Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google appear before the House Antitrust Subcommittee

>>> THE SUBCOMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER. WE WELCOME EVERYONE TO TODAY'S HEARING ON ONLINE PLATFORMS AND MARKET POWER PART SIX, EXAMINING THE DOMINANCE OF AMAZON, APPLE, FACEBOOK, AND GOOGLE. BEFORE WE BEGIN, I'D LIKE TO REMIND MEMBERS WE HAVE ESTABLISHED AN EMAIL ADDRESS AND DISTRIBUTION LIST DEDICATED TO CIRCULATING EXHIBITIONS, MOTIONS, OR OTHER MATERIALS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT MATERIALS, PLEASE SEND THEM TO THE EMAIL ADDRESS THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED TO YOUR OFFICE AND WE WILL CIRCULATE THE MATERIALS TO MEMBERS AND STAFF AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. I WOULD ALSO REMIND ALL MEMBERS THAT GUIDANCE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ATTENDING PHYSICIANS STATE THAT PHYSICIAN COVERINGS ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL MEETINGS IN AN ENCLOSED SPACE SUCH AS COMMITTEE HEARINGS. I EXPECT ALL MEMBERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE TO WEAR A MASK EXCEPT WHEN YOU ARE SPEAK. I WILL RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT. MORE THAN A YEAR AGO THIS SUBCOMMITTEE LAUNCHED AN INVESTIGATION INTO DIGITAL MARKETS. OUR TWO OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN TO DOCUMENT COMPETITION PROBLEMS IN THE DIGITAL ECONOMY AND TO EVALUATE WHERE THE CURRENT ANTITRUST FRAMEWORK IS ABLE TO PROPERLY ADDRESS THEM N.

SEPTEMBER 2019, THE CHAIRMAN AND RANKING MEMBERS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ISSUED SWEEPING BIPARTISAN REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION FOR THE FOUR FIRMS THAT WILL AT TODAY'S HEARING. SINCE THEN, WE'VE RECEIVED MILLIONS OF PAGES FROM EVIDENCE FROM THESE FIRMS AS WELL AS DOCUMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS TO MORE THAN 100 MARKET PARTICIPANTS. WE ALSO CONDUCTED HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF INTERVIEWS. WE HAVE HELD FIVE HEARINGS TO EXAMINE THE AFFECTS ON INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP, A FREE AND DIVERSE PRESS, AND INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES IN THE ONLINE MARKETPLACE. WE'VE HELD 17 BRIEFINGS AND ROUND TABLES WITH OVER 35 EXPERTS AND STAKEHOLDERS IN SUPPORT OF OUR WORK. THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN BIPARTISAN FROM THE START. IT'S BEEN AN HONOR TO WORK ALONGSIDE MY COLLEAGUE, CONGRESSMAN AS WELL AS THE FORMER RANKING MEMBER OF THE FULL COMMITTEE, CONGRESSMAN DOUG COLLINS. WE WORKED CLOSELY WITH ALL MEMBERS ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE AND HAVE TAKEN THIS WORK SERIOUSLY AND STUDIED THESE ISSUES CAREFULLY.

AS MY COLLEAGUE, CONGRESSMAN KEN BUCK RECENTLY COMMENTED AND I QUOTE, THIS IS THE MOST BIPARTISAN EFFORT THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH IN FIVE AND A HALF YEARS OF CONGRESS, END QUOTE. THE PURPOSE OF TODAY'S HEARING IS TO EXAMINE THE DOMINANCE OF AMAZON, APPLE, FACEBOOK, AND GOOGLE. AMAZON RUNS THE LARGEST ONLINE MARKETPLACE IN AMERICA, CAPTURING 70% OF ALL ONLINE MARKETPLACE SALES. IT OPERATES ACROSS A VAST ARRAY OF BUSINESSES FROM CLOUD COMPUTING AND MOVIE PRODUCTION TO TRANSPORTATION LOGISTICS AND SMALL BUSINESS LENDING. AMAZON'S MARKET VALUATION HIT $1.5 TRILLION, MORE THAN THAT OF WALMART, TARGET, SALESFORCE, IBM, eBAY, AND ETSY COMBINED. APPLE IS A DOMINANT PROVIDER OF SMARTPHONES WITH MORE THAN 100 MILLION USERS ALONE. IN ADDITION TO HARDWARE, APPLE SELLS FINANCIAL SERVICES, MEDIA, AND GAMES. FACEBOOK IS THE WORLD'S LARGEST PROVIDER OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SERVICES WITH A BUSINESS MODEL THAT SELLS DIGITAL ADS. DESPITE A LITANY OF PRIVACY SCANDALS AND RECORD-BREAKING FINES, FACEBOOK CONTINUES TO ENJOY BILLIONS IN PROFITS, $18 BILLION LAST YEAR ALONE.

LASTLY, GOOGLE IS THE WORLD'S LARGEST ONLINE SEARCH ENGINE, CAPTURING MORE THAN 90% OF SEARCHING ONLINE. IT CONTROLS KEY TECHNOLOGIES AND DIGITAL AD MARKETS AND ENJOYS MORE THAN 1 BILLION USERS ACROSS SIX PRODUCTS, INCLUDING BROWSERS, SMARTPHONES, AND DIGITAL MAPS. PRIOR TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, THESE CORPORATIONS ALREADY STOOD OUT AS TITANS IN OUR ECONOMY. IN THE WAKE OF COVID-19, HOWEVER, THEY'RE LIKELY TO EMERGE STRONGER AND MORE POWERFUL THAN EVER BEFORE.

AS AMERICAN FAMILIES SHIFT MORE OF THEIR WORK, SHOPPING, AND COMMUNICATION ONLINE, THESE GIANTS STAND TO PROFIT. LOCALLY OWNED BUSINESSES MEANWHILE, MOM AND POP STORES ON MAIN STREET FACE AN ECONOMIC CRISIS UNLIKE ANY IN RECENT HISTORY. AS HARD AS IT IS TO BELIEVE, IT'S POSSIBLE OUR ECONOMY WERE EMERGE MORE CONCENTRATED THAN BEFORE. THESE COMPANIES SERVE AS CRITICAL ARTERIES OF COMMERCE AND COMMUNICATIONS. BECAUSE THESE COMPANIES ARE SO CENTRAL TO OUR LIFE, THEIR BUSINESS PRACTICES AND DECISIONS HAVE AN OUTSIZED EFFECT ON OUR ECONOMY AND DEMOCRACY. ANY SINGLE ACTION BY ONE OF THESE COMPANIES CAN AFFECT HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF US IN PROFOUND AND LASTING WAYS. ALTHOUGH THESE FOUR CORPORATIONS DIFFER IN IMPORTANT, MEANINGFUL WAYS, WE OBSERVE COMMON PARTNERS AND COMPETITION PROBLEMS OVER THE THE COURSE OF THIS INVESTIGATION. FIRST, EACH PLATFORM IS A BOTTLE NECK FOR A KEY CHANNEL OF DISTRIBUTION WHERE THEY CONTROL ACCESS TO INFORMATION OR A MARKETPLACE, THESE PLATFORMS HAVE THE INCENTIVE AND ABILITY TO EXPLOIT THIS POWER.

THEY CAN CHARGE EXORBITANT FEES. SECOND, EACH PLATFORM USES ITS CONTROL OVER DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO SURVEIL OTHER COMPANIES, THAT I SHALL GROWTH, BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND WHETHER THEY MIGHT POSE A COMPETITIVE THREAT. EACH PLATFORM HAS USED THIS DATA TO PROTECT ITS POWER BY EITHER BUYING, COPYING, OR CUTTING OFF ACCESS FOR ANY ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL RIVAL. THIRD, THESE PLATFORMS ABUSE THEIR CONTROL OVER CURRENT TECHNOLOGIES TO EXTEND THEIR POWER, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH SELF-PREFERENCING, PREDATORY PRICING, OR REQUIRING USERS TO BUY ADDITIONAL PRODUCTS THE DOMINANT PLATFORMS HAVE WIELDED THEIR POWER IN DESTRUCTIVE, HARMFUL WAYS IN ORDER TO EXPAND. AT TODAY'S HEARING, WE'LL EXAMINE HOW EACH COMPANY HAS USED THIS PLAYBOOK TO ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN DOMINANCE AND HOW THEIR POWER SHAPES AND AFFECTS OUR DAILY LIVES. WHY DOES THIS MATTER? MANY OF THE PRACTICES USED BY THESE COMPANIES HAVE HARMFUL ECONOMIC EFFECTS. THEY DISCOURAGE ENTREPRENEURSHIP, DESTROY JOBS, HIKE COSTS, AND DEGRADE QUALITY. SIMPLY PUT, THEY HAVE TOO MUCH POWER. THIS POWER STAVES OFF NEW FORMS OF COMPETITION, CREATIVITY, AND INNOVATION. WHILE THESE DOMINANT FORMS MAY PRODUCE INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS, THEIR DOMINANCE IS KILLING SMALL BUSINESSES, MANUFACTURING, AND OVERALL DYNAMISM THAT ARE THE ENGINES OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.

SEVERAL OF THESE FIRMS ALSO HARVEST AND ABUSE PEOPLE'S DATA TO SELL ADS FOR EVERYTHING FROM NEW BOOKS TO DANGEROUS SO-CALLED MIRACLE CURES. WHEN EVERYDAY AMERICANS LEARNED HOW MUCH OF THEIR DATA IS BEING MINED, THEY CAN'T RUN AWAY FAST ENOUGH. BUT IN MANY CASES, THERE IS NO ESCAPE FROM THE SURVEILLANCE BECAUSE THERE'S NO ALTERNATIVE. PEOPLE ARE STUCK WITH BAD OPTIONS. OPEN MARKETS ARE PREDICATED ON THE IDEA THAT IF A COMPANY HARMS PEOPLE, CONSUMERS, WORKERS AND BUSINESS PARTNERS WILL CHOOSE ANOTHER OPTION. WE'RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THAT CHOICE IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE. IN CLOSING, I'M CONFIDENT THAT ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS WE SEE IN THESE MARKETS WILL LEAD TO A STRONGER, MORE VIBRATE ECONOMY BECAUSE CONCENTRATED ECONOMIC POWER ALSO LEADS TO CONCENTRATED POLITICAL POWER, THIS INVESTIGATION ALSO GOES TO THE HEART OF WHERE THE "WE" AS A PEOPLE GOVERNOR OURSELVES OR WHETHER WE LET OURSELVES BE GOVERNED BY PRIVATE MONOPOLIES.

CONCENTRATED POLITICAL CONTROL ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH DEMOCRATIC IDEALS. WHEN THEY WERE CONFRONTED IN THE PAST, OIL TIE CONS, AT&T OR MICROSOFT, WE TOOK ACTION TO ENSURE NO PRIVATE CORPORATION CONTROLS OUR ECONOMY OR OUR DEMOCRACY. WE FACE SIMILAR CHALLENGES TODAY. AS GATEKEEPERS OF THE DIGITAL ECONOMY, THESE PLATFORMS ENJOY THE POWER TO PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS, TO SHAKE DOWN SMALL BUSINESSES AND ENRICH THEMSELVES BY CHOKING OFF COMPETITORS. THEIR ABILITY TO DICTATE TERMS, CALL THE SHOTS, UP END ENTIRE SECTORS AND INSPIRE FEAR REPRESENT THE POWERS OF A PRIVATE GOVERNMENT. OUR FOUNDERS WOULD NOT BOW BEFORE A KING, NOR SHOULD WE BOW BEFORE THE EMPERORS OF THE ONLINE ECONOMY. WITH THAT, I NOW RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, MR. CICILLINE FOR. >> A MEMORANDUM SERVICE FOR JOHN LEWIS ON MONDAY REQUIRED OUR ATTENTION.

HOWEVER, THIS HEARING IS VITAL TO OUR OVERSIGHT WORK AND I APPRECIATE YOUR FLEXIBILITY. THROUGHOUT MY LONG TIME IN CONGRESS, I HAVE PRIORITIZED OVERSITE IS ONE OF OUR RESPONSIBILITIES, TO PERIODICALLY REVIEW IF EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR LAWS, AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD AND TIMELY THING WE ARE NOW TURNING OUR ATTENTION TO TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS WHICH BRINGS US TO ALL OF YOUR COMPANIES. EXTRAORDINARILY RELIANCE AMERICANS HAVE ON TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS AND THESE UNEXPECTED AND UNPRECEDENTED TIMES, YOUR COMPANIES HAVE PROVIDED INNOVATIONS THROUGH OUR NATION'S CREATING A MYRIAD OF OUR DAILY NEEDS. THE DELIVERY OF GROCERIES, VIRTUAL BUSINESS FOR DOCTORS, CONNECTING SOCIALLY DISTANT FAMILIES, KEEPING OUR SMALL AND LARGE BUSINESSES CONNECT. WITH THAT RESPONSIBILITY COMES AN INCREASED SCRUTINY OF YOUR DOMINANCE IN THE MARKETPLACE. I WANT TO REITERATE SOMETHING I SAID THROUGHOUT THIS INVESTIGATION, BEING BIG IS NOT INHERENTLY BAD. QUITE THE OPPOSITE. IN AMERICA YOU SHOULD BE REWARDED FOR SUCCESS. WE'RE HERE TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE ROLE YOUR COMPANIES HAVE IN THE DIGITAL MARKETPLACE AND IMPORTANTLY, THE EFFECT THEY HAVE ON CONSUMERS AND THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. YOU YOU LEAD SOME OF TODAY'S MOST POWERFUL COMPANIES AND WE HAVE AN INTEREST IN WHAT YOUR COMPANIES DO WITH THAT ACCUMULATED POWER.

WILLIAMSON KNOW THAT THE TECH MARKETPLACE IS DRIVEN BY DATA, SO IT FOLLOWS THAT THOSE WHO CONTROL THE DATA IN ESSENCE CONTROL THE MARKETPLACE. THERE ARE BROADER QUESTIONS SURROUNDING DATA, WHO OWNS THE DATA, WHAT RESPONSIBILITIES TO COMPANIES HAVE TO SHARE WITH THEIR CUSTOMERS OR THEIR COMPETITORS, WHAT IS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THAT DATA, IS THERE ANYTHING MOABOUT REQUIRIN THIS DATA AND WHAT ABOUT MONETIZING IT. THESE ARE COMPLEX ISSUES THAT EVEN YOUR OWN COMPANIES ARE WRESTLING WITH IN THE CURRENTLY TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE, AND THE ANSWERS TO WHICH WE OWE THE AMERICAN CONSUMERS.

SINCE THE TECH INVESTIGATION BEGAN, WE'VE HEARD RUMBLINGS FROM MANY WHO WERE QUICK TO SAY YOUR SUCCESSFUL COMPANIES HAVE GROWN TOO LARGE. IT SEEMS THOSE COMPLAINTS HAVE GOTTEN EVEN LOUDER. WHILE I FIND THESE COMPLAINTS INFORMATIVE, I DON'T PLAN ON LITIGATING EACH OF THESE COMPLAINTS TODAY. ANTITRUST LAW AND THE CONSUMER WELFARE STANDARD HAS SERVED THIS COUNTRY WELL FOR OVER A CENTURY. THOSE LAWS HAVE PROVIDED THE FRAMEWORK AND CREATIVITY TO MAKE WAY FOR SOME OF OUR MOST SUCCESSFUL AND INNOVATIVE COMPANIES. I WILL BE THE FIRST TO HIGHLIGHT THAT. HOWEVER, AS THE BUSINESS LANDSCAPE INVOLVES, WE MUST ENSURE THAT OUR EXISTING ANTITRUST LAWS ARE APPLIED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR COUNTRY AND ITS CONSUMERS. I SHARE THE CONCERN THAT MARKET DOMINANCE IN THE DIGITAL SPACE IS RIPE FOR ABUSE, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO FREE SPEECH. AS WE KNOW, COMPANIES LIKE FACEBOOK, GOOGLE'S YOUTUBE AND TWITTER HAVE BECOME THE PUBLIC SQUARE OF TODAY WHERE POLITICAL DEBATE UNFOLDS IN REAL TIME.

BUT REPORTS THAT DESCENDING VIEWS, OFTEN CONSERVATIVE VIEWS, ARE TARGETED OR CENSORED IS TROUBLING. CONSERVATIVES ARE OUR CONSUMERS TOO, AND THEY NEED THE PROTECTION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS. THE POWER TO INFLUENCE DEBATE CARRIES WITH IT REMARKABLE RESPONSIBILITIES. SO LET THE FACTS BE OUR GUIDE HERE. YOUR COMPANIES ARE LARGE, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. YOUR COMPANIES ARE SUCCESSFUL. THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM EITHER. BUT I WANT TO LEAVE HERE TODAY WITH A MORE COMPLETE PICTURE OF HOW YOUR INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES USE YOUR SIZE, SUCCESS, AND POWER AND WHAT IT MEANS TO THE AMERICAN CONSUMER. I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. NOW THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE DISTINGUISHED CHAIRMAN OF THE FULL COMPMITTEE, MR.

NADLER, FO HIS OPENING STATEMENT. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WANT TO THANK YOU, RANKING MEMBER SENSENBRENNER AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR THE TREMENDOUS EFFORT YOU PUT TO THIS INVESTIGATION. I APPRECIATE YOUR CALLING THIS HEARING TODAY SO THAT WE CAN HEAR DIRECTLY FROM THE LEADERS OF AMAZON, APPLE, FACEBOOK, AND GOOGLE, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO AN IMPORTANT DIALOGUE. TODAY IT IS EFFECTIVELY IMPOSSIBLE TO USE THE INTERNET WITHOUT USING IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER THE SERVICES OF THESE FOUR COMPANIES.

I LONGED BELIEVED WITH THOMAS JEFFERSON AND LOUIS BRANDEIS THE CONCENTRATION OF POWER IN MY FORM, EMS ECONOMIC OR POLITICAL POWER, IS DANGEROUS TO A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY. THAT IS WHY WE MUST EXAMINE THESE AND OTHER COMPANIES THAT PLAY A DOMINANT ROLE IN OUR ECONOMY AND IN OUR SOCIETY AND ENSURE THAT OUR ANTITRUST LAWS PRESERVES A HEALTHY MARKETPLACE. THESE PRINCIPLES HAVE GUIDED THIS COMPETE'S YEAR-LONG INVESTIGATION INTO COMPETITION IN DIGITAL MARKETS, AND THEY ARE THE LENS THROUGH WHICH I APPROACH TODAY'S HEARING. THE OPEN INTERNET HAS DELIVERED ENORMOUS BENEFITS TO AMERICANS, INCLUDING A SURGE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, MASSIVE INVESTMENT AND NEW PATHWAYS FOR EDUCATION ONLINE.

BUT THERE'S GROWING EVIDENCE THAT A HANDFUL OF CORPORATIONS HAVE CAPTURED A SHARE OF ONLINE COMMERCE. FROM PROVIDING THE DIAMOND IN SEARCH PLATFORM, RETAIL PLATFORM, AND ONLINE MESSAGING PLATFORM TO PROVIDING THE UNDERLYING MAPPING SERVICES AND CLOUD COMPUTING ON WHICH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER BUSINESSES RELY, THESE DOMINANT PLATFORMS NOW COMPRISE THE ESSENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21st CENTURY. BY VIRTUE OF CONTROLLING THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THEY HAVE ACCESS TO MARKETS. IN SOME BASIC WAYS, THE PROBLEM IS NOT UNLIKE WHAT WE FACED 130 YEARS AGO WHEN RAILROADS TRANSFORMED AMERICAN LIFE, BOTH T ALSO CREATING A KEY CHOKE HOLD THE RAILROAD MONOPOLIES COULD EXPLOIT. THEY CHARGED TOLLS, THEY DISCRIMINATED AMONG FARMERS, PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS ACROSS THE ECONOMY, AND BY EXPANDING INTO LINES OF BUSINESS THAT COMPETED DIRECTLY WITH PRODUCERS, THEY COULD USE THEIR DOMINANCE IN TRANSPORTATION TO FAVOR THEIR OWN SERVICES.

THESE TACTICS BY THE RAILROADS SPURRED FURY AND DESPAIR ACROSS THE COUNTRY. CONGRESS INITIATED INVESTIGATIONS TO DOCUMENT THESE PROBLEMS AND OUTLAWED THESE ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES IN THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY AND OTHER INDUSTRIES DOMINATED BY UNREGULATED MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS. IMPORTANTLY, CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT DURING THIS PERIOD DIDN'T PREVENT THE ARRIVAL OF NEW TECHNOLOGY OR HUMAN PROGRESS. INSTEAD, CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THAT THESE POWERFUL NEW TECHNOLOGIES HAD RESHAPED THE BALANCE OF POWER IN OUR ECONOMY AND THAT IT WAS THE ROLE OF CONGRESS TO ENSURE THAT THE NEW MONOPOLIZES COULD NOT ABUSE THEIR POWER.

TODAY THE ECONOMY POSES SIMILAR CHALLENGES. WHILE THE UNDERLYING TECHNOLOGY IS DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT, OF COURSE, NEW DIGITAL INTERMEDIARIES HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL ACCESS TO CRITICAL MARKETS. IF YOU'RE AN INDEPENDENT MERCHANT, DEVELOPER, OR CONTENT PRODUCER, YOU ARE INCREASINGLY RIGHT NOW ON THESE POWERFUL INTER INTERMEDIA INTERMEDIARIES. THE FACT THAT SOME COMPANIES HAVE SHARED WITH THE COMMITTEE OVER THE PAST YEAR DURING THIS INVESTIGATION. THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S CURRENT REVIEW OF COMPETITION IN THE DIGITAL MARKETPLACE TANS LONG TRADITION OF THIS COMMITTEE OF OVERSIGHT OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS AND OUR ECONOMY. FROM THE DAYS OF CHAIRMAN EMANUEL SELLER, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND ITS ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE HAVE CONDUCTED CAREFUL INQUIRIES INTO INDUSTRIAL SECTORS SHOWING CONSOLIDATION AND ANTI-COMPETITIVE CONDUCT.

THIS HAS CONTINUED ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS OVER THE YEARS. AS A 1950 REPORT FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MONOPOLY POWER DESCRIBED, QUOTE, IT IS THE PROVINCE OF THIS SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE FACTORS WHICH TENDED TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION, STRENGTHEN MONOPOLIES, INJURE SMALL BUSINESSES OR PROMOTE UNDO YOU CONCENTRATE OF ECONOMIC POWER, TO ASCERTAIN THE FACTS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THOSE FINDINGS. FOLLOWING IN THIS PROUD TRADITION, OUR INVESTIGATING HAS HELD HERE GOES WITH INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT WITNESSES, CONSULTATIONS WITH SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS, AND A CAREFUL AND AT TIMES PAINSTAKING REVIEW OF LARGE VOLUMES OF EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY INDUSTRY SKPARPTS REGULATORS.

WHILE ULTIMATELY IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO ENFORCE THE LAW, CONGRESS HAS AN OBLIGATION TO ASSESS WHETHER EXISTING ANTITRUST LAWS AND COMPETITION POLICIES AND THE WILL TO ENFORCE THOSE LAWS AND POLICIES ARE ADEQUATE TO ADDRESS THE COMPETITION ISSUES FACING OUR COUNTRY AND TO TAKE ACTION IF THEY ARE FIND TO BE LACKING. GIVEN DOMINANT ROLE THEY PLAY IN OUR ECONOMY AND SOCIETY, IT IS ONLY REASONABLE THAT OUR CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS BEGIN WITH THEM. I APPRECIATE THE PARTICIPATION OF ALL OF OUR WITNESSES TODAY. THE INVESTIGATION WOULD NOT BE COMPLETE. INDEED IT HAS HARDLY BEGUN WITHOUT HEARING DIRECTLY FROM THE DECISION-MAKERS OF THESE COMPANIES. I LOOK FORWARD TO THEIR TESTIMONY AND TO THE DAY'S DISCUSSIONS. I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY FULL TIME. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN AND I NOW RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE FULL COMMITTEE, THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO, MR.

JORDAN, FOR HIS OPENING STATEMENT. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. I WANT TO THANK THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, MR. SENSENBRENNER. I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY MORE MEETINGS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IN THIS CONGRESS, BUT I WANT TO THANK JIM FOR THE CONSTITUENTS OF HIS DISTRICT IN WISCONSIN FOR THIS MANY YEARS AND FOR THE WORK HE'S DONE FOR THIS ENTIRE COMMITTEE. I'LL JUST CUT TO THE CHASE. BIG TECH IS OUT TO GET CONSERVATIVES. THAT'S NOT A HUNCH, THAT'S A FACT. JULY 20th, 2020, GOOGLE TROOUFZ HOME PAGES OF BREITBART AND THE DAILY COLLAR. JUST LAST NIGHT WE LEARNED GOOGLE HAS CENSURED SO MUCH, TRAFFIC HAS DECLINED 99%. JUNE 6th, GOOGLE BANS THE FEDERALIST. APRIL, GOOGLE AND YOUTUBE ANNOUNCE A POLICY CENSURING THE CONTENT THAT CONFLICTS WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. AN ORGANIZATION THAT LIED TO US, THAT SHIELDED CHINA. IF YOU CONTRADICT SOMETHING THEY SAY, THEY CAN SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT. THEY CAN LIE FOR CHINA. THEY CAN SHIELD FOR CHINA.

YOU SAY SOMETHING AGAINST THEM, YOU GET CENSURED. JUNE 29, 2020, AEMGZ BANS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACCOUNT ON TWITCH AFTER HE RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT DEFUNDING THE POLICE. JUNE 4th, 2020, AMAZON BANS A BOOK CRITICAL OF THE CORONAVIRUS LOCKDOWNS WRITTEN BY A CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR. MAY 27th, 2020, AMAZON SMILE WON'T LET YOU GIVE TO THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL, BUT YOU CAN GIVE TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD. FACEBOOK, JUNE 19th, 2020, TAKES DOWN POSTS FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN. NOVEMBER 1st, 2018, FACEBOOK SILENCES A PRO-LIFE ORGANIZATION'S ADVERTISEMENT.

FORMER FACEBOOK EMPLOYEES ADMIT FACEBOOK ROUTINELY SUPPRESSES CONSERVATIVE VIEWS. AND I HAVEN'T EVEN MENTIONED TWITTER WHO WE ACTUALLY INVITED, MR. CHAIRMAN. WE ASKED FOR YOU GUYS TO INVITE HIM AS ONE OF OUR WITNESSES. YOU GUYS SAID NO. I HAVEN'T EVEN MENTIONED THEM. TWO YEARS AGO THEY SHADOW BANNED TWO MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE. FOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WERE SHADOW BANNED TWO YEARS AGO. 435 IN THE HOUSE, ONLY FOUR GET SHADOW BANNED. WHAT DID MR. DORSEY TELL US? OH, IT WAS JUST A GLITCH IN OUR ALGORITHM. I ASKED HIM WHAT DID YOU PUT, THE NAMES GATES, NUNES, JORDAN? IF I HAD A NIBBLING FOR EVERY TIME I HEARD IT WAS JUST A GLITCH, I WOULDN'T BE AS WEALTHY AS OUR WITNESSES, BUT I'D BE DOING ALL RIGHT. WE'VE HEARD THAT EXCUSE TIME AND TIME AGAIN, MAY 28th, TWITTER CENSURES PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TWEET ON THE RIOTS IN MINNEAPOLIS. JUNE 23rd, 2020, TWITTER CENSURES THE PRESIDENT SAYING HE'LL ENFORCE THE RULE OF LAW AGAINST ANY AUTONOMOUS ZONE IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

THE PRESIDENT TWEETS THAT HE'S NOT GOING TO FIND ONE IN WASHINGTON, D.C., NOPE, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. YOU GET BANNED, YOU GET CENSURED, DOZENS OF EXAMPLES — I FORGOT ONE. I FORGOT ONE. JUST LAST WEEK JULY 21st, HERE'S WHAT TWITTER DID. THE LEADER OF IRAN, THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN — THIS IS FROM THE LARGEST STATE SPONSOR OF TERRORISM, TWITTER ALLOWS THIS TWEET. QUOTE, THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN WILL NEVER FORGET THE MARTYRDOM OF SOLEIMANI AND WILL DEFINITELY STRIKE A RECIPROCAL BLOW IN THE UNITED STATES. SO YOU CAN THEN THE CITIZENS OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY, THE LEADER OF THE LARGEST STATE SPONSOR OF TERRORISM, THAT'S JUST FINE. BUT ALL THE PRESIDENT SAYS HE'S NOT GOING TO ALLOW SOME AUTONOMOUS ZONE IN D.C.

AND HE GETS — HE GETS CENSURED. ALL KINDS OF EXAMPLES, MOST OF THEM FROM THIS YEAR, AND THAT'S WHAT'S, I THINK, CRITICAL FOR US ALL TO UNDERSTAND. MOST OF THEM FROM THIS YEAR, AN ELECTION YEAR, AND THAT'S WHAT CONCERNS ME AND SO MANY AMERICANS BECAUSE WE SAW WHAT GOOGLE DID IN 2016. WE ALL KNOW ABOUT THE EMAIL THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION WHERE TOP EXECUTIVES AT GOOGLE EMAIL CHAIN WHERE THEY TALKED ABOUT THE SILENT DONATION GOOGLE MADE TO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN.

THANK GOODNESS IT ONE POINT ENOUGH AND IN SPITE OF THEIR EFFORTS, PRESIDENT TRUMP WON. BUT WE'RE 97 DAYS BEFORE AN ELECTION AND THE POWER AS THE PREVIOUS CHAIRMAN AND RANKING MEMBER HAVE SAID, THE POWER THESE COMPANIES HAVE TO IMPACT WHAT HAPPENS DURING AN ELECTION WHAT WORKS AMERICAN CITIZENS GET TO SEE PRIOR TO THEIR VOTING IS PRETTY DARN IMPORTANT. LOOK, ALL THINK THE FREE MARKET'S GREAT. WE THINK COMPETITION IS GREAT. BUT WHAT'S NOT GREAT IS CENSURING PEOPLE, CENSURING CONSERVATIVES AND TRYING TO IMPACT ELECTIONS. IF IT DOESN'T END, THERE HAS TO BE CONSEQUENCES. THERE HAVE TO BE CONSEQUENCES.

THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT AND I THINK WHAT SO MANY AMERICANS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING IF OUR WITNESSES, MR. CHAIRMAN. BEFORE I YIELD BACK, WE HAVE A COLLEAGUE. I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT MR. JOHNSON, THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE CONSTITUTION SUBCOMMITTEE BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN TODAY'S HEARING, WHICH IS OUR CUSTOMARY PRACTICE FOR SUBCOMMITTEE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD OBJECT. >> OBJECTION IS HEARD. AND NOWTIVE PLEASURE OF — >> WITNESSES? WHY ARE WE NOT ALLOWING — IT IS CUSTOMARY. >> THERE WAS A UNANIMOUS CONSENT QUESTION, OBJECTION WAS HEARD, AND I WILL INTRODUCE OUR WITNESS.

>> THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED — >> IT IS NOW MY PLEASURE TO INTRODUCE TODAY'S WITNESS. OUR FIRST WITNESS IS JEFF BEZOS — MR. JORDAN, I HAVE THE TEAM. >> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE'S LIBERTIES HERE. WE HAVE THE RANKING MEMBER — >> MR. JORDAN, YOU MADE A REQUEST, OBJECTION WAS HEARD. >> OUR FIRST WITNESS IS JEFF BEZOS — >> PUT YOUR MASK ON. >> MR. BEZOS FOUNDED AMAZON IN 19 — EXCUSE ME. I'M GOING TO REMIND MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE, UNLESS YOU ARE SPEAKING, OUR RULES REQUIRE YOU TO WEAR A MASK ACCORDING TO THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN.

I'M SPEAKING ABOUT ANOTHER MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE. I'LL BEGIN AGAIN. IT IS NOW MY PLEASURE TO INTRODUCE TODAY'S WITNESSES. OUR FIRST WITNESS IS JEFF BEZOS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF AMAZON.COM. MR. BEZOS FOUNDED AMAZON IN 1994 AS AN ONLINE BOOKSTORE. SINCE THEN AMAZON HAS GROWN TO BE THE LARGEST ONLINE RETAILER ON THE INTERNET. MR. BEZOS OVER SEES HIS COMPANY'S EXPANSION INTO CLOUD COMPUTING, DIGITAL STREAMING, AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. MR. BEZOS RECEIVED HIS BACHELOR'S OF SCIENCE FROM PRINCETON UNIVERSITY.

OUR SECOND WITNESS, SUNDAR PICHAI, IS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ALPHABET AND GOOGLE. MR. PICHAI ALSO OVERSEES THE COMPANY'S SEARCH PRODUCTS. PRIOR TO HIS TIME AT GOOGLE, HE WORKED AT McKIN ZIP HE RECEIVED A DEGREE IN METALLURGICAL ENGINEERING, A MASTER'S FROM STANFORD AND AN MBA FROM THE WHARTON SCHOOL OF PENNSYLVANIA. THIRD IS TIM COOK. HE JOINED APPLE IN 1998 AND SERVED AS ITS CHIEF OPERATIONAL OFFICER UNDER STEVE JOBS. IN 2011, MR. COOK WAS NAMED CEO. WHILE AT APPLE, HE HAS OVERSEEN THEIR EXPANSION INTO NEW MARKETS THROUGH LAUNCH AND DEVELOPMENTS OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES LIKE APPLE PAY, APPLE WATCH, iCLOUD, APPLE CORD AND HOME POD.

MR. COOK SERVED AS THE DIRECTOR OF NORTH AMERICAN FULFILLMENT FOR IBM. HE RECEIVED A BACHELOR FROM SCIENCE OF AUBURN UNIVERSITY AND AN MBA FROM DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF BUSINESS. THE LAST WITNESS IS MARK ZUCKERBERG, FOUNDER, CHAIRMAN, AND CEO OF FACEBOOK. MR. ZUCKERBERG INITIALLY LAUNCHED FACEBOOK IN ORDER TO HELP CONNECT COLLEGE STUDENTS AT HIS SCHOOL MORE EASILY. SINCE THEN, THE COMPANY HAS GROWN INTO THE WORLD'S LARGEST SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM WITH 1.7 BILLION GLOBAL DAILY ACTIVE USERS. HE ATTENDED HARVARD UNIVERSITY BEFORE LEAVING TO FOCUS FULL TIME ON DEVELOPING FACEBOOK. WE WELCOME ALL OF OUR DISTINGUISHED WITNESSES AND THANK THEM FOR PARTICIPATING IN TODAY'S HEARING. AND NOW I WILL BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU IN. BEFORE I DO THAT, I WANT TO ALSO REMIND YOU THAT YOU ARE THE ONLY ONES FROM YOUR RESPECTIVE COMPANIES INVITED TO TESTIFY TODAY.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION G OF THE HOUSE REMOTE COMMITTEE PROCEEDING REGULATIONS, YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY MUST BE YOUR OWN. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU WISH TO MUTE YOURSELF SO YOU CAN CONFER WITH YOUR COUNSEL. PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HANDS. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE SO HELP YOU GOD? >> YES. >> LET THE RECORD SHOW THE WITNESSES ANSWERED INTO THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU. YOU MAY BE SEATED. YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENTS WILL BE WRITTEN INTO THE RECORD ENTIRELY. I ASK THAT YOU SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY IN FIVE MINUTES TO HELP YOU STAY WITHIN THAT TIME, THERE IS A TIMING LIGHT IN WEB WEATHER CONDITIONS. WHEN THE LIGHT SWITCHES FROM WHEN THE LIGHT TURNS RED, IT SIGNALS YOUR FIVE MINUTES HAVE EXPIRED.

