM FROM THIS YEAR, AN 
ELECTION YE, AND THAT'S WHAT 
CONCERNS M ANDO MANY 
AMERICANS BECAUSE WE SAW WHAT
GOOGLE DID IN 2016.
WE ALL KNOW ABOUT T EMAIL THE 
DAY AFTER THE ELECTION WHERE TOP
EXECUTIVES AT GOOGLE EMAIL CHAIN
WHERE THEY TALKED ABOUT T 
SILENT DONATION GOOGLE MADE TO 
THE CLINTON CPAIGN.
THANK GOODNESS IT ONE POINT 
ENOUGH AND IN SPITE OF THEIR 
EFFORTS, PRESIDENT TRUMP WON
BUT WE'RE 97 DAYS BEFORE AN 
ELECTION AND THE POWER AS THE 
PREVIOUS CHAIRMAN AND RANKING 
MEMBER HAVE SAID, THEOWER 
THESE COMPANIESAVE TO IMPACT 
WHAT HAPPENS DURIN AN ELECTION 
WHAT WORKS AMECAN CITIZENS GET
TO SEE PRIOR TO THEIR VOTING IS 
PRETTY DARN IMPORTANT
LOOK, ALL THINK THE FREE 
MARKET'S GREAT
WE THINK COMPETITION IS GREAT.
BUT WHAT'S NOT GREAT IS 
CENSURING PEOPLE, CENSURING 
CONSERVATIVES AND TRYING TO IMP.
IF I DOESN'T E, THERE HAS TO 
BE CONSEQUENCES.
THERE HAVE TO BE CONSEQUENCES.
THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT 
AND I THINK WHAT SO MANY 
AMERICANS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT.
SO I LOOK FORWARD THEARING IF 
OUR WITNESSES, MR.HAIRMAN.
BEFORE I YIELD BACK, WHAVE A 
COLLEAGUE.
I WOULD ASKNANIMOUS CONSENT 
THAT MR. JOHNSON, THE RANKING 
MEMBER OF THE CONSTITUTION 
SUBCOMMITT BE ALLOWED TO 
PARTICIPATE IN TODAY HEARING, 
WHICIS OUR CUSTOMARY PRACTICE
FOR SUBCOMMITT. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD OBJECT.
>> OBJTION IS HEARD.
AND NOWTIVE PLEASURE OF --
>> WITNESSES?
WHY ARE WE NOT ALLOWING -- IT IS
CUSTOMY. 
>> THERE WAS A UNANIMOUS CONSENT
QUESTION, OBJECTION WAS HEARD,  
WITNESS. 
>> THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED --
>> IT IS NOW MY PLEASURE TO 
INTRODUCE TODAY'S WITNESS.
OU FIRST WITNESSS JEFF 
BEZOS -- MR. JORDAN, I HAVE THE 
TEAM. 
>> WE'RE TALKING AUT PEOPLE'S 
LIBERTIES HERE.WE HAVE THE RANK-
>> MR. JORDAN, YOU ME A 
REQUEST, OBJECTION WAS HEARD. 
>> OUR FIRST WNESS IS JEFF 
BEZOS --
>> PUT YOUR MASK O 
>> MR. BEZOS FOUNDED AMAZOIN 
19 -- EXCUSE ME.
I'M GOING TO REMIND MEMBERS OF 
THIS COMMITTEE,NLESS YOU ARE 
SPKING, OUR RULES REQUIRE YOU 
 WEAR A MASKCCORDING TO THE 
ATTENDING PHYSICIA
I'M SPEAKING ABOUT ANOTHER 
MEMBERF THIS COMMITTEE.
I'LL BEGIN AGAI
IT IS NOW MY PLEASURE TO 
INTRODUCE TODAY'S WITNESSES.
OUR FIRST WITNESS IS JEFF BEZOS,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF 
AMAZON.COM.
MR. BES FOUNDED AMAZON IN 1994
 AN ONLINE BOOKSTORE.
SINCE THEN AMAZON HAS GROWN TO 
BE THE LARGEST ONLINE RETAILER 
ON THE INTERNET.
MR. BEZOS OVER SEES HIS 
COMPANY'S EXPANSION INTO CLOUD 
COMPUTING, DIGITAL STREAMI, 
AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.
MR. BEZOS RECEIVED HIS 
BACHELOR'S OF SCIENCE FROM 
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY.
OUR SECOND WITNESS, SUNDAR 
PICHAI, IS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
OFFICER OF ALPHABET AND GOOGLE. 
COMPANY'S SEARCH PRODUCTS.
PRIOTO HIS TIME AT GOOGLE, HE 
WORKED AT McKIN ZIP HE RECEID 
A DEGREE IN METALLURGICAL 
ENGINEERING, A MASTES FROM 
STANFORD AND AN MBA FROM THE 
ARTON SCHOOL OF PENNSYLVANIA.TH.
HE JOINED APPLE IN 1998 AND 
SERVED AS ITS CHIEF OPETIONAL 
OFFICER UNDER STEVE JOBS.
IN 2011, MR. COOK W NAMED CEO.
WHILE AT APPLE, HE HAS OVERSEEN 
EIR EXPANSION INTO NEW MARKETS
THROUGH LAUNCH AND DEVELOPMENTS 
OFRODUCTS AND SERVICES LIKE 
APPLE PAY, APPLE WATCH, iCLOUD, 
APE CORD AND HOME POD
MR. COOK SERD AS THE DIRECTO 
OFORTH AMERICAN FULFILLMENT 
FOR IBM.
HE RECEID A BACHELOR FROM 
SCIENCE OF AUBURN UNIVERSIT AND
AN MBA FROM DUKE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS.
THE LAST WITNESS IS MARK 
ZUCKERBERGFOUNDER, CHAIRMAN, 
AND CEO OF FEBOOK.
MR. CKERBERG INITIALLY 
LAUNCHED FACEBOOKN ORDER TO 
HELP CONNECT COLLEGE STUDENTS AT
HIS SCHOOL MORE EASILY.
SINCE THENTHE COMPANY HAS 
GROWN INTO TH WORLD'S LARGEST 
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM WITH 1.7  
USERS.
HE ATTENDED HARVARD UNIVERSITY 
BEFO LEAVING TO FUS FULL 
TIME ON DEVELOPING FACEBOOK.
 WELCOME ALL OF OUR
DISTINGUISHED WITNESSES AND 
THANK THEM FOR PARTICIPATING IN 
TODAY'S HEARING.
AND NOW I WILL BEGIN BY SWEARING
YOU IN.
BEFORE I DO THAT, I WA TO ALSO
REMIND YOU THAT YOU ARE THE ONL
ONES FROM YOUR RESPECTIVE 
COMPANIES INVITED TO TTIFY 
TODAY.
IN ACCORDANCEITH SECTION G OF 
THE HOUSE REMOTE COMMITTEE 
PROCEEDING REGULATIONS, YOUR 
SWORN TESTIMONY MUST BEOUR
OWN.PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU W 
TO MUTE YOURSE SO YOU CAN 
CONFER WITH YOUR COUNSEL.
PLEASEAISE YOURIGHT HANDS.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM UNDER 
PENALTY OF PERJU THAT THE 
TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUTO GIVE 
IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST 
OF OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE SO HP YOU
GOD?
 YES.
>> LET THE RECORD SHOW THE 
WITNESSES ANSWERED INTO THE 
AFFIRMATIVE.THANK YOU.
YOU MAY BE SEATED.
YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENTS WILL BE 
WRITTEN INTO THE RECORD 
ENTIRELY.
I ASK THAT YOU SUMMARIZE YOUR 
TESTIMONY IN FIVE MINUTES TO 
HE YOU STAY WITHIN THAT TIME, 
THERE IS A TIMING LIGHIN WEB 
WEATHER CONDITIONS.
WHEN THE LIGHT SWITCHES OM
WHEN THE LIGHT TURNS RED, IT 
SIGNALS YOUR FIVE MINUTES HAVE 
EXPIRED.
MR. BEZOS, YOU MAY BEG.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN CICILLINE
AND MBERS OF THE SUBCMITTEE.
I WAS BORN INTO GREAT WETH, 
NOT MONETARY WEALTH,UT THE 
WEALTH OF A LOVING FILY THAT 
ENCOURAGED M TO DREAM BIG.
M MY MOM, JACKIE, HAD ME WHEN 
SHE WAS A 17-YEAR-OLD HIGH 
SCOL STUDENT IN ALBUQUERQUE.
BEING PREGNANT IN HIGH HOOL 
WAS NOT POPULAR.
THE SCHOOLRIED TO KICK HER OUT
BUT SHE WAS ALLOWED TO FINISH 
AFTER  GRANDFATHER NEGOTIATED 
TERMS WITH THE PRINCIPAL.
SHE COULDN'T HAVE A LOCKER, N 
EXTRACURRICULARS, SHE GRADUATED 
AND S DETERMINED TO CONTINUE 
HER EDUCATION.
SHE ENROLLED IN NIGHT SCHOOL AND
BROUGHT ME TO CLASS THROUGHOUT.
MY DAD'S NAME IS MIGUEL.
HE ADOPTED MEHEN I WAS 4.
HE WAS 16 WHEN HEAME TO THE 
U.S. FROM CUBA BY HIMSELF 
SHTLY AFTER CASTRO TOOK OVER.
MY DAD DIDN'T SPEAK ENGLISH AND 
HE DID NOT HAVE AN EASY PAST.
WHAT HE DID HAVE WAS GRIT AND 
TERMINATION.
HE RECEIVED A SOLARSHIP TO 
COLLEGE IN ALBUQUERQUE, WHICH IS
WHERE HE M MY MOM.
TOTHER WITH MY GRANDPARENTS, 
THESE HARD-WORKING, RESOURCEFUL,
AND LOVING PEOPL MADE ME WHO I 
AM.
I WALKED AWAY FROM A STEADY JOB 
ON WL STREET INTO A SEATTLE 
GARAGE TO FOUND AMAZON, FULLY 
UNDERSTANDING THAT ITIGHT NOT 
WORK.
IT FEE LIKE YESTERDAY I WAS 
DRIVING THE PACKAGES TO THE POST
OFFICEMYSELF, DREAMG THAT ONE
DAY WE MIGHT AFFORD A FORKFT.
CUSTOMER OBSESSION HASRIVEN 
OUR SUCCESS AND I TAKE IT AS AN 
ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT CUSTOME 
NOTICEHEN YOU DO THE RIGHT 
THING.
YOU EARN TRUST SLOWLY, OVER 
TIME, BY DOINGARD THINGS WELL,
DELIVERINGN TIME, OFFERING 
EVERYDAY LOW PRICES, MAKING 
PROMISES AND KEEPING THEM AND 
MAKING PRINCIPLE DECISIONS, EVEN
WHEN THEY ARE UNPOPULAR.
AND OUR APPROACH IS WORKING.
80% OF AMERICANS HAVE A 
FAVORABLE IMPRESSION OF AZON 
OVALL.
WHO DO AMERICANSRUST MORE THAN
AMAZON TO DO THE RIGHT THING?
ONLY THEIR DTORS AND THE 
MILITARY.
THE RETAI MARKET WE PARTICIPATE
IN IS EXTRAORDINARILY LAR AND 
COMPETITIVE.
AMAZON ACCOUNT FOR LESS THAN 1%
OF THE $25 TRILLION RETAIL 
MARKET AND LESS THAN 4% OF U.S. 
RETAIL.
THERE'S ROOM IN RETAIL FOR WINN.
WE COMPETE AGAINST LARGE, 
ESTABLISHED PLAYERS LIKE TARGET,
CRS-COE, KROGER, AND, OF 
COURSE,ALMART, A COMPANY MORE 
THANWICE AMAZON'S SIZE
20 YEARS AGO WE MADE THE 
DECISION TO INVITE OTHER SELLERS
TO SELL ON OUR STORE T SHARE 
SAME VALUABLE REAL ESTATE WE 
END BILLIONS TO BUILD MARKET 
AND MAINTAIN.
WE BELIEVE THAT COMBINING THE 
STRENGTHS OF AMAZON'S SRE WITH
THE VASTELECTION OF PRODUCTS 
OFFERED BY THIRD PARTIES WOULD 
BE A BETTER EXPERIENCE FOR 
CUSTOMERS AND THE GROWING PIE 
WOULD BE BIG ENOUGH FOR ALL.
WE WE BETTING THAT IT WAS NOT 
A ZEROUM GAME.
FORTUNATELY WWERE RIGHT.
THERE ARE NOW 1.7 MILLION SMALL 
AND MEDIUM-SIZED BUSINESSES 
LLING ON AMAZON.
E TRUST CUSTOMERS PUT IN US 
HAS ALLOWED AMAZON TO CREATE 
MORE JOBS IN THE UNITED STES 
OVER THE PAST DECADE THAN ANY 
OTHER CPANY.
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JS 
ACROSS 42 STATES.
AMAZON EMPLOYEES MAKE A MINIMUM 
OF $15 AN UR, MORE THAN DOUBLE
THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAG
AND WE OFFER THE BEST BENEFITS,
BENEFITS THAT INCLUDE 
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INRANCE, 
401(k) RETIREMENT, AND PARTAL 
LEAVE, WHICH INCLUDES 20 WEEKS 
OF AID MATERNITY AVE.
MORE THAN ANYPLACE ON EARTH, 
ENTREPRENEURIAL COMPANIES START,
OW, AND THRIVE HERE IN THE 
U.S.
WE NURTURE ENTREPRENEURS AND 
START-UP 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 COSE, THIS GREAT NATION OF 
OURS IS FAR FRO PERFECT.
EVEN AS WE REMEMBER CONGRESSMAN 
HN LEWIS AND HON HIS LEGACY,
WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OA MUCH 
NEEDED RACE RECKONING.
WE ALSO FAC CLIMATE CHANGE AND 
INCOME EQUALITY AND WE'RE 
RUFR
STUMBLING THROUGH THE CRISIS OF.
STILL, THE REST OF THE WORLD 
WOULD LOVE TEEN TINIEST S OF 
THE ELIXIR WE HAVE HERE IN THE 
U.S.
IMMIGRANTS LIKE MY DAD SEE WHAT 
A TREASURE THISOUNTRY IS.
THEY HAVE PERSPECTIVE AND OFTEN 
CAN SEE IT EVEN MORE CLEARLY 
THAN THOSE OF US WHO WERE LUCKY 
ENOUGH TO BEORN HERE.
IT IS STILL DAY ONE FOR THIS 
COUNTRY AND EVENN THE FACE OF 
TODAY'S HUMBLING CHALLENGES I 
HAVE NEVER BEEN MORE OPTIMISTIC 
ABOUT OUR FUTURE.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY T 
APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY, AND I'M
RY HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR 
QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. BEZOS.
MR. PICHAI, YOU ARE NOW 
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. AIRMAN, 
RANKING MEMBER SENSENBRENNER, 
AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
BEFORE I START, I KNOW THIS 
HEARING WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF 
THE CEREMONIES TO HONOR THEIFE
OF YOUR COLLEAE, 
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN LEWIS.
BECAUSE OF HIS COURAGE, TS 
WORLD IS A BETTER PLACE.
HE'LBE DEEPLY MISSED.
BUT IT'S HARD TO VE A 
DISCUSON ABOUT OPPORTUNITY.
THIS HAS NEVER BEEN MORE 
IMPORTANT AS THE GLOBAL PANDEMIC
POSES DUAL CHALLENGES TO OUR
HEALTH AND OUR ECONOMY.
EXPANDING CESS TO OPPORTUNITY 
TO TECHNOLOGY IS PERSONAL TO ME.
I DIDN'T HAVE MUCH ACCESS TO A 
COMPUTER GROWING UP IN INDIA.
SO YOU CAN IMAGINE MY AMAZEME 
WHEN I ARRIVED IN THE U.S. FOR 
GRUATE SCHOOL AND SAW AN 
ENTIRE LAB OF COMPUTERS TO USE 
WHENEVER I WANTED.
ACCESSG THE INTERNET FOR THE 
FIRST TIME SETE 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 EERIENCED THAT 
THROUGH CHROME FOR FREE.
GOOGLE TAK PRIDE IN THE NUMBER
OF PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE O 
PRODUCTS OF WE ARE EVEN PROUDER 
OF WHAT THEY DO WITH THEM.
FROM THE 140 MILLION STUDENTS 
AND TCHERS USING G SUITE FOR 
EDUCATION TO STAY CONNECTED 
DURING THE PANDEMIC, TO THE 5 
MIION AMERICANS GAINING 
DIGITAL SKILLS THROUGH GLOBAL 
GOOGLE, TO ALL THE PPLE WHO 
HAVE TURNEDO GOOGLE FOR HE, 
FROM FINDING T FASTE ROUTE 
HOME, TO LRNING HOW TO COOK A 
NEW DISH ON YOUTUBE.
GOOGLE'S WORK WOULD NOT BE 
POSSIBLE WITHOUT T LONG 
TRADITION OF AMERICAN 
INNOVATION
WE EMPLOY MORE THAN 75,000
PEOPLE IN THE U.S. ACROSS 26
STATES.
THE PROGRESS OF POLICY AND 
CURITY ESTIMATED THAT IN 2018 
WE INVESTED MORE THAN 
$20 BILLION IN THE U.S., CING 
US AS T LARGEST CAPITAL 
INVESTOR IN AMERICA THAT YEAR 
AND ONE OF T TOP FIVE FOR THE 
LAST THREE YEARS.
ONE WAY WE CONTRIBUTE IS BY 
BUILDING HELPFUL PDUCT.
RESEARCH FOUND TT FREE 
SERVICES LIKE SURGE, GMAIL, MAPS
AND PHOTOS PROVIDE THOUSANDS OF 
DOLLARS A YEAR IN VALUE TO THE 
AVERAGE AMERICAN.
AND MANY ARE SMALL BUSINESSES 
USING OUR DIGITAL TOOLS TO GROW.
STONE DIMENSIONS, A FAMILY-OWNED
COMPANY IN WCONSIN USES GOOGLE
 BUSINESS TO DRAW MORE 
CUSTOMERS.
A FAMILY-OWNED APPLIANCE STORE 
CREDITS GOOGLE ANALYTICS WITH 
HELPING THEM REACH CUSTOMERS 
ONLINE DURING THE PANMIC.
NEARLY ONE-THI OF SMALL 
BUSINESSES OWNERS SAY WITHOUT 
DIGITAL TOOLS, THEY WOULD HAVE 
TO CLOSE ALL OUR PART OF THE 
BUSINE DURING COVID.
AT THE END OF2019 OUR RND SPEND
INCREASED TENFOLD FROM 
$2.8 BILLION TO $26 BILLION, AND
WE HAVE INVESTED OVER 
$90 BILLIONHE LAST FIVE YEARS.
OUR ENGINEERS ARE HELPING 
AMERICA REMAIN A GLOBAL LEADER 
IN EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES LIKE 
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 
SELF-DRIVING CARS, AND QUANTUM 
COMPUTING.
JUST AS AMERICA'S TECHNOLOGY 
LEADERSHIP IS NOT INEVITABLE, 
GOOGLE IS NOT GUARANTEED.
NEW COMPETITORS EMERGE EVERY DA 
ACCESS TO INFORMATIONHAN EVER 
BEFORE.
COMPETITION DRIVES US TO 
INNOVATE AND IT LEADS TO BETTER 
PRODUCTS, LOWER PRICE AND ME
CHOICES FOR EVERYONE.
FOR EXAMPLE, COMPETITION HELPED 
LOWER ONLINE ADVERTISI COSTS 
BY 4% OVER THLAST DECADES, BUT
SAVINGS PASSED DOWN TO 
CONSUMERS.
OPEN PLATFORMS LIKE ANDROID ALS 
OTHERS.
USING DROANDROID, THOUSANDS BUI 
AND SELL THEIR OWN DEVICES 
WITHOUT PAYING ANY LICENSING 
FEES TO US.
THIS HAS ENABLED BILLIONS OF 
CONSUMERSO HAVE CUTTING-EDGE 
ARTPHONES, SOME FOR LESS THAN 
$50.
WHETHER BUILDING TOOLS FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES FOR PTFORMS LIKE 
ANDROID, GOOGLE SUCCEEDS WHEN 
OTHER SUCCEED.
WE HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT
PRIVACY IS A UNIVERSAL RHT AND
GOOGLE IS COMMIED TO KEEPING 
YOUR INFORMATION SAFE, TREATING 
IT RESPONSIBLY, AND WE'VE LONG 
SUPPORTED THE CREATION OF 
COMPREHENSIVE FEDERAL PRIVACY 
LAWS.
I'VE NEVER FORGOTTEN HOW ACCESS 
TO TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION CH.
GOOGLE BUIS PRODUCTS THAT 
INCREASE ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY 
FOR EVERYONE, NO MATTER WHERE 
YOU LIVE, WHAT YOU BELIEVE, OR 
HOW MUCHONEY YOU EARN.
WE ARE COMMITTED TO DOING THIS 
RESPONSIBLY IN PARTNERSHIP WITH 
LAWMAKERS TO ENSURE EVERY 
AMERICAN HAS ACCS TO THE 
INCREDIBLE OPPORTUNI 
TECHNOLOGY CREATES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MR. PICHAI.
MR. COOK IS NOW RECOGNIZED FOR 
FIVE MINUTES. 
>> CHAIRMAN CICILLINE AND 
NADLER, RANKING MEMBER JORDA 
MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, 
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
OFFER TESTIMONY.
BEFORE I BEGIN, I WT TO 
RECOGNE THE LIFE AND LEGACYF
JOHN LEWIS.
I JOIN Y IN MOURNING NOT ONLY 
A HERO, BUT SOMEONE I KNE 
PERSONALLY WHOSE EXAMP 
INSPIRES AND GUIDES ME STILL.EVA
DEBT, AND I FL FORTUNATE TO 
HAIL FROM A STE AND A COUNTRY 
THAT BENEFITED S PROFOUNDLY 
FROM HIS LEADERIP.
MY NAME IS TIM COOK.
I'VE BEEN APPLE'S CEO SINCE 2011
AND A PROUD EMPLOYEE OF THIS 
UNIQUELY AMERICAN COMPANY SINCE 
1998.
AT APPLE, WE MAKE OURSELVES A 
PROMISE AND OUR CUSTOMERS A 
PROMISE.
IT'S A PROMISE THAT WILL ONLY 
BUILD THINGS THAT MAKE US PROUD.
AS SVE PUT IT, WE ONLY MICK 
THINGS WE RECOMME TO OUR 
FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
YOU COULD TRY TO DEFIN THIS 
DIFFERENCE IN A LOT OF WAYS.
YOU CAN CALL IT THE SEAMLESS 
INTEGRATION OF HARDWARE AND 
SOFTWARE.
YOU CAN CALL ITIMPLICITY OF 
DESIGN.
BUT YOU WANTED T PUT IT SIMPLY,
PRODUCTS LIKE iPHONE JUST WERE.
WHEN CUSTOMERS CONSISTENTLY GIVE
iPHONE A 99% SATISFACTION 
RATING, THAT THE MESSAGE 
THEY'RE SENDING AUT THE USER 
EXPERIENCE.
BUT WE ALS KNOW THAT CUSTOMERS 
HAVE A LOT OF CHOICES AND OUR 
PRODUCTS FACE FIERCE 
COMPETITION.
COMPANIELIKE SAMSUNG, WAYWAY 
AND GOOGL HAVE BUILT WITH 
DIFFERENT APPROACHES.
WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT.
OUR GOAL IS THE ST, NOT THE 
MOST.
IN FACT, WE DON'T HAVE A 
DOMINANT SHARE IN ANY MARKE OR 
IN ANY PRODUCT CATEGORYHERE WED.
WHAT DOES MOTIVAT US IS THAT TI 
THINGS THAT WRE PROUD TO SHOW 
OUR USERS.
WE FOCUS RELENTLESSLY ON THOSE 
INNOVATIONS, ON DEEPENING CORE 
PRINCIPLES LIKE PRIVACY AND SEC 
FEATURES.
IN 2008  INTRODUCED A NEW
FEATURE OF THE iPHONE CALLED THE
APP STORE, LAUNCHED WITH 500 
APPS, WHICH SEAMS SMED LIKE A 
LOT AT THE TIME, T APP STORE 
PROVIDED A SAFE A TRUSTED WAY F 
THEIR PHONE.
WE KNEW THE DTRIBUTION OPTIONS
FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS AT THE 
TIME DIDN'T WORK WELL.
BRICK AND MORTAR STOS CHARGED 
HIGH FEES AND HAD LIMITED REACH 
BE SHIPPED AND WERE HARD TO 
UPDATE.
FROM THE BEGINNING, THE A 
STORE WAS A REVOLUTIONARY 
ALTERNATIVE.
APP STORE DEVELOPERS SETRICES 
FOR THEIR APPS AND NEVER PAY FOR
SHELF SPACE.
WE PVIDE EVERY DEVELOPER WITH 
CUTTING-EDGE TOOLS LIKE 
COMPILERS, PGRAMMING 
LANGUAGES, AND MORE THAN 1,000
ESSENTIAL SOFTWARE BUILDG 
BLOCKS CALLED APIs.
THE APP STORE GUIDELINES ENSURE 
A HIGH QUALITY, RELIABLE, AND 
SECURE USER EXPERIENCE.
THEY A TRANSPARENT AND APPLIED
EQUALLY TO EVERY DEVELOPER.
FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF APPS, 
DEVELOPERS KEEP 1% OF THE 
MONEY THEY MAKE.
THENLY APPS THAT ARE SUBJECT 
TO A COMMISSION ARE THOSE WHERE 
THE DEVELOPER ACQUIRES A 
CUSTOMER ON APPEARPPLE DEVICE 
AND WHERE THE FEATURES OR 
SERVES WOULD BE EXPERIENCED 
AND NSUMED ON AN APPLE DEVICE.
IN THE APP STORE'S MORTHAN 
-YEAR HISTORY, WE HAVE NEVER 
RAISED T COMMISSION OR ADDED
SINGLE FEE.
IN FACT, WE'VE REDUCED IT.
I'M HERE TODAY BECAUSE SCRUTINY 
IS REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE.
WE APPROACH THIS PROCESS WITH 
RESPECT AND HUMILITY.
BU WE MAKEO CONCESSIONS ON 
THE FACTS.
WHAT BEGAN AT00 APPS IS NOW 
MORE THAN 1.7 MILLION.
LY 6OF WHICH ARE APPLE 
SOFTWARE.
IF APPLE IS A GATE KEEPER, WE'VE
OPENED THE GATE WIDER.
WE WANT TO GET EVERY APP WE CAN 
OPT STORE, NOTEEP THEM OFF.
THAPP STORE'S ENOMIC 
CONTRIBUTIONS ARE SIGNIFICANT.
E ECOSYSTEM IS RESPONSIBLE F
1.9 MILLION JOBS IN ALL 
STATES, AND IT FACILITATED 
$138 BILLION IN COMMERCE I2019
ALONE IN THE U.S.
I SHARE THE COMMITTEE'S BELIEF
THAT COMPETITION PROMOTES 
INNOVATION, THAT IT MAKES SPACE 
FOR THE NEXT GREAT IDEA, AND 
THATT GIVES CONSUMERSORE 
CHOICES.
SINCE APPLE WAS FOUNDED, THESE 
THIN HAVE DEFED US.
THE FIRST MAC BROUGHT 
OPPORTUNITY AND POSSIBILITY INTO
THE HOME.
THE iPOD HELPED MUSICIA AND 
ARTISTS TO SHARE EIR CREATIONS
AND BE PAID FAIRLY FOR IT.
IT INSPIRES US TO WORK 
TIRELESSLY TO MAKE SURE TOMOOW
WILL BE EVEN BETTER THAN TODAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I LOOK FOARD TO RESPONDING TO 
YOUR QUESTIONS.
>> THANKYOU, MR. COOK.
MR. ZUCKERBERG IS NOW RECOGNIZED
FOR FIV MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU.
BEFORE I BEGIN, I WANT TO ADD MY
VOICE TO THOSE HONORING CONGRES 
SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.
AMERICA HAS LOST A RL HERO WHO
NEVER STOPPED FIGHTING FOR THE 
RIGHTS OF EVERY PERSON.
CHAIRMAN CICILLINE, RANKING 
MEMBER SENSENBRENNER, MEMBERS OR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO STIFY.
THE TECH INDUSTRY IS AN AMERICAN
SUCCESS STORY.
THE PRODUCTS WE BUILD HAVE 
CHANGED THE WORLD AND IMPROVED .
OUR INDUSTRY IS ONE OF THE WAYS 
THAT AMERICA SHARES ITS VUES 
WITH THE WORLDND ONE OF OUR 
GREATEST ECONOMIC D CULTURAL 
EXPORTS.FACEBOOK IS PART OF THI.
WE STARTED WITH AN IDEA TO GIVE 
PEOPLE THE POW TO SHARE A CONNE.
AND WE'VE BUILT SERVICES THAT 
BILLIONS OF PEOPLE FIND USEFUL.
I'M PRO THAT WE'VE GIVEN 
PEOPLE WHO NEVER HAD A VOICE 
BEFORE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE 
ARD.
D GIVING SMALL BUSINESSES 
ACCESS TO TOOLS THAT THE ONLY 
LARGEST PLAYERSSED TO HAVE.
SINCE COVI EMERGED, I'M PRO 
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 THA FACEBOOK AND THE 
U.S. TECH INDUSTRY ARE A FORCE 
FOR INNOVION AND EMPOWERING 
PEOPLE, BUT RECOGNIZE THE 
POWER OF TECH COMPANIES.
OUR SERVICES ARE ABOUT 
CONNECTION AND OUR BUSINESS 
DEL IS ADVERSING.
WE FAC TENSE COMPETITION IN
BOTH.
MANY OF OUR COMPETITORS HAVE 
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OR BILLIONS
OF USERS.
SOME ARE UPSTARTS, BUT OTHERS 
ARE GATEKEEPERS WITH TH POWER 
TO DECIDE IF WE CAN EVEN RELEASE
OUR APPS IN THEIR APP STORES TO 
COMPETE WITH THEM.
IN MANY AREAS, WE' BEHIND OUR 
COMPETITORS.
THE MOST POPULARESSAGING 
SERVICE IN THE U.S. IS iMESSAGE.
THE FASTEST GROWING APP IS 
TIKTOK.
THE MO POPULAR APP FOR VIDEO 
IS YOUTUBE
THE FASTEST GRONG ADS PLATFORM
IS AMAZON.
THE LARGEST ADS PLATFORM IS 
GOOGLE.
AND F 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.
WHENOOGLE BOUGHT YOUTUBE, THE
COULD COMPETE AGAINST THE 
DOMINANT PLAYER IN VIDEO, WHICH 
WAS THE CABLENDUSTRY.
WHEN AMAZON BOUT WHOLE FOODS, 
THEY COULD COMPETE AGAINST 
KROGER AND WALMART.WHEN FACEBOO 
WE CAN COMPETE AINST TELECOS 
WHO COULD CHARGE0 CENTS A 
MESSAGE.
NOT ANYMORE.
NOW PEOPLE CAN BUY GROCERIES AND
SEND PRIVATEESSAGES FOR FREE.
THAT'S COMPETITN.
NEW COMPANIES ARE CREATED ALL
THE TIME ALL OVER THE WORLD.
HISTORY SHOWS AT IF WE DON'T 
KEEP INNOVATING,OMEONE WILL 
REPLACE EVERYOMPANY HERE 
TODAY.
THAT CHANGE CAN OFTEN HAPPE 
FASTER THAN YOU EXPECT.
OF THE TEN MOST VUABLE 
COMPANIES A DECADE AGO, ONLY 
THREE STILL MAKE THAT LIST 
TOY.
IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE THE TOP 
TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES COME FROM, 
A DECADE AGO THE VAST MAJORITY 
WERE AMERICAN.
TODAY ALMOST HALF ARE CHINE.
ASIDE FROM COMPETITION, THERE 
ARETHER SERIOUS ISSUES RELATED
TO THE INTERNET, INCLUDING 
QUESONS ABOUT ELECTIONS, 
HARMFUL NTENT, AND PRIVA.
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 PTFORMS FOR SHARING 
IDEAS AND IMPORTANT DEBATESLAY
OUT ACROSS OUR RVICES.
I LIEVE THAT THIS ULTIMATELY 
LEADS TO MORE PROGRESS, BUT IT 
MEANS WE FIND OURSELVES IN THE 
MIDDLE OF DEEP DISAGEMENTS 
ABOUT SOCIAL ISSUES AND 
HI-STAKES ELECTIONS.
I PERSONALLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT 
PRIVATE COMPANIESHOULD BE 
MAKING SO MANYECISIONS 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 ECOMIC OPPORTUNITY, 
KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE, UPLDING 
DEMOCRATIC TRADITIONS LIKE 
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND 
VOTINGAND OPENING A 
COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE.
THESE ARE FUNDAMENTALALUES FOR
MOST OF US, BUT NOT FOR EVERYONE
IN THE WORLD, NOT FOR EVERY 
COMPANY WE COMPETE WIT OR THE 
COUNTRIES THEY REPRESENT.
AS GLOBAL COMPETITION INCREASES,
THERE'S NO GUARANTEE TT OUR 
VALUESILL WIN OUT.
I'M PROUD OF THE SERVICES WE 
BUILD AND HOW TY IMPROVE 
PEOP'S LIVES.
WE COMPETE HARD.
WE COMPETE FAIRLY.
WE TRY TO BE THE BEST.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS TAUGHT MATTERS
IN THISOUNTRY.
WHEN W SUCCEED, IT'SECAUSE WE
DELIVER GREAT EXPERNCES THAT 
PEOPLE LOVE.
THANK YOU AND I LOOKORWARD TO 
ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU AND I THANK THE WI 
STATEMENTS.
BEFORE I BEGIN RECOGNIZING 
MEERS FOR QUESTIONING UNDER 
TH FIVE-MINUTE RULE, I'M GOING 
TO ENTERNTO THE HEARING RECORD
THE DOCUMENTS AND EXHIBITS 
JORITY MEMBERS WILL BE 
REFERENCING IN THEIR QUESTIONING
TODAY.
THESE MATERIALS HAVE BE 
DISTRIBUTED TO THE WITNESSES.
I WILL NOWECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR 
FIVE MINUTES.
MR. PICHAI, EVERY 85% OF ALL 
ONLINE SEARCHES GO THROUGH 
GOOGLE.
EVERY ONLINEOMPANY IN THE 
UNIT STATES DEPENDS ON GOOGLE 
TO REACH USERS.
A BUSINES MAY SINK OR SWIM 
BASED ON GOOGLE'S DECISNS 
ALONE.
IN OTHERWORDS, ONLINE 
BUSINESSES TOLD USHAT GOOGLE 
STEALS THEIR CONTENTND 
PRIVILEGES ITS OWN SITES IN WAYS
THAT PROFIT GOLE BUT CRUSH 
EVERYBODY ELSE.
MOST BINESSES ASK TOTAY 
ANONYMOUS DUE TO FEARS THAT 
GOOGLE WILL RETALIATE AGAINST 
THEM.
ONE ENTREPRENEUR HAS TO DOWNZE
HIS BUSINESS AND LAY OFF HALF 
HIS STAFF.
HE TOLD US, AND I, QUOTE, IF 
SOMEONE CAME TO ME WITH AN IDEA 
FOR A WEBSITE OR WEB SERVICE 
TODAY, I'D TELL THEM TO RUN, RUN
AS FAR AWAY FROM THE WEB AS 
POSSIBLE.
LAUN A LAWN CARE BUSINESS OR 
DOG GROOMING BIRKSZ SOMETHING 
GOOGLE CAN'T TAKE AWAY AS SOON 
AS HE OR SHE IS THRIVING.
SO MY FIRST QUESTION, MR. 
PICHAI, IS WHY DOE GOOGLE STEAL
CONTENT FROM HONEST BUSINESSES?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH RESPEC I
DISAGREE WITH THAT.
WE SEE MANY BUSINESSES THRIVE, 
PARTICARLY EVE DURING THE 
PANDEMIC BUSINESSES,N EXAMPLE,
KETTLE BEL IN TEXAS --
>> MR.PICHAI, I HAVE A LIMITED 
OUNT OF TIME.
BUT MY QUESTIONS VERY 
SPIFIC.
WE HEARD THROUGHOUT THIS 
INVESTIGATION TT GOOGLE HAS 
STOLEN CONTENT TO BUILDOUR OWN
BUSINESS.
THESE ARE CONSISTENT REPORTS.
AND SO IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT
DOESN'T HAPPENS REALLY 
INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE 
LEARNED DURING THE COURSE OF THE
INVESTIGATION.
BUT I'LL MOVE ON TO A NEW 
QUESTION.
MR. PICHAI, MOST AMERICANS 
BELIEVE WHEN THEY ENTER A SEARCH
QUERY WHAT GOOGLE SHOWS ARE THE 
MOST RELEVANT RESULTS.
BUT INCREASINGLY GOOGL JUST 
SHOWS WHATEVER IS MOST 
PROFITABLE FOR GOOGLE, BE IT 
GOOGLE ADS OR GOOGLE'S OWN 
SITES.
 MY QUESTION, ISN'T THIS HA 
FUNDAMENTAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
BETWEEN SERVING USERS WHO WANT 
TO ACCESS THE BEST A MOST 
RELEVANT INFORMATION AND 
GOOGLE'S BUSINESS MODEL AND 
INCENTIVIZES GGLE TO SELL ADS 
AND KE USERS ON GOOGLE'S ON 
SITES?
>> WE'VE ALWAYS FOCUSED ON 
PROVIDING USERS THE MOST 
RELEVANT INFORMATION.
AND WE RELY ON THE TRUST FOR 
USER TO COMBACK TO GOOGLE 
EVERY DAY.
IN FACT, THE VAST MAJORITY OF 
GOOGLE - WE DON'T SHOW ADS AT 
ALL, ONLY FOR A SMALL SUBSET OF 
INQUIRIES WHERE THE INCESSPUT I 
HIGHLY COMMERCIAL.
THEY MAY BE LOOKING FOR TV SETS 
AND SO ON -->> THEY CAN'T SAY V 
PART THATOU DO USE THE GOOE 
ADS FOR?
IT'S A SUBSTANTI PART OF YOUR 
BUSINESS.
WH'S THE ACTUAL VALUE?
$200 BILLN?
>> IT'S 100 PLUS BILLION 
DOLLARS. 
>> THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY, M 
PICHAI.
LET ME ME ON.
IT'S GOOGLE'S BUSINS MODEL 
THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
IT EVOLVED FROM A TURNSTILE TO 
THE RE OF THE WEB TO A WALLED 
GARDEN THAT KEEPS USERS WITHIN 
ITS SITES.
EMAILS SHOW THAT OVER A DECADE 
AGO GOOGLE STARTED TO FEAR 
COMPETITN FROM CERTAIN WEB 
PAGES THAT COULD DIVERT SEARCH 
TRAFFIC FM GOOGLE.
THESE DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT GOOGLE
STAFF DISCUSSED THE 
PROLIFERING THREAT IS HOWT 
WAS DESCRIBED THAT THESE WEB 
PAGES POSED TO GOOGLE.
ANY TRFIC LOST TO OTHER SITES 
WAS A LOSS IN REVENU
ONE OF GOOGLE'S MEMOS OBSERVED
THAT CERTAIN WEBSITES WERE 
GEING, AND I, QUOTE, TOO MUCH 
TRAFFIC.
SO GOOGLE DECIDED TO PUT AN END 
TO THAT.
MR. CHAI, YOU'VE BEEN AT 
GOOGLE SINCE 2004.
WE YOU INVOLVED IN THESE 
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE THREAT 
FROM VERTICAL SEARCH?
>> CONGSSMAN, WITHOUT KNOWING 
THE SPECIFICS,OU KNOW, I'M NOT
FULLY CLEAR OF THE CONTEXT.
BUT DENITELY WHEN WE LOOK AT VE 
THE COMPETITION WE SEE.
FOR EXAMPL WHEN USERS COME 
LOOKING TO SHOP ONLINE, 
INDEPENDENT STUDIES SW THAT 
OVER 55% OF PRODUCT SEARCHES 
ORIGINATE WITH AMAZON AND 70% 
WITH THE MAJOR E-COMRCE 
COMPANIES.
IN THE FEW CATEGORIES THAT ARE
COMMERCIAL IN NATURE, WE SEE 
VIGOROUS COMPETITION, BE IT 
TRAVEL, REAL ESTATE,ND WE ARE 
WORKING HARD --
>> LET ME ASK YOU SPECIFICALLY, 
MR. PICH.
THE EVIDENCE WE COLLECTED SHOWS 
THAT GOOGLE PURSUE ADD 
MULTI-PRONGED ATTACK.
FIRST GOOGLE BEGAN TO STEAL 
OTHER WEB PAGES' CONTENT.
IN 2010 GOOGLE STOLE RESTAURANT 
REVIEWS FROM YELP TO BOOT STRAP 
ITS OWN LOCAL SEARCH BUSINESS.
DO YOU KNOW HOW GOOGLE RESPONDED
WHEN YELP ASKED TO YOU STOP STE?
I'LL TELL YOU.
OUR INVESTIGATION SHOWS GGLE 
THREATENED TO DELISTELP 
ENTIRELY.LET US STEAL YOUR CONT 
EFFECTIVELY DISAPPEAR FROM THE 
WEB.
MR. PICHAI, ISN'T THAT WEBSITE .
>> WHEN I RUN THE COMPANY, I'M 
FOCUSED ON GIVING USERS WHAT WE 
NT.
HAPPY TO ENGAGE AND THE 
SPECIFICS AND ANSWER YOUR 
QUESTIONS FURTHER. 
>> THANK YOU.
ONE FIL SERIES OF QUESTIONS, 
. PICHAI.
DID GOOGLE USE ITS WEBSITE TO 
SURVEY COMPETITIVE THREATS?
>> CONGRESSMA JUST LIKE OTHER 
BUSINESSES, WE TRIED TO 
UNDETAND 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 
IMPROVG OUR PRODUCTS AND 
THAT'S HOW --
>> I APPRECIATE THAT, 
MR. PICHAI.
GOOGLE'S OWN DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT
GOOGLE DID JUST AT, WHICH IS 
VERY DISTURBING AND VERY 
ANTI-COMPETITIVE.
IN ADDITIONO STEALING CONTENT,
GOOGLE BEG TO PRIVILEGE ITS 
OWN SITES.
AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT 
PUBLISHED JUST YTERDAY FOUND 63T
ON GOOGLE ALSO END SOMEWHERE ON
GOOGLE'S OWN WEBSITES.TO ME THA 
INCREASINGLY A WALLED GARDEN 
THAT KEEPS PEOPLE ON GOOGLE 
SITES EVEN IF THEY DON'T HAVE 
THE MOST INFORMATION AND 
CATASTROPHIC FOR OTHER COMPANIES
ONLINE.
MY TIME IS RUNNING OUT.
THE EVIDENCE SEEMS VERY CLEAR TO
ME.
AS GOOGLE BECAME THE GATEWAY TO 
TH INTERNET AND BEGAN TO ABUSE 
ITS POWER, IT USED SURILLANCE 
OV WEB TRAFFIC DAMPENED 
INNOVATION AND NEW BUSINESS 
GROWTH AND DRAMATICALLY 
INCREASED THE AESS OF USERS ON
THE INTERNET, VIRTUALLY ENSURING
ANY BUSINESS THA WANTS TO BE 
FOUND ON THE WEB, MUST PAY 
GOOGLE A TAX.
D WITH THAT I RECOGNIZE THE 
RANKING MEMBE OF THE 
SUBCOMTTEE, MR. SENSBRENNER 
FOR HIS FIRST ROUND OF 
QUTIONS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, 
MR. CHAIRMAN.
I'VE BEEN IN CGRESS 42 YEARS.
THAT'SOMING TO AN END AT THE 
END OF THIS YEAR.
I'M BREATHING A SIGHF RELIEF.
BUT DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, 
DURING THE DECADE OF THE '90s 
AND THE 00s, I WAS INVOLVED AS 
CHAIRMAN OF THE SCIENCE 
COMMITTEE AND CHAIRMANF THIS 
COMMITTEE AN TRYING TO MAKE THE
NET UNIVERSAL AND OPEN IT U TO 
EVERYBODY.