MR. BEZOS, YOU MAY BEGIN. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN CICILLINE AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE. I WAS BORN INTO GREAT WEALTH, NOT MONETARY WEALTH, BUT THE WEALTH OF A LOVING FAMILY THAT ENCOURAGED ME TO DREAM BIG. MOM MY MOM, JACKIE, HAD ME WHEN SHE WAS A 17-YEAR-OLD HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT IN ALBUQUERQUE. BEING PREGNANT IN HIGH SCHOOL WAS NOT POPULAR. THE SCHOOL TRIED TO KICK HER OUT BUT SHE WAS ALLOWED TO FINISH AFTER MY GRANDFATHER NEGOTIATED TERMS WITH THE PRINCIPAL. SHE COULDN'T HAVE A LOCKER, NO EXTRACURRICULARS, SHE GRADUATED AND WAS DETERMINED TO CONTINUE HER EDUCATION. SHE ENROLLED IN NIGHT SCHOOL AND BROUGHT ME TO CLASS THROUGHOUT. MY DAD'S NAME IS MIGUEL. HE ADOPTED ME WHEN I WAS 4. HE WAS 16 WHEN HE CAME TO THE U.S. FROM CUBA BY HIMSELF SHORTLY AFTER CASTRO TOOK OVER. MY DAD DIDN'T SPEAK ENGLISH AND HE DID NOT HAVE AN EASY PAST.

WHAT HE DID HAVE WAS GRIT AND DETERMINATION. HE RECEIVED A SCHOLARSHIP TO COLLEGE IN ALBUQUERQUE, WHICH IS WHERE HE MET MY MOM. TOGETHER WITH MY GRANDPARENTS, THESE HARD-WORKING, RESOURCEFUL, AND LOVING PEOPLE MADE ME WHO I AM. I WALKED AWAY FROM A STEADY JOB ON WALL STREET INTO A SEATTLE GARAGE TO FOUND AMAZON, FULLY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT MIGHT NOT WORK. IT FEELS LIKE YESTERDAY I WAS DRIVING THE PACKAGES TO THE POST OFFICE MYSELF, DREAMING THAT ONE DAY WE MIGHT AFFORD A FORKLIFT.

CUSTOMER OBSESSION HAS DRIVEN OUR SUCCESS AND I TAKE IT AS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT CUSTOMERS NOTICE WHEN YOU DO THE RIGHT THING. YOU EARN TRUST SLOWLY, OVER TIME, BY DOING HARD THINGS WELL, DELIVERING ON TIME, OFFERING EVERYDAY LOW PRICES, MAKING PROMISES AND KEEPING THEM AND MAKING PRINCIPLE DECISIONS, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE UNPOPULAR. AND OUR APPROACH IS WORKING. 80% OF AMERICANS HAVE A FAVORABLE IMPRESSION OF AMAZON OVERALL. WHO DO AMERICANS TRUST MORE THAN AMAZON TO DO THE RIGHT THING? ONLY THEIR DOCTORS AND THE MILITARY. THE RETAIL MARKET WE PARTICIPATE IN IS EXTRAORDINARILY LARGE AND COMPETITIVE. AMAZON ACCOUNTS FOR LESS THAN 1% OF THE $25 TRILLION RETAIL MARKET AND LESS THAN 4% OF U.S. RETAIL. THERE'S ROOM IN RETAIL FOR WINNERS. WE COMPETE AGAINST LARGE, ESTABLISHED PLAYERS LIKE TARGET, CROSS-COE, KROGER, AND, OF COURSE, WALMART, A COMPANY MORE THAN TWICE AMAZON'S SIZE. 20 YEARS AGO WE MADE THE DECISION TO INVITE OTHER SELLERS TO SELL ON OUR STORE TO SHARE SAME VALUABLE REAL ESTATE WE SPEND BILLIONS TO BUILD MARKET AND MAINTAIN. WE BELIEVE THAT COMBINING THE STRENGTHS OF AMAZON'S STORE WITH THE VAST SELECTION OF PRODUCTS OFFERED BY THIRD PARTIES WOULD BE A BETTER EXPERIENCE FOR CUSTOMERS AND THE GROWING PIE WOULD BE BIG ENOUGH FOR ALL.

WE WERE BETTING THAT IT WAS NOT A ZERO-SUM GAME. FORTUNATELY WE WERE RIGHT. THERE ARE NOW 1.7 MILLION SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED BUSINESSES SELLING ON AMAZON. THE TRUST CUSTOMERS PUT IN US HAS ALLOWED AMAZON TO CREATE MORE JOBS IN THE UNITED STATES OVER THE PAST DECADE THAN ANY OTHER COMPANY. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS ACROSS 42 STATES. AMAZON EMPLOYEES MAKE A MINIMUM OF $15 AN HOUR, MORE THAN DOUBLE THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE. AND WE OFFER THE BEST BENEFITS, BENEFITS THAT INCLUDE COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE, 401(k) RETIREMENT, AND PARENTAL LEAVE, WHICH INCLUDES 20 WEEKS OF AID MATERNITY LEAVE. MORE THAN ANYPLACE ON EARTH, ENTREPRENEURIAL COMPANIES START, GROW, AND THRIVE HERE IN THE U.S. WE NURTURE ENTREPRENEURS AND START-UPS WITH STABLE RULE OF LAW, THE FINEST UNIVERSITY SYSTEM IN THE WORLD, THE FREEDOM OF DEMOCRACY, AND A DEEPLY ACCEPTED CULTURE OF RISK TAKING. OF COURSE, THIS GREAT NATION OF OURS IS FAR FROM PERFECT.

EVEN AS WE REMEMBER CONGRESSMAN JOHN LEWIS AND HONOR HIS LEGACY, WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A MUCH NEEDED RACE RECKONING. WE ALSO FACE CLIMATE CHANGE AND INCOME EQUALITY AND WE'RE STR STUMBLING THROUGH THE CRISIS OF A GLOBAL PANDEMIC. STILL, THE REST OF THE WORLD WOULD LOVE TEEN TINIEST SIP OF THE ELIXIR WE HAVE HERE IN THE U.S. IMMIGRANTS LIKE MY DAD SEE WHAT A TREASURE THIS COUNTRY IS.

THEY HAVE PERSPECTIVE AND OFTEN CAN SEE IT EVEN MORE CLEARLY THAN THOSE OF US WHO WERE LUCKY ENOUGH TO BE BORN HERE. IT IS STILL DAY ONE FOR THIS COUNTRY AND EVEN IN THE FACE OF TODAY'S HUMBLING CHALLENGES I HAVE NEVER BEEN MORE OPTIMISTIC ABOUT OUR FUTURE. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY, AND I'M VERY HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, MR. BEZOS. MR. PICHAI, YOU ARE NOW RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER SENSENBRENNER, AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE. BEFORE I START, I KNOW THIS HEARING WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF THE CEREMONIES TO HONOR THE LIFE OF YOUR COLLEAGUE, REPRESENTATIVE JOHN LEWIS. BECAUSE OF HIS COURAGE, THIS WORLD IS A BETTER PLACE. HE'LL BE DEEPLY MISSED. BUT IT'S HARD TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT OPPORTUNITY. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN MORE IMPORTANT AS THE GLOBAL PANDEMIC POSES DUAL CHALLENGES TO OUR HEALTH AND OUR ECONOMY. EXPANDING ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY TO TECHNOLOGY IS PERSONAL TO ME. I DIDN'T HAVE MUCH ACCESS TO A COMPUTER GROWING UP IN INDIA.

SO YOU CAN IMAGINE MY AMAZEMENT WHEN I ARRIVED IN THE U.S. FOR GRADUATE SCHOOL AND SAW AN ENTIRE LAB OF COMPUTERS TO USE WHENEVER I WANTED. ACCESSING THE INTERNET FOR THE FIRST TIME SET ME ON A PATH TO BRING TECHNOLOGY TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. IT INSPIRED ME TO BUILD GOOGLE'S FIRST BROWSER, CHROME. I'M PROUD THAT 11 YEARS LATER, SO MANY PEOPLE EXPERIENCED THAT THROUGH CHROME FOR FREE. GOOGLE TAKES PRIDE IN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE OUR PRODUCTS OF WE ARE EVEN PROUDER OF WHAT THEY DO WITH THEM. FROM THE 140 MILLION STUDENTS AND TEACHERS USING G SUITE FOR EDUCATION TO STAY CONNECTED DURING THE PANDEMIC, TO THE 5 MILLION AMERICANS GAINING DIGITAL SKILLS THROUGH GLOBAL GOOGLE, TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TURNED TO GOOGLE FOR HELP, FROM FINDING THE FASTEST ROUTE HOME, TO LEARNING HOW TO COOK A NEW DISH ON YOUTUBE. GOOGLE'S WORK WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT THE LONG TRADITION OF AMERICAN INNOVATION.

WE EMPLOY MORE THAN 75,000 PEOPLE IN THE U.S. ACROSS 26 STATES. THE PROGRESS OF POLICY AND SECURITY ESTIMATED THAT IN 2018 WE INVESTED MORE THAN $20 BILLION IN THE U.S., CITING US AS THE LARGEST CAPITAL INVESTOR IN AMERICA THAT YEAR AND ONE OF THE TOP FIVE FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS. ONE WAY WE CONTRIBUTE IS BY BUILDING HELPFUL PRODUCT. RESEARCH FOUND THAT FREE SERVICES LIKE SURGE, GMAIL, MAPS AND PHOTOS PROVIDE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A YEAR IN VALUE TO THE AVERAGE AMERICAN. AND MANY ARE SMALL BUSINESSES USING OUR DIGITAL TOOLS TO GROW. STONE DIMENSIONS, A FAMILY-OWNED COMPANY IN WISCONSIN USES GOOGLE MY BUSINESS TO DRAW MORE CUSTOMERS. A FAMILY-OWNED APPLIANCE STORE CREDITS GOOGLE ANALYTICS WITH HELPING THEM REACH CUSTOMERS ONLINE DURING THE PANDEMIC. NEARLY ONE-THIRD OF SMALL BUSINESSES OWNERS SAY WITHOUT DIGITAL TOOLS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO CLOSE ALL OUR PART OF THEIR BUSINESS DURING COVID. AT THE END OF 2019 OUR RND SPEND INCREASED TENFOLD FROM $2.8 BILLION TO $26 BILLION, AND WE HAVE INVESTED OVER $90 BILLION THE LAST FIVE YEARS. OUR ENGINEERS ARE HELPING AMERICA REMAIN A GLOBAL LEADER IN EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES LIKE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, SELF-DRIVING CARS, AND QUANTUM COMPUTING. JUST AS AMERICA'S TECHNOLOGY LEADERSHIP IS NOT INEVITABLE, GOOGLE IS NOT GUARANTEED.

NEW COMPETITORS EMERGE EVERY DAY, AND TODAY USERS HAVE MORE ACCESS TO INFORMATION THAN EVER BEFORE. COMPETITION DRIVES US TO INNOVATE AND IT LEADS TO BETTER PRODUCTS, LOWER PRICES, AND MORE CHOICES FOR EVERYONE. FOR EXAMPLE, COMPETITION HELPED LOWER ONLINE ADVERTISING COSTS BY 4% OVER THE LAST DECADES, BUT SAVINGS PASSED DOWN TO CONSUMERS. OPEN PLATFORMS LIKE ANDROID ALSO SUPPORT THE INNOVATION OF OTHERS. USING DRANDROID, THOUSANDS BUIL AND SELL THEIR OWN DEVICES WITHOUT PAYING ANY LICENSING FEES TO US. THIS HAS ENABLED BILLIONS OF CONSUMERS TO HAVE CUTTING-EDGE SMARTPHONES, SOME FOR LESS THAN $50. WHETHER BUILDING TOOLS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES FOR PLATFORMS LIKE ANDROID, GOOGLE SUCCEEDS WHEN OTHER SUCCEED.

WE HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT PRIVACY IS A UNIVERSAL RIGHT AND GOOGLE IS COMMITTED TO KEEPING YOUR INFORMATION SAFE, TREATING IT RESPONSIBLY, AND WE'VE LONG SUPPORTED THE CREATION OF COMPREHENSIVE FEDERAL PRIVACY LAWS. I'VE NEVER FORGOTTEN HOW ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION CHANGED THE COURSE OF MY LIFE. GOOGLE BUILDS PRODUCTS THAT INCREASE ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE, NO MATTER WHERE YOU LIVE, WHAT YOU BELIEVE, OR HOW MUCH MONEY YOU EARN. WE ARE COMMITTED TO DOING THIS RESPONSIBLY IN PARTNERSHIP WITH LAWMAKERS TO ENSURE EVERY AMERICAN HAS ACCESS TO THE INCREDIBLE OPPORTUNITY TECHNOLOGY CREATES. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR.

PICHAI. MR. COOK IS NOW RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> CHAIRMAN CICILLINE AND NADLER, RANKING MEMBER JORDAN, MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER TESTIMONY. BEFORE I BEGIN, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE LIFE AND LEGACY OF JOHN LEWIS. I JOIN YOU IN MOURNING NOT ONLY A HERO, BUT SOMEONE I KNEW PERSONALLY WHOSE EXAMPLE INSPIRES AND GUIDES ME STILL. EVERY AMERICAN OWES JOHN LEWIS A DEBT, AND I FEEL FORTUNATE TO HAIL FROM A STATE AND A COUNTRY THAT BENEFITED SO PROFOUNDLY FROM HIS LEADERSHIP.

MY NAME IS TIM COOK. I'VE BEEN APPLE'S CEO SINCE 2011 AND A PROUD EMPLOYEE OF THIS UNIQUELY AMERICAN COMPANY SINCE 1998. AT APPLE, WE MAKE OURSELVES A PROMISE AND OUR CUSTOMERS A PROMISE. IT'S A PROMISE THAT WILL ONLY BUILD THINGS THAT MAKE US PROUD. AS STEVE PUT IT, WE ONLY MICK THINGS WE RECOMMEND TO OUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS. YOU COULD TRY TO DEFINE THIS DIFFERENCE IN A LOT OF WAYS. YOU CAN CALL IT THE SEAMLESS INTEGRATION OF HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE. YOU CAN CALL IT SIMPLICITY OF DESIGN. BUT YOU WANTED TO PUT IT SIMPLY, PRODUCTS LIKE iPHONE JUST WERE. WHEN CUSTOMERS CONSISTENTLY GIVE iPHONE A 99% SATISFACTION RATING, THAT'S THE MESSAGE THEY'RE SENDING ABOUT THE USER EXPERIENCE. BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT CUSTOMERS HAVE A LOT OF CHOICES AND OUR PRODUCTS FACE FIERCE COMPETITION. COMPANIES LIKE SAMSUNG, WAYWAY AND GOOGLE HAVE BUILT WITH DIFFERENT APPROACHES. WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT. OUR GOAL IS THE BEST, NOT THE MOST. IN FACT, WE DON'T HAVE A DOMINANT SHARE IN ANY MARKET OR IN ANY PRODUCT CATEGORY WHERE WE DO BUSINESS.

WHAT DOES MOTIVATE US IS THAT TIMELESS DRIVE TO BUILD NEW THINGS THAT WE'RE PROUD TO SHOW OUR USERS. WE FOCUS RELENTLESSLY ON THOSE INNOVATIONS, ON DEEPENING CORE PRINCIPLES LIKE PRIVACY AND SECURITY, AND ON CREATING NEW FEATURES. IN 2008 WE INTRODUCED A NEW FEATURE OF THE iPHONE CALLED THE APP STORE, LAUNCHED WITH 500 APPS, WHICH SEAMS SEEMED LIKE A LOT AT THE TIME, THE APP STORE PROVIDED A SAFE AND TRUSTED WAY FOR USERS TO GET MORE OUT OF THEIR PHONE.

WE KNEW THE DISTRIBUTION OPTIONS FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS AT THE TIME DIDN'T WORK WELL. BRICK AND MORTAR STORES CHARGED HIGH FEES AND HAD LIMITED REACH. PHYSICAL MEDIA LIKE CDs HAD TO BE SHIPPED AND WERE HARD TO UPDATE. FROM THE BEGINNING, THE APP STORE WAS A REVOLUTIONARY ALTERNATIVE. APP STORE DEVELOPERS SET PRICES FOR THEIR APPS AND NEVER PAY FOR SHELF SPACE. WE PROVIDE EVERY DEVELOPER WITH CUTTING-EDGE TOOLS LIKE COMPILERS, PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES, AND MORE THAN 150,000 ESSENTIAL SOFTWARE BUILDING BLOCKS CALLED APIs. THE APP STORE GUIDELINES ENSURE A HIGH QUALITY, RELIABLE, AND SECURE USER EXPERIENCE. THEY ARE TRANSPARENT AND APPLIED EQUALLY TO EVERY DEVELOPER. FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF APPS, DEVELOPERS KEEP 100% OF THE MONEY THEY MAKE. THE ONLY APPS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO A COMMISSION ARE THOSE WHERE THE DEVELOPER ACQUIRES A CUSTOMER ON APPEAR APPLE DEVICE AND WHERE THE FEATURES OR SERVICES WOULD BE EXPERIENCED AND CONSUMED ON AN APPLE DEVICE. IN THE APP STORE'S MORE THAN 10-YEAR HISTORY, WE HAVE NEVER RAISED THE COMMISSION OR ADDED A SINGLE FEE. IN FACT, WE'VE REDUCED IT.

I'M HERE TODAY BECAUSE SCRUTINY IS REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE. WE APPROACH THIS PROCESS WITH RESPECT AND HUMILITY. BUT WE MAKE NO CONCESSIONS ON THE FACTS. WHAT BEGAN AT 500 APPS IS NOW MORE THAN 1.7 MILLION. ONLY 60 OF WHICH ARE APPLE SOFTWARE. IF APPLE IS A GATE KEEPER, WE'VE OPENED THE GATE WIDER. WE WANT TO GET EVERY APP WE CAN OPT STORE, NOT KEEP THEM OFF. THE APP STORE'S ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS ARE SIGNIFICANT. THE ECOSYSTEM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 1.9 MILLION JOBS IN ALL 5 STATES, AND IT FACILITATED $138 BILLION IN COMMERCE IN 2019 ALONE IN THE U.S. I SHARE THE COMMITTEE'S BELIEF THAT COMPETITION PROMOTES INNOVATION, THAT IT MAKES SPACE FOR THE NEXT GREAT IDEA, AND THAT IT GIVES CONSUMERS MORE CHOICES. SINCE APPLE WAS FOUNDED, THESE THINGS HAVE DEFINED US.

THE FIRST MAC BROUGHT OPPORTUNITY AND POSSIBILITY INTO THE HOME. THE iPOD HELPED MUSICIANS AND ARTISTS TO SHARE THEIR CREATIONS AND BE PAID FAIRLY FOR IT. IT INSPIRES US TO WORK TIRELESSLY TO MAKE SURE TOMORROW WILL BE EVEN BETTER THAN TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I LOOK FORWARD TO RESPONDING TO YOUR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, MR. COOK. MR. ZUCKERBERG IS NOW RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. BEFORE I BEGIN, I WANT TO ADD MY VOICE TO THOSE HONORING CONGRESSMAN JOHN LEWIS AND HIS SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. AMERICA HAS LOST A REAL HERO WHO NEVER STOPPED FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHTS OF EVERY PERSON. CHAIRMAN CICILLINE, RANKING MEMBER SENSENBRENNER, MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY. THE TECH INDUSTRY IS AN AMERICAN SUCCESS STORY. THE PRODUCTS WE BUILD HAVE CHANGED THE WORLD AND IMPROVED PEOPLE'S LIVES. OUR INDUSTRY IS ONE OF THE WAYS THAT AMERICA SHARES ITS VALUES WITH THE WORLD AND ONE OF OUR GREATEST ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL EXPORTS. FACEBOOK IS PART OF THIS STORY. WE STARTED WITH AN IDEA TO GIVE PEOPLE THE POWER TO SHARE AND CONNECT. AND WE'VE BUILT SERVICES THAT BILLIONS OF PEOPLE FIND USEFUL. I'M PROUD THAT WE'VE GIVEN PEOPLE WHO NEVER HAD A VOICE BEFORE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

AND GIVING SMALL BUSINESSES ACCESS TO TOOLS THAT THE ONLY LARGEST PLAYERS USED TO HAVE. SINCE COVID EMERGED, I'M PROUD THAT PEOPLE HAVE USED OUR SERVICES TO STAY IN TOUCH WITH FRIENDS AND FAMILY WHO THEY CAN'T BE WITH IN PERSON AND TO KEEP THEIR SMALL BUSINESSES RUNNING ONLINE WHEN PHYSICAL STORES ARE CLOSED. I BELIEVE THAT FACEBOOK AND THE U.S. TECH INDUSTRY ARE A FORCE FOR INNOVATION AND EMPOWERING PEOPLE, BUT I RECOGNIZE THE POWER OF TECH COMPANIES. OUR SERVICES ARE ABOUT CONNECTION AND OUR BUSINESS MODEL IS ADVERTISING. WE FACED TENSE COMPETITION IN BOTH. MANY OF OUR COMPETITORS HAVE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OR BILLIONS OF USERS.

SOME ARE UPSTARTS, BUT OTHERS ARE GATEKEEPERS WITH THE POWER TO DECIDE IF WE CAN EVEN RELEASE OUR APPS IN THEIR APP STORES TO COMPETE WITH THEM. IN MANY AREAS, WE'RE BEHIND OUR COMPETITORS. THE MOST POPULAR MESSAGING SERVICE IN THE U.S. IS iMESSAGE. THE FASTEST GROWING APP IS TIKTOK. THE MOST POPULAR APP FOR VIDEO IS YOUTUBE. THE FASTEST GROWING ADS PLATFORM IS AMAZON. THE LARGEST ADS PLATFORM IS GOOGLE. AND FOR EVERY DOLLAR SPENT ON ADVERTISING IN THE U.S., LESS THAN 10 CENTS IS SPENT WITH US. WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT ONLINE PLATFORMS, BUT I THINK THE TRUE NATURE OF COMPETITION IS MUCH BROADER. WHEN GOOGLE BOUGHT YOUTUBE, THEY COULD COMPETE AGAINST THE DOMINANT PLAYER IN VIDEO, WHICH WAS THE CABLE INDUSTRY. WHEN AMAZON BOUGHT WHOLE FOODS, THEY COULD COMPETE AGAINST KROGER AND WALMART. WHEN FACEBOOK BOUGHT WHATSAPP, WE CAN COMPETE AGAINST TELECOS WHO COULD CHARGE 10 CENTS A MESSAGE. NOT ANYMORE. NOW PEOPLE CAN BUY GROCERIES AND SEND PRIVATE MESSAGES FOR FREE. THAT'S COMPETITION. NEW COMPANIES ARE CREATED ALL THE TIME ALL OVER THE WORLD. HISTORY SHOWS THAT IF WE DON'T KEEP INNOVATING, SOMEONE WILL REPLACE EVERY COMPANY HERE TODAY.

THAT CHANGE CAN OFTEN HAPPEN FASTER THAN YOU EXPECT. OF THE TEN MOST VALUABLE COMPANIES A DECADE AGO, ONLY THREE STILL MAKE THAT LIST TODAY. IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE THE TOP TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES COME FROM, A DECADE AGO THE VAST MAJORITY WERE AMERICAN. TODAY ALMOST HALF ARE CHINESE. ASIDE FROM COMPETITION, THERE ARE OTHER SERIOUS ISSUES RELATED TO THE INTERNET, INCLUDING QUESTIONS ABOUT ELECTIONS, HARMFUL CONTENT, AND PRIVACY. WHILE THESE ARE NOT ANTITRUST ISSUES AND ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY THE TOPIC OF TODAY'S HEARING, I RECOGNIZE THAT WE WERE OFTEN AT THE CENTER OF THESE DISCUSSIONS. WE BUILD PLATFORMS FOR SHARING IDEAS AND IMPORTANT DEBATES PLAY OUT ACROSS OUR SERVICES. I BELIEVE THAT THIS ULTIMATELY LEADS TO MORE PROGRESS, BUT IT MEANS WE FIND OURSELVES IN THE MIDDLE OF DEEP DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT SOCIAL ISSUES AND HIGH-STAKES ELECTIONS. I PERSONALLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT PRIVATE COMPANIES SHOULD BE MAKING SO MANY DECISIONS ABOUT THESE ISSUES BY THEMSELVES. AND THAT'S WHY LAST YEAR I MADE THE CASE THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE NEW REGULATION FOR THE INTERNET.

FACEBOOK STANDS FOR A SET OF BASIC PRINCIPLES, GIVING PEOPLE VOICE AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE, UPHOLDING DEMOCRATIC TRADITIONS LIKE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND VOTING, AND OPENING A COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE. THESE ARE FUNDAMENTAL VALUES FOR MOST OF US, BUT NOT FOR EVERYONE IN THE WORLD, NOT FOR EVERY COMPANY WE COMPETE WITH OR THE COUNTRIES THEY REPRESENT. AS GLOBAL COMPETITION INCREASES, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT OUR VALUES WILL WIN OUT. I'M PROUD OF THE SERVICES WE BUILD AND HOW THEY IMPROVE PEOPLE'S LIVES.

WE COMPETE HARD. WE COMPETE FAIRLY. WE TRY TO BE THE BEST. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TAUGHT MATTERS IN THIS COUNTRY. WHEN WE SUCCEED, IT'S BECAUSE WE DELIVER GREAT EXPERIENCES THAT PEOPLE LOVE. THANK YOU AND I LOOK FORWARD TO ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU AND I THANK THE WITNESSES FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENTS. BEFORE I BEGIN RECOGNIZING MEMBERS FOR QUESTIONING UNDER THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE, I'M GOING TO ENTER INTO THE HEARING RECORD THE DOCUMENTS AND EXHIBITS MAJORITY MEMBERS WILL BE REFERENCING IN THEIR QUESTIONING TODAY.

THESE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO THE WITNESSES. I WILL NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES. MR. PICHAI, EVERY 85% OF ALL ONLINE SEARCHES GO THROUGH GOOGLE. EVERY ONLINE COMPANY IN THE UNITED STATES DEPENDS ON GOOGLE TO REACH USERS. A BUSINESS MAY SINK OR SWIM BASED ON GOOGLE'S DECISIONS ALONE. IN OTHER WORDS, ONLINE BUSINESSES TOLD US THAT GOOGLE STEALS THEIR CONTENT AND PRIVILEGES ITS OWN SITES IN WAYS THAT PROFIT GOOGLE BUT CRUSH EVERYBODY ELSE.

MOST BUSINESSES ASK TO STAY ANONYMOUS DUE TO FEARS THAT GOOGLE WILL RETALIATE AGAINST THEM. ONE ENTREPRENEUR HAS TO DOWNSIZE HIS BUSINESS AND LAY OFF HALF HIS STAFF. HE TOLD US, AND I, QUOTE, IF SOMEONE CAME TO ME WITH AN IDEA FOR A WEBSITE OR WEB SERVICE TODAY, I'D TELL THEM TO RUN, RUN AS FAR AWAY FROM THE WEB AS POSSIBLE. LAUNCH A LAWN CARE BUSINESS OR DOG GROOMING BIRKSZ SOMETHING GOOGLE CAN'T TAKE AWAY AS SOON AS HE OR SHE IS THRIVING. SO MY FIRST QUESTION, MR. PICHAI, IS WHY DOES GOOGLE STEAL CONTENT FROM HONEST BUSINESSES? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH RESPECT, I DISAGREE WITH THAT. WE SEE MANY BUSINESSES THRIVE, PARTICULARLY EVEN DURING THE PANDEMIC BUSINESSES, AN EXAMPLE, KETTLE BELLS IN TEXAS — >> MR. PICHAI, I HAVE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME. BUT MY QUESTION IS VERY SPECIFIC. WE HEARD THROUGHOUT THIS INVESTIGATION THAT GOOGLE HAS STOLEN CONTENT TO BUILD YOUR OWN BUSINESS. THESE ARE CONSISTENT REPORTS. AND SO IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN IS REALLY INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE LEARNED DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION.

BUT I'LL MOVE ON TO A NEW QUESTION. MR. PICHAI, MOST AMERICANS BELIEVE WHEN THEY ENTER A SEARCH QUERY WHAT GOOGLE SHOWS ARE THE MOST RELEVANT RESULTS. BUT INCREASINGLY GOOGLE JUST SHOWS WHATEVER IS MOST PROFITABLE FOR GOOGLE, BE IT GOOGLE ADS OR GOOGLE'S OWN SITES. SO MY QUESTION, ISN'T THIS HA FUNDAMENTAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN SERVING USERS WHO WANT TO ACCESS THE BEST AND MOST RELEVANT INFORMATION AND GOOGLE'S BUSINESS MODEL AND INCENTIVIZES GOOGLE TO SELL ADS AND KEEP USERS ON GOOGLE'S ON SITES? >> WE'VE ALWAYS FOCUSED ON PROVIDING USERS THE MOST RELEVANT INFORMATION. AND WE RELY ON THE TRUST FOR USERS TO COME BACK TO GOOGLE EVERY DAY. IN FACT, THE VAST MAJORITY OF GOOGLE — WE DON'T SHOW ADS AT ALL, ONLY FOR A SMALL SUBSET OF INQUIRIES WHERE THE INCESPUT IS HIGHLY COMMERCIAL.

THEY MAY BE LOOKING FOR TV SETS AND SO ON — >> THEY CAN'T SAY VALUE OF THE PART THAT YOU DO USE THE GOOGLE ADS FOR? IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF YOUR BUSINESS. WHAT'S THE ACTUAL VALUE? $200 BILLION? >> IT'S 100 PLUS BILLION DOLLARS. >> THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY, MR. PICHAI. LET ME MOVE ON. IT'S GOOGLE'S BUSINESS MODEL THAT'S THE PROBLEM. IT EVOLVED FROM A TURNSTILE TO THE REST OF THE WEB TO A WALLED GARDEN THAT KEEPS USERS WITHIN ITS SITES. EMAILS SHOW THAT OVER A DECADE AGO GOOGLE STARTED TO FEAR COMPETITION FROM CERTAIN WEB PAGES THAT COULD DIVERT SEARCH TRAFFIC FROM GOOGLE. THESE DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT GOOGLE STAFF DISCUSSED THE PROLIFERATING THREAT IS HOW IT WAS DESCRIBED THAT THESE WEB PAGES POSED TO GOOGLE. ANY TRAFFIC LOST TO OTHER SITES WAS A LOSS IN REVENUE. ONE OF GOOGLE'S MEMOS OBSERVED THAT CERTAIN WEBSITES WERE GETTING, AND I, QUOTE, TOO MUCH TRAFFIC. SO GOOGLE DECIDED TO PUT AN END TO THAT. MR. PICHAI, YOU'VE BEEN AT GOOGLE SINCE 2004. WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THESE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE THREAT FROM VERTICAL SEARCH? >> CONGRESSMAN, WITHOUT KNOWING THE SPECIFICS, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT FULLY CLEAR OF THE CONTEXT.

BUT DEFINITELY WHEN WE LOOK AT VERTICAL SEARCHES, IT VALIDATES THE COMPETITION WE SEE. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN USERS COME LOOKING TO SHOP ONLINE, INDEPENDENT STUDIES SHOW THAT OVER 55% OF PRODUCT SEARCHES ORIGINATE WITH AMAZON AND 70% WITH THE MAJOR E-COMMERCE COMPANIES. IN THE FEW CATEGORIES THAT ARE COMMERCIAL IN NATURE, WE SEE VIGOROUS COMPETITION, BE IT TRAVEL, REAL ESTATE, AND WE ARE WORKING HARD — >> LET ME ASK YOU SPECIFICALLY, MR. PICHAI. THE EVIDENCE WE COLLECTED SHOWS THAT GOOGLE PURSUE ADD MULTI-PRONGED ATTACK. FIRST GOOGLE BEGAN TO STEAL OTHER WEB PAGES' CONTENT. IN 2010 GOOGLE STOLE RESTAURANT REVIEWS FROM YELP TO BOOT STRAP ITS OWN LOCAL SEARCH BUSINESS. DO YOU KNOW HOW GOOGLE RESPONDED WHEN YELP ASKED TO YOU STOP STEALING THEIR REVIEWS? I'LL TELL YOU. OUR INVESTIGATION SHOWS GOOGLE THREATENED TO DELIST YELP ENTIRELY. LET US STEAL YOUR CONTENT OR EFFECTIVELY DISAPPEAR FROM THE WEB. MR. PICHAI, ISN'T THAT WEBSITE . >> WHEN I RUN THE COMPANY, I'M FOCUSED ON GIVING USERS WHAT WE WANT.

HAPPY TO ENGAGE AND THE SPECIFICS AND ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS FURTHER. >> THANK YOU. ONE FINAL SERIES OF QUESTIONS, MR. PICHAI. DID GOOGLE USE ITS WEBSITE TO SURVEY COMPETITIVE THREATS? >> CONGRESSMAN, JUST LIKE OTHER BUSINESSES, WE TRIED TO UNDERSTAND TRENDS FROM, YOU KNOW, DATA, WHICH WE CAN SEE, AND WE USE IT TO IMPROVE OUR PRODUCTS FOR OUR USERS, BUT WE'RE REALLY FOCUSED ON IMPROVING OUR PRODUCTS AND THAT'S HOW — >> I APPRECIATE THAT, MR. PICHAI. GOOGLE'S OWN DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT GOOGLE DID JUST THAT, WHICH IS VERY DISTURBING AND VERY ANTI-COMPETITIVE. IN ADDITION TO STEALING CONTENT, GOOGLE BEGAN TO PRIVILEGE ITS OWN SITES. AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT PUBLISHED JUST YESTERDAY FOUND 63% OF WEB SEARCHES THAT START ON GOOGLE ALSO END SOMEWHERE ON GOOGLE'S OWN WEBSITES. TO ME THAT'S EVIDENCE GOOGLE IS INCREASINGLY A WALLED GARDEN THAT KEEPS PEOPLE ON GOOGLE SITES EVEN IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE MOST INFORMATION AND CATASTROPHIC FOR OTHER COMPANIES ONLINE. MY TIME IS RUNNING OUT. THE EVIDENCE SEEMS VERY CLEAR TO ME.

AS GOOGLE BECAME THE GATEWAY TO THE INTERNET AND BEGAN TO ABUSE ITS POWER, IT USED SURVEILLANCE OVER WEB TRAFFIC DAMPENED INNOVATION AND NEW BUSINESS GROWTH AND DRAMATICALLY INCREASED THE ACCESS OF USERS ON THE INTERNET, VIRTUALLY ENSURING ANY BUSINESS THAT WANTS TO BE FOUND ON THE WEB, MUST PAY GOOGLE A TAX. AND WITH THAT I RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, MR. SENSENBRENNER FOR HIS FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'VE BEEN IN CONGRESS 42 YEARS. THAT'S COMING TO AN END AT THE END OF THIS YEAR. I'M BREATHING A SIGH OF RELIEF. BUT DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, DURING THE DECADE OF THE '90s AND THE 00s, I WAS INVOLVED AS CHAIRMAN OF THE SCIENCE COMMITTEE AND CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE AND TRYING TO MAKE THE NET UNIVERSAL AND OPEN IT UP TO EVERYBODY.

ONE THESIS WE USED IS THE NET SHOULD END UP BECOMING BASICALLY LE DEBATE ON ISSUES NOT ONLY IN OUR COUNTRY BUT THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT, THIS COMMITTEE AND THE COMPANY GAVE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS IMMUNITY SO IF SOMEBODY SAID SOMETHING DEFAMATORY IN WHAT THEY POSTED, THE ISPs COULD NOT BE A PART OF THE LAWSUIT FOR DEFAMATION. NOW, AFTER HEARING MR. JORDAN, IN A LONG LINE OF CENSORSHIP OF CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINTS, YOU KNOW, I'M CONCERNED THAT THE PEOPLE WHO MANAGE THE NET AND THE FOUR OF YOU MANAGE A BIG PART OF THE NET, ARE ENDING UP USING THIS AS A POLITICAL SCREEN. CONSERVATIVES ARE CONSUMERS, TOO. AND THE WAY THE NET WAS PUT TOGETHER IN THE EYES OF CONGRESS IS THAT EVERYBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SPEAK THEIR MIND.

MR. ZUCKERBERG, MR. JORDAN'S LITANY OF CENSORSHIP ZEROS IN ON FACEBOOK. WHAT ARE YOUR STANDARDS IN, QUOTE, FILTERING OUT POLITICAL SPEECH THAT MAYBE SOME PEOPLE OUT THERE DON'T AGREE WITH? >> CONGRESSMAN, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS. OUR GOAL IS TO OFFER A PLATFORM FOR ALL IDEAS. WE WANT TO GIVE EVERYONE IN THE WORLD A VOICE TO SHARE THEIR EXPERIENCES AND IDEAS. A LOT OF THAT IS DAY-TO-DAY THINGS THAT HAPPEN IN THEIR LIVES, SOME OF IT IS POLITICAL. AND, FRANKLY, I THINK WE'VE DISTINGUISHED OURSELVES AS ONE OF THE COMPANIES THAT DEFENDS FREE EXPRESSION THE MOST. WE DO HAVE COMMUNITY STANDARDS AROUND THINGS YOU CAN AND CANNOT SAY. I THINK YOU WOULD LIKELY AGREE WITH MOST OF THEM. THEY BAN CATEGORIES OF HARM SUCH AS PROMOTING TERRORIST PROPAGANDA, CHILD EXPLOITATION, INCLIITEMENT OF VIOLENCE, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY VIOLATIONS AND THEY ALSO BAN THINGS LIKE HATE SPEECH THAT COULD LEAD TO DEHUMANIZING PEOPLE AND ENCOURAGING VIOLENCE DOWN THE ROAD.

>> IF I MAY ASK A SPECIFIC OF YOU, IT WAS REPORTED THAT DONALD TRUMP JR. GOT TAKEN DOWN FOR A PERIOD OF TIME BECAUSE HE PUT SOMETHING UP, THE EFFICACY OF HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE. NOW, I WOULDN'T TAKE IT MYSELF, BUT THERE STILL IS A DEBATE ON WHETHER IT IS EFFECTIVE EITHER IN TREAT OR PREVENTING COVID-19. AND I THINK THAT THIS IS A LEGITIMATE MATTER OF DISCUSSION. AND IT WOULD BE UP TO A PATIENT AND THEIR DOCTOR TO DETERMINE WHETHER HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE WAS THE CORRECT MEDICATION, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. WHY DID THAT HAPPEN? >> CONGRESSMAN, FIRST TO BE CLEAR, I THINK WHAT YOU MIGHT BE REFERRING TO HAPPENED ON TWITTER. SO, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SPEAK TO THAT. I CAN TALK TO OUR POLICIES ABOUT THIS. WE DO PROHIBIT CONTENT THAT WILL LEAD TO IMMINENT RISK OF HARM. AND STATING THAT THERE'S A PROVEN CURE FOR COVID, WHEN THERE IS, IN FACT, NONE, MIGHT ENCOURAGE SOMEONE TO GO TAKE SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE SOME ADVERSE EFFECT.

WE DO TAKE THAT DOWN. WE DO NOT PROHIBIT DISCUSSION AROUND TRIALS OF DRUGS OR PEOPLE SAYING THAT THEY THINK THINGS MIGHT WORK OR PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH EXPERIMENTAL DRUGS. BUT IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO SAY THAT SOMETHING IS PROVEN, WHEN IN FACT IT IS NOT, THAT COULD LEAD PEOPLE — >> WOULDN'T THAT BE — >> TO MAKE — >> BE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ISSUE TO SAY THIS IS NOT PROVEN AND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW AS A FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR PEOPLE WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS, IT'S CONTRA INDICATED AND THEY SHOULDN'T TAKE IT.

BUT WOULDN'T THAT BE UP TO SOMEBODY ELSE TO SAY, OKAY, WHAT SOMEBODY POSTED ON THIS REALLY ISN'T TRUE AND HERE'S WHAT THE FACTS ARE, RATHER THAN HAVING A TWITTER OR FACEBOOK TAKE IT DOWN? >> CONGRESS MAN, IN GENERAL I AGREE WITH YOU. WE DO NOT WANT TO BECOME THE ARBITRATORS OF TRUTH. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A BAD POSITION FOR US TO BE IN AND NOT — NOT WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING. BUT ON SPECIFIC CLAIMS, IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO GO OUT AND SAY THAT HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE IS PROVEN TO CURE COVID WHEN, IN FACT, IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN TO CURE COVID AND THAT STATEMENT COULD LEAD PEOPLE TO TAKE A DRUG THAT IN SOME CASES — SOME OF THE DATA SUGGESTS IT MIGHT BE HARMFUL TO PEOPLE, WE THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THAT DOWN. THAT COULD CAUSE IMMINENT RISK OF HARM. >> THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN.

I RECOGNIZE DISTINGUISHED MR. NADLER FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. ZUCKERBERG, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING US INFORMATION DURING OUR INVESTIGATION. HOWEVER, THE DOCUMENTS YOU PROVIDED TELL A VERY DISTURBING STORY. AND THAT STORY IS THAT FACEBOOK SAW INSTAGRAM AS A POWERFUL THREAT THAT COULD SIPHON BUSINESS AWAY FROM FACEBOOK. SO, RATHER THAN COMPETE WITH IT, FACEBOOK BOUGHT IT. THIS IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION THAT THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS WERE DESIGNED TO PREVENT. NOW, LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT I MEAN. MR. ZUCKERBERG, YOU HAVE WRITTEN THAT FACEBOOK CAN LIKELY ALWAYS JUST BUY ANY COMPETITIVE STARTUPS. IN FACT, ON THE DAY FACEBOOK BOUGHT INSTAGRAM, WHICH YOU DESCRIBED AS A THREAT, YOU WROTE, QUOTE, ONE THING ABOUT STARTUPS IS YOU CAN OFTEN ACQUIRE THEM, CLOSE QUOTE. MR.

ZUCKERBERG, YOU WERE REFERRING TO COMPANIES LIKE INSTAGRAM IN THAT QUOTE, WEREN'T YOU? >> CONGRESSMAN, I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CLEAR THAT WE VIEWED INSTAGRAM BOTH AS A COMPETITOR AND AS A COMPLEMENT TO OUR SERVICES. IN THE GROWING SPACE AROUND — AFTER SMART PHONES STARTED GETTING BIG. THEY COMPETED WITH US IN THE SPACE OF MOBILE CAMERAS, MOBILE FOET TO SHARING, BUT AT THE TIME ALMOST NO ONE THOUGHT OF THEM AS A GENERAL SOCIAL NETWORK. PEOPLE DIDN'T THINK OF THEM AS COMPETING WITH US IN THAT SPACE. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE ACQUISITION HAS BEEN WILDLY SUCCESSFUL.

WE WERE ABLE TO BY ACQUIRING THEM CONTINUE INVESTING IN IT AND GROWING IT AS A STAND-ALONE BRAND THAT REACHES MANY MORE PEOPLE THAN EITHER KEVIN, THE CO-FOUNDER, OR I THOUGHT POSSIBLE AT THE TIME, WHILE ALSO INCORPORATING SOME TECHNOLOGY INTO MAKING FACEBOOK'S PHOTO SHARING PRODUCTS BETTER. SO, YES. >> OKAY. NOW, IN EARLY 2012, WHEN FACEBOOK CONTEMPLATED ACQUIRING INSTAGRAM, A COMPETITIVE STARTUP, YOU TOLD YOUR CF THAT INSTAGRAM COULD BE VERY DISRUPTIVE TO US. IN THE WEEKS LEELDING UP TO THE DEAL, YOU DESCRIBED INSTAGRAM AS A THREAT SAYING THAT, QUOTE, INSTAGRAM CAN MEANINGFULLY HURT US WITHOUT BECOMING A HUGE BUSINESS, UNQUOTE.

NOW, MR. ZUCKERBERG, WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU DESCRIBED INSTAGRAM AS A THREAT, AS DISRUPTIVE? WHEN YOU SAID THAT INSTAGRAM COULD MEANINGFULLY HURT FACEBOOK, DID YOU MEAN THAT — DID YOU MEAN CONSUMERS MIGHT SWITCH FROM FACE BOO K TO INSTAGRAM? >> CONGRESSMAN, THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS. AT THE TIME THERE WAS A SMALL BUT GROWING FIELD OF — >> DID YOU MEAN THAT — DID YOU MEAN THAT CONSUMERS MIGHT SWITCH FROM FACEBOOK TO INSTAGRAM? THAT WAS MY QUESTION. >> THANKS. CONGRESSMAN — >> YES OR NO. DID YOU MEAN THAT? >> IN THE SPACE OF MOBILE PHOTOS AND CAMERA APPS, WHICH WAS GROWING, THEY WERE A COMPETITOR. E I'VE BEEN CLEAR ABOUT THAT. >> FINE. IN FEBRUARY OF THAT YEAR, FEBRUARY 2012, YOU TOLD FACEBOOK'S CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER THAT YOU WERE INTERESTED IN BUYING INSTAGRAM. HE ASKED YOU WHETHER THE PURPOSE OF THE DEAL WAS TO NEUTRALIZE A POTENTIAL COMPETITOR OR TO INTEGRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WITH OURS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE OUR SERVICES? YOU ANSWERED IT WAS A COMBINATION OF BOTH.

SAYING, WHAT WE'RE REALLY BUYING IS TIME. EVEN IF SOME NEW COMPETITORS SPRINGS UP, THOSE PRODUCTS WON'T GET MUCH TRACTION SINCE WE'LL ALREADY HAVE THE MECHANICS DEPLOYED AT SCALE. MR. ZUCKERBERG, WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU ANSWERED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE DEAL WAS TO NEUTRALIZE A POTENTIAL COMPETITOR? >> CONGRESSMAN, WELL, THOSE AREN'T MY WORDS. BUT, YES, I'VE BEEN CLEAR THAT INSTAGRAM WAS A COMPETITOR IN THE SPACE OF MOBILE PHOTO SHARING. THERE WERE A LOT OF OTHERS AT THE TIME. THEY COMPETED WITH APPS LIKE VISCO CAM AND PIXPLEASE AND COMPANIES LIKE PATH. IT WAS A SUBSET OF THE OVERALL SPACE OF CONNECTING THAT WE EXIST IN, AND BY HAVING THEM JOIN US, THEY CERTAINLY WENT FROM BEING A COMPETITOR IN THE SPACE OF BEING A MOBILE CAMERA TO AN APP THAT WE COULD HELP GROW AND HELP GET MORE PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO USE AND BE ON OUR TEAM. AND — >> WERE YOU — THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

MR. ZUCKERBERG, MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS THAT BUY OFF POTENTIAL COMPETITIVE THREATS VIOLATE THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS. IN YOUR OWN WORDS YOU PURCHASED INSTAGRAM TO NEUTRALIZE A COMPETITIVE THREAT. IF WAS AN ILLEGAL MERGER AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSACTION, WHY SHOULDN'T INSTAGRAM BE BROKEN OFF INTO A SEPARATE COMPANY? >> CONGRESSMAN, I THINK THE FTC HAD ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS AND REVIEWED THIS AND UNANIMOUSLY VOTED AT THE TIME NOT TO CHALLENGE THE ACQUISITION.

I MEAN, I THINK WITH HINDSIGHT, IT PROBABLY LOOKS LIKE OBVIOUS THAT INSTAGRAM WOULD HAVE REACHED THE SCALE THAT IT HAS TODAY, BUT AT THE TIME IT WAS FAR FROM OBVIOUS. A LOT OF THE COMPETITORS THEY COMPETED WITH IN MOBILE SHARING, INCLUDING COMPANIES LIKE PATH, DH WERE HOT AT THE TIME AND HAD GREAT FOUNDERS AND ENTREPRENEURS RUNNING THEM. DAVE MOORE AND I WORKED CLOSELY WITH THEM. I DON'T THINK PATH EXISTS TODAY. IT WAS NOT A GARN TEEN INSTAGRAM WOULD DO WELL. IT WASN'T JUST BECAUSE OF THE FOUNDER'S TALENT BUT BECAUSE WE BUILT INTO THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROMOTING IT AND WORKING SECURITY AND A LOT OF THINGS AROUND THIS. I THINK THIS HAS BEEN AN AMERICAN SUCCESS STORY. >> WELL, THANK YOU. MR. ZUCKERBERG, YOU'RE MAKING MY POINT. IN CLOSING, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO END WHERE I BEGAN. FACEBOOK, BY MR. MZ'S OWN ADMISSION AND BY THE DOCUMENTS WE HAVE THE TIME, FACEBOOK SAW INSTAGRAM AS A THREAT THAT COULD POTENTIALLY SIPHON BUSINESS AWAY FROM FACEBOOK.

RATHER THAN COMPETE WITH IT, FACEBOOK BOUGHT IT. THIS IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION THAT THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS ARE DESIGNED TO PREVENT. THIS SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO HAPPEN AND IT CANNOT HAPPEN AGAIN. I YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WOULD REMIND THE WITNESS THAT THE FAILURES OF THE FTC IN 2012, OF COURSE, DO NOT ALLEVIATE THE ANTI-TRUST CHALLENGES THAT THE CHAIRMAN DESCRIBED.

WITH THAT I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO. AGAIN, THANK HIM FOR CO-HOSTING ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FIELD HEARINGS WE HAD ALONG WITH MR. NEGUSE IN COLORADO THAT I THINK WAS VERY CRITICAL IN THIS INVESTIGATION. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES, MR. BUCK. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE BIPARTISAN WAY YOU HAVE APPROACHED THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION. I WANT TO START BY SAYING CAPITALISM IS THE GREATEST INSTRUMENT FREEDOM HAS EVER SEEN. CAPITALISM HAS GIVEN THE UNITED STATES THE MEANS TO DEFEAT SOVIET UNION, BEAT BACK FASCISM AND PUT A MAN ON THE MOON. IT HAS LIFTED MILLIONS OUT OF POVERTY. IT HAS MADE AMERICA THE FREEST, MOST PROSPEROUS NATION IN THE WORLD. OUR WITNESSES HAVE TAKEN IDEAS BUILT OUT OF A DORM ROOM, GARAGE, WAREHOUSE, AND BUILT THEM INTO THE FOUR BIGGEST POWER PLAYERS IN THE DIGITAL ECONOMY.

YOU HAVE ALL ENJOYED THE FREEDOM TO SUCCEED. LET ME BE CLEAR. I DO NOT BELIEVE BIG IS NECESSARILY BAD. BIG IS OFTEN A FORCE FOR GOOD. HOWEVER, I WANT TO ADDRESS ONE PARTICULARLY DISTURBING ISSUE. MR. PICHAI, IN OCTOBER 2018, GOOGLE DROPPED OUT OF THE RUNNING FOR A PENTAGON CONTRACT TO COMPLETE THE JOINT ENTERPRISE DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE, JEDI, VALUED AT MORE THAN $10 MILLION. GOOGLE'S STATED REASON FOR REMOVING ITSELF IS THE U.S. MILITARY'S PROJECT DID NOT ALIGN WITH GOOGLE'S CORPORATE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES. THIS IS THE SAME U.S. MILITARY THAT FIGHTS FOR OUR FREEDOMS AND STANDS AS A FORCE FOR GOOD ACROSS THE GLOBE. THESE ARE THE SAME SOLDIERS, SAILORS AND AIRMEN THAT SACRIFICE THEIR LIVES TO ENSURE YOU HAVE THE FREEDOM TO BUILD YOUR COMPANY. AND SET YOUR CORPORATE POLICIES WITHOUT FEAR OF INTERFERENCE OF GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE, UNLIKE IN COMMUNIST CHINA.

I FIND IT INTERESTING ONLY AFTER MONTHS FROM WITHDRAWING FROM THE CONFIDENT, JOSEPH DUNFORD WARNED THE SENATE ARMED FORCES COMMITTEE THAT THE CHINESE MILITARY WAS DIRECTLY BENEFITING FROM GOOGLE'S WORK. IT MADE ME WONDER, WHAT VALUES GOOGLE AND COMMUNIST RED CHINA HAD IN COMMON. I ASKED MYSELF, SELF, IS IT THAT THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY IMPRISONS UIGHUR MUSLIMS IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS? IT IS SHOWN ON THE CHART BEHIND ME. COULD IT BE THAT CHINA FORCES SLAVES TO WORK IN SWEAT SHOPS? MAYBE THEY ALIGN ON THE DESIGN TO SUPPRESS FREE SPEECH IN HONG KONG? DID GOOGLE AGREE WITH CCP'S DECISION TO LIE TO THE WORLD ABOUT THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.

THEN I THOUGHT ABOUT GOOGLE'S DRAGONFLY EXPERIMENT. I WONDERED IF YOU AGREED WITH CHINA GOVERNMENT'S TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM TO SPY ON ITS OWN PEOPLE AND ENFORCE DRACONIAN SECURITY LAWS. MAYBE YOUR COMPANY IS ALIGNED WITH THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY'S CORPORATE ESPIONAGE POLICIES WHERE THE STRATEGY IS TO STEAL WHATEVER CAN'T BE PRODUCED DOMESTICALLY. THESE VALUES THAT ALLOW GOOGLE TO WORK WITH THE CHINESE MILITARY AND NOT THE U.S. MILITARY HELPS WHY GOOGLE WOULDN'T THINK TWICE ABOUT BLATANTLY STEALING A COMPETITOR'S PRODUCTS, RIGHT DOWN TO THE WATERMARK, WITHOUT ANY HINT OF ATTRIBUTION. MR. PICHAI, DURING OUR FIELD HEARING IN MY HOME STATE OF COLORADO, I HEARD A STORY THAT SOUNDED SO BRAZEN AND CON TEMPORARY TO FREE MARKET PRINCIPLES I THOUGHT IT MUST HAVE BEEN STRAIGHT FROM THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY'S ESPIONAGE PLAYBOOK.

GOOGLE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF A COMPANY THAT RELIED ON YOUR SEARCH ENGINE TO BUILD ITS BRAND AND COMPETE. GOOGLE MISAPPROPRIATED LYRICS FROM GENIUS'S WEBSITE AND PUBLISHED THOSE LYRICS ON THEIR OWN PLATFORM. GENIUS SUSPECTED THIS THEFT WAS OCCURRING, THEY INCORPORATED A DIGITAL WATERMARK IN ITS LYRICS THAT SPELLED OUT REDHANDED IN MORSE CODE. THE WATERMARK SHOWED YOUR COMPANY STOLE WHAT YOU DIDN'T WANT TO PRODUCE YOURSELF. AFTER GOOGLE EXECUTIVES SAID THEY WERE INVESTIGATING THIS PRODUCT, GENIUS CREATED ANOTHER PROJECT. IT TURNS OUT OF 271 SONGS WHERE THE WATERMARK WAS APPLIED, 43% SHOWED CLEAR EVIDENCE OF MATCHING. YOUR COMPANY, WHICH ADVERTISES ITSELF AS A DOORWAY TO FREEDOM, TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THIS SMALL COMPANY, ALL BUT EXTINGUISHING GENIUS' FREEDOM TO COMPETE. YOUR CORPORATE VALUES ONCE STOOD FOR FREEDOM, A PLATFORM THAT LEFT CAPITALISM FLOURISH AND HELPED BRING COUNTLESS PEOPLE ACROSS THE DWLOEB GLOBE OUT OF POVERTY. MY QUESTION, MR. PICHAI, DO YOU THINK GOOGLE COULD GET AWAY WITH FOLLOWING CHINA'S CORPORATE ESPIONAGE PLAYBOOK IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE A MONOPOLYISTSIC ADVANTAGE IN THE MARKET? >> CONGRESSMAN, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE IMPORTANT CONCERNS YOU RAISE.

FIRST OF ALL, WE ARE PROUD TO SUPPORT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. WE RECENTLY SIGNED A BIG PROJECT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WHERE WE ARE BRINGING OUR WORLD CLASS ZERO TRUST BASE CYBER SECURITY APPROACH TO HELP PROTECT PENTAGON NETWORKS FROM CYBER SECURITY ATTACKS. WE HAVE PROJECTS UNDER WAY WITH THE NAVY, WITH DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP AND EXPLAIN MORE. WE HAVE A VERY LIMITED PRESENCE IN CHINA. WE DON'T OFFER ANY OF OUR SERVICES, SEARCH, MAPS, GMAIL, YOUTUBE, ET CETERA, IN CHINA. WITH RESPECT TO MUSIC, WE LICENSE CONTENT THERE. IN FACT, WE LICENSE CONTENT FROM OTHER COMPANIES. SO THIS IS A DISPUTE BETWEEN GENIUS AND THE OTHER COMPANIES IN TERMS OF THE SOURCE OF THE CONTENT. AGAIN, HAPPY TO ENGAGE AND EXPLAIN WHAT WE DO HERE FURTHER.

>> I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> THANK THE GENTLEMAN. I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA, MR. JOHNSON, FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. COOK, WITH OVER 100 MILLION iPHONE USERS IN THE UNITED STATES ALONE AND WITH APPLE'S OWNERSHIP OF THE APP STORE GIVING APPLE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL WHICH APPS ARE ALLOWED TO BE MARKETED TO APPLE USERS, YOU WIELD IMMENSE POWER OVER SMALL BUSINESSES TO GROW AND PROSPER. APPLE IS THE SOLE DECISIONMAKER AS TO WHETHER AN APP IS MADE AVAILABLE TO APP USERS THROUGH APPLE'S APP STORE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> SIR, THE APP STORE — THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. THE APP STORE IS A FEATURE OF THE iPHONE, MUCH LIKE THE CAMERA IS AND THE CHIP IS. AND SO — >> MY POINT IS, AND I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT BUT I WANT TO GET TO THE POINT. THE POINT IS THAT APPLE IS THE SOLE DECISIONMAKER AS TO WHETHER AN APP IS MADE AVAILABLE TO APP USERS THROUGH THE APPLE STORE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> IF IT'S A NATIVE APP, YES, SIR.

IF IT'S A WEB APP, NO. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. THROUGHOUT OUR INVESTIGATION WE'VE HEARD CONCERNS THAT RULES GOVERNING THE APP STORE REVIEW PROCESS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO APP DEVELOPERS. THE RULES ARE MADE UP AS YOU GO. THEY ARE ARBITRARILY INTERPRETED AND ENFORCED AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE WHENEVER APPLE SEES FIT TO CHANGE. AND DEVELOPERS HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO GO ALONG WITH THE CHANGES OR THEY MUST LEAVE THE APP STORE. THAT'S AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF POWER. AND THE RULES GET CHANGED TO BENEFIT APPLE AT THE EXPENSE OF APP DEVELOPERS AND THE APP STORE IS SAID TO ALSO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN APP DEVELOPERS WITH SIMILAR APPS ON THE APPLE PLATFORM AND ALSO AS TO SMALL APP DEVELOPERS VERSUS LARGE APP DEVELOPERS.

SO, MR. COOK, DOES APPLE NOT TREAT ALL APP DEVELOPERS EQUALLY? >> SIR, WE TREAT EVERY DEVELOPER THE SAME. WE HAVE OPEN AND TRANSPARENT RULES. IT'S A RIGOROUS PROCESS. BECAUSE WE CARE SO DEEPLY ABOUT PRIVACY AND SECURITY AND QUALITY, WE DO LOOK AT EVERY APP BEFORE IT GOES ON, BUT THOSE APPS — THOSE RULES APPLY EVENLY TO EVERYONE. AND AS YOU CAN TELL BY GOING FROM — >> SOME DEVELOPERS ARE FAVORED OVER OTHERS, THOUGH, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS NOT CORRECT. AND AS YOU CAN TELL FROM GOING FROM — >> SIR, I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. BADU HAS TWO APP STORE EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO HELP IT NAVIGATE THE APP STORE BUREAUCRACY. IS THAT TRUE? >> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT, SIR. >> WELL, YOU DON'T HAVE OTHER APP DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE THAT SAME ACCESS TO APPLE PERSONNEL, DO YOU? >> WE DO A LOT OF THINGS WITH DEVELOPERS, INCLUDING LOOKING AT THEIR BETA TEST APPS, REGARDLESS IF THEY'RE SMALL OR LARGE.

>> OKAY, WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION. APPLE HAS NEGOTIATED EXCEPTIONS TO ITS TYPICAL 30% COMMISSION FOR SOME APPS, LIKE AMAZON PRIME. THAT IS A REDUCED COMMISSION SUCH AS THE ONE AMAZON PRIME GETS AVAILABLE TO OTHER APP DEVELOPERS? IT'S AVAILABLE TO ANYONE MEETING THE CONDITIONS, YES. >> OKAY. LET ME ASK YOU THIS. APPLE REQUIRES ALL APP DEVELOPERS TO USE APPLE'S PAYMENT PROCESSING SYSTEM IF THOSE DEVELOPERS WANT TO SELL THEIR GOODS OR SERVICES TO APPLE USERS IN APPLE'S APP STORE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT BECAUSE IT'S A — >> AND BY PROCESSING PAYMENTS FOR APPS THAT YOU ALLOW INTO THE APP STORE, YOU COLLECT THEIR CUSTOMER DATA AND YOU USE THAT DATA TO INFORM APPLE AS TO WHETHER APPLE SHOULD — WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE PROFITABLE FOR APPLE TO LAUNCH A COMPETING APP.

ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> SIR, 84% OF THE APPS ARE CHARGED NOTHING. THE REMAINING 16% EITHER PAY 15% OR 30%, DEPENDING UPON THE SPECIFICS. IF IT'S IN THE SECOND YEAR OF A SUBSCRIPTION, AS AN EXAMPLE, IT ONLY PAYS 15%. IF YOU LOOK BACK AT HISTORY — >> WHAT'S TO STOP APPLE FROM INCREASING ITS COMMISSION TO 50%? >> WE — SIR, WE HAVE NEVER INCREASED COMMISSIONS IN THE STORE SINCE THE FIRST DAY IT OPERATED IN 2008. >> THERE'S NOTHING TO STOP YOU FROM DOING SO, IS THERE? >> NO, SIR. I DISAGREE STRONGLY WITH THAT. THERE IS A COMPETITION FOR DEVELOPERS ARE JUST LIKE THERE'S A COMPETITION FOR CUSTOMERS. AND SO THE COMPETITION FOR DEVELOPERS, THEY CAN WRITE THEIR APPS FOR ANDROID OR WINDOWS OR XBOX OR PLAYSTATION.

SO, WE HAVE FIERCE COMPETITION AT THE DEVELOPER SIDE AND THE CUSTOMER SIDE, WHICH IS — WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY IT'S SO COMPE COMPETITIVE, I WOULD DESCRIBE IT AS A STREET FIGHT FOR MARKET SHARE IN THE SMARTPHONE BUSINESS. >> HAS APPLE EVER RETALIATED AGAINST OR DISADVANTAGED A DEVELOPER WHO WENT PUBLIC ABOUT THEIR FRUSTRATIONS WITH THE APP STORE? >> SIR, WE DON'T — WE DO NOT RETALIATE OR BULLY PEOPLE. IT'S STRONGLY AGAINST OUR COMPANY CULTURE. >> TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. THE CHAIR NOW RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, MR.

GAETZ. >> MR. ZUCKERBERG IN HIS WRITTEN TESTIMONY MADE THE CLAIM THAT FACEBOOK IS AN AMERICAN COMPANY WITH AMERICAN VALUES. DO ANY OF THE REST OF YOU TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW, THAT IS TO SAY YOUR COMPANIES DON'T EMBRACE AMERICAN VALUES? IT'S GREAT TO SEE THAT NONE OF YOU DO. MR. PICHAI, I'M WORRIED ABOUT GOOGLE'S MARKET POWER, HOW IT CONCENTRATES THAT POWER AND ULTIMATELY HOW. WIELDS IT. PROJECT MAVEN WAS A COLLABORATION BETWEEN GOOGLE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE THAT GOOGLE PULLED OUT OF, CITING ETHICAL CONCERNS. AND YOU MADE THE DECISION TO PULL OUT OF THAT JOINT VENTURE FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF A LETTER FROM THOUSANDS OF YOUR EMPLOYEES SAYING THAT GOOGLE SHOULD NOT BE IN THE BUSINESS OF WAR.

MY QUESTION, MR. PICHAI, IS DID YOU WEIGH THE INPUT FROM YOUR EMPLOYEES WHEN MAKING THE DECISION TO ABANDON THAT PROJECT WITH THE UNITED STATES MILITARY? >> CONGRESSMAN, THANKS FOR YOUR CONCERN. AS I SAID THE EARLIER, WE'RE DEEPLY COMMITTED TO SUPPORTING THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY. WE HAVE UNDERTAKEN SEVERAL PROJECTS. ONE INPUT, WE MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON A VARIETY OF FACTORS. AS A COMPANY WE WERE NEW IN THE CLOUD SPACE AT THE TIME. >> THAT'S A SUFFICIENT ANSWER, THAT YOU DID TAKE THEIR FEEDBACK INTO ACCOUNT. IN FACT, SOME OF YOUR GOOGLERS HAVE RECENTLY SENT YOU A LETTER WHERE THEY EXAMINED YOU TO EXIT OTHER PARTNERSHIPS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ETHICAL CONCERNS.

THEY ASKED YOU TO STOP DOING BUSINESS WITH AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT, SAYING THAT POLICE BROADLY UPHOLD WHITE SUPREMACY AND THAT GOOGLE SHOULD NOT BE ENGAGED IN ANY SERVICES TO POLICE. AS YOU WELL KNOW, YOU PROVIDE SOME OF THE MOST BASIC SERVICES TO POLICE, LIKE EMAIL, BUT YOU ALSO PROVIDE SERVICES THAT HELP KEEP OUR COPS SAFE WHEN THEY'RE DOING THEIR JOB. SO MY QUESTION IS HERE IN FRONT OF CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WILL YOU TAKE THE PLEDGE THAT GOOGLE WILL NOT ADOPT THE BIGOTED ANTI-POLICE STAND REQUESTED IN THE LATEST RECORD? >> CONGRESSMAN, WE HAVE A LONG TRACK RECORD OF SUPPORTING LAW ENFORCEMENT WHEN IT'S SUPPORTED BY DUE PROCESS AND THE LAW. WE PUSH BACK AGAINST BROO REQUESTS. WE'RE TRANSPARENT ABOUT REQUESTS WE GET. BUT WE HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF FOLLOWING THE LAW AND COOPERATING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. >> I UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY. I'M ASKING ABOUT THE FUTURE. TO THE LAW ENEFORCEMENT WATCHIN TODAY, CAN THEY REST ASSURED UNDER YOUR LEADERSHIP GOOGLE WILL NOT ADOPT THESE BIGOTED PROCESSES? >> WE ARE COMMITTED WITH DUE PROCESS IN THE U.S. >> I GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT.

I KNOW THAT WILL BE COMFORTING TO THE POLICE WHO UTILIZE YOUR SERVICES. YOU MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE DISCUSSION ABOUT CHINA THAT YOUR ENGAGEMENT IN CHINA WAS VERY LIMITED. BUT YET GOOGLE HAS AN AI CHINA CENTER. THE CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES HAS PUBLISHED A PAPER SAYING THAT ENHANCING THE TARGETING CAPABILITIES OF CHINA'S J-20 FIGHTER AIRCRAFT. YOU COLLABORATE WITH CHINESE UNIVERSITIES THAT TAKE MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM THE CHINESE MILITARY. AS A MATTER OF FACT, ONE OF YOUR GOOGLERS, F. FI LI WAS CITED IN CHINESE MEDIA SAYING, CHINA IS LIKE A SLEEPING GIANT. WHEN SHE WAKES, SHE WILL TREMBLE THE WORLD. THE FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, MR. SHANAHAN, SAID THAT THE LINES HAVE BEEN BLURRED IN CHINA BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND MILITARY APPLICATION. AS MR. BUCK CITED, GENERAL DUNFORD SAYS THAT YOUR COMPANY IS DIRECTLY AIDING THE CHINESE MILITARY. AND PETER THIELE SAID THAT GOOGLE'S ACTIVITIES WITH CHINA ARE TREASONIST. HE ACCUSED YOU OF TREASON. WHY WOULD AN AMERICAN COMPANY WITH AMERICAN VALUES SO DIRECTLY AID THE CHINESE MILITARY BUT HAVE ETHICAL CONCERNS ABOUT WORKING ALONGSIDE THE U.S.

MILITARY ON PROJECT MAVEN? I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT ABOUT CYBER SECURITY AND THOSE THINGS BUT PROJECT MAVEN WAS A SPECIFIC WAY TO ENSURE OUR TROOPS ARE SAFE ON THE BATTLEFIELD. IF YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM MAKING THE J-20 CHINESE FIGHTER MORE EFFECTIVE IN ITS TARGETING, WHY WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO MAKE AMERICA AS EFFECTIVE? >> CONGRESSMAN, WITH RESPECT, WE ARE NOT WORKING WITH THE CHINESE MILITARY. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY FALSE. I HAD A CHANCE TO MEET WITH GENERAL DUNFORD PERSONALLY. WE CLARIFIED WHAT WE DO IN CHINA. IT'S VERY LIMITED IN NATURE. OUR AI WORK IN CHINA IS LIMITED TO A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE WORKING ON OPEN-SOURCE PROJECTS. I'M HAPPY TO SHARE AND ENGAGE TO EXPLAIN OUR WORK IN CHINA. >> WHEN THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF SAYS AN AMERICAN COMPANY IS DIRECTLY AIDING CHINA, WHEN YOU HAVE AN AI CENTER, WHEN YOU'RE WORKING WITH UNIVERSITIES AND WHEN YOUR EMPLOYEES ARE TALKING ABOUT CHINA TREMBLING THE WORLD, IT SEEMS TO REALLY CALL INTO QUESTION YOUR COMMITMENT TO OUR COUNTRY AND OUR VALUES. I SEE MY TIME HAS EXPIRED.