ONE THESIS WE USED IS THE NET 
SHOULD END UP BECOMI BASICALLY
LE DEBATE ON ISSUES NOT ONLY IN 
OUR COUNTRY BUT THROUOUT THE 
WORLD.
 EXCHANGE FOR THAT, THIS 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMPANY GAVE 
INTERNET SERVI PROVIDERS 
IMMUNITY SO IF SOMEBODY SAID 
SOMETHING DEFAMATORY IN WHAT 
THEY POSTED, THE ISPs COULD NOT 
BE A PART OF THE LAWSUIT FOR 
DEFAMATION.
NOW, AFTER HEARING MR. JORDAN, 
IN A LONG LINE OF CENSORSHIP OF 
CONSVATIVE VIEWPOINTS, YOU 
OW, I'M CONCERNED THAT THE 
PEOPLE W MANAGE THE NET AND 
THE FOUR OF YOU MANAGE A BIG 
PART OF THE NET, ARE ENDING UP 
USING THIS AS A POLITICAL
SCREEN.
CONSERVATIVES ARE CONSUMERS, 
TOO.
AND THE WAY THE NET WAS PUT 
TOGETHER IN THE EYES OF CONGRESS
IS THA EVERYBODY SHOULD BE ABLE
TO SPEAK THEIR MIND.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, MR. JORDAN'S 
LITANY OF CENSORSHI ZEROS IN ON
FACEBOOK.
AT ARE YOUR STANDARDS IN 
QUOTE, FILTERING OUT POLITICAL 
SPEECH THAT MAYBE SOME PEOPLE 
OUT THERE DON'T AGREE WITH?
>> CORESSMAN, THANK YOU FOR 
THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDSS THIS.
OUR GOAL IS TO OFFER A PLATFORM.
WE WANT TO GIVE EVERYONE IN THE
WORLD A VOICE TO SHARE THEIR EX.
A LOT OF TT IS DAY-TO-DAY 
THINGS THAT HAPPEN IN THEIR 
LIVES, SOME OF IT IS POLITICAL.
AND, FRANKLY, I THINK WVE 
DISTINGUISHED OURSELVES  ONE 
OF THE COMPANIES THAT DEFENDS 
FREE EXPRESSIO THE MOST.WE DO H 
AROUND THINGS Y CAN AND CANNOT
SAY.
I THINK YOU WOULD LIKELY AGR 
WITH MOST OF THEM.
THEY BAN CATEGORIES OF HARM SUCH
AS PROMOTING TERROST 
PROPAGANDA, CHILD PLOITATION, 
INCLIMITEMENT OF VIOLENCE, INTES
AND THEY ALSO BAN THINGS LIKE 
HATE SPEH THAT COULD LEAD TO 
DEHUMANIZING PEOPLE AND 
ENCOAGING VIOLENCE DOWN THE ROA 
>> IF I MAY ASK APECIFIC OF 
YOU, IT WAS REPORTED THAT DONALD
TRUMP JR. G TAKEN DOWN FOR A 
PERIOD OF TIME BECAUSE HE PUT S 
HYDROXHLOROQUINE.
NOW, I WOULDN'T TAKE IT MYSELF, 
BUT THERE STILL IS A DEBATE ON 
WHETHER IT I EFFECTIVE EITHER 
IN TREAT OR PREVENTING COVID-19.
AND I THINK THAT THIS IS A
LEGITIMATE MATTER OF DISCUSSION.
AND IT WOULD BE UP TO A PATIENT 
AND THEIR DOCTOR TO DETERMINE 
WHETHER HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE WAS 
THE CORRECT MEDICATION, YOU 
KNOW, GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
WHY DID THAT HAPPEN?
>>CONGRESSMAN, FIRST TO BE CLEAE
REFERRING TO HAPPENED ON 
TWITTER.SO, IT'S HARD FOR ME TOO
THAT.
I CAN TK TO OUR POLICIES ABOUT
THIS.
WE DO PROHIBIT CONTENT THAT WILL
LEAD TO IMMINENT RISK OF HARM.
AND STATING THAT THERE'S A 
PROVEN CURE FOR COVID, WHEN 
THERE IS, IN FACT, NONE, MIGHT 
ENCOURAGE SOMEONE TO GO TAKE 
SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE SOME 
ADVERSE EFFE.
WE DO TAKE THAT DOWN.
WE DO NOT PROHIBIT DISCUSSION 
AROUND TRIALS OF DRUGS OR PEOPLE
SAYING THAT THEY THINK THINGS
MIGHT WORK OR PERSONAL 
PERIENCES WITH EXPERIMENTAL 
DRUGS.
BUT IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO SAY 
THATOMETHING IS PROVEN, WHEN 
IN FACT IT IS NOT, THAT COULD 
LEAD PEOPLE --
>> WOULDN'T THAT BE --
>> TO MAKE --
>> BE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE 
ISSUE TO SAY THIS IS NOT PROVEN 
AND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW AS A FACT
THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR PEOPLEITH 
CERTAIN CONDITIONS, IT'S CONT 
INDICATED AND THEY SHOULDN'T 
TAKEIT.
BUT WODN'T THAT BE UP TO 
SOMEBODY ELSE TO SAY, OKAY, WHAT
SOMEBODY POSTED ON THIS RLLY 
ISN'T TRUE AND HERE WHAT THE 
FACTS ARE, RATHER THAN HAVING A 
TWITR OR FACEBOOK TAKE IT 
DOWN?
>> CONGRESS MMA IN GENERAL I 
AGREE WI YOU.
WE DO NOT WANT TO BECOME THE 
ARBITRATORS OF TRUTH.
I THINK THA WOULD BE A BAD 
POTION FOR US TO BE IN AND 
NOT -- NOT WHAT WE SHOULD BE 
DOING.
BUT ON SPECIFIC CLAIMS, IF 
SOMEONE IS GOING TO GO OUT AND 
SAY THAT HYDROXYCHLOROQUINES 
PROVEN TO CUREOVID WHEN, IN 
FACT, IT HAS NOT BEENROVEN TO 
CURE COVID AND THAT STATEMENT 
COULD LEAD PEOPLE TOAKE A DRUG
THAT IN SOME CES -- SOME OF 
THE DATA SUGGESTS ITIGHT BE HAR 
SHOULD TAKE THAT DOWN.
THAT COULD CAUSE IINENT RISK 
OF HARM. 
>> THANK YOU.
I YIELD BA.
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN.
I RECOGNIZE DISTINGUISHED 
MR. NADLER FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. ZUCKERBE, I WANT TO THANK 
YOFOR PROVIDING US INFORMATION
DURING OUR INVESTIGATION.
HOWEVER, THE DOCUMEN YOU 
PROVIDED TELL A VERY DISTURBING 
STORY.
AND THAT STORY IS THAT FACEBOOK 
SAW INSTAGRAM AS A POWERFUL 
THREAT THAT COU SIPHON 
BUSINESS AY FROM FACEBOOK.
SO, RATHER THAN COMPETE WITH IT,
FACEBOOK BOUGHT IT.
THIS IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF 
ANTI-COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION 
THAT THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS WERE 
DESIGNED TO PRENT.
NOW, LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT I MEAN.
MR. ZUCKBERG, YOU HAVE WRITTEN
THAT FACEBOOK CAN LIKELY ALWAYS 
JUST BUY ANY COMPETITIVE 
STTUPS.
IN FACT, ON THEAY FACEBOOK 
BOUGHT INSTAGRAM, WHICH YOU 
DESCRIBED AS A THREAT, YOU 
WROTE, QUOTE, ONE THING ABOUT 
STARTUPS IS YOU CAN OFTEN 
ACQUIRE THEM, CLOSE QUOTE.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, YOU WERE 
REFERRING TO COMPANIES LIKE 
INSTAGRAM IN THAT QUOTE, WEREN'T
YOU?>> CONGRESSMAN, I DON'T HAVE
EXACT DOCUMENTN FRONT OF ME, 
BUT I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CLEAR 
THAT WE VIEWED INSTAGRAM BOTH AS
A COMPETITOR AND AS A COMPLEMENT
TO OUR SERVICES.
IN THE GROWING SPACE AROUND -- 
AFTER SMARTHONES STARTED 
GETTING BIG.
THEY COMPETED WIT US IN THE 
SPACE OF MOBILE CAMERAS, MOBILE 
FOET TO SHARING, BUT AT THE TIME
ALMOST NO ONE THOUGHT OF THEM AS
A GENERAL SOCIAL NETWORK.
PEOPLE DIDN'T THINK OF THEM AS 
COMPETING WITH US IN THAT SPAC
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE 
ACQUISITION HAS BEEN WILDLY 
SUCCESSFUL.
WE WERE ABLE TO BY ACQUIRING 
THEM CONTINUE INVESTING IN IT 
AND GROWING IT AS A STAND-ALONE 
BRAN THAT REACHES MANY MORE PEO 
-FOUNDER, OR I THOUGHT 
POSSIB AT THE TIME, WHILE ALSO
INCORPORATING SOMEECHNOLOGY 
INTO MAKING FACEBOOK'S PHOTO 
SHARING PRODUCTS BETTER.
SO, YES.>> OKAY.
NOW, IN EARLY2012, WHEN 
FACEBOOK CONTELATED ACQUIRING 
INSTAGRAM, A COMPETITIVE 
STARTUP, YOU TOLD YOUR CFO THAT 
INSTAGRAM COULD BE VERY 
DISRUPTIVE TO US.
IN THE WEEKS LEELDING UP TOHE 
DEAL, YOU DESCRED INSTAGRAM AS
A THREAT SAYING THAT, QUOTE, 
INSTAGRAM CAN MNINGFULLY HURT 
US WITHOUT BECOMING A HUGE 
BUSINESS, UNQUOTE.
NOW, MR. ZUCKERBERG, WHAT DID 
YOU MEANHEN YOU DESCRIBED 
INSTAGRAM AS A THREAT,S 
DISRTIVE?
WHEN YOU SAID THAT INSTAGRAM 
COULD MEANINGFULLY HURT 
FACEBOOK, DID YOU MEAN THAT -- 
DID YOU MEAN CSUMERS MIGHT 
SWITCH FROM FACE BOO K TO 
INSTAGRAM?
>> CONGRESSMAN, THANKS FOR THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THI
 THE TIME THERE WAS A SMA 
BUT GROWING FIELD OF --
>> DID YOU MEAN THAT- DID YOU MC
FROM FACEBOOK TO INSTAGRAM?
THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
>> ANKS.
CONGRESSMAN --
>> Y OR NO.
DID YOU MEAN THAT
>> IN THE SPACE OF MOBILE PHOTOS
AND CAMERA APPS, WHICHAS 
GROWING, THEY WERE A COMPETITOR.
EY
 I'VE BEEN CLEAR ABOUT THAT. 
>> FINE.
IN FEBRUARY OF THAT YEAR, 
FEBRUARY 2012, YOU TOL 
FACEBOOK'S CHIEF FINANCIAL 
OFFICER THAT YOU WE INTERESTED
IN BUYING INSTAGRAM.
HE ASKED Y WHETHER THE PURPOSE
OF THE DEA WAS TO NEUTRALIZE A 
POTENTIAL COMPETITOR OR TO 
INGRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WITH 
OURS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE OUR 
SERVES?
YOU ANSWERED IT WAS A 
COMBINATION OF BOTH.SAYING, WHAG
IS TIME.
EVEN IF SOME NEW COMPETITORS 
SPRINGS UP, THOSE PRODUCTS WON'T
GET MUCH TCTION SINCE WE'LL 
ALREADY HAVE THE MECHANICS 
DEPLOYED AT SCALE.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, WHAT DIDOU 
MEAN WHEN YOU ANSRED THAT THE 
PURPOSE OF THE DEAL WAS TO 
NEUTRALIZE A POTENTIAL
COMPETITOR?
>> CONGSSMAN, WELL, THOSE 
AREN'T MY WORDS.
BUT, S, I'VE BEEN CLEAR THAT 
INSTAGRAM WAS A COMPETITOR IN 
THE SPACE OF MOBILE PTO 
SHARING.
THERE WERE A LOT OF OTHERS AT 
THE TIME.
THEY COMPETED WH APPS LIKE 
VISCO CAM AND PIXPLEASE AND 
COMPANIES LIKE PATH.
IT WAS A SUBSET OF THE ORALL 
SPACE OF CONNECTING THAT WE 
EXIST IN, AND BY HAVING THEM 
JOIN US, THEYERTAINLY WENT 
FROM BEING A COMPETITOR IN THE 
SPACE OF BEING A MOBILE CAMERA 
TO AN APP THAT WE COULD HELP 
GROW AND HELP GET MORE PEOPL TO
BE ABLE TO USE AND BE ON OUR 
AM.
AND --
>> WERE YOU -- THANK YOU FOR 
YOUR TIME.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, MERGERS AND 
ACQUISITIONS THAT BUY OFF 
POTENTIAL COMPETITIVE THREATS 
OLATE THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.
IN YOUR OWN WORDS Y PURCHASED 
INSTAGRAM TO NEUTRALIZE A 
COMPETITIVE REAT.
IF WAS AN ILLEG MERGER AT THE 
TIME OF THE TRANSACTION, WHY 
SHOULDN'T INSTAGRAM BE BROKEN 
OFF INTO A SEPARATE MPANY?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I THI THE FTC 
HAD ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS AND 
REVIEWED THIS AND UNANIMOUSLY 
VOTED AT THE TIME NOT TO
CHALLENGE THE ACQUISITION.
I MEAN, I THINK WITH HINDSIGHT,
IT PROBABLY LOOKS LIKE OBVIOUS 
TH INSTAGRAM WOULD HAV 
REACHED THE SCALE THAT IT HAS 
TODA BUT AT THE TIME IT WAS 
FAR FROM OBVIOUS.
A LOT OF THE COMPETITORS THEY 
COMPET WITH IN MOBILE SHARING,
INCLUDING COMPANIES LIKE PATH, 
DH WERE HOT AT THE TIMEND HAD 
GREAFOUNDERS AND ENTREPRENEURS
RUNNING THEM.
DA MOORE AND I WORKED CLOSELY 
WITH THEM.
I DON'T THINK PATH EXISTS TODAY.
IT WAS NOT GARN TEEN INSTAGRAM
WOULD DO WE.
IT WASN'T JUST BECAUSE OF T 
FOUNDER'S TALENT BUTECAUSE WE 
BUILT INTO THE INFRASTRUCTURE 
AND PROMOTING IT AND WKING 
SECURITY AND A LOT OF THINGS 
AROUND THIS.
I THINK THISAS BEEN AN 
AMERICAN SUCCESS STORY. 
>> WELL, THANK YOU.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, YOU'RE MAKING MY
POINT.
IN CLOSING, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT
TO END WHERE I GAN.FACEBOOK, BY 
ADMISSION AND BY THE DUMENTS 
WE HAVE THE TIME, FACEBOOK SAW 
INSTAGRAM AS A THREAT THAT COULD
POTENTLLY SIPHON BUSINESS AWAY
FROM FACEBOOK.
RATHER THAN COMPETE WITH IT, 
FACEBOOK BOUGHT IT.
THIS IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF 
ANTI-COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION 
THAT THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS ARE
DESIGNED TO PREVENT.
THIS SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED 
IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT SHOULD 
NEVER HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO 
HAPPEN AND IT CANNOT HAPPEN 
AGAIN.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WOULD REMIND THE WITNESS THAT
THE FAILES OF THE FTC IN 2012,
OF COURSE, DO NOT ALLEVIATE THE 
ANTI-TRUST CLLENGES THAT THE 
CHAIRMAN DESCRIBED.
WITHHAT I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE
THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO.
AGAIN, THANK HIM FOR CO-HOSTING 
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FIELD 
HEARINGS WE HAD ALONG WITH 
MR. NEGUSE IN COLORADO THAT I
THINK WAS VERY CRITICAL IN TS 
INVESTIGATION.
YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE 
MINUTES, M BUCK. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE 
BIPARTISAN WAY YOU HAVE 
APPROACHED THE SUBCOMMITTEE 
INVESTIGATION.
I WANT TO START BY SAYING 
CAPITALISM IS THE GATEST 
INSTRUMENT FREEDOM HAS EVER 
SEEN.
PITALISM HAS GIVEN THENITED 
STATES THE MEANS TO DEFEAT 
SOVIET UNION, BEAT BACK FASCISM 
AND PUT A MAN OTHE MOON.
IT HAS LIFTED MILLIONS OUT OF
POVERTY.
IT HAS MADE AMERICA THE FREEST, 
MOST PSPEROUS NATION IN THE 
RLD.
OUR WITNESSES HAVE TEN IDEAS 
BUILT OUT OF A DORM ROOM, 
RAGE, WAREHOUSE, AND BUILT 
THEM INTO THE FOUR BIGGEST POW
PLAYERS IN THE DIGAL ECONOMY.
YOU HAVE ALL ENJOYED THE FREED
TO SUCCEED.
LET  BE CLEAR.
I DO NOT BELIEVE BIG IS 
NECESSARILY BAD.
BIG IS OFTEN A FORCE FOR GOOD.
HOWEVE I WANT TO ADDRESS ONE 
PARTICULARLY DISTURBG ISSUE.
MR. PIAI, IN OCTOBER 18, 
GOOGLE DROPPED OUT OF THE 
RUNNING FOR A PENTAGON CONTRACT 
TO COMPLETE THEOINT ENTERPRISE
DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE, JEDI, 
VALUED AT MORTHAN $10 MILLION.
GOOGLE'S STATED REASON FOR 
MOVING ITSELF IS THE U.S.
MILITARY'S PROJECT DID NOT ALIGN
WITH GOOGLE'S CORPORATE VALUES 
AND PRINCIPLES.
THIS IS THE SAME U.S. MILITARY 
THAT FIGHTS FOR OUR FREEDOMS AND
STANDS AS A FORCE F GOOD 
ACROSS THELOBE.
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 INTERFEREE OF 
GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE,NLIKE 
IN COMMUNIST CHINA.I FIND IT INR
MONTHS FROM WITHAWING FROM THE
CONFIDENT, JOSEPH DUNFORD WNED
THE SENATE ARMED FORCES 
COMMITTEE THAT THE CNESE 
MILITARY WAS DIRECTLY BENEFITI
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 CHINE COMMUNIST PARTY 
IMPRISONS UIGHUR MUSLIMS IN 
CONCENTRATION CAMPS?
IT IS SHOWN ON THE CHART BEHIN 
ME.
COULD IT BE TT CHINA FORCES 
SLAVES TO WORK IN SWEAT SHOPS?
MAYBE THEY ALIGN ON THE DESIG 
TO SUPPRESS FREE SPEECH IN HONG 
KONG
DID GOOGLE AGREE WITH CCP'S 
DECISION TO LIE TO THE WORLD 
ABOUT THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.
THEN I THOHT ABOUT GOOGLE'S 
DRAGONFLYEXPERIMENT.
I WONDERED IF YOU AGREED WITH 
CHINA GOVERNMENT'S TECHNOLOGY 
PLATFORM TO SPY ON ITS OWN 
PEOPLE AND ENFORCE DRACONIAN 
SERITY LAWS.
MAYBE YOUR COMNY IS ALIGNED 
WITH THE CHINESE COMMUNIST 
RTY'S CORPORATE ESPIONAGE 
POLICIES WHE THE STRATEGY IS 
TO STEAL WHATEVER CAN'T BE 
PRODUCED DOMESTICALLY.
THESE VALUES THAT ALLOW GOOGLE 
TO WORK WITH THE CHINESE 
MILITARY AND NOTHE U.S. 
MILITARY HELPS WHY GOOGLE 
WOULDN'T THINK TWICE ABOUT 
BLATANTLY STEING A 
COMPETITOR'S PRODUCTS, RIGHT 
DOWN TTHE WATERMARK, WHOUT 
ANY HINT OF ATTRIBUTION.
MR. PICHAI, DURING OUR FIELD 
HEARING IN MY HOME STATE OF 
COLORADO, I HEARD A STORY THAT 
UNDED SO BRAZEN AND CON 
TEMPORARY TO FREE MART 
PRINCIPLES I THOUGHT I MUST 
HAVE BEEN STRAIGHT FROM THE 
CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY'S 
ESPIONAGE PLAYBOOK
GOOGLE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF A 
COMPANY THAT RELIED ON YOUR 
SEARCH ENGINE TO BUILD ITS BRAND
AND COMPETE.
GOOGLE MISAPPROPRIATED LYRICS 
FROM GENIUS'S WEBSI AND 
PUBLISHED THOSE LYRICS ON THEIR 
OWN PLATFORM.
GENIUS SUSPECTED THIS THEFT WAS 
OCCURRING,HEY INCORPORATED A 
DIGITAL WATERMARK IN ITS LYRICS 
THAT SPELLED OUT REDHANDED IN 
MORSE CODE.
TH WATERMARK SHOWED YOUR 
COMPANY STOLE WHAT YOU DIDN'T 
WANT TO PRODUCE YOURSE.
AFTER GOOGLE EXETIVES SAID 
THEY WE INVESTIGATI THIS 
PRODUCT,ENIUS CREATED ANOTHER 
OJECT.
IT TURNS OUT OF 27 SONGS WHERE 
THE WATERMARK WAS APPLIED, % 
SHOWED CLEAR EVIDENCE OF 
MATCHING.
YOUR COMPANY, WHICH ADVERTISES 
ITSELF AS A DOORWAY TO FRDOM, 
TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THIS SMALL 
COMPANY, ALL BUT EXTINGUISHI 
GENIUS' EEDOM TO COMPETE.
YOUR CORPORATE VALUES ONCE STOOD
FO FREEDOM, A PLATFORM THAT 
LEFT CAPITALISM FLOURISH AND 
HELPED BRING COUNTLESS PEOPLE 
ACROSS THEWLOEB GLOBE OUT OF 
POVERTY.
MY QUESTION, MR. PICHAI, DO YOU 
THINK GOOGLE COULD GET AWAY WITH
FOLLOWING INA'S CORPORATE 
ESPIONAGE PLAYBOOK IF YODIDN'T
HAVE A MONOPOLYTSIC ADVANTAGE 
IN THE MARKET?
>> CONGSSMAN, I WANT TO BE 
ABLE TO ADDRESS THE IMPORNT 
CONCERNS YOU RAISE.
RST OF ALL, WE ARE PROUD TO 
SUPPORT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.
WE RECENTLY SIGNED A BIG PROJECT
WITHHE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
WHERE WE ARE BRINGING OUR WORLD 
CLASS ZERO TRUST BASE CYBER 
SECURI APPROACH TO HELP 
PROTECT PENTAGON NETWORKS FROM 
CYBER SECURITY ATTACKS.
WE HAVE PROJECTS UND WAY WITH 
THE NAVY, WITH DEPARTMENT OF 
VETERANS AFFAIRS.
HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP AND EXPLAIN .
WE HAVE VERY LIMITED PRESENCE 
INHINA.
WE DON'T OFFER ANY OF OUR 
SERVICES, SECH, MAPS, GMAIL, 
YOUTUBE, ET CETERA, IN CHINA.
WITH RESPECT TO MUSIC, WE 
LICENSE CONTENT THE.
IN FACT, WE LICENSE CONTENT FROM
OTHER COMPANIES.
SO THIS IS A DISPUTE BETWEEN 
GENIUS AND THE OTHER COMPANIES 
IN TERMS OF T SOURCE OF THE 
CONTENT.
AGAIN, HAPPY T ENGAGE AND 
EXPLAIN WHAT WE DOERE FURTHER.
>> I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> THANK THEGENTLEMAN.I RECOGNI 
GEORGIA, MR. JNSON, FOR FIVE 
MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. COOK, WITH OVER 100 MILLION 
iPHONE USERS IN THE UNITED 
STATES ALONE ANDITH APPLE'S 
OWNERSHIP OF THE APP STO 
GIVING APPLE THE ABILITY TO 
CONTROL WHICH APPS ARE ALLOWED 
TO BE MARKED TO APPLESERS, 
YOU WIELD IMMSE POWER OVER 
SMALL BUSINESSES TO GROW A 
PROSPER.
APPLE IS THE SOLE DECISIONMAKE 
AS TO WTHER AN APP IS MADE 
AVAILABLE TOPP USERS THROUGH 
APE'S APP STORE, ISN'T THAT 
CORRECT?
>> SIR, THE APP STORE -- THANK 
YOU FOR THE ESTION.
THE APP STORE IS A FEATURE OF 
THE iPHONE, MUCH LIKE THE CERA
IS AND THE CHIP IS
AND SO --
>> MY POINT IS, AND I'M SORRY TO
INTERRUPT BUT I WT TO GET TO 
THE POINT.
THE POINT IS THAT APPLE IS THE 
SOLE DECISIONMAKER AS TO WHETHER
AN APP IS MADE AVAILABLE TO APP 
USERS THROUGH THE APPLE STORE, 
ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
>> IF IT'S A NATE APP, YES, 
SIR.
IF IT'S A WEB APP, NO.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
THROUGHOUT OUR INVESTIGAON 
WE'VE HEARD CONCERNS THAT RULES 
GOVERNING THE APP STORE VIEW 
PROCESS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO APP
DEVELOPERS.
THE RULES ARE MADE UP AS YOU GO.
THEY ARE ARBITRARILY INTERPRETED
AND ENFORCED AND SUBJECTO 
CHANGE WHENEVER APPLE SEES FIT 
TO ANGE.
AND DEVELORS HAVE NO CHOICE 
BUT TO GO ALONG WITH THE CHANGES
OR THEY MUST LEAVE THE APP 
STORE.
THAT'S AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF 
POWE
AND THE RULES GET CHANGED TO 
BENEFIT APPLE ATHE EXPENSE OF 
APP DEVELOPERS AND THE APP STORE
IS SAID TO ALSO DISCRIMINATE 
BETWEEN APP DEVELOPERS WITH 
SIMILAR APPS ON THE APPLE 
PLATFO AND ALSO AS TO SMALL 
APP DEVELOPERS VERSUS LARGE APP 
DEVEPERS.
SO, MR. COOK, DOES APPLE NOT 
TREAT ALL APP DEVELOPERS 
EQUALLY?
>> SIR, WE TREATVERY DEVELOPER
THE SAME.
WE HAVE OPEN AND TRANSPARENT RU.
IT'S A RIGOROUS PROCESS.
BECAUSE WE CARE SO DEEPLY ABOUT 
PRIVACYND SECURITY AND 
QUALITY, WE DOOOK AT EVERY APP
FORE IT GOES ON, BUT THOSE 
APPS -- THOSE RULES APPLY EVENLY
TO EVERYONE.
AND AS YOU CAN TELLY GOING 
FROM --
>>OME DEVELOPERS ARE FAVORED 
OVER HERS, THOUGH, ISN'T THAT 
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS NOT CORRECT.
AND AS YOU CAN TELL FROM GOING 
FROM --
>> SIR, I'LL GIVE YOU AN 
EXAMPL
BA HAS TWO APP STORE EMPLOYEES
ASSIGNED T HELP IT NIGATE THE
APP STOR BUREAUCRACY.
IS THAT TRUE?
>> DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT, SIR.
>> WELL, YOU DON'T HAVE OTHER 
APP DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE THAT 
SAME ACCESS TO APPLE PERSONNEL,?
>> WE DO LOT OF THINGS WITH 
DEVELOPERS, INCLUDING LOOKING AT
THEIR BETA TESTAPPS, REGARDLES
IF THEY'RE SMALL OR LARGE.
>> OKAY, WELL, LET ME ASK YOU 
THIS QUESTION.
APPLE HAS NEGOTIATED EXCEPTIONS 
TO ITS TYPICAL 30% COMMISSION 
FOR SOMEAPPS, LIKE AMAZON 
PRIME.
THAT IS A RUCED COMMISSION 
SUCH AS THE ONE AMAZON PRIME 
GETS AVAILABLE TO OTHER APP 
DEVELOPE?
IT'S AVAILABLE TO ANYONE MTING
THE CONDITIONS, YES.
>> OKAY.
LET MESK YOU THIS.
APPLE REQUIRES ALL APP 
DEVELOPERS TO USE APPLE'S 
PAYMENT PCESSING SYSTEM IF 
THOSE DEVELOPERS WANT TO SELL 
THEIR ODS OR SERVICES TO APPLE
USERS  APPLE'S APP STORE, 
ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT BECAUSE IT'S 
A --
>> AND BY PROCESSING PAYMES 
FO APPS THAT YOU ALLOW INTO THE
APP STORE,OU COLLECT THEIR 
CUSTOM DATA AND YOU USE THAT 
DATA TO INFORMPPLE AS TO 
WHETHER APPLE SHOULD --HETHER 
OR NOT IT WOULD BE PROFITABLE 
FOR APPLE TO LAUNC A COMPETING .
ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
>> SIR, 84% OF THE APPS ARE 
CHARGED NOTHING.
THE REMAINING 16% EITHER PAY 15%
OR 30 DEPENDING UPON TH 
SPECIFICS.
IF IS IN THE SECOND YEAR OF A 
SUBSCRIPTIONAS AN EXAMPLE, IT 
ONLY PAYS 15%.
IF YOU LOOK BACK AT HISTORY --
>> WHAT'S TO STOP APPLE FROM 
INCREASING ITS COMMISSION TO 
50%?
>> WE -- SIR, WE HAVE NEVER 
INCREASED COMMISSIONS IN THE 
STORE SINCE THE FIRST DAY IT 
OPERATED IN 2008.
>> THERE'S NOTNG TO STOP YOU 
FROM DOING SO, IS THERE?
>> NO, SIR.
I DISAGREE STRONGLY WITH THAT.
THERIS A COMPETITION FOR 
DEVELOPERS ARE JUST LI THERE'S
A COMPETITION FOR CUSTOMERS.
AND SO THE COMPETITION FOR 
DEVELOPERS, THEYAN WRITE THEIR
PS FOR ANDROID OR WINDOWS OR 
XBOX OR PLAYSTATION.
SO, WE HAVE FIERCE CPETITION 
AT THE DEVELOPER SIDE AND THE 
CUSTOMER SIDE, WHICH IS - WHICH
IS ESSENTIALLY IT'SO 
COMPET
COMPETITIVE, WOULD DESCRIBE IT
AS A STREET FIGHT FOR MARKET 
SHARE IN THE SMAPHONE 
BUSINESS. 
>> HAS APPLE EVER RALIATED 
AGAINST OR DISADVAAGED A 
DEVELOPER WHO WENT PUBLIC ABOUT 
THEIR FRUSTRATIONS WITH THE APP 
STORE?
 SIR, WE DON'T -- WE DO N 
RETALIATE O BULLY PEOPLE.
IT SONGLY AGAINST OUR 
COMPANY CULTURE.
>> TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS
EXPIRED.
THE CHAIR NOW RECOGNIZES THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, 
MR. GAETZ.
>> MR. ZUCKERBERG IN HIS WRITTEN
TESTIMONY MADE THE CLAIM THA 
FACEBOOK IS AN AMERICAN COMPANY 
WITH AMERICAN VAES.
DO ANY OF THE REST OF YOU TAKE  
YOUR COMPANIES DON'TMBRACE 
AMERICAN VALUES?
IT'S GREAT TO SEE THAT NONE OF 
YOU DO.
MRCHAI, I'M WORRIED ABOUT 
GOOGLE'S MARKET POWER, HOW IT 
CONCENTRATESHAT POWER AND 
ULTIMATELY HOW.
WIELDS IT.PROJECT MAVEN WAS A 
COLLABORATION BETWEEN GOOGLE AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE THAT 
GOOGLE PULLED OUT OF, CITING 
ETHICAL CONCERNS.
AND YOU MADE THE DECISION TO 
PULL OUT OF THAT JOINT VENTURE 
FOLLOWING RECPT OF A LETTER 
FROM THOUSANDS OF YOU EMPLOYEES
SAYING TT GOOGLE SHOULD NOT BE
IN THE BUSINS OF WAR.
MYQUESTION, MR. CHAI, ISID 
YOU WEIGH THE INPUT FROM YOUR 
EMPLOYEES WHEN MAKING THE 
DECISION TO ABANDON THAT PROJEC?
>> CONGSSMAN, THANKS FOR YOUR 
CONCERN.AS I SAID THE EAIER, WE 
DEEPLY COMMITTED TO SUPPORTING 
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND 
MILITARY.
WE HE UNDERTAKEN SEVERA 
PROJECTS.
ONE INPUT, WE MAKE DECIONS 
SED ON A VARIETY OF FACTORS.
AS A COMPANY WEERE NEW IN THE 
CLOUD SPACE AT THE TIME. 
>> THAT'S A SUFFICIENT ANSWER 
THAT YOU DID TAKE THEIR FEEDBACK
INTO ACCOUNT.
IN FACT, SOME OF YOU GOOGLERS 
HAVE RECENTL SENT YOU A LETTER
WHERE THEY EXAMINED YOU TO EXI 
OTHER PARTNERSHS AS A 
CONSEQUENCE OFTHICAL CONCERNS.
THEY ASKEDOU TO STOP DOING BUSI 
ENFORCEMENT, SAYING THAT POLICE 
BROADLY UPHOLDHITE SUPREMACY 
AND THAT GOOGLE SHOULD NOT BE 
ENGAGED IN ANY SERVICES TO 
POLICE.
AS YOU WELL KNOW, YOU PROVIDE 
ME OF THE MOST BASIC SVICES 
TO POLICE,IKE EMAIL, BUT YOU AL 
KEEP OUR COPS SAFEHEN THEY'RE 
DOING THR JOB.
SO MY QUEION IS HERE IN FRONT 
OF CONGRESS AND THE AMERICA 
PEOPLE, WILL YOU TAKEHE PLEDGE
THAT GOOGLE WILNOT ADOPT THE 
BIGOTED ANTI-POLICE STAND 
REQUESTED IN THE LATEST RECORD?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE HAVE A LONG 
TRACK RECORD OF SUPPORTING LAW 
ENRCEMENT WHEN IT'S SUPPORTED 
BY DUE PROCESS ANDHE LAW.
WE PUSH BACK AGAINST BROO 
REQUESTS.
WE'RE TRANSPARENT ABO REQUESTS
WE GET.
BUT WE HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF 
FOLLOWING THE LAW AND 
COOPERATING WITH LAW 
ENFORCEMENT.
>> I UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY.
I'M ASKING ABOUT THE FUTURE.
TO THE LAW ENERFORCEMENT WATCHI 
TODAY, CAN THEY REST ASSED 
UNDER YOUR LEADERSHIP GOOGLE 
WILL NOT ADOPTHESE BIGOTED 
PROCESSES?
>> WE A COMMITTED WITH DUE 
PROCESS IN THE U.S. 
 I GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT.
I KNOW THAT WILL BE COMFORTING 
TO THE POLICE WHO UTILIZE YOUR 
SERVICES.
YOU MENTIONED EARLI INHE 
DISCUSSION ABOUT CHINA THAT YOUR
ENGAGEMENT IN CHINA WAS VERY 
LIMITED.
BUT YET GOOE HAS AN AI CHINA 
CENTER.
THE CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 
HASUBLISHED A PAPER SAYING 
THAT ENHCING THE TARGETING 
CAPABILITIES OF CHINA'S J-20 
FIGHTER AIRCRAFT.
YOU COLLABORATE WITH CHINESE UN 
UPON MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM 
THE CHINESE MILITARY.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, ONE OF YOUR
GOOGLERS, F.
FI LI WAS CITED I CHINESE MEDIA
SANG, CHINA IS LIKE A SLEEPING
GIANT.
EN SHE WAKES, SHE WILL TREMBLE
THE WORLD.
THE FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
MR. SHANAHAN, SAID THAT THE 
NES HAVE BEEN BLURRED IN CHINA
BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND MILITAR 
APPLICATION.
ASR. BUCK TED, GENERAL 
DUNFORD SAYS THAT YOUR COMPANY 
IS DECTLY AIDING THEHINESE 
MILITARY.
AND PER THIELEAID THAT 
GOOGLE'S ACTIVITIES WITH CHINA 
ARE TREASONIST.
HE ACCUSED YOU OF TREASON.
WHY WOULD A AMERICAN COMPANY 
WITH ARICAN VALUES SO DIRECTLY
AID THE CHISE MILITARY BUT
HAVE ETHICAL CONCERN ABOUT 
WORKING ALONGSIDE THE U.S. 
MILITARY ON PROJECT MAVEN?
I UNDERSTD YOUR POINT ABOUT 
CYBER SECURITY AND THOSE THINGS 
BUT PJECT MAVENAS A SPECIFIC
WAY TO ENSURE OUR TROOPS ARE 
SAFE ON THE BATTLEFIELD.
IF YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM MAKING 
THE J-20 CHINESE FIGHTER MORE 
EFFECTIVE IN ITSTARGETING, WHY 
WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO MAKE 
AMERICA AS EFFECTIVE?
>> CONGRESSMAN,ITH RESPECT, WE
ARE NOT WORKING WITH THE CHINESE
MILITARY.
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
I HAD A CHANCE TO MEET WITH 
GENERAL DUNFORD PERSONALLY.
WE CLARIFIED WHAT WE DO IN 
CHINA.
'S VERY LIMITED IN NATURE.OUR A 
TO A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE WORKING 
ON OPEN-SOURCE PROJECTS.
I'M HAPPY TO SHARE AND ENGAGE TO
EXPLAIN OUR WORK IN CHINA. 
>> WN THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 
JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF SAYS AN 
AMERICAN COMPANY IS DIRECTLY 
AIDING CHINA, WHEN YOU HAVE AN 
AI CENTER, WHEN YOU'RE WORKING 
WITH UNIVERSITIES AND WN YOUR 
EMPLOYEES E TALKING ABOUT 
CHINA TREMBLING THE WORLD, IT 
SEEMS TO REALLY CALL INTO 
QUESTION YOUR COMMITMENT TO OUR 
COUNTRY AND OURALUES.
I SEE MY TIME HAS EXPIRED.
I HOPE WE HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 
ROUND.
>> I RECOGZE THE GENTLEMAN 
FROM MARYLAND, MR. RASKIN FOR 
FIVE MINUTES. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, AS YOU KNOW, THE
PROLIFERATION OF FAKE FACEBOOK 
ACCOUNTS WAS A KEY TOOL IN THE 
STRATEGY OF RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE
IN THE AMERICAN ELECTION IN 
2016 AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMT, 
THE SENATE, THE HOUSE HAVE ALL 
FOUND VLADIMIR PUTIN ENGAGED I 
THIS SWEEPG AND SYSTEMATIC 
CAMPAIGN TO UNDERMIN AMERICAN 
DEMOCRACY IN 2016 AND TO WORK 
FOR A VICTORY FOR DONALD TRUMP.
IN HIS REMARKABLE BOOK, MIND 
BLANK, CAMBRIDGE ANALITICA, 
CHRISTOPR WILY RECOUNTS HOW 
THE RUSSIAN ASSLT O AMERICA 
IN CAMBRIDGE AN LIT KA'S 
RESEARCH DEPENDED ON FACEBOOK.
WHEN THEY LAUNCHE IN 2014 STEVE
BANNON'S GOAL WAS TO CHANGE 
POLITICS BY CHANGING CULTE.
FACEBOOK DATA ALGORITHMS AND 
OUTCOMES WERE HIS KEY WEAPONS.
THEYSE THE TOOLS TO IDENTIFY 
PEOPLE WHO EXHIBITED THE THREE 
TRAITS IN WHAT THEY CALLED TH 
DARK TRIAD.
THEY BEGAN TO BOMBARD AND 
ACTIVATE THESE PEOPLE, STILL 
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WIT DARK AND 
CEBOOK PAGES BOTH TO GET THEM
TO VOTE FOR TRUMP BUT, MORE 
IMPORTANTLY, TO ACTIVATE THEMS
RACIST A WHITE NATIONALISTS.
AND THEY GO ON TO DESCRI THE 
REMARKABLE SUCCESS OF THIS 
CAMPAIGN BOTH ELECTORALLY AND 
POLITICALLYN THE COUNTRY IN 
TERMS OF SEWING T RACIAL AND 
ETIC DIVISIONS YOU SEE IN AMERI.
THEY WAG A MASS CAMPAIG OF 
PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE TO 
POLARIZE AMERICA AROUND RACE AND
RELIGION AND TO ACTIVATE RACIST 
ANANTI-SEMITES.
IT WORKED SPLENDIDLY FOR THEM 
BUT NOT FOR US.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, WHAT POINT DO 
YOU PLAN TO ADDRESS OR DO YOU 
SEE THAT AS A COST OF BEING A 
FORUM IN A MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS?
IS THERE NOTHINGHAT CAN BE 
DONE ABOUTHE USE OF FACEBOOK 
TO ENGENDER SOCIAL DIVISION IN 
AMERICA?
>> CONGRESSMAN, THANK YOU.
SIE 2016, THERE HAVE BEEN A 
LOT OF SPS WE HAVE TAKEN TO 
PROTECT THE INTEGRITYF 
ELECTIONS.WE'VE HIRED -- I THINE
TH 30,000 PEOPLE TO WORK ON 
SATY AND SECURITY.
WE HAVE BUILT UP AI SYSTEMS TO 
BE ABLE TO FIND HARMFUL CONTENT,
INCLUDING TO BE ABLE TO FIND 50 
DIFFERENT NETWOR OF 
COORDINATING AND AUTHENTIC 
BEHAVIOR.
BACALLY, NATION STATES TRYING
TO INTERFERE INELECTIONS.
>> CAN I PAUSE YOU -- LET ME 
JU PAUSE YOU THERE FOR 
SEND.
I'M INTERESTED IN THAT.
THE STOP HATE CAMPAIGN, AND 
THEY'RE TARGETING FACEBOOK RIGHT
NOW FOR BOYCOTT BECAUSE OFHE
RAPID SPREAD OF HATE MESSAGES 
ONLINE, T PRESENCE O
BEGALO AN 
ALT-RIGHT RACIST CONNT 
FLOURISHES ON FACEBOOK.
THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO REMOVE 
THESE PAGES AND ESSENTILY TO JOL
RIGHTS BY NOT ALLOWINGHAT KIND
OF CONTENT.
EIR BCOTTERS INCLUDE BIG 
COANIES LIKE LEVI'S, 
McDONALD'S, VW, HEINEN AND SO 
ON.
YOU SEEM NOT TOO MOVED BY THEIR 
CAMPAIGN.
I JUST WONDER WHAT YOU THINK 
ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO
DO?
>> CONGRESSMAN, THANKS.
WEE VERY FOCUSED ON FIGHTING 
AGAIT ELECTION INTERFERENCE 
AND WE'RE ALSO VERY FOCUSED ON 
FIGHTING AGAINST HATE SPEECH.
OUR COMMITMENT TO THOSE ISSUES 
GO BACK YEARS BEFORE THIS RECENT
MOVEMENT.
SINCE 2016 THEEFENSES THAT THE
COMPANY HAS BUILT UP TO HELP 
SECURE ELECTIONS, NOTUST IN 
THE U.S. BUT AROUND THE WORLD, I
THINK ARE SOME OF THE MOST 
ADVANCED THAT ANY COMPANY OR 
VERNMENT HAS IN THE WORLD W.
WE ROUTINELY NOW COLLABORATE WI 
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AND ARE 
ABLE TO SOMIMES IDENTIFY 
THREATS COMING FROM OER 
COUNTRIES BEFORE GOVERNMEN ARE
EVEN ABLE TO.
IN TERMS OF FIGHTING HATE, WE 
HAVE BUILT REALLY SOPHISTICAT 
SYSTEMS.
OUR GOAL IS TO IDENTIFY I 
BEFORE ANYONE EVEN SEES IT ON 
THE PLATFO.
WE BUILT AI SYSTEMS, AND AS I 
MENTIONED, HAVE TENS OF 
THOUSAS OF PEOPLE WORKING ON 
SAFETY AND SECURY WITH THE 
GOAL OF GETTING THIS STUFF DOW 
SO THAT WAY BEFORE PEOPLE EVEN 
SEEIT.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE AE TO 
PROACTIVELY IDENTIFY 89% OF THE 
HATE SPEECH THAT WE TAKE DOWN 
BEFORE I THINK IT'S EVENEEN BY
OTHER PEOPLE.
I WANT TO DO BETTER THAN89%.
I'D LIKE TO GET THAT TO 99%.
BUT WE HAVE A MASSIVENVESTMENT
HERE.