I HOPE WE HAVE AN ADDITIONAL ROUND. >> I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND, MR. RASKIN FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. ZUCKERBERG, AS YOU KNOW, THE PROLIFERATION OF FAKE FACEBOOK ACCOUNTS WAS A KEY TOOL IN THE STRATEGY OF RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE AMERICAN ELECTION IN 2016, AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT, THE SENATE, THE HOUSE HAVE ALL FOUND VLADIMIR PUTIN ENGAGED IN THIS SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGN TO UNDERMINE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY IN 2016 AND TO WORK FOR A VICTORY FOR DONALD TRUMP. IN HIS REMARKABLE BOOK, MIND BLANK, CAMBRIDGE ANALITICA, CHRISTOPHER WILY RECOUNTS HOW THE RUSSIAN ASSAULT ON AMERICA IN CAMBRIDGE AN LIT KA'S RESEARCH DEPENDED ON FACEBOOK. WHEN THEY LAUNCHED IN 2014 STEVE BANNON'S GOAL WAS TO CHANGE POLITICS BY CHANGING CULTURE. FACEBOOK DATA, ALGORITHMS AND OUTCOMES WERE HIS KEY WEAPONS.

THEY USE THE TOOLS TO IDENTIFY PEOPLE WHO EXHIBITED THE THREE TRAITS IN WHAT THEY CALLED THE DARK TRIAD. THEY BEGAN TO BOMBARD AND ACTIVATE THESE PEOPLE, STILL MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WITH DARK AND MANIPULATIVE MESSAGES FROM FAKE FACEBOOK PAGES BOTH TO GET THEM TO VOTE FOR TRUMP BUT, MORE IMPORTANTLY, TO ACTIVATE THEM AS RACIST AND WHITE NATIONALISTS. AND THEY GO ON TO DESCRIBE THE REMARKABLE SUCCESS OF THIS CAMPAIGN BOTH ELECTORALLY AND POLITICALLY IN THE COUNTRY IN TERMS OF SEWING THE RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIVISIONS YOU SEE IN AMERICA TODAY.

THEY WAGED A MASS CAMPAIGN OF PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE TO POLARIZE AMERICA AROUND RACE AND RELIGION AND TO ACTIVATE RACIST AND ANTI-SEMITES. IT WORKED SPLENDIDLY FOR THEM BUT NOT FOR US. MR. ZUCKERBERG, WHAT POINT DO YOU PLAN TO ADDRESS OR DO YOU SEE THAT AS A COST OF BEING A FORUM IN A MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS? IS THERE NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT THE USE OF FACEBOOK TO ENGENDER SOCIAL DIVISION IN AMERICA? >> CONGRESSMAN, THANK YOU. SINCE 2016, THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF STEPS WE HAVE TAKEN TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF ELECTIONS.

WE'VE HIRED — I THINK IT'S MORE THAN 30,000 PEOPLE TO WORK ON SAFETY AND SECURITY. WE HAVE BUILT UP AI SYSTEMS TO BE ABLE TO FIND HARMFUL CONTENT, INCLUDING TO BE ABLE TO FIND 50 DIFFERENT NETWORKS OF COORDINATING AND AUTHENTIC BEHAVIOR. BASICALLY, NATION STATES TRYING TO INTERFERE IN ELECTIONS. >> CAN I PAUSE YOU — LET ME JUST PAUSE YOU THERE FOR A SECOND. I'M INTERESTED IN THAT. THE STOP HATE CAMPAIGN, AND THEY'RE TARGETING FACEBOOK RIGHT NOW FOR A BOYCOTT BECAUSE OF THE RAPID SPREAD OF HATE MESSAGES ONLINE, THE PRESENCE BEGALO AND ALT-RIGHT RACIST CONTENT FLOURISHES ON FACEBOOK. THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO REMOVE THESE PAGES AND ESSENTIALLY TO JOIN THE MOVEMENT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS BY NOT ALLOWING THAT KIND OF CONTENT. THEIR BOYCOTTERS INCLUDE BIG COMPANIES LIKE LEVI'S, McDONALD'S, VW, HEINEKEN AND SO ON. YOU SEEM NOT TOO MOVED BY THEIR CAMPAIGN. I JUST WONDER WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO DO? >> CONGRESSMAN, THANKS. WE'RE VERY FOCUSED ON FIGHTING AGAINST ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND WE'RE ALSO VERY FOCUSED ON FIGHTING AGAINST HATE SPEECH. OUR COMMITMENT TO THOSE ISSUES GO BACK YEARS BEFORE THIS RECENT MOVEMENT.

SINCE 2016 THE DEFENSES THAT THE COMPANY HAS BUILT UP TO HELP SECURE ELECTIONS, NOT JUST IN THE U.S. BUT AROUND THE WORLD, I THINK ARE SOME OF THE MOST ADVANCED THAT ANY COMPANY OR GOVERNMENT HAS IN THE WORLD NOW. WE ROUTINELY NOW COLLABORATE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AND ARE ABLE TO SOMETIMES IDENTIFY THREATS COMING FROM OTHER COUNTRIES BEFORE GOVERNMENTS ARE EVEN ABLE TO.

IN TERMS OF FIGHTING HATE, WE HAVE BUILT REALLY SOPHISTICATED SYSTEMS. OUR GOAL IS TO IDENTIFY IT BEFORE ANYONE EVEN SEES IT ON THE PLATFORM. WE BUILT AI SYSTEMS, AND AS I MENTIONED, HAVE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WORKING ON SAFETY AND SECURITY WITH THE GOAL OF GETTING THIS STUFF DOWN SO THAT WAY BEFORE PEOPLE EVEN SEE IT. RIGHT NOW WE'RE ABLE TO PROACTIVELY IDENTIFY 89% OF THE HATE SPEECH THAT WE TAKE DOWN BEFORE I THINK IT'S EVEN SEEN BY OTHER PEOPLE. I WANT TO DO BETTER THAN 89%.

I'D LIKE TO GET THAT TO 99%. BUT WE HAVE A MASSIVE INVESTMENT HERE. WE INVEST IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS — >> MY TIME IS ALMOST UP. CAN YOU JUST ADDRESS THE PROLIFERATION OF FAKE ACCOUNTS? I UNDERSTAND ANNUALLY YOU GET 6.5 BILLION FAKE ACCOUNTS PRODUCED THERE, BUT IN SOME SENSE YOU HAVE A PROFIT MOTIVE LINKED TO THAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S REPORTED TO YOUR INVESTORS, THE NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS. ARE YOU WORKING ZEALOUSLY TO FERRET OUT THESE FAKE ACCOUNTS THAT SPREAD DISINFORMATION? >> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED BUT THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> CONGRESSMAN, ABSOLUTELY. WE WORK HARD ON THIS. WE TAKE DOWN BILLIONS OF FAKE ACCOUNTS A YEAR. A LOT OF THAT IS JUST PEOPLE TRYING TO SET UP ACCOUNTS TO SPAM PEOPLE FOR COMMERCIAL REASONS. A VERY SMALL PERCENT OF THAT ARE NATION STATES TRYING TO INTERFERE IN ELECTIONS, BUT WE'RE VERY FOCUSED ON TRYING TO FIND THOSE.

HAVING FAKE AND HARMFUL CONTENT ON OUR PLATFORM DOES NOT HELP OUR BUSINESS. IT HURTS OUR BUSINESS. PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO SEE THAT STUFF. AND THEY USE OUR SERVICES LESS WHEN THEY DO. WE ARE ALIGNED WITH PEOPLE IN ORDER TO TAKE THAT DOWN. WE INVEST BILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR IN DOING SO. >> YIELD BACK. THANK YOU. >> THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES WHILE WE FIX A TECHNICAL FEED WITH ONE OF OUR WITNESSES.

>>> THE COMMITTEE WILL COME BACK TO ORDER. I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH DAKOTA, MR. ARMSTRONG, FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> GOOGLE HAS RECEIVED CRITICISM ABOUT BIAS AGAINST CONSERVATIVES AND CONTENT MODERATION. THERE WERE THREATS OF DEMON TIESING THE FEDERALIST AND OTHER VIEW POINTS OF COMPLAINT. AS A RESULT A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HAS LOST TRUST IN YOUR COMPANY. A LACK OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN A PRODUCT USUALLY MEANS THERE'S ECONOMIC HARM TO THE COMPANY. BUT THAT JUST ISN'T THE CASE WITH GOOGLE. I THINK IT'S A LEGITIMATE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER GOOGLE'S MARKET POWER INSULATES IT FROM LOSS OF REVENUE NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH HALF OF THE PEOPLE THAT USE YOUR PRODUCT. I THINK IT'S A LEGITIMATE QUESTION TO ASK IF OTHER ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE YOUR INDUSTRIES HAVE WORKED. SO, MR. PICHAI, GOOGLE HAS RESTRICTED ANALYZING ANALYTICS OR THE PORTABILITY OF DATA DUE TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATION.

SPECIFICALLY IN 2018, GOOGLE RESTRICTED THE ABILITY TO EXPORT THE WIID, A COOKIE BASED IDENTIFY THAT CREATES PROFILES THROUGH GOOGLE DATA TRANSFER. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CONGRESSMAN, NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE SPECIFICS OF THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE, BUT HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP MORE ONCE I UNDERSTAND IT BETTER. >> YOU'RE NOT PARTICULARLY FAMILIAR WITH HOW YOU'RE COMPLYING WITH GDPR? >> CONGRESSMAN, WE'VE LONG BEEN WORKING TO COMPLY WITH GDPR. WE THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT REGULATION AND WE ARE IN FULL COMPLIANCE TO THE EXTENT OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I JUST MEANT, NOT AWARE OF THE SPECIFIC ISSUE WITH THE IDENTIFIER YOU MENTIONED THERE. >> IN ORDER TO COME FLY WITH GDPR, GOOGLE MUST COMBINE USER DATA WITH OTHER PLATFORMS TO CREATE CROSS-PLATFORM ANALYSIS. IT SEEMS THAT ULTIMATELY LIMITS THE ABILITY OF ADVERTISERS TO MAKE COMPARISONS BETWEEN GOOGLE-BASED CAMPAIGNS AND NON-GOOGLE BASED CAMPAIGNS. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >> IN ALL THESE ECOSYSTEMS, WE ARE BALANCING BETWEEN USERS, ADVERTISERS AND PUBLISHERS.

WE DEEPLY CARE ABOUT THE PRIVACY AND SECURITY OF OUR USERS. AND SO WHEN WE SERVE THESE ECOSYSTEMS, WE HAVE TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH IMPORTANT LAWS AND REGULATIONS IN EVERY COUNTRY WE OPERATE IN. SO, THAT'S THE DELICATE BALANCE WE ARE CONSTANTLY STRIKING. BUT WE FOCUS ON OUR USERS AND TRYING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN. >> I I WANT TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR. I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT JUST THE MARKET POWER CONSOLIDATION IS SIGNIFICANT BUT I ALSO WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WHEN WE'RE MOVING FORWARD TO REGULATE THIS, THAT WE AREN'T ACTUALLY SQUEEZING OUT COMPETITION IN OUR QUEST TO DO SOMETHING, BECAUSE I'VE SAID THAT BEFORE IN THIS HEARING AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN. USUALLY IN OUR QUEST TO REGULATE BIG COMPANIES, WE END UP HURTING SMALL COMPANIES MORE. AND I'M A STRONG PRIVACY ADVOCATE. BUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF GDPR HAVE BEEN TO FURTHER ENTRENCH LARGE ESTABLISHED ACTORS LIKE GOOGLE LEADING TO REGULATORY CAPTURE THAT EXASPERATES COMPETITION CONCERN. AND GOOGLE'S MARKET SHARE SINCE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GDPR, DO YOU KNOW THAT TO BE CORRECT? >> CONGRESSMAN, TO GIVE YOU — AD PRICES HAVE FALLEN 40 PRST IN THE LAST YEAR.

IN THE U.S., ADVERTISING AS A CHAIRMAN OF GDP HAS COME DOWN FROM 1.4% IN 1992 TO LESS THAN 1% TODAY. SO, WE SEE ROBUST COMPETITION IN THE MARKETPLACE. AS I SAID EARLIER, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH REGULATION. WE HAVE TO INTERPRET IT STRICTLY AND WE HAVE TO BALANCE THE ECOSYSTEM. BUT OUR UTMOST CARE IS ENSURING PRIVACY AND SECURITY OF OUR USERS. >> I'M GLAD YOU MENTION THE PRIVACY BECAUSE I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE BECAUSE IT'S SO RELEVANT. GENERALLY SPEAKING OUTSIDE OF THE POLITICAL ISSUES AND THE BIAS WITH ALL OF THIS, AND THIS IS FOR ESSENTIALLY ALL FOUR OF OUR WITNESSES, I THINK ONE OF OUR BIGGER CONCERNS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DATA AND VALUE — AND THAT DATA HAVING VALUE AND PRIVACY, WHICH IS WHERE PEOPLE REALLY GET CONCERNED WITH HOW THE DIGITAL AGE IS MOVING FORWARD, AND THERE ARE NEWS REPORTS THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS MADE INCREASING USE OF WHAT ARE CALLED GEOFENCE WARRANTS.

THESE GEOFENCE WARRANTS COMPEL TECH COMPANIES FOR LOCATION RECORDS ON A CERTAIN DEVICE AT ANY TIME. COURT FILINGS SUGGEST GOOGLE RECEIVED ABOUT 1500% INCREASE IN GEOFENCE REQUESTS FROM 2017 TO 2018. AND A 500% INCREASE FROM 2018 TO 2019. AND SO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES PROBABLE CAUSE AND SPECIFICITY. THAT'S NOT WHAT THESE ARE. THESE WARRANTS ARE FOR ANY PERSON, IN ANY AREA AT A PARTICULAR TIME.

AND GEOFENCE WARRANTS REQUIRE NEITHER. UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY PARTICULARIZED INFORMATION AND IDENTIFYING A SUBJECT, GEO WARRANTS ARE ESSENTIALLY GENERAL WARRANTS. I BELIEVE THE LOCATION INFORMATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED CONTENTS OF THE ELECTRONICS COMMUNICATION ACT UNDER THE STORAGE COMMUNICATIONS ACT. DO YOU AGREE? >> HAPPY TO UNDERSTAND MORE. WE DEEPLY CARE ABOUT — THIS IS WHY WE HAVE TRANSPARENCY REPORTS BECAUSE WE THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT AREA FOR CONGRESS TO HAVE OVERSIGHT. WE RECENTLY MADE A CHANGE BY WHICH WE AUTOMATICALLY DELETE LOCATION ACTIVITY AFTER A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME BY DEFAULT OF OUR USERS. WE'RE HAPPY TO ENGAGE WITH YOUR OFFICE, CONGRESSMAN.

>> THESE ARE GOING ON IN VIRGINIA AND NEW YORK, I THINK, RIGHT NOW. I MEAN, THIS EQUATES FOR EVERYTHING. I THINK PEOPLE WOULD BE TERRIFIED TO KNOW THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT COULD GRAB GENERAL WARRANTS AND GET EVERYBODY'S INFORMATION ANYWHERE, SO IT REQUIRES CONGRESS TO ACT AND IT REQUIRES EVERYBODY THAT IS A WITNESS IN THIS HEARING TO BE WILLING TO WORK, TOO, BECAUSE IT IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE, I THINK — >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED BUT I BELIEVE HE HAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST. >> I DO. I HAVE UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST FOR "WALL STREET JOURNAL" ARTICLE. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> AND THEN I HAVE TWO LETTERS. THE LETTERS ARE FROM CONGRESSMAN WALDEN, CONGRESSWOMAN McMORRIS ROBERTS.

THE FIRST IS TO MR. COOK OF APPLE AND THE SECOND IS TO MR. PICHAI. >> NO OBJECTION. I THE GENTLE LADY FROM WASHINGTON. >> MR. BEZOS, IN JULY 2018 YOUR EMPLOYEE NATE SUTTON TOLD ME UNDER OATH IN THIS COMMITTEE THAT AMAZON DOES NOT, QUOTE, USE ANY SPECIFIC SELLER DATA WHEN CREATING ITS OWN PRIVATE BRAND PRODUCT. LET ME ASK YOU, MR.

BEZOS, DOES AMAZON EVER ACCESS AND USE THIRD-PARTY SELLER DATA WHEN MAKING BUSINESS DECISIONS? JUST A YES OR NO WILL SUFFICE, SIR. >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I KNOW IT'S AN IMPORTANT TOPIC AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR REPRESENTING US. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION YES OR NO. WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS WE HAVE A POLICY AGAINST USING SELLER-SPECIFIC DATA TO AID OUR PRIVATE LABEL BUSINESS. BUT I CAN'T GUARANTEE YOU THAT THAT POLICY HAS NEVER BEEN VIOLATED. >> MR. BEZOS, YOU'RE PROBABLY AWARE THAT IN APRIL 2020, A REPORT IN "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL" REVEALED YOUR COMPANY DOES ACCESS DATA ON THIRD-PARTY SELLERS, BOTH BY REVIEWING DATA ON POPULAR INDIVIDUAL SELLERS ON PRODUCTS AND BY CREATING TINY PRODUCT CATEGORIES THAT ALLOWED YOUR COMPANY TO CATEGORICALLY ACCESS DETAILED SELLER INFORMATION IN A SUPPOSEDLY AGGREGATE CATEGORY.

ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? >> I'M AWARE OF "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL" ARTICLE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE LOOKED INTO THAT CAREFULLY. I'M NOT THE SATISFIED WE GOT TO THE BOTTOM OF IT AND WE'RE GOING TO KEEP LOOKING AT IT. IT'S NOT AS EASY TO DO BECAUSE SOME OF THE SOURCES IN THE ARTICLE ARE ANONYMOUS. >> I WILL TELL YOU A FORMER AMAZON EMPLOYEE, THIRD PARTY SALES AND RECRUITMENT TOLD THIS COMMITTEE, QUOTE, THERE'S NO RULES OR SOMEBODY ENFORCING OR SPOT CHECKING. THEY JUST SAY DON'T HELP YOURSELF TO THE DATA. IT'S A CANDY SHOP. ANYONE CAN HAVE ACCESS TO ANYTHING THEY WANT. DO CATEGORY MANAGERS HAVE ACCESS TO PUBLIC DATA ABOUT THIRD-PARTY PRODUCTS AND BUSINESSES? >> HERE'S WHAT I CAN TELL YOU. WE DO HAVE CERTAIN SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE.

WE TRAIN PEOPLE ON THE POLICY. WE EXPECT PEOPLE TO FOLLOW THAT POLICY THE SAME WAY WE WOULD ANY OTHER. IT'S A VOLUNTARY POLICY. AS FAR AS I'M AWARE — >> SO THERE'S NO ACTUAL — THERE'S NO ACTUAL ENFORCEMENT? >> OH, NO. >> SO IT'S VOLUNTARY AND THERE'S NO ACTUAL ENFORCEMENT? MAYBE THAT ANSWERS MY — >> SORRY. NO, I THINK I MAY HAVE MISSPOKE. I'M TRYING TO SAY AMAZON'S — THE FACT WE HAVE SUCH A POLICY IS VOLUNTARY. I THINK NO OTHER RETAILER EVEN HAS SUCH A POLICY. >> WELL, THAT'S — >> ENFORCEMENT OF THAT POLICY, WE WOULD TREAT THAT LIKE ANY INTERNAL POLICY. IF WE FOUND THAT SOMEONE VIOLATED IT, WE WOULD TAKE ACTION AGAINST THEM. >> WELL, THERE'S NUMEROUS REPORTS AND THE COMMITTEE HAS CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS WITH FORMER EMPLOYEES WHO CONFIRM THERE ARE EMPLOYEES WHO DO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT DATA AND ARE USING IT, AND SO MY NEXT QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE IF YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE ACTUALLY ENFORCING THESE RULES, DO YOU THINK THAT THAT'S WORKING? AGAIN, I WOULD JUST IT HAS DOCU BREACHES OF THESE RULES THAT YOU HAVE PUT INTO PLACE AND THE COMMITTEE HAS INTERVIEWED THEM, THEY SAY THESE BREACHES TYPICALLY OCCUR.

YOUR RULES DO ALLOW FOR COMBINED DATA ON A PRODUCT WHEN THERE ARE ONLY ONE OR TWO SELLERS IN THE MARKETPLACE, CORRECT? >> YES. AGGREGATE DATA IS ALLOWED UNDER OUR POLICIES. THAT IS CORRECT. >> OKAY. AND INTERVIEWS WITH FORMER EMPLOYEES HAVE MADE IT CLEAR, THAT AGGREGATE DATA ALLOWS ACCESS TO HIGHLY DETAILED DATA IN THOSE PRODUCT CATEGORIES. THERE'S THE EXAMPLE OF A SMALL BUSINESS THAT HAD NO DIRECT COMPETITORS EXCEPT FOR AMAZON WAREHOUSE DEALS, A RESALE CLEARANCE ACCOUNT THAT ONLY SOLD 17 UNITS. AND AMAZON EMPLOYEE ACCESSED A DETAILED SALES REPORT ON FORTEM'S PRODUCT WITH INFORMATION ON HOW MUCH THE COMPANY SPENT ON ADVERTISING PER UNIT, AND THE COST TO SHIP EACH TRUNK.

AND THEN AMAZON LAUNCHED ITS OWN COMPETING PRODUCTS IN OCTOBER 2019. THAT'S A MAJOR LOOPHOLE. I GO BACK TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE, THAT THERE WAS NO ACCESS TO THIS DATA. THAT AMAZON DOES NOT USE THAT DATA TO ITS OWN BENEFIT AND I'M NOW HEARING YOU SAY, YOU'RE NOT SO SURE THAT'S GOING ON. THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE CONCERNED WITH HERE IS VERY SIMPLE. YOU HAVE ACCESS TO DATA THAT FAR EXCEEDS THE SELLERS ON YOUR PLATFORMS WITH WHOM YOU COMPETE. YOU CONTRACT CONSUMER, YOU CAN TRACK CONSUMER HABITS. YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THE ENTIRETY OF SELLERS' PRICING AND INVENTORY INFORMATION, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE AND YOU DICTATE THE PARTICIPATION OF THIRD PARTY SELLERS ON YOUR PLATFORM.

SO YOU CAN SET THE RULES OF THE GAME FOR YOUR COMPETITORS BUT NOT FOLLOW THE SAME RULES FOR YOURSELF. DO YOU THINK THAT'S FAIR TO THE MOM AND POP THIRD PARTY BUSINESSES TRYING TO SELL ON YOUR PLATFORM? >> I APPRECIATE THAT QUESTION. I LIKE IT A LOT BECAUSE I WANT THE CHANCE TO ADDRESS THAT. I AM VERY PROUD OF WHAT WE'VE DONE FOR THIRD PARTY SELLERS ON THIS PLATFORM WEST STARTED OUR THIRD PARTY PLATFORM 20 YEARS AGO. WE HAD ZERO SELLERS ON IT. >> THE QUESTION I'M ASKING, I'M SORRY. I'M SO SORRY. MY TIME IS EXPIRING. THE QUESTION I WANTED TO ASK YOU IS THAT YOU HAVE ACCESS TO DATA THAT YOUR COMPETITORS DON'T HAVE. YOU MIGHT ALLOW THEM ON TO YOUR PLATFORM BUT IF YOU'RE CONTINUOUSLY MONITORING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'LL NEVER GET BIG ENOUGH THAT THEY CAN COMPETE WITH YOU, THAT IS ACTUALLY THE CONCERN THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS. AND YOU KNOW, I THINK YOUR COMPANY STARTED IN MY DISTRICT. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT, FOR THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE, AND SAY THAT THE WHOLE GOAL OF THIS COMMITTEE'S WORK IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE MORE AMAZONS, MORE APPLES, THAT THERE ARE MORE COMPANIES THAT GET TO INNOVATE AND SMALL BUSINESSES GET TO THRIVE.

AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AT. THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO REGULATE THESE MARKET PLACES. SO NO COMPANY HAS A PLATFORM SO DOMINANT THAT IT IS ESSENTIALLY A MONOPOLY. THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK. >> TIME HAS EXPIRED. I WANT TO REMIND THE WITNESSES, WE APPRECIATE THE GRATITUDE FOR THE QUESTIONS AND YOUR DESCRIPTION AS GOOD QUESTIONS. BUT WE'LL JUST ASSUME THAT THEY'RE GOOD QUESTIONS AND YOU'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM SO WE CAN MAKE SURE WE'RE MAKING GOOD USE OF OUR TIME. WITH THAT, I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. >> THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH YOU AND I'LL ILLUSTRATE MY QUESTION WITH A FACTUAL INCIDENT THAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED TO ME. SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, MY WIFE CALLED AND. HEY, THERE IS A GOOD ARTICLE ON THE GATE WAIVE PUNDIT THAT YOU .

I WAS HERE IN WASHINGTON OUT OF CURIOSITY. I GOOGLED GATEWAY PUNDIT. IT DIDN'T SHOW UP ON THE FIRST OR SECOND PAGE. THERE WERE A BUNCH OF DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT WHAT WAS ON THE GATEWAY PUNDIT. I HAD TO TYPE IT IN TO GET TO IT. INTERESTINGLY, GOOGLE DIDN'T ALLOW ME TO GET TO THE ACTUAL WEBSITE LT THAT WAS A COUPLE MONTHS BEFORE THIS HEARING WAS SET TO BE HEARD. BEFORE YOU KNEW THAT YOU WOULD BE APPEARING BEFORE US TODAY AND THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT OBVIOUSLY CONSERVATIVES AND REPUBLICANS HAVE HAD. LAST WEEK, AFTER THIS HEARING WAS NOTICED, DID I THE EXACT SAME THING IN THE CAPITAL. AND WOULDN'T YOU KNOW IT, I GOOGLED GATEWAY PUNDIT AND IT WAS THE FIRST THING THAT CAME UP. THIS ISN'T A NUS REPORT OR SOMEBODY TELLING ME. I PHYSICALLY DID THIS ON MY LAPTOP. SEVERAL MONTHS AGO AND THEN TODAY.

SO CLEARLY SOMETHING HAD HAPPENED BETWEEN NOT KNOWING THAT YOU WERE APPEARING BEFORE A COMMITTEE AND THEN LAST WEEK KNOWING YOU WERE APPEARING BEFORE A COMMITTEE AND SUDDENLY WEBSITES ARE AT THE TOP OF THE BAR WHEN YOU SEARCH FOR THEY WILL. SO WAS THERE ANYTHING DONE AT GOOGLE BETWEEN A COUPLE MONTHS AGO AND A WEEK BEFORE YOU APPEARING TODAY THAT HAS CHANGED YOUR APPROACH TO SILENCING CONSERVATIVE WEBSITES? >> CONGRESSMAN, WE APPROACH OUR WORK A DEEP SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY. IN A NONPARTISAN WAY, WE WANT TO SERVE ALL OUR USERS NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE. IT IS OUR LONG TIME BUSINESS INCENTIVE TO DO SO. I BELIEVE ON THE PLATFORMS INCLUDING YOUTUBE, THAT THERE ARE MORE CONSERVATIVE VOICES THAN EVER BEFORE AND WE BELIEVE IN FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. ON THE SPECIFIC ISSUE, I WILL HAVE TO LOOK INTO IT. I OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT AWARE OF IT. WE KNEW IT COULD BE A NUMBER OF REASONS. WE CONSTANTLY GET REPORTS — >> SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK INTO IT. CAN I EXPECT A RESPONSE FROM YOU IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS? >> WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO FOLLOW UP WITH YOUR OFFICE.

>> WE'LL FOLLOW UP ON THAT. I HAVE A SIMILAR QUESTION. I'VE BEEN IN ELECTED POLITICS FOR ALMOST TEN YEARS. WHEN I WAS IN THE FLORIDA SENATE AND THE STATE SENATE, I NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH MY CAMPAIGN EMAILS BEING MARKED AS SPAM OR GOING TO JUNK FOLDERS OR ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES. WE HAD 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 PEOPLE ON OUR EMAIL LISTS. SUDDENLY I GET ELECTED TO CONGRESS AND I'M UP HERE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. IN MY PARENTS WHO HAVE A G MAIL ACCOUNT ARE GETTING MY ACCOUNT. SUDDENLY MY G-MAIL IS GETTING IT FOR TEN YEARS AND SUDDENLY THEY'RE GOING TO SPAM IN JUNK FOLDERS. THIS APPEARS TO ONLY BE HAPPENING TO CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE NEWS OR ANYTHING IN THE PRESS OR OTHER MEMBERS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE TALKING ABOUT THEIR CAMPAIGN EMAILS GETTING HELP TO INTO JUNK FOLDERS IN G-MAIL. SO MY QUESTION IS WHY IS THIS ONLY HAPPENING TO REPUBLICANS? AND IT IS A FACT IT'S HAPPENING. I CAN HAVE MY SUPPORTERS TESTIFY THAT THEY RECEIVED MY EMAILS FOR EIGHT YEARS, EIGHT, NINE YEARS, AND SUDDENLY THIS LAST YEAR, ALL THEIR G-MAIL, MY CAMPAIGNING IS GOING TO THEIR SPAM FOLDERS.

SO IF YOU CAN GIVE ME SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. >> WE ARE FOCUSED ON WHAT USERS WANT. AND THEY'VE INDICATED THEY WANT TO US ORGANIZE THEIR PERSONAL EMAILS, FROM FRIENDS AND FAMILY, SEPARATELY. SO ALL WE'VE DONE IS WE HAVE THE ORGANIZATION, THE PRIMARY TAB IS FROM FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND THE OTHER TAB IS OTHER NOTIFICATIONS AND SO ON. IT WAS MY FATHER NOT RECEIVING THE EMAIL. SO CLEARLY THAT FAMILIAL THING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DID NOT APPLY TO MY EMAILS. >> OUR SYSTEMS ARE PROBABLY NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS YOUR FATHER. OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T HAVE THAT CONTEXT. WE JUST APPLY IT NEUTRALLY ACROSS ALL ORGANIZATIONS. AND — >> WHAT ASSURANCES CAN YOU GIVE ME THAT THERE IS — MY TIME IS SHORT. ONE LAST QUESTION. WHAT SHURMSS CAN YOU GIVE ME THAT ANY BIAS ISN'T INFLUENCING YOUR SPAM FOLDER ALGORITHMS? >> CONGRESSMAN, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ALGORITHM WHICH HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH POLITICAL IDEOLOGY. WE DO GET COMPLAINTS ACROSS THE AISLE. THE SOCIALISTS SAID IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR THAT IT WASN'T IN SEARCH RESULTS.

WE GET COMPLAINTS. WE LOOK INTO IT. WE APPROACH OUR WORK IN A NONPART SANDAL WAY AND IT IS IN OUR LONG TERM INCENTIVE TO SERVE USERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. TODAY, THAT'S WHY WE INVEST IN 49 STATES ACROSS THE U.S. SO WE CAN CAPTURE ALL THE POINTS. >> THANK YOU. TIME HAS EXPIRED. I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENETICAL LADY FROM FLORIDA. >> I'VE HEARD COMPLAINTS ABOUT MY EMAILS GOING INTO SPAM AS WELL. AND I'LL SURE OTHER DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS HAVE HAD THE SAME EXPERIENCES. IN 2007, GOOGLE PURCHASED DOUBLE CLICK.

CERTAIN ADVERTISING TOOLS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WHEN GOOGLE PROPOSED THE MERGER, ALARM BELLS WERE RAISED ABOUT THE ACCESS TO DATA GOOGLE WOULD HAVE. SPECIFICALLY THE ABILITY TO CONNECT A PERSONAL IDENTITY. THE DEAL WOULD NOT REDUCE USER PRIVACY. GOOGLE TESTIFIED BEFORE THE SENATE ANTI-TRUST SUB COMMITTEE THAT GOOGLE WOULD BE ABLE TO MERGE THIS DATA, EVEN IF IT WANTED TO, GIVEN CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTIONS. BUT IN JUNE OF 2016, GOOGLE WOMEN AHEAD AND MERGED THIS — GOOLG WENT AHEAD ON THE INTERNET. YOU BECAME CEO OF GOOGLE IN 2015. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND THIS CHANGE WAS MADE IN 2016, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. DID YOU SIGN OFF THAT GOOGLE HAD TOLD CONGRESS IT WOULD BE KEPT SEPARATE? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, ANY CHANGES WE MADE — >> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, PLEASE, DID YOU SIGN OFF ON THE DECISION OR NOT? >> I REVIEW AT A HIGH LEVEL ALL IMPORTANT DECISIONS WE MAKE. WE DEEPLY CARE ABOUT OUR USERS. >> SO YOU SIGNED OFF.

OKAY. YOU SIGNED OFF ON THE DECISION. PRACTICALLY, THIS DECISION MEN THAT YOUR COMPANY WOULD NOT COMBINE ALL, WOULD NOW COMBINE, FOR EXAMPLE, ALL OF MY DATA ON GOOGLE, MY SEARCH HISTORY, MY LOCATION FROM GOOGLE MAPS, INFORMATION FROM MY EMAILS, FROM G-MAIL, AS WELL AS MY PERSONAL IDENTITY WITH A RECORD OF ALMOST ALL OF THE WEBSITES I VISITED. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY STAGGERING. ACCORDING TO AN EMAIL FROM A DOUBLE CLICK EXECUTIVE, THAT WAS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF REDUCTION AND USER PRIVACY THAT THE FOUNDERS HAD PREVIOUSLY WORRIED WOULD LEAD TO A BACK LASH. AND I QUOTE.

THEY WERE UNWAVERING DUE TO PHILOSOPHICAL REASONS, WHICH IS NOT WANTING USERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CROSS-SITE CLICKING. THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT A PRIVILEGECY STORM AS WELL AS DAMAGE TO GOOGLE'S BRAND. SO IN 2007, GOOGLE'S FOUNDERS FEARED MAKING THIS CHANGE BECAUSE THEY KNEW WOULD IT UPSET THE USERS. IN 2016, GOOGLE DID NOT SEEM TO CARE. ISN'T TRY IT THAT WHAT CHANGED BETWEEN 2007 AND 2016 IS THAT GOOGLE GAINED ENORMOUS MARKET POWER.

SO WHILE GOOGLE HAD TO CARE ABOUT USER PRIVACY IN 2007, IT NO LONGER HAD TO IN 2016. WOULD YOU AGREE WAS THAT GOOGLE GAINED ENORMOUS MARKET POWER? >> IT IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. IF I COULD EXPLAIN. WE PLAYING IT VERY EASY FOR USERS TO CONTROL THEIR SETTINGS. THEY CAN TURN IT ON AND OFF. WE HAVE COMBINED MOST OF THE SETTINGS INTO THREE GROUPINGS. REREMIND USERS TO GO TO A PROIFCY CHECK UP. 1 BILLION USERS — >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I AM CONCERNED THAT GOOGLE'S BAIT-AND-SWITCH IS PART OF A BROADER PANEL WHERE GOOGLE BUYS UP COMPANIES FOR THE THAT YOU RECALL OF SURVEILLING AMERICANS.

AND BECAUSE OF GOOGLE DOMINANCE, USERS HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO SURRENDER. IN 2019, GOOGLE MADE OVER 80% OF ITS TOTAL REVENUE THROUGH SELLING OF AD PLACEMENT. IS THAT CORRECT? 80%? >> THE MAJORITY. >> BECAUSE THEY SELL BEHAVIORAL ADS, THE MORE USER DATE THAT GOOGLE COLLECTS, THE MORE MONEY GOOGLE CAN MAKE. MORE USER DATA MEAN MORE MONEY, IS THAT CORRECT? >> IN GENERAL, THAT'S NOT TRUE. >> MORE USER DATA IS NOT MORE MONEY THAT GOOGLE CONNECTS? >> I'M SORRY, PLEASE. YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE MORE USER DATA DOES NOT MEAN THE MORE MONEY THAT GOOGLE CAN COLLECT. >> MOST OF THE DATA WE COLLECT IS TO HELP USERS. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK. >> THANK THANK YOU. >> IS GOOGLE GOING TO TAILOR ITS FEATURES TO HELP JOE BIDEN IN THE 2020 ELECTION? >> CONGRESSMAN, WE APPROACH OUR WORK. WE SUPPORT BOTH CAMPAIGNS TODAY. WE THINK POLITICAL ADS IS AN IMPORTANT PAR OF FREE SPEECH IN DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES AND CAMPAIGNS, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO LAW AND THE APPROACH IN A NONPARTISAN WAY.

>> IT IS A YES OR NO QUESTION. CAN YOU ASSURE AMERICANS TODAY YOU WON'T TAILOR YOUR FEATURES TO HELP JOE BIDEN IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION? >> YOU KNOW, WE SUPPORT WORK THAT CAMPAIGNS DO. I WANT TO MAKE SURE. >> WE ALL DO ALL KINDS OF ONLINE SOCIAL MEDIA. ALL KINDS OF THAT OUTRECEIVE. THAT COMMUNICATION. THIS IS A SIMPLE QUESTION. CAN YOU TODAY ASSURE AMERICANS YOU WILL NOT TAILOR YOUR FEATURES IN ANY WAY TO HELP SPECIFICALLY HELP ONE CANDIDATE OVER ANOTHER. WHAT I'M CONCERNED IS YOU HELPING JOE BIDEN OVER PRESIDENT TRUMP. >> WE WON'T DO ANY WORK TO POLITICALLY TILT ANYTHING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. IT IS AGAINST OUR CORE VALUES. >> YOU DID IT IN 2016. THERE'S AN EMAIL IN 2016 THAT WAS WIDELY CIRCULATED THAT GOT PUBLIC WHERE THE HEAD OF YOUR MULTICULTURAL MARKETING TALKS ABOUT THE SILENCE DONATION GOOGLE MADE TO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN. AND YOU APPLAUDED HER WORK. SHE POINTS THAT OUT IN THE EMAIL. I'M CURIOUS, IF YOU DID IT IN 2016, IN SPITE OF THE FACT, PRESIDENT TRUMP WON.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT AGAIN IN 2020. >> I RECALL THE CONVERSATION TEMPERATURE. I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN. WE DIDN'T FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF SUCH ACTIVITY. AND I TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY AFTER THE CONVERSATION TO REINFORCE TO THE COMPANY. WE REALIZE EVEN IN APPEARANCE, IT COULD BE IMPROPER. WE HAVE CLEARLY COMMUNICATED TO EMPLOYEES ANY PERSONAL OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY, WHILE IT IS THEIR RIGHT, NEEDS TO HAPPEN ON THEIR OWN TIME AND RESOURCES AND SHOULD AVOID — >> OF COURSE. EVERYONE HAS THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO CAMPAIGN HOW THEY WANT. WHAT YOU CAN'T DO IS CONFIGURE THE FEATURES TO HELP ONE OVER ANOTHER. HERE'S WHAT SHE WROTE TO THE EMAIL. A NUMBER OF KEY EXECUTIVES IN YOUR COIL.

QUOTE, WE PUSH TO GET OUT THE LATINO VOTE WITH OUR FEATURES. SECOND QUOTE, WE PUSH TO GET OUT THE LATINO VOTE WITH OUR FEET NURSES KEY STATES. IT SEEMS THE LAST THREE WORDS ARE THE REAL QUALIFIER HERE. WHEN YOU'RE TRYING IN KEY STATES, SHE HAD ALREADY COMMUNICATE THAT HAD SHE WAS SUPPORTING CLINTON. SHE WANTED CLINTON TO WIN. WHEN SHE TALKS ABOUT INCREASING THE LATINO VOTE, WHICH SHE ASSUMED WOULD HELP CANDIDATE CLINTON AND SHE'S DOING IT IN KEY STATES. IT IS ONE THING IF YOU'RE GOING TO INCREASE IT AROUND THE COUNTRY. YOU'RE JUST A GOOD CORPORATE CITIZEN. YOU'RE URGING PEOPLE TO VOTE. QUITE ANOTHER WHEN YOU'RE FOCUSING ON IN KEY STATES. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY WERE? NEVADA AND FLORIDA. THE SWING STATES. SO AGAIN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN IN 2020. >> I CAN ASSURE YOU WE COMPLIED IN 2016 AS A COIL.

ANY WORK WE DO WITH ELECTIONS IS NONPA NONPARTISAN. USERS COME TO US, WHAT THE VOTING HOURS ARE, I CAN ASSURE YOU — >> SO, HERE'S THE QUESTION ON SO MANY AMERICANS' MINDS. THEY SAW THE LIST IN OUR OPENING STATEMENTS. GOOGLE IS SIDING WITH THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION OVER ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THEM EVEN THOUGH THEY OBVIOUSLY LIED TO AMERICA. OBVIOUSLY FOR CHINA. WE HAVE THE HISTORY OF ALL THE THINGS GOOGLE HAS DONE AND THE HISTORY OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016 IN THE ELECTION WHERE ACCORDING TO YOUR MULTICULTURAL MARKETING EXECUTIVE, TRIED TO HELP CLINTON AND HERE WE ARE, 97 DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN.

CAN YOU GIVE US TWO ASSURANCES, ONE, YOU WON'T TRY TO TAILOR YOUR FEATURES, CONFIGURE YOUR PLATFORM IN A WAY TO HELP JOE BIDEN. AND SECOND, THAT YOU WON'T USE YOUR SEARCH ENGINE TO SILENCE CONSERVATIVES. CAN YOU GIVE US THOSE TWO TODAY? >> CONGRESSMAN, ON OUR SEARCH ENGINE, CONSERVATIVES HAVE MORE ACCESS TO INFORMATION THAN EVER BEFORE. >> WE APPRECIATE THAT. THAT WAS NOT THE QUESTION. CAN YOU ASSURE US YOU WON'T TRY TO SILENCE CONSERVATIVES AND CAN YOU ASSURE THAT THAT, AS DID YOU IN 2016, CAN YOU ASSURE YOU WON'T DO THE SAME THING FOR JOE BIDEN IN 2020.

>> YOU HAVE MY COMMITMENT. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE AND WE'LL CONDUCT OURSELVES IN A NEUTRAL WAY. >> I RECOGNIZE FROM PENNSYLVANIA. >> THANK YOU. >> I WOULD LIKE TO REDIRECT YOUR ATTENTION. RATHER THAN FRINGE CONSPIRACY THEORIES. OUR INVESTIGATION — >> WE HAVE THE EMAIL. THERE'S NO — >> YOU DO NOT HAVE THE TIME. PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL. SHE CONTROLS THE TIME. >> PUT YOUR MASK ON. PUT YOUR MASK ON. >> MR. JORDAN? >> MR. JORDAN? >> WHY WOULD THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY UNMASK MICHAEL FLYNN'S NAME? >> WHAT I WANT TO KNOW — >> THANK YOU. OUR INVESTIGATION UNCOVERED DOCUMENTS THAT SHOWED THAT AMAZON SOMETIMES DOESN'T PLAY FAIRLY. CROSSING THE LINE FROM ROBUST COMPETITION TO PREDATORY PRICING, TO DESTROY RIVALS, RATHER THAN OUTCOMPETE THEM.

LET'S TAKE EXAMPLE OF QUINCY WHICH USED TO OWN DIAPERS.COM AND PROVIDED ONLINE BABY PRODUCTS. IN 2009 YOUR TEAM VIEWED IT AS AMAZON'S LARGEST AND FASTEST ONLINE COMPETITOR FOR DIAPERS. ONE OF THE TOP EXECUTIVES SAID THAT DIAPERS.COM KEEPS THE PRESSURE OF PRICING ON US. AND STRONG COMPETITION MEN AMAZON WAS HAVING TO WORK HARDER AND HARDER SO CUSTOMERS DIDN'T PICK DIAPERS.COM OVER AMAZON. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HARD WORKING FAMILIES, SINGLE PARENTS WITH BABIES AND YOUNG CHILDREN. BECAUSE DIAPERS.COM WAS SO SUCCESSFUL, AMAZON SAW IT AS THREAT. IT SHOWED THAT THEY BEGAN STRATEGIZING WAYS TO WEAKEN THIS COMPANY. AND AMAZON HATCHED A PLAN TO TAKE IT OUT.

IN AN EMAIL I REVIEWED, ONE OF YOUR TOP EXECUTIVES PROPOSED AN AGGRESSIVE PLAN TO WIN AGAINST DIMERS DOC, A PLAN THAT SOUGHT TO UNDERCUT THE BUSINESS BY TEMPORARILY SLASHING AMAZON PRICES. WE SAW ONE OF YOUR PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENTS. IT APPEARS IN ONE MONTH ALONE AMAZON WAS WILLING TO BLEED OVER $200 MILLION IN DIAPER PROFIT LOSSES. HOW MUCH MONEY WAS AMAZON WILLING TO LOSE ON THIS CAMPAIGN TO UNDERMINE DIAPERS.COM? >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW THE DIRECT ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. THIS IS GOING BACK IN TIME. I THINK MAYBE 10 OR 11 YEARS OR SO. MAYBE THE DATES ON THE DOCUMENTS. WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT THE IDEA OF USING DIAPERS AND PRODUCTS LIKE THAT TO ATTRACT NEW CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE NEW FAMILIES IS A VERY TRADITIONAL IDEA.

>> LET'S DELVE INTO THIS A LITTLE FURTHER. I'M SORRY. YOU KNOW I ONLY HAVE A FEW MINUTES SO LET'S PRESS ON. YOUR OWN DOCUMENTS MAKE IT CHEER THAT IT WORKED AND WITHIN A FEW MONTHS IT WAS STRUGGLING SO AMAZON BOUGHT IT. AFTER BUYING YOUR LEADING COMPETITOR HERE, AMAZON CUT PROMOTIONS LIKE AMAZON.COM AND THE STEAM DISCOUNTS IT USED TO LURE CUSTOMERS AWAY FROM DIAPERS.COM, AND THEN INCREASED THE PRICES AT DIAPERS FOR NEW MOMS AND DADS.

MR. BEZOS, DID YOU PERSONALLY SIGN OFF ON THE PLAN TO RAISE PRICES AFTER AMAZON ELIMINATED ITS COMPETITION? >> I DON'T REMEMBER THAT AT ALL. >> THANK YOU. >> I REMEMBER THAT WE MATCH COMPETITOR PRICES AND I BELIEVE WE FOLLOWED DIAPERS.COM. THIS IS 11 YEARS AGO SO YOU'RE ASKING A LOT OF MY MEMORY. I BELIEVE WE FOLLOWED DIAPERS.COM. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. OKAY. JUST MOVING ON. >> WE PUT MILLIONS INTO TRYING TO PLAYING IT SUCCESSFUL. >> I'M SORRY. SO UP THAT AMAZON FOCUSES SUCCESSES EXCESSIVELY ON CUSTOMERS. HOW WOULD CUSTOMERS, ESPECIALLY SINGLE MOMS, FAMILIES, HOW WOULD THEY BENEFIT WHEN THE PRICES WERE DRIVEN UP BY THE FACT THAT YOU ELIMINATED YOUR MAIN COMPETITOR? >> WELL, I DON'T AGREE, WITH GREAT RESPECT, I DON'T AGREE WITH THE PREMISE. AT THE SAME TIME YOU SHOULD RECOGNIZE, DIAPERS IS A VERY LARGE PRODUCT CATEGORY, SOLD IN MANY, MANY PLACES. >> RIGHT. BUT THIS IS THE ONLINE DIAPER MARKET. WE DO HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THESE PREDATORY — >> COSTCO AND KROEGER AND WALMART. >> I NEED TO PUSH ON HERE. THE EVIDENCE WE'VE COLLECTED SUGGESTS THAT PREDATORY PRACTICES WEREN'T UNIQUE HERE.

IN 2013, IT WAS REPORTED THAT YOU INSTRUCTED AMAZON EMPLOYEES TO APPROACH DISCUSSIONS WITH CERTAIN BUSINESS PARTNERS, AND I QUOTE, THE WAY A CHEETAH WOULD PURSUE A SICK LY GAZELLE. IS THAT STILL IN PLACE AND DO YOU PURSUE THIS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE BUSINESS? I CANNOT COMMENT ON THAT BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER IT. I CAN TELL THAT YOU WE ARE VERY, VERY FOCUSED ON THE CUSTOMER, AS YOU STARTED. >> I'M CONCERNED WITH THE CUSTOMERS AS WELL. SPECIALLY THE FAMILIES MANY MY DISTRICT. >> WE CAN OFFER THOSE — >> I'M SORRY. I'M ALMOST OUT OF TIME. I'M CONCERNED, TOO. SPECIALLY WITH THE CURRENT PANDEMIC. ONE OF THE BIGGEST NEEDS I'LL SEEING AT THE FOOD DRIVES, AND THE GIVEAWAYS WE'RE HAVING TO RUN IN MY DISTRICT, IS THAT FAMILIES DON'T HAVE DIAPERS. WE HAVE TO COLLECT THEM TO GIVE THEY WILL OUT.

SO IT CERTAINLY IS SOMETHING THAT HAS A REALLY HARD IMPACT ON FAMILIES AND I'M REALLY CONCERNED THAT PRICING MIGHT HAVE BEEN DRIVEN UP HERE BY THIS TACTIC. I YIELD BACK. >> I JUST ANNOUNCED BOTH CALLED WHAT WE'LL CONTINUE WITH THE HEARING. SO I INVITE ALEX TO VOTE. IT'S A ROLLING VOTE. SO VOTE ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN SCHEDULE. I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK EACH OF THE WITNESSES TODAY FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN 2004, WHEN YOU HAD LAUNCHED FACEBOOK, IT'S FAIR TO SAY, I THINK YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME. YOU HAD QUITE A FEW COMPETITORS. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >> CONGRESSMAN, YES. >> MY SPACE, FRIENDSTER, GOOGLE, CY WORLD, YAHOO! 360, AOL, THEY WERE ALL COMPETITORS? >> CONGRESSMAN, THOSE WERE SOME OF THE COMPETITORS AT THE TIME AND IT HAS ONLY GOTTEN A LOT MORE COMPETITIVE SINCE. >> LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT. BY 2012, MR. ZUCKERBERG, NONE OF THOSE COMPANIES THAT I JUST IDENTIFIED, EXISTED. YOU'RE CERTAINLY AWARE OF. . THEY WERE ALL GONE. FACEBOOK IN MY VIEW WAS A MONOPOLY BY THEN.

I WONDER WHETHER YOU WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. I TAKE IT YOU DON'T? >> CONGRESSMAN, THAT'S CORRECT. I DON'T. WE FACE A LOT OF COMPETITORS. IN EVERY PART OF WHAT WE DO. FROM CONNECTING WITH FRIENDS PRIVATELY TO CONNECTING WITH PEOPLE IN A COMMUNITY, CONNECTING WITH ALL YOUR FRIENDS AT ONCE, ALL KINDS OF USER GENERATED CONTENT. I WOULD BET THAT YOU OR MOST PEOPLE HERE HAVE MULTIPLE APPS FOR EACH OF THOSE ON YOUR PHONES. >> MR. ZUCKERBERG, LET'S DIG INTO THIS A BIT FURTHER. YOU AND I CLEARLY DISAGREE ABOUT THAT. IN 2012, I'M LOOKING AT A DOCUMENT PRODUCED BY THE INVESTIGATION, IT IS A PRESENTATION PREPARED FOR CHERYL SANDBERG TO GIVE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A MAJOR FUN. FACEBOOK IS NOW 95% OF ALL SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE UNITED STATES. THE TITLE OF THE SLIDE IS EVEN, QUOTE, THE INDUSTRY CONSOLIDATES AS IT MATURES. IF I LOOK AT THAT GRAPH, CERTAINLY I THINK MOST FOLKS WOULD CONCEDE THAT FACEBOOK WAS MONOPOLY AS EARLY AS 2012. NONETHELESS, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE DISAGREE ON THAT POINT. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT FACEBOOK, ITS STRATEGY, SINCE THAT TIME, TO ESSENTIALLY PROTECT WHAT I DESCRIBE AS A MONOPOLY BUT WHAT WOULD YOU DESCRIBE AS MARKET POWER.

THAT FACEBOOK HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN PURCHASING COMPETITION. IN SOME CASES, REPLICATING COME PETITION. IN SOME CASES, ELIMINATING COME PETITION. WOULD THAT BE A FAIR STATEMENT? >> CONGRESSMAN, THE SPACE OF PEOPLE CONNECTING WITH OTHER PEOPLE IS A VERY LARGE SPACE. AND I WOULD AGREE THAT THERE WERE DIFFERENT APPROACHES THAT WE TOOK ON ADDRESSING DIFFERENT PARTS OF THAT SPACE. IT IS ALL IN SERVICE OF BUILDING THE BEST SERVICES.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT. >> I APPRECIATE THE LIGHTER POINT. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE CONCEDING, AT LEAST SOME OF THOSE STRATEGIES, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. IN 2014, HERE'S AN EMAIL. IT IS FROM FACEBOOK'S CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER DESCRIBED AS THE ACQUISITION STRATEGY AS A LAND GRAB. AND SAYING THAT WE ARE GOING TO SPEND 5 TO 10% OF OUR MARKET GRAB EVERY COUPLE YEARS TO SHORE UP OUR COMPETITION. MY SENSE OF THE FACTS IS THAT IS WHAT HAS OCCURRED. FACEBOOK AS YOU CONCEDED. YOU CONCEDED EARLIER THAT INSTAGRAM WAS A COMPETITOR. YOU ACQUIRED IT IN 2012. INSTAGRAM IS NOW THE SIXTH LARGEST SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM IN THE WORLD. >> I'M NOT SURE WHAT RANK IT IS. IT HAS CERTAINLY GROWN BEYOND — >> I CAN RECOMMEND THAT EMPIRICAL SHOWS IT IS THE CIRCUIT LARGEST. IN 2014 FACEBOOK GOT ITS COMPETITOR, WHAT'S APP, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. THEY COMPETED WITH US IN THE SPACE OF SOCIAL MESSAGING, A GROWING AND IMPORTANT SPACE.

AND ONE PART OF THE GLOBAL SPACE OF HOW PEOPLE CONNECT MORE BROADLY. >> I UNDERSTAND. AND WHAT'S APP HAD 400 MILLION USERS. A CLEAR PADS TO 1 BILLION USERS. AND IT IS NOW THE SECOND LARGEST SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM IN THE WORLD WITH 2 BILLION USERS WORLDWIDE. MORE THAN FACEBOOK MESSENGER. AND OF COURSE, YOUR COMPANY OWNS WHAT'S APP. FACEBOOK ALSO TRIED TO BUY OTHER COMPETITIVE START-UPS. IN FACT, AS CHAIRMAN NADLER NOTED, DID YOU TELL ONE OF THEM IN 2012 THAT YOU CAN LIKE YOU BUY, JUST BUY ANY COMPETITIVE START-UP BUT IT WILL BE A WHILE BEFORE WE GO BUY GOOGLE. DO YOU RECALL WRITING THAT EMAIL? >> CONGRESSMAN, I DON'T SPECIFICALLY. BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE A JOKE. >> IT CERTAINLY, I DON'T TAKE IT AS JOKE. AS I REVIEW THE EMAIL, IT WAS IN REGARDS TO HAVING JUST CLOSED THE INSTAGRAM SALE. AND THE RESPONSE FROM THIS INDIVIDUAL, THIS ENGINEER TO YOU WAS, QUOTE, WELL PLAYED. YOUR RESPONSE WAS, THANKS. ONE REASON PEOPLE UNDERESTIMATE THE IMPORTANCE OF WATCHING GOOGLE IS THAT WE CAN LIKELY ALWAYS JUST BUY ANY COMPETITIVE START-UPS BUT IT WILL BE A WHILE BEFORE WE CAN BUY GOOGLE.

AND GIVEN THE PURCHASES THAT FACEBOOK HAD MADE PREVIOUS TO THIS, AND THE ATTEMPTED PURCHASES, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT FACEBOOK MADE SEVERAL OVERTURES TO SNAP CHAT WHICH REBUFFED THOSE EFFORTS. CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT IT WAS NOT MADE IN JEST. HERE'S WHY I ASK. IT STRIKES ME OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, FACEBOOK HAS USED ITS MARKET POWER TO EITHER PURCHASE OR REPLICATE THE COMPETITION. AND FACEBOOK, FACEBOOK MESSENGER, WHAT'S APP, INSTAGRAM, ARE NOW THE MOST DOWN LOADED APPS OF THE LAST DECADE AND YOUR COMPANY OWNS THEM ALL. WE HAVE A WORD FOR THAT. THAT WORD IS MONOPOLY. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. BEZOS, YOU REFERRED TO THIRD PARTY SUCCESSORS AND STATED THAT YOUR SUCCESS DEPENDS ON THEIR SUCCESS.

OVER THE PAST YEAR WE'VE HEARD A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STORY. AS PART OF THIS INVESTIGATION, WE INTERVIEWED MANY SMALL BUSINESSES. THEY USED THE WORDS LIKE, BULLYING, FEAR AND PANIC TO DESCRIBE THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH AMAZON. I'M GOING TO SHARE THE STORY OF A SMALL BUSINESS OWN HERE IS ALSO A WIFE AND A MOTHER. SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS ACTUALLY AFFECTING THE LIVES OF EVERYDAY PEOPLE AND WHY THIS TRULY MATTERS. >> WE WERE A TOP BOOK SELLER ON AMAZON.COM. AND WE WORKED DAY AND NIGHT VERY HARD TOWARD GROWING OUR BUSINESS. AND MAINTAINING THE FIVE STAR FEEDBACK RATING.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, THIS BUSINESS FEEDS A TOLL OF 14 PEOPLE WHICH INCLUDES THREE CHILDREN AND ONE 19-YEAR-OLD. AS WE GREW, WE WERE IN THE MARKET SHARE. NOW, AMAZON STARTED RESTRICTING US FROM SELLING. THEY STARTED WITH A FEW TITLES IN ONLY 2019. WITHIN SIX MONTHS, AMAZON SYSTEMATICALLY BLOCKED US FROM SELLING THE FULL TEXTBOOK CATEGORY. WE HAVEN'T SOLD A SINGLE BOOK FROM THE PAST TEN MONTHS. PROBABLY MORE. WE WERE NEVER GIVEN A REASON. AMAZON DIDN'T EVEN PROVIDE WITH US A NOTICE. WE ASKED WHY WE WERE RESTRICTED. THERE WAS NO WARNING NO, PLAN. >> SO MR. BEZOS, AFTER AMAZON DELISTED THIS SMALL BUSINESS WITHOUT ANY APPARENT REASON OR NOTICE, SHE TOLD US THEY SENT MORE THAN FIVE HIM SEPARATE COMMUNICATIONS TO AMAZON INCLUDING TO YOU, MR. BEZOS, OVER THE PAST YEAR. THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE MEANINGFUL RESPONSE. DO YOU THINK THIS IS AN ACCEPTABLE WAY TO TREAT SOMEONE THAT YOU DESCRIBED AS BOTH A PARTNER AND A CUSTOMER? >> NO, CONGRESSMAN. I APPRECIATE YOU SHOWING ME ANECDOTE. I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO HER. IT DOES NOT AT ALL SEEM TO ME LIKE THE RIGHT WAY TO TREAT HER. AND I'M SURPRISED BY THAT.

IT'S NOT THE SYSTEMATIC APPROACH WE TAKE. I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON. WE WOULD LOVE FOR THIRD PARTY SELLERS TO SELL BOOKS. I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT AND I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IT BETTER. I WOULD LIKE TO GET IN TOUCH WITH YOUR OFFICE. >> I THINK YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT. THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT ONE BUSINESS. I'M CONCERNED THAT THIS IS A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR. BASICALLY, THIS PAT REMINDER OF BEHAVIOR HAS TO CHANGE. MR. BEZOS, MY QUESTION IS, ARE YOU WILLING TO MAKE SURE GOING FORWARD THAT THE NUMEROUS SELLERS WE TALK TO, THEY HAVE PROBLEMS JUST LIKE THIS. AND THERE ARE MORE SELLERS WHO TELL US THEY'VE EXHAUSTED ALL OF THEIR OPTIONS BEFORE REACHING OUT TO YOU AS A LAST RESORT BUT THEY'RE STILL WAITING FOR YOUR RESPONSE.

WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY TO THE SMALL BUSINESS WHO'S ARE TALKING ON CONGRESS BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY WON'T LISTEN TO THEM? >> I WOULD SAY THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE. IF WE RBL LISTENING TO YOU, I'M NOT HAPPY ABOUT THAT AT ALL. I DO DISAGREE WITH A PIECE OF THIS. I DO NOT THINK THIS IS SYSTEMATICALLY GOING ON. WHAT WOULD BE USEFUL, IS THAT THIRD PARTY SELLERS IN AGGREGATE ARE DOING EXTREMELY WELL ON AMAZON. THEY GREW FROM 20 YEARS AGO, IT WAS ZERO AND TODAY IT'S 60% OF SALES. THIRD PARTY SELLERS GROWING EVEN FASTER. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. MR. BEZOS — >> THANK YOU. >> YOU SAID THAT SELLERS HAVE MANY OTHER ATTRACTIVE OPTIONS THE REACH CUSTOMERS.

BUT THAT'S NOT AT ALL WHAT WE FOUND IN OUR INVESTIGATION. ACCORDING TO EMARKETER, A SOURCE AMAZON CITED IN SUBMISSIONS TO THIS COMMITTEE, AMAZON HAS NEARLY SEVEN TIMES THE MARK SHARE OF ITS CLOSEST ECOMMERCE COMPETITOR. ONE SELLER TOLD US, AND I QUOTE, AMAZON CONTINUES TO BE THE ONLY SHOW IN TOWN NO MATTER HOW ANGRY SELLERS GET. THEY HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO. SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT BEING TRUTHFUL WHEN THEY SAY THAT AMAZON IS THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN? >> WITH GREAT RESPECT, I DO DISAGREE WITH THAT. I BELIEVE THERE ARE SXOPGSS SOME OF THEM ARE NOT EVEN ON THE CHART.

I DIDN'T SEE SOME THAT I KNOW OF. SO I THINK THERE ARE A LOT — >> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. >> MY TIME IS SHORT. THANK YOU. IF AMAZON DIDN'T HAVE MONOPOLY POWER, DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD CHOOSE TO STAY IN A RELATIONSHIP THAT'S CHARACTERIZED BY BULLYING, FEAR AND PANIC? >> WITH ALL RESPECT TO CONGRESSWOMAN, I DO NOT ACCEPT THE PREMISE OF YOUR QUESTION. THAT'S NOT HOW WE OPERATE THE BUSINESS. >> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. I'M GOING ON CLOSE WITH GIVING THE BOOK SELLER THE OPPORTUNITY TO FINALLY BE HEARD BY YOU. >> MR. BEZOS, WE INCREASED OUR SALES ON AMAZON BY FIVE TIMES IN THE PAST THREE YEARS. AND WE HAVE CONTINUED THAT MUCH PROPORTIONAL SELLER FES TO AMAZON. WE HAVE CONTRIBUTED THAT MUCH TO YOUR BUSINESS.

FIVE TIMES. WE FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES SET BY YOU. PLEASE JUST HELP US IN EARNING OUR LIVELIHOOD. WE BEG YOU, THERE ARE 14 LIVES AT STAKE. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE HELP US GET BACK ON TRACK. >> WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> WE'VE NOW COULDN'T CLUEDED OUR FIRST ROUND. I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES. MR. BEZOS, ACCORDING TO YOUR TESTIMONY, THE MARKETPLACE IS COMPETITIVE. BUT AMAZON CONTROLS AS MUCH AS 75% OF ALL ONLINE MARK PLACE SALES. AND EMARKETER, A SOURCE YOU CITED TO US IN SUBMISSIONS IN THIS COMMITTEE, REPORTS THAT AMAZON IS NEARLY SEVEN TIMES THE MARKET SHARE OF ITS CLOSEST COMPETITOR. ISN'T IT TRUE THAT SMALL BUSINESSES HAVE NO REAL OPTION BUT TO RELY ON AMAZON TO CONNECT WITH CUSTOMERS AND MAKE ONLINE SALES? >> NO, SIR. WITH GREAT RESPECT, I DO HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION ON THAT. I BELIEVE THERE ARE A LOT OF OPTIONS.

I BELIEVE AMAZON IS A GREAT ONE AND WE'VE WORKED VERY HARD. I THINK WE ARE THE BEST ONE. WE HAVE A LOT OF PROGRAMS TO HELP SELLERS. >> THERE ARE 2.2 MILLION ACTIVE SELLERS YESTERDAY. ABOUT 37% RELY ON AMAZON AS THEIR SOLE SOURCE OF INCOME. THAT IS OVER 800,000 PEOPLE RELYING ON AMAZON TO FEED THEIR FAMILIES, PUT THEIR KIDS THROUGH SCHOOL AND KEEP A ROOF OVER THEIR HEADS. YOU HAVE REFERRED TO THIRD PARTY SELLERS AS BOTH PARTNERS AND CUSTOMERS. ISN'T TRY IT THAT AMAZON REFERS TO THIRD PARTY SELLERS AS INTERNAL COMPETITORS? >> IT WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME, IN SOME WAYS THEY'RE COMPETING AND ALSO WITH EACH OTHER. >> YOUR OWN DOCUMENTS, AMAZON'S OWN DOCUMENTS THAT YOU PRODUCE REFER TO THE VERY SAME SELLERS THAT YOU'VE DESCRIBE AS AMAZON PARTNERS AS INTERNAL COMPETITORS. IN FACT, WE'VE HEARD FROM THIRD PARTY SELLERS AGAIN AND AGAIN DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION, THAT AMAZON IS THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN. ONE SMALL BUSINESS OWNER WE INTERVIEWED DESCRIBED IT THIS WAY. WE'RE STUCK. WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE BUT TO SELL THROUGH AMAZON.

ANOTHER SAID, THEY'VE NEVER BEEN A GREAT PARTNER BUT YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH THEM. DURING THIS INVESTIGATION, WE'VE HEARD SO MANY HEART BREAKING STORIES OF SMALL BUSINESSES WHO SUNK SIGNIFICANT TIME AND RESOURCES INTO BUILDING A BUSINESS AND SELLING ON AMAZON, ONLY TO HAVE AMAZON POACH THEIR BEST SELLING ITEMS AND DRIVE THEM OUT OF BUSINESS. SO I WANT TO TALK TO YOU THAT ONE COMPANY THAT REALLY STOOD OUT FROM THE REST. I WANT TO YOU PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO HOW THEY DESCRIBE YOUR PARTNERSHIP. WE HEARD FROM A SMALL APPAREL COMPANY THAT MAKES AND SELLS WHAT THEY CALL USEFUL APPAREL FOR PEOPLE WHO WORK ON THEIR FEET AND WITH THEIR HANDS. CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AND FIREFIGHTERS. THIS PARTICULAR BUSINESS DISCOVERED AND STARTED SELLING A UNIQUE ITEM THAT HAD BEEN,ER IN BEEN A TOP SELLER FOR THE BRANDS.

THEY WERE MAKING ABOUT $60,000 A YEAR ON THIS ONE ITEM. ONE DAY THEY WOKE UP AND FOUND THAT AMAZON HAD STARTED LISTING THE EXACT SAME PRODUCT, CAUSE GO THEIR SALES TO GO TO ZERO OVERNIGHT. AMAZON HAD UNDERCUT THEIR PRICE, SETTING IT BELOW WHAT THE MANUFACTURER WOULD GENERALLY ALLOW TO BE SOLD, SO EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO, THEY COULDN'T MATCH THE PRICE. HERE'S HOW THE APPAREL COMPANY SKRIBLDS WORKING WITH AMAZON. AND I QUOTE. AMAZON STRINGS YOU ALONG FOR A WHILE BECAUSE IT FEELS SO GOOD TO GET THAT PAYCHECK EVERY WEEK. IN THE PAST, FOR LACK OF A BETTER MATERIAL, WE CALLED IT AMAZON HEROIN. YOU JUST KEPT GOING. YOU HAD TO GET YOUR NEXT FIX. THE NEXT CHECK. AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU FIND OUT THIS PERSON WHO WAS SEEMINGLY BENEFITTING YOU, MAKING YOU FEEL GOOD WAS ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE YOUR DOWNFALL.

ENDS QUOTE. THIS IS ONE OF YOUR PARTNERS. WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY COMPARE YOUR COMPANY TO A DRUG DEALER? >> SIR, I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR AND YOU THIS COMMITTEE BUT I COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION. WHAT WE HAVE DONE, CREATE IN THE STORE, A PLACE, WE CAN GO BACK IN TIME. WE SOLD ONLY OUR OWN INVENTORY. IT WAS A VERY CONTROVERSIAL DECISION IN THE COMPANY TO INVITE THIRD PARTY SELLERS TO COME INTO WHAT IS MORE YOU MOST VALUABLE RETAIL. WE DID THAT BECAUSE WE WERE CONVINCED IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE CONSUMER. >> MR. BEZOS — >> TO HAVE THE SELECTION. AND I THINK WE WERE RIGHT AND I THINK IT HAS WORKED OUT WELL.

>> UNDER FORTUNATELY, THIS IS ONE OF MANY SMALL COMPANIES THAT HAVE TOLD US DURING THIS YEAR-LONG INVESTIGATION THAT THEY WERE MISTREATED, ABUSED AND TOSSED ASIDE BY AMAZON. NOW YOU SAID THAT AMAZON IS ONLY FOCUSED ON DOING WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CUSTOMER. YOU JUST SAID IT AGAIN. AND ALSO THIRD PARTY SELLERS. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE WHEN YOU COMPETE DIRECTLY WITH THIRD PARTY SELLERS WITH YOUR OWN PRODUCTS THAT UNDERCUT THE COMPETITION? ISN'T IT AN INHERENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR AMAZON TO PRODUCE AND SELL PRODUCTS ON ITS PLATFORM COMPETE DIRECTLY WITH THIRD PARTY SELLERS, PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU, AMAZON, SETS THE RULES OF THE GAME? >> THANK YOU. NO. I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS. THE CONSUMER IS THE ONE MAKING THE DECISIONS. THEY'RE MAKING THE DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT TO BUY. WHAT PRICE TO BUY IT AT. >> THERE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, YOU ARE A DATA COIL. WHEN YOU KNOW SOMEONE PUTS SOMETHING IN THEIR CART AND TAKES IT OUT.