WE INVEST IN BILLIS OF 
DOLLARS --
>> MY TIME IS ALMOST UP
CAN YOU JUST ADDRE THE 
PROLIFERATION OF FAKE ACCOUNTS?
I UNDERSTAND ANNUALLY YOU G 
6.5 BLION FAKE ACCOUNTS 
PRODUCED THERE, BUT INOME 
SENSE YOU HAVE A PROFITOTIVE 
LINKED TO THAT BECAUSE THAT'S 
WHAT'S REPORTE TO YOUR 
INVESTOR THE NUMBER OF 
ACCOUNTS
ARE YOU WORKING ZEALOUSLY TO 
FERRET OUT THESE FAKE ACCOUNTS 
THAT SPREAD DISINFORMATION?
>> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED BUT THE 
WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE QUTION.
>> CONGRESSMAN, ABSOLUTELY.
WE WORK HARD ON THIS.
WE TAKE DOWN BILLIONS OF FAKE 
ACCOUNTS A YEAR.
A LOT OF THATS JUST PEOPLE 
TRYING TO SET UPCCOUNTS TO 
AM PEOPLE FOR COMMERCIAL 
REASONS.
A VERY SMALL PERCENT OF THAT ARE
NATION STATES TRYIN TO 
INTERFERE IN ELECTIONS, BUT 
WE'RE VERY FOCUSED ON TRYING TO 
FIND THOSE.
HAVING FAKE AND HARMFUL CONTENT 
ON OUR PLATFORM DOES NOT HP 
OUR BUSINESS.
IT HURTS O BUSINESS.
PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO SEE THAT 
STUFF.
AND THEY USE OUR SERVICES LESS 
WHEN THE DO.
WE ARE ALIGNED WITH PEOPLE IN 
ORDER TO TAKE THAT DOWN.
WE INVEST BILLIONS OF DOLLARS A 
YEAR IN DOING SO.
>> YIELD BACK.
THANK YOU.
>> THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN 
RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES WHILE W 
FIX A TECHNICAL FEED WITH ONE OF
R WITNESSES.
>>> THE COMMITTEE WILLOME BACK
TO ORR.
I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
NORTH DATA, MR. ARMSTRONG, FOR
FIVE MINUTES. 
>> GOOE HAS RECEIVED CRITICISM
ABOUT BIAS AGAINST CONSERVATIVES
AND CONTENT MODERATION.
THERE WE THREATS OF DEMON 
TIESING T FEDERALT AND OTHER
VIEW POINTS OF COMPLAINT.
AS A RESULT A SIGNIFICANT 
PORTIO OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC 
HAS LOST TRUST IN YOUR COMPANY
A LACK OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN A
PRODUCT USUALLY MEANS THERE'S 
ONOMIC HARM TO THE COMPANY.
BUT THAT JT ISN'T THE CASE 
WITH GOOGLE.
I THINK IT'S A LEGITIMATE 
ESTION AS TO WHETHER GOOGLE'S 
RKET POWER INSULATES IT FROM 
LOSS OF REVENUE NORMALLY 
ASSOCIED WITH HALF OF THE 
PEOPLE THAT USE YOUR PRODUCT.
I THINK IT'S A LEGITIME 
QUESTION TO ASK IF OTHER 
ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE YOUR 
INDUSTRIES HAV WORKED.
SO, MR. PIAI, GOOGLE HAS 
RESTCTED ANALYZING ANALYTICS 
OR THE PORTABILITY OF DATA DUE 
TO COMPLIAE WITH THE GENERAL 
DATAROTECTION REGULATION.
SPECIFICALLY IN 2018, GGLE 
RESTRICTED T ABILITY TOXPORT
THE WIID, A COOKIE BASED 
IDENTIFY THAT CREATES PROFILES 
THROUGH GOOGLE DATA TRANSFER.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, NOT FAMILIAR 
WITH THEPECK
IFICS OF THAT 
PARTICULAR ISSUE, BUT HAPPYO 
FOLLOW UP MORE ONCE I UNDERAND
ITBETTER. 
>> YOU'RE NOT PARTICULARLY 
FAMILIAR WITH HOW YOU'RE 
COMPLYING WITH GDPR?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WVE LONG BEEN 
WORKG TO COMPLY WITHGDPR.
WE THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT 
GULATION AND WE ARE IN FULL 
MPLIANCE TO THE EXTENT OFY 
KNOWLEDGE.
I ST MEANT, NOT ARE OF THE 
SPECIFIC ISSUE WITHHE 
IDTIFIER YOU MENTIONED THERE.
>> IN ORDER TO COME FLY WITH 
GDPR, GOOGLE MUST COMBINE USER
DATA WITH OTHER PLATFORMS TO 
CREATECROSS-PLATFORM ANALYS.
IT SEEMS THAT ULTIMATELY LIMITS 
THE ABILITY OF ADVERSERS TO 
MAKEOMPARISONS BETWEEN 
OGLE-BASED CAMPAIGNS AND 
NON-GOOGLE BASED CAMPAIGNS.
ULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
>> IN ALL THESE ECOSYSTEMS, WE 
ARE BALANCING BETWEEN USERS, 
ADVERTISS AND PUBLISHERS.
WE DEEPLY CARE ABOUT THE PRIVACY
AND SERITY OF OUR USERS.
AND SO WHEN WE SERVE THESE 
ECOSYSTE, 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 
WERE CONSTANTLY STRIKING.
BUT WE FUS ON OUR USERS AND 
TRYING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN. 
>> I I WANT TO BE PERFECTLY 
CLEAR.
I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT JUST 
THE MARKET POWER CONSOLIDATION 
IS SNIFICANT BUT I ALSO WANT 
TO BE CLEAR THAT WHEN WE'RE 
VING FORWARD TO REGULATE THIS,
THAT WE AREN' ACTUALLY 
SQUEEZING OUT COMPETITION IN O
QUEST TO DO METHING, BECAUSE 
I'VE SAID THAT BEFORE IN THIS 
HEARING AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN.
USUALLY IN OUR QUE TO REGULATE
BIG COMPANIES, WE END U HURTING
SMALL COMPANIESMORE.
AND I'M ATRONG PRIVACY
ADVOCATE.
BUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF GDPR 
HAVE BEEN TO FURTHER ENTRENCH 
LARGE ESTABSHED ACTORS LIKE 
GOOGLE LEADING TO REGULATORY 
CAPTURE THAT EXASPERATES 
COMPETITION CONCERN.
AND OGLE'S MARKET SHARE SINCE 
TH IMPLEMENTATION OF GDPR, DO 
YOU KNOW THA TO BE CORRECT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, TO GIVE YOU -- 
AD PRICES HAV FALLEN 40 PRST IN
THE LAST YEAR.
IN THE U.S., ADVERTISING AS A 
CHAIRMAN OF GDP HAS COME DOWN 
FROM 1.4% IN 1992 TO LESS TH 
1% TODAY.
SO, WE SEE ROBUST COMPETITION I
THE MARKETPLACE.
AS I SAID EARLIER, YOU KNOW, WE 
HAVE TO COMPLY WITH GULATION.
WE HAVE TO INTERPRET IT STRTLY
AND WE HAVE TO BALAN THE 
ECOSYSTEM.
BUT OUR UTMOST CARES ENSURING 
PRIVACY AND SECURITY OF O 
USERS. 
>> I'M GLAD YOU MENTIONHE 
PRIVACY BECAUSE IOULD BE 
REMISS IF I DIDN'T DEAL WITH 
THIS ISSUE BAUSE IT'S SO 
RELEVANT.
GENERALLY SPEAKING OUTSIDE OF 
THE POLITICAL ISSUES AND THE 
BIAS WITH ALL OF THIS,ND THIS 
IS FOR ESSENTIALLY ALL FOUR OF 
OUR WITNESSES, I THINK ONE OF 
OUR BIGGER CONCES WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT DATA AND VALUE -- A THAT
DATA HAVING VALUE AND PRIVACY, 
WHICH IS WHERE PEOPLE REALLY GET
CONCERNED WITH HOW THE DIGITAL 
AGE IS MOVING FORWARD, AND THERE
ARE NEWS REPORTS THAT LAW 
ENFORCEMENT HAS MADE INCREASING 
USE OF WHAT ARE CALLED GEOFENCE 
WARRANTS.
THESE GEOFENCE WARRANTS COMPEL 
TECH CPANIES FOR LOCATION 
RECORDS ON A CERTAIN DEVICE AT .
COURT FILINGS SUGGEST GOOGLE 
RECEIVED ABOUT 1500% INCREASE IN
GEOFENCE REQUESTS FROM 2017 TO 
2018.
AND A 500% INCREASE FROM 2018 TO
2019.
AND SO THE FOURT AMENDMENT 
REQUIRES PROBABLE CAUSE AND 
SPECIFICITY.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THESE ARE.
THESE WARRANTS ARE FOR ANY 
PERSON, IN ANY AREAT A 
PARTICULAR TIME.
AND GEOFENCE WARRAS REQUIRE 
NEITHER.
UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY 
PARTICULARIZED INFORMATION AND 
IDENTIFYING A SUBJECT, GEO 
WARRANTS ARESSENTIALLY GENERAL
WARRANTS
I BELIEVE THE LOCION 
INFORMATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
CONTENTS OF THE ELECTRONI 
COMMUNICATION ACT UNDER THE 
STORAGE COMMUNICATIONS ACT.
DO YOU REE?
>> HAPPY TO UNDERSTANDMORE.
WE DEEPLY CARE ABOUT- THIS IS 
WHY WE HAVE TRANSPAREY REPORTS
BECAUSE WE THINK IT'S AN 
IMPORTANT AREA FOR CONGRES TO 
HAVE OVERSIGHT.
WE RECENTLY MADE A CHANGE BY 
WHICH WE AUTATICALLY DELETE 
LOCATION ACTIVITY AFTER A 
CERTAIN PERIO OF TIME BY 
DEFAULT OF OUR USS.
WE'RE HAPPY TO ENGAGE WITH YOUR 
OFFICE, CONGRESSMAN. 
>> THESE ARE GOING ON IN 
VIRGINIA AND NEW YORK, I THINK, 
RIGHTNOW.
I MEAN, THIS EQUATES FOR 
EVERYTHING.
I THINK PEOPLE WOULD BE 
TERRIFIED TO KNOW THAT LAW 
ENFORCEMENT COULD GRAB GENERAL 
WARRANTS AND GET EVERYBODY'S
INFORMATION ANYWHERE, S IT 
REQUIRES CONGRESS TO ACT AND IT 
REQUIRES EVERYBODY THAT IS A
WITNESS IN THIS HEARING TO BE 
WILLING TO WORK, TOO, BECAUSE IT
IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT 
ISSUE, I TNK -- 
>> THE TIME OF THEENTLEMAN HAS
EXPIRED B I BELIEVE HE HAS 
UNANIMS CONSENT REQUEST. 
>> I DO.
I HAVE UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST
FOR "WALL STREET JOURNAL" 
ARTICLE.
>>ITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> AND THEN I HAVE TWO LETTERS.
THE LTERS ARE FROM CONGRESSMAN
WALDEN, CORESSWOMAN McMORRIS 
ROBERTS.
THE FIRST ISO MR. COOK OF 
APE AND THE SECOND IS TO 
MR. PICHAI. 
>> NO OBJECTION.
I THE GENTLE LADY FROM 
WASHINGTON. 
>> MR. BEZOS, IN JULY 2018 YOUR 
EMPLOYEE NATE SUTTON TOLD ME 
UNDER OATH I THIS COMMITTEE 
AT AMAZON DOES NOT, QUOTE, USE
ANY SPECIFIC SELLER DATA WHEN 
CREATING ITS OWN PRIVATE BND 
PRODUCT.
LET ME ASK YOU, MR. BEZOS, DOES 
AMAZON EVER ACCESS AND U 
THIRD-PARTY SELLER DATA WHEN 
MAKING BUSINESS DECISIS?
JUST A YES OR NO WILL SUFFICE, 
SIR.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
I KNOW IT'S AN IMPORTANT TOPIC 
D I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR 
REPRESENTING US.
I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION YES
 NO.
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS WE HAVE A
POLI AGAINST USING 
SELLER-SPECIC 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 A 
REPORT IN "THE WALL STREET 
JOURL" REVEALED YOUR COMPANY 
DOES ACCESS DATA ON THIRD-PARTY 
SELLERS, BOTH BY VIEWING DATA 
ON POPULAR INDIVIDUAL SELLERS ON
PRODUCTS AND BY CREATING TINY 
PRODUCT CATEGORIES THAT ALLOWED 
YOUR COMPANY TO CATEGORICALLY 
ACCESS DETAILED SELLER 
INFORMATION IN A SUPPOSEDLY 
AGGREGATE CATEGORY.
ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?
>> I'M AWARE OF "THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL" ARTICLE YOUE TALKING 
ABOUT.
WE LOOKED INTO THAT CAREFULLY.
I'M NOT THE SATISFIED WE G TO 
THE BOTT OF IT AND WE'RE GOING
TO KEE LOOKING AT IT.
IT'S NOT AS EASY TO DO BECAUSE 
SOME OF E SOURCES IN THE 
ARTICLE ARE ANONYMOUS. 
>> I WILL TELL YOU A FORMER 
AMAZONEMPLOYEE, THIRD PARTY 
SALES AND RECRUITMENT TD THIS 
COMMITTEE, QUOTE,HERE'S NO 
RULES OR SOMEBOD ENFORCING OR 
OT CHECKING.
THEY JUST SAY DON HELP 
YOURSELF TO THE DATA.
IT'S A CANDY SHOP.
ANYONE CAN HE ACCESS TO 
ANYTHING THEY WANT.
DO CATEGORY MANAGERS HAVE ACCESS
TO PUBLIC DATA ABOUT THIRD-PARTY
PRUCTS AND BUSINESSES?
>> HERE'S WHAT I CAN TL YOU.
WE D HAVE CERTAIN SAFEGUAR IN
PLACE.
WE TRAIN PEOPL ON THE POLICY.
WE EXPECT PEOPLE TO FOLW THAT 
POLICY THE SAME WAY WE WOULD ANY
OTHER.
IT'S A VUNTARY POLICY.
AS FAR AS I'M AWA --
>> SO THERE'S NO ACAL -- 
THERE'S NO ACTUAL ENFORCEMENT?
>> OH, NO. 
>> SO IT'S VOLUNTARYND THERE'S
NO ACTUAL ENFORCEMENT?
MAYBE THAT ANSWERS MY 
>> SORRY.
NO, I THINK I MAY HAVE MISSPOKE.
I'M TRNG TO SAY AMAZON'S -- 
THE FACT WE HAVE SUCH A POLICY 
IS VOLUNTARY.
I THINK NO OTHER RETAILER EVEN 
HAS SUCH A POLICY. 
>> WELL THAT'S --
>> ENFORCEMENT OF THAT POLICY, 
WE WOULD TREAT THAT LIKE ANY 
INTERNAL LICY.
IF WE FOUND THAT SOMEONE 
VIOLATED IT, WE WOULD TAKE 
ACTION AGAINST THEM.
>> WELL, THE'S NUMEROUS REPORTS 
CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS WITH FORMER
EMPLOYEES WHO CFIRM THERE ARE 
EMPLOYS WHO DO HAVE ACCESS TO 
THAT DATA AND ARE USING IT, AND 
SO MY NEXT QUESTION WAS GOING TO
BE IF YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE 
ACTUALLY ENFORCING THESE RULES, 
DO YOU THINK THAT THAT'S 
WORKING?
AGAIN, I WOULD JUS IT HAS DOCUM 
BREACHESF THESE RULES THAT YOU
HAVE PUT INTO PLACE AND THE 
COMMITTEEAS INTERVIEWED THEM, 
THEY SAY THESE BREACHES 
TYPICALLY OCCUR.
YOUR RULES DO ALLOW FOR COMBINED
DATA ON A PDUCT WHEN THERE ARE
ONLY ONE OR TWO SELLERS IN THE 
MARKETACE, CORRECT?
>> YES.
AGGREGATE DATA IS ALLOWED UNDER
OUR POLICIES.
THAT IS CORRECT.
>> OKAY.
AND INRVIEWS WITH FORMER 
EMPLOYEESAVE MADE IT CLEAR,
THAT AGGREGATE DATA ALLOWS
ACCESS TO HIGY DETAILED DATA 
IN THOSE PRODUCT CATEGORIES.
THERE'S THE EXAMPLE OA SMALL 
BUSINESS THAT HAD NO DIRECT 
COMPETITORS EXCEPTOR AMAZON 
WAREHOUSE DEALS, A RESALE 
CLEARANCE ACCOUNT THAT ONLY SD
17 UNITS.
AND AMAZON EMPLOYEE ACCESSED A
DETAILED SALES REPORT ON 
FORTEM'S PRODUCT WITH 
INFORMATN ON HOW MUCH THE 
COMPANY SPENT ON ADVERTISING PER
UNIT, AND THE COST TO SHIP EACH 
UNK.
AND THEN AMAZON LAUNCHED ITS OWN
COMPETING PRODUCTS IN OCTOBER 
2019.
THAT'S A MAJOR LOOPHOLE.
I GO BACK TO THE GENERAL 
COUNSEL'S STATEMENT TO THE
COMMITTEE, THAT THERE W NO 
ACCESS TO THIS DATA.
THAT AMAZON DOES NOT U THAT 
DATA TO ITS OWN BENEFIT AND I'M 
NOW HEARINGOU SAY, YOU'RE NOT 
SO SURE THAT'S GOING ON.
THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE CONCERNED 
WITH HERE IS VERY SIMPLE.
YOU HAVE ACCESS TO DATA THAT FAR
CEEDS THE SELLERS ONOUR 
PLATFORMS WITH WHOM YOU COMPETE.
YOU CONTRACT CONSUMER, YOU CAN 
TRACK CONSUMER HABITS.
YOU HAVE AESS TO THE ENTIRETY 
OF SEERS' PRICING AND 
INVEORY INFORMATION, PAST, 
PRESENT AND FUTURE AND YOU 
DICTATE THEARTICIPATION OF 
THIRD PARTY SELLERS ON YOUR 
PLATFORM
SO YOU CAN SET THE RULES OF E 
GAME FOR YOUR COMPETITORS BUT 
NOT FOLLO THE SAME RULES FOR 
YOSELF.
DO YOU THINK THAT'S FAIR TO THE 
MOM AND POP THIRD PARTY 
BUSISSES TRYING TO SELL ON 
YOUR PLATFORM?
>> I APPRECIATE THAT QUESTION.
I LIKE IT A LOT BECAUSE I WANT 
THE CHANCE TO ADDRESS AT.
I AM VERY PROUD OF WHAT WE'VE 
DONE FOR TRD PARTY SELLERS ON 
THIS PLATFORM WEST STARTED OUR 
THIRD PARTY PLATFORM 20 YEARS 
AGO.
WE HAD ZO SELLERS ON IT.
>> THE QUESTION I'M ASKING, I'M
SORRY.
I'M SO SORRY.
MY TIME IS EXPIRING.
THE QUESTION I WANTED TO A YOU
IS THAT YOU HAVE ACCESS TO DATA 
TH YOUR COMPETITORS DON'T 
HAVE.
YOU MIGHT ALLOW THEM ON TO YOUR 
PLATFORM BUT IF YOU'RE
CONTINUOUSLY MONITORING TO MAKE 
SURE THAT THEY'LL NEVER GET BIG 
ENOUGH THA THEY CAN COMPETE 
WI YOU, THAT IS ACTUALLY THE 
CONCERN THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS.
D YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU 
COMPANY STARTED IN MY DISTRICT.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT, 
FOR THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE, 
AND SAY THAT THE WHOLE GOAL OF 
THIS COMMITTEE'S WORK I TO MAKE
SURE THA THERE ARE MORE 
AMAZONS, MORE APPLES, THA THERE
ARE MORE COMPANIES THAT GET TO 
INNOVATE AND SMALL BUSINESSES 
GET TO THRIVE
AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
GET AT.
THAT'S WHY WEEED TO REGATE 
THESE MARKET PLACES.
SO NO COMPANY HAS A PLATFORM SO 
DOMINANT THAT IT IS ESSENTIALLY 
A MONOPO.
THANK YOU.
I YIELD BACK
>> TIME HAS PIRED.
IANT TO REMIND THE WITNESSES, 
WE APPRECIATE THE GRATITUDE FOR 
THE QUESTIONS AND YOUR 
DESCRIPTION AS GOOD QUESTIONS.
BUT WE'LL JT ASSUME THAT 
THEY'RE GOOD QUESTIONS AND 
YOU'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM SO 
WE CAN MAKE SURE WE'RE MING 
GOOD USE OF OUR TIME.
WITH THAT, I RECOGNIZE THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA.
>> THANK YOU.I WOULD LIKE TO ST 
AND I'LL ILLUSTRATEY QUESTION 
WITH A FACTUAL INCIDENT THAT 
ACTUALLY OCCURRED T ME.
SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, MY WIFE 
CALLED AND.
HEY, THERE IS A GOOD ARTICLE ON 
THE GATE WAIVE PUNDIT THAT Y 
SHOULD READ.I WAS HERE IN WASHIF
CURIOSITY.I GOOGLED GATEWAY PUN.
IT DIDN'T SHOW UP ON THEIRST 
OR SECOND PAGE.
THERE WERE A BUNCH OF 
DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT WHAT S ON 
THE GATEWAY PUNDIT.
I HAD TO TYPE IT IN TO GET TO 
IT.
INTERESTINGLY, GOOGLE DIDN'T 
ALLOW ME TO GET TO THE ACTUAL 
WEBSIT LT THAT WAS A COUPLE 
NTHS BEFORE THIS HEARING WAS 
SET TO BE HED.
BEFORE YOU KNEW THAT YOU WOULD 
BE APPEARING BEFORE US TODAY AND
THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT 
OBVIOUSLY CONSERVATIVES AND 
REPUBLICANS HAVE HAD.
LAST WEEK, AFTER THIS HEARING 
WAS NOTICED, DID I THE EXACT 
SAME THING IN THE CAPITAL.
AND WOULDN'T YOU KNOW IT, I 
GOOGLED GATEWAY PUNDIT AND IT 
WAS THE FIRST THING THAT CAME
UP.
THIS ISN'T NUS REPORT OR 
SOMEBODY TELLING ME.
I PHYSICALLY DID THIS ON M 
LAPT.
SEVERAL MONTHS AGO AND THEN 
TODAY.
SO CLEARLY SOMETHING HAD 
HAPPEN BETWEEN NOT KNOWING 
THAT YOU WERE APPEARING BEFORE A
COMMITE AND THEN LAST WEEK KNOW 
BEFORE A COMMITTEE AND SUDDENLY 
WEBSIT ARE AT THE TOP OF THE 
BAR WHEN YOU SEARCH FOR THEY WI.
SO WAS THERE ANYTHING DONE AT 
GOOGLE BETWEEN A COUPLE MONTHS 
AGO AND A WEEK BEFORE YOU 
APPEARING TODAY THAT HAS CHANGED
YOUR APPROACH TO SILENCING 
CONSERVATIVE WEBSITES?
>> CONGSSMAN, WE APPROACH OUR 
WORK A DEEPENSE OF 
RESPSIBILITY.
IN A NONPARTISAN WAY, WE WANT TO
SERVE ALL OUR URS NO MATTER 
WHERE THEY ARE.
IT IS OUR LONG TIME BUSINESS 
INCENTIVE TO DO SO.
I BELIEVE ON THE PLATFORMS 
INCLUDING YOUTUBE, THATHERE 
ARE MORE CONSERVATIVE VOICES 
THAN EVER BEFORE AND WE BELIEVE 
IN FREOM OF EXPRESSION.
ON THE SPECIFIC ISSUE, I WILL H.
I OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT AWARE O IT.
WE KW IT COULD BE A NUMBER OF 
REASONS.
WE CONSTANTLY GET REPORTS -- 
>> SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK 
INTO IT.
CAN I EXPECT A RESPONSE FROM Y
IN THE NEXTWO WEEKS?
>> WE'LL DO O BEST TO FOLLOW 
UP WITH YOUR OFFICE.
>> WE'LL FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
I HAVE A SIMILAR QUESTION.
I'VE BEEN IN ELECTED POLITICS 
FOR ALMOST TEN YEARS.
WHEN I WAS IN THE FLORIDA SENATE
D THE STATE SENATE, I NEVER 
HAD A PROBLEM WITH MY CAMPAIGN 
AILS BEING MARKED AS SPAM OR 
GOING TOUNK FOLDE OR 
ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
WEAD 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 
OPLE ON OUR EMAIL LISTS.
SUDDENLY I GET ELECTED TO 
CORESS AND I'M UP HERE IN 
WASHINGTOND.C. IN MY PARENTS 
WHOAVE A G MAIL ACCOUNTRE 
GETTING MY ACCOUNT.
SUDDENLY MY MAIL IS GETTING IT
FOR TENEARS AND SUDDENLY 
THEY'RE GOING TO SPAM IN JUNK 
FOLDERS.THIS APPEARS TO ONLY BE 
HAPPENING TO CONSERVATIVE 
REPUBLICANS.
I DON'T SEE ATHING IN THE NEWS
OR ANYTHING IN THE PRESS OR 
OTR MEMBERS ON THE OTHER SIDE 
OF THE AISLE TALKING ABOUT THEIR
CAMPAIGN EMAILS GETTING HELP TO 
INTO JUNK FOLDERS IN G-MAIL.
SO MY QUESTION IS WHYS THIS 
ONLY HAPPENING TO REPUBLICANS?
AND IT IS A FACT IT'S HAPPENING.
I CAN HAVE MY SUPPORTERS TESFY
THAT THEY RECVED MY EMAILS FOR
EIGH YEARS, EIGHT, NINEYEARS, 
AND SUDDENLY TS LAST YEAR, ALL
THEIR G-MAIL, MY CAMIGNING IS 
GOING TOHEIR SPAM FOLDERS.
SO IF YOU CAN GIVE ME SOME 
CLARIFICATION ONTHAT, I WOULD 
APPRECIATE IT.
>> WE ARE FOCUSED ON WHATSERS 
WANT.
ANDHEY'VE INDICATED THEY WANT 
TO US ORGANIZE THEIR PERSONAL 
EMAILS, FROM FRIENDS AND FAMILY,
SEPARATELY.
SOLL WE'VE DONE IS WE HAVE THE
ORGANIZATION, THE PRIMA TAB IS
FROM FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND THE 
OTHER TAB IS OTHER NOTIFICIONS
AND SO ON.
IT WASY FATHER NOT RECEIVING 
THE EMAIL.
SO CLEARLY THAT FAMILIAL THING 
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DID NOT 
APPLY TO MY EMAILS.>> OUR SYSTE 
ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS 
YOUR FATHER.
OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T HAVE THAT 
CONTEXT.
WE JUSTPPLY IT NEUTRALLY 
ACROSS ALL ORGANIZATIONS.
AND -- 
>> WHAT ASSURANCES C YOU GIVE 
ME THAT THERE I -- MY TIME I 
SHORT.
ONE LAST QUESTION.
WHAT SHURMSSAN YOU GE ME 
THAT ANY BIAS ISN'T INFLUENCING 
YOUR SPAM FOLDER ALGORITHMS?>> G
IN THE ALGORIT WHICH HAS 
ANYTHINGO DO WITH POLITAL 
IDEOLOGY.
WE DO GET COMPLAINTS ACROSS THE
AISLE.
THE SOCIALISTS SAID IN JANUARY 
OF THIS YEAR THAT IT WASN'T IN 
SEARCH RESULTS.
WE GET COMPLAINTS.
WE LOOK INTO IT.
WE APPROACH OUR WORK IN A 
NONPART SANDAL WAY AND IT IS IN 
OUR LONG TERM INCENTIVE TO SERVE
USERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
TODAY, THAT'S WHY WE INVEST IN 
49 STATES ACROSS THE U.S. SO WE 
CAN CAPTURE ALL THE POINTS.
>> THA YOU.
TIME HAS EXPIRED.
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENETICAL 
LADY FROM FLORIDA.
>> I'VE HRD COMPLAINTS ABOUT 
MY EILS GOING INTO SPAM AS 
WELL.
AND I'LL SURETHER DEMOCRATIC 
MEMBERS HAVE HAD THE SAME 
EXPERIENCES.
IN 2007, GOOGLE PURCHASED DOUBLE
CLICK.
CERTAIN ADVERTISING TOOLS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> WN GOOGLE PROPOSED THE 
MERGER, ALA BELLS WEREAISED 
ABOUT THE ACCESS TO DAT GOOGLE 
WOULD HAVE.
SPECIFICALLY THE ABILITY TO 
CONNECT A PERSONAL IDENTITY.
THE DEAL WOULD NOT REDUCE USER 
PRIVACY.
GOOGLE TESTIFIED BEFORE THE 
SENA ANTI-TRUST SUB COMMITTEE 
THAT GOOGLE WOULD BE ABLE TO 
MERGE THI DATA, EVEN IF IT 
WANTED TO, GIVEN CONTRACTUAL 
STRICTIONS.
BUT IN JUNE OF2016, GOOGLE 
WOMEN AHEAD AND MERGED THIS -- 
GOOLWENT AHEAD ON THE 
INTERNET.
YOU BECAME CEO OF GGLE IN 
2015.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S RRECT.
>> AND THIS CHANGE WAS MADE IN 
2016, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'SY UNDERSTANDG.
>> OKAY.THANK YOU FOR THAT.
DID YOU SIGN OFF THAT GOOGLE HAD
LD CONGRESS IT WOULD BE KEPT 
SEPARATE?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, A CHANGES WE
MADE- 
>> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, PLEASE,
DID YOU SIGN OFFN THE DECISION
OR T?
>> I REVIEW AT A HIGH LEVEL ALL 
IMPORTANTECISIONS WE MAKE.
WE DEEPLY CARE ABOUT OUR USERS.
>> SO YOU SIGNED OFF.
OKAY.
YOU SIGNED OFF ON THE DESION.
PRACTICALLY, THIS DECISION MEN 
THAT YR COMPANY WOULD NOT
COMBINE ALL, WOULD NOW COMBINE, 
FOR EXAMPLE, ALL OF MY DATA ON
GOOGLE, MY SEARCH HISTORY, MY 
LOCATION FROM GOOGLE MAPS,
INFORMATION FROM MY EMAILS, FROM
G-MAIL, AS WELL AS MY PERSONAL 
IDENTY WITH A RECORD OF ALMOST
ALL OF THE WEBSITES I VISITED.
THAT IS ABSOLUTEL STAGGERING.
ACCORDING TO AN EMAIL FROM A 
DOUBLE CLICK EXECUTIVE, THAT WAS
EXACTLY T TYPE OF REDUCTION 
AND USER PRIVACY THAT THE 
UNDERS HAD PREVIOUSLY WORRIED 
WOULD LEAD TO A BACK LASH.
AND I QUOTE.
THEY WERE UNWAVERING DUE TO 
PHILOSOPHICAL REASONS, WHICH IS 
NOT WANTING USERS ASSOCIATED 
WITH THE CROSS-SITE CLICKING.
THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT A 
PRIVILEGECY STORM AS WELL AS 
DAMAGE TO GOOGLE'S BRAND.
SO IN 2007, GOOGLE'S FOUNDERS 
FEARED MAKING THIS CHANGE 
BECAUSE THEY KNEW WOULD IT UPSET
THE USERS.
IN 2016, GOOGL DID NOT SEEM TO 
CARE.
ISN'T TRY IT THAT WT CHANGED BE 
GOOGLE GAINED ENORMOUS MARKET 
POWER.
SO WHILE GOOGLE HAD TO CARE 
ABOUT USER PRICY IN 2007, IT 
NO LONGER HAD TO IN 2016.
WOULD YOU AGREE WAS THAT GOOGLE 
GAED ENORMOUS MARKET POWER?
>> IT ISN IMPORTANT ISSUE.
IF I COULD EXPLAIN.
WE PLAYING IT VERY EASY F 
USERS TO CONTROL THEIR SETTINGS.
THEY CAN TURN IT ON AND OFF.
WE HAVE COMBINED MOST OF THE 
SETTINGS INTO THREE GROUPIS.
REREMIND USERS TGO TO A 
PROIFCY CHECK UP.
1 BILLION USERS -- 
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I AM CONCEED THAT GOOG'S 
BAIT-ANDWITCH IS PART OF A 
BROAR PANEL WHERE GOOGLE BUYS 
UP COMPANIES FOR THE THAT U 
RECALL OF SVEILLING AMERICANS.
AND BECAU OF GOOGLE DOMINANCE,
USERS HAVE NO CHOICE BUTO 
SURRENDER.
IN 2019, GOOGLE MADE OVER80% OF
ITS TOT RENUE THROUGH 
SELLING OF AD PLACEMENT.
IS THAT COECT?
80%?
>> THE MAJORITY.
 BECAUSE THEYELL BEHAVIORAL 
ADS, THEORE USER DAT THAT 
GOOGLE COLLECTS, THE MOR MONEY 
GOOGLE CAN MAKE.
MORE USER DATA MEAN MOREMONEY, 
IS THAT CORRECT?
 IN GENERAL, THAS NOT TRUE.
>> MORE USER DATA IS NOT MORE 
MONEY THAT GOOGLE CONNECTS?
>> I'M SORRY, PLEASE.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE MOR USER
DATA DOE NOT MEAN THE MORE 
MONEY THAT GOOGLE CAN LLECT.
>> MOST OF THE DATA WE COLLECT 
IS TO HEL USERS.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
MR. CHRMAN, I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK THANK YOU.
>> IS GOOGLE GOING TO TAILORTS
FEATURES TO HELP JOE BIDEN IN 
THE 2020 ELECTION?
>> CONGRESSMAN, W APPROACH OUR 
WORK.
WE SUPPORT BOTH CAMPAIGNS TODAY.
WE THINK POLICAL ADS IS AN 
IMPORTANT PAR OF FREE SPEECH IN 
DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES AND 
CAMPAIGNS, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING 
TO LAW AND THE APPROACH IN A 
NONPARTISAN WAY.
>> IT IS A YES OR NO QUESTION.
CAN YOU ASSUREMERICANS TODAY 
YOU WON'T TAILOR YOUR FEATURES 
TO HELP JOE BID IN THE 
UPCOMING ELECTION?
>> YOUKNOW, WE SUPPORT WORK 
THAT CAMPAIGNS DO.
I WANT T MAKE SURE.
>> WE ALL DO ALL KINDS OF ONLINE
SOCIAL MEDIA.
ALL KIN OF THAT OUTRECEIVE.
THAT COMMUNICION.
THIS IS A SIMPLE QUESTION.
CAN YOU TODAY ASSUREMERICANS 
YOU WILL NOT TAILOR UR 
FEATURES IN ANY WAY TO HELP 
SPECIFICALLY HELP ONE CDIDATE 
OVER ANOTR.
WHAT I'M CONCERNED IS YOU 
HELPING JOE BIDEN OVER PSIDENT
TRUMP.
>> WE WON'T DO ANY WORK TO 
POLITICALLY TILT ANYTHING O 
WAY OR THE OTHER.
IT IS AGAINST OUR CORE VALUES.
>> YOU DID ITN 16.
THERE'S AN EMAIL IN 2016 THAT 
WAS WIDELY CIRCULATED THAT GOT 
PUIC WHERE THE HEAD OF YOUR 
MULTICULTURAL MARKETING TKS 
ABOUT THE SILEN DONATION 
GOOGLE MADE TO THE CLINTON 
CAMPAIGN.
AN YOU APPLAED HER WORK.
SHE POINTS THAT OUT IN THE 
EMAIL.
I'M RIOUS, IF YOU DID IT IN 
2016, IN SPITE OF THE FACT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WON.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT 
GOING TO DO IT AGAIN IN 2020.
>> I RECALL THE CONVERSATION 
TEMPERATURE.
I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN.
WE DIDN'T FIND ANYVIDENCE OF 
SU ACTIVITY.
AND I TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY AFTER
THE CONVERSATION T REINFORCE TO
THE COMPANY.
WE REALI EVEN IN APPEARANCE, 
IT COULD BE IMPROPER.
WE HAVE CLEARLY COMMUNICATED TO 
EMPLOYEES ANY PERSONAL OF 
POLITICAL ACTIVITY, WHILE IT  
THEIR RIGHT, NEEDS TO HAPPEN ON 
THEIR OWN TIME AND RESOURCES AND
SHOULD AVOID -- 
>> OF COURSE.
EVERNE HAS THEIR FIRST 
AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO CAMPAIGN HOW
THEY WANT.
WHAT YOU CAN'T DO IS CONFIGURE 
THE FEATURES TOELP ONE OVER 
ANOTHER.
HERE'S WT SHE WROTE TO THE 
EMAIL.
A NUMBER OF KEY EXECUTIVES IN 
YOUR CO.
QUOTE, WE PUSH T GET OUT THE 
TINO VOTE WITH OUR FEATURES.
SECOND QUOTE, WE PUSH TO GET OUT
THE LATINOOTE WITH OUR FEET 
NURSES KEY STATES.
IT SEEMS THE LAS THREE WORDS 
ARE THE REAL QUALIFIER HERE.
WHENOU'RE TRYING IN KEY 
STATES, SHE HAD ALREADY 
COMMUNICATE THAT D SHE WAS 
SUPPORTING CLINTO
SHE WANTED CLINTON TO WIN.
WHEN SHE TALKS ABOUT INCREASING 
THE LATINO VOTE, WHICH SHE 
ASSUMED WOULD HELP CANDIDATE 
INTON AND SHE'S DOING IT IN 
KEY STATES
IT IS ONE THING IF YOU'RE GNG 
TO INCREASE IT AUND THE 
COTRY.
YOU'RE JUST A GOOD CORPORATE 
CITIZEN.
YOU'RE URGING PEOPLE T VOTE.
QUITE ANOER WHEN YOU'RE 
FOCUSING ON IN KEY STATES.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY WERE?
NEVADA AND FLORIDA.
THE SWINGSTATES.
SO AGAIN, I WANT TO MAKE SE 
THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN IN 
2020.
>> I CAN ASSURE YOU WE CPLIED 
IN 2016 AS A COIL.
ANY WORK WE DO WITH ELECTNS IS
NONPAR
NONPARTISAN.
USERS COME TO US,HAT THE 
VOTING HOURS ARE, I CAN ASSURE 
YOU -- 
>> SO, HERE'S THE QUESTION ON SO
MA AMERICANS' MINDS.
THEY SAW THE LIST IN OUR OPENING
STATEMENTS.
GOOG IS SIDING WITH THE WORLD H 
WHO DISAGREES WITH THEM EVEN 
THOUGHHEY OBVIOUSLY LIED TO 
AMERICA.
OBVIOUSL FORCHINA.
WE HAVE THE HTORY OF ALL THE 
THGS GOOGLE HAS DONE AND THE 
HISTORY OF WHAT HAPPENEDN 2016
IN THE ELECTION WHERE ACCORDING 
TO YOUR MULTICULTURAL MKETING 
EXECUTIVE, TRIED TO HELP CLINTON
AND HERE WE ARE, 9 DAYS BEFORE 
THE ELECTION ANDE WANT TO MAKES.
CAN YOU GIVE US TWO ASSURANCES, 
ONE, YOU WON'T TRY TO TAILOR 
UR FEATURES, CONFIGURE YOUR 
PLATFORM IN A WAY TO HELP JOE 
BIDEN.
AND SECOND, THAT YOU WON'T USE 
YOUR SEARCH ENGINE TO SILENCE 
CONSERVATIVES.
CAN YOU GIVE US THOSE TWO TODAY?
>> CONGRESSMAN, ON OUR SEARCH 
ENGINE, CONSERVATIVES HAVE MORE 
ACCESS TO INFORMATION THAN EVER 
BEFORE.
>> WE APPRECIATE THAT.
THAT WAS NOT THE QUESTION.
CAN YOU ASSURE US YOU WON'T TRY 
TO SILENCE CONSERVATIV AND CAN
YOU ASSURE THAT THAT, AS DID YOU
IN 16, CAN YOU ASSURE YOU
WON'T DO THE SAME THING FOR JOE 
BIDEN IN 2020.
>> YOU HAVE MY COMMITMENT.
IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE AND 
WE'LLONDUCT OURSELVES IN A 
NEUTRAL WAY.
 I RECOGNIZE FROM 
PENNSYLVANIA.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO REDIRECT YOU.
RATHER THAN FRINGE CONSPIRACY 
THEORIES.
OUR INVESTIGATION - 
>> WE HAVE THE EMAIL.
ERE'S NO -- 
>> YOU DO NOT HAVE THE TIME.
PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL.
SHE CONTROLS THE TIME.
>> P YOUR MASK ON.
PUT YOUR MASK ON.
>> MR. JORDAN
>> MR. JORDAN?
>> WHY WOULD THE DEPUTY 
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY UNMASK
MICHAEL FLYNS NAME?
>> WHAT I WANT TO KNOW -- 
>> THANK YOU.
OUR INVESTIGATION UNCOVERED 
DOCUMENTS THAT SWED THAT 
AMAZON SOMETIMES DOESN'T PLAY 
FAIRLY.
CROSSING THE LINE FROM ROBUST 
COMPETITION TO PREDATORY PRICIN 
RATHER THAN OUTCOMPETE THEM.
LET'S TAK EXAMPLE OF QUINCY 
WHICH USED TO OWN DIAPERS.COM 
AND PROVIDED ONLINE BABY 
PRODUCTS.IN 2009 YOUR TEA VIEWE 
AMAZON'S LARGEST AND FASTEST 
ONLINE COMPETITOR FOR DIAPERS.
ON OF THE TOP EXECUTIVES SAID 
THAT DIAPERS.COM KEEPS THE
PRESSURE OF PRICING ON US.
AND STRONG COMPETITIONEN 
AMAZON WAS HAVING TWORK HARDER
AND HARDER SO CUSTOMERS DIDN'T 
PICK DIAPERS.COM OVER AMAZON.
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HARD WOS
WITH BABIES A YOUNG CHILDREN.
BECAUSE DIAPERS.COM WAS SO 
SUCCESSFUL, AMAZON SAW IT AS 
THREAT.
IT SHOWE THAT THEY BEGAN 
STRATEGIZING WAYS TO WEAKEN THIS
COMPANY.
AND AMAZON HATCHED A PLAN TO 
TAKE IT OUT.
IN AN EMAIL I REVIEWED, ONE OF 
YOUR TOP EXECUTIVES PROPOSED AN 
AGGRSIVE PLAN TO WIN AGAINST 
DIMERS DOC, A PLAN THAT SOUGHT 
TO UNDERCUT THEUSINESS BY
TEMPORARILY SLASHING AMAZON 
PRICES.
WE SAW ONE OF YOUR PROT AND 
LOSS STATEMENTS.
IT APPEARS INNE MONTH ALONE 
AMAZON WAS WILLING TO BLEED OVER
$200 MILLION IN DIAPER PROT 
LOES.
HOW MUCH MONEY WAS AMAZON 
WILLING TO LOSE ON THIS CAMPAIGN
TO UNDERMINE DIAPERS.COM?
>> THANK YOU FOR THEQUESTION.
I DON'T KNOW THE DIRECT ANSWER 
TO YOUR QUTION.
THIS IS GOING BACK IN TIME.
I THINK MBE 10 OR 11 YEARSR 
SO.
MAYBE THE DATES ON THE 
DOCUMENTS.
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT THE 
IDEA OF USING DIAPERS AND 
PRODUCTS LIKE THAT TO ATTRACT 
NEW CUSTORS WHO HAVEEW 
FAMILIES IS A VERY TRADITIAL 
IDEA.
 LET'S DELVE INTO TS A 
LITTLE FURTHER.
I'M SORR
YOU KNOW I ONLY HAVE A FEW 
MINUTES SO LET'S PRESS ON.
YOUR OWN DUMENTS MAKE IT CHEER
THAT IT WORKE AND WITHIN A FEW 
MONTHS IT WAS STRUGGLG SO 
AMAZON BOUGHT IT.
AFTER BUYING YOUR LDING 
COMPETITOR HERE, AMAZON CUT 
PROMOTIONS LIKE AMAZON.COM A 
THE STEAM DISCOUNTS IT USED TO 
LURE CUSTOMERS AWAY FROM 
DIAPERS.COM, AND THEN INCREASED 
THE PRICES AT DIAPERS FOR NEW 
MO AND DADS.
MR. BEZOS, DID YOU PERSONALLY 
SIGN OFF ONHE PLAN TO RAISE 
PRICES AFTER AMAZON ELIMINATE 
ITSCOMPETITION?
>> I DON'T REMEMBE THAT AT ALL.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I REMEMBERHAT WE MATCH 
COMPETITOR PRICES AND I BELIEVE 
WE FOLLOWED DIAPERS.COM.THIS IS 
ASKING A LOT OF MY MEMORY.
I BELIEVE WE FLOWED 
DIAPERCOM.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.
OKAY.
JUST MOVING ON.
>> WE PUT MILLIONS INTO TRYING 
TO PLAYING IT SUCCESSFUL.
>> I'M SORRY.
SO UP THAT AZON FOCUSES SUCCESS 
CUSTOMERS.
HOW WOULD CUSTOMERS, ESPECIAY 
SINGLE MOMS, FAMILIES, HOW WOULD
THEY BENEFIT WHEN THE PRICES 
WERE DRIVEN UPY THE FACT THAT 
YOU ELIMINATED YOUR MN 
COMPETITOR?
>> WELL, I DON'T AGREE, WITH 
GREAT RESPECT, I DON'T AGREE 
WITH THE PREMISE.
AT THE SAME TIME Y SHOULD 
RECOGNIZE, DIAPERS IS AERY 
LARGE PRODUCT CATERY, SOLD IN 
MANY, MANY PLACES.
>> RIGHT.
BUT THIS IS T ONLINE DIAPER
MARKET.
WE DO VE EVIDENCE THAT THESE 
PREDATORY -- 
>> COSTCO ANDKROEGER AND 
WAART.
>> I NEED TO PUSHN HERE.
THE EVIDENCE WE'VE COLLECTED 
SUGGESTS THAT PREDATORY 
PRACTICES WEREN'TNIQUE HERE.
IN 2013, IT WASEPORTED THAT 
YOU ITRUCTED AMAZON EMPLOYEES 
TO APPROACH DISCUSSIONS WITH 
CERTAIN BUSINS PARTNERS, AND I
QUOTE, THE WAY A CHEETAH WOULD 
 L
LY GAZELLE.
IS THAT STILL IN PLACE ANDO 
YOU PURSUE THIS IN OTHER PARTS 
OF THE BUSINESS?
I CANNOT COMMENT ON THAT BECAUSE
I DON'T REMEMBER IT.
I N TELL THAT YOU WE ARE VER
VERY FOCUSED ON THE CUOMER, AS
YOU STARTED.
>> I'M CONCERNED WIT THE 
CUSTOMERS AS WE.
SPECIALLY THE FAMILIE MANY MY 
DISTRICT.
>> WE CAN OFFER THOSE -- 
>> I'M SORRY.I'M ALMOST OUT OF .
I'M CONCERNED, TOO.
SPECIALLY WITH THE CURRENT 
PANDEMIC.
E OF THE BIGGEST NEEDS IL 
SEEING AT THE FOOD DRIV, AND 
THE GIVEAYS WE'RE HAVING TO 
RUN INY DISTRICT, IS TT 
FAMILIES DON'T HAVE DIAPERS.
WE HE TO COLLECT THEM TO GIVE 
THEY WILL OUT.
SO IT CERTAINLY IS SOMHING 
THAT HAS A REALLY HARD IMPACT ON
FAMILIES AND I'M REALLY 
CONCERNED THAT PRICING MHT 
HAVE BEEN DRIVEN UP HERE BY THIS
TACTIC.
I YIELD BACK.
 I JUST ANNOUNCED BOTH CALLED 
WHAT WE'LL CONTINUE WITH THE 
HEARING.
SO I INVITE ALEX TO VOTE.
IT'S A ROLLING VOTE.
SO VOTE ACCORDI TO YOUR OWN 
SCHEDULE
I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
FIVE MINUTES.>> THANK YOU.
I WAN TO THANK EACH OF THE
WITNESSES TODAY FOROUR 
TESTIMONY.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN 2004, WHE 
YOU HAD LAUNCHED FACEBOOK, IT'S 
FAIR TO SAY, I THINK YOU WOU 
AGREE WITH ME.
YOU HAD QUITE A FEW COMPETITORS.
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
>>CONGRESSMAN, YES.
>> MY SPACE, FRIENDSTER, GOOGLE,
CY WORLD, YAHOO! 36 AOL, THEY 
WERE ALL COMPETITORS?
>> CONGRESSMAN, TSE WERE SOME 
OF THE COMPETORS AT THE TIME 
AND IT HAS ONLY GOTTEN A LOT 
MORE COMPETITIVE SINCE.
>> LET'S TALABOUT THAT.
BY2012, MR. ZUERBERG, NONE OF
THOSE COMPANIES THAT I JUST 
IDENTIFIED, EXISTED.
YOU' CERTAINLY AWARE OF.
.
TH WERE ALL GONE.
FACEBOOK IN MY VIEW WAS A 
MONOPOLY BYTHEN.
I WONDER WHETH YOU WOULD AGREE
WITH AT.
I TAKE IT YOU DON'T?
>> CONGRESSMAN, TT'S CORRECT.
I DON'T.
WE FACE A LOT OF COMPETITORS.
IN EVERY PART O WHAT WE DO.
FROM CONNECTING WITH FRIENDS 
IVATELY TO CONNECTING WITH 
PEOPLE IN A COMMUNITY, 
CONNECTING WITH ALL YR FRIENDS
AT ONCE,LL KINDS OFSER 
GENERATED CONTENT.
I WOULD BET THAT YOU OR MOST 
PEOPLE HEREAVE MULTIPLE APPS 
R EACH OF THOSE ON YOUR 
PHONES.
>> MR. ZUCKERBE, LET'S DIG 
INTO THIS A BIT FURTHER.
YOU AND I CLEARLY DISAGREE ABOUT
THAT.
IN 2012, I'M LOOKI AT A 
DOCUMENT PRODUCED BY THE
INVESTIGATION, IT IS A 
PRESENTATION PREPAD FOR CHERYL
SANDBERG TO GIVE TO THE BOARDFD.
FACEBOOK IS NOW 95% OF ALL 
SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE UNITED 
STATES.
THE TITLE OF THE SLID IS EVEN, 
QUOTE, T INDUSTRY CONSOLIDATES
AS IT MATURES.
 I LOOK AT TH GRAPH, 
CERTAINLY I THINK MOST FOLKS
WOULD CONCEDE THAT FACEBOOK WAS 
MONOPOLY AS EARLY AS 2012.
NONETHELESS, I UNDERSTAND THAT 
WE DISAGREE ON THAT POINT.
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT 
FACEBOOK, ITS STRATEGY, SINCE 
THAT TIME, TO ESSENTIALLY 
PROTECT WHAT I DESCRIBE AS A 
MONOPOLY BUT WHAT WOULD YOU 
DESCRIBE AS MARKET POWER.
THAT FACEBOOK HAS BEEN ENGAGED 
INURCHASING COMPETITION.
IN SOME CASES, REPLICATING COME 
PETITION.
IN SOME CASES, ELIMINATING COME 
PETITION.WOULD THAT BE A FAIR S?
>> CONGSSMAN, THE SPACE OF 
PEOPLE CONNECTG WITH OTHER 
PEOPLE IS A VERY LARGE SPACE.
D WOULD AGREE TT THERE 
WERE DIFFERENT APPROACHES THAT 
WE TOOK ON ADDRESSING DIFFERENT 
PARTSF THAT SPACE.
IT IS ALL IN SERVICE OF BUILDING
THE BEST SEICES.
>> I APPRECIAT THAT.
>> I APPRECIATE THE LIGHTER 
POINT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE 
COEDING, AT LEAST SOME OF 
THOS STRATEGIES, I WANT TO TALK
ABOUT THAT.
IN 2014, HERE'S A EMAIL.
IT IS FROM FACEBOOK'S CHIEF 
FINANCIAL OFFICER DESCRIBED AS 
THE ACQUISITION STRATEGY AS A 
LAND GRAB.
AND SAYING THAT WE ARE GOING TO 
SPEND 5 TO 10% OF OUR MARKET 
GRAB EVERY COUPLE YEARS TO SRE
UP OUR COMPETITION.
MY SENSE OF THE FACTS IS THAT IS
AT HAS OCCURRED.
FACEBOOK AYOU CONCEDED.
YOU CONCEDED EARLIER THAT 
INSTAGRAM WAS A COMPETITOR.
YOU ACQUIRED IT IN 2012.
STAGRAM IS NOW THE SIXTH 
LARGEST SOCIAMEDIA PLATFORMN
THE WOD.
>> I'M NOT SURE WHAT RANK IT IS.
IT HAS CERINLY GROWN BEYOND --
>> I CAN RECOMMEND THAT 
EMPIRICAL SHOWS IT IS THE 
CIRCUIT LAEST.
IN 2014 FACEBOOK GOT ITS 
COMPETITOR, WHAT'S APP, IS THAT 
CORRECT?
>> YES.
THEY COMPETED WITH USN THE 
SPACE OF SOCIAL MESSAGING, A 
GROWING AND IMPORTANT SPACE.
AND ONE PART OF THE GLOBAL SPA
OF HOW PPLE CONNECT MORE 
BROADLY.
>> I UNDERSTAND.
AND WHAT'S APP HAD 400 MILLION .
A CLEAR PADS TO 1 BILLION USERS.
AND IT IS NOWHE SECOND LARGESTS 
WORLD WITH 2 BILLIONSERS 
WORLDWIDE.
MORE THAN FACEBOOK MESSENGER.
AND OF COURSE, YOUR COMNY OWNS
WHAT'S APP.
FACEBOOK ALSO TRIEDO BUY OTHER
COMPETITIVE START-UPS.
IN FACT, AS CHAIRMAN NADR 
NOTED, DID YOU TEL ONE OF THEM 
IN 2012 THAT YOU CANIKE YOU 
BUY, JUS BUY ANY COMPETITIVE 
START-UP BUT IT WILL BE A WHILE 
BEFORE WE GO BUY GOOGLE.
DO YOU RECALL WRITING THAT 
EMAIL?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I DON'T 
SPECIFICALLY.
BUT IT SOUND LIKE A JOKE
>> IT CERTAINLY, I DON'T TAKE IT
AS JOKE.
AS I REVW THE EMAIL, IT WAS IN
REGARDS TOAVING JUST CLOSE 
THE INSTAGRAM SALE.
AND THE RESPONSE FROM THIS 
INDIVIDUAL, THIS ENGINEER TO YOU
WAS, QUOTE, WELL PLAYED.
YOUR RESPONSE WAS, THANKS.
ONE REASON PEOE UNDERESTIMATE 
THE IMPORTANCE O WATCHING 
GOOGLE IS THAT WE CA LIKELY 
ALWAYS JUST BUY ANY COMPETITIVE 
START-UPS BUT IT WILL BE A WHILE
BEFORE WE CA BUY GOOGLE.
AN GIVEN THE PURCHASES THAT 
FACEBOOK HAD MADEREVIOUS TO 
THIS, AND THE ATTEMPTED 
PURCHASES, MY UNDERSTANDING IS 
THAT FACEBOOK MADE SEVERAL 
OVERTURES TO SNAP CHAT WHICH 
REBUFFED THOSE EFFORTS.
EARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT IT WAS
NOT MADE I JEST.
HERE'S WHY I ASK.
IT STRIKES ME OVER THE COURSE OF
E LAST SEVERAL YEARS, FACEBOOK
HAS USED ITS MARKET POWER TO 
EITHER PURCHASE OR REPLICATE TH 
MESSENGER, WHAT'S APP 
INSTAGRAM, ARE NOW THE MOST DOWN
LOADED APPSF THE LAST DECADE 
AND YOUR COMPANY OWNS THE ALL.
WE HAVE AORD FOR THAT.
THAT WORD IS MONOPOLY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> MR. BEZOS, YOU REFERRED TO T 
STATED THAT YOUR SUCCESSEPENDS
ON THEIR SUCCESS.
OVER THE PAST YEAR WE'VE HEARD A
COMPLETE DIFFERENT STORY.
AS PART OF THIS INVESTIGATION,
WE INTERVIEWED MAN SMALL 
BUSINESSES.
THEY USED THE WORDS LIKE, 
BULLYING, FR AND PANIC TO
DESCRIBE THEIR RELATIONSHI WITH
AMAZON.
I'M GOING TO SHARE THE STORY OF 
A SMALL BUSINESS O HERE IS 
ALSO A WIFE AND A MOTHER.
SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THIS 
IS AUALLY AECTING THE LIVES 
OF EVERYDA PEOPLE AND WHYHIS 
TRULY TTERS.
>> WE WERE A TOP BOOK SLER ON 
AMAZON.COM.
AND WE WORKED DAY AND NHT VERY
HARD TOWAR GROWING OUR 
BUSINESS.
AND MAINTAINING THE FIVE STAR
FEEDBACK RATING.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, THIS BUSINESS 
FEEDS A TOLL OF 14EOPLE WHICH 
INCLUD THREE CHILDREN AND ONE 
19-YEAR-OLD.
AS WE GREW, WE WERE IN THE 
MARKET SHARE.
NOW, AMAZON STARTED RESTRICTING 
US FROM SELLING.
THEY STARTED WITH A FEW TITLES 
IN ONL 2019.
WITHIN SIX MONTHS, AZON 
SYSTEMATICALLY BLOCKED USROM 
SELLING THE FULL TEXTBOOK 
CATEGORY.
WE HAVEN'T SOLD A SINGLE BOOK 
FROM THE PAST TEN MONTHS.
PROBABLY MORE.
WE WERE NEVER GIVEN A REASON.
AMAZON DIDN'T EVEN PROVIDE WIT
US A NOTICE.
WE ASKED WHY WE WERE RESTRICTED.
ERE WAS NO WARNING NO, PLAN.
>> SO MR. BEZOS, AFTER AMAZON
DELISTED THIS SLL BUSINESS 
WITHOUT ANY APPARENT REASON OR 
NOTICE, SHE TOLD US THEY SENT 
MORE THAN FIVE HIM SEPARATE 
COMMUNICATIONS TO AMAZON 
INCLUDING TYOU, MR. BEZOS, 
OVER THE PAST YEAR.
THE WAS NOT A SINGLE 
MEANINGFUL RESPONSE.
DO YOU THINK THIS IS AN 
ACPTABLE WAY TO TRE SOMEONE 
THATOU DESCRIBED AS BOTH A 
PARTNER AND A CUSTOM?
>> NO, CONGRESSMAN.I APPRECIATEE
ANECDOTE.
I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO HER.
IT DOES NOT AT ALL SEEM TO ME
LIKE THE RIGHT WAY TO TREAT HER.
AND I'MURPRISED BY THAT.
IT'S NOT THE SYSTEMATIC AROACH
WE TAKE.
I DON'TVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT'S 
GOING ON.
WE WOULD LOVE FOR THIRD PARTY 
LLERS TO SELL BOOKS.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND ITND I 
WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IT 
BETTER.
I WOULDIKE TO GET IN TOUCH 
WITH YOUR OFFICE.
>> I THINK YOU'RE MISSING THE 
POINT.
THIS IS NOT JUST AUT ONE 
BUNESS.
I'M CONCERNED THAT THIS IS A 
PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR.
SICALLY, THIS PAT REMINDER OF 
BEHAVIOR HAS TO CHANGE.
MR.BEZOS, MY QUESTION IS, ARE 
YOU WILLING T MAKE SURE GOING F 
SELLERS WE TALK TO, THEY HAVE 
PROBLEMS JUST LIKE THIS.
AND THERE ARE MORE SELLERS WHO 
TELL US EY'VE EXHAUSTED ALL OF
THEIR OPTNS BEFORE REACHING 
OUT TO YOU AS A LAST RESORT BUT 
THEY'RE STILL WAITING FOR YOUR .
WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY TO THE 
SMALL BUSINESS WHO'S ARE TALKING
ONONGRESS BECAUSE YOUIMPLY 
WON'T LISTEN TO THEM?
>> I WOULD SAY THAT'NOT 
ACCEPTABLE.
IF WE RBL LISTENING TO YOU, I'M 
NOT HAPPY ABOUT THAT AT AL
I DO DISAGREE WITH A PIECE O 
THIS
I DO NOT THINK THIS IS 
SYSTEMATICALLY GOING ON.
AT WOULD BE USEFUL, IS THAT 
THD PARTY SELLERS IN AGGREGATE
ARE DOING EXTREMELY WELL ON 
AMAZON.
THEY GREW FROM 20 YEARS AG IT 
WAS ZE AND TODAY IT'S 60% OF 
SALES.
THIRD PARTY SELLERS GROWING EVEN
FASTER.
>> THANKOU SO MUCH.
MR. BEZOS -- 
>>HANK YOU.
 YOU SAID THAT SELLERS HAVE 
MANY OTHERTTRACTIVE OPTIONS 
THE REACH CUSTOMERS.
BUT THAT'S NOT AT A WHAT WE 
FOUND IN OUR INVESTIGATION.
ACCORDING TO EMARKETER, A SOURCE
AMAZON CITED IN SUBMISSIONS TO  
NEARLY SEVEN TIM THE MARK 
SHAREF ITS CLOSEST ECOMMERCE 
COMPETITOR.
ONE SELLER TOLD US, AND I OTE,
AMAZON CONTINUES TO BEHE ONLY 
SHOW IN TOWN NO MATTER HOW ANGRY
SELLERS GE
THEY HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO.
SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE 
PEOPLE ARE NOT BEING TRUTHFUL 
WHEN THEY SAY THAT AMAZON IS THE
ONLY GAME I TOWN?
>> WITH GRE RESPECT, I DO
DISAGREE WITH THAT.
I BELIEVE THERE A SXOPGSS SOME
OF THEMRE NOT EVEN ON THE 
CHART.
I DIDN'T SEE SOME THAT I KNOW 
OF.
SO IHINK THERE ARE A LOT -- 
>> OKAY.THANK YOU FOR THAT.
>> MY TIME ISSHORT.
THANK YOU.
IF AMAZON DIDN'T HAVE MONOPOLY 
POWER, DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD 
CHOOSE TO STAY IN AELATIONSHIP
THAT'S CHARACTERIZED BY 
BULLYING FEAR AND PANIC?>> WITH 
CONGSSWOMAN, I DO NOT ACCEPT 
THEREMISE OF YOUR QUESTION.
THAT'S NOT HOW WE OPERATE THE 
BUSINE.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU FORHAT.
I'M GOING ON CLOSE WIT GIVING 
THE BOOK SELLER THEPPORTUNITY 
TO FINAL BE HEARD BY YOU.
>> MR. BEZOS, WE INCREAS OUR 
SALES ON AMAZON BY FIVE TIMES IN
THE PAST THREE YEARS.
AND WE HAVE CONTINUED THAT MUCH 
PROPORTIONAL SELLER FES TO 
AMAZON.
WE HAVE CONTRIBUTED THAT MUCH TO
YOUR BUSINESS.
FIVE TIMES.
WE FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES SET BY
YOU.
PLEASE JUST HELP US IN EARNING 
OUR LIVELIHOOD.
WE BEG YOU, THERE ARE 14IVES 
AT STAKE.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEE HELP US 
GET BACK ON TRACK.
>> WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE 
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
>> WE'VE NOW COULDN'T CLUEDED O.
I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE 
MINUTES.
MR. BEZOS, ACCORDINGO YOUR 
TESTIMONY, THE MARKETPLACE IS 
COMPETITIVE.
BUT AMAN CONTROLS AS MUCH AS 
75%F ALL ONLINE MARK PLACE 
SALES.
AND EMARKETER, A SOURCE YOU 
CITED TO US IN SUBMISSIO IN 
THIS COMMITTEE, REPORTSHAT 
AMAZON IS NEARLY SEVEN TIMES THE
MAET SHARE OF ITS CLOSEST 
COMPETITOR.
ISN'T IT TRUE THAT SMALL 
BUSINESSES HAVE NO REAL OPTION 
BUTO RELY ON AMAZO TO CONNECT
WITH CUSTOMERS AND MAKENLINE 
SALES?
>> NO, SIR.
WITH GREAT RESPT, I DO HAVE A 
DIFFERENT OPINION ON THAT.
I BELIEVE THERE ARE A L OF 
OPTIONS.
I BELIEVE AMAZON IS A GREAT O 
AND WE'VE WORKED VERY HARD.
I THINK WE ARE THE BEST ONE.
WE HAVE A LOT O PROGRAMS TO 
HELP SELLERS.
>> THERE ARE2.2 MILLION ACTIVE 
SELLERS YESTERDAY.
ABOUT 37% RELY ON AMAZON AS 
THEIR SOLE SOURCE OF INCOME.THA 
RELYING ON AMAZON TO FEED TIR 
FAMILIES, PU THEIR KIDS THROUGH
SCHOOL ANDEEP A ROOF OVER 
THEIR ADS.
YOU HAVE REFERRED TO THIRDARTY
SELLERS AS BH PARTNERS AND 
CUSTOMERS.
ISN'T TRY IT THAT AMAZON REFERS 
 THIRD PARTY SELLERS AS 
INTERNAL COMPETITOR
>> IT WOULDN'T SURPRI ME, IN 
SOME WAYS TY'RE COMPETING AND 
ALSO WITH EACH OTHER.
>> YOUR OWN DOCUMENTS, AMAZON'S 
OWN DOCUMENTS THA YOU PRODUCE
REFER TO THE VERY SAME SELLERS 
THAT YOU'V DESCRIBE AS AMAZON 
PARTNERS AS INTERNA 
COMPETITORS.
IN FACT, WE'VE HEARD FROM THIRD 
PARTY SELLERS AGAIN AND AGAIN 
DURING THE COURSE OF THE 
VESTIGATION, THAT AMAZON IS 
THE ONLY GAMEN TOWN.
E SMALL BUSINESS OWNER WE 
INTERVIEWED DESCRIBED I THIS 
WAY.
WE'RE STUCK.
WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE BUT TO 
SELLHROUGH AMAZON.
ANOTHER SAID, THEY'VE NEVER BEEN
A GREAT PARTNER BUT YOU HE TO 
WORK WITH EM.
DURING THIS INVESTIGATION, WE'VE
HED SO MANY HEART BREAKING 
STORIES OF SMALL BUSINESS WHO 
SUNK SIGNIFICANT TIME AND 
RESOURCES INTO BUILDIN A 
BUSINESS AND SELLING ON AMAZON, 
ONLY TO HAVE AMAZON POA THEIR 
BEST SELNG ITEMS AND DRIVE THEM.
SO I WANT TO TALK TO YOU THAT 
ONE COMPANY THAT REALLY STOOD 
OUT FROM T REST.
I WT TO YOU PAY CLOSE 
ATTENTION TO HOW THEY DCRIBE 
YOUR PARTNERSHIP.
WE HEARD FROM A SMALL APPAREL 
COMPANY THAT MAKES ANDELLS 
WHAT THEY CALL USEFUL APPAREL 
FOR PPLE WHO WORK ON THEIR 
FEET ANDITH THEIR HANDS.
NSTRUCTION WORKERS AND 
FIREFIGHTERS.THIS PARTICULAR BU 
DISCOVERED AND STARTED SELLING A
UNIQUE ITEM THAT HAD BEEN,ER IN 
BEEN A TOP SELLEROR THE 
BRANDS.
THEY WERE MAKING ABO $60,00 A
YEAR ON THIS ONE ITEM.
ONE DAY TY WOKE UP AND FOUND 
THAT AMAZON HAD STARTED LISTING 
E EXACT SAME PRODUCT, CAUSE GO
THEIR SALES TO  TO ZO 
OVERNIGHT.
AMAZON HAD UNDERCUT THEIR PRICE,
SETTG IT BELOW WHAT THE 
MANUFACTER WOULD GENERALLY 
LOW TO BE SOLD, SO EN IF 
THEY WANTED TO, THEY COULDN'T 
MATCH THE PRICE.
HERE'S HOW THE APPAREL COMPANY 
SKRIBLDS WORKING WITH AMAZON.
AND IQUOTE.
AMAZON STRINGS YOU ALONG FOR A 
WHILEECAUSE IT FEELS SO GOOD 
TO GET THAT PAYCHECK EVERY WEEK.
IN THE PAST, FOR LACK OF A 
BETTER MATERIAL, WE CALLED IT 
AMAZON HEROIN.
YOU JUST KEPT GOING.
YOU HAD TO GET YOUR NE FIX.
THE NEXT CHECK.
AT THE END OF THEDAY, YOU FIND 
OUT THIS PERSON WHO WAS 
SEEMINGLY BENEFITTING YO 
MAKING YOU FEEL GOOD WAS 
ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE YOUR 
DOWNFALL
ENDS QUOTE.
THIS IS ONE OF YOUR PARTNERS.
WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY COMPARE 
YOUR COMPANY TO A DRUG DEALER?
>> SIR, I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR
AND YOU THIS COMMITTEE B I 
COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH THAT 
CHARACTERITION.
WHAT WE HAVE DONE, CREATE IN THE
STORE, A PLACE,E CAN GO BACK 
IN TIME.
WE SOLD ONLY OUR OWN INVENTORY.
IT WAS A VERY CONTROVERSIAL 
DECISION IN THE COMPANY T 
INVITE THIRD PARTY SELLERS TO 
ME INTO WHAT IS ME YOU MOST 
VALUABLE RETAIL.
WE DID THAT BECAUSE WWERE 
CONVINCED IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR
THE CONSUMER.
>> MR. BEZOS -- 
>> TO HAVE T SELECTION.
AND I THINK WE WERE RIGHT AND I 
THINK IT HAS WORKED OUT WELL.
>> UNDER FORTUNATELY, THIS  
ONE OF MANYMALL COMPANIES THAT
HA TOLD US DURING THI 
YEAR-LONG INVESTIGATI THAT 
THEY WERE MISTREATED, ABUSED AN.
NOW YOU SAID THAT AMAZON IS ONLY
FOCUSED ON DOING WHAT' BEST FOR
THE CUSTOMER.
YOU JUST SAID IT AGAI
AND ALSO THIRD PARTY SELLERS.
HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE WHENOU 
COMPETE DIRECTLYITH THIRD 
PARTY SELLERSITH YOUR OWN 
PRODUCTS THA UNDERCUT THE 
COMPETITION?
ISN'T IT AN INHERENT CFLICT OF
INTEREST FOR AMAZON T PRODUCE 
AND SELL PRODUCT ON ITS
PLATFORM COMPETE DIRECTLY WITH 
THIRD PARTY SELLERS, 
PARTICULARLY WHENYOU, AMAZON, 
SETS THE RULES OF THE GAME?
>> THA YOU.
NO
I DON'T BELIEVE IT .THE CONSUME 
THE DESIONS.
THEY'RE MAKING THE DECISNS 
ABOUT WHAT TO BUY.
WHAT PRICE TO BUYT AT.
>> THERE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST,
YOU ARE A DATA COIL.
WH YOU KNOW SOMEONE PUTS 
SOMETHING IN THEIR CART AND 
TAKES IT OUT.
TRADITNAL BRICK AND MORTAR 
ORES DON'T HAVE THAT.
SO I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON A 
QUESTION YOU GAVE.
YOU SAIDHAT YOU CAN'T 
GUARANTEE TT THE POLICY OF NOT
SHARING THIRDARTY SELLERS' 
DATA WITH AMAZON'S OWN LINE 
HASN'T BEEN VIOLATED.YOU COULDN.
CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT TO 
ME?
CAN YOU LIST EXAMPLES WHERE THAT
POLICY HAS BEE VIOLATED?
BECAE IT IS PARTICULARLY 
CONCERNING TO ME, SHOULD NOT 
THIRD PARTIES KNOW FOR SURE THAT
DATA ISN'T BEING SHARED WITH 
YOUR OWN LINE?
THEIR COMPETITORS?
WHY SHOULDHEY LIST THEIR 
PRODUCT ON AMAZON IF THEY'RE 
JUST GOING TO BE UNDERCUT BY 
AMAZON'S OWN PRODUCTS VULS OF 
DATA YOU TAKE FM THEM.
I THINK WHAT I WANT YOU TO UNDE 
LICY AGAINST USINGNDIVIDUAL 
SELLER DATA T COMPETE WITH OUR 
PRIVATE LABEL PRODUCTS.
>> YOU COULDN'T ASSURE HER THAT 
THAT POLICY ISN'T VIOLATED 
ROUTELY.
>> WE ARE INVESTIGATING THAT.
I DO NOT WANT TOIT HERE AND GO
BEYOND WHAT I KNOW RIGHT NOW.
WE ARE AS A RESULT OF.
"WL STREET JOURNAL" ARTICLE, 
WE ARE LOOKING TEMPERATURE VERY 
CAREFULLY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AND SHARE THEM WITH YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
I LOOK FORWARD TOM.
THE EVIDENCE WE'VE COLLECTED
SHOWS AMAZON IS ONLY INTERESTED
IN EXPLOITING ITS MONOPOLY PER
OVER THE ECOMMERCE MARK PLACE TO
FURTHER EXPANDS AND PROCT THIS
POWER.
THIS MAKES CLEAR THAT AMAZON'S 
DUAL ROLE AS A PLATFM OPERATOR
AND COMPETING SELLER IS 
NDAMENTALLY ANTI-COMPETITIVE 
AND CONGRESS MUST TAKE ACTION.
WITH THAT I RECOGNIZE THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
>> MR. CHAIAN, I THINK THAT 
THE HISTO PROVES THAT CONGRESS
DOES A POOR JOB IN PICKING 
WINNERS AND LOSERS.
I'VE BEEN WORKING THE CHAIRMAN 
FOR OVER A YEAR ON THIS 
BIPARTISANINSTIGATION.
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 HER IS THE 
QUESTION O ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE.
NOW, WE'VE HEARD LOT ABOUT THE
FACEBOOK ACQUISITION OF 
INSTAGRAM.
THAT HAPPENED IN 2012.
OBAMA'S FTC SIGNED OFF ON THAT.
SOEGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU THINK 
HAS HAPPENEDT THAT TIME, THE 
FACT IS THAT THIS ACQUISITION 
DID PASS THE SMELL TEST OF THE 
REGULATORS INVOLVED.
MAYBE THEYADE A MISTAKE OR 
MAYBE SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENED.
I DON'T KNOW.
THE FT IS THERE IS NOT A 
PROBLEM WITH THE LAW.
ABOUT 35 YEARS AGO, AT&T WAS 
BROKEN UP BECAUSE IT WAS 
DETERMINED THAT ONE-OP SHOPS 
WERE MONOPOLYISTIC.
BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO GET YOUR 
LONG DISTANCE SERCE FROM YOUR 
LOCAL PHONE COANY,HERE WERE 
MERGERSND ACQUISITIONS IN THE 
TELECOM INDUSTRY.
TECHNOLOGY ADVANCED A HUGE 
AMOUNT.
AND GUESS WHAT?
WEE BACK TO EXACTLY WHERE WE 
WERE IN 1984.SO THIS GOES TO SH 
CONGRESSIONAL PRESSURE IS NOT 
THE BEST.
USING THE AT&T EXAMPLE, WHICH I 
THINWAS THE BIG FLOP AND 
COUNTER PRODUCVE, LET ME ASK 
MR. BEZOS.
SAY THET&T EXAMPLE WAS APPLIED
TO AMAZON.
AND YOU WERE REQRED TO SPIN 
STUFF OFF.
SO YOU MIGHT HAVE NOORE OF A 
ONE-STOP SHOP B YOU HAVE TO GO
TO SEPARATE PLACES FOR BOOKS OR 
GRERIES OR VIDEOS OR 
ELECTRONICS.
HOW ARE THE CONMERS HELPED BY 
THAT?
>> SI THANK YOU.
THEY WOULD NOT BE.
VERY CLEAR.
>>NOW, LET ME ASK ABOUT GOOGLE.
IF YOU WERE FORCED TO SPLIT UP 
YOUR BUSINESSLINES, SAY, SPIN 
OFF YOUTUBE, CAN YOU DESCRE 
WHAT HAPPENS TO CSUMERS THERE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, TOD CONSUMERS 
ARE MEETING, THEY SEE PRICES ARE
FALLG AND I THINK IT SERVES 
THEM WELL.
>> AND YOU'RE RIGHT THERE.
SO YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO 
ON THIS COMTTEE IN THE NEXT 
CONGRESS.
I AM GOING TO PUT MY FEET UP AND
BACK SENIOR, QUOTE/UNQUOTE 
STATESMAN.WE HAVE HEARD AHOLE L 
COMPLAINTS ABOUT BIG TECH.
SOME OF THEM ARE POLITICAL IN 
NATURE.
AND I SRE THE COMPLAINTS AND 
THE CCERN OF MR. JORDAN AND 
OTHERS.AND OTHERS TALK ABOUT AL 
ANTI-COMPETITIVE TIVITY.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT IS NOT 
FOR CGRESS THAT LEGISLATES TO 
TOSS ALL OF OUR ANTI-TRUST LAWS 
AND THE PREDENT THAT HAS BEEN 
ESTABLISHED THROUGH LITIGATION 
OVER THE LAST 100 PLUS YES.
IT IS SOMETHING WHERE WE OUGHT O
THE E FORCERS.
HAVE THEM LOOK AT THIS STUFF.
HAVE THEM MAKE A DETERMINATI 
ON WHETHER OR NOT THE LAW HAS 
BEEN VIOLAT.
I THINK THE LAW IS GOOD.
WE DON'T NEED TO THROW IT ALL IN
THE WASTE BASKET.
BUT THE ARE SOME MATTERS OF 
CONCERN THAT WE HA HEARD FROM 
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE THAT I 
THINK NEED TO BE ADDRESSE
IT REQUIRES AN AGENCY LIKE THE 
FTC THEY'VE MAD MISTAKES IN THE
PAST, SO BE IT.
WE'RE ALL HUMAN.
WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES.
EVEN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES DO 
THAT.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU, MR.CHAIRMAN.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN MARCH OF 
2012, YOU SUGGESTED BY EMAIL TO 
YOURANAGEMENT TEAM THAT MOVING
FASTER AND COPYING OTHER APPLES 
COULD PREVENT OUR CPETITORS 
FROM GETTING FOOT HOLDS.CHERYL  
IS BETTER TO DO MORE AND MOVE 
FASTER.
ESPECIALLY IF THAT MEANS YOU 
DON'T HAVE OUR COMPETITORS BUILD
PRODUCTS THAT TAKES OUR USERS.
THE MANAGER ADDED, I WOULD LOVE 
 BE FAR MORE AGGRESSIVE AND 
NIMBLE IN COPYINGCOMPETITORS.
HAS FACEBK EVER TAKEN STEPS TO
PREVENT COMPETITORS FROM 
COPYING?
>> IIEW IT AS OUROB TO 
UNDERSTAND WHAT PEOPLE ARE 
FISING VALUABLE.AND ALL THE SER.
CERTAINLY -- 
>> DO YO COPY YOUR COMPETITORS?
>> WE'VEERTAINLY ADAPTED 
FEATURES TT OTHERS HAVE LED 
IN, AS HAVE OTHERS COPIED AND 
ADAPTED FEATURES.
>> I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT 
OTHERS.
SINCE MARCH OF 20, AFTER THAT 
EMAILCONVERSATION, HOW MANY 
COMPETITORS DID FACEBOOKND UP 
COPYING?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I CAN'T GIVE 
YOU A NUMBER OF COMPANIES -- 
>> IS ITESS THAN FIVE?
>> I DON'T KNOW.
>> LESS THAN 50?
ANY ESTIMATES?
YOUR TEAM WAS MING A PLAN.
HOW DID IT PLAYOUT?
>> I'M NOT SURE I AEE WITH THE
PREMISE.
OUR JOB IS TO MAKE SURE WE BUILD
THE BEST SERVICES FOREOPLE TO 
CONNECT WITH ALL THE PEOE THEY
CARE ABT.
A LOT OF.IS DONE BY INNOVATING  
>> THANK YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG.
LET ME GO ON.
HAS FACEBOOK EVER THREATENED TO 
CLONE THERODUCTS OF A 
COMPANY -- 
>> NOT THAT I RECALL.>> AND I W 
REMIND YOU, THAT YOU ARE UNDER 
OATH AND THERE ARE QUOTES FROM 
FACEBOOK'SWN DOCUMENTS.PRIOR TO 
FACEBOOK BEGAN ACQUIRING A COIL 
CALLED FACEBOOK CAMERA.
>> THAT'S COECT.
I'VE SAID MULTIPLE TIMESHAT WE
WERE COMPETING IN THE SPACE OF 
BUILDING MOBILE CAMERAS WITH 
INSTAGRAM.
THAT'S WHAT THEY DID AT THE 
TIME.
THEIR COME PETTY SETAS 
COMPANIES LIKE WHAT WE WERE 
BUILDING WIT FACEBOOK CAMERA 
AND -- 
>> THANK YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG.
DID YOEVER USE THIS VERY 
SIMILAR FACEBOOK CAMERA PRODUCT 
TO THREATEN INSTAGRAM'S FOUNDER?
>> I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU WOULD 
MEAN BY THREATEN.
I THINK IT WA KNOWN THATE 
WERE BUILDING A CAMERA APP AT 
THE TIME.
THAT WAS A WELLOCUMENTED 
THING.
>> LET ME TELL YOU, THAT IN  
CHAT, YOU TOLD MINIMUM FACEBOOK 
WAS, QUOTE, DEVELOPINGUR OWN 
PHOTO STRATEGY SO HOW WE ENGAGE 
NOWILL ALSO DETMINE HOW MUCH
WE'RE PTNERS VERSUS 
COETITORS DOWN THE LINE.
THE FOUNDERS SEED TO THINK 
THAT WAS A THREAT.
HE COULDN'T IDENTIED IN THE AN
INVESTOR AT THE TIME THAT HE 
FEARED THAT YOU WOULD GO INTO, 
QUOTE, DESTROY MODE IF HE DIDN'T
SELL INSTAGRAM TO YOU.
SO LET'S JUST RECAP.
FACEBOOK CLONED A POPULAR 
PRODUCT, APPROACHE THE COMPANY 
YOU IDENTIFIED AS COMPETITIVE 
THREAT AND TOLD THEM, IF YOU 
DIDN'T LET THEMUY YOU UP, 
THERE WOULD BE CONSEQUENCES.
WE THERE ANY OTHER CPANIES 
THAT YOU USE THE SE TACTIC 
WITH WHILE AEMPTING TOUY THEM?
>> CORESSWOMAN, I WANT TO 
RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE.
IT WAS CLEAR THIS S A SCE WE
WERE GOING TO COMPETE IN ONE WAY
OR OTHER.
I DON'T VIEW THOSE CONVERSATNS
AS A THREAT IN ANY Y.
>> I'M JUST USING THE DOCUMENTS 
AND THE TESTIMONY THAT THE
COMMITTEE HAS COLLECTED FROM 
OTHERS
DID YOU WARN EVAN SPGLE, THE 
FOUNDER OF SP CHAT, THAT THEY W 
E FEATURES OF HIS COMPANY 
WHIL ALSO ATTEMPTING TO BUY 
SN CHAT?
>> ION'T REMEMBER THOSE 
SPECIFIC CONVERSATIONS.
THAT WAS AN AREA THAT IT WAS 
VERY CLEAR WE WOULD BE BUILDING 
SOMETHING.
PEOPLE WANT TO BE ABLE TO 
COMMUNAL PRIVATELY, WITH ALL 
THEIR FRIENDS AT ONCE.
AND WE'RE GOING TO MAK SURE 
THAT WE BLD THE BEST PRODUCTS 
IN ALL THE SPACES WE CAN AROUND 
HELPING PEOPLE STAY CONNECTED 
WITH THE PEOPLE THEY CARE ABOUT.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
I THINK THE QUESTION IS,HEN 
THE DOMINANT PLATFM THREATENS 
THEOTENTIAL RIVALS, THAT 
SHOULD NOT BE A NORLUSINESS 
PRACTICE.
FACEBOOK IS A CE STUDY IN MY 
OPINION IN MONOPOLY POWER.
YOUR COMPANY MONETIZES OUR DATA 
AND THEN YOUR COIL USES THAT 
DATA TO SPY ON COMPETITORS AND 
TO COMPANY, ACQUIRE AND KL 
RIVALS.
YOU'VE USED FACEBOOK'S POW TO 
THREATEN SMALLER COMPETITORS AND
TO ENSURE YOU ALWAYS GET YR 
WAY.
THESE TACTICS REINFORCE 
FACEBOOK'S DOMINANCE WHICH YOU 
THEN USE IN INCREASINGLY DESTRU 
IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR NEW COMPANIES 
THE FLOURISH SEPARATELY AND THAT
HARMS OUR DEMOCRACY.
 HARMS MOM AND POP BUSINESSES 
AND IT HARMS BUSINEES.
I YIELDBACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN FROMOLORADO 
IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE DAY.
I'M CONCERNED THAT YOU'VE USED 
AMAZON'S DOMINT MARKET 
POSITION TO UNDER FAIRLY HARM 
COMPETITION.
WE'VE HEARDROM A NUMBER OF 
COMPANIES USE THIS FROM THIRD 
PARTY COMPANIES TO LAUNCH ITS 
OWN PRIVATE LABEL PRODUCTS.
MEETS WITH START-UPS TO DISSS 
THE PRODUCT AND THENSES THE 
PROPRIETARY TO CREATE ITS OWN 
PRIVATE LABEL COMPANIES.
IT ALLOWS THE SE OF 
COUNTERFEIT ITEMS THROUGH ITS 
WEB PLATFORM.
RING THE SUB COMMITTEE'S FIE
HEARING THIS JANUARY, THE CEO, 
DAVID BARMETT DETAILED HOW 
AMAZON ALLOWED COUNTERFEIT 
PRODUCTS TO APPEA ON THE 
MARKETPLACE AHEAD OF POP SOCKETS
PRODUCTS.
HE TOLD CNBC THAT THEY FOUND AT 
LEAST 1,000 COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS
FORTUNE SALE ON AMAZON'S 
MARKETPLACE.
WHICH AMAZON ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO
REMEDY UNTIL POPOCKETS AGREED 
TO A NEARLY $2 MILLION MARKENG
DEAL WITH AMAZON.
WE'VE ALSO SEE TROUBLING 
REPORTS FROM THEWALL STREET 
JOURNAL" DETAILING AMAZON'S USE 
OF THIRD PARTY SELLERS 
PROPRIETARY DATA TO DEVELOP AND 
MARK ITS OWN COMPETITIVE PRIVATE
LABEL PRODUCTS.
THE "WALL REET JOURNAL" 
REPORTED THAT CONSTANTLY'S 
CONVENIENT YOU ARE CAPITAL FUN 
USED MEETINGS WITH UNSUSPECTING 
START-UP COILS TO GAUGE ACCESS 
TO SECRET PROPRIETARY PRODUCT 
INFORMATION AND FINANCIAL 
DETAILS.
AMAZON THEN RORTEDLY USED THE 
INFORMATN TO LAUNCH COMPETING 
PRODUCTS.
OFTEN DISASTROUS SULTS.
WITH THE ORIGINAL START-UP 
COMPANY.
THERE ARE MANY EXAMS BUT ONE 
STICKS OUT IN PARTICUL.
IN 2011, THEY CONTACT VOCAL 
LIFE ABOUTHE POSSIBILITY OF 
INVESTING IN THE SPEECH 
DETECTION TENOLOGY.
THE FOUND SECOND THE MEETING TH 
BIG BREAK.
AFTER DISPLAYING LOCAL LIVES 
TECHNOLOGY AND PROPRIETARY 
INFORMATION, INCLUDING 
ENGINEERING DATA TO AMAZON 
EMPLOYEES, IT CAME TO A BANKRUPT
HALT.
THE EMPLOYEES STOPPED RESPONDING
TO EMAILS BEFORE THE TECHNOLOGY 
EVENTUALLYOUND ITS WAY INTO 
THE AMAZON'S EO DEVICE.
THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE SERIOUS.
ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE SIZE AND 
SCOPE OFHESE PRACTICES 
COULDN'T HAPPEN WITHOUT THE 
MONOPOLY CONTROL OF THE 
MARKETPLACE.
I'M ALSO CCERNED THAT GIVEN 
THE ALLOWANCE OF COUNTERFEIT GO 
ESPECIALLY FROM CHINA, THAT 
AMAZON'S MARGARE PLACE MAY BE 
KNOWINGLY OR UNDER KNOWINGLY 
FURTHERING CHIMNA'S FORCED 
ENSLAVED LABOR.