TRADITIONAL BRICK AND MORTAR STORES DON'T HAVE THAT. SO I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON A QUESTION YOU GAVE. YOU SAID THAT YOU CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT THE POLICY OF NOT SHARING THIRD PARTY SELLERS' DATA WITH AMAZON'S OWN LINE HASN'T BEEN VIOLATED. YOU COULDN'T BE CERTAIN. CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT TO ME? CAN YOU LIST EXAMPLES WHERE THAT POLICY HAS BEEN VIOLATED? BECAUSE IT IS PARTICULARLY CONCERNING TO ME, SHOULD NOT THIRD PARTIES KNOW FOR SURE THAT DATA ISN'T BEING SHARED WITH YOUR OWN LINE? THEIR COMPETITORS? WHY SHOULD THEY LIST THEIR PRODUCT ON AMAZON IF THEY'RE JUST GOING TO BE UNDERCUT BY AMAZON'S OWN PRODUCTS VULS OF DATA YOU TAKE FROM THEM. I THINK WHAT I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND, IS THAT WE HAVE A POLICY AGAINST USING INDIVIDUAL SELLER DATA TO COMPETE WITH OUR PRIVATE LABEL PRODUCTS. >> YOU COULDN'T ASSURE HER THAT THAT POLICY ISN'T VIOLATED ROUTINELY. >> WE ARE INVESTIGATING THAT. I DO NOT WANT TO SIT HERE AND GO BEYOND WHAT I KNOW RIGHT NOW. WE ARE AS A RESULT OF.

"WALL STREET JOURNAL" ARTICLE, WE ARE LOOKING TEMPERATURE VERY CAREFULLY. >> THANK YOU. >> AND SHARE THEM WITH YOU. >> THANK YOU. I LOOK FORWARD TOM. THE EVIDENCE WE'VE COLLECTED SHOWS AMAZON IS ONLY INTERESTED IN EXPLOITING ITS MONOPOLY POWER OVER THE ECOMMERCE MARK PLACE TO FURTHER EXPANDS AND PROTECT THIS POWER. THIS MAKES CLEAR THAT AMAZON'S DUAL ROLE AS A PLATFORM OPERATOR AND COMPETING SELLER IS FUNDAMENTALLY ANTI-COMPETITIVE AND CONGRESS MUST TAKE ACTION. WITH THAT I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THAT THE HISTORY PROVES THAT CONGRESS DOES A POOR JOB IN PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS. I'VE BEEN WORKING THE CHAIRMAN FOR OVER A YEAR ON THIS BIPARTISAN INVESTIGATION.

AND I HAVE REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT WE DO NOT NEED TO CHANGE OUR ANTI-TRUST LAWS. THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING JUST FINE. THE QUESTION HERE IS THE QUESTION OF ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE ANTI-TRUST LAWS. NOW, WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE FACEBOOK ACQUISITION OF INSTAGRAM. THAT HAPPENED IN 2012. OBAMA'S FTC SIGNED OFF ON THAT. SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU THINK HAS HAPPENED AT THAT TIME, THE FACT IS THAT THIS ACQUISITION DID PASS THE SMELL TEST OF THE REGULATORS INVOLVED. MAYBE THEY MADE A MISTAKE OR MAYBE SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENED. I DON'T KNOW. THE FACT IS THERE IS NOT A PROBLEM WITH THE LAW. ABOUT 35 YEARS AGO, AT&T WAS BROKEN UP BECAUSE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT ONE-STOP SHOPS WERE MONOPOLYISTIC. BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO GET YOUR LONG DISTANCE SERVICE FROM YOUR LOCAL PHONE COMPANY, THERE WERE MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS IN THE TELECOM INDUSTRY. TECHNOLOGY ADVANCED A HUGE AMOUNT. AND GUESS WHAT? WE'RE BACK TO EXACTLY WHERE WE WERE IN 1984. SO THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT CONGRESSIONAL PRESSURE IS NOT THE BEST. USING THE AT&T EXAMPLE, WHICH I THINK WAS THE BIG FLOP AND COUNTER PRODUCTIVE, LET ME ASK MR.

BEZOS. SAY THE AT&T EXAMPLE WAS APPLIED TO AMAZON. AND YOU WERE REQUIRED TO SPIN STUFF OFF. SO YOU MIGHT HAVE NO MORE OF A ONE-STOP SHOP BUT YOU HAVE TO GO TO SEPARATE PLACES FOR BOOKS OR GROCERIES OR VIDEOS OR ELECTRONICS. HOW ARE THE CONSUMERS HELPED BY THAT? >> SIR, THANK YOU. THEY WOULD NOT BE. VERY CLEAR. >> NOW, LET ME ASK ABOUT GOOGLE. IF YOU WERE FORCED TO SPLIT UP YOUR BUSINESS LINES, SAY, SPIN OFF YOUTUBE, CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT HAPPENS TO CONSUMERS THERE? >> CONGRESSMAN, TODAY CONSUMERS ARE MEETING, THEY SEE PRICES ARE FALLING AND I THINK IT SERVES THEM WELL. >> AND YOU'RE RIGHT THERE. SO YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO BE ON THIS COMMITTEE IN THE NEXT CONGRESS. I AM GOING TO PUT MY FEET UP AND BACK SENIOR, QUOTE/UNQUOTE STATESMAN. WE HAVE HEARD A WHOLE LOT OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT BIG TECH.

SOME OF THEM ARE POLITICAL IN NATURE. AND I SHARE THE COMPLAINTS AND THE CONCERN OF MR. JORDAN AND OTHERS. AND OTHERS TALK ABOUT ALLEGEDLY ANTI-COMPETITIVE ACTIVITY. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT IS NOT FOR CONGRESS THAT LEGISLATES TO TOSS ALL OF OUR ANTI-TRUST LAWS AND THE PRESIDENT THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THROUGH LITIGATION OVER THE LAST 100 PLUS YEARS. IT IS SOMETHING WHERE WE OUGHT TO GO BACK TO THE REGULATORS, TO THE END FORCERS. HAVE THEM LOOK AT THIS STUFF. HAVE THEM MAKE A DETERMINATION ON WHETHER OR NOT THE LAW HAS BEEN VIOLATED. I THINK THE LAW IS GOOD. WE DON'T NEED TO THROW IT ALL IN THE WASTE BASKET. BUT THERE ARE SOME MATTERS OF CONCERN THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE THAT I THINK NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. IT REQUIRES AN AGENCY LIKE THE FTC THEY'VE MADE MISTAKES IN THE PAST, SO BE IT.

WE'RE ALL HUMAN. WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES. EVEN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES DO THAT. I YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN MARCH OF 2012, YOU SUGGESTED BY EMAIL TO YOUR MANAGEMENT TEAM THAT MOVING FASTER AND COPYING OTHER APPLES COULD PREVENT OUR COMPETITORS FROM GETTING FOOT HOLDS. CHERYL SANDSBERG RESPONDSED, IT IS BETTER TO DO MORE AND MOVE FASTER. ESPECIALLY IF THAT MEANS YOU DON'T HAVE OUR COMPETITORS BUILD PRODUCTS THAT TAKES OUR USERS. THE MANAGER ADDED, I WOULD LOVE TO BE FAR MORE AGGRESSIVE AND NIMBLE IN COPYING COMPETITORS. HAS FACEBOOK EVER TAKEN STEPS TO PREVENT COMPETITORS FROM COPYING? >> I VIEW IT AS OUR JOB TO UNDERSTAND WHAT PEOPLE ARE FINDSING VALUABLE. AND ALL THE SERVICE THAT'S THEY USE. CERTAINLY — >> DO YOU COPY YOUR COMPETITORS? >> WE'VE CERTAINLY ADAPTED FEATURES THAT OTHERS HAVE LED IN, AS HAVE OTHERS COPIED AND ADAPTED FEATURES.

>> I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT OTHERS. SINCE MARCH OF 2012, AFTER THAT EMAIL CONVERSATION, HOW MANY COMPETITORS DID FACEBOOK END UP COPYING? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, I CAN'T GIVE YOU A NUMBER OF COMPANIES — >> IS IT LESS THAN FIVE? >> I DON'T KNOW. >> LESS THAN 50? ANY ESTIMATES? YOUR TEAM WAS MAKING A PLAN. HOW DID IT PLAY OUT? >> I'M NOT SURE I AGREE WITH THE PREMISE. OUR JOB IS TO MAKE SURE WE BUILD THE BEST SERVICES FOR PEOPLE TO CONNECT WITH ALL THE PEOPLE THEY CARE ABOUT.

A LOT OF. IS DONE BY INNOVATING — >> THANK YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG. LET ME GO ON. HAS FACEBOOK EVER THREATENED TO CLONE THE PRODUCTS OF A COMPANY — >> NOT THAT I RECALL. >> AND I WOULD LIKE THE ON REMIND YOU, THAT YOU ARE UNDER OATH AND THERE ARE QUOTES FROM FACEBOOK'S OWN DOCUMENTS. PRIOR TO ACQUIRING INSTAGRAM, FACEBOOK BEGAN ACQUIRING A COIL CALLED FACEBOOK CAMERA. >> THAT'S CORRECT. I'VE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES THAT WE WERE COMPETING IN THE SPACE OF BUILDING MOBILE CAMERAS WITH INSTAGRAM. THAT'S WHAT THEY DID AT THE TIME. THEIR COME PETTY SET WAS COMPANIES LIKE WHAT WE WERE BUILDING WITH FACEBOOK CAMERA AND — >> THANK YOU, MR.

ZUCKERBERG. DID YOU EVER USE THIS VERY SIMILAR FACEBOOK CAMERA PRODUCT TO THREATEN INSTAGRAM'S FOUNDER? >> I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU WOULD MEAN BY THREATEN. I THINK IT WAS KNOWN THAT WE WERE BUILDING A CAMERA APP AT THE TIME. THAT WAS A WELL DOCUMENTED THING. >> LET ME TELL YOU, THAT IN A CHAT, YOU TOLD MINIMUM FACEBOOK WAS, QUOTE, DEVELOPING OUR OWN PHOTO STRATEGY SO HOW WE ENGAGE NOW WILL ALSO DETERMINE HOW MUCH WE'RE PARTNERS VERSUS COMPETITORS DOWN THE LINE. THE FOUNDERS SEEMED TO THINK THAT WAS A THREAT. HE COULDN'T IDENTIFIED IN THE AN INVESTOR AT THE TIME THAT HE FEARED, THAT YOU WOULD GO INTO, QUOTE, DESTROY MODE IF HE DIDN'T SELL INSTAGRAM TO YOU.

SO LET'S JUST RECAP. FACEBOOK CLONED A POPULAR PRODUCT, APPROACHED THE COMPANY YOU IDENTIFIED AS A COMPETITIVE THREAT AND TOLD THEM, IF YOU DIDN'T LET THEM BUY YOU UP, THERE WOULD BE CONSEQUENCES. WERE THERE ANY OTHER COMPANIES THAT YOU USE THE SAME TACTIC WITH WHILE ATTEMPTING TO BUY THEM? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, I WANT TO RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. IT WAS CLEAR THIS WAS A SPACE WE WERE GOING TO COMPETE IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. I DON'T VIEW THOSE CONVERSATIONS AS A THREAT IN ANY WAY. >> I'M JUST USING THE DOCUMENTS AND THE TESTIMONY THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS COLLECTED FROM OTHERS.

DID YOU WARN EVAN SPEAGLE, THE FOUNDER OF SNAP CHAT, THAT THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF CLONING THE FEATURES OF HIS COMPANY WHILE ALSO ATTEMPTING TO BUY SNAP CHAT? >> I DON'T REMEMBER THOSE SPECIFIC CONVERSATIONS. THAT WAS AN AREA THAT IT WAS VERY CLEAR WE WOULD BE BUILDING SOMETHING. PEOPLE WANT TO BE ABLE TO COMMUNAL PRIVATELY, WITH ALL THEIR FRIENDS AT ONCE. AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE BUILD THE BEST PRODUCTS IN ALL THE SPACES WE CAN AROUND HELPING PEOPLE STAY CONNECTED WITH THE PEOPLE THEY CARE ABOUT. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK THE QUESTION IS, WHEN THE DOMINANT PLATFORM THREATENS THE POTENTIAL RIVALS, THAT SHOULD NOT BE A NORMAL BUSINESS PRACTICE. FACEBOOK IS A CASE STUDY IN MY OPINION IN MONOPOLY POWER. YOUR COMPANY MONETIZES OUR DATA AND THEN YOUR COIL USES THAT DATA TO SPY ON COMPETITORS AND TO COMPANY, ACQUIRE AND KILL RIVALS. YOU'VE USED FACEBOOK'S POWER TO THREATEN SMALLER COMPETITORS AND TO ENSURE YOU ALWAYS GET YOUR WAY. THESE TACTICS REINFORCE FACEBOOK'S DOMINANCE WHICH YOU THEN USE IN INCREASINGLY DESTRUCTIONIVE WAYS.

SO FACEBOOK'S VERY MODEL MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR NEW COMPANIES THE FLOURISH SEPARATELY AND THAT HARMS OUR DEMOCRACY. IT HARMS MOM AND POP BUSINESSES AND IT HARMS BUSINESSES. I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. I'M CONCERNED THAT YOU'VE USED AMAZON'S DOMINANT MARKET POSITION TO UNDER FAIRLY HARM COMPETITION.

WE'VE HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF COMPANIES USE THIS FROM THIRD PARTY COMPANIES TO LAUNCH ITS OWN PRIVATE LABEL PRODUCTS. MEETS WITH START-UPS TO DISCUSS THE PRODUCT AND THEN USES THE PROPRIETARY TO CREATE ITS OWN PRIVATE LABEL COMPANIES. IT ALLOWS THE SALE OF COUNTERFEIT ITEMS THROUGH ITS WEB PLATFORM. DURING THE SUB COMMITTEE'S FIELD HEARING THIS JANUARY, THE CEO, DAVID BARMETT DETAILED HOW AMAZON ALLOWED COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS TO APPEAR ON THE MARKETPLACE AHEAD OF POP SOCKETS PRODUCTS. HE TOLD CNBC THAT THEY FOUND AT LEAST 1,000 COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS FORTUNE SALE ON AMAZON'S MARKETPLACE. WHICH AMAZON ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO REMEDY UNTIL POP SOCKETS AGREED TO A NEARLY $2 MILLION MARKETING DEAL WITH AMAZON. WE'VE ALSO SEEN TROUBLING REPORTS FROM THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL" DETAILING AMAZON'S USE OF THIRD PARTY SELLERS PROPRIETARY DATA TO DEVELOP AND MARK ITS OWN COMPETITIVE PRIVATE LABEL PRODUCTS. THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL" REPORTED THAT CONSTANTLY'S CONVENIENT YOU ARE CAPITAL FUND USED MEETINGS WITH UNSUSPECTING START-UP COILS TO GAUGE ACCESS TO SECRET PROPRIETARY PRODUCT INFORMATION AND FINANCIAL DETAILS. AMAZON THEN REPORTEDLY USED THE INFORMATION TO LAUNCH COMPETING PRODUCTS.

OFTEN DISASTROUS RESULTS. WITH THE ORIGINAL START-UP COMPANY. THERE ARE MANY EXAMS BUT ONE STICKS OUT IN PARTICULAR. IN 2011, THEY CONTACTED VOCAL LIFE ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF INVESTING IN THE SPEECH DETECTION TECHNOLOGY. THE FOUNDER SECOND THE MEETING THINKING THIS WAS THE COMPANY'S BIG BREAK. AFTER DISPLAYING LOCAL LIVES TECHNOLOGY AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION, INCLUDING ENGINEERING DATA TO AMAZON EMPLOYEES, IT CAME TO A BANKRUPT HALT. THE EMPLOYEES STOPPED RESPONDING TO EMAILS BEFORE THE TECHNOLOGY EVENTUALLY FOUND ITS WAY INTO THE AMAZON'S ECHO DEVICE. THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE SERIOUS. ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF THESE PRACTICES COULDN'T HAPPEN WITHOUT THE MONOPOLY CONTROL OF THE MARKETPLACE. I'M ALSO CONCERNED THAT GIVEN THE ALLOWANCE OF COUNTERFEIT GOODS ON ITS MARKETPLACE, ESPECIALLY FROM CHINA, THAT AMAZON'S MARGARET PLACE MAY BE KNOWINGLY OR UNDER KNOWINGLY FURTHERING CHINA'S FORCED ENSLAVED LABOR.

THIS IS FOLLOWING REPORTS THAT AT LEAST 80 GLOBAL COMPANIES AND SELL ON THE AMAZON MARK PLACE, INCLUDING NIKE, STARBUCKS AND SAMSUNG HAVE TIES TO COMPANIES THAT USE ENSLAVED MUSLIMS. FOLLOWING THESE REPORTS, THE SENATOR INTRODUCED AN IMPORTANT BILL LAST WEEK REQUIRING AMERICAN BUSINESSES TO ENSURE THAT IT DOES NOT RELY ON SLAVE LABOR. I WILL BE INTRODUCING A BILL LATER THIS AFTERNOON. WHILE I DONAL EXPECT YOU TO HAVE BILL IS AT KNOWLEDGE OF THE LEGISLATION, I WANT TO ASK ALL FOUR OF OUR WITNESSES A SIMPLE YES OR NO QUESTION.

WILL YOU CERTIFY HERE TODAY THAT YOUR COMPANY DOES NOT USE AND WILL NEVER USE SLAVE LABOR TO MANUFACTURE YOUR PRODUCTS OR ALLOW PRODUCTS TO BE SOLD ON YOUR PLATFORM THAT ARE MANUFACTURED USING SLAVE LABOR? MR. COOK, YOU WERE KIND ENOUGH TO VISIT WITH ME ON THE PHONE. I THINK WE BRIEFLY DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE. IF YOU CAN GIVE A YORNL ES OR N ANSWER. WOULD YOU AGREE TO THIS IDEA? >> I WOULD LOVE TO ENGAGE ON THE LEGISLATION LET ME BE CLEAR. SLAVE LABOR IS ABHORRENT. WE WOULD NOT TOLERATE IT IN APPLE. I WOULD LOVE TO GET WITH YOUR OFFICE AND ENGAGE ON THE LEGISLATION. >> THANK YOU. >> CONGRESSMAN, I SHARE YOUR CONCERN IN THIS AREA. I FIND IT AN HORN AS WELL. HAPPY — AN HORN AS WELL. I WOULD LIKE TO ENGAGE WITH YOUR OFFICE. >> I DON'T EVEN WANT TO ENGAGE WITH MY OFFICE HALF THE TIME. WILL YOU AGREE THAT SLAVE LABOR IS SOMETHING YOU WILL NOT TOLERATE IN MANUFACTURING YOUR PRODUCTS OR IN PRODUCTS THAT ARE SOLD ON YOUR PLATFORMS? >> I AGREE.

>> WE WOULDN'T TOLERATE IT. WE WOULD END THE RELATIONSHIP IF IT WERE FOUND. >> MR. ZUCKERBERG? >> I AGREE. WE WOULDN'T TOLERATE THIS. IF WE FOUND ANYTHING LIKE THIS, WE WOULD TERMINATE ANY RELATIONSHIP. >> AND MR. BEZOS? >> YES. I AGREE COMPLETELY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GENTLEMEN. I YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND. >> THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK MR. BUCK FOR THAT EXCELLENT LINE OF QUESTIONING AND FOR THE UPCOMING LEGISLATION. I LOOK FORWARD TO JOINING THAT. WE WANT, IN THE 19th CENTURY, WE HAD THE ROB BARONS. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE WEALTH THAT YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO MASS IS NOT USED AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS AROUND THE WORLD. AND NOT AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF A FREE MARKET AT HOME. SO MR. BEZOS, LET ME TURN TO YOU. I'M INTERESTED IN THE ROLE THAT YOU PLAY AS A GATE KEEPER.

A LOT OF CONSUMERS WANT TWHONG THE HBO MAX APP WILL BE AVAILABLE ON YOUR FIRE DEVICE. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT NEGOTIATIONS ARE ONGOING. BUT THAT YOUR COMPANY ISN'T ONLY ASKING FOR FINANCIAL TERMS BUT ALSO FOR CONTENT FROM WARNER MEDIA. IS THAT RIGHT AND IS IT FAIR TO USE YOUR GATE KEEPER STATUS ROLE IN THE STREAMING DEVICE MARKET TO PROMOTE YOUR POSITION AS A COMPETITOR IN THE VIDEO STREAMING MARKET WITH RESPECT TO CONTENT? >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE DETAILS OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS. I JUST SAID, THEY'RE UNDER WAY RIGHT NOW. I PREDICT THAT THE COMPANIES WILL EVENTUALLY COME TO AN AGREEMENT, AND I THINK THIS IS KIND OF TWO LARGE COMPANIES, NEGOTIATE AGREEMENT NORMAL CASE.

>> BUT HERE'S WHY I PURSUE IT PRECISELY. IT IS A LARGE COMPANY AND IN A WAY, THEY STAND IN FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MUCH SMALLER COMPANIES WHO ARE EVEN IN A MORE DISADVANTAGEOUS POSITION WITH RESPECT TO NEGOTIATING WITH YOU. I GUESS, THE GENERAL PROPOSITION THEN YOU COULD SPEAK TO, IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OF THIS, IS IT OKAY TO NEGOTIATE NOT JUST FOR FINANCIAL TERMS IN HAVING SOMEONE BE PART OF YOUR FIRE UNIT, BUT ALSO, TO TRY TO EXTRACT IN THAT NEGOTIATION LEVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO GETTING CONTENT FROM THEM? >> WELL, AGAIN, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE DETAILS. >> I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT THAT ONE.

IN GENERAL, IN GENERAL. >> IN GENERAL, I THINK WHEN TWO COMPANIES ARE NEGOTIATING, YOU ARE NEGOTIATING NOT JUST THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE HANDS BUT ALSO, WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET IN EXCHANGE FOR THE AMOUNT OF MONEY. THAT IS THE VERY FUNDAMENTAL WAY THAT BUSINESS WORKS. >> YOU SEE AT LEAST TO OUTSIDERS, THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE A STRUCTURAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST. LIKE, YOU'RE USING YOUR CONTROL OVER ACCESS TO PEOPLE'S LIVING ROOMS, ESSENTIALLY. YOU'RE USING THAT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN LEVERAGE IN TERMS OF GETTING CREATIVE CONTENT THAT YOU WANT. ARE YOU ESSENTIALLY CONVERTING POWER IN ONE DOMAIN INTO POWER IN ANOTHER DOMAIN WHERE IT DOESN'T BELONG? >> I THINK WHAT I SHOULD DO IS OFFER TO GET YOU INFORMATION, I'LL GET TO YOUR OFFICE FOR YOU BECAUSE I'M NOT FAMILIAR ENOUGH WITH THIS, AND I COULD IMAGINE THAT THERE WOULD BE SCENARIOS IF WE'RE JUST TALKING ABSTRACT WHERE IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE AND I COULD IMAGINE SCENARIOS WHERE IT WOULD BE VERY NORMAL AND VERY APPROPRIATE.

>> FAIR ENOUGH. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT AN EMERGING MARKET SMART HOMES AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE HUB OF THE SMART HOME, SMART SPEAKERS. DOES AMAZON PRICE THE ECHO DEVICE BELOW COST? >> NOT ITS LIST PRICE BUT IT'S OFTEN ON PROMOTION AND SOMETIMES, WHEN IT'S ON PROMOTION, IT MAY BE BELOW COST, YES. >> SEVERAL OTHER COMPANIES DID TELL US, IN FACT, THAT AMAZON IS PRICING ECHO DEVICES WAY BELOW COST, MAKING IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO COMPETE AND AGGRESSIVELY DISCOUNTING ALEXA ENABLED SPEAKERS. SMART SPEAKERS WITH VOICE ASSISTANTS LIKE ALEXA ALONG WITH THE MYRIAD OF SMART HOME APPLIANCES THAT ALEXA CAN INTERACT WITH MAKE UP THE NEXT ECO-SYSTEM OR PLATFORM FOR TECH COMPANIES TO LOCK IN CUSTOMERS. WOULD YOU SAY THE SMART HOME MARKET FOR WHICH THE ECHO RING SECURITY SYSTEM AND OTHER SMART DEVICES OPERATE IS A WINNERS TAKE ALL MARKET, YES OR NO? >> NO. ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE ABLE TO SUCCEED WITH WHAT WE WANT, WHICH IS, WE WOULD LIKE, OUR VISION FOR THIS IS SMART HOME SPEAKERS SHOULD ANSWER TO DIFFERENT — >> WHEN CONSIDERING THE ACQUISITION — >> CASE BY CASE BASIS AND I THINK, JUST IF WE COULD ACHIEVE THAT, THEN I THINK YOU WOULD GET REALLY GOOD BEHAVIOR ON THE PART OF COMPETITIVE VOICE AGENTS HELPING YOU.

>> WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE RING, YOU LOOK AT, WE'RE LOOKING AT MARKET POSITION, NOT BY TECHNOLOGY AND THAT MOMENTUM IS VERY VALUABLE. SO IF SMART HOMES ARE NOT A MARKET WITH LOCK-IN EFFECTS, WHY WOULD A LEADING MARKET POSITION AND MOMENTUM BE SO VERY VALUABLE? >> SIR, MARKET POSITION IS VALUABLE IN ALMOST ANY BUSINESS AND ONE OF THE PRIMARY THINGS ONE WOULD LOOK AT IN AN ACQUISITION. MULTIPLE REASONS WE TRY TO BUY A COMPANY.

SOMETIMES WE TRY TO BUY TECHNOLOGY OR IP, BUT THE MOST COMMON CASE IS MARKET POSITION. THAT THE COMPANY HAS TRACTION WITH CUSTOMERS. THEY BUILT A SERVICE, MAYBE THE FIRST MOVER. A NUMBER OF REASONS THEY HAVE THE MARKET POSITION BUT THAT'S A VERY COMMON REASON TO ACQUIRE A COMPANY. >> ONCE A COMPANY BECOMES DOMINANT IN A MARKET, IT CAN FAVOR ITS OWN PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. ALEXA-ENABLED SMART SPEAKERS MAKE UP 60% OF THE SMART SPEAKER MARKET.

WHEN I ASK ALEXA TO PLAY MY FAVORITE SONG, PRIME IS THE DEFAULT MUSIC PLAYER, RIGHT? >> YES, IF YOU'RE A PRIME MEMBER. >> WHEN THEY SAY ALEXA BUY BATTERIES, WOULD YOU LIKE TO BUY AA AMAZON BASIC BATTERIES, SO HAS ALEXA EVER BEEN TRAINED TO FAVOR AMAZON PRODUCTS WHEN USERS SHOP BY VOICE? >> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED FOR THE QUESTION. >> I'M SURE THERE'S CASES WE DO PROMOTE OUR OWN PRODUCTS, OF COURSE, A COMMON PRACTICE IN BUSINESS. SO IT WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME IF ALEXA SOMETIMES DOES PROMOTE OUR OWN PRODUCTS. >> THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, MR. GATES, FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> DURING OUR PRIOR DISCUSSION EARLIER TODAY, YOU SAID THAT GOOGLE DOESN'T WORK WITH THE CHINESE MILITARY. THAT ANSWER WAS DECEPTIVE BECAUSE GOOGLE WORKS WITH MANY OF THE ENTITIES THAT WORK WITH THE CHINESE MILITARY IN COMMON COLLABORATION AND JUST AS ONE EXAMPLE WOULD BE THE UNIVERSITY WHERE THE HEAD OF GOOGLE AI SERVED ON THE COMPUTER SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE UNIVERSITY AND THEN THE UNIVERSITY TAKES A NEARLY $15 MILLION FROM CHINA'S CENTRAL MILITARY COMMISSION.

EVEN IF YOU DON'T LITERALLY SHOW UP AT THE OFFICES OF THE CHINESE M MILITARY, IF YOU'RE SHOWING UP AT THE SAME TIME, THAT WOULD LEAD TO MY CONCERN BUT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SEARCH BECAUSE THAT'S AN AREA WHERE I KNOW GOOGLE HAS REAL MARKET DOMINANCE. ON DECEMBER 11th, YOU TESTIFIED TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM MY COLLEAGUE ABOUT SEARCH, YOU SAID, WE DON'T MANUALLY INTERVENE ON ANY PARTICULAR SEARCH RESULT. BUT LEAKED MEMOS OBTAINED BY THE DAILY CALLER SHOW THAT ISN'T TRUE. IN FACT, THOSE MEMOS WERE ALTERED DECEMBER 3rd, JUST A WEEK BEFORE YOUR TESTIMONY AND THEY DESCRIBE A DECEPTIVE NEWS BLACKLIST. AND A PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING THAT BLACKLIST APPROVED BY BEN GOMES WHO LEADS SEARCH WITH YOUR COMPANY AND ALSO, SOMETHING CALLED A FRINGE RANKING, WHICH SEEMS TO BEG THE QUESTION, WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT'S FRINGE AND IN YOUR ANSWER, YOU SAID THERE IS NO MANUAL INTERVENTION OF SEARCH.

THAT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY, BUT NOW I'M GOING TO CITE SPECIFICALLY FROM THIS MEMO FROM THE DAILY CALLER. IT SAYS, I'M SORRY, THE DAILY CALLER OBTAINED FROM THE COMPANY, THE BEGINNING OF THE WORK FLOW STARTS WHEN A WEB SITE IS PLACED ON A WATCH LIST. IT CONTINUES, THIS WATCH LIST IS MAINTAINED AND STORED BY ERIS WITH ACCESS RESTRICTED TO POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS. IT DOES BEG THE QUESTION WHO THESE ENFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS ARE, AND ACCESS TO THE LISTING TO BE SHARED ON A NEED TO KNOW BASIS TO ENFORCE OR ENRICH THE POLICY VIOLATIONS.

THE INVESTIGATION OF THE WATCH LIST IS DONE IN THE TOOL ATHENA, THE AIRES MANUAL REVIEW TOOL. SO YOU SAID TO CONGRESSWOMAN THERE WAS NO MANUAL REVIEW TOOL AND THEN YOUR DOCUMENTS INDICATE THAT THERE IS A MANUAL REVIEW TOOL. SO HELP US UNDERSTAND THE INCONSISTENCY. >> CONGRESSMAN, TWO PARTS TO THIS. IN GENERAL, WE AUTOMATICALLY APPROACH OUR SEARCH RESULTS, WE HAVE ROBUST POLICIES TO DO SO. WE TEST IT WITH USER FEEDBACK AND EVALUATE LAST YEAR OVER 300,000 EXPERIMENTS AND LAUNCHED AROUND 3,000 IMPROVEMENTS TO SEARCH. AND WE DON'T MANUALLY TUNE THE QUESTION. LAST TIME, IT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF, IF THERE'S SOMEONE BEHIND THE CURTAIN, MANUALLY TUNING INDIVIDUAL SEARCH RESULT, WE DON'T GENERALLY APPROACH IT . BUT THEN INTERFERING IN ELECTIONS, THEN WE HAVE TO PUT THE SITE ON A LIST SO THAT DOESN'T APPEAR IN OUR SEARCH RESULTS QUERY. OTHERS INCLUDE VIOLENT EXTREMISM. >> THAT PROCESS YOU DESCRIBE, IS THAT DONE MANUALLY? >> WE COULD GET REPORTS FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. COMPLYING WITH, IT'S A KNOWN — >> THERE IS EITHER A MANUAL OPPONENT COMPONENT OR NOT, WHICH IS IT? >> FOR CREATING THOSE LISTS, THAT PROCESS CAN BE MANUAL.

>> THAT IS SORT OF THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE. YOU'VE NOW SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT TODAY THAT YOU SAID TO MS. LAUGHRIN. BUT AMERICAN JOURNAL, DAILY CALLER AND BREITBART THAT RECEIVE THE IRE OR THE NEGATIVE TREATMENT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF YOUR MANUAL TOOLING AND IT ALSO SEEMS NOTEWORTHY THAT WHISTLEBLOWERS AT YOUR OWN COMPANY SPOKE OUT. ONE REASON YOU MAINTAIN THIS MANUAL TOOL IS TO STOP ELECTION INTERFERENCE. I BELIEVE IT IS YOUR COMPANY ENGAGING IN ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND IT'S NOT JUST MY VIEW. MIKE WHACKER CAME OUT AND WAS A WHISTLEBLOWER INDICATING THAT THE MANUAL BLACKLIST TARGETS THAT GOOGLE SPECIFICALLY GOES AFTER ARE THOSE WHO SUPPORT PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO HOLD A CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT AND HE LET YOUR COMPANY IN 2019 BECAUSE HE WAS SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THESE OUTRAGE MOBS. SO CAN YOU SEE HOW WHEN YOU EMPOWER INDIVIDUALS, SOME OF THE SAME INDIVIDUALS THAT PROJECT VERITAS EXPOSED PEOPLE AS LABELING PEOPLE AS TERRORISTS WHO SAY MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN IF YOU SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT, THAT IN FACT CAN BE THE VERY ELECTION INTERFERENCE WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT AND USE YOUR MARKET DOMINANCE AND SEARCH TO ACCOMPLISH THAT INTERFERENCE? >> I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION.

WE DON'T APPROACH THIS WORK WITH ANY POLITICAL VIEWPOINT BUT TO COMPLY WITH LAW, KNOWN COP COPYRIGHT, AND THOSE REQUESTS CAN COME FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT. >> TIME, GENTLEMEN. EXPIRED. >> I YIELD BACK. I'M SORRY, RECOGNIZE FROM SAN FRANCISCO. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST GIVEN THE PRODUCTIVITY OF OUR DISCUSSION, I REQUEST A THIRD ROUND OF QUESTIONING. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION. I NOW RECOGNIZE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MR. NADLER. >> YEAH. YOU KNOW, THE DOCUMENTS WITH THE JOURNALISM INDUSTRY IN THIS COUNTRY ARE ECONOMIC CREEK HOLE. DON'T HAVE LOCAL NEWSPAPER AND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOURNALISTS LAID OFF IN RECENT YEARS. THE REASON JOURNALISM IN FREE FALL IS GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK CAPTURE THE VAST MAJORITY OF DIGITAL AD REVENUE. IT IS GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK THAT INCREASINGLY PROFIT OFF OF THAT. TOLD US GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK MAINTAIN DOMINANCE TIN THESE MARKETS, IN PART, ANTI-COMPETITIVE CONDUCT. MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN 2015, FACEBOOK WITH HIGHER RATES OF VIDEO VIEWERSHIP ON ITS PLATFORM.

BASED ON ITS METRICS, FIRED HUNDREDS OF JOURNALISTS, CHOOSING INSTEAD TO BOOST THEIR VIDEO DIVISION. IN 2018, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT FACEBOOK HAD INFLATED THESE MEASURES. AND HAD KNOWN ABOUT THE INACCURACY SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE FACEBOOK PUBLICLY DISCLOSED THIS. MR. ZUCKERBERG, DID YOU KNOW THAT THESE METRICS WERE INFLATED BEFORE THEY WERE PUBLICLY RELEASED? >> CONGRESSMAN, NO, I DID NOT. AND WE REGRET THAT MISTAKE AND HAVE PUT IN PLACE A NUMBER OF OTHER MEASURES SINCE THEN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE — >> YOU REALIZE THE HARM THAT THIS CAUSED JOURNALISTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY? >> CONGRESSMAN, I CERTAINLY KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THAT THE METRICS THAT WE REPORT ARE ACCURATE AND WE PUT IN PLACE MEASURES TO MAKE SURE.

>> WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY TO THE JOURNALISTS WHO LOST THEIR JOBS BECAUSE OF FACEBOOK'S DECEPTION? >> CONGRESSMAN, I DISAGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION AND ALSO, YOUR DESCRIPTION — >> RECLAIMING MY TIME. GOOGLE, MEANWHILE, MAINTAINED ITS DOMINANCE IN PART THROUGH AGGREGATING THROUGH PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. I UNDERSTAND THAT GOOGLE COLLECTS USER DATA ON USER BROWSING ACTIVITY THROUGH CHROME BROWSER. DOES GOOGLE USE THAT DATA FOR PURPOSES IN ADVERTISING OR TO DEVELOP AND REFINE ALGORITHMS? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, WE DO USE DATA TO IMPROVE OUR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES FOR OUR USERS. ANY TIME WE DO IT, WE BELIEVE IN CONTROL AND TRANSPARENCY AND BY TELLING THEM TO CHOOSE HOW THEY LIKE THEIR DATA.

>> AND SO YOU DO USE THE DATA THAT YOU GET FROM THESE COMPANIES FOR YOUR PURPOSES? >> MY UNDERSTANDING WAS WHETHER WE USE DATA IN GENERAL TO IMPROVE OUR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES AND WE DO USE DATA TO SHOW ADS BUT WE GIVE USERS THE CHOICE. THEY CAN TURN AD PERSONALIZATION ON OR OFF. >> THIS OBVIOUSLY, USE OF THIS DATA FROM ALL THESE COMPANIES GIVE YOU A TREMENDOUS ADVANTAGE OVER THEM AND ANY COMPETITOR. DOES THE ABILITY TO MAKE MONEY IN ANY WAY AFFECT GOOGLE'S ALGORITHM IN TERMS OF WHAT APPEARS IN THE A TYPICAL GOOGLE NEWS SEARCH RESULTS? >> WE DON'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIP WE HAVE.

>> BUT FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE HAVE GRAVELY THREATENED JOURNALISM IN THE UNITED STATES. REPORTERS HAVE BEEN FIRED. LOCAL NEWSPAPERS HAVE BEEN SHUT DOWN, AND NOW WE HEAR THAT GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK ARE MAKING MONEY OVER WHAT NEWS THEY LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE. THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION AND UNFORTUNATELY, MY TIME HAS EXPIRED AND I HAVE TO YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN, FOR YIELDING. I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'M JUST GOING TO PICK UP WHERE I LEFT OFF. MR. PACHAI, THERE ARE RIOTING GROUPS WHAT I CONTEND VERY VIOLENT VIDEO, YET YESTERDAY I WAS SENT A YOUTUBE VIDEO ABOUT DOCTORS DISCUSSING HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE AND DISCUSSING THE NOT DANGERS OF CHILDREN RETURNING TO SCHOOL AND WHEN I CLICKED ON THE LINK, IT WAS TAKEN DOWN AND THEN I WAS SENT A DIFFERENT LINK ON YOUTUBE AND IT WAS TAKEN DOWN.

I JUST CHECKED AGAIN TO MAKE SURE AND IT SAYS THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN REMOVED FOR VIOLATING YOUTUBE'S COMMUNITY GUIDELINES. HOW CAN DOCTORS GIVING THEIR OPINION ON A DRUG THAT THEY THINK IS EFFECTIVE FOR THE TREATMENT OF COVID-19 AND DOCTORS WHO THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN TO RETURN BACK TO SCHOOL VIOLATE YOUTUBE'S COMMUNITY GUIDELINES? WHEN ALL OF THESE VIDEOS OF VIOLENCE IS ALL POSTED ON YOUTUBE? >> CONGRESSMAN, WE BELIEVE IN FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THERE IS A LOT OF DEBATE ON YOUTUBE ABOUT EFFECTIVE WAYS TO DEAL WITH COVID. WE ALLOW A ROBUST DEBATE, BUT IN THE AREA DURING A PANDEMIC, WE LOOK TO LOCAL HEALTH AUTHORITIES. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE U.S., IT WOULD BE CDC. FOR GUIDELINES AROUND MEDICAL MISINFORMATION WHICH COULD CAUSE HARM IN THE REAL WORLD AND SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE ARE ASPECTS OF A VIDEO AND IF IT EXPLICITLY STATES SOMETHING COULD BE A PROVEN CURE AND THAT DOESN'T MEET CDC GUIDELINES, WE WOULD — >> BUT IT'S FREE EXPRESSION OF SPEECH AND HAVE THESE DOCTORS GIVING THEIR OPINION AS DOCTORS AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOUTUBE AND THEREFORE GOOGLE THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO SILENT PHYSICIANS AND THEIR OPINION OF WHAT CAN HELP AND CURE PEOPLE WITH COVID-19.

I'LL SWITCH QUICKLY TO MR. ZUCKERBERG. I THINK AT THIS POINT, IT'S FAIRLY OBVIOUS THAT TECHNOLOGY PLATFORMS HAVE BEEN STIFLING CONSERVATIVE NEWS AND OPINIONS. YOU EMPLOY A PANEL OF CONTENT MODERATORS. CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW FACEBOOK CHOOSES WHO THESE MODERATORS ARE? >> THANKS, CONGRESSMAN. WE DO HIRE A LOT OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD TO WORK ON SAFETY AND SECURITY. OUR TEAM IS MORE THAN 30,000 OR 35,000 PEOPLE WORKING ON THAT NOW. WE CERTAINLY TRY TO DO THIS IN A WAY THAT IS NEUTRAL TO ALL VIEWPOINTS. WE WANT TO BE A PLATFORM FOR ALL IDEAS. I DON'T THINK YOU BUILD A SOCIAL PRODUCT WITH THE GOAL OF GIVING PEOPLE A VOICE IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO EXPRESS THE WIDE VARIETY OF THINGS IS ULTIMATELY VALUABLE FOR THE WORLD, AND WE TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR POLICIES AND OUR OPERATIONS ULTIMATELY REFLECT AND CARRY THAT OUT.

>> IS THERE AN IDEOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AMONG THE CONTENT MODERATORS? >> I DON'T THINK WE CHOOSE TO HIRE THEM ON THE BASIS OF AN IDEOLOGY. THEY'RE HIRED ALL OVER THE WORLD. THERE'S CERTAINLY A BUNCH IN THE U.S. THERE'S DIVERSITY IN WHERE THEY'RE HIRED, BUT CERTAINLY, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANY BIAS IN WHAT WE DO, AND WE WOULDN'T TOLERATE IF WE DISCOVERED THAT. >> SO YOU DON'T SPECIFICALLY HIRE, SAY, CONSERVATIVE MODERATORS AND DEMOCRAT OR LIBERAL MODERATORS SO THERE'S A BALANCE IN YOUR CONTENT MODERATORS? >> CONGRESSMAN, IN TERMS OF THE 30,000 TO 35,000 PEOPLE OR MORE AT THIS POINT WHO ARE DOING SAFETY AND SECURITY REVIEW, THAT IS CORRECT.

IN TERMS OF THE PEOPLE SETTING THE POLICIES, I THINK IT IS VALUABLE TO HAVE PEOPLE WITH A DIVERSITY OF VIEWPOINTS INVOLVED SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS REPRESENTED IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND WE ALSO CONSULT WITH A NUMBER OF OUTSIDE GROUPS WHENEVER WE DEVELOP NEW POLICIES TO MAKE SURE WE'RE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL PERSPECTIVES. >> WHAT ARE SOME OF THOSE OUTSIDE GROUPS THAT WOULD BE CONSERVATIVE-LEANING? >> CONGRESSMAN, I NEED TO GET BACK TO WITH YOU WITH A LIST OF SPECIFIC GROUPS, BUT IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT THE TOPIC IS. >> CAN YOU JUST THINK OF ONE? I MEAN YOU SAID, YOU REACH TO OUTSIDE GROUPS. CAN YOU THINK OF ONE CONSERVATIVE OUTSIDE GROUP YOU REACH OUT TO AND USE AS A CONTENT MODERATOR? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT EXTERNAL STAKE HOLDERS AND GROUPS THAT ARE INPUTS TO OUR POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND I'M NOT INVOLVED IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS DIRECTLY, I'D HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU WITH SPECIFICS ON THAT BUT I'M QUITE CONFIDENT WE SPEAK WITH PEOPLE ACROSS THE IDEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM WITH THOSE POLICIES.

>> I WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE A POLICY UPDATE ON THAT. THIRD PARTY FACT CHECKERS AND HOW MANY FACT CHECKERS DOES FACEBOOK EMPLOY? >> YES, THANKS. WE WORK WITH ABOUT 70 FACT CHECKING PARTNERS AROUND THE WORLD, AND THE GOAL OF THE PROGRAM IS TO LIMIT THE DISTRIBUTION OF VIRAL HOAXES, SO THINGS THAT ARE CLEARLY FALSE. FROM GETTING A LOT OF DISTRIBUTION, BUT WE DON'T OURSELVES WANT TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF DETERMINING WHAT IS TRUE AND WHAT IS FALSE THAT RAPIN FEELS LIKE AN INAPPROPRIATE ROLE FOR US TO PLAY. WE RELY ON THE INDEPENDENT FACT CHECKING ORGANIZATION THAT HAS A SET OF GUIDELINES OF WHAT MAKES AN INDEPENDENT FACT-CHECKER AND THEY CERTIFY THOSE FACT CHECKERS AND THEN ANY ORGANIZATION THAT GETS CERTIFICATION FROM THAT GROUP IS QUALIFIED TO BE A FACT CHECKING PARTNER WITHIN FACEBOOK. >> THANK YOU.

THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME EXPIRED. I'LL RECOGNIZE MR. JOHNSON FOR FIVE MINUTES AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK OF THE COMMITTEE. MR. JOHNSON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. BEZOS, AMAZON HAS A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM WITH COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS SOLD ON ITS PLATFORM. NOT ONLY RIP OFF THE OWNERS OF LEGITIMATE BUSINESSES, THEY ALSO CAN BE DANGEROUS. COUNTERFEIT MEDICINE, BABY FOOD, AUTOMOBILE TIRES AND OTHER PRODUCTS CAN KILL. AMAZON HAS SAID IT'S FIXING ITS COUNTERFEIT PROBLEM, BUT COUNTERFEITING SEEMS TO BE GETTING WORSE, NOT BETTER. AMAZON IS A TRILLION DOLLAR COMPANY BUT AMAZON CUSTOMERS ARE NOT GUARANTEED THAT THE PRODUCTS PURCHASED ON YOUR PLATFORM ARE AUTHENTIC. AMAZON ACTS LIKE IT'S NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR COUNTERFEITS BEING TOLD BY THIRD PARTY SELLERS ON ITS PLATFORM AND WE'VE HEARD THAT AMAZON PUTS THE BURDEN AND COST ON BRAND OWNERS TO POLICE AMAZON'S SITE, EVEN THOUGH AMAZON MAKES MONEY WHEN A COUNTERFEIT GOOD IS SOLD ON ITS SITE. MORE THAN HALF OF AMAZON'S SALES COME FROM THIRD PARTY SELLER ACCOUNTS.

WHY ISN'T AMAZON MORE AGGRESSIVE IN ENSURING THAT COUNTERFEIT GOODS ARE NOT SOLD ON ITS PLATFORM AND WHY ISN'T AMAZON RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING ALL COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS OFF OF ITS PLATFORM? >> THANK YOU. THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT ISSUE, AND ONE WE WORK HARD ON. COUNTERFEITS ARE DISCOURAGED. THEY ARE A PROBLEM THAT DOES NOT HELP WITH TRUST FOR CUSTOMERS. IT'S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS, HONEST THIRD PARTY SELLERS. WE DO A LOT TO PREVENT COUNTERFEITING. WE HAVE A TEAM OF MORE THAN A THOUSAND PEOPLE THAT DOES THIS. WE INVEST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS IN SYSTEMS THAT DO THIS, SOMETHING CALLED PROJECT ZERO THAT HELPS BRANDS WITH INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS THAT HELP WITH COUNTERFEITING. >> I'M GLAD THAT YOU HAVE THOSE FEATURES IN PLACE, BUT WHY ISN'T AMAZON RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING ALL COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS OFF OF ITS PLATFORM? >> WE CERTAINLY WORK TO DO SO, CONGRESSMAN, AND WE DO SO NOT ONLY FOR RETAIL PRODUCTS BUT THIRD PARTY PRODUCTS AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU. WE'VE HEARD FROM NUMEROUS THIRD PARTY SELLERS AND BRAND OWNERS THAT AMAZON HAS USED KNOCKOFFS AS LEVERAGE TO PRESSURE SELLERS TO DO WHAT AMAZON WANTS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE FOUNDER OF POP SOCKETS RECTESTIFIED IN JANUARY THAT AMAZON ITSELF WAS SELLING KNOCKOFFS OF ITS PRODUCT. AFTER REPORTING THE PROBLEM, IT WAS ONLY AFTER HIS COMPANY COMMITTED TO SPENDING $2 MILLION ON ADVERTISEMENTS THAT AMAZON APPEARS TO HAVE STOPPED DIVERTING SALES TO THESE KNOCKOFFS.

WHAT IS YOUR EXPLANATION FOR THAT BUSINESS PRACTICE? >> THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE. IF THOSE ARE THE FACTS AND IF SOMEONE SOMEWHERE INSIDE AMAZON SAID, YOU KNOW, BUY X DOLLARS IN ADS AND THEN WE'LL HELP YOU WITH YOUR COUNTERFEIT PROBLEM, THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE AND I WILL LOOK INTO THAT AND GET BACK TO YOUR OFFICE WITH THAT, BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT WE HAVE A COUNTERFEIT CRIMES UNIT. ATTEMPT TO PROSECUTE COUNTERFEITERS. WE ENCOURAGE THIS BODY TO PASS STRICTER PENALTIES FOR COUNTERFEITERS AND INCREASE LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES TO GO AFTER COUNTERFEITERS. >> BUT MAKES MONEY OFF OF COUNTERFEIT GOODS BEING SONLD O YOUR PLATFORM, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> IF IT DOES IN MY VIEW, SIR, IT WOULD BE IN THE SHORT-TERM. I WOULD MUCH RATHER LOSE A SALE THAN LOSE A CUSTOMER. WE MAKE MONEY THAT COMES BACK. >> FAIR ENOUGH, SIR. MAKING COMPANIES PAY EXTRA TO AVOID HAVING THEIR PRODUCTS DISAPPEAR IN RANKINGS SEEMS TO BE SO UNFAIR, ESPECIALLY TO SMALL BUSINESSES. THE AMERICAN DREAM IS THREATENED WHEN THAT HAPPENS, DON'T YOU THINK SO? >> SIR, NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.

IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT A SECOND AGO, I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH THAT. >> FULLY DIFFERENT SITUATION NOW WHERE A COMPANY THAT IS SELLING ON YOUR PLATFORM, BUT IS NOT PAYING ANYTHING EXTRA GETS BURIED IN THE RANKINGS, BUT COMPANIES THAT PAY EXTRA ARE ABLE TO GET THEIR PRODUCTS PUSHED UP AND THEY AVOID GETTING PUSHED DOWN. IS THAT AN ACCEPTABLE PRACTICE? >> SIR, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS THE FACT THAT WE OFFER AN ADVERTISING SERVICE, BASICALLY, FOR THIRD PARTY SELLERS TO DRIVE ADDITIONAL PROMOTION TO THEIR PRODUCTS.

THAT'S A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM. SOME SELLERS USE IT, SOME DON'T AND IT'S BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE AT HELPING PEOPLE PROMOTE THEIR PRODUCTS. >> WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK. THANK YOU. >> THE CHAIRMAN YIELDS BACK. THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN A BRIEF RECESS. >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH DAKOTA, MR. ARMSTRONG. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MY COLLEAGUE BROUGHT UP WHAT I THINK IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE AND THEY WERE DISCUSSING AMAZON'S STATED POLICY AGAINST USING THIRD PARTY SELLER INFORMATION TO INFORM BUSINESS DECISIONS REGARDING AMAZON'S PRIVATE LABEL.

SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT POSSIBLE LOOPHOLE THAT ALLOWS AMAZON TO REVIEW NON-PUBLIC AGGREGATE DATA TO INFORM PRIVATE BRANDS EVEN IN INSTANCES WHERE THERE'S ONLY A FEW THIRD PARTY SELLERS. I JUST WANT TO DRILL DOWN ON THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE. WHERE EXACTLY DOES AMAZON DRAW THE LINE? >> I'M SORRY. AGGREGATE DATA WOULD BE MORE THAN ONE SELLER. AND OF COURSE, YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THE PERSON SEEING THE REPORT WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW MANY SELLERS ARE INSIDE THAT GROUP OR WHAT THE BREAKDOWN WOULD BE BETWEEN THOSE SELLERS. >> NOT THAT DIFFERENT FROM PERHAPS A BEST LIST OR PRODUCT RANKING WHICH WE DO MAKE PUBLIC FOR ALL. >> I WANT TO BE CLEAR, WHAT YOU SAY AMAZON ALLOW THE USE OF AGGREGATE DATA TO INFORM PRIVATE LABEL BRANDS WHEN THERE'S ONLY THREE SELLERS FOR A PRODUCT? >> YES, SIR.

>> DOES AMAZON LOOK AT AGGREGATE DATA WHEN THERE'S ONLY TWO SELLERS OF A PRODUCT? >> YES, SIR. >> AM I CORRECT IN MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AMAZON IS CONDUCTING AN INTERNAL INVESTIGATION ON THE USE OF THIRD PARTY DATA? >> YES, BASICALLY, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE ANECDOTES THAT WE SAW IN THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL" ARTICLE. >> WILL YOU COMMIT TO INFORMING THIS COMMITTEE ON THE OUTCOME OF THAT INVESTIGATION WITH THE IMPACT CIRCUMSTANCES.

>> WE'LL DO THAT. >> MUSIC CAN BE USED TO DRIVE REVENUE ON OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A REASON IT'S IMPORTANT, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT TWITCH FOR A SECOND. NEWS REPORTS HAVE INDICATED THAT TWITCH USERS ARE RECEIVING NOTICE AND TAKE DOWN REQUESTS PURSUANT TO THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT TWITCH ALLOWS USERS TO STREAM MUSIC BUT NOT LICENSE MUSIC, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ASK THAT I COULD GET BACK TO YOUR OFFICE WITH AN ANSWER OF THE QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW. >> I JUST HAVE TWO MORE QUESTIONS RELATED TO THAT. IF TWITCH IS RESPONDING TO DMCA NOTICE AND TAKEDOWN REQUIREMENTS, SHOULD, ONE, TWITCH CONSIDER LICENSING MUSIC INSTEAD OF RETROACTIVELY ADHERING TO THE NOTICES? THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS WE'RE INTERESTED IN, PRIMARY CONCERNED ABOUT SMALL UP AND COMING MUSICIANS, DIFFERENT PEOPLE NOT NECESSARILY LABELS TO MAKE IT EASY FOR THEM TO GET CEASE AND DESIST NOTICES OUT AS WELL AND CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD THERE. >> YES, CONGRESSMAN. THAT IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE AND I UNDERSTAND IT AND I WILL GET BACK TO YOUR OFFICE ON THAT. >> EARLIER THIS YEAR, GOOGLE ANNOUNCED PLANS TO RETIRE THIRD PARTY COOKIES THAT WEB SITES ATTACHED TO USERS BROWSERS.

THIS ALLOWS USERS TO BE TRACKED ACROSS THE INTERNET. A CONSEQUENCE OF THAT CHANGE IS THAT IT WILL PUT OTHER DIGITAL ADVERTISING MARKET PARTICIPANTS AT A DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE THEY CAN NO LONGER TRACK USERS. AT THE VERY, VERY DANGER OF BEING PROCOOKIE BECAUSE I'M NOT WHEN I USE MY COMPUTER AS WELL, BUT I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE LEGITIMATE PRIVACY CONCERN WITH THIRD PARTY COOKIES BUT I DO WANT TO FOCUS ON THE COMPETITION ASPECT. THE ASSET ACTION PLACED GOOGLE AS A DISADVANTAGE OR HAVE ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COLLECTING THAT USER DATA TO INFORM THE DIGITAL ADVERTISING ACTIVITIES, MR. PACHI? >> CONGRESSMAN, AS YOU RIGHTLY POINTED OUT, THIS IS AN AREA WHERE WE'VE FOCUSED ON USER PRIVACY AND USERS CLEARLY DON'T WANT TO BE TRACKED WITH THIRD PARTY COOKIES.

IN FACT, ON A BROWSER, FROM APPLE AND THE FOUNDATION HAVE ALSO IMPLEMENTED THESE CHANGES. WE ARE DOING IT THOUGHTFULLY, GIVING TIME FOR THE INDUSTRY TO ADAPT BECAUSE WE KNOW PUBLISHERS DEPEND ON REVENUE IN THIS AREA BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT CHANGE AND I THINK WE HAVE TO BE FOCUSED ON FORWARD. >> YOU HAVE OTHER WAYS TO COLLECTING THAT INFORMATION, CORRECT? >> ON THE FIRST PARTY SERVICES, WE DON'T RELY ON COOKIES AND OBVIOUSLY, WHEN PEOPLE COME AND TYPE INTO SEARCH — >> NOT ASKING YOU TO RELY ON COOKIES. ASKING IF YOU HAVE OTHER WAYS OF COLLECTING IT, THROUGH G MAIL OR CONSUMER FACING PLATFORMS, RIGHT? >> WE DON'T USE DATA FROM G-MAIL FOR ADS, CONGRESSMAN, BUT TO THE EXTENT, ON THE SERVICES, WHERE WE PROVIDE ADS, AND IF USERS HAVE CONSENTED TO ADS PERSONALIZATION, YES, WE DO HAVE DATA. >> THANK YOU, I YIELD BACK. >> GENTLEMEN YIELDS BACK. I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLE LADY FROM FLORIDA. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. ZUCKERBERG, DURING DISCUSSIONS OF CHANGING FACEBOOK'S PLATFORM POLICY IN 2012, YOU SAID THAT, AND I QUOTE, IN ANY MODEL, ASSUME WE ENFORCE THE POLICIES AGAINST COMPETITORS MUCH MORE STRONGLY.

IT SOUNDS LIKE FACEBOOK WEAPONIZES ITS POLICIES TO TARGET COMPETITORS. WHY WOULD FACEBOOK ENFORCE POLICIES AGAINST COMPETITORS MORE STRONGLY? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, WHEN WE WERE A MUCH SMALLER COMPANY, WE SAW THAT — >> THIS IS 2012 NOW. THIS IS IN 2012. SO PLEASE GO RIGHT AHEAD. >> SURE. WE'VE HAD POLICIES IN THE PAST THAT HAVE PREVENTED OUR COMPETITORS, WHICH AT THE TIME WERE PRIMARILY WORRIED ABOUT LARGER COMPETITORS, FROM USING OUR PLATFORMS TO GROWING AND COMPETE WITH US.

SO WE HAD SOME OF THOSE TINUALL OVER TIME. >> MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN 2013, A SENIOR FACEBOOK EMPLOYEE IDENTIFIED MESSAGING AS A FAST-GROWING APP ON FACEBOOK AND SAID WE WILL RESTRICT THEIR ACCESS. WAS THIS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF ENFORCING FACEBOOK'S POLICIES AGAINST COMPETITORS, MUCH MORE STRONGLY? MESSAGE ME? >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, BUT WE DID HAVE THAT POLICY. >> LET'S MOVE TO ANOTHER TO SEE IF YOU REMEMBER THIS ONE. IN 2014, OTHER FACEBOOK PRODUCT MANAGERS OPENLY DISCUSS REMOVING PINTEREST'S ACCESS TO FACEBOOK'S PLATFORM AS ONE EMPLOYEE SAID, I AM 100% IN FAVOR OF THE IDEA OF MOVING IT FROM PINTEREST BUT AM NOT RECOMMENDING MOVING IT FROM NETFLIX GOING FORWARD. WHY WOULD FACEBOOK PRODUCT MANAGERS WANT TO RESTRICT PINTEREST'S ACCESS TO FACEBOOK BUT NOT NETFLIX? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT EXCHANGE.

I DON'T THINK I WAS ON THAT. >> WHY DO YOU THINK YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE ON THAT BUT WHY DO YOU THINK THEY MADE THAT DECISION? OR WOULD MAKE A DECISION LIKE THAT? >> WELL, CONGRESSWOMAN, AS I SAID, WE USED TO HAVE A POLICY THAT RESTRICTED COMPETITORS FROM USING OUR PLATFORM, AND PINTEREST IS A SOCIAL COMPETITOR WITH US. IT'S ONE OF THE MANY COMPETITORS. >> ALL RIGHT.

OKAY. MR. ZUCKERBERG, THESE EXAMPLES AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT FACEBOOK DOES WEAPONIZE ITS POLICY, PLATFORM POLICIES AND THEN SELECTIVELY TO UNDERMINE COMPETITORS BUT LET'S MOVE ON. MR. COOK, I AM CONCERNED THAT APPLE'S POLICIES ARE ALSO PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS IN THE APP ECONOMY. AND THAT APPLE RULES MEAN APPLE APPS ALWAYS WIN. IN 2019, APPLE REMOVED FROM THE APPLE STORE CERTAIN APPS THAT HELP PARENTS CONTROL THEIR CHILDREN'S DEVICES. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT JUSTIFICATION APPLE CITED? >> YES, CONGRESSWOMAN, I DO.

IT WAS THAT THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY CALLED MDM, MOBILE DEVICE MANAGEMENT, PLACED KIDS' DATA AT RISK, SO WE WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF KIDS. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT THE APP BASICALLY UNDERMINED KIDS' PRIVACY, BUT ANOTHER APP THAT USED THIS SAME TOOL WAS APPTURE, AN APP OWNED BY THE SAUDI ARABIA GOVERNMENT. DO YOU RECALL WHAT APPLE'S POSITION WAS TOWARDS THIS APP? >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT APP. >> OKAY. APPLE ALLOWED THIS SAUDI APP TO REMAIN, SO THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF APPS. THEY USE THE SAME TOOL. APPLE KICKS ONE OUT, AND SAID THAT ONE WAS HELPING PARENTS BUT KEEPS THE ONE OWNED BY A POWERFUL GOVERNMENT.

IF THAT IS CORRECT, MR. COOK, THAT APPLE SUPPOSEDLY DID THE SAME THING, WHY WOULD YOU KEEP THE ONE OWNED BY A POWERFUL GOVERNMENT? >> I'D LIKE TO LOOK INTO THIS, AND GET BACK WITH YOUR OFFICE — >> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU APPLIED DIFFERENT RULES TO THE SAME APPS. >> WE APPLY THE RULES TO ALL DEVELOPERS EVENLY. >> DID THE FACT THAT APPLE — MR. COOK, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. DID THE FACT THAT APPLE HAD ITS OWN PARENTAL CONTROL APPS THAT WERE COMPETING WITH THESE THIRD PARTY APPS CONTRIBUTE TO APPLE'S DECISION TO KICK THEM OFF THE APPLE STORE, MR. COOK, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT? >> IT DID NOT. THERE'S OVER 30 PARENTAL CONTROLS ON THE APP STORE TODAY, SO THERE'S PLENTY OF COMPETITION. AND I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THIS IS NOT AN AREA WHERE APPLE GETS ANY REVENUE AT ALL. WE DO THIS — >> I DIDN'T ASK ANYTHING ABOUT REVENUE.

THAT WAS NOT MY QUESTION, BUT I'M OUT OF TIME. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR. I YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU, GENTLE LADY, FOR YIELDING BACK AND THE MEMBER MR. JORDAN FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> I WOULD YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, MR. GATES. >> THANK YOU TO THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. MR. ZUCKERBERG, AS MR. PACHI SAID THERE WAS AN EDITORIAL MANIPULATION ON THEIR PLATFORM, YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY GIVEN TESTIMONY TO CONGRESS SAYING THERE IS NOT EDITORIAL MANIPULATION THAT DISADVANTAGES CONSERVATIVES AND JUST LIKE IN THE CASE OF GOOGLE, THERE HAVE BEEN WHISTLEBLOWERS FROM FACEBOOK THAT NOT ONLY HAVE OFFERED EVIDENCE INDICATING YOUR TESTIMONY WAS NOT TRUTHFUL, BUT THERE'S EVEN VIDEO THAT SUGGESTS THAT CONTENT MODERATORS THAT YOU EMPLOY ARE OUT THERE DISADVANTAGING CONSERVATIVE CONTENT.

I'M WONDERING IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE EXPERIENCES OF ZACH McELROY AND RYAN HARTWIG, TWO PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATED IN FACEBOOK CONTENT REVIEW AND INDIVIDUAL VIDEO EVIDENCE AND THE TESTIMONY FROM THEM THAT THE CULTURE THAT YOU LEAD WITH FACEBOOK IS ONE THAT DISADVANTAGES AND LEADS TO CONTENT MANIPULATION. >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR WITH THE CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE RAISED AND AS I'VE SAID, WE AIM TO BE A PLATFORM FOR ALL IDEAS. WE GOT INTO THIS BECAUSE WE WANT TO GIVE EVERYONE A VOICE. I CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT OUR PLATFORMS TO BE RUN IN A WAY THAT HAS ANY IDEALOGICAL BIAS AND I WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS A RANGE OF ISSUES.

WE PEOPLE RAISE CONCERNS LIKE THAT, WE LOOK INTO THEM TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE IN OUR OPERATION IS BEHAVING AND UPHOLDING THE STANDARDS THAT WE WOULD LIKE AND IF THE BEHAVIOR THAT THEY CITED IS TRUE, THEN THAT WOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE IN OUR OPERATION. >> AND FOLLOWING THE RELEASE OF THOSE VIDEOS AND THAT EVIDENCE FROM PROJECT VERITAS, WILL YOU DESCRIBE THE INVESTIGATION THAT FACEBOOK UNDERTOOK TO ROOT OUT THESE CORROSIVE EFFECTS ON YOUR PLATFORM? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'D HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU WITH MORE DETAILS ON THAT, BUT I KNOW THAT WE HAVE ONGOING TRAINING IN WHAT WE DO AND WE CERTAINLY WILL LOOK INTO ANY COMPLAINTS THAT COME UP AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S DONE IN A WAY THAT REFLECT TESS VALUES AROUND THE COMPANY AND BEING A PLATFORM FOR ALL IDEAS.

>> I'M CONCERNED THAT THE PLATFORM DOES AFFECT THE VALUE OF THE COMPANY BUT THOSE DON'T GIVE EVERYONE A VOICE. AND WHILE I APPRECIATE TRAINING AS A PROPHYLACTIC ENDEAVOR TO TRY TO GUIDE FUTURE CONTENT, IT SEEMS DISINGENIOUS FOR YOU TO SUGGEST THESE VIDEOS COME OUT THAT SHOW THE PEOPLE THAT YOU TRUST WITH CONTENT MODERATION ADMITTING ON VIDEO THAT THEY DISADVANTAGE CONSERVATIVES, THAT THEY LABEL PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT AS A WAY TO PUSH DOWN THAT CONTENT FOR YOU TO COME TO US MANY MONTHS LATER AFTER THAT WAS ALL OVER THE NEWS AND THE INTERNET AND SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU'LL GET BACK TO US AND YOU DO A LITTLE TRAINING, IT SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT YOU DON'T TAKE THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THIS EVIDENCE VERY SERIOUSLY. SO I'LL ASK THE QUESTION IN A DIFFERENT WAY, IN YOUR PRIOR TESTIMONY, YOU SAID THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN, IT CANNOT HAPPEN. WOULD YOU AT LEAST BE WILLING TO ACKNOWLEDGE BASED ON THE IR RU IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE IN A WAY THAT WE NEED TO ROOT OUT.

>> CONGRESSMAN, MY TESTIMONY IN THE PAST AND TODAY IS ABOUT WHAT OUR PRINCIPALS ARE AS A COMPANY AND WHAT WE TRY TO DO. OF COURSE, WHEN YOU HAVE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF EMPLOYEES, PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES, PEOPLE HAVE SOME OF THEIR OWN GOALS SOME OF THE TIME AND IT'S OUR JOB IN RUNNING THE COMPANY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MINIMIZE THEIRS AND MAKE SURE THAT THE COMPANY'S OPERATIONS REFLECT THE PRINCIPLES THAT WE INTEND TO RUN IT ON. >> AND WHEN YOU FIRE PEOPLE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR POLITICS, DO YOU THINK THAT THAT IMPACTS THE CULTURE AND PERHAPS EMPOWERS SOME OF THE CONTENT MODERATORS TO ALSO TREAT PEOPLE WORSE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR POLITICS? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT AWARE OF A CASE WHERE WE HAVE FIRE DOLLARS SOMEONE ON BEHALF OF THEIR POLITICS. I WOULD SAY THAT THAT WOULD BE AN INAPPROPRIATE THING FOR US TO DO. >> WHY DID YOU FIRE PALMER WALKIE? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE IT'S APPROPRIATE TO GET INTO A SPECIFIC PERSONNEL ISSUE PUBLICLY.

I — >> I ONLY HAVE TEN SECONDS, BUT PALMER'S NDA DOESN'T ALLOW HIM TO TALK TO ANYONE BUT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. I'M A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. I'VE SEEN THE MESSAGES WHERE YOU HAVE SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED MR. LUCKY TO MAKE STATEMENTS REGARDING HIS POLITICS FOR THE BENEFIT OF YOUR COMPANY. SO I THINK BOTH IN THE CASE OF THESE CONTENT MODERATORS AND IN THE CASE OF THE CONTENT TESTIMONY YOU GAVE REGARDING MR. LUCKY AND FIRING PEOPLE OVER THEIR POLITICS, THERE IS SERIOUS QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE GIVING TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY HERE OR WHETHER OR NOT IT'S LYING BEFORE CONGRESS. I SEE MY TIME IS EXPIRED AND I'LL YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. I NOW RECOGNIZE MISS SCANLON. >> THANK YOU, MR.

CHAIRMAN. MR. PROCHET, I WANTED TO FOCUS ON GOOGLE'S ACQUISITION OF YOUTUBE AND SOME OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT MOVE FOR CONSUMER PRIVACY AND COMPETITION. GOOGLE PURCHASED YOUTUBE IN 2006 AFTER IDENTIFYING IT AS A RIVAL THAT COULD DRAW BUSINESS AWAY FROM GOOGLE AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING GOOGLE PAID $1.65 BILLION FOR THAT ACQUISITION, NEARLY 30 TIMES ITS ORIGINAL BID OF 50 MILLION. SO COULD YOU TELL US WHY GOOGLE WAS WILLING TO PAY SO MUCH MORE BEYOND THE INITIAL PROPOSED BID AND WAS THIS AS A RESULT OF ANY ANALYSIS ON THE HARM GOOGLE WOULD SUFFER IF A COMPETITOR HAD PURCHASED YOUTUBE? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, WE ACQUIRED YOUTUBE IN 2006 AND THIS WAS WELL BEFORE MY TIME THERE AS CEO AND I WASN'T DIRECTLY INVOLVED.