THIS IS FOLWING REPORTS THAT 
AT LEAST 80 GLOBAL CPANIES AND
SELL ON THE AMAZON MARK PLACE, 
INCLUDING NIKE, STARBUCKS AND 
SAMSUNG HAVE TIESO COMPANIES 
THAT USE ENSLAVEDMUSLIMS.
FOLLOWING THESE REPORTS, THE 
SENATOR INTRODUCED ANMPORTANT 
BILL LAST WEEK REQUIRING 
AMERICAN BUSINESSES TO ENSURE 
THAT IT DOES NOT RELYN SLAVE 
LABO
I WILL BE INTRODUCING A BILL 
LATER THIS AFTERNN.
WHILE I DONAL EXPECT YOU TO HAVE
BILLS AT KNOWLEDGE OF THE 
LEGISLATION, I WANT TO ASK ALL 
FOUR OF OUR WITNESSES A SIMPLE 
YES OR NO QUESTION.
WILL YOU CERTIFY HERE TODAY THAT
YOUR COMPANY DOES NOT USE AND 
LL NEVER USE SLAVE LABOR TO 
MANUFACTURE YOURRODUCTS OR 
ALLOW PRODUCTS TO BE SOLD ON 
YOUR PLATFORMHAT ARE 
MANUFACTUREDSING SLAVE BOR?
MR. OK, YOU WERE KIND ENOUGH 
TO VIT WITH ME ON THE PHONE.
I THINK WE BRIEFLY DISCUSSED TH.
IF YOU CAN GIVE A YORNL ANES OR 
ANSWER.
WOULD YOU AGREEO THIS IDEA?
>> I WOU LOVE TO ENGAGEN THE
LEGISLATION LET ME BE CLEAR.
SLAVE LABOR IS ABHORRENT.
WE WOULD NOT TOLERATE IT IN
APPLE.
I WOULD LOVE TO GET WITH YOUR 
OFFICE AND ENGAGE O THE 
LEGIATION.
>> THANK YOU.
>> CONGREMAN, I SHARE YOUR CONC.
I FIND IT AN HORN AS WELL.
HAPPY -- AN HOR AS WELL.
I WOULD LIKE TO ENGAGE WITH YOUR
OFFICE.
>> I DON'T EVEN WANT TO ENGAGE 
WITH MY OFFE HALF THE TIME.
WILL YOU AGREE THAT SLAVE LABOR 
IS SOMETHING YOU WILL NOT 
TOLERATE IN MANUFTURING YOUR 
PRODUCTS OR IN PRODUCTS THAT ARE
SOLD O YOUR ATFORMS?
>> I AGREE.
>> WE WOULDN'T TOLERATE IT.
WE WOULD END THE RELATIONSHIP I
IT WERE FOUND.
>>R. ZUCKERBERG?
>> I AGREE.
WE WOULDN'T TOLERAT THIS.
IF WE FND ANYTHING LIKE TH, 
WE WOULD TERMINA ANY 
RELATIONSHIP.
>> AND MR. BEZOS?
>> YES.
I AGREE COMPLETELY.
>> THANKOU VERY MUCH, 
GENTLEME
I YIELD BACK.>> THANK YOU, GENT.
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN F.
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO THANK M BUCK FOR 
TH EXCELLENT LINE OF 
QUESTIONING AND FOR THE UPCOMING
LESLATION.
I LOOK FORWARD TO JOINING THAT.
WE WANT, IN THE 19th CENTURY, WE
HAD THE ROB BARONS.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE WEALTH 
THAT YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO MASS IS
NOT USED AGAINST THE INTERTS 
OF DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS 
AROUND THE WORLD.
AND NOT AGAINST THE INTERTS OF
A FREE MART AT HOME.
SOR. BEZOS, LET ME TN TO 
YOU.
I'M INTERESTE IN THE ROLE THAT 
YOU PLAY AS A GATE KEEPER.
A L OF CONSUMERS WANT TWHONG 
THE HBO MAX APP WILL BE 
AVAILABLE ON YOUR FIRE VICE.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT 
NEGOTIATIONS ARE ONGOING.
BUT THAT YOUR COMPANY ISN'T ONLY
ASKI FOR FINANCIAL TERMS BUT 
ALSO FOR CONTENT FROM WARNER
MEDIA.
IS THAT RIGHT AND
IS IT FAIR TO USE YOUR GATE 
KEEPER STATUS ROLE IN THE 
STREING DEVICE MARKET TO 
PROMOTEOUR POSITION AS A 
COMPETITOR IN THE VIDEO 
STREAMING MARKET WITH RESPECT TO
COENT?
>> I'M NOT FAMILR WITH THE 
DETAILS OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS.
I JUST SAID, THEY'RE UNDER WAY
RIGHT NOW.
 PREDICT THAT THE COMPANIES 
WILL EVENTUALLY COME TO A 
AGREEMENT, AND I THINK THIS IS 
ND OF TWO LARGE COMPANIES, 
NEGOTIATE AGREEMENT NORMAL CASE.
>> BUT HERE'S WHY I PURSUE IT 
PRECISELY.
IT IS A LARGE COMPANY AND IN A 
WA THEY STAND IN FOR HUNDREDS 
OF THOUSANDS OF MH SMALLER 
COANIES WHO ARE EVEN IN A MORE
DISADVANTAGEOUS POSITION WITH 
SPECT TO NEGOTIATING WITH YOU.
 GUESS, THE GENERAL PROPOSITION
THEN YOU COULD SPEAK TO, IF YOU 
DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OF THIS, 
IS IT OKAY TO NEGOTIATE NOTUST
FOR FINANCIAL TERMSN HAVING 
SOMEONE BE PAR OF YOUR FIRE 
UNIT, BUT ALSO, TO TRY TO 
EXTRACT IN THAT NEGOTIATI 
LEVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO GETTING
CONTENT FROM THEM?
>> WELL, AGN, I'M NOT FAMILIAR
WITH THE TAILS.
>> I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT THAT 
ONE.
IN GENERAL, IN GENERAL.
>> I GENERAL, I THINK EN TWO 
COMPANIES ARE NEGOTIATING, YOU 
ARE NEGOTIATING NOT JUST THE 
AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S GOING TO 
CHANGE HANDS BUT ALSO, WHAT 
YOU'RE GOING TO GET IN EXCHANGE 
FOR THE AMOUNT OF NEY.
THAT IS THE VERY FUNDAMENTAL WAY
THAT BUSINESS WORKS.>> YOU SEE  
OUTSIDERS, THAT WOULD LOOKIKE 
A STRUCTURAL CONFLT OF 
INTEREST.
LIKE, YOU'RE USING YOUR CONTROL 
OVER ACCESS TO PEOPLE'S LIVING 
ROOMS, ESSENTIALL
YOU'RE USING THAT INRDER TO 
OBTAIN LEVERAGE IN TERMS OF 
GETTING CREATIVE CONTE THAT 
YOU WANT.
ARE YOU ESSENTIALLY CONVERTING 
POWER IN ONE DOMAIN INTO POWER 
IN ANOTHER DOMAINHERE IT 
DOESN'T BELONG?
>> I THINK WHAT I SHOU DO IS 
OFFER TO GET YOU INFOATION, 
I'LL G TO YOUR OFFICE FOR YOU 
CAUSE I'M NOT FAMILIAR ENOUGH 
WITH THIS, AND I COULD IMAGINE 
THAT THERE WOU BE SCENARIOSF
WE'RE JUST TALKI ABSTRACT 
WHERE IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE 
AND I COULD IMAGI SCENARIOS 
WHERE IT WOULD BE VERYORMAL 
AND VERY APOPRIATE. 
>> FAIR ENOUGH.
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT AN EMERGING
MARKET SMART HOMES A I WANT TO
TALK ABOUT THE HUB OF THE SMART 
HOME, SMART SPEAKERS.
DOES AMAZON PRICE THECHO 
DEVICE BELOW COST?
>> NOT ITS LIST PRICE BUT IT'S 
OFTEN ON PROMOTION AND 
SOMETIMES, WHEN IT'S ON 
PROMOTION, IT MAY BE BELOW COST,
YES.
>> SERAL OTHER COMPANIES DID 
TELLS, IN FACT, THAT AMAZO IS
PRICING ECHO DEVICES WAY BOW 
COST, MAKING IT ARLY 
IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO CPETE 
AND AGGRESSIVELY DISCOUNTING 
ALEXA ENABLED SPEAKERS.
SMART SPEAKERS WITH VOICE 
ASSISTANTS LIKE ALEXA ALONG WITH
THEYRIAD OF SMART HOME 
APPLIANCES THAT ALEXA CAN 
INTERACT WITH MAKE UP T NEXT 
ECO-SYSTEM OR PLATFORM FOR TECH 
COMPANIES TO LOCK IN CUSTOMERS.
WOULD YOU SAY THE SMART HOME 
MARKET FOR WHICH THE ECHO RING 
SECURITY STEM AND OTHER SMART 
DEVICES OPERATE IS A WINNERS
TAKE ALL MARKET, YESR NO?
>> NO.
ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE ABLE TO 
SUCCEED WITH WHAT WE WANT WHICH
IS, WE WOULD LIKE, OUR VISION
FOR THIS IS SMART HOME SPEAKERS 
SHOULD ANSWER TO DIFFERENT -- 
>> WHEN CONSIDERING THE 
ACQUISITION -- 
 CASE BY CASE BAS AND I 
THINK, JUST I WE COULD ACHIEVE 
THAT, THEN I TNK YOU WOULD GET
REALLY GOOD BEHAVIOR ON THE PART
OF COMPETITIVE VOICE AGENTS 
HELPING YOU. 
>> WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE
RING, YOU LOOK AT, WE'RE LOOKING
AT MARKET POSITION, NOT BY 
TECHNOLOGY AND THAT MOMENTUMS 
VERY VALUABLE.
SO IF SMART HOMES ARE NOT A
MARKET WITH LOCK-IN FECTS, WHY
WOULD A LEADING MARKET POSITION 
AND MOMENTUM BE SO VERY 
VALUABLE?
>> SIR, MARKET POSITION IS 
VALUABLE IN ALMOST ANY BUSINESS 
AND ONE OF THE PRIMARY THINGS 
ONE WOULD LOOK AT IN AN 
ACQUISITN.
MULTIPLE REASONS WE TRY TO BUY A
COMPANY.
SOMETIMES WE TRYO BUY 
TECHNOLOGY OR IP, BUT THE MOST 
COMMON CASE IS MARKET POSITION.
THAT THE COMPANY HAS TRACTION 
WITH CUSTOMERS.
THEY BUILT A SERVICE, MAYBE THE 
FIRST MOVER.
A NUMBER OF REASONSHEY HAVE 
THE MARKET POSITION BUTHAT'S A
VERY COMMON REAN TO ACQUIRE A 
COMPANY.>> ONCE A COMPANY BECOM 
DOMINANT IN A MARKET,T CAN 
FAVOR ITS OWN PRODUCTS AND 
SERVICES.
ALEXA-ENABD SMART SPEAKERS 
MAKE UP 60% OF THE SMART SPEAKER
MARKET.
WHEN I ASK ALE TO PLAY MY 
FAVORITESONG, PRYIMES THE 
DEFAULT MUSIC PLAY, RIGHT?
>> YES, I YOU'RE ARIME 
MEMBER.
>> WHEN THEY SAY ALEXA BUY 
BATTERIES, WOULD YOU LIKE TO BUY
AA AMAZO BASIC BATTERIES, SO 
HAS ALEXA EVER BEEN TRAINED TO 
FAVOR AMAZO PRODUCTS WHEN USERS
SHOP BY VOICE?
>> THE TIME HASXPIRED FOR THE 
QUTION.
>> I'M SURE THERE'S CASES WE DO
PROMOTE OUR OWN PDUCTS, OF 
COURSE, AOMMON PRACTICE IN 
BUNESS.
SO IT WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME IF 
ALEXA SOMETIMES DOES PROMOTE OUR
OWN PRODUCTS.
>> THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES T 
GENTLEMA FROM FLORIDA, MR. 
GATES, FOR FIVEMINUTES. 
>> DURING OUR PRIOR DCUSSION 
EARLIER TODAY, YOU SAID THAT 
GOOGLE DOESN'T WORK WITH THE 
CHINESE MILITARY.
THAT ANSWER WAS DECEPTI 
BECAUSE GOOGLE WORKS WITH MANY 
OF THE ENTITIES THAT WORK WITH  
COLLABORATION AND JUST AS ONE 
EXAMPLE WOULD BE THE UNIVERSITY 
WHERE THE HEAD OF GOOGLE AI 
SERVED ON THE CPUTER SCIENCE 
ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE 
UNIVERSITY AND THEN THE 
UNIVERSITY TAKES A NEARLY $15 
MILLION FROM CHINA'S CENTRAL 
MILITARY COMMISSION.
EVEN IF YOU DON'T LITERALLYHOW
UP AT THE OFFICES OF THE CHINESE
MI
MILITARY, IF YOU'RE SHOWING UP 
AT THE SAME TIME, TT WOULD 
LEAD TO MY CONCERN BUT I WANT TO
TALK AUT SEARCH BECAUSE THAT'S
AN AREA WHERE I KNOW GGLE HAS 
REAL MARKET DOMINANCE.
ON DECEMBER 11th, YOU TESTIFIED 
TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND 
IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTIONROM 
MY COLLEAGUE ABOUT SEARCH, YOU 
SAID, WE DON'T MANUALLY 
INTERVENE ON ANY PARTICULAR 
SEARCH RESULT.
BUT LEAKED MEMOS OBTAINED B THE
DAILY CALLER SHOW THAT ISN'T 
TRUE.
IN FACT THOSE MEMOS WERE 
ALTERED DECEMBER 3rd, JUST A 
WEEK BORE YOUR TESTIMONY AND 
THEY DESCRIBE A DECEPTIVE NEWS 
BLACKLT.
AND A PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING 
AT BLACKLIST APPROVED BY BEN 
GOS WHO LEADS SEARCH WITH YOUR
MPANY AND ALSO, SOMETHING 
CALLED A FRINGE RANKING, WCH 
SEEMS TO BEG THE QUESTION, WHO 
GETS TO DECIDE WHAT'S FRINGE AND
IN YOUR ANSWER, YOU SAIDHERE 
IS NO MANUAL INTVENTION OF 
SEARCH.
THAT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY, BUT NOW
I'M GOING TO CITE SPECIFICALLY 
FROM THIS MEM FROM THE DAILY 
CALLER.
IT SAYS, I'M SORRY, THDAILY 
CALLER OBTAINED FROM E 
COMPANY, THE BEGINNING OF E 
WORK FLOW STARTS WHEN A WEB SITE
IS PLACED ON A WATCH LIST.
IT CONTINS, THIS WATCH LIST IS
MAINTAED AND STORED BY ERIS 
WITH ACCESS RESTRICTED TO POLICY
AN ENFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS.
 DOES BEG THE QUESTION WHO 
THESE ENFORCEMENT SCIALISTS 
ARE, AND ACCESS TO THE LISNG 
TO BE SHARED ON A NEE TO KNOW 
BASIS TO ENFORCE OR ENRICH THE 
POLICY VIOLATIONS.
THE INVESGATION OF THE WATCH 
LIST IS DONE IN THE TOOL ATHENA,
THE AIRES MANUAL REVIEW TOOL.
SO YOU SAID T CONGRESSWOMAN 
THERE WAS NO MUAL REVIEW TOOL 
AND THEN YOUR DOCUMENTS INDICATE
THAT THERE IS A MANUAL REVI 
TOOL.
SO HELP US UNDERSTAND THE 
INCONSISTENCY.
>> CONGRESSMAN, TWO PARTS TO 
THIS.
IN GENERAL, WE AUTOMATICALLY 
APPROACH O SEARCH RESULTS, WE 
HAVE ROBUST POLICIES TO DO SO.
WE TEST IT WITH USER FEEDBACK 
AND EVALUATE LT YEAR OVER 
300,000 EXPERIMENTS AND LAUNCHED
AROUND 3,000 IMPROVEMENTS TO
SEARCH.
ANWE DON'T MANUALLY TUNE THE 
QUESTION.
LAST TIME, IT WAS IN TH CONTEXT 
E CURTAIN, MANUALLY TUNING
INDIVIDUAL SRCH RESULT, WE 
DON'T GENERALLY APPROACH IT A.
BUT THEN INTERRE
ING IN 
ELECTIONS, THEN WE HAVE TO PUT 
THE SITE ON A LIST SO THAT 
DOESN'T APPEARN OUR SEARCH 
RESULTS QUERY.
OTHERS INCLUDE VIOLENT 
EXTREMISM.
>> THAT PROCESS YOUDESCRIBE, IS
THAT DONE MANUALLY?
>> WE COULD GET REPORTS FROM LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
COMPLYING WITH IT'S A KNOWN -- 
>> THERE IS EITHER A MANUAL 
OPPONENT OR 
COMPONENT OR NOT, WHICH IS IT?
>> FOR CREATING THOSE LISTS, 
THAT PROCESS CAN BE MANUAL. 
>> THAT IS SORTF THE CONCERN 
THAT I HAVE.
YOU'VE NOW SAID SOMETHING 
DIFFERENT TODAY THAT YOU SAID TO
MS. LAUGHRIN.
BUT AMERICAN JOURNAL, DAILY 
CALLER A BREITBART THAT 
RECEIVE THE IRE OR THE NEGATIVE 
TREATMENT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF 
YOUR MANUAL TOOLING AND IT ALSO 
SEEMS NOTEWORTHY TT 
WHISTLEBLOWERS AT YOUR OWN 
COMPANY SPOKE OUT.
ONE REASON YOU MAINTAIN THIS 
MANUAL TOOL IS TO STOP ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE.
I BELIEVE IT IS YOUR COMPANY 
ENGAGING IN ELECTION 
INTERFERCE AND IT'S NOT JUST 
MYVIEW.
MIKE WHACKER CAME OUT AND WAS A 
ISTLEBLOWER INDICATING THAT 
THE MANUAL BLACKLIST TARGETS 
THAT GOOGLE SPECIFICALLY GOES 
AFTER ARE THOSE WHO SUPPORT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP W HOLD A 
CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT AND HE 
LET YOUR COMPANY IN 2019 BECAUSE
HE WAS SPEAKING OUT AGAINST 
THE OUTRAGE MOBS.
SO CAN YOU SEE HOW WHEN YOU 
EMPOWER INDIDUALS, SOME OF THE
SAMENDIVIDUALS THAT PROJECT 
VERITAS EXPOSED PEOPLE AS 
LALING PEOPLE AS TERRORISTS 
WHO SAY MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
IF YOU SUPPORT THEESIDENT, 
THAT IN FACTAN BE THE VERY 
ECTION INTERFERENCE WE'RE 
CONCERNED ABOUT AND USE YOUR 
MARKET DOMANCE AND SEARCH TO 
ACCOMPLISH THAT INTERFERENCE?
>> I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THAT
CHARACTERIZATION.
WE DON'T APPROACH THIS WORK WITH
ANY POLITICAL VIEWPOINBUT TO 
COMPLY WITH LAW, KNO COPYRI
COPYRIGHT, AND THOSE REQUESTS
CAN COME FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT.
>> TIME, GENTLEMEN.
EXPIRED.
>> I YIELDBACK.
I'M SORRY, RECOGNIZE FROM SAN 
FRANCISCO.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST GIVEN THE 
PRODUCTIVITY OFUR DISCUSSION, 
I REQUEST THIRD ROUND OF 
QUESTIONIN
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE CHAIRMAN OF 
THE FULL COMMITTEE MR. NADLER.
>> YEAH.
YOU KNOW, THE DOCUMENTS WITH THE
JOURNALISM INDUSTRY IN THIS 
COUNTR ARE ECONOMIC CREEK HOLE.
DON'T HAVE LOCAL NEWSPAPER AND 
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOURNALISTS
LAID OFF IN RECENT YEARS.
THE REASON JOUALISM IN FREE 
FALLS GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK 
CAPTURE THE VASTAJORITY OF 
DIGITAL AD REVENUE.
IT ISOOGLE AND FACEBOOK THAT 
INCREASINGLY PROFIT OFF OF THAT.
TOLDS GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK 
MAINTAIN DOMINANCE THINHESE 
MARKETS, IN PART, 
ANTI-CPETITIVE CONDUCT.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN 2015, 
FACEBOOK WITH HIGHER RATES OF 
VIDEO VIEWERSHIP ON ITS 
PLATFORM.
BASED ON ITS METRICS, FIR 
HUNDREDS OF URNALISTS, 
CHOOSING INSTE TO BOOST THEIR 
VIDEO DIVISION.
IN 2018, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT 
FACEBOOK HAD INFLATED THESE 
MEASURES.
AND HAD KNOWN ABOUT THE 
INACCURACY SEVERAL YEARS BEFOR 
FACEBOOK PUBLICLY DISCLOSE 
THIS.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, DID YOU KNOW 
TH THESE METRICS WERE INFLATED
BEFOREHEY WERE PUBLICLY 
RELEAS?
>> CONGRESSMAN, NO, I DID NOT.
AND WE REGRET THAT MISTAKE AND 
HAVE PUT IN PLACE A NUMBER OF 
OTHER MEASURES SINCE THEN TO 
MAKE SURE THAT WE -- 
>> YOU REALIZE THE HARM THAT 
THIS CAUSED JOURNALISTS ACROSS 
THE UNTRY?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I CTAINLY KNOW
HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THAT THE 
METRICSHAT WE REPORT ARE 
CURATE AND WE PUT IN PLACE 
MEASURES TO MAKE SURE.
>> WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY TO 
THE JOURNALISTS WHO LOST THEIR 
JOBS BECAUSEF FACEBOOK'S 
DECEPTION?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I DISAGREE WITH 
AT CRACTERIZATION AND ALSO, 
YOUR DESCRIPTION -- 
>> CLAIMING MY TIME.
GOOGLE, MEWHILE, MAINTAINED 
S DOMINANCE IN PAR THROUGH 
AGGREGATING TOUGH PRODUCTS AND
SERVICES.
I UNDERSTAND THAT GOOGLE 
COLLECTS USER DATA ON USER 
BROWSING ACTIVITY THROUGH CHROME
BROWSER.
DOES GOOGLE USE THAT DATA FOR 
PURPOSES IN ADVERTISING OR TO
DEVELOP AND REFINE ALGORITHMS?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WE DO USE DATA 
TO IROVE OUR PRODUCTS AND
SERVICES FOR OURUSERS.
Y TIME WE DO IT, WE BELIEVE IN
CONTL ANDRANSPARENCY AND BY 
TELLING THEMO CHOOSE HOW THEY 
LIKE THEIR DA.
>> ANDO YOU DO USE THE DATA 
THAT YOU G FROM THESE 
COMPANIES FOR YR PURPOSES?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING WAS WHETHER 
WE USE DATA IN GENERAL TO 
IMPROVE OUR PRODUCTS AND 
SERVICES AND WE DO USE DATA TO 
SHOW ADS BUT WE GIVE USE THE 
CHOICE.
EY CAN TURN AD PERSONALIZATION
ON OR OFF.
>> THIS OBVIOUSLY, USE OF THIS 
DATA FROM ALL THESE COMPANIES 
GIVE YOU A TMENDOUS ADVANTAGE 
OVER THEMND ANY COMPETITOR.
DOES THE ABILITY TO MAKE MONEY 
IN ANY WAY AFFECT GOOGLE'S 
ALGORITHM IN TERMS OF WHAT 
APPEARS IN THE A TYPICAL GOOGLE 
NEWS SRCH RESULTS?
>> WE DON'T TAKE INTOCCOUNT 
THE COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIP WE 
HAVE.
>> BUT FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE HAVE 
GRAVELY THREATENED JOURNALISM IN
THE UNITED STATES.
PORTERS HAVE BEEN FIRED.
LOCAL NEWSPAPERS HAVE BEEN SHUT 
DOWN, AND NOW WE HEAR THAT 
GOOGLE AND FACOOK ARE MAKING 
MONEY OVER WHAT NEWS THEY LET 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE.
THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS
SITUATION AND UNFORTUNATELY, MY 
TIME HAS EXPIRED AND I HAVE TO 
YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN, F 
YIELDING.
I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
FLORIDA.
FOR FIVE MINUTES. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I'M JUST GOING T PICK UP WHERE 
I LEFT OFF.MR. PACHAI, THERE AR 
GROUPSHAT IONTEND VERY 
VIOLENT VIDEO, YET YESTERDAY I 
WAS SENT A YOUTUBE VIDEO ABOUT 
CTORS DISCUSSING 
HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE AND 
DISCUSSING THE NOT DANGERS OF 
CHILDREN RETURNING TO SCHL AND
WHEN I CLICKED ON THE LINK, IT 
WAS TAKENOWN AND THEN I WAS 
SENT A DIFFERENT LINK ON YOUTUBE
AND IT WAS TEN DOWN.
I JUST CHECKEDGAIN TO MAKE 
SURE AND IT SAYS THIS VIDEO HAS
BEEN REMOVED FOR VIOLATING 
YOUTUBS COMMUNITY GUIDELINES.
HOW CAN DOCTORS GIVING THEIR 
OPINIO ON A DRUG THAT THEY
THINK IS EFFECTIVE FOR THE
TREATMENT OF COVID-19 AND 
DOCTORS WHO THINK IT'S
APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN TO 
RERN BACK TO SCHOOL VIOLATE 
YOUTUBE'S COMMUNITY GUIDELINES?
WH ALL OF THESE VIDEOS O
VIOLENCE IS ALL POSTED ON 
YOUTUBE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE BELIEVE IN 
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THERE 
IS A LOT OF DEBATE ON YOUTUBE 
ABOUT EFFECTIVE WAYS TO DEAL 
WITH COVID.
WE ALLOW A ROBUST DEBATE, BUT IN
THE AREA DURING A PANDEMIC, WE 
LOOK TO LOCAL HEALTH 
THORITIES.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE U.S., IT 
WOUL BE CDC.
FOR GUIDELINES AROUND MEDICAL 
MISINFORMATION WHICH COULD CAUSE
HARM IN THE REAL WORLD AND SO, 
FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE ARE 
ASPECTS OF A VIDEO AND IF IT 
EXPLICITLY STATES SOMETHING 
COULD BE A PROVEN CURE AND THA 
DOESN'T MEET CDC GUIDELINES, WE 
WOULD -
>> BUT IT'S FREE EXOPRESSION OF 
SPEECH AND HAVE THESE DOCTORS 
GIVING THEIR OPINION AS DOCTORS 
AND I D'T UNDERSTAND WHY 
YOUTUBE AND THEREFORE GOOGLE 
THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO SILENT
PHYSICIANS AND THEIR OPINION OF 
WHAT CAN HP AND CURE PEOPLE 
WITHCOVID-19.
I'LL SWITCH QUICKLY TO MR. 
ZUCKERBERG.
I THINK AT THIS POINT, IT'S 
FAIRLY OBVIO THAT TECHNOLOGY 
PLATFORMS HAVE BEEN STIFLING 
CONSERVATIVE NEWS ANDOPINIONS.
YOU EMPLOY A PANEL OF CONTE 
MODERATORS.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW FACEBOOK 
CHSES WHO THESE MODERATOR 
ARE?
>> THANKS CONGRESSMAN.WE DO HIR 
AROUND THE WORLD TO WORK ON 
SAFETY AND SECURITY.
OUR TEAIS MORE THAN 30,000 OR 
35,000 PEOE WORKING ON THAT 
NOW.
WE CERTAINLYRY 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 Y BUILD A SOCIAL
PRODUCT WITH THE GOAL OF GIVING 
PEOPLE A VOICE IF YOU DON'T 
BELIEVE THAT PEOPL BEING ABLE 
TO EXPRESS THE WIDE VARIETY OF 
THINGS IS ULTIMATELY VALUABLE
FOR THE WORLD, AND WE TRY TO 
MAKE SURE THAT OUR POLICIES AND 
OUR OPERATIONS UIMATELY 
REFLECT AND CARRY THAT OUT.
>> IS THERE AN IDEOLOGICAL 
DIVERSITY AMONG THE CONTENT 
MODERATO?
>> I DON'T THINK WE CHOOSE TO H 
IDEOLOGY.THEY'RE HIRED ALL OVER 
WORLD.
THERE'S CERTAINLY A BUNCH IN THE
U.S.
THERE'S DIVERSITY IN WHERE 
THEY'RE HIRED, BUT RTAINLY, WE
DON'TANT TO HAVE ANY BIAS IN WH 
TOLERATE IF WE DISCOVERED THAT.
>> SO YOU DON'T SPECIFICALLY 
HIRE, SAY, CONSERVATIVE 
MODERATORS AND DEMOCRAT OR 
LIRAL MODERATORS SO THERE'S A 
LANCE IN YOUR CONTENT 
MODETORS?
>> CONGRESSMAN, INERMS OF THE 
30,000 TO 35,000 PEOPLE OR MORE 
AT THIS POINT WHO ARE DOING 
SAFETY AND SECURITY REVIEW, THAT
ISORRECT.
IN TERMS OF THE PEOPLE SETTING 
THE POLICIES, I THINK IT IS 
VALUABLE TO HAVE PEOPLE WITH A 
DIVERSITY OF VIEWPOINTS INVOLVED
SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE
THE DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS 
REPRESENTED IN THEOLICY 
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND WE ALS 
CONSULT WITH A NUMBER OF OUTSID 
POLICIES TO MAKE SURE WE'RE 
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL 
PERSPECTIVES.
>>HAT ARE SOME OF THOSE 
OUTSIDE GROUPS THAT WOULD BE 
CONSERVATIVE-LEANING?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I NEED TO GET 
BACK TO WITH YOU WITH A LIST OF 
SPECIFIC GROUPS, BUT IT WOULD 
DEPEND ON WHAT THE TOPIC IS.
>> CAN YOU JUST TNK OF ONE?
I MEAN YOU SAID, YOU REACH TO 
OUTSIDE GROUPS.
CAN YOU THINK OF ONE 
COERVATIVE OUTSIDE GROUP YOU 
REACH OUT T AND USE AS A 
CONTENTMODERATOR?
>> CONGRESSN, I'M TALKING 
ABOUT DIFFERENT EXTERNAL SKE 
HOLDERS AND GROUPS THAT ARE 
INTS TO OUR POLICY DEVOPMENT
PROCESS AND I'M NOT INVOLVED IN 
THOSE CONVERSATIONS DIRECTLY, 
I'D HAVE T GET BACK TO YOU WITH
SPECIFICS ON THAT BUT I'M QUITE 
CONFIDENT WE SAK WITH PEOPLE 
ACROSS THE IDEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM 
WITH THOSE POCIES. 
>> I WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE 
A POLICY UPDATE ONTHAT.
THIRD PARTY FACT CHECKERS AND 
HOW MANY FAC CHECKERS DOES 
FACEBOOK EMPLOY?
>> YES, THANKS.
WE WORK WIT ABOUT 70 FACT 
CHECKING PARTNERS AROUND THE 
WORLD, AND THE GOAL OF THE 
PROGRAM IS TO LIMIT THE 
DISTRIBUTION OFIRAL HOAXES, SO
THINGS THAT ARE CLEARLY FALSE.
FROM GETTING A LOT OF 
DISTRIBUTION, B WE DON'T 
OURSELVES WANT TO BE IN THE 
BUSINESS OF DETERMINING WHAT IS 
TRUE AND WHAT IS FALSE THAT 
RAPINO 
FEELS LIKE AN INAPPROPRIATE ROLE
FOR US TO PLAY.
W
WE RELY ON THE INDEPENDENT FACT 
CHECNG ORGANIZATION THAT HAS A
SET OF GUIDELINES OF WHA MAKES 
AN INDEPENDENT FACT-CHECKER AND 
EY CERTIFY THOSE FACT CHECKERS
AND TN ANY ORGANIZATION THAT
GETS CERTIFICATION FROM THAT 
GROUP IS QUALIFIED TO BE A FACT 
CHKING PARTNER WITHIN 
FACEBOOK.
>> TNK YOU.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME EXPIRED.
I'LL ROGNIZE MR. JOHNSON FOR 
FIVE MINUTES A THEN WE'RE 
GOING TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK OF 
THE MMITTEE.
MR. JOHNSON, YOU'RE RECNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRM.
MRBEZOS, AMAZON HAS A 
SIGNIFICANTROBLEM WITH 
COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS SOLD ON ITS
PLATFORM.
NOT ONLY RIP OFF THE OWNERS OF 
LEGITIMATE BUSINESSES, THEY ALSO
CAN BE DANGEROUS.
COUNTERFEIT MEDICINE, BABY FOOD,
AUTOMOBILE TIRES AND OTHER 
PRODUCTS CAN KILL.
AMAZON HAS SAID IT'S FIXING ITS 
COTERFEIT PROBLEM, BUT 
COUNTERFEITING SEEMS TO BE 
GETTING WORSE, NOT BEER.
AMAZON IS TRILLION DOLLAR 
MPANY BUT AMAZON CUSTOMERS ARE
NOT GUARANTEED THAT THE PRODUCTS
PURCHASED ONOUR PLATFORM ARE 
AUTHENTIC.
AMAZONCTS LIKE IT'S NOT 
RESPONSIBLE FOR COUNTERFEITS 
BEING TOLD BY THIRD PARTY 
SELLERS ON ITS PLATFORM AND 
WE'VE HEARD THAT AMAZON PUTS THE
BURDEN AND COST ON BRAND OWNERS 
TO POLIC 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 SELR 
ACCOUNTS.
WHY ISN'T AMAZON MORE AGGRESSIVE
IN ENSURING THAT COUNTERFEIT 
GOODS ARE NOT SOLD ON ITS 
PLATFORM AND WHY ISN'TMAZON 
RESPONSIBLE F KEEPING ALL 
COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS OFF OF ITS 
PLATFORM?
>> THANK YOU.
THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT 
ISSUE, AND ONE WE WORK HARD ON.
COUNTERFEITS ARE DISCOURAGED.
THEY ARE A PROBLEM THAT DOES NOT
HELP WITH TRUST FOR CUSTERS.
IT'S BAD FOR CUOMERS, HONEST 
THIRD PARTY SELLERS.
WE DO A LOT TO PREVENT 
COUNTERFEITING.
WE HAVE A TEAMF MORE THAN A 
THOUSAND PEOPLE THAT DOES THIS.
WE INVEST HUNDREDS OF TUSANDS 
IN SYSTEMS THAT DO IS, 
SOMETHING CALLED PROJECT ZERO 
THAT HELPS BRANDS WITH 
INDIVIDU PROJECTS THAT HELP 
WITH COUNTERFEITING. 
>> I'M GLAD THAT U HAVE THOSE 
FEATURES IN PLACE, BUT WHY ISN
AMAZON RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPI 
ALL COUNTERFEI PRODUCTS OFF OF 
ITS PLATFORM
>> WE CERTAINLY WK TO DO SO, 
CONGRESSMAN, AND WE DO SO N 
ONLY FOR RETAIL PRODUCTS BUT 
THIRD PARTY PRODUCTS AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU.
WE'VE HEARD FROM NUMEROUS THIRD 
PARTY SELLERS AND BRAND OWNERS 
THAT AMAZON HAS USED KNOCKOFFS 
AS LEVERAGE TO PRESSURE SELLERS 
TO DOHAT AMAZON WANTS.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE FNDER OF POP 
SOCKETS RECETESTIED 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 ADVERTISEMES THAT AMAZON 
PEARS TO HAVE STOPPED 
DIVERTING SALES TO THESE 
KNOCKOFFS.
WHATS YOUR EXPLANATION FOR
THAT BUSINESS PRACTICE?
>> THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE.
IF THOSE ARE THE FACTS AND IF 
SOMEONE SOMEWHERE INSID AMAZON 
ID,OU KNOW, BUY X DOLLARS IN
ADS AND THEN WE'LL HELP YOU WITH
YOUR COUNTERFEIT PROBLEM, THAT 
IS UNACCEPTABLE AND I WILL LOOK 
INTO THAT A GET BACK TO YOUR 
OFFICE WITH THAT, BUT WHAT I CAN
TELL YOU IS THAT WE HAVE A 
COUNTERFEIT CRIMES UNIT.
ATTEMPTO PROSECUTE 
COUNTERFEITERS.
WE ENCOURE TS BODY TO PASS 
STCTER PENALTIES FOR 
COUNTERFEITERS AND INCREASE LAW 
ENFORCEMT RESOURCES TO GO 
AFTER COUNTERFEITERS.
>>UT MAKES MONEY OFF OF 
COUNTERFEIT GOODS BEING SONLLD  
YOUR PLATFORM, ISN'T THAT 
CORRECT?
>> IF IT DOES IN MY VIEW, SIR, 
IT WOULD BE IN E SHORT-TERM.
I WOD MUCH RATHER LOSE A SALE 
THAN LOSE A CUSTOM.
WE MAKE MONEY THAT COMES BACK.
>> FAIR OUGH, SIR.
MAKING COMPANIES PAY EXTRA TO 
AVOID HAVG THEIR PRODUCT 
DISAPPEAR IN RANKINGS SEEMS TO 
BE SO UNFAIR, ESPECIALLY TO 
SMALL BUSINESSES.
THE AMERICAN DREAM IS THREATENED
WHEN THAT HAPPENS, DON'T Y 
THINK SO?
>> SIR, NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT 
YOU' REFERRING TO.
IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE 
JUST TALKED ABOUT A SECOND AGO, 
I AGREE CPLETELY WITH THAT.
>> FULLY DIFFERENT SITUATION NOW
WHERE A COMPA THAT IS SELLING 
ON YOUR PLATFORM, BUT ISOT 
PAYING ANYTHING EXTRA GETS 
BURIED IN THE NKINGS, BUT 
COMPIES THAT PAY ERA ARE 
ABLE T GET THEIR PRODUCTS 
PUSHED UP AND THEY AVOID GETTING
PUSHED DOWN.
IS THAT ANCCEPTABLE PRACTICE?
>> SIR, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE 
REFERRG TO IS THE FACT THAT WE
OFFER AN ADVERTISING SERVICE, 
BASICALLY, FOR THIRD PARTY 
SELLERS TO DRIVE ADDIONAL 
PROMOTION TO THEIR PRODUCTS.
THAT'S A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM.
SOME SELLERS USE IT SOME DON'T 
AND IT'S BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE AT 
HELPING PEOPLE PROMOTE TIR 
PRODUCTS.
>> WIT THAT, I YIELD BACK.
THANK YOU.
 THE CHAIRMAN YIELDS BACK.THE C 
BRIEF RECESS.
>> THE GTLEMAN FROM NORTH 
DAKOTA, MR. ARMSTRONG. 
 THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MYOLLEAGUE BROUGHT UP WHAT I 
THINK IS AN IMPTANT ISSUE AND 
THEY WERE DISCUSSING AMAZON'S 
STATED POLICY AGAINST USING 
THIRD PARTY SELR INFORMATION 
TO INFORM BINESS DECISIONS 
RERDING AMAZON'S PRIVATE LABEL.
SPECIFICALLYOTED THAT POSSIBLE
LOOPHOLE TT ALLOWS AMAZON TO 
REVIEW NON-PUBLIC AGGREGATE DATA
TO INFORM PRIVATE BRAS EVEN IN
INSTANCES WRE THERE'S ONLY A 
FEW THIRD PARTY SELLERS.
I JUST WANT T DRILL DOWN ON 
THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
WHERE ECTLY DOES AMAZON DRAW 
THE LINE?
>> I'M SORRY.
AGGREGATE DATA WLD BE MORE 
THAN ONE SELLER.
AND OF COURSE, YOU HAVEO 
REMEMBER THE PERSON SEEING THE 
REPORT WOULD HAVE N WAY OF 
KNOWING HOW MANY SELLERS ARE 
INSIDE THA GROUP OR WHAT THE 
BREAKDOWN WOULD BE BETWE THOSE
SELLERS.
>> NOT THAT DIFFERENT FROM 
PERHAPS A BEST LIS OR PRODUCT 
RANKING WHICH WE DO MAKE PLIC 
FOR ALL.
>> I WANT TBE CLEAR, WHAT YOU 
SAY AMAZON ALLOW THE USE O 
AGEGATE DATA TOINFORM PRIVATE
LABEL BRANDSHEN THERE'S ONLY 
THREE SELLERS FOR A ODUCT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> DOES AMAZON LOOK AT AGGREGATE
DATA WHEN TRE'S ONLY TWO 
SELLERS OF A PRODUCT?
>>ES, SIR.
>> AM IORRECT IN MY 
UNDERSTANDING THAT AMAZON IS 
CONDUCNG AN INTERNAL 
VESTIGATION ON THE USE O
THIRD PTY DATA?
>> YES, BASICALLY, TRYING TO 
UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE ANECDOTES
THAT WE SAW IN THE "WALL STREET 
JOURNAL" ARTICLE.
>> WILL YOU COMMIT TO INFORMING 
THIS COMMITTEE ON TH OUTCOME OF
THAT INVESTIGATION WITH THE 
IMPACT CIRCUMSTANCES. 
>> WE'LL DO THAT.
>> MUSIC CAN BE USED TO DRIVE 
REVENUE O OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A 
REASON IT'S IMPORTANT, I WAN TO
TALK ABOUT TWITCH FOR A SECOND.
NEWS REPORTS HAVE INDICAT THAT
TWITCH USERS ARE RECEIVING 
NOTICE AND TAKE DOWN REQUESTS 
PURSUANT TO THE DITAL 
MILLENNIUMCOPYRIGHT ACT.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT TWITCH 
ALLOWS USERS TO STREAM MUSIC BUT
NOT LICENSE MUSIC, IS THAT CORR?
>> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ASK THAT
I COULD GET BACK TO YOU OFFICE 
WITH AN ANSWER OF THE QUESTION, 
I DON'T KNOW
>> I JUST HAVE TWO MORE 
QUESTIONS RELATED TO THAT.
IF TWITCH IS RESPONDING TO DMCA 
NOTICE A TAKEDOWN 
REQUIREMENTS, SHOU, ONE, 
TWITCH CONSIDER LICENSING MUSIC 
INSTEAD OF RETROACTIVELY 
ADHERING TO THE NOTICES?
THESE ARE THE QUESTNS WE'RE 
INTERESTED IN, PRIMARY CONCERN
ABOUT SMALL UP AND COMG 
MUSICIANS, DIFRENT PEOPLE NOT 
NECESSARILY LABELS TO MAKET 
EASY FOR THEM TO GET CEASE AND 
DESIST NOTICES OUT AS WELL AND 
CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARDTHERE. 
>> YES,CONGRESSMAN.
THAT IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE AND I
UNDERSTAND IT AND I WILL GET 
BACK TO YOUR OICE ON THAT.
>> EARLIER THIS YEAR, GOOGLE 
ANNOUND PLANS TO RETIRE THIRD 
PARTY COOKI THAT WEB SITES 
ATTAED TO USERS BROWSERS.
THIS ALLOWS USERS TBE TRACKED 
ACRO THE INTERNET.A CONSEQUENCE 
THATT WILL PUT OTHER DIGITAL 
ADVERTISING MARKET PARTICIPANTS 
AT A SADVANTAGE BECAUSE THEY 
CAN NO LONGE TRACK USERS.
AT THE VERY, VERY DANGER OF 
BEING PROCOOKIE BECAUSE I'M NOT 
WHEN I USE MY COMTER AS WELL, 
BUT I UNDERSTD THERE ARE 
LEGITIMATE PRIVACY CONCERN WITH 
THIRD PARTY COOKIES BUT I DO 
WANT TO FOCUS ON THE COMPETITION
ASPECT.
THE ASSET ACTION PLACED GOOGLE 
AS A DISADVANTAGE OR HAVE
ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COLLECTING 
THAT USER DATA TO INFORM THE 
DIGITAL ADVERTISING ACTIVITIES, 
MR. PACHI?
>> CONGRESSMAN, AS YOU RIGHTLY 
POINTED OUT, TS IS AN AREA 
WHERE WE'VE FOCUS ON USER 
PRIVACY AND USERS CLEARLY DON'T 
WANT TO BE TRACKED WH THIRD 
PARTY COOKIES.
IN FACT, ON A BROWR, FROM 
APPLE AND THE FOUNDATION HAVE 
ALSO IMPLEMENTED TSE CHANGES.
WE ARE DOING IT THOUGHTFULLY, 
GING TIME FOR THE INDUSTRY TO
ADAPT BECAUSE WE KNOW PUBLISHERS
DEPEND ON REVENUE IN TS AREA 
BUTT'S AN IMPORTANT CHANGE AND
I THINK WE HAVE TO BE FOCUSEDN
PRIVACY TO DRIVE THE CHANGE 
FOARD. 
>> YOU HAVE OTHER WAYS TO 
COLLTING THAT INFORMATION, 
CORRECT?
>> ON THE FIRST PARTY SERVES, 
WE DON'T RELY ON COOKIES AND 
OBVIOUSLY, WHEN PEOPLE COME AND 
TYPE INT SEARCH -- 
>> NOT ASKING YOU T RELY ON 
COOKIES.
ASKING IF YOU HAVE OTH WAYS OF
COLLECTING IT, THROUGH G MAIL OR
CONSUMER FACING PLATFORMS, 
RIGHT?
>> WE DON USE DATA FROM MAIL
FOR ADS, CONGRESSMAN, BUT TO THE
EXTENT, ON THE SERVICES, WHERE 
WE PROVIDE ADS, AND IF USERS 
HAVE CONSENTED TO ADS 
PERSONALIZATION, YES,E DO HAVE
DATA. 
>>HANK YOU, I YIELD BACK.
>>ENTLEMEN YIELDS BACK.
I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLE LY FROM
FLORIDA.
>> THA YOU SO MUCH, MR. 
CHAIRMAN.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, DURING 
DISCUSSIONS OF CHANGING 
FACEBOOK'S PLATFOR POLICY IN 
2012, YOU SAID THAT, AND I 
QUOTE, IN ANY MODEL, ASSUME WE 
ENFORCE THE POLICIES AGAINST 
COMPETITORS MUCH MORE RONGLY.
IT SOUNDS LIKE FACOOK 
WEAPONIZES ITS POLICIE TO 
TARGET COMPETITORS.
WHY WOU FACEBOOK ENFORCE 
POLICIES AGAINST COMPETORS 
MORE STRONGLY?
 CONGRESSWOMAN,HEN WE WERE A
MUCH SMALLER COMPANY, WE SAW 
THAT -- 
>> THIS IS 2012 NOW.
THIS IS IN 2012.
SO PLEASE GO RIG AHEAD.
>> SURE.
WE'VE HAD POLICS IN THE PAST TH 
COMPETITORS, WHICH AT E TIME 
WERE PRIMARILY WORRI ABOUT 
LARGER COMPETITORS, FROM USING 
OUR PLATFORMS TO GROWING AND 
COMPETE WITH .
SO WE HAD SOME OF THOSE TINUALL 
OVER TIME. 
>> MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN 2013, A 
SENIOR FACEBOOK EMPLOYEE 
IDENTIFIED MESSAGING AS A 
FAST-GROWING APP ON FACEBOOK AND
SAID WE WILL RERICT THEIR 
ACCESS.
WAS THIS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF 
ENFORCG FACEBOOK'S POLICIES 
AGAINST COMPETITORS, MUCH MORE ?
MESSAGE ME?
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT 
SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, BUT WE DID 
HAVE THAT POLICY.
>> LET'S MOVE TO ANOTHER TO SEE 
IF YOU REMEMBER THIS ONE.
IN 2014, OTHER FACEBOOK PRODUCT 
MANAGERS OPENLY DISSS REMOVING
PINTEREST'S ACCESS TO FACEBO'S
PLATFORM ASNE EMPLOYEE SAID, I
AM 100% IN FAVOR OF THE IDEA OF 
VING IT FROM PINTEST BUT AM 
NOT RECOMNDING MOVING IT FROM 
NETFLIX GOING FORWARD.
WHY WLD FACEBOOK PRODUCT 
MANAGERSANT TO RESTRICT 
PINTEREST'S ACCESS TO FACEBOO 
BUT NOT NETFLIX?
>>CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M NOT 
FALIAR WITH THAT EXCHANGE
I DON'T THINK I WAS ON THAT.
>> WHY DO YOU THINK YOU ULDN'T
HAVE TO BE ON TT BUT WHY DO 
YOU THINK THEYADE THAT 
DECISION?
OR WOULD MAKE A DECISION LIK 
THAT?
>> WELL, CONGRESSWOMAN, AS I 
SAID,E USED TO HAVE A POLICY 
THAT RESTRICTED COMPETIRS FROM
USING OUR PLATFORM, AND 
PINTEREST IS A SOCIAL COMPETIR
WITH US.
IT'S ONE OF THE MAN 
COMPETITORS.
>> ALL RIGHT.
OKAY.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, THESE EXAMPLES 
AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 
STRONGLY SUGGE THAT FACEBOOK DO 
PLATFO POLICIES AND THE 
SELECTIVELY TO UNDERMINE 
COMPETITORS BUT LET'S MOVE ON.
MR. COOK, I AM CONCEED THAT 
APPLE'S POLICIES ARE ALSO 
PICKING WINNERS A LOSERS IN 
THE APP ECONOMY.
AND THATPPLE RULES MEAN APPLE 
APPS ALWAYS WIN.
IN 2019, APPLE REMOVED FROM THE 
APPLE STORE CERTAINPPS THAT 
HELP PARENTS CONTROL THEIR
CHILDREN'S DEVICES.
DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT 
JUSTIFICATION APPLE CITED?
>> YES, CONGRESSWOMAN, I DO.
IT WAS THAT THE USE OF TECHNOLO 
DEVICE MANAGEMENT, PLAD KIDS' 
DATA AT RISK, SO WE WERE WORRIED
ABOUT THE SAFETY OF KIDS.
>> OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT
THE APP BASICALLY UNDERMINED 
KIDS' PRIVACY, BUT ANOTHER A 
THAT USED THIS SAME TOOL WAS 
APPTURE, AN APP OWNED BY THE 
SAUDARABIA GOVERNMENT.
DO YOU RECALL WHAT APPLE'S 
POSITION WAS TOWARDS TS APP?
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WIT THAT 
APP. 
>> OKAY.
APPLE ALLOWED THIS SAUDI APP TO 
REMAIN, SO THERE ARE TWO TES 
OF APPS.
THEY USE THE SAME TOOL.
APPLE KIC ONE OUT, AND SD 
THAT ONE WASELPING PARENTS BUT
EPS THE ONE OWNEDY A 
POWERFUL GOVERNMENT.
IF THAT IS CORRECT, MR. COOK, 
THAT APPLE SUPPOSEDLY DID THE 
SAME THING, WHY WOULD YOU KEEP 
THE ONE OWNED BY A POWERFUL 
GOVERNMENT?
>> I'D LIKE TO LOOK INTO THIS, 
AND GET BACK WITH YOUR OFFICE 
-- 
>>T SOUNDS LIKE YOU APPLIED 
DIFFERENT RULES TO THE SAME 
APPS. 
>> WE APPLY THE RULES TO ALL 
DEVELOPERS EVENLY.
>> DID THE FACT THAT APPLE 
-- . COOK, LET ME ASK YOU 
THIS.
DID THE FAC THAT APPLE HAD ITS 
OWN PARENTAL CONTROL APPS THAT 
WERE COMPETING WITH THESE THIRD 
PARTY APPS CONTRIBUT TO APPLE'S
DECISION TO KICK THEM OFF THE 
APPLE STORE, MR. COOK, WHAT DO 
YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?
>> IT DID NOT.
THERE'SVER 30 PARENTAL 
CONTROLS ON THE APP STORE TODAY,
SO THERE'S PLENTY OF 
COMPETITION.AND I WOULD POINT O 
IS NOT AN AREA WHERE APPLE GETS 
ANY REVENUE AT AL
WE DO THIS -- 
>> I DIDN'T ASK ANYTNG ABOUT 
REVENUE.
THAT WAS NOT MYQUESTION, BUT 
M OUT OF TI.
THANK YOU SO MUCH,R. CHAIR.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> THANK YOU, GENTLE LADY, FOR 
YIELDINGACK AND THE MEMBER MR.
RDAN FOR FIVEMINUTES. 
>> I WOULD YIELD TO THE 
GENTLEMAFROM FLORIDA, MR. 
GATES. 
>> THANK YOU TO THE GENTLEMAN 
FOR YIELDING.
MR ZUCKERBERG,S MR. PACHI 
SAID THERE WAS AN EDITORIAL 
MANIPULATION ON THE PLFORM, 
YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY GIVEN 
TESTIMONY TOONGRESS SAYING 
THERE IS NOT EDITORIAL 
MANIPULATION THATDISADVANTAGES 
CONSERVATIVES AND JUST LIKE IN 
THE CASE OF GOOGLE,HERE HAVE 
BEEN WHISTLEBLOWERS FROM 
CEBOOK THAT NOT ONLY HAVE OFFERR
TESTIMONY WAS NOT TRUTHFUL, BUT
THERE'S EVEN VIDEO THAT SUGGESTS
THAT CONTENT MODERATORS THAT U
EMPLOY ARE OUT THERE 
DISADVANTAGINGONSERVATIVE 
CONTENT.
I'M WONDERING IF YOU ARE 
FAMILIAR WITH THE EXPERIENCES OF
ZACH McELROY AND RYAN HARTWIG, 
TWO PPLE WHO PARTICIPATED IN 
FACEBO CONTENT REVIEW AND
INDIVIDUAL VIDEO EVIDENCE AND 
THE TESTIMONY FROM THEM THAT THE
CULTURE THAT YOU LEAD WH 
FACEBOOK IS ONEHAT 
DISADVANTAGES AND LEADS TO 
CONTENT MANIPULATION.
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M SEWHAT 
FAMILIAR WITH THE CONCERNS THAT 
THEY HAVE RAISED AND AS I'VE 
SAID, WE AIM T BE A PLATFORM 
FOR ALL IDEAS.
WE GOT INTO THIS BECAUSE WE WAN.
I CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT OUR 
PLATFORMS TO BE RUN IN A WAY 
THAT HAS ANY IDEALOGICAL BIAS 
AND I WANT PEOPLE T BE ABLE TO 
DISCUSS A RANGE OF ISSUES.
WE PEOPLE RAISE CONRNS LIKE 
THAT,E LOOK INTO THEM TO MAKE 
SURE EVERYONE IN OURPERATION 
IS BEHAVG 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 REASE OF 
THOSE VIDEOS AND THA EVIDENCE 
FROM PROJECT VERITAS, WILL YOU 
DESCRIBE THE INVESTIGATION THAT 
FACEBOOK UNDEROK TO ROOT OUT 
THESE CORROSIVE EFFECTS O YOUR 
PLATFORM?>> CONGRESSMAN, I'D HA 
BACK TO YOU WITH MORE DAILS ON
THAT, BUT I KNOW THAT WE HAVE 
ONGOING TRAINING INHAT WE DO 
AND WE CTAINLY WILL LOOK INTO 
ANY COMPLAINTS THAT COME UP AND 
DONE IN A WAY THAT REFLECT TESS 
VALUES AROUND THE COMPANY AND 
BEING ALATFORM FOR ALL IDEAS.
>> I'M CONCERNED THAT THE 
PLATFO DOES AFFECT THE VALUE 
OF THE COMPANY B THOSE DON'T 
GIVE EVEONE A VOICE.
AN WHILE I APPRECIATE TRAINING 
AS A PROPHYLACTIC ENDEAVOR TO 
TRY TO GUIDE FUTURE CONTENT, IT 
SEEMS DISINGENIOUS FOR YOU TO 
SUGGEST THESE VIDEOS COME OUT T 
TRUST WITH CONTENT MODERATION 
ADMIING ON VIDEO THAT THEY DISAT
THEY LABEL PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT 
THE PRESIDENT AS A WAY TO PUSH 
DOWN THAT CONTENT F YOU TO 
COME TO US MANY MONTHS LATER 
AFTER THAT WAS ALL OVER THE NEWS
AND THE INTERNET AND SAY, WELL, 
YOU KNOW, YOU'LL G BACK TO US 
AND YOUO A LITTLE TRAINING, IT
SEEMS TO SUGGESTHAT YOU DON'T 
TAKE THESE AEGATIONS AND THIS 
EVIDENCE VERY SERIOUSLY.
SO I'LL ASK THE QUESTION IN A 
DIFFERT WAY, IN YOUR PRIOR TEST 
NOT HAPPEN, IT CANNOT HAPPEN.
WOULD YOU AT LEAST BE WILLING TO
ACKNOWLEDGE BAS ON THE IR RU 
IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE IN A WAY 
THAT WE NEED TO ROOT OUT.
>> CONGREMAN, MY TESTIMONY IN 
THE PAST AND TODAY IS ABOUT WHAT
OUR PRINCIPALS ARE AS A COMPANY 
AND WHAT WE TRY TO DO.
OF COURSE, WHEN YOU HAVE TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF EMPLOYEES, PEOPLE 
MAKEMISTAKES, PEOPLE HAVEOME 
OF THEIR OWN GOALS SOME OF THE 
TIME A IT'S OUR JOB IN RUNNI
THE COMPANY TO MAKE SUREHAT W
MINIMIZE THEIRS AND MAKE SURE 
THAT THE COMPANY'S OPERATIONS 
REFLECT THE PRINCIPLES THAT WE 
INTEND TO RUN IT ON.
>> AND WHEN YOU FIRE PEOPLE AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR POLITICS, 
DO YOU THINK THAT THAT IMPACTS 
E CULTURE AND PERHAPS EMPOWERS
SOMEF THE CONTENT MODERATORS 
TO ALSO TREAT PEOPLE WORSE AS A 
COEQUENCE OF THEIR POLITICS?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M N AWARE OF
A CASE WHERE WE HAVE FIRE 
DOLLARS SOMEONE ON BEHALF OF
THEIR POLITICS.
I WOULD SAY THAT THAT WOULD BE 
AN INAPPROPRIATE THING FOR US TO
DO.
>> WHY DID YOU FIRE PMER 
WALKIE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE 
IT'S APPROIATE TO GET INTO A 
SPECIFIC PERSONNEL ISSUE 
PUBLICLY.
I -- 
>> I ONLY HAVE TEN SECONDS, BUT 
PALMER'S NDA DOESN'T ALLOW HIM 
TO TALK TO AONE BUT GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS.
I'M A GOVERENT OFFICIAL.
I'VE SEEN THE MESSAGES WHERE YOU
HAVE SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED MR. 
LUCKY TO MAKE STATEMENTS 
REGARDING HIS POLITIC FOR THE 
BENEFIT OF YOUR COMPANY.
SO I THINK BOTH IN THE CASE OF 
THESE CONTENT MODERATORS AND IN 
THE CASE OF THE CONTENT 
TESTIMONY YOUAVE REGARDING MR.
LUCKY AND FIRING PEOPLE OVER
THEIR POLITICS, THERE ISERIOUSQ 
YOU'RE GIVING TRUTHFUL TTIMONY
HERE OR WHETHER OR NOT IT'S 
LYING BORE CONGRESS.
I SEE MYIME ISXPIRED AND 
I'LL YLD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIES BACK.
I NOW RECOGNIZE MISS SCANLON.
>> THANKYOU, MR. CHAMAN.
MR. PROCHET, I WANTED TO FOCUS 
ON GOOGLE'S ACQUITION OF 
YOUTUBE AND SOME OF THE 
CONSEQUENCES OF THAT MOVEOR 
CONSUMER PRIVACY AND 
COMPETITION.GOOGLE PURCHASED YO6
AFTER IDENTIFYING IT AS A RIVAL
THAT COULD DRAW BUSINESS AWAY 
OM GOOGLE AND IT'S MY 
UNDERSTANDING GOOGLE PAID $1.65 
BILLION FOR THAT ACQUISITION, 
NEARLY0 TIMES ITS ORIGINAL BID
OF 50 MILLN.
SO COULD YOU TELL US W GOOGLE 
WAS WILLING TO PAY SO MUCH ME 
BEYOND THE INITIAL PROPOD BID 
AND WAS THIS AA RESULT OF ANY 
ANALYSIS ON THE HARM GOOGLE 
WOULDUFFER IF A COMTITOR HADPUR?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE ACQUIRED 
YOUTUBE IN 2006 AND THIS W 
LL BEFORE MY TIME THERE AS CEO
AND WASN'T DIRECTLY INVOLVED.
YOU KNOW, WHAT I DO RECALL AT 
THE TIME IS THAT WE SAW IT AS A 
NEW, EMERGING AREA AND WE ARE --
OUR MISSION I TO HELP USERS 
WITH INFORMATION.
WE SAW AN OORTUNITY AND IT 
WASN'T -- YOU ONLY HAD 67 
PEOPLE
>> OKAY.
WAS MR. PAI IN CHARGE OF THAT D?
>> I'M PRETTY SURE OUR SENIOR 
LEADERSHIP TEAM AT THE TIME 
LOOKED INTO IT.
>> OKAY.I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE TO TAKE THE STEPS 
NECESSARY TO VE US HERE FOR 
WHOEVER WAS IN CHARGE WITH THA
MOVING ON, GOOGLE IS NOW, BY 
FAR, THE TOP ONLINE SIT WHERE 
AMERICANS WATCH VIDEOS, 
INCLING CHILDREN'S VIDEOS.
AND AS I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE, 
FEDERAL LAW PREVENTS COMPANIES 
FROM COLLECTING DATA ON CHILDREN
UNDER 13.
HOWEVER, JUST LAST YEAR, THE 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION FOUND 
GOOGLE SPENT YEARS KNONGLY 
COLLECTING DATA ON CHILDREN 
UNDER 13 ON YOUTUBE AND OFFERING
ADVERTISERS THE ABILITY TO 
TARGET THOSE CHILDREN DIRECTLY.
DID YOUTUBE USE THE DATA IT 
ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED TO IMPROVE 
ITS ABILITY TO TARGET ADS TO 
CHILDREN?
>> WE ARE -- THIS ISN AREA I 
TAKE IT SERIOUSLY.
I AM A PARENT, TOO.
WE HAVE A DEDICATED PRODUCT FOR 
KIDS IN YOUTUBE KIDS ON THE MN
YOUTUBE PLATFORM.
WE MAKE SURE WE HAVE CLE 
POLICIES.
WE ENFORCE THEM RIGOROUSLY.
IN 2019, WE FLAGGED AND REMOVED 
CLOSE TO A MILLION VIDEOS 
POTENTIALLY FOR CONCERNS AROUND 
CHILD SAFETY.
SO IS AN AREA WE ARE INVESTING
RIGOROUSLY AND WE'LL CONTINUE T
DO SO.
>> WELL, I'M MORE CONCERNED 
OUT THE FACT THAT YOU'RE 
INVESTING RIGOROUSLY IN LURING 
 ADVERTISERS LIKE TOYMAKERS, 
MATTEL AND HASBRO BY TELLING 
TH YOUTUBE IS THE NUMBER ONE 
SITE REGULLY VISITED BY KIDS.
SO THAT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE
TARGETING THE KIDS AND TARTING
ADVERTERS TO BRING THEM ON 
BOARD.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> TODAY IN THE MAIN SITE OF 
YOUTUBE, WE D'T ALLOW ANYONE
UNDER 13 TO CREE ACCOUNTS.
THERE ARE SCENARIOS IN WHICH 
THERE COULD BE FAMILY SCREWING 
AND TODAY THERE ARE CREATORS WHO
CREATE CONNT ORIENTED TO 
FAMILIES.
AND AS PART OF THAT THERE ARE 
ADVERTISERS WHICH ARE INTERESTED
INONNECTING WITH THOSE USERS.
BUT EVERYTHING WE DID HERE, WE 
OBVIOUSLY COMPLY WITH ALL THE 
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND- 
>> OKAY.
LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF THE 
CONTENT THAT IS SPECIFICAY FOR
CHILDREN.
-- MAKES IT ILLEGAL TO TARGET 
THOSE KIDS, BUT WE'VE GOT AN 
ISSUE ERE CONTENT CREATORS ARE
IN A DIFFICULTPPROXIMATION 
NOW.
SO IF A SHOLIKE "SESAME 
STREET" DOESN'T WANT TO SHOW ADS
FOR JUNK FOOD ON YOUTUBE, DOES 
YOUTUBE ALLOW IT TO MAKE THAT 
CHOICE?
>> TODAY WE HAVE CHOICES BOTH 
FOR CREATORS IN TERMS OF, YOU 
KNOW, TOOLS AND PRERENCES AND 
WE HAVEXTENSIVE TOOLS FOR 
ADVERTISERSND ABOVE ALL FOR 
USERS WE GIVE A CHOICE.
THEY CAN EITHER USE YOUTUBE AS A
SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE WITHOUT 
SEEING THOSE TYPES OF ADS OR 
THEY CAN USE IT FOR FREE WITH 
ADS.
SO WE GIV CHOICE AND, YOU KNOW,
FOR US, IT IS ABOUT MOST 
IMPORTANCE THAT YOUTUBE IS A 
PLACE WHERE PEOPLE COME TO LEA
AND, YOU KNOW, BE INCREASINGLY 
SMALL AND MEDIUM BUSINESSES YOU
USETE TO THRIVE ESPECIALLY 
DURING COVID PARTICULARLY 
DURING -- MANY OF THE -- 
LET'S GO BK TO CONTENT 
DESIGNED FOR CHILDREN.
IF THERE'S AN ORGANIZATION LIKE 
PROVIDE CHILD-CENTERED CONTENT 
BUT THEY DON'T WANT THAT CONTENT
TO BE SULLD, SHALL WE SAY WITH
JUNK FOOD A OR SOMETHING,Y 
UNDERSTANDING IS YOU SAY THE 
NTENT CREATORS CAN DO THAT, 
BUT WE'VE GOT A RECENT RORT 
FROM "THWALL STREET JOURNAL" 
THAT SAY YOUTUBE HASN'T BEE 
HONORING THOSE REQUESTS A IT'S
BEEN MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR 
INDEPENDENT AUDITING COMPAES 
LIKE OPEN SLATE TO INDEPENDENTLY
AUDIT AT AND REPORT BACK TO 
THOSE CONTENT CREATOR ABOUT 
WHETHER OR NOT YOUTUBE I 
HONORING THOS
ISHAT CORRECT?
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE 
PARTICULAR REPORT, BUT I'M HAPPY
TO UNDERSTAND IT BETTER AND, YOU
KNOW, HAVE MY OFFICE FOLLOW UP 
WITH YOUR STAFF, ONGMAN.
>> I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.
MY TIME IS EXPIRED.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN WAN YIELDS 
BACK.
THE CHAIR WILL NOW RECOGNIZE 
HIMSELF FOR FE MINUTES.
>> MR. BEZOS, THANK YOU FOR BEI.
IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU 
REVIEWED YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY.
YOU INDICATED AND I'LL QUOTE 
THAT AMAZON ACCOUNTS FORESS 
THAN 1% OF THE 25 TRILLION 
DOLLARS GLOBAL RETAIL MART AND
LESS THAN 4% OF RETAIL IN THE U.
END QUOTE.
WHEN YOU REF TO RETAIL, I TAKE
IT BASED ON THE EMPIRICAL 
STUDIES I REVIEWED, YOU'RE 
REFERRING TO A BROAD DEFINITION 
OF RETL THAT INCLUDES 
RESTAUNTS, BARS, GAS STATIONS,
IT'S A FAIRLEY ALL ENCOMPASSING
VIEW OF RETAIL.
I WONDER IF YOU KNOWHAT 
PERCENTAGE OF AMAZON'S SES ARE
REPRESENTED IN THE TERMSF 
ONLINE RETAIL SAS, THE 
E-COERCE MARKET STREAM.
 THE FIGURES I'VE SEEN FOR -- 
YOU KNOW, I DON'T -- WITH ALL 
DUE RESPECT, I DON'TCCEPT THAT
E-COMMERCE IS A DIFFERENT 
MARKET.
BUT AS A DIFFERENT CHANNEL, WHAT
I'VE SEEN IS 30% TO % IS THE 
OUTSIDE STUDIES THAT I'VE SEEN 
WHERE AMAZON'S SHARE OF THAT E-.
>> AND THAT'S CONSIENT WITH 
THE DATA THAT I HAV SEEN.
THE LATES FIGURE I SAW WAS 40%.
AND SO IN TERMS OF HOW WE DEFINE
IT, WHETHER IT'S A STREAM OR 
CHANNEL, NONETHELESS, I THINK 
THAT -- FACTUALLY IT'S 
IMPORTT.
IT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION 
AT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE 
CLEAR HERE.
OBVIOUSLY, I SPECT YOU 
UNDERSTAND MORE THAN MOST THAT 
THE EARLY STAGES OF A START-UP 
WHERE ENTREPRENEURS ARE 
UNDERTAKING RISK TOES BRING 
THEIR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES TO 
MARKET, OVER THE COURSE OF OUR 
INVESTIGATION, WHAVE HEARD 
DIRECTLY FROM START-UPS WHO RELY
ONMAZON SERVICES AND TT 
INCLUDES OBVIOUSLY 
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL'S QUESTIONS,
REPRESENTATIVE BUCK THAT MY 
COLLEAGUE WITH COLORADO, WITH 
RESPECT TO THE WAY AMAZON USES 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
BUT WE'VE ALSO HEARD AMAZON'S 
CLOUD COMPUTG ARM, AWS, THE 
NOTION THAT THAT COMPUTING ARM 
SENTIALLY IDENTIFIES 
START-UP'S BEST TECHNOLOGIES AND
ROLLS OUTRODUCTS AND SERVICES.
SO MR. BEZOS,OES AMAZON USE 
CONFIDENTIALNFORMATION THAT 
COMPANIES SHARE VIA AWS TO BLD
COMPETG SERVICES?
>> NO, SIR, NO, SIR THAT I'M 
AWARE OF.
AWS DOES OFTEN, YOU KNOW, THEY 
DO KEEP EXPANDING THEIR 
SERVICES.
AWS STARTED,OU KNOW, 15 YEARS 
AGO IN THIS ENTIRE CATEGY -- 
>> LET ME CLARIFY THAT, MR.
BEZOS.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING.
LAST WEEK ONE OF AMAZON'S FORMER
ENGINEERS POSTEDNLINE THAT HE 
AND HIS TEAM PROACTIVELY 
IDENTIFIED GROWING BUSINESSES ON
AWS, THAT THEY BUILT COMPETING 
PRODUCTS AND THAT THOSE TARGETED
THOSERODUCTS TO THE BUSINESS'S
CUSTOMERS.
AN THERE'S BEEN PUBLIC 
REPORTING O THAT STRATEGY.
SO I GUESS I WONDER IF YOU CAN 
COMMENT ON THAT AND HOW YOU WOU 
STATEMENTS.
>> WELL, I THINK THERE MAY BE 
CATEGORIES -- DATABASES OF 
DIFFERENT KINDS AND SO ON WHERE 
WE SEEHAT IT'S AN IMPORTANT 
PRODUCT FOR CUSTOMERS AND WE 
MAKE OUR OWN PRODUCT OFFERING IN
TH ARENA.
BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN WE STOP 
SERVICING T OTHER COMPANIES 
THAT ARE ALSO MAKIN THOSE 
PRODTS.
WE HAVE COMPETIRS USING AWS 
AND WE WORK VERY HARD TO MAKE 
THEM SUCCESSFUL.
NETFLIX IS ONE EXAMPLE, HULU IS 
ANOTR EXAMPLE AND SO ON.
>> I THINK THE CONCERN, MR. 
BEZOS, WITH RESPECT IS THAT THE 
PATTERN EMERGES ACSS THE 
DIFFERENT COMPONENTS IN AMAZON, 
WHETHER IT'S THE MARKETPLACE OR 
WHETHER IT'S THE CLOUD SERVICES 
I MENTIOD.
IN ADDITION, THERE WAS AN 
ARTICLE, I'M SURE YOU'RE AWA 
IN THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL" 
RECORDING THE ALEXA FUNDS, THAT 
ACCORDING TO NEWS REPORTS 
AMAZON'S VENRE CAPITAL SAW IN 
THE ALEXA FUND, THEY INVESTEDN
A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT COMPANIES.
YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE ALEXA 
FUNDNVESTING IN DEFINE CROWD 
CORP.
DOES THAT RING  BELL?
 NO, SIR.
I'M RAID IT DOESN'T.
>> OKAY.
I'LL REPRESENT TO YOU ACCORDING 
TO THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL,"
AND I'LL QUOTE FROM THEM, WHEN
AMAZON INCORPORATED ITS VENTURE 
FU IT GAINED ACCESS TO TH 
TECHNOLOGY START-UP'S FINANCES 
AND OTHER CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION.
NEARLY FOUR YEARS LATER IN 
APRIL, AMAZON'S CLOUD COMPUTING 
UNIT LAUNCHED AN ARTIFICIAL 
INTELLENCE PRODUCT THAT DOES 
ALMOST EXACTLY WHAT DEFIN 
CROWD SAID SAID DEFINED 
EXECUTIVE AND CHIEF DAN.
ARE U AWARE OF THOSE 
ALLEGATIONS?
>> I READ THAT ARTICLE, BUT I 
DIDN REMEMBER THAT PIECE OF 
IT.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.I DON'T KNF
THAT SITUATION AND I WOULD BE 
HAY TO GET BACK TO YOURFFICE
WITH MORE INFORMAON ABOUT 
THAT.
>> WELL, I CERTAINLY WOULD 
WELCOME THAT.
AND TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU ALL 
CAN FOLLOW UP WITH THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO TH 
TERMS OF DEFINED CROWD CP.
THE REASON WHY I ASK THESE 
QUESTIONS, MR. BOS, TO ME IS 
WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS
INNOVATION KILL ZONE THAT SMS 
TO BE EMERGING.
I REPRESENT TWO OF THE MT
INNOVATIVE TECH HUBS IN THE CUP 
D ENTREPRENEURS AND FOUNDERS 
SHARED THIS STORY WITH THIS 
COMMITTEE DURING ONE OF OUR 
FIELD HEARINGS THATE HELD AT 
THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW 
SCHOOL EARLIER THIS YEAR.
AND THEY ARE EXTREME DEPENDENT
ON B TECHNOLOGY FIRMS, 
INCLUDING IN TERMS OFNVESTMENT
AND CAPITAL, YET THEYIVE IN 
CONSTANT FEAR THAT THE PLATFORMS
COULD STEAL THEIR CORE 
TECHNOLOGIES OR IDEAS, MAKING IT
IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPETE BECAUSE OF
THOSE ISTING ADVANTAGES.
I SEE MYIME IS EXPIRED, BUT WE
WILL BE FOLLOWING UP WITH 
RESPECT TO THE EPISODES THAT I 
REFERENCED.
WITH THAT, I WOULD YIELD BACK.
THE NTLEMAN'S TIME IS EXPIRED.
AND THE GENTLEMAN WOMAN FROM 
GEORGIA, MS. McBETH IS 
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MR. COOK, FACEBOOK ACQUID 
WHATSAPP IN 2014.
AT THAT TIME, THE BOARD WAS TOLD
THE DEAL WAS CRITICAL FOR 
COUNTERINGHE APP STORE POWER 
OF APPLE AND GOOGLE WHO CHOKE 
OFF FACEBOOK'S ACCESS TO MOBILE 
DEVICES.
WAS CHERYL SANDBERG CORRECT, 
DOES APPLE HAVE THE POWER TO 
EXCLUDE APPS FROM THE APP STORE?
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF
THIS, CONGRESSWOMAN, WE'VE 
INEASED THE NUMBER OF APPS
FROM 500 TO 1.7ILLION.
SO THERE IS A VERY WIDEATE FOR
THE APPS STORE.
AND THE'S FIERCE COMPETITION 
FOR DEVELOPERS AND WE WANT EVERY
APP WE CAN ON THE PLATFORM.
>> OKAY.
SO BUT M COOK WHAT YOU'RE 
SAYING IS APPLE CAN EXCLUDE APPS
FROM THE APP STORE, IN FACT, IT 
HA
IN 2018, APPLE INTRODUCED AN APP
CALLED SEEN TIME WHICH HELPS
PEOPLE LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF TIME 
THEY O THEIR KIDS SPEND ON 
THR iPHONES.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IT SOUNDS RIGHT.
>> BUT BEFORE SCREEN TIME 
EXISTED, THERE WERE OTHER AS 
IN THE APPTORE THAT GAVE 
PARENTS CONTROL OVER THE KIDS' 
PHONE USAGE AND PARENTS DEPENDED
ON THEM.
SOON AFTER YOU INTRODUCED SCREEN
TIME, HOWEVER,OU REMOVED THESE
COMPETING APPSROM THE APP
STORE.
ONE MOTHER WROTE TO APPLE 
SAYING, AND I QUOTE HER, I AM 
DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED THAT YOU HA 
AND OERS LIKE IT THEREBY 
REDUCING CONSUMER ACCESS TO MUCH
NEEDEDERVICES TO KEEP CHILDREN
SAFE AND PTECT THEIR MENTAL 
HEALTH AND WELL BEING
MR. COOK, WHY DID APPLE ROVE 
COMPING 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 W CALLED MDM
AND IT HAD THE ABILITY TO SORT 
OF TAKE OVER THE DS' SCREEN 
AND A THIRD PARTYOULD SEE IT.
AND SO WWERE WORRIED ABOUT 
THEIR SAFETY.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
I APPRIATE THAT.
>> TODAY WE HA -- 
>> I APPRECIATEHAT.
BUT THE TIMING OF THE REMOVAL 
SEEMS VERY COINCIDENTAL.
IF APPLE WASN'T ATTEMPT TO GO 
HARM CPETITORS IN ORDER TO 
HELP ITS OWN APP, WHY DID PHIL 
SHILLER, WHO RUNS T APP STORE,
PROMOTE THE SCREEN TIME APP TO 
CUSTOMERS WHO COMPLAID ABOUT 
THEEMOVAL OF RAL PARENTAL 
CONTROL APPS?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I CAN'T SEE 
THIS EMAIL.
I'M SORRY,Y EYES ARE NOTOOD 
ENOUGH TO READ IT.
BUT I SEE SCREEN TIME AS JUST AN
ALTERNATIVE.
BUT TRE ARE OVER 30 PARENTAL 
CONTROL APPS THAT ARE IN THE APP
STORE TODAY
SO THERE IS VIBRANT COMPETITION 
FOR PARENTAL CONTROLS OUT THERE.
>> OKAY.
MR. COOK, THEACT IS THAT APPLE
SIDELINED SCREEN TIME'S 
COMPETITION BY KPING THEM OUT
OF THE APP STORE.
AND WHILE APPEL CLAIMS THESE 
COMPETITORS WEREN'T MEETINGING 
THE PRIVACYSTANDARDS, THESE APP 
IN SIX MONTHS LATER WITHOUT 
REQUIRING SIGNIFICANT PRIVACY 
CHANGES AND, OF COURSE, SIX 
MONTHS IS TRULY AN ETERNITY FOR 
SMALL BUSINESSES TO BE SHUT 
DOWN, EVEN WORSE IF ALL THE WHI 
ACTUALLY TAKINGWAY CUSTOMERS.
AND, YOU OW, THIS IS NOT THE
FIRST TIME SOMETHING LIKE THIS 
SEEMS TO HAVE HAPNED.
LET ME GIVE YOU ANOTHER EXAMPLE 
OF THE HM THAT HAS BEEN CAUSED
TO YOURCOMPETITORS.
IN 2010, APPLE INTRODUCED AN 
ONLINE BOOKSTORE CALLED T 
IBOOKSTORE WHERE IT OFFERED 
eBOOKS.
AND THE ONLY MAJOR PUBLISHER 
THAT DIDN'T AGREE TO JOIN 
IBOOKSTOREAS RANM HOUSE.RANDOM S
N eBOOKS THROUGH ITS OWN APPS.
AMID CONTINUED NEGOTIATIONS 
BETWEEN APPLEND RANDOM HOUSE, 
SEOR V EDDIE QUEUE SAID --
I'M QUOTING HIM WHEN HE SAID HE 
PRENTED AN APP FROM RANDOM 
HOUSE GOING LIVE IN THE APP 
STORE.
HE HIMSELF CITED TS REJECTION 
AS A FACTOR IN FINALLY GETNG 
RANDOM HOUSE TO GIVE INND JOIN
IBOOKSTORE.
IS IT FAIR FOR APPLE TO USE ITS 
POWER OVER THE APP STORE TO 
PRESSU A BUSINESS TO JOIN 
APPLE'S OWN AP
>> I CAN'T SEE THE EMAIL AND SO 
I DON'T KNOW THE CONTEXT OF IT, 
BUT THERE ARE MANY REASONS WHY 
AN APP MIGHT NOT INITIALLY GO 
THROUGH.
THE APP STORE GATE.
BECAUSE ITAY NOT WORK 
PROPER, THERE MAY BE OTHER 
ISSUES WITH IT.
SO IT'S VERY DIFFILT TO SEE.
WHAT I WOULD- I WOULD SAY, THOU 
VERY WIDE.
WE HAVE 1.7 MILLIONPPS IN IT.
IT'S BECOME AN ECONOMIC MIRACLE.
>> WITH OVER $138 BILLION OF 
COMMERCE JUST IN THE UNID 
STATES.
>> MR. OK, I REALLY, REALLY
APPRECIATE THAT SENTIMENT, BUT I
WANT TO SAY TO YOU TT APPLE 
ENYS ENORMOUS POWER TO CONTROL
WHICAPPS CAN REACH CONSUMERS, 
EVEN SOME OF THE LARGEST 
COANIES IN THE COUNTRY FEAR 
YOUR POWER.
OUR EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THA YOUR 
COMPANY HAS USED ITS POWER T 
HARM YOUR RIVALS AND BOOST YR 
OWN BINESS.
TH IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR.
AND HARMS SMALL BUSINESSES THAT 
RELY ON U TO REACH CUSTOMERS 
AND STIFLES THE INNOVATN THAT 
IS THE LIFE BLOOD OF OUR 
ECONOMY.
ULTIMATELY, IT REDUCES THE 
COMPETITION AND CICES 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 TT ROUND.
IN LIGHT OF THE REQUEST OF MR.  
BECAUSE MANY OF MYOLLEAGUES 
WOULD LIKE TO GE MORE FULSOME 
ANSWERS ON A NUMBER OFISSUES, 
WE'LL PROCEED TO A FIN ROUND 
AND MY EXPECTATIONS IS WE WILL 
CONTACT WITHIN THE HOUR.
AND I'LL RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR 
FIVE MINUTES.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, WE'VE SEEN THE 
DOMINANCE OF SEVERAL OF THE 
COMPANIES APPEARING BEFORE US
TODAY.
THAT IT'S NOT JUST HARMFUL TO 
OUR ECONOMY AND COMPETITION, BUT
IT'S HARMFUL TO TH FOUNDING 
PRINCIPLES OF OUR DEMOCCY.
FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE ARE DESIGNED
TO KEEP USERS ON THEIR PLATFORM.
BECAUSE DISINFORMATION, 
PROPAGANDA A HATEFUL SPEECH 
ARE GOOD FORENGAGEMENT, THEY'RE
GOOD FOR BUSINESS.
BUT OVER A HDRED YEARS AGO, 
THE SUPREME COURTUSTICE AL VER
WENDELL LMES JR. WROTE THE 
MOST STRINGENT PROTECTION OF 
FREE SPEECH WOULD NOTROTECT A 
MAN FALSELY SHOT AND FIRED IN A 
THEAR AND CAUSING PANIC.
MY FIRST QUESTIO IS, MR. 
ZUCKERBERG, DO YOU AGREE WITH 
THAT INCIPLE, THAT THERE ARE 
LIMITS TO HARMF SPEECH AND 
THERE ARE PARTICULARL WITH 
REGARD TO HAD HEALTH AND SAFETY 
OF THE PUBLIC?
>> I CERTAINLY DO.
I ACTUALLY THINK OUR POLICIES GO
FURTHE THAN ELIMINATING THOSE 
TYPES OF THINGS.
>> WELL, MR. ZUCKERBERG, YOU 
HAVE A BILLION USERS AND ALMOST 
50,000 PLOYEES.
SO HE SO YOU AGREE YOU HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY TO REMOVE HARMFUL
ES FROM YOUR PLATFORM.
CORRECT?
>>CONGRESSMAN, I THINK WE HAVE 
A RESPOIBILITY TO LIMIT THE 
SPREAD O CONTENT THAT'S GOING 
TO BE HARMFUL FOR PEOPLE.
AND'D LIKE TO ADD THAT I DO 
NOT BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY 
INCENTIVE TO HAVE THIS CONTENT 
ON OUR SERVICES.
 EXCEPT THAT -- 
>> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, EXCEPT 
THAT IT IS OFTEN THE MOST 
ENGAGING.
IT BRINGS THE MOST LIKES OR IT 
BRINGS THE MOST ACTIVITY WHICH 
OF COURSE PRODUCES GREAT PROFIT.
SO YOU DO HAVE AN INCENTIVE.
THE MORE ENGAGEMENT THERE IS, 
THE MORE MONEY YOU MAKE ON 
ADVERTISING.
SO LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.
LET ME GIVE YOU SOME EXAMPLE 
SPECIFIC EXAMPLES THAT WILL
ILLUSTRATE MY CONCERNS.
THESARE SOME OF THE TOP T 
MOST SHARED ARTICLES ON FACEBOOK
IN 2020.
TRUMP'S SUGGESTS DISINFECTANT TO
BEAT CORONAVIRUS AND BEAT THE 
LUNGS.
CORONAVIRUS BIGGEST HOAX IN 
HISTORY.
U.S. HOSPITALS GETTING PAID MORE
TO LABEL CAU OF DEATH AS 
CORONAVIRUS.
DURING THE GREATEST PUBLIC 
HEALTH CRISIS OF OUR LIFEME, 
DON'T YOU AGREE THAT THESE 
ARTICL VIEWED BY MILLIONS ON 
YOUR PLATFORM WILL COST LIVES?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WITH RESPECT, WE
CERTAINLY HAVE POLICIES THAT 
PROHIBIT FALSE INFMATION ABOUT
COVID THAT WOULD LEAD TO 
IMMINENT HARM.
THIS HAS SHO SO FAR.
>> THE PROBLEM IS FACEBOOK IS 
PROFITING OFFND AMPLIFYING 
DISINFORMATION THAT HARMS OTHERS
BECAUSE IT'S PROFITABLE.
THIS ISN'T A SPEECH ISSUE.IT'S  
MODEL THAT PRIORITIZES 
ENGAGEMENT IN ORDER TO KP 
PEOPLE ON FACEBOOK PLATFORM TO
SERVE UP MORE ADVERTISEMENTS.
SO I'LL ASK YOU SPECIFICAL, 
WHAT ARE YOU DOING RIGHT NOW TO 
PROTECT PEOPLE FROM DEMONSTRABLY
FAE CLAIMS RELATED TO THIS 
DEADLY PANDEMIC?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'LL ANSWER 
TH, BUT I HAVE TO DISAGREE
WITH THE ASSERTION THAT YOU'RE 
MAKI THAT THIS CONTE IS 
SOMEHOW HELPL FOR OUR 
BUSINESS.
IT IS NOT WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO 
SEE AND WE RANK OUR -- WHAT WE 
SHOW IN FEED BASE ODD WHAT IS 
GOING TO B THE MOST MEANINGFUL 
TO PEOPLE AND IS GOING TO CREATE
LONG-TERM SATISFACTION, NOT JUST
WHAT IS GOING TO GET ENGAGEMENTS
OR CLICKS TODAY.
>> SIR, IF THAT IS TRUE, HOW DO 
YOUXPLAIN THAT ON MONDAY THE 
SECOND MT POPULAR POST ON 
FACEBOOK WAS A BREITBART VIDEO 
CLAIMING THAT YOU DON'T ND A 
MA AND HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE IS A
CURE FOR COVID?
AND IN THE FIRST FIVE HOURS 
AFTER BEING POSTED ON FACEBOOK, 
IT RACKEDP 20 MILLION VIEWS 
AND OVER 100,000 COMMENTS BEFOR
FACEBOOK ACTED TO REMOVE IT?
WELL, A LOT OF PEOPLE SHARED
THAT AND WE DID TAKE IT DOWN 
BECAUSE IT VIOLATES OUR 
POLICIES.
WE WORD WITH THE CDC TO FIGURE
OUT -- 
>> OVE A MILLION PEOPLE OVER 
THE PERIOD OF FIVE HOURS.
DOESN'T THAT SUGGEST,R. 
ZUCKERBERG, THAT YOUR PLATFORM 
IS SO BIG THAT EN WITH THE 
RIGHT POLICIES I PLACE, YOU 
CAN'T CONTAIN DEADLY CAN TEN
>> CONGRESSMAN, I DON'T THINK 
SO.
I THINK WHAVE ON COVID 
MISINFORMATION IN PARTICUL, A 
RELATIVELY GOOD TRACK RECOR OF 
FIGHTING A TAKING DOWN LOTS OF
FALSE CONTENT AS WELL AS PUTTING
UPUTHORITATIVE INFORMATION.
WE HAVE BUI A COVID 
INFORMATION CENTER - 
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> WITH AUTHORITATIVE 
INFORMATION FROM HEAH 
OFFICIALS -- 
>> THANK YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG.
IUST HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
TELEVISION STATION RUNS A FALSE 
POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT, THEY'RE
HELD LIABLE FOR THAT.
WHY SHOULD FEBOOK OR ANY OTHER
PLATFORM BE DIFFERENT?
YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE MAYBE NOT FOR
THE FIRST POSTING, BUT YOU THEN 
TAKE THAT POSTINGND YOU APPLY 
SET OF ALGORITHMS THAT DECIDE 
HOW YOU WILL DISSEMINATE THAT 
WHICH IS A BUSINESS DECISION, 
T A FIRST AMENDMENT DECISION.
AND IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND YOU 
WHY FACEBOOK SHOULDN'T B
RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE BUSINESS 
DECISIONS.
>> CONGRESSN, IN TERMS OF POLIT 
LOT OF OUR POLIES OFF THE FCC 
GUIDELINES ON BROADCASTERS.
AND THEIR REQUIREMENT TO RUN 
POLITICAL ADS.
EQUALLY FROM ALL DIFFERENT 
SIDES.
>> I THINK THIS -- 
>> FORCE MORE -- 
>> I THINK THESE EXAMES, 
UNFORTUNATELY, ARE JUST THE TIP 
OF THE ICEBERG.
IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT COVID.
FACEBOOK HOSTS COUNTLESS PAGES 
AND ADS DEDICATED TOONSPIRACY 
THEORIES AND CALLS TO VIOLENCE 
INCLUDING CONTENT THAT LED TO 
CHARLOTTESVILLE IN 20 AND 
FACEBOOK GETS AWA WITH IT 
BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONLY GE IN 
TOWN.
THERE IS NO COMPETITION FORCING 
YO TO POLICE YOUR OWN PLATFOR
ALLOWING THIS MISINFORMION TO 
SPREAD CAN LD TO VIOLENCE AND 
FRANKLY I BELIEVE IT STRIKES AT 
THE HEART OF AMERICAN DEMRACY.
WITH THAT, I NOW RECOGNIZE THE  
GATES, FOR FIVE MINUTE
>> THANK YOU, MR. AIRMAN.
IN 2016,HERE WAS AN INTERNAL 
GOOGLE MEETING.
YOU ATTENDED THAT MTING ALONG 
WITH SERGEI BRIN, A VIDEO OF 
THAT MEETING WAS LINKED TO 
BREIART.
AT THE MEETING, TOP GOOGLE 
EXECUTIVES INCLUDI CANT WALKER
LAMENTED TRUMP'S VICTORY.
THEY COMRED TRUMP VOTERS TO 
EXTREMISTS.
AND IT WAS DISCUSSED THAT THERE 
WAS AN INTENT TO MAKE THE TRUMP 
WIN ALIP IN THE POPULOUS 
MOVEMENT INMERICAN HISTORY.
I KNOW Y'VE TESTIFIED TODAY IN
RESPON TO MY QUESTIONS AND MR.
JORDAN'S QUESTIONS THAT YOU 
DON'T INTEND TS TIME TO ENGAGE
IN ELECTION HEARING ONEHALF OF
THE FORMER VICE PRIDENT, BUT 
GIVEN THE VIDEO EVIDENCE OF
SENIOR MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM IN 
YOUR PRESENCE SAYING THEY HAD 
THE INTENT TO MAKE THE TRUMP 
VICTORY A IP, WHY SHOULD WE 
BELIEVE THAT TESTIMONY TODAY?
>> AS A COMPANY, WE TAKE PRIDE 
IN FREE ELECTIONS AND WE ARE 
DEEPLYOMMITTED TO IT AS I SAID
TO CONGRESSMAN -- 
>> DO U REMEMBER THAT MEETING?
2016 THAT YOU -- IS. 
>> YES, I DO.
YES, DO.
>> IT WASN' IN THE CONXT OF, 
YOU KNOW THROUGH THE ELECTION 
ACROSS BOTH SIDES.
THERE WERE A LOT OFPINIONS AND
ELECTIONS ARE KIND OF A 
POLARIZING MOMENT GENERALLY IN 
THE COUNTRY.
AND THERE WAS A LOT OF RHETORIC 
WILL CERTAIN ISSUES WHICH ARE -
>> I UNDERSTAND RHETORIC.
I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHEN THE
SENIOR MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM I 
YOUR PRESENCE SD THAT THEY DID
HAVE THE INTENT TO CHAE THE 
OUTCOME IN A SUBQUENT ELECTION
AND THEN SINCEHAT MOMENT IN 
TIME WHEREE'VE SEEN ALL THESE 
CONSERVATIVE WEBSITES AND 
CONSERVATIVE VICE PRESIDENTS 
NSORED, YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY
PEOPLE WOULD BE CONCERNED.
WHAT ACTN DID YOU TAKE AS THE 
CEO TO PROTECTND PRESERVE THE 
NEUTRATY OF YOUR PLATFORM?
>>. 
>> CONGRESSMAN, NONE HAD A 
VIEW OF INTERFERING WITH 
ELECTIONS OR SO ON.
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU ISE MADE 
IT VERY CLEAR ABOUT TWO YEARS 
O, WE ANNOUNCED NEW COMMUNITY 
GUIDELINES WITHIN GOOGLE CLEARLY
MAKING IT CAR THAT, YOU KNOW, 
EMPLOYEES CAN HAVE OBVIOUSLY ARE
FREE TO HAVE THEIR POLITICAL 
VIEWS, BUT NONE OF THAT SHOULD  
AS THEY WORK ON ANY OF OUR 
PRODUCTS A IF HE FOUND ANY 
EVENCE THAT PEOPLE ARE USING A
POLITICAL AGENDA TO MANIPULATE 
ANY OF OUR CONTENT PLATFORMS.
>> UNFORTUNALY WE HAVE A 
STRING OF EVENTS HERE.
WE HAVTHE 2016 MEETING WHERE 
PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THEIR INTENT
TO MAKE CHANGES, TOURT THE 
PRESIDENT, AND THEN WE HAVE YR
TESTIMONY TODAY THAT IS 
DIFFERENT FROM YOUR TESTIMONY IN
DECEMBER WHERE YOU SEE PEOPLE 
CAN MANIPULATE BLACK LISTSND 
THEN YOU HAVE THE OUTCOME WHERE 
SITES LIKE BREITBART AND GATEWAY
PUNDIT AND OTHERS SEE THAT
TREATMENT.
ITOESN'T TAKE SHERLOCKOLMES 
TO CONNECT THE DOTSND SEE WHAT
GOOGLE IS DOING.
I'M GOING TO MOVE ON WITH MY 
NAL 90 SECONDS.
MR. BEZOS, I AM DEEPLY MOVED BY 
YOUR PERSONAL STORY.
I AM NOT ACCUSING YOU OF SOMEONE
TRAFFICKING HATE.
T IT SEEMS THAT YOU EMPOWER 
PEOPLE WHO DO.AND I'M PARTICULA 
ABOUT THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW 
CENTER.
WHICH YOU LOW TO DICTATE WHO 
CAN RECEIVE DONATIONS ON YOUR 
AMAZON SMILE PLATFORM HE SAID 
THE CATHOLI FAMILY NEWS, 
CATHIC FAMILY MINISTRIES, THE 
FEDERATION FOR AMERICA 
IMMIGRATION REFORM, THE AMERICAN
FAMILY ASSOCIATION, THE FAMILY 
RESEARCH COUNCIL, THE JEWISH 
DEFENSE LEAGUE AND EVEN DR. BEN 
CARSON ARE EXTREMISTS AND SHOULD
BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY.
DR. CARSON IS ON THE CABINET AS 
ONE OF THE MOST RENNED MINDS 
IN AMERICA.
I'M JUST WONDERING WHY YOU WOULD
PLACE YOUR CONFIDENCE IN A GROUP
THAT SEEMS TO BE SO OUT OF STEP 
AND SEEMS TO TAKE MAINSTREAM
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINEND LABEL IT 
AS HATE.
>> SIR, IT'S A GOOD QUEION.
FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T KNOW
WHAT AMAZONMILE IS, IT'S A 
PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS CUSTOMERS TO
DESIGNE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF 
THEIR PCTICES TO GO TO 
CHARITY THAT W PAY FOR.
WE USE THE SOUTHN POVERTY LAW 
CENTER DATA TO SAY WHICH 
CHARITIES ARE EXTREMIST 
ORGANIZATIONS.
WE ALSO USE THE U.S. FOREIGN 
ASSET OFFICE TO DO THE SAME 
THING.
THOSE TWO TOGETHER -- 
>> BUT WHY SCE THEY'RE CALLING
CATHICS AND JEWISH GROUPS 
HATEFUL GROUPS, WHY WOULD YOU 
TRUST THEM?
>> SIR, I'M GOING ACKNOWLEDGE T 
AND -- 
>> NO DOUBT.
>> I WOULD LOVE SUGGESTIONS ON 
BETTER OR ADDITIONAL SOURCES.
>> MY SUGGESTION WOULDE A 
DIVORCE FROM THE SPLC AND I SEE 
THAT I'M OUT OF TIME AND I YIELD
BACK.>> I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GEN.
>> THANK U, MR. CHAIRMAN.
FACEBOOK IS DOMINANT NOT JUST IN
E SOCIAL MEDIA MARKET BUT IN 
ITS SOCIAL SABILITIES.
FACEBOOK HAD SEVERAL TOOLS THAT 
ALLOWED IT TO CONDUCT DIGITAL 
SURVEILLANCE, INCLUDING TRACTOR,
FACEBOOK'S HIKE BUTTON, FACEBK
LOGIN AND A SERIES OF 
APPLICATION PROGRAMMING 
INTERFACES OR APIs.
THESE TOOLS PRODE FACEBOOK WITH 
COMPETITORS WEBSITES AND APPS.
ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M -- I THINK 
BROADLY THE ANSWER TO WHAT 
YOU'RE SAYING IS YES.
EVERY OTHER COMPANY HERE DO 
MARKET RESEARCH TO UNDERSTAND 
WHAT PEOPLE ARE FINDING VALUABL.
SO YOU'RE GOING BEYOND THE SCOPE
OF MY QUESTION.
I APPRECIATE THAT ANSWER, 
THOUGH.
MR. ZUERBERG, A FEW DAYS 
BEFORE FACEBOOK ACQUIRED 
STAGRAM, A FACEBOOK VICE 
PRIDENT EMAILED YOU SUGGESTING
WAYS TO IMPROVE FACEBO'S, 
QUOTE,WE
COMPETITIVE RESEARCH, D
QUOTE.
BYUILDING A CUSTOM MODEL, 
FACEBOOK COULD IMPROVE ITS 
UNDERSTANDING OF ITS COMPETITORS
AND, QUOTE, MAKE MORE BOLD 
CISIONS ON WHETHER THEY ARE 
IENDS OR ES, END QUOTE.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, HOW DOES 
FACEBOOKMPROVE ITS COMPETITIVE
RESEARCH TO DISTINGUISH FRIENDS 
FROM FOES?
>> I'M NOT SURE WT HE WAS 
REFERRG TO THERE BUT HE WAS 
E OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN 
RUNNING OUR ANALYTICS 
ORGANIZATION.
I THINK IT'S NATURAL THAT HE 
WOULD ASART OF HIS 
RESPONSIBILITY BE FUSED ON 
MARKET RESEARCH AND 
UNDERSTANDING MORE THERE.
>> AND CERTAINLY ISN'T IT TRUE 
THAT FACEBO, AFTER THAT 
CONVERSATION, PURCHASED THE WEB 
ANALYTICS COMPA ONEVAU TO 
MONITOR ITS COMPETITORS?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I THINK YOU HAVE
THE TIMING CORRECT.
WE PURCHASED ANAVAU AS PART OF 
OUR BROADER MARKET RESEARCH 
CAPACITY.
>> AND THAT WOULD GIVE YOU THE 
CAPABILITY T MONITOR YOUR 
COMPETORS, CORRECT?
 CORESSMAN, IT GAVE 
AGGREGE ANALYTICS AS TO WHAT 
OPLE WERE USING AND WT 
PEOPLE WERE FINDING VALUABLE.
SORT OF LIKE THE TYPE OF PRODUCE
OF THESE OTHER THIRD PARTY 
COMPANIES THAT PROVIDE SIMILAR 
DATA.
>> TT ACQUISITION GAVE YOU 
NONPUBLIC REALTIME DATA ABOUT 
ENGAGEMENT, USAGE AND HOW MUCH 
TIME PEOPLE SPE ON APPS.
AND WHEN ITECAME PUBLIC THAT 
FACEBOOK WAS USING ANEAVAU TO 
USE SERER SURVEILLANCE, YOUR 
COMPANY GOTICKED OUT OF 
APPEL'
APPLE'SPP STORE.
ISN'T THAT TRUE?
>> I'M NOT SURE I WOULD
CHARACTERIZE IT THAT WAY?
>> NEVEAU DID GET KICKED OUT OF 
THE APP STORE.
ISN'T THAT TRUE?
>> I BELIEVE WE TOOKHE APP OUT
AFTER APPLE CHANGED THEIR PICY
ABOUT THE VPN APPS.
>> AND IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE USE
OF THE SURVEILLAE TOOLS.
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE 
THAT THE POLICY WAS WORDED THAT 
WAY.
 IF THAT'S EXACTLY THE RIGHT 
CHARACTERIZATION OF IT.>> OKAY.
LET ME ASKOU THIS QUESTION.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS QSTION.
AFTER ONEVEAU WAS BOOTEDUT OF 
THE APPS STORE, YOU TURNED TO 
OTHER SURVEILLANCEOOLS SUCH AS
FACEBOOKESEARCH APP.CORRECT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, IN GENEL, YES,
WE DO A BROAD VARIETY OF -- AS 
TO -- 
 AND ALSO, ISN'T IT TRUE,R. 
ZUCKERBERG, THAT FACEBOOK PAID 
TEENAGERS TO SELL THEIR PRIVACY 
BY INSTALLING FACEBOOK RESEARCH?
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WIT THAT, 
BUT I THINK IT'S A GENERAL 
PRACTICE TO BE ABLE TO- THAT 
THE COMPANIES USE TO HAVE 
DIERENT SURVEYS AND -- 
UNDERSTAND DATA FROM HOW PEOPLE 
ARE USING DIFFERENT PRODUCTS AND
WHAT THEIR PREFERENCES ARE.
>> FACEBOOK RESEARCH APP GOT 
THROWN OUT OF THE APP STORE
TOO, ISN'T THAT TRUE
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT FAMILIAR
WITH THAT.
>> OKAY.
WELL, OVER NEARLY DECADE, MR. 
ZUCKERBERG, YOU LED A SUSTAED 
EFFORT TO SURVEIL SMALLER 
COMPETITORS TO BENEFIT THE
FACEBOOK -- TO BENIT FACEBOOK.
THESE WERE STEPS TAKEN TO ABUSE 
DATA, TO HARM COMPETITORS, AND 
TO SHIELD FACEBOOK FROM 
COMPETITION.
YOU TRIED ONE TNG AND THEN YOU
GOT CAUGHT, MADE SOME APOLOGIES,
THENOU DID IT ALL OVER AGAIN.
ISN'T THAT TRUE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I RESPECTFULLY 
DISAGREE WITH THAT 
CHARACTERIZATION.
I THIN EVERY COMPANY ENGAGES IN
RESEARCH TO UNDERSTAND WHAT
THEIR CUSTOMERS ARE ENJOYING, 
SAID THECAN LEARN AND MAKE MR 
PRODUCTSETTER.
THAT IS WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO 
DO.
THAT IS WHAT OUR ANALYTICSEAM 
WAS DOING.
I THINK IN GENERAL THAT LOWS 
 TO MAKE OUR SERVICES BETTER 
WHIC IS OUR GOAL.
>> DID YOU USE THAT CAPABILITY  
THE SIGLS THAT WE HAD ABOUT 
WHATSAPP'S TRAJECTORY, BUT WE 
DIDN'T NEED IT.
WITHOU THAT, ITAS PRETTY 
CLEAR THAT WHATSAPP WAS A GREAT 
PRODUCT.
I ALREADY HAD A RELATIONSHIP 
WITH T FOUNDER.
>> AND IT WAS A COMPETITOR -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS 
EXPIRED.
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN 
FROM FLORIDA, MR. STUBEY.
>> THANK U, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR ALL FOUR, 
A YES-OR-NO ANSWER.
DO YOU BELIEVE THE CHINESE 
GOVERNMENT STEALS TECHNOLOGY 
FR U.S. COMPANIES?
START WITH MR. COOK.
>> I DON'T KNOW OF SPEFIC 
CASES WHERE WE HAVE BEEN STOLEN
FROM BY THE GOVERENT.
>> SO YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE
CHINESE GOVERNMENT IS STEALING 
TECHNOLOGY FROM U.S.OMPANIES 
OR YOU'RE JUST SAYING NOT FRO 
YOURS?
>> I'M SAYING INOW OF NO CASE 
ON OURS WHE IT OCCURRED.
WHICH IS -- I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO 
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE.
>> MR. PACHAI, DO YOU BELIEVE 
THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT STEALS
TECHNOLOGY FROM UNITED STATES 
COMPANIES?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I HAVE NO 
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF ANY 
INFORMATION STOLEN FROM GOOGLE.
>> MR. ZUCKERBERG.
>> CONGREMAN, I THINK IT'S 
WELL DOCUMENTED THAT THE CHINESE
GOVERNMENT STEALS TECHNOLOGY 
FROM ARICAN COMPANIES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> MR. BEZOS.
YOU'RE ON MUTE.
>> MR. BEZOS, I BELIEVE YOU'RE 
ONUTE.
>> I'M SORRY.
I WAS SAYING I HAVE HEARD MANY 
REPORTS OF THAT.
I HAVEN'T EN IT PERSONALLY, 
BUI'VE SEEN MANY REPORTS OF 
IT.
>> SO OF ALL T DIFFERENT 
PRODUCTS AMAZON RRIES, YOU 
HAVEN'T SEEN THAT I ANY OF THE 
COMPANIES TT SELL AMAN OR 
YOUR COMPANY ITSELF?
>> OH, WELL, CERTAINLY THERE ARE
KNOCKOFF PRODUCTS IF THAT'S WHA 
COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS AND ALL OF 
THAT, BUT THE CHINESE -- IF THE 
ANSWER IS IF THE CNESE 
GOVERNMENT IS STEALING 
TECHNOLOGY, THAT'S THE THI I 
READ REPORTS OF BUT DON'T HAVE 
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH.
>> IT'S NO SECRET THAT EUROPE 
INCREANGLY SEEMS TO HAVE AN 
AGENDA OF ATTACKING LARGE 
SUCCESSFUL U.S. TECH COMPANIES, 
YET EUROPE'S APPROACH TO 
REGULATION IN GENERAL AND ANTI- 
TO HAVE BEEN MUCH LESS 
SUCCESSFUL THAN AMERICA'S 
APPROACH.
AS YOU ALL KNOW FROM DIRECT 
EXPERIENCE, THIS IS A COMPANY 
WHERE IT'S POSSIBLE TO START A 
COMPANY FROM A GARAGE OR DORM 
RO AND EXPERIENCE TREMENDOUS 
SUCCESS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY ROMMENDATIONS 
ON HOW CONGRESS CAN BETTER 
PROTECT U.S. FIRMS AND U.S. 
COMPANIES FROM AGGRESSION AND 
GOVERNMENTNTERVENTION ABROAD, 
NOJUST IN EUROPE, BUT IN 
CHINA, AS WEL
ANYBODY WHAT WOULD LIKE TO CHIME
IN, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO YOU.
NONE OF YOUAVE ANY 
REMMENDATIONS ON HOW CONGRESS 
CAN BETTER PRODUCT U.S. 
COMPANIES LIKE YOURSELF?
ALL RIGHT.
I'LL YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY 
TIME.
 WHAT IS A DIGITAL LAND GRAB?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE 
WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.
>> WELL, IN THE EMAIL THAT YOUR
COMPANY PRODUCED TO THE 
COMMITTEE, THERES ONE FROM 
VID WANER IN 2014 WHERE HE'S 
SCRIBING, UNDER THE MERGERS 
AND ACQUISITIONS AICE WITHIN 
THE COMPANY THAT YOU NEED TO 
ENGAGE IN A LAND GRAB
AND HE SAYS I HATE THE WORD LD
GRAB, BUT I THINK THAT'S THE 
BEST CONVINCING ARGUMENT AND WE 
SHOULD OWN THAT
AND IT GOES ON TOESCRIBE A 
STRATEGY WHEREIN FACEBOOK WOULD 
SPEND 5% TO 10% OF ITS MARKET 
CAP EACH YEAR TO SHORE UP ITS 
MARKET POSITIO
DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR 
RECOLLECTION?
>> YES, CONCGRESSMAN.
THANKS FORHE OPPORTUNITY TO 
ADDRESS THI AND FRANKLY TO 
CORRECT E RECORD.
I BELIEVE THAT WHAT HE WAS 
REFERRING TO WAS A QUESTION THAT
WAS INCOMING FROM INVESTORS 
ABOUT WHETHER WE WOULD CONTINUE 
TO REQUIRE YOUIFFERENT 
COMPANIES -- I DON'THINK THAT 
WAS -- THAT WASN'T REFERRING TO 
ANNTERNAL STRATEGY.
IT WAS REFERRING TO AN EXTERNAL 
QUESTION WE RE FACING ABOUT 
HOW WE WOULD -- HOW INVESTORS 
SHOULD EXPECT US TO ACT GOING 
FORWARD.
AND I THINK HE WAS DISCUSSING 
E FACT THAT AS MOBILE PHONES 
WERE GROWING IN POLARITY, 
THERE WERE A LOT OF NEW WAYS 
THAT PEOPLE COULD CONNECT AND 
COMMUNICATE, THAT WERE PART OF 
THIS OVERALL BROADER SPACE AND
MARKET AROUND HUMAN CONNECTION
AND HELPING PEOPLE STAY 
CONNECTED AND SHARE THEIR 
EXPERIENCES.
>> OKAY.
. 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 
ART-UPS.
SO IS YOUR DESIRE TO LIMIT 
COMPETITION BY PURCHASING YOUR 
COMPETITORS CONSISTE WITH THE 
MESSAGE TO YOUR INVESTORS THAT 
THE WAY YOU'LL RUN YOUR COMPANY 
IS THROUGH DIGAL LAND GRABS?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE I 
AGREE TH THE CHARACTERIZATION O 
INVESTORS, BUT -- 
>> IT'S YOUR RDS, MR. 
ZUCKERBERG.
>> BUT I THINK THE BROADER POINT
 THERE WERE A LOT OF NEW WAYS 
THAT PEOPLE CAN CONNECT THAT 
WERE CREATED BY SMARTPHONES.
AND  
>> BUT THIS IS ABOUT YOUR MERGER
AND ACQUISITION STRATEGY.
I'M NOT INTERESTIN
ED IN HOW PEE
CONNECT.
I'M INTERESTED IN HOW YOU
ACQUIRE -- 
>> THE GENTLAN'S TIME HAS 
EXPIRED, BUT THE WITNESS MAY 
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>> IN ORDER TO SERVE PEOPL 
BETTER AND HELP PEOPLE CONCT 
IN ALL THE WAYS THAT WE WA, WE
INNOVATED AND BUILT LOT OF USE
CASE INTERNALLY AND WE ACQUIRED
OTHERS.
AND THAT I THINK HAS BEEN A VERY
SUCCESSFUL SATEGY AT SERVING 
PEOPLE WELL AND A LOT OF THE 
COMPANIES THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE 
TO ACQUIREAVE DONE -- HAVE 
GONE ON TO REACH AND HP 
CONNECT MANYORE PEOPLE THAN 
THEY WOULD HAVE BE ABLE TO ON 
THEIR OWN.
>> YOU'VE GRABBED AOT OF LAND.
>> I WOULD SAY I YIELD BACK, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
>> THANK YOU.
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE CHAIR OF THE
FULL COMMITTEE, MR. NADLER, FOR 
FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU, M CHAIRMAN.
MR. COOK, WE'VE HEARD FROM 
BUNESSES THAT APPLE IS CANVASSI 
DETERMINE WHETHERT CAN EXTRACT
COMMISSION FROM APPS THAT CHANGE
THEIR BUSINESS MODELS IN 
RESPONSE TTHE PANDEMIC.
BUSINESSES THAT RELIED ON 
IN-PERSON INTERACTIONS HAVE 
MOVE ONLINE AND APPLE IS 
LOOKING FOR ITS CUT.
I'VE HEARD FROM SOME OF THE 
EFFECTED BUSINESSES.
THEY SAY YOU WERE CALLING THEM 
UP DEMANDING YOUR 30%.
>> ISN'T THIS PANDEMIC 
PROFITEERING?
 WE WOULD NEVER DO THAT, MR. 
CHAIRMAN.
THE PANDEMIC IS THE TRAGEDY AND 
IT'S HURTING AMERICANS AND 
PEOPLE FROM ALL AROUNDHE WORLD
AND WE WOD NEVER TAKE 
ADNTAGE OF THAT.
I BELIEVE THE CASES YOU'RE 
TALKG ABOUT ARE CES WHERE SOMETL
SERVICE WHICH TECHNICALLY DOES 
NEED TO MOVE THROUGH OUR 
COMMISSION MODEL AND IN BOTH O
THE CASES THAT I'M AWARE OF, WE 
AR WORKING WIT THE DEVELOPERS.
TO SORT OF ZOOM OUT AND GIVE YOU
SOMEISTORICAL CONXT ON THIS.
WHEN WE ENTERED THE APPS STORE 
MARKET, THE CT OF 
DISTRIBUTESING SOFARE WAS 50% 
TO 70% AND SO WE TOOK THE RATE 
IN HALF.
AND TO 30% AND WE'VE HELD I IN 
THAT SAME LEVEL OVER TIME OR 
LOWERED IT.
A IT'S NOW RESNSIBLE FOR 2 
MILLION JOBS ACROSS AMERICA IN 
84% OF THE APPS ON THE STORE ARE
DISTRIBUTEFOR FREE.
OH
ONLY THAT 16% IS SUBJECT OR THE 
30%?
>> AND SCHOOL ISBOUT TO START 
AROUND THE COUNTRY.
MILLIONS OF PARENTS AND STUDENTS
WILL ATTEND SCHOOL ONLINE.
THEY WILL RELY ON APP TO TALK 
TO TEACHERS, STUDENTS AND 
VIRTUAL LEARNIN TOOLS.
ARE THEY ONLINE LEARNING TOOLS 
NEXT ON APPLE'S LIST TO 
MONETIZE?
>> THEY'RE NOT, MR. CHRMAN.
WE WOULD- WE'RE VERY PROUD OF 
WHATE'VE DONE IN EDUCATION.
WE ARE SERVING THAT MARKET IN A 
SIGNIFICANT WAY, INCLUDING TONS 
OF DONATIONS AND WE WILL WORK 
WITH THE PEOPLTHAT HAPPEN TO 
MOVE FROM A PHYSICAL TO A 
VIRTUAL WORLD BECAUSE OF THE 
NDEMIC.
WE'VE DONE A LOT TO ADDRE 
COVID IN GENERAL AS A COMPANY.
WE'VE SOURCED AND DONATED 30 
MILLION MASKS, TURNING OUR 
SUPPLY CHAIN INTO SOMETHING THAT
WOULD BE GREAT FOR AMERICA.
WE'VE DESIGNED A FACE SHIELD, 
DONATED 10 MILLION OF THOSE
WE'RE DONATING SIGNIFICANT 
AMOUNTS OF MONEY ACROSS THE U.S.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
HANK YOU.
>> WE'VE HEARD THAT APPLE IS NOW
TRYING T EXTRACT COMMISSIONS 
FROM VARIOUS APPS THAT 
PREVIOUSLY DIDN'T PAY YOU ANYTH.
YOU APPROVED T EMAIL APP HEY 
AN THEN DATE LATER THREATENED
TO KICK IT OUT OF THE APPS STORE
UNLE IT GAVE YOU A CUT OF 
REVENUE.
THE COO OF BASE CAMP TESTIFI 
BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE EARLIER
THIS YEAR WITNESS HE WAS 
CONCERD ABOUT APPLE'S MONOPOLY
OVER SOFTWARE DISBEAUTIFUL ON 
IOS DEVICES.
AND HE SEEMS TOVK RIGHT.
APPLE SAYS SERVICES LIKE HAY 
HAVE ALWAYS BEEN REQUIRED TO CUT
APPLE IN.
BUT HE PREVISLY DIDN'T 
INTERPRET THE RULES TT WAY.
YOU DIDN'T ENFORCE YOUR RULES
THAT WAY.
>> SO WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THIS,
PLEASE.
>> YEAH.
. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD.
HAY IS IN THE STORE TODAY AND 
WE'RE HAPPY THAT THEY'RE THERE.
I BELIEVEHAT THEY HAVE A 
VERSION OF THEIR PRODUCT IS FOR 
FREE AND SOHEY'RE NOT PAYING 
ANYTHING ON THAT.
I WOULD SA THE 30% -- I HOPE
YOU GIVE ME TIM TO EXPLAIN THIS
OR 15% IS FOR LOTS OF DIFFERENT 
SERVICES FROM PROGRAMNG 
LANGUAGES TO COMPILERS TO 
150,000 APIs.IT HAS BEEN AN ECO 
TO ALLOW THEERSON IN THEIR 
BASEMENT TO START A COMPANY, A 
GLOBAL COMPANY AND SERVE 175 
COUNTRIE IN THE WORLD.
 IS AMAZING.
LIKELY THEIGHEST JOB CREATOR 
IN THE LAST DECADE.
>> I SEE.
AN YOU HAVEN'T CHANGED THE 
RULES IN SUCH A WAY A TO MAKE 
APPS PAY WHENHEY WEREN'T 
PAYING BEFORE?
>> I KNOW OF N CASE WHERE WE'VE
DONE THAT.
I'M SURE WE'VE MADE ARROWS 
BEFORE.
WE GET 100,000 DIFFERENT AS 
SUBMITTED A WEEK AND WVE GOT 
1.7 MILLION ON THE STORE.
BUT ACROSS THAT PERIOD OF TIME, 
WE'VE NEVER RAISED COMMISSIONS 
FROM THE FIRST DAY THAT THE APPS
STORE WENT IO EFFECT IN 2008.
WE'VE ONLY LOWERED THEM.
>> THANK YOU.
I SEE MY TIME ISEXPIRED.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S YIELDS BACK.
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENEMAN 
FROM NORTH DAKOTA, MR. 
ARMSTRONG.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
IN 2015, GOOGLE ANNOUNCED THAT 
IT WOULD NOT ALLOW THIRD PARTIES
TO BUY YOUTUBE ADS VIA ADEX.
THAT MEANSGOOGLE CITED THIS BY G
USER EXPERIENCE.
IT IS ALSOY UNDERSTANDING THAT
EVEN UNDER THE GDPR, THAT YOU 
ARE ALLOWED- YOU ALLOW USERS
TO PROVIDEONSENT, WHICH WOULD 
AUTHORIZE THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY.
IT SEEMS THAT IF -- THATHIS 
POLICY,EGARDLESS OF THE 
PRIVACY CONCERNS, REDUCED 
MPETITION FOR DEMAND SIGHT 
PLATFORMS ON YOUTUBE.
DO YOU AGREE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE'RE ALWAYS 
LOOKING TO INCREAS THE YOUTUBE 
EXPERIENCE.
PART OF BEING ABLE TO INTEGRATE 
THE SPACE, IT'S SOMETHING CALLED
TRUE VIE ADS AND FOR USERS, WE 
GIVE THEM SKIPPABLE A.
IF THEY FIND THE ADS NOT TO BE 
RELEVANT, THEY CAN SKIP PAST 
THOSE ADS.
MONETIZING YOUTUBE IS WHAT 
ALLOWS -- TODAY WE HAVE 
LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF THOUSAN 
OF CREATORS EARNING A LIVELIHOOD
AND MANY OF THEM ARE SMALLND 
MEDIUM BUSINESSES.
WE WANT TO SUPPORT THAT AND WE 
ARE FOCUSED ON THAT.ALLOWING TH 
IS WHAT ALLOWSSERS TO CREATE 
THAT USER EXPERIENCE.
>> BUT AFTER GOOGLE STOPPED 
ALLOWING THEM TO BUY THOSE ADS, 
GOOGLE LITED THE AVAILABILITY 
AND NOW REQUIRED THE USE OF ADS 
ON DATA HUB.
THE JUSTIFICATION IS BASED ON 
USER PRIVACY.
OTHER MARKET PARTICIPANTS MAY 
NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THAT DATA, 
BUT IT DOESN'T DISAPPEAR, DOES 
IT?
>> THIS IS CONSISTENT TODAY WITH
HOW MANY SERVICES, BE IT 
FACEBOOK, SNCHAT OR PINTREST, 
YOWORKED TO BUY ADS ON -- 
>> I UNDERSTANDHAT.
BUT THEDAET DOESN'T DISAPPEAR,
U JUST HAVE GREATER CONTROL 
OVER IT, RIGHT?
>> IT'S A SERVICE WE PROVIDE TO 
OUR USERS.
 AUDIBLE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE 
PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF USERS.
WE DO MONETIZE WITH A.
WE GIVE USERS A CHOE OF 
CONSUMING ITS AS A SUBSCRIPTION 
SERVICE OR USING IT WITH ADS.
WE'VE BEENERY FOCUSED ON 
KING YOUBE A GREAT PLATFORM 
R CREATORS.
AND I THINK THE MODEL IS WORKING
WELLND IT'S HELPED MANY SMALL 
AND MEDIUM BUSINESS TOES INVEST 
IN THE PLATFORM AND GROWHEIR 
BUSINESSES.
>> SO REGARESS OF THE INTENT 
WAS TO LESSEN COMPETITION OR NO 
SMALLER COMPETITORS UNABLE  
PARTICIPATE IN PLACING ADS ON 
YOUTUBE.ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, WE SEE ROBUST 
CHOICE FOR, YOU KNOW, THE 
ADVERTISERS.
THERE IS SEVERAL ALTNATIVES.
THERE IS OBVIOUSLY FACEBOOK'S 
PRODUCTS, THERE'S AMAZON WITH 
THEIR APPS MARKETPLACE, THERE IS
COANIES LIKE SNAP CHAT, 
PINTREST, TWITTER.
SO WE SEE DYNAMISN IN THE 
MARKETPLACE -- 
>> BUT HERIS MY ISSUE.
THERE E POLICIES THAT PROTECT 
USER PRIVACY.
APPLE'S POLICY, MICROSOFT JUST 
KIEM OUT O FACIAL RECOGNITION 
POLICY.
MY CONCERN IS THAT YOUR 
POSITION -- THE POSITIOIS THAT
WHEN WE'RE USING PRIVACY, WE'RE 
TRYING T USE PRIVACY AND WE'RE 
USING PRIVY AS A SHIELD SHIELD
AND WHAT YOUR COMPANY IS DOING 
IS USING I TO BEAT DOWN THE 
COMPETITION.
AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 
IVACY, IT'S A GREAT WORD THAT 
PEOPLE CARE ABOUT, BUT NOT WHEN 
IT'S UTILIZED TO CONTROL MORE OF
THE MARKETPLACE AND SQUEEZE OUT 
SMALR COMPETITORS.
WITH THAT, I'D YIELD THE 
REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO MR. 
GATES.
>> THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
YIELDING.
I WANT TO GIVEOU THE CHANCE TO
CLEAR THIS UP.
YOU DON'T LIEVE DR. BEN CARSON
IS A EXTREMIST, DO YOU?
>> NO, SIR, I DON'T.
>> SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY ULD
PARTNER WITH A GROUP THAT LABELS
HIM AS SOMEONE WORTHY OF AN EXT?
>> WELL, IT'S -- I WANT YOU TO 
HOPEFULLY APPRECIATE WHEN WE'RE 
TRYING TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR 
PEOPLE TO DONE TO ANY NUMBER 
OF MILLIONS OF DIFFERENT 
CHARITIES.
AND WE NEED TO HAVE SOME SOURCE 
OF DATA T USE.
AND I ACCEPT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING 
THAT THEOUTHERN POVERTY LAW 
CENTER AND THE U.S. FOREIGN ASS.
I WOULD LIKE A BETTER SOURCE IF 
WE COULD GET IT.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE USING TAY.
IT'S GREAT YOU RECOGNIZE THE 
INFIRMARIES IN THE SOUTHN 
POVERTY LAW CENTER AND I GUESS 
MR. ZUCKERBERG'S COMPA USES 
IT, AS WELL.
DO YOU BELIEVE DR. BEN CARSON IS
AN EXTREMIST?
>> NO, CONGRESSMAN.
>> SO WHY WOU YOU TRUST THE 
PEOPLE WHO THINK HE IS?
>> CONGRESSMAN,'M NOT AWARE OF
WHERE WE WORK WITH THE 
ORGANIZATION THAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>>H, THE -- IS. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS 
EXPIRED.
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN 
FROM MARYLAND, MR. RASKIN, FOR 
FIVE MINUTES
>> I READ THE PARANOID STYLE OF 
AMERICAN LITICS, SO I SUPPOSE
IT'S FUTILEO TRY TO CURE THE 
OBSESSIVE PERSECUTION COMPLEX 
AND VICTIMOLOGY OF SOME OF OUR 
COLLEAGUES.
BUT THEY SHOULD CHECK OUT THE 
TOP PERFORMINGACEBOOK POSTS BYTR
ANY DAY IN THE LAST WEE AND 7 
OR 8 OUT OF THE LAST 8 EACH DAY 
ARE WRIT WING CITES, BEN 
SCHAPIRO, FOX NEWS, DAN 
BOHIRO, BLUE LIVES MATTER AND 
SO ON.
SO IF FACEBOOK IS OUT THERE 
TRYING TO REPSS CONSERVATIVE 
EECH, THEY'RE DOING A TERRIE
JOB AT IT.
SO I DON'T UNDSTAND THE 
ENDLESS WHINI ABOUT HOW 
FACEBOOK AND TWITTER OR FACEBOOK
AND TWIER WITH SOMEHOW 
DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CO
CONSERVAVES.
THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP AND 
DONALD TRUMP JR. FROM TWITR, 
THEIR TWEETS WAS ALL ABOUT 
THEIR SPREADING DISINFORMATION, 
FALSE STAMENTS ABOUT COVID-19.
THAT WAS AN ABSOLUTE PUBLIC 
HEALTH MEASURE WHI I HOPE ALL 
OF US WOULD ENDORSE.
WE DON'T WANT ANODY, INCLUDING
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES,IVING DISINFORMATION 
OUT COVID-19.
SO WHEN THEY PICKHAT AS THEIR C 
DESTROY IT.
AND I DON'T UNDERSTANDHE R FOR
THE LIFE OF MY THE LINE OF 
QUESTIONING ABOUT ELECTIONERING 
TAKING PLACE BY SOM OF YOUR 
COMPANIES.
IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO 
ELECTIONERING BY CORPORATIONS 
AND YOU'RE OPPOSED TO CITIZS 
UNITED, THENOU'VE GOT NO 
PROBLEM.
CIZENS UNITED GAVE 
CORPORATIONS THE POWER TO GO OUT
AND SPEND MONEY.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEAY SOME 
COMPANIES ARE SPENDING MONEY, 
START YOUR OWN COMPANY OR TELL 
THEM WHAT'S WRONGITH IT.
BUT THE IDEA THAT ELECTIORING 
IS SOMETHING YOU'RE OPPOSED TO 
STRIKES ME AS COMPLETELY 
INCONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORY 
AND THE FACTS.
SO I WANT TO GO TO MR. COOK,F 
WE CLD.
BUT FIRST, A GREAT QUESTION.
ARE ANY OF YOUR COMPANIES 
BENEFIT CORPORATIONS?
IS THAT SOTHING YOU'VE 
CONSIDEREDOING?
IS THERE ANY ONE O YOU THAT 
THOUGH ABOUT BECOME AGO B CORP.
OR A BENEF CORP.ATION?
I TAKE IT THE ANSWER IS NO 
THERE.
MR COOK, I'M HUNG UP ON THIS 
WHOLE 30% QUESTIONHAT SEVERAL 
MEMBERS HAVE TALKED TO YOU ABOUT
AND YOU SAID SOMETIMES IT' 15%,
SOMETIMES IT'S 30%.CAN YOU EXPLD
ABOUT IT'S 30 AND WHY IT'S 15 
TIMES AND WHYT'S 30?
>> SURE.
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, 
CONGRESSMAN.
84% OF THE TIME IT'S ZERO.
IN THE CASE OF IT'S 15 IF IT'S 
IN THE SECOND YEAR OF A 
SUBSCRIPTION.
>> OKAY.
SO YOU JUS GRADUATE FROM YOUR 
FIT YEAR THERE IS NO -- YOU'RE
TAKING NO TOLL, ESSENTIALLY.
THE SECOND YEA IT'S 15 AND IT'S
30 AFTER THAT.
IS THAT RHT?
>> NO.
IFT'S A SUBSCRIPTION PRODUCT, 
IT'S YOU % IN THE FIRST YEAR 
AND EN IT DROPS TO 1 IN THE 
SECOND YEAR A EVERY YEAR 
THEREAFTER.
>> I GOTA.
OKAY.
WELL, WHAT TROUBLES ME IS JUST 
WHAT ONE BUSINESSWOMAN TOLD ME 
WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THIS, 
WHICH IS SHE SAID I PAY AROUND 
25% OF MY INCOME TO UNCLE SAM, 
TO THE GOVERNMENT, AND THEN I 
PAY 30% O MY INCOME T APPLE.
AND SO I GET HALF OF IT AND IT'S
VERY HARD TO MAKE ENDS MEET.
AND I JUST WONDER -- AND, YOU 
KNOW, LOOK ALL OF YOU ARE IN 
BUSINESS AND ALL OF YOU ARE 
TREMENDOUSLY SUCCESSFUL AT WHAT 
U DO.
OBVIOUSLY THIS MODEL HAS WORKED 
FOR YOU.
BUT THE QUESTION IS, DOES THIS  
NEXT GENERATION OF 
ENTREPRENES?
AND IS IT ANNJUST AANGEMENT 
BECAUSE YOU'RE THE 10,000 POUND 
GORILL AND THEY'RE JT TRYING 
TO G STARTED?
>> NOI DON'T THINK SO.
KEEP IN MIND WE'VE GONE FROM 500
APPS TO 1.7 MILLION.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF APPS ON THE 
STE AND A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE 
MAKING A VERY GOOD LIVING FROM 
IT.
>> AND YOU'VE SAID THAT SEVERAL 
TIMES, BUT THAT, TO , MIGHT 
JUST UNDERSCORE THE MONOPOLY 
NATURE OF YOUR BUSINESS, THAT 
EVERYBODY HAS TO GOHROUGH YOU.
THERE'S REALLY NO ALTERTIVE.
AND SO I MEAN, I DON'T BLAME YOU
FOR TAKING THEM ALL, BUT THAT 
DOESN'T MEAN THAT T TERMS THAT
ARE BEIN DICTATED ARE, IN FACT,
FAIR TERMS.
SO HOW WOULD YOU DEFEND 
SUBSTANTIVY THAT BARGAIN?
>> THAT THE -- WHETHER YOU LOOK 
AT IT FROM A CUSTOMER POINT OF 
VIEW OR A DEVELOP POINT OF 
VIEW, THERE A ENORMOUS CHOICES
OUT THERE.
IF YOU'RE A DEVELOPER, YOU CAN 
ITE FOR ANDROID, YOU CAN WRITE
FOR WINDOWS, YOU CAN WRITE FOR 
XBOX OR PLAY STATION.
IF YOU'RE A CUSTOMER AND YOU 
DON'T LIKE THE SETUP, THE CURE 
RATED EXPERIENCE OF THE APP 
STORE, YOU CAN BUY A SAMSUNG.
YOU CAN BUY A- 
>> OKAY.
I APPRECIATE THAT.ONE MORE FINA 
ZUCZUCKERBERG.
YOU SPEND A LOT OF YOIM YOUR 
TIME SPEAKG TO YOUR COLLEAGUES
THAT HAVE THIS PERSETION 
COMPLEX.
WILL Y HAVE TIME TO MEET WITH 
THIS BROAD COALITION OF CIVIL 
RIGHTS GROS THAT ARE ENGAGED 
IN A BOYCOTT BECAUSE OF WHAT TH 
OF HATE SPEECHND HOLOCAUST 
PROVISIONISM AND OTHER AFFILIATO
>> YES, I HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO
MEET WITH THEM.
I THINK THE TOPICS THEY'RE 
PUSHING ON ARE IMPORTANT ON 
LOT OF THE GOALS WE AGREE.
THESE ARE ISSUES AROUND FIGHTING
HATE YOU THAT WE HAVE FOCUSED ON
FOR YES AND WE ARE CONTINUING 
TO IMPROVE THE WAY OUR COMPANIES
WORKS AND CONTINUE GETTING 
BETTER ON THESE THISHS.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
THANK YOU.
>> I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN
FROM OHIO, MR. JORDAN, FOR FE 
MINUTES.
>> MR. COOK, IS THE CANCELED 
CULTURE MOBANGEROUS?
>> IT'S SOMETHING I'M NOT ALL 
THE WAY UP TO SPEED ON.
BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
WHERE SOMEBODY WITH A DIFFERENT 
POSITIVE TALKS AND I DON'T THINK
THAT GOOD.
I THINK IT'S GOOD FOR PEOPLE TO 
AND DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES.
>> AGREE WITH THAT.
AND I WANT TO REFERENCE A 
LETTER, BARRY WEISS WHO RESIGNED
AS A EDITOR AT THE "NEW YORK 
TIMES" WROTE AETTER EXPLAINING
WHY SHE RESIGNED.
AND I'LL READ THREE STENCES 
FOR ALL OF YOU.
SHE ID MY OWN FOR RAY INTO 
WRONG THINK ME ME THE SUBJECT 
OF CONSTANT BULLYING BY MY 
COLLGUES.
SHE WENT ON TO SAY LATER IN THE 
LEER, EVERYONE LIVES IN FEAR 
OF THE DIGITAL THUNDER DOME.
AND THOSE TARGETS AREN'T JUST 
CO
CONSERVATIVE.
THE TARGETS ARE ANYONE WHO 
SAGREES WITH THE MOB.
ARE THE REST OF YOU 
CONCERD ABOUT THE CANCEL 
CULTURE MOB AND WHAT IT'S UP TO?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M SORRY, I HAD
A MOMENT -- OF THE HEARING.
BUT WE BUILD PLATFORMSOR 
FREEDOM OFXPRESSION AND WE 
TAKE PRIDE IN THE FACT THAT 
ACROSS THE ATFORMS, INCLUDING 
YOUTUBE, THERE ARE MORE DIVERSE 
VOICES THAN EVER BEFORE.
>> I'M JUST SAYING ARE YOU 
CONCERNED -- I'M CONCEED ABOUT
IT AND, AGAIN, I'M CCERNED NOT
JUST BECAUSE CONSEBIVES GET 
ATTACKED.
I'M CONCERNED WHEN ANYONEETS 
ATTACKED FOR EXPRESSING A VICE 
PRESIDENT.
 -- EXPR 
VIEWPOINT.
HOW ABOUT YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG?
 GIVING PEOPLE A VOICE IS AN 
IMPORTANT PART OF WHAT OUR 
SERVICES DO.
I'M VERY WORRIED ABOUT SOME OF 
E FORCES OF ILL LIBERALISM 
THAT I SEE IN THIS COUNTRY 
PUSHING AGAINST FREE EXPRESSION
I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE 
FUNDAMENTAL DEMOCRATIC 
TRADITIONSE HAVE IN OUR 
COUNTRY AND IT'S HOW WE MAKE 
PROGRESS OVER THE LONG-TERM ON A
NUMBER OF ISSUES.
AND OUR COMPANY IS COMMITTED TO 
DOINWHAT WE CAN TO -- 
>> MR. BEZOS -- 
>> PROTECT PEOPLE'S VOICE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. ZUCKER.
MR. BEZOS.
>> YES, SIR.
I AM CONCERNED IN GENAL ABOUT 
THAT AND WHAT I FIND AND I FIND 
DISCOURAGING, IT APPEARSO ME 
SOCIAL MEDIA IS A NUANCED 
DESTRUCTION MACHINE AND DON'T 
THINK THAT'S HELPFUL FOR A 
DEMOCRACY.
>> DO YOU AGREE WITH THE TERM 
SHE USED, DIGITAL THUNDER DOME?
>> I SEE THAT, YES.
>> I SEE IT, TOO.
AND I THINK - I GUESS MY POINT 
IS, YOU WERE FOUR PRETTY 
IMRTANT GUYS LEADING FOUR OF 
THE MOST IMPORTANT COMPANY OWES 
PLANET AND ITOULD SURE BE 
HEFUL IF YOU SPOKE OUT AGAINST
THIS.
MR. COOK, THERE WAS A 1984 SUPER
BOWL AD INLACK AND WHITE, HAD 
THIS BIG BROTHER TYPE FIGURE AS 
THE NARRATOR SAYING OVER THE 
SCREEN TO A BUNCH OF THESE 
WORKERS, LOOKS LIK IT WAS 
STRAIGHT OUTF THE SOVIET UNION
SAYINGO A BUMPER OF WORRS AS
THEY'RE MARCHINGALONG, HE SAYS 
WIN OF THE LINES THAT TH 
NARROR USES IS OUR UNIFICATION
OF THOUGHTS IS MORE POWERFUL A 
WEAPON OR FLE THAN ANY ARMY ON
THE EARTH.
AND THE AD IS WH THIS LADY 
RUNNING IN IN COR AND SMASHING
THE SCREEN.
BUSTING THE GROUP THINK, BUSTING
THE MOB THINK.
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT AD MR. 
COOK, WHAT COMPA HAD THAT AD?
>> I REMEMBER IT VERY WELL.
IT WAS APPLEERSUS IBM AT THE 
TIME.
>> YEAH.
BUT IT -- THE POINT S, MOB 
THINK CANLED CULTURE, GROUP THI 
IS ABOUT.
AND WE ARE SEEING IT PLAY OUT 
EVERY SINGLE -- JUST TAKE THE 
SPORTS WORLD, FOR GOODNESS SAKE.
IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS, DREW 
BREES HAD TOOW TO THE MOB 
SIMP BECAUSE HE SUGGESTED YOU 
SHOULD STAND FOR THE ANTHEM.
THERWAS A FOOTBALL COACH AT 
OKLAHOMA STATE WHO WORE THE, 
QUOTE, WRONG T-SHIRT FISHI 
WITH HIS BOYS.
HE GOT IN ALL KINDS OF TROUBLE.
JAMES HARDEN WEARS A MASK SAYING
BACK THE POLICE, HELP THE 
POLICE, SUPPORT THE POLICE, HE 
GETS ATTACKED.
WHY DON'T WE JUST LET THE FST 
AMENDMENT WORK?
THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING.
AND YOU ARE FOUR INDIVIDUALS WHO
HAVE SO MUCH INFLUENCE.
IT SHOULD SURE HELP IF YOU'RE 
OUT THERE CRITICIZING WHAT THE 
CANCELED CULTU MOB IS DOING TO
THIS COUNTRY AND PEOPLE SEE IT 
EVERY SINGLE DAY AND I HOPE 
YOU'LL DO IT.
I HOPE YOU'LL SPEAK OUT AGNST 
IT AND BE FAIR.
WITH ALL VIEWPOINTS, I YIELD
BACK.
 I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLE LADY 
FROM WASHINGTON.
>> THANKYOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I DIRE MY QUESTIONS TO YOU, 
MANY OF US FEEL A DEEP URGENCY 
TO PROTECT INDEPENDENT 
JOURNALISM.
AND I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT AD 
REVENUE AND INDEPENDENT 
JOURNALISM.GOOGLE MAKES MOSTF IE
THROUGH LLING ADVERTISING.
>> YES, CONGRESSMAN,HAT'S 
CORRECT.
>> AND OVE 2 MILLION PUBLISHERS
USE THAT ACE, CORRECT?>> VERY P 
PUBLISHERS.
YOF 
I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBERS.
>> TT IS A NUMBER PUT FORWARD
AND YOUR OWN WEBSITE SAYS YOU 
HAVE ACCESS TO OVER 2 MILLION 
SITES.
WH IS GOOGLE'S SHARE OF THE AD
EXCHANGE MARKET?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT EXACTLY 
FAMILIAR.
I'VE SEEN VARIOUS REPORTS.
BUT WE ARE A POPULAR CHOICE.
GREA
LET ME PUT IT UP FOR YOU.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SCREEN, YOU 
WILL SEE 50% TO 60% GOOGLE HAS 
50% TO 60% ACCORDING TO E 
ONLINE PLATFORMS AND DIGITAL 
ADVERTISING CMA MARKE STUDY 
THAT WAS JUST RELEASED.
AND IN ORDERO BUY AND SELL ON 
THESE EXCHANGES, WEBSITES AND 
ADVERTISERS GO THROUGH A 
MIDDLEMAN LIKE GOOGLE'S DB 360 
AND GOOGLE ADS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SLIDE, YOU 
CAN SEE THAT THE SHARE OF THIS 
BY SIDE MARKET THAT GOOGLE HAS 
IS 50% TO 90%, ACCORDING TO THE 
SAME SAME STUDY.
AND I JUST WANT TO SIMPLIFY HOW 
THESE EXCHANGES WORK.
SO SAY IN SEATTLE, DEE'S 
ELECTRONICS, A MOM AND P 
BUSINESS WANTS TO BUY ONLINE AD 
SPACE IN THE SEATTLE TIMES.
THEY WOULD NEED TO GETO A 
MIDDLEMAN WHICH WOULD B FOR AD
SPACE ON A EXCHANGE.
AND THE PROBLEM IS GOOGLE 
CONTROLS ALL OF THESE ENTITIE
SO IT'S RUNNING THE MARKETPLACE.
IT'S ACTING ON THE BUY SIDE AND 
IT'S ACTING ON THE SELL SIDE AT 
THE ME TIME WHICH IS A MAJOR 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
 ALLOWS YOU TO SET RATES VERY 
LOW  A BUYER OF A SPACE FROM 
NEWSPARS DEPRIVING THEM OF 
THEIR AD REVENUE AND ALSO TO 
SE HIGH TO SMALL BUSESSES 
THAT ARE DEPENDENT ON 
ADVERTING ON YOUR PLATFORM.
IT SELLS A BIT LIKE A STOCK 
MARKET, EXCEPTHERE'S NO 
REGULATION ON YOUR AD EXCHANGE 
MARKET.
IF THERE WE REGULATION, IT 
WOULD PROHIBIT INSIDER TRADI 
WHICH MEANS THE BROKER CAN'T USE
THE DA IN THE BROKER DIVISION
TO BUY AND SELL FOR THEIR OWN 
INTEREST.
INSTEAD, BROKERS HAVE TO SERVE 
THEIR CLIENTS.
DOES GOINGAVE A SIMILAR 
OBLIGATION TO SERVE ITS CLIENTS,
THE BUSINESSES THA ARE SELLING 
AND BUYING AD SPACE?
>> CONGSSMAN, IF I COULD 
EXPLAIN THIS FOR A MINUTE, WE 
PAID OVER $14 MILLION TO 
PUBLISHERS.
WE A DEEPLY COMMITTED TO 
URNALISTS AND IN THIS AREA ON 
AN AVERE, WE PAY OUT 69% OF 
THE VENUE WHEN PUBLISHERS USE 
GOOGLE'S - TOOLS AND IT'S LOW
MARGIN BINESS FOR US.
WE DIT BECAUSE WE WANT TO HELP
SUPPORT PUBLISHERS IN THIS AREA.
 I UNDERSTAND THAT.
WHAT I'M TING TO GET AT IS 
WHEN ANY COMPANY CONTROLS THE 
BUY AND THE SELL SIDE -- I 
WORKED ON WALL STREET A VERY 
LONG TIME AGO -- THERE A 
REASONS INSIDER TRADINGS 
REGULATED AND THIS AD EXCHANGE 
IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING 
AND WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY, IT 
ISN'T MEANINGFUL TO CARE ABOUT 
THE NEWSPAPERS.
WE'RE SEEING THEM DIE ALL OVER 
D AD REVENUE IS A BIG REASON.
LET  PUT UP A GRAPH HERE THAT 
SHOWS THAT GOOGLE'S AD REVENUE 
IS INCREASINGLY COMING FROM AD 
 GOOGLEWNED SITES A LESS 
SO FROM OTHER WEBSITES.
CAN U EXPLAIN THAT TREND?
>> I CAN'T QUITE SEE WHERE THIS 
IS NET REVENUE OR GROSS REVENUE.
OBVIOUSLY, WHEN IT COMES TO 
NON-GOOGLE PROPERTIES, WE SHARE 
THE MAJORIT OF REVENUE BACK TO 
PUBLISHERS.
WHEAS ON OUR OWN PROPERTI, 
WE OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE 
THE INVENTORY
SO -- BUT I WOULD NEED TO
UNDERSTAND MORE.
I JUST QUICKLY LOOKED AT IT.
I'M NOT SURE I FULLY -- 
WE COULD SEND IT TO YOU AND 
MANAGER SURE YOU HAVE IT.
GOOGLE HAS NOT MADE ITS SEARCH 
TRAFFIC VOLUMES PUBLIC IN YEARS 
SO THERE IS NO WAY FOR US TO 
KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING 
HERE AND THERE'S NO WAY FOR 
BUSINESSESO VERIFY WHETHER 
TH'VE BEEN TREATED FAIRLEY OR 
LEFT BEHIND IN FAVOR OF 
GOOGLE-OWNED COMPANIES.
IS GOOGLE STEERING ADVERTISING 
REVENUE TO GOOGLE SEARCH?
>> USERS COME TO GGLE SEARCH.
THAT IS WHERE OUR SOURCE OF 
REVENUE COMES FROM.
WE HAVE FOCUSED ON PROVIDING TH.
WE KNOW COMPETITION FOR 
INFORMATION IS JUST A CLICK 
AWAY.
>> THANK YOU.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE POINT 
THAT NCHT JOUALISM IS 
INCREDIBLY NECESSARY TO OUR 
DEMOCRACY AND  WANT TO DO WHAT
WE CAN TO PROTECT IT.
I WANT TOSK ONE LAST QUESTION 
ON OF MR. ZUCKERBERG.
OVER 1100 COMPANIES AND RGZS 
LLED THEIR ADVERTISING 
BUSINESS FROM FACEBK AS PART 
OF THE STOP HE FOR PROFIT 
CAMPAIGNO PROTEST THE SPREAD 
OF HATE SPEECH AND 
DISINFORMATION.
BUT YOU HA A STAFF MEETING 
EARLIER THIS MONTH WHERE YOU 
TOLD EMPLOYEES WE'RE NOTOING 
TO CHANGE OUR POLICIES OR
APPRECIATE BECAUSE OF A THRT 
TO ANY PERCENT OF OUR REVENUE.
MY GUESS IS ALL TSE 
ADVERTERS WILL BE BACK ON THE 
PLATFORM SOON ENOUGH.
MR ZUCKERBERG, ARE YOU SO BIG 
THAT YOU DON'T CE HOW YOU'RE 
IMPACTED BY A MAJOR BOYCOTT OF 
1100 ADVERTISERS?
>> , CONGRESSWOMAN.
OF COURS WE CARE.
BUT WE'RE ALSO NOT GOING TO SET 
OUR CONTENT POLICIES BECAUSE OF 
ADVERTISERS.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE WRONG 
THING FORS TO DO.WE'VE CARED AB 
FIGHTING HATE SPEECH FOR A LONG 
TIME AND WE'VE INVESTED BILLIONS
OF DOLLARS.
AND VE TALKED ABOUT TODAY HOW 
WE HAVE TENS ON OF THOUSANDS OF 
CONTEVENT OF OUR VIEWERS, WE'VE 
BUILTI SYSTEMS THAT 
PROACTIVELY IDENTIFY THE 
MAJORITY --E'RE NOW AT 89% OF 
THE HE SPEECH THAT WE REMOVE 
BEFORE AONE REPORTS IT TO US.
'RE GOING TO CONTINUE GETTING 
BETTER AT THAT.
I THINKHOSE INVESTMENTS OVER 
TIME AND THE RESULTS WE PUT UP 
WILL BE RECOGNIZED BY PEOPLE.SI 
INDUSTRY LEADING.
AND I TNK OUR ADVERTISING ALSO
IS FOR A LOT OFMALL BUSINESSES
THMOST EFFECTIVE OR AMONG THE 
MOST EFFECTIVE WAYS THAT THEY 
CAN FIND AND REACH NEW -- 
>> TNK YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG.
MY TIME HAS EXPIRE
I KNOW YOU'VE COMMISSIONED YOUR 
OWN CIVIL RIGHTS AUDIT.
I DON'T THINK YOU'VE IMPLENTED
ALL THOSE RECOMMENDATNS YET.
I PE YOU WILL MOVE QUILY TO 
IMPLEMENT THOSE.THIS IS A CRITI 
WATCHED THE BODY O JOHN LEWIS 
LEAVES HERE IN THE CAPAL 
THAT WE FOCUS ON CIV RIGHTS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. I CALL ON THE NEXT 
WITNESS, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE MR.
PACHAIHO I THINK WANTS TO MAKE
A CORRECTION FOR THE HEANG.
>> I WANTED TO REPORT THAT - IN
2009 A PUBLICIZE CYBER ATTACK 
ORIGINATING THERE.
I WAED TO CORRECT THAT FOR THE
RECORD.
>> THANK Y.
THE RECORD WILL SO REFLECT.
I RECOGNIZE THEENTLE LADY FROM
PENNSYLVANIA FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> TNK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
IN MARCH 2020,MAZON ANNOUNCED 
THAT I WAS GOING TO START 
DELAYING SHIPMENTS OF 
NONESSENTIAL PRODUCTS IN ORDER 
TO BETTER SERVE CUSTOMERS AND 
ET NEEDS WHILE HELPING TO ENSUR.
IN PRACTICE, HOWEVER, IT APPEA
THAT THIS POLICY WASPPLIED 
SELECTIVELY.
SO THE ESSENTIAL ITEMS WERE 
SUPPOSED TO INCLUDEOUSEHOLD 
STAPLES, MEDICAL SUPPLIES, HIGH 
DEMAND PRODUCTS AND MANY FACTORS
WERE CONSIDERED WN DETERMINI
ELIGIBILITY TO BE ESSENTIAL.
BUT WE'VE HAD SEVERAL EMPLOYEES 
PORT AMAZON CONTIED TO SHIP 
NONESSENTIAL ITEMS LIKE 
HAOCKS, FISH TANKS, EETERA.
FIRE TV, ECHO SPEAKER AND RING 
DOORBELL, RE THEY DESIGNATE 
AS ESSENTIAL DURING THE PAN DEN?
>
. 
>> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO 
THAT QUESTION.
THERE WA NO PLAYBOOK FOR THIS.
WE MOVED VERY QUICKLY.
DEMAND WENT THROH ROOF.
IT WAS LIKE HING A HOLIDAY 
SELLINGSEASON, BUT IN MARCH, 
AND WE HAD TO MAKE A LOT OF 
DECISIONS VERY RIDLY.
>> OKAY.
>> OUR GOAL WAS TO LIMIT I TO 
ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES, BUT I'M SURE
WE DID NOT DO THAT PERFECTLY.
>> OKAY.
I KNOW THE RINGOORBELL HAS TWO
COMPETING PRODUCTS, INCLUDING 
ARLO AND UFE, MAYBE.
DO YOU KNOW IF THEY WERE 
DESIGNATED AS ESSENTIAL?
>> I DO NOT.
>> CAN.
ARE YOU ABLE TO TESTIFY TO 
CONGRESS TODAY WHETHER AMAZON'S 
PROFIT FACTOR WAS A FACTOR IN 
GIVING A ESSENTIAL 
CLASSIFICATION DISTINCTION?
>> NO.
NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
WE WERE WORKING TO ACHIE TWO 
OBJECTIVES.
ONE WA TO GET ESSENTIAL 
PRODUCTS TO CUSTOMERS AND THE 
SECOND WAS TO KEEP O FRONT 
LINE EMPLOYEES SAFE.
AND WE DID A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT 
OF WORK IN BOTH CATEGORIES.
THAT'S WHAT WE WERE FOCUSED ON.
WE WERE NOT FOCUSED ON 
OFITABILITY AT THAT TIME.
>> PUSHING OW THE ELUVE CLOROX
WIPE, I GUESS.
AT ANY RATE, LET TALK ABOUT 
THE FEES THAT AMAZON CHARGES 
SELLERS.
ACCORDING TO A RIENT REPORT, 
SELLER FEES NETTED AMAZON ALST
60 BILLION IN 2019 NEARLY 
DOUBLE THE 35 BILLION IN REVENUE
FROM AWS, AMAZON'S MASSIVE CLOUD
COMPUTING DIVISION.
FIVE YEARS AGO, AMAZON TOOK AN 
AVERAGE O 19% OF EACH SALE MADE
BAY THD PARTY ON ITS SITE.
TODAY, AMAZON KEEPS AN AVERAGE 
OF 30%.
ESN'T AMAZON'S ABILITY TO HIKE
THOSE ES SOTEEPLY SUGGEST 
AMAZON ENJOYS MARKET POWER OVER 
THOSE SELLERS?
>> NO, CONGRESSWOMAN, I DON'T 
BELIEVE SO.
I THINK WHAT YOU'RSEEING THERE
WHEN YOU SEE THAT GO FROM 19% T
30% IS MORE AND MORE SELLERS ARE
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SERVICEF
THAT IS- BY AMAZON WCH IS 
GREAT FOR SELLERS.
AND IT'S WORKING FOR SELLERS.
THAT'S WHY TODAY 60% OF SES 
ARE GOING FROM THIRD PARTY 
SELLERS UP FROM ZERO 20 YEARS 
AGO.
>> RIGHT.
BUT I THINK MORE CONCERNIN IS 
THE 11% HIKE.
SINCE 2014, AMAZON'S REVENUE 
FROM SELLER FEES HAVE GROWN
ALMOST TWICE AS FAST SINCE ITS 
JOELLL SALES.
MR. BEZOS, AREN'T SELLER FEES 
NOW EFFECTELY SUBSIDIZING 
AMAZON'S RETAIL DIVISION?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, NO, I DON'T 
BELIEVE SO.
I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SEEING 
THERE, WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING
IS THAT SELLERSRE CHOOSE TO GO
USE MORE OF OUR SERVICES THAT WE
MAKE AILABLE.
THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS THEY
WERE SHIPPING THEIR OWN PRODUCTS
FROM THEIR OWN FULFILLMENT 
CENTERS.
SO THEY WOULD HAVE HAD COSTS 
DOING THAT, OPERATING YOUR OWN 
FULFILENT CENTER AND BUYING 
TRANORTATION TO THE CUSTOMER 
THROUGH THE POSTAL SERVICE OR 
THROUGH U.P.S. OR WHOEVER IT 
WOULD BE.
>> OKAY.
LET'S TALK A BIT ABOUT THE 
FULFILLMENT CENTERS -- 
>> BY AMAN.
YES, PLEASE, GO AHEAD.
>>O YOU'VE GOT FULFILLMENT BY 
AMAZON AND A YEAR AGO WE ASKED 
WHETHER A M CHAS ENROLLED IN 
FULFILLMENT BY AMAZON IS A 
FACTOR I WHETHER THEY CAN BE 
AWARDED THE BUY BOX.
AT THAT POINT, AMAZON SAID NO.
BUT THE EVIDENCE IS INDICATING 
AND YOUR OWN DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT
BEING ENROLLED IN THAT PROGRAM 
IS A MAJOR FACTOR AND IT 
EFFECTIVY FORCES SELLERS TO 
PAY FOR FULFILLMENT SERVICES IF 
THEY WANT TO MAKE SALES.
HAS AMAZON'S BIG BUY BOX FAVED
THOSE WHO BUY FROM AMAZON OVER 
OTHER SELLERS?
>> I THINK EFFECTIVELY THE BUY 
BOX IS -- DIRECTLY OR 
INDIRECTLY, I'M NOT SURE.BUTNDI 
BOX DOES FAVOR PRODUCTS THAT CAN
BE SHIPPED WIT PRIME.
SO IF YOU'RE A PRIME MEMBER, THE
BUY BOX IS TRYING TO PICK -- IF 
WE HAVE MULTIPLE SELLERS SELLING
IS SAME ITEM, THE BUY BOX IS 
LIKELY TRY YOUING TO PICK THE 
ITEM THE CUSTOMER WOULD LIKE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. BEZOS.
I INK MY TIME IS EXPIRED.
>> BEFORE I RECOGNIZE OUR LAST 
TWO COLLEAGUES, I THINK MR. 
ZUCKERBE WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY
SOMETHING FOR THE RECORD, AS 
WELL.
 CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU.
IN RESNSE TO CONGRESSMAN 
JOHNSON'S QUESTION BEFORE I SAID
THAT I WARRASN'T FAMILIAR WITH  
FACEBOOK RESEARCHPP.
BUT I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I DO
RECALL THAT WE USED AN APP FOR 
REARCH AND IT HAS SINCE BEEN 
DISCONTINUED AND I WOULD BE 
HAPPY TO FOLLOWP WITH HIS 
STAFF ON ANY MOTHER DETAILS HE 
WOULD LIKE.
>> THANK YOU.
I RECOGNIZE MR. NAGOOSE.
>> THANK U, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WANTED TO DIRECT A FEW 
QUESTIONS TO YOU AND WANTE TO 
TALK ABOUT THEPPS STORE AND 
APP DEVELOPMENT.
TAKING A STEP BACK, MY 
UNDERSTANDING FROM YOU 
TESTIMONY TODAY ISSSENTIALLY 
APPLE HAS TO OPERATE BY YOU THE 
SAME RULES THAT THE APP 
DEVELOPERS OPERATE BY.
IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO ACCESS
THE APP STORE.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WE HAVE 60 APPS ON THE APP 
STE.
THEY GO THROUGH THE SAME RES 
THAT THE 1.7 MILLION DO.
>> OKAY.
SO HERE IS WHY I ASKED THAT 
QUESTION.
TH GUIDELINES SELL APP 
DEVELOPERS NOT TO SUBMIT COPYCAT
APPS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
SFLIEM NOT TOTALLY FAMILIAR, BUT
I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CE 
BECAUSE WE WERE GETTING A NUMBER
OF APPS THAT WERE ESSENTIALLY 
THE SAME THING, SORT OF A COOKIE
CUTTER.
>> AND I CAN REMEMBER TO YOU 
WE'VE REVIEWED THE GUIDELINES 
AND PRECISELY THEY SAY APP
DEVELOPERS SHOULD HAVE ORIGINAL 
IDEAS, THAT COPYCAT IDE AREN'T
FAVOR AND APPLE'S CUSTOMERS 
DON'T WANT THOSE.
ERND, THEPP DEVELOPER 
AGEMENT, WHICH YOU REQUIRE 
EVERY APP DEVELOPER TO AGREE TO 
DOES GE APPLE THE RIGHT TO 
COPY OTHER APPS.
SO THE QUESTION IS WHY ONE RULE 
FOR THE DEVELOPERS THAT COMPETE 
WITH YOU AND THE OPPOSITE RULE 
R APPLE?
>> NGRESSMAN, I'M NOT FAMILIAR
WI THAT, BUT I COULD FOLLOW UP
WITH YOUR OFFI ON IT.
>> WELL, I WOULD APPRECIATE IF 
YOU COULD FOLLOWP WITH OUR 
OFFICE.
MY UNDERSTANDING, AGAI IS THE 
APP DELOPER AGREEMENT 
EXPLICITLY SAYS THAT APPLE CAN 
USE A INFORMATION THAT AN APP 
DEVELOPERROVIDES TO APPLE FOR 
ANY PURPOSE.
SO, OBVIOUSLY, YOU HAVE 
COMPLAINTS FROM ANY NUMBER OF, 
YOU KNOW, APP DEVELOPERS WHO 
HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE OUR 
COMMITTEE.
AS I SAID, I RRESENT THE STATE
OF COLORADO.
WE HEARD FROM A COMPANY CALLED 
TILE WHICH SAID APPLE HAD ACCESS
TO CONFIDENTIAL ABOUT THE APP 
AND GIVEN YOU THAT JUXPOSED 
AGAINST THIS AGREEMENT.
YOU COULD UNDERSTAND WHY WE 
WOULD HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT 
ANTI-COMPETITIVE CONDU.
>> W RUN THE APP STORE TO HELP 
DEVELOPERS, NOT HURT THEM.
WE RESPECT INNOVATION.
WEOULD NEVER STEAL SOMODY'S 
IP.
BUT I WILL FOLLO UP WITH YOUR 
OFFICE I MONTHERE DETAIL O THIS.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
MR. CHAI A SIMILAR LINE OF 
QUESTIONING.
TO THE EENT APPLE IS WILLING 
TO COMMIT WITHIN THE DEVELOPER 
AGREEMENT TO SAYHAT WHILE YOU 
ARE ACCESS TO THAT DATA, THAT 
YOU AR NOT GOING TO USE THAT 
DATA AND ARE NOT PERMITTED TO 
USE THAT DATA TO REPLICATE YOUR 
OWN APP, A COPYCAT APP, IF YOU 
WILL.
THAT WOULD CERTAINLY, IN MY VIE 
AWAY FROM ANY TYP OF 
ANTICOMPITIVE CONDUCT.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'LL FOLLOW
UP AND WE CAN LEARN MORE WIT
RESPECT TO THAT ISSUE.
SIMILARLY, THERE WAS AN ARTICLE 
JUST TODAY -- OR EXCUSE ME, 
YESTERDAY ABOUT -- FROM THE 
VERGE, THE TITLE IS GOOGLE 
REPORTED KEEPS TABS ON USAGE 
ANDROID APPS TO DEVOP 
COMPETITORS.
GOLE SAID THAT THEATA 
DOESN'T GIVE INFORMATION ABOUT 
HOW PEOPLE BEHAVE WHILE THEY'RE 
USING INDIVIDUAL APPS, BUT IT 
WOULDN'T SAY WHETHER IT HAD BEEN
USED TO DEVELOP CPETING APPS.
FIRST, I WOULD TAKE IT YOU WOULD
CONFIRM GOOGLE H ACCESS TO 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OR 
COMPETITIVELY SENSITIVE 
INFORMATION ABOU APPS ON THE 
ANDROID DEVICES?
>> CONGRESSMAN, IF I COUL 
CLARIFY THIS, TODAY WE HAVE AN  
LONG AS USERS CONSENT.
IT GIVESHE SYSTEM HEALTH METRIC.
THIS IS HOW WE CAN LAUREN 
DIGITAL WELL BEING FEATURES ON 
ANDROID.
THIS IS HOW WE UNDERSTAND WHICH 
APPS ARE USING BATTERY AND WE 
CAN GIVE A DASHBOARD MAYBE FOR 
CRASNG OR QUALITY CONTROL OR 
BATTERY USAGE OR FOR DIGITAL 
WELLBEING.
SO AT A HI LEVEL, THIS DATA IS
AVAILAE THROUGH PUBLIC API AND
OTHER VELOPS CAN DO THE SAME 
ASONG AS THEY HAVE ACCS TO 
IT.
>> SO WANT TO CLARIFY.
AND I'LL QUOTE FROM THIS 
TICLE.
THE ARTICLE REFERS TO THIS DATA 
ABOUT SENSITIVE APPS INCLUDING 
HOW OFTEN THEY'REPENED AND FOR
HOW LONG THEY'RE USED.
I'M NOT ASKING HOW YOU USE THAT 
INFORMATION.
I'M JU ASKING WHETHER OR NOT, 
IN FA, WHAT THE ARTICLE 
ALLEGES IS CORRECT,HAT YOU 
HAVE ACCESS THAT DATA.
>>EAH.
WITH THE USER CONSENT AND THE 
API, YES, WE DO.
>> AND DOES GOOGLE USETHAT?
>> DOESOOGLE HAVE ACCESS TO 
THAT AND THIS IS HOW WE 
UNDERSTAND AND IMPROVE USAGE?
>>. 
>> IF YOUR ANSR IS NO, WILL 
GOOGLE COMMIT TO MAKIN THE 
NECESSARY CHANGES WITHIN ITS 
ANDROID DEVELOR APP AGREEMENTS
TO ENSURE THAT DEVELOPERS HAVE 
THAT SENSE OF CLARITY THAT,N 
FACT, THE DATA WL NOT BE USED 
FOR GOOGLE TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP
A COMPETING APPLICION.
>> WE DO LOOK AT TRENDS D, IN 
FACT, IN THE AY STORE, WE 
PUBLISH THE NUMBERS THEMSELVES 
OF APPLICATION AND WE GIVE 
RANGES.
SO THERE IS A WIDE VARIETY BY 
THE WAY WE TRY TO UNDERSTAND 
WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE MARKET.
BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR THOUGHT 
ABOUT THERE BEING DELAWARETY IN 
THIS AREA.
>> I MUST, I GUESS, WANT TO 
FOLLOW UP QUICKLY, MR. CHAIRMAN,
IF YOU'RE WLING.
SO I GUESS I'M WONDERING IF YOU 
CAN ANSWER THAT FUNDAMENTAL 
QUESTIONS, DOES GOOGLE USE THAT 
INFORMATION TO DEVELOP CPETING
APPS?
I UNDERSTAND THE PURPOS YOU'VE
DESCRIBED IN TERMS LE TO USE 
THE INFORMATION.
I'M ASNG IF ONE OF THOSE, I
FACT, IS TO VELOP COMPETING 
APPS.
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS 
EXPIRED, BUT THE WITNESS MAY
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>> WE ARE AWARE OF THE 
POPULARI OF AP.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND TO BE 
INACCURATE IN MY ANSWE
IN GENERAL, THE PRIMARY USE OF 
THAT DATA IS TO IMPROVE THE 
HEALTH OF ANDROID AND ANY DATA 
 GET WE HAVE USER CONTENT FOR 
IT AND WE WOULD ME IT 
AVAILABLE TO AN AP DEVELOPER, 
AS WELL.
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS 
EXPIRED.
I NOW RECOGNIZE T GENTLEADY 
FROM GEORGIA.
>> GENTLEM, THANK YOU SO MUCH 
FOR SPENDING SO MUCH OF YOU 
TIME TODAY.
MA OF YOU HAVE MENTIONED JOHN 
LEWIS TODAY AND HIS FIGHT FOR
EQUALITY AND THAT I KNOW THAT 
ALL MY COLLEAGUE AND I WILL 
CARRY ON.
VERY QUICKLY, CAN EACH OF YOU 
SIMPLY COMMIT TO IMPROVING RARNL
AND GENDER EQUITY AT YOUR 
COMPANIES, INCLUDING BLACK 
LEERSHIP AND WOMEN IN YOUR 
SENIOR RANKS, JUST A YES-OR-NO 
ANSWER, PLEASE?
MR. ZUCKBERG.
>> YES.
>> MR. CK.
>> YES, I AM VERY PERSONALLY 
COMMITTED.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. BEZOS.
>> ABSOLUTELY, YES.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. PICHAI?
>> YESND WE MADE PUBLIC 
COMMITMENTS TO THIS REGARD.
>> MR. ZUCRBERG, IN 200 4, 
THERE WERE DOZENS OF SOCIAL 
MEDIA COMPANIES.
FACEBOOK DISTINGUISHED ITSELF 
FROM THE CPETITORS BY 
FOCUSSING SPECIFICALLY PRIVACY.
YOU HAD A SHORT CAR PRIVACY 
POLICY.
IT WAS 950 WORDS.
IT MADE A PROMISEO USERS, AND 
 QUOTE, WE DO NOT, AND WILNOT
USE COIES TO COLLECT PRIVATE 
INFORMATION FROM ANY USER.
AND YOU SAID WILLOT.
THAT IS A COMMITMENT ABOUT THE 
FUTURE.
AND THAT WAS 2004.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, TODAY, DOES 
FACEBOOK USE COOKIES TO COLLECT 
PRIVATE INFORMATION ON USERS?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, MY 
UNDERSNDING TO THAT IS NO, 
WE'RE NOT USINGOOKIES TO 
COLLECT PRIVATENFORMATION 
ABOUT PEOPLE THAT USEUR 
SERVICES AND BELIEVE WE HAVE 
UPHELD THAT COMMITMENT.
>> SO MR. ZUCKERBERG, DO YOU 
THINK YOUR COMPA WOULD BE AS SU 
WITH TODAY'S COOKIE POLICY IN 
PLACE?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M NOT SUR
EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SUFFEREFERR 
TO, BUT IN GENAL, COOKIES IS 
NOT A BIG PART OF H WE'RE 
COLLECTING INFORMATION.
WE'VE PRIMARILY USED THEM TO 
MA SURE THAT SOMEONE C STAY 
LOGGED IN ON WEB.
WE USE THEMO SOME DEGREE FOR 
SECURITY TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU
DON'T HAVE SOMEONE TRYIN TO LOG
IN UNDER A LOT OF DIFFERENT 
ACCOUNTS FOR ONEOMPUTER OR 
SOMETHING LIKE TT.
>> SO MR. ZUCKERBERG, ONCE 
AGAIN, YOU DO NOTSE COOKIES?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN,UST TO MAKE 
SURE I CLEAR, WE DO USE 
COOKIES.
YES, WE DO USE COOKIES.
>> SO THE BOTTOM LINE HERIS 
YOU BROKE A CMITMENT TO YOUR 
USERS AND WOULD CAN SAY IF YOU 
MAY OR MAY N DO THAT AGAIN IN 
THEUTURE.
THE REALITY IS FACEBOOK'S MARKET
POWER GREW AND FACEBOOK'S 
SACRIFICED ITS USERS POLICY.
MR. BEZOS, MY COLLEAGUES HAVE 
TOUCHED ON COUNTERFEIT GOODS AND
I SHARE THE CONCERNS DEEPLY.
I'M AO CONCERNED ABOUT SLEN 
GOODS.
MR. BEZOS, ARE STOLEN GOODS SOLD
ON AMAZON?
>> CONGRESSWON, NOT TO MY 
KNOWLEDGE, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE 
MORE THAN A MILLION SELLERS.
SO I'M SE THAT THERE HAVE BEEN
STOLEN GOODS.
>> REALLY, MR. BEZOS?
>> I'M SORRY?
>> REALLY?
THERE'S NOT.
YOU DON'T BELIE THAT THERE IS?
THAT SURPRISES ME.
>> NO.
I JUST SAID WITH OVER AILLION 
SELLERS, I'M SE IT HAS 
HAPPENED, BUT CERTAINLY I DON'T 
THINK IS A LARGE PART OF WT 
WE'RE SELLING.
>> SO BASICALLY, MR. BEZOS,
YOU'RE SAYING YES.
>> I GUESS SO.
>> SO I WANTED TO ASK YOUBOUT 
INFORMATION THAT YOU REQUIRE 
FROM SELLERS TO PREVENT THE SALE
OF 120STOLENGOODS.
DO YOU REQUIRE A REAL NE AND 
ADDRESS, YES OR NO?
>> FOR SELLERS
>> ONCE AGAIN, DO YOU REQUIRE A 
REAL NAME AND ADDRESS FROM 
SELLERS?
>> I BIEVE WE DO.BUT LET ME GET 
FICE WITH A -- I'D RATR GIVE
YOU THE ACCURATE ANSWER, BUT I 
THINK W DO.
>> AND I'M AWARE THAT YOU ARE.
 YES, YOU DO REQUIRE A NAME 
AND ADDRESS.
DO YOU REQUIRE A PHONE NUMBER, 
YES OR NO?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S 
REQUED.
I THINK WE OFTEN HAVE IT, BUT I.
>> SO BRIEFLY, THEN, HOW DO YOU 
VERIFY THAT EH OF THESE PIECES
OF INFORMATION IS ACCURATE?>> I 
YOUR QUESTION.
 SO YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY 
PEOPLE WORK ON VERIFYING SELLER 
VERIFICATION BEFORE THE SELLE 
IS ALLOWED TO SELL ON AMAZON?
 NO, CONGRESSMAN, I DON'T.
>> THEN I'M GOING TO ASK YOU, 
SIR, WILL YOU COMMIT TO 
REPORTING ALL SALES OF STOLEN 
AND COUNTERFEIT GOODS TO LAW 
ENFOEMENT AND TO VICTIMS TO 
TRACK LARGE SCA OFFENDERS 
ENGED IN ORGANIZED RETAIL 
CRIM
>> TO THE DEGREE THAT WE'RE 
AWARE OF IT, WE WILL CERTAINLY 
PURSUE IT.
IN FACT, I WOULD -- 
>> CAN SIR K CAN YOU MAKE A BLAT
COMMITME?
>> A BLANKET COMMITMEN TO WT?
SORRY,CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M TRYING
TOE HELPFUL.
>> REPORTING ALL SALES OF COUNT 
ENFORCEMENTS AND TO VICTIMS TO 
HELP THOSE ORGANIZED I RETAIL C.
>> I SEE NO REASON WHY IF WE'RE 
AWARE OF STOLEN GOODS WE 
ULDN'T REPORT IT.
WE WOULD WANTHE CORRECT LAW 
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES TO BE 
INVOLVED
>> THANK YOU AS MUCH.
I Y50E8D BAIELD BACK MY TIME.
>> I WANT TO THANK THE WITNESSES
AND MY COLLEAGUES ON MY SIDE OF 
THE AISLE.
I WA TO THANK THE 
EXTRAORDINARY WORK OF OUR TEAM 
WHO HAS DONE AN EXTRAORDINARY 
JOB THROUGHOUT THIS 
INVESTIGATION AND IN PREPARATION
FORUR HEARING TODAY.
TODAY WE HAVE T OPPORTUNITY TO
HEAR FROM THE DECISIONMAKERS AT.
THIS HEANG HAS MADE ONE FACT 
CLEAR TO ME, THESE CPANIES AS 
EXIST TODAY HAVE MONOPY POWER.
SOME NEED TO BE BROKEN UP.
ALL ED TO BE PROPERLY 
REGULATED AND HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
WE NEED TO ENSE THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS WORK IN THE DITAL AGE.
THEIR CONTROLF THE MARKETPLACE
ALLOWED THEM TO DO WHATEVER IT 
TOOK TO CRUSH INDENDENT 
BUSINESSES AND EXPD TIR OWN 
POWER.
THE NAMES HE CHANGED, BUT THE
STORY IS THE SAME.TODAY THE MEN 
CKERBERG, COOK, PICHAI AND 
BEZOS.
ONCE AGAIN, THEIR CONTROL OF THE
MARKETPLACE ALLOWS THEM TO DO 
WHATEVER IT TAKES TO CRUSH 
INPENDENT BUSINESS AND EXPAND 
THEIR EMPOWER.
THIS MUST E.
THISUBCOMMITTEE WILL NEXT 
PUBLISH A REPORT ON THE FINDINGS
OF OUR INVESTIGATION, WE LL 
PROPOSE STLUGZS TO THE PROBLEMS 
BEFORES.
IT WAS ONCE SAID WE MUST MAKE 
OUR CHOICE.
WE MAY DEMOCRACY OR WE MAY HAVE 
WEALTH CONCENTRATED IN THE HANDS
OF A FEW, BUT WE CAN'T HAVE 
BOTH.THIS CONCLUDES TODAY'S HEA.
THANK YOU AGAIN TO OUR WITNESSES
FOR ATTENDING.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, ALL MEMBERS  
TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL WRITTEN 
QUESTION FOR THE WITNESSES OR
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS FOR THE 
RECORD.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, TS HEARING 
 ADJOURNED.