YOU KNOW, WHAT I DO RECALL AT THE TIME IS THAT WE SAW IT AS A NEW, EMERGING AREA AND WE ARE — OUR MISSION IS TO HELP USERS WITH INFORMATION. WE SAW AN OPPORTUNITY AND IT WASN'T — YOU ONLY HAD 67 PEOPLE. >> OKAY. WAS MR. PAIGE IN CHARGE OF THAT DECISION? >> I'M PRETTY SURE OUR SENIOR LEADERSHIP TEAM AT THE TIME LOOKED INTO IT. >> OKAY. I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO TAKE THE STEPS NECESSARY TO HAVE US HERE FOR WHOEVER WAS IN CHARGE WITH THAT. MOVING ON, GOOGLE IS NOW, BY FAR, THE TOP ONLINE SITE WHERE AMERICANS WATCH VIDEOS, INCLUDING CHILDREN'S VIDEOS. AND AS I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE, FEDERAL LAW PREVENTS COMPANIES FROM COLLECTING DATA ON CHILDREN UNDER 13. HOWEVER, JUST LAST YEAR, THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION FOUND GOOGLE SPENT YEARS KNOWINGLY COLLECTING DATA ON CHILDREN UNDER 13 ON YOUTUBE AND OFFERING ADVERTISERS THE ABILITY TO TARGET THOSE CHILDREN DIRECTLY.

DID YOUTUBE USE THE DATA IT ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED TO IMPROVE ITS ABILITY TO TARGET ADS TO CHILDREN? >> WE ARE — THIS IS AN AREA I TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. I AM A PARENT, TOO. WE HAVE A DEDICATED PRODUCT FOR KIDS IN YOUTUBE KIDS ON THE MAIN YOUTUBE PLATFORM. WE MAKE SURE WE HAVE CLEAR POLICIES. WE ENFORCE THEM RIGOROUSLY. IN 2019, WE FLAGGED AND REMOVED CLOSE TO A MILLION VIDEOS POTENTIALLY FOR CONCERNS AROUND CHILD SAFETY. SO IT'S AN AREA WE ARE INVESTING RIGOROUSLY AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO SO.

>> WELL, I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU'RE INVESTING RIGOROUSLY IN LURING IN ADVERTISERS LIKE TOYMAKERS, MATTEL AND HASBRO BY TELLING THEM YOUTUBE IS THE NUMBER ONE SITE REGULARLY VISITED BY KIDS. SO THAT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE TARGETING THE KIDS AND TARGETING ADVERTISERS TO BRING THEM ON BOARD. IS THAT CORRECT? >> TODAY IN THE MAIN SITE OF YOUTUBE, WE DON'T ALLOW ANYONE UNDER 13 TO CREATE ACCOUNTS. THERE ARE SCENARIOS IN WHICH THERE COULD BE FAMILY SCREWING AND TODAY THERE ARE CREATORS WHO CREATE CONTENT ORIENTED TO FAMILIES. AND AS PART OF THAT THERE ARE ADVERTISERS WHICH ARE INTERESTED IN CONNECTING WITH THOSE USERS. BUT EVERYTHING WE DID HERE, WE OBVIOUSLY COMPLY WITH ALL THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND — >> OKAY. LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF THE CONTENT THAT IS SPECIFICALLY FOR CHILDREN. — MAKES IT ILLEGAL TO TARGET THOSE KIDS, BUT WE'VE GOT AN ISSUE WHERE CONTENT CREATORS ARE IN A DIFFICULT APPROXIMATION NOW.

SO IF A SHOW LIKE "SESAME STREET" DOESN'T WANT TO SHOW ADS FOR JUNK FOOD ON YOUTUBE, DOES YOUTUBE ALLOW IT TO MAKE THAT CHOICE? >> TODAY WE HAVE CHOICES BOTH FOR CREATORS IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, TOOLS AND PREFERENCES AND WE HAVE EXTENSIVE TOOLS FOR ADVERTISERS AND ABOVE ALL FOR USERS WE GIVE A CHOICE. THEY CAN EITHER USE YOUTUBE AS A SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE WITHOUT SEEING THOSE TYPES OF ADS OR THEY CAN USE IT FOR FREE WITH ADS.

SO WE GIVE CHOICE AND, YOU KNOW, FOR US, IT IS ABOUT MOST IMPORTANCE THAT YOUTUBE IS A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE COME TO LEARN AND, YOU KNOW, BE INCREASINGLY SMALL AND MEDIUM BUSINESSES, YOU USETUBE TO THRIVE, ESPECIALLY DURING COVID PARTICULARLY DURING — MANY OF THE — LET'S GO BACK TO CONTENT DESIGNED FOR CHILDREN. IF THERE'S AN ORGANIZATION LIKE SESAME STREET THAT WANTS TO PROVIDE CHILD-CENTERED CONTENT BUT THEY DON'T WANT THAT CONTENT TO BE SULLIED, SHALL WE SAY WITH JUNK FOOD ADS OR SOMETHING, MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU SAY THE CONTENT CREATORS CAN DO THAT, BUT WE'VE GOT A RECENT REPORT FROM "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL" THAT SAYS YOUTUBE HASN'T BEEN HONORING THOSE REQUESTS AND IT'S BEEN MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR INDEPENDENT AUDITING COMPANIES LIKE OPEN SLATE TO INDEPENDENTLY AUDIT THAT AND REPORT BACK TO THOSE CONTENT CREATORS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOUTUBE IS HONORING THOSE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR REPORT, BUT I'M HAPPY TO UNDERSTAND IT BETTER AND, YOU KNOW, HAVE MY OFFICE FOLLOW UP WITH YOUR STAFF, SKONGMAN.

>> I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. MY TIME IS EXPIRED. I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN WOMAN YIELDS BACK. THE CHAIR WILL NOW RECOGNIZE HIMSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> MR. BEZOS, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU REVIEWED YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY. YOU INDICATED AND I'LL QUOTE THAT AMAZON ACCOUNTS FOR LESS THAN 1% OF THE 25 TRILLION DOLLARS GLOBAL RETAIL MARKET AND LESS THAN 4% OF RETAIL IN THE U.S. END QUOTE. WHEN YOU REFER TO RETAIL, I TAKE IT BASED ON THE EMPIRICAL STUDIES I REVIEWED, YOU'RE REFERRING TO A BROAD DEFINITION OF RETAIL THAT INCLUDES RESTAURANTS, BARS, GAS STATIONS, IT'S A FAIRLEY ALL ENCOMPASSING VIEW OF RETAIL.

I WONDER IF YOU KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE OF AMAZON'S SALES ARE REPRESENTED IN THE TERMS OF ONLINE RETAIL SALES, THE E-COMMERCE MARKET STREAM. >> THE FIGURES I'VE SEEN FOR — YOU KNOW, I DON'T — WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I DON'T ACCEPT THAT E-COMMERCE IS A DIFFERENT MARKET. BUT AS A DIFFERENT CHANNEL, WHAT I'VE SEEN IS 30% TO 40% IS THE OUTSIDE STUDIES THAT I'VE SEEN WHERE AMAZON'S SHARE OF THAT E-COMMERCE CHANNEL. >> AND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE DATA THAT I HAVE SEEN.

THE LATEST FIGURE I SAW WAS 40%. AND SO IN TERMS OF HOW WE DEFINE IT, WHETHER IT'S A STREAM OR CHANNEL, NONETHELESS, I THINK THAT — FACTUALLY IT'S IMPORTANT. IT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION THAT I WAN TO MAKE SURE WE CLEAR HERE. OBVIOUSLY, I SUSPECT YOU UNDERSTAND MORE THAN MOST THAT THE EARLY STAGES OF A START-UP WHERE ENTREPRENEURS ARE UNDERTAKING RISK TOES BRING THEIR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES TO MARKET, OVER THE COURSE OF OUR INVESTIGATION, WE HAVE HEARD DIRECTLY FROM START-UPS WHO RELY ON AMAZON SERVICES AND THAT INCLUDES OBVIOUSLY REPRESENTATIVE PAUL'S QUESTIONS, REPRESENTATIVE BUCK THAT MY COLLEAGUE WITH COLORADO, WITH RESPECT TO THE WAY AMAZON USES CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. BUT WE'VE ALSO HEARD AMAZON'S CLOUD COMPUTING ARM, AWS, THE NOTION THAT THAT COMPUTING ARM ESSENTIALLY IDENTIFIES START-UP'S BEST TECHNOLOGIES AND ROLLS OUT PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.

SO MR. BEZOS, DOES AMAZON USE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT COMPANIES SHARE VIA AWS TO BUILD COMPETING SERVICES? >> NO, SIR, NO, SIR THAT I'M AWARE OF. AWS DOES OFTEN, YOU KNOW, THEY DO KEEP EXPANDING THEIR SERVICES. AWS STARTED, YOU KNOW, 15 YEARS AGO IN THIS ENTIRE CATEGORY — >> LET ME CLARIFY THAT, MR. BEZOS. I APPRECIATE THAT. I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING. LAST WEEK ONE OF AMAZON'S FORMER ENGINEERS POSTED ONLINE THAT HE AND HIS TEAM PROACTIVELY IDENTIFIED GROWING BUSINESSES ON AWS, THAT THEY BUILT COMPETING PRODUCTS AND THAT THOSE TARGETED THOSE PRODUCTS TO THE BUSINESS'S CUSTOMERS. AND THERE'S BEEN PUBLIC REPORTING ON THAT STRATEGY.

SO I GUESS I WONDER IF YOU CAN COMMENT ON THAT AND HOW YOU WOULD ACCOUNT FOR THOSE STATEMENTS. >> WELL, I THINK THERE MAY BE CATEGORIES — DATABASES OF DIFFERENT KINDS AND SO ON WHERE WE SEE THAT IT'S AN IMPORTANT PRODUCT FOR CUSTOMERS AND WE MAKE OUR OWN PRODUCT OFFERING IN THAT ARENA. BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN WE STOP SERVICING THE OTHER COMPANIES THAT ARE ALSO MAKING THOSE PRODUCTS. WE HAVE COMPETITORS USING AWS AND WE WORK VERY HARD TO MAKE THEM SUCCESSFUL. NETFLIX IS ONE EXAMPLE, HULU IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE AND SO ON. >> I THINK THE CONCERN, MR. BEZOS, WITH RESPECT IS THAT THE PATTERN EMERGES ACROSS THE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS IN AMAZON, WHETHER IT'S THE MARKETPLACE OR WHETHER IT'S THE CLOUD SERVICES I MENTIONED. IN ADDITION, THERE WAS AN ARTICLE, I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE IN THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL" RECORDING THE ALEXA FUNDS, THAT ACCORDING TO NEWS REPORTS AMAZON'S VENTURE CAPITAL SAW IN THE ALEXA FUND, THEY INVESTED IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT COMPANIES. YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE ALEXA FUND INVESTING IN DEFINE CROWD CORP.

DOES THAT RING A BELL? >> NO, SIR. I'M AFRAID IT DOESN'T. >> OKAY. I'LL REPRESENT TO YOU ACCORDING TO THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL," AND I'LL QUOTE FROM THEM, WHEN AMAZON INCORPORATED ITS VENTURE FUND IT GAINED ACCESS TO THE TECHNOLOGY START-UP'S FINANCES AND OTHER CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. NEARLY FOUR YEARS LATER IN APRIL, AMAZON'S CLOUD COMPUTING UNIT LAUNCHED AN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PRODUCT THAT DOES ALMOST EXACTLY WHAT DEFINED CROWD SAID SAID DEFINED EXECUTIVE AND CHIEF DAN. ARE YOU AWARE OF THOSE ALLEGATIONS? >> I READ THAT ARTICLE, BUT I DIDN'T REMEMBER THAT PIECE OF IT. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF THAT SITUATION AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO GET BACK TO YOUR OFFICE WITH MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT.

>> WELL, I CERTAINLY WOULD WELCOME THAT. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU ALL CAN FOLLOW UP WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO THIS PARTICULAR ARTICLE AND THE DIFFERENT EPISODES THAT ARE IN TERMS OF DEFINED CROWD CORP. THE REASON WHY I ASK THESE QUESTIONS, MR. BEZOS, TO ME IS WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS INNOVATION KILL ZONE THAT SEEMS TO BE EMERGING. I REPRESENT TWO OF THE MOST INNOVATIVE TECH HUBS IN THE CUP AND ENTREPRENEURS AND FOUNDERS SHARED THIS STORY WITH THIS COMMITTEE DURING ONE OF OUR FIELD HEARINGS THAT WE HELD AT THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW SCHOOL EARLIER THIS YEAR. AND THEY ARE EXTREMELY DEPENDENT ON BIG TECHNOLOGY FIRMS, INCLUDING IN TERMS OF INVESTMENT AND CAPITAL, YET THEY LIVE IN CONSTANT FEAR THAT THE PLATFORMS COULD STEAL THEIR CORE TECHNOLOGIES OR IDEAS, MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPETE BECAUSE OF THOSE EXISTING ADVANTAGES. I SEE MY TIME IS EXPIRED, BUT WE WILL BE FOLLOWING UP WITH RESPECT TO THE EPISODES THAT I REFERENCED. WITH THAT, I WOULD YIELD BACK. THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS EXPIRED. AND THE GENTLEMAN WOMAN FROM GEORGIA, MS.

McBETH IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MR. COOK, FACEBOOK ACQUIRED WHATSAPP IN 2014. AT THAT TIME, THE BOARD WAS TOLD THE DEAL WAS CRITICAL FOR COUNTERING THE APP STORE POWER OF APPLE AND GOOGLE WHO CHOKE OFF FACEBOOK'S ACCESS TO MOBILE DEVICES. WAS CHERYL SANDBERG CORRECT, DOES APPLE HAVE THE POWER TO EXCLUDE APPS FROM THE APP STORE? >> IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THIS, CONGRESSWOMAN, WE'VE INCREASED THE NUMBER OF APPS FROM 500 TO 1.7 MILLION. SO THERE IS A VERY WIDE GATE FOR THE APPS STORE. AND THERE'S FIERCE COMPETITION FOR DEVELOPERS AND WE WANT EVERY APP WE CAN ON THE PLATFORM. >> OKAY. SO BUT MR. COOK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS APPLE CAN EXCLUDE APPS FROM THE APP STORE, IN FACT, IT HAS.

IN 2018, APPLE INTRODUCED AN APP CALLED SCREEN TIME WHICH HELPS PEOPLE LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF TIME THEY OR THEIR KIDS SPEND ON THEIR iPHONES. IS THAT CORRECT? >> IT SOUNDS RIGHT. >> BUT BEFORE SCREEN TIME EXISTED, THERE WERE OTHER APPS IN THE APP STORE THAT GAVE PARENTS CONTROL OVER THE KIDS' PHONE USAGE AND PARENTS DEPENDED ON THEM. SOON AFTER YOU INTRODUCED SCREEN TIME, HOWEVER, YOU REMOVED THESE COMPETING APPS FROM THE APP STORE.

ONE MOTHER WROTE TO APPLE SAYING, AND I QUOTE HER, I AM DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED TO REMOVE THIS APP AND OTHERS LIKE IT THEREBY REDUCING CONSUMER ACCESS TO MUCH NEEDED SERVICES TO KEEP CHILDREN SAFE AND PROTECT THEIR MENTAL HEALTH AND WELL BEING. MR. COOK, WHY DID APPLE REMOVE COMPETING APPS RIGHT AFTER YOU RELEASED SCREEN TIME? >> WE WERE CONCERNED, CONGRESSWOMAN, ABOUT THE PRIVACY AND SECURITY OF KIDS. THE TECHNOLOGY THAT WAS BEING USED AT THAT TIME WAS CALLED MDM AND IT HAD THE ABILITY TO SORT OF TAKE OVER THE KIDS' SCREEN AND A THIRD PARTY COULD SEE IT. AND SO WE WERE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR SAFETY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. >> TODAY WE HAVE — >> I APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT THE TIMING OF THE REMOVAL SEEMS VERY COINCIDENTAL. IF APPLE WASN'T ATTEMPT TO GO HARM COMPETITORS IN ORDER TO HELP ITS OWN APP, WHY DID PHIL SHILLER, WHO RUNS THE APP STORE, PROMOTE THE SCREEN TIME APP TO CUSTOMERS WHO COMPLAINED ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF RIVAL PARENTAL CONTROL APPS? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, I CAN'T SEE THIS EMAIL. I'M SORRY, MY EYES ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO READ IT. BUT I SEE SCREEN TIME AS JUST AN ALTERNATIVE.

BUT THERE ARE OVER 30 PARENTAL CONTROL APPS THAT ARE IN THE APP STORE TODAY. SO THERE IS VIBRANT COMPETITION FOR PARENTAL CONTROLS OUT THERE. >> OKAY. MR. COOK, THE FACT IS THAT APPLE SIDELINED SCREEN TIME'S COMPETITION BY KEEPING THEM OUT OF THE APP STORE. AND WHILE APPEL CLAIMS THESE COMPETITORS WEREN'T MEETINGING THE PRIVACY STANDARDS, THESE APPS SAY YOU ADMITTED THEM BACK IN SIX MONTHS LATER WITHOUT REQUIRING SIGNIFICANT PRIVACY CHANGES AND, OF COURSE, SIX MONTHS IS TRULY AN ETERNITY FOR SMALL BUSINESSES TO BE SHUT DOWN, EVEN WORSE IF ALL THE WHILE A LARGER COMPETITOR IS ACTUALLY TAKING AWAY CUSTOMERS. AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME SOMETHING LIKE THIS SEEMS TO HAVE HAPPENED. LET ME GIVE YOU ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE HARM THAT HAS BEEN CAUSED TO YOUR COMPETITORS. IN 2010, APPLE INTRODUCED AN ONLINE BOOKSTORE CALLED THE IBOOKSTORE WHERE IT OFFERED eBOOKS. AND THE ONLY MAJOR PUBLISHER THAT DIDN'T AGREE TO JOIN IBOOKSTORE WAS RANDOM HOUSE. RANDOM HOUSE WANTED TO OFFER ITS OWN eBOOKS THROUGH ITS OWN APPS. AMID CONTINUED NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN APPLE AND RANDOM HOUSE, SENIOR VP EDDIE QUEUE SAID — I'M QUOTING HIM WHEN HE SAID HE PREVENTED AN APP FROM RANDOM HOUSE GOING LIVE IN THE APP STORE.

HE HIMSELF CITED THIS REJECTION AS A FACTOR IN FINALLY GETTING RANDOM HOUSE TO GIVE IN AND JOIN IBOOKSTORE. IS IT FAIR FOR APPLE TO USE ITS POWER OVER THE APPS STORE TO PRESSURE A BUSINESS TO JOIN APPLE'S OWN APP? >> I CAN'T SEE THE EMAIL AND SO I DON'T KNOW THE CONTEXT OF IT, BUT THERE ARE MANY REASONS WHY AN APP MIGHT NOT INITIALLY GO THROUGH. THE APP STORE GATE. BECAUSE IT MAY NOT WORK PROPERLY, THERE MAY BE OTHER ISSUES WITH IT. SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE. WHAT I WOULD — I WOULD SAY, THOUGH, ON A MACRO BASIS, THE GATE TO THE — THE APP STORE IS VERY WIDE. WE HAVE 1.7 MILLION APPS IN IT.

IT'S BECOME AN ECONOMIC MIRACLE. >> OKAY. >> WITH OVER $138 BILLION OF COMMERCE JUST IN THE UNITED STATES. >> MR. COOK, I REALLY, REALLY APPRECIATE THAT SENTIMENT, BUT I WANT TO SAY TO YOU THAT APPLE ENJOYS ENORMOUS POWER TO CONTROL WHICH APPS CAN REACH CONSUMERS, EVEN SOME OF THE LARGEST COMPANIES IN THE COUNTRY FEAR YOUR POWER. OUR EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT YOUR COMPANY HAS USED ITS POWER TO HARM YOUR RIVALS AND BOOST YOUR OWN BUSINESS. THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR. AND HARMS SMALL BUSINESSES THAT RELY ON YOU TO REACH CUSTOMERS AND STIFLES THE INNOVATION THAT IS THE LIFE BLOOD OF OUR ECONOMY. ULTIMATELY, IT REDUCES THE COMPETITION AND CHOICES THAT ARE MADE AVAILABLE TO CONSUMERS AND THAT IS A GREAT CONCERN TO ALL OF US. AND I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK. THAT CONCLUDES THAT ROUND. IN LIGHT OF THE REQUEST OF MR. GATES FOR A THIRD ROUND AND BECAUSE MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES WOULD LIKE TO GET MORE FULSOME ANSWERS ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES, WE'LL PROCEED TO A FINAL ROUND AND MY EXPECTATIONS IS WE WILL CONTACT WITHIN THE HOUR.

AND I'LL RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES. MR. ZUCKERBERG, WE'VE SEEN THE DOMINANCE OF SEVERAL OF THE COMPANIES APPEARING BEFORE US TODAY. THAT IT'S NOT JUST HARMFUL TO OUR ECONOMY AND COMPETITION, BUT IT'S HARMFUL TO THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES OF OUR DEMOCRACY. FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE ARE DESIGNED TO KEEP USERS ON THEIR PLATFORMS WHATEVER THE COST. BECAUSE DISINFORMATION, PROPAGANDA AND HATEFUL SPEECH ARE GOOD FOR ENGAGEMENT, THEY'RE GOOD FOR BUSINESS.

BUT OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO, THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE AL VER WENDELL HOLMES JR. WROTE THE MOST STRINGENT PROTECTION OF FREE SPEECH WOULD NOT PROTECT A MAN FALSELY SHOT AND FIRED IN A THEATER AND CAUSING PANIC. MY FIRST QUESTION IS, MR. ZUCKERBERG, DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT PRINCIPLE, THAT THERE ARE LIMITS TO HARMFUL SPEECH AND THERE ARE PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO HAD HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC? >> I CERTAINLY DO. I ACTUALLY THINK OUR POLICIES GO FURTHER THAN ELIMINATING THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.

>> WELL, MR. ZUCKERBERG, YOU HAVE A BILLION USERS AND ALMOST 50,000 EMPLOYEES. SO HE SO YOU AGREE YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO REMOVE HARMFUL LIES FROM YOUR PLATFORM. CORRECT? >> CONGRESSMAN, I THINK WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO LIMIT THE SPREAD OF CONTENT THAT'S GOING TO BE HARMFUL FOR PEOPLE. AND I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY INCENTIVE TO HAVE THIS CONTENT ON OUR SERVICES. >> EXCEPT THAT — >> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, EXCEPT THAT IT IS OFTEN THE MOST ENGAGING. IT BRINGS THE MOST LIKES OR IT BRINGS THE MOST ACTIVITY WHICH OF COURSE PRODUCES GREAT PROFIT. SO YOU DO HAVE AN INCENTIVE. THE MORE ENGAGEMENT THERE IS, THE MORE MONEY YOU MAKE ON ADVERTISING. SO LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. LET ME GIVE YOU SOME EXAMPLE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES THAT WILL ILLUSTRATE MY CONCERNS. THESE ARE SOME OF THE TOP TEN MOST SHARED ARTICLES ON FACEBOOK IN 2020. TRUMP'S SUGGESTS DISINFECTANT TO BEAT CORONAVIRUS AND BEAT THE LUNGS. CORONAVIRUS BIGGEST HOAX IN HISTORY. U.S. HOSPITALS GETTING PAID MORE TO LABEL CAUSE OF DEATH AS CORONAVIRUS.

DURING THE GREATEST PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS OF OUR LIFETIME, DON'T YOU AGREE THAT THESE ARTICLES VIEWED BY MILLIONS ON YOUR PLATFORM WILL COST LIVES? >> CONGRESSMAN, WITH RESPECT, WE CERTAINLY HAVE POLICIES THAT PROHIBIT FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT COVID THAT WOULD LEAD TO IMMINENT HARM. THIS HAS SHOWN SO FAR. >> THE PROBLEM IS FACEBOOK IS PROFITING OFF AND AMPLIFYING DISINFORMATION THAT HARMS OTHERS BECAUSE IT'S PROFITABLE. THIS ISN'T A SPEECH ISSUE. IT'S ABOUT FACEBOOK'S BUSINESS MODEL THAT PRIORITIZES ENGAGEMENT IN ORDER TO KEEP PEOPLE ON FACEBOOK'S PLATFORM TO SERVE UP MORE ADVERTISEMENTS. SO I'LL ASK YOU SPECIFICALLY, WHAT ARE YOU DOING RIGHT NOW TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM DEMONSTRABLY FALSE CLAIMS RELATED TO THIS DEADLY PANDEMIC? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'LL ANSWER THAT, BUT I HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH THE ASSERTION THAT YOU'RE MAKING THAT THIS CONTENT IS SOMEHOW HELPFUL FOR OUR BUSINESS.

IT IS NOT WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO SEE AND WE RANK OUR — WHAT WE SHOW IN FEED BASE ODD WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE MOST MEANINGFUL TO PEOPLE AND IS GOING TO CREATE LONG-TERM SATISFACTION, NOT JUST WHAT IS GOING TO GET ENGAGEMENTS OR CLICKS TODAY. >> SIR, IF THAT IS TRUE, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT ON MONDAY THE SECOND MOST POPULAR POST ON FACEBOOK WAS A BREITBART VIDEO CLAIMING THAT YOU DON'T NEED A MASK AND HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE IS A CURE FOR COVID? AND IN THE FIRST FIVE HOURS AFTER BEING POSTED ON FACEBOOK, IT RACKED UP 20 MILLION VIEWS AND OVER 100,000 COMMENTS BEFORE FACEBOOK ACTED TO REMOVE IT? WELL, A LOT OF PEOPLE SHARED THAT AND WE DID TAKE IT DOWN BECAUSE IT VIOLATES OUR POLICIES.

WE WORKED WITH THE CDC TO FIGURE OUT — >> OVER A MILLION PEOPLE OVER THE PERIOD OF FIVE HOURS. DOESN'T THAT SUGGEST, MR. ZUCKERBERG, THAT YOUR PLATFORM IS SO BIG THAT EVEN WITH THE RIGHT POLICIES IN PLACE, YOU CAN'T CONTAIN DEADLY CAN TENT? >> CONGRESSMAN, I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK WE HAVE ON COVID MISINFORMATION IN PARTICULAR, A RELATIVELY GOOD TRACK RECORD OF FIGHTING AND TAKING DOWN LOTS OF FALSE CONTENT AS WELL AS PUTTING UP AUTHORITATIVE INFORMATION. WE HAVE BUILT A COVID INFORMATION CENTER — >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. >> WITH AUTHORITATIVE INFORMATION FROM HEALTH OFFICIALS — >> THANK YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG. I JUST HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. TELEVISION STATION RUNS A FALSE POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT, THEY'RE HELD LIABLE FOR THAT. WHY SHOULD FACEBOOK OR ANY OTHER PLATFORM BE DIFFERENT? YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE MAYBE NOT FOR THE FIRST POSTING, BUT YOU THEN TAKE THAT POSTING AND YOU APPLY A SET OF ALGORITHMS THAT DECIDE HOW YOU WILL DISSEMINATE THAT WHICH IS A BUSINESS DECISION, NOT A FIRST AMENDMENT DECISION.

AND IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND YOU WHY FACEBOOK SHOULDN'T BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE BUSINESS DECISIONS. >> CONGRESSMAN, IN TERMS OF POLITICAL ADS, WE'VE MODELLED A LOT OF OUR POLICIES OFF THE FCC GUIDELINES ON BROADCASTERS. AND THEIR REQUIREMENTS TO RUN POLITICAL ADS. EQUALLY FROM ALL DIFFERENT SIDES. >> I THINK THIS — >> FORCE MORE — >> I THINK THESE EXAMPLES, UNFORTUNATELY, ARE JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT COVID. FACEBOOK HOSTS COUNTLESS PAGES AND ADS DEDICATED TO CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND CALLS TO VIOLENCE INCLUDING CONTENT THAT LED TO CHARLOTTESVILLE IN 2017 AND FACEBOOK GETS AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN. THERE IS NO COMPETITION FORCING YOU TO POLICE YOUR OWN PLATFORM. ALLOWING THIS MISINFORMATION TO SPREAD CAN LEAD TO VIOLENCE AND FRANKLY I BELIEVE IT STRIKES AT THE HEART OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. WITH THAT, I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, MR. GATES, FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. IN 2016, THERE WAS AN INTERNAL GOOGLE MEETING. YOU ATTENDED THAT MEETING ALONG WITH SERGEI BRIN, A VIDEO OF THAT MEETING WAS LINKED TO BREITBART.

AT THE MEETING, TOP GOOGLE EXECUTIVES INCLUDING CANT WALKER LAMENTED TRUMP'S VICTORY. THEY COMPARED TRUMP VOTERS TO EXTREMISTS. AND IT WAS DISCUSSED THAT THERE WAS AN INTENT TO MAKE THE TRUMP WIN A BLIP IN THE POPULOUS MOVEMENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY. I KNOW YOU'VE TESTIFIED TODAY IN RESPONSE TO MY QUESTIONS AND MR. JORDAN'S QUESTIONS THAT YOU DON'T INTEND THIS TIME TO ENGAGE IN ELECTION HEARING ON BEHALF OF THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT, BUT GIVEN THE VIDEO EVIDENCE OF SENIOR MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM IN YOUR PRESENCE SAYING THEY HAD THE INTENT TO MAKE THE TRUMP VICTORY A BLIP, WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THAT TESTIMONY TODAY? >> AS A COMPANY, WE TAKE PRIDE IN FREE ELECTIONS AND WE ARE DEEPLY COMMITTED TO IT AS I SAID TO CONGRESSMAN — >> DO YOU REMEMBER THAT MEETING? 2016 THAT YOU — IS. >> YES, I DO.

YES, I DO. >> IT WASN'T IN THE CONTEXT OF, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE ELECTION ACROSS BOTH SIDES. THERE WERE A LOT OF OPINION AND ELECTIONS ARE KIND OF A POLARIZING MOMENT GENERALLY IN THE COUNTRY. AND THERE WAS A LOT OF RHETORIC WILL CERTAIN ISSUES WHICH ARE — >> I UNDERSTAND RHETORIC. I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHEN THE SENIOR MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM IN YOUR PRESENCE SAID THAT THEY DID HAVE THE INTENT TO CHANGE THE OUTCOME IN A SUBSEQUENT ELECTION AND THEN SINCE THAT MOMENT IN TIME WHERE WE'VE SEEN ALL THESE CONSERVATIVE WEBSITES AND CONSERVATIVE VICE PRESIDENTS CENSORED, YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE WOULD BE CONCERNED. WHAT ACTION DID YOU TAKE AS THE CEO TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE NEUTRALITY OF YOUR PLATFORM? >>. >> CONGRESSMAN, NO ONE HAD A VIEW OF INTERFERING WITH ELECTIONS OR SO ON.

WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS WE MADE IT VERY CLEAR ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, WE ANNOUNCED NEW COMMUNITY GUIDELINES WITHIN GOOGLE CLEARLY MAKING IT CLEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, EMPLOYEES CAN HAVE OBVIOUSLY ARE FREE TO HAVE THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS, BUT NONE OF THAT SHOULD EVER — THEY SHOULD BRING THAT AS THEY WORK ON ANY OF OUR PRODUCTS AND IF HE FOUND ANY EVIDENCE THAT PEOPLE ARE USING A POLITICAL AGENDA TO MANIPULATE ANY OF OUR CONTENT PLATFORMS. >> UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVE A STRING OF EVENTS HERE. WE HAVE THE 2016 MEETING WHERE PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THEIR INTENT TO MAKE CHANGES, TO HURT THE PRESIDENT, AND THEN WE HAVE YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM YOUR TESTIMONY IN DECEMBER WHERE YOU SEE PEOPLE CAN MANIPULATE BLACK LISTS AND THEN YOU HAVE THE OUTCOME WHERE SITES LIKE BREITBART AND GATEWAY PUNDIT AND OTHERS SEE THAT TREATMENT. IT DOESN'T TAKE SHERLOCK HOLMES TO CONNECT THE DOTS AND SEE WHAT GOOGLE IS DOING.

I'M GOING TO MOVE ON WITH MY FINAL 90 SECONDS. MR. BEZOS, I AM DEEPLY MOVED BY YOUR PERSONAL STORY. I AM NOT ACCUSING YOU OF SOMEONE TRAFFICKING HATE. BUT IT SEEMS THAT YOU EMPOWER PEOPLE WHO DO. AND I'M PARTICULARLY TALKING ABOUT THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER. WHICH YOU ALLOW TO DICTATE WHO CAN RECEIVE DONATIONS ON YOUR AMAZON SMILE PLATFORM HAVE SAID THE CATHOLIC FAMILY NEWS, CATHOLIC FAMILY MINISTRIES, THE FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM, THE AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION, THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL, THE JEWISH DEFENSE LEAGUE AND EVEN DR. BEN CARSON ARE EXTREMISTS AND SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. DR. CARSON IS ON THE CABINET AS ONE OF THE MOST RENOWNED MINDS IN AMERICA. I'M JUST WONDERING WHY YOU WOULD PLACE YOUR CONFIDENCE IN A GROUP THAT SEEMS TO BE SO OUT OF STEP AND SEEMS TO TAKE MAINSTREAM CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND LABEL IT AS HATE.

>> SIR, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T KNOW WHAT AMAZON SMILE IS, IT'S A PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS CUSTOMERS TO DESIGNATE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THEIR PRACTICES TO GO TO A CHARITY THAT WE PAY FOR. WE USE THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER DATA TO SAY WHICH CHARITIES ARE EXTREMIST ORGANIZATIONS. WE ALSO USE THE U.S. FOREIGN ASSET OFFICE TO DO THE SAME THING. THOSE TWO TOGETHER — >> BUT WHY SINCE THEY'RE CALLING CATHOLICS AND JEWISH GROUPS HATEFUL GROUPS, WHY WOULD YOU TRUST THEM? >> SIR, I'M GOING ACKNOWLEDGE THIS IS AN IMPERFECT SYSTEM AND — >> NO DOUBT. >> I WOULD LOVE SUGGESTIONS ON BETTER OR ADDITIONAL SOURCES. >> MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE A DIVORCE FROM THE SPLC AND I SEE THAT I'M OUT OF TIME AND I YIELD BACK.

>> I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA, MR. JOHNSON. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. FACEBOOK IS DOMINANT NOT JUST IN THE SOCIAL MEDIA MARKET BUT IN ITS SOCIAL DISABILITIES. FACEBOOK HAD SEVERAL TOOLS THAT ALLOWED IT TO CONDUCT DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE, INCLUDING TRACTOR, FACEBOOK'S HIKE BUTTON, FACEBOOK LOGIN AND A SERIES OF APPLICATION PROGRAMMING INTERFACES OR APIs. THESE TOOLS PROVIDE FACEBOOK WITH INSIGHTS INTO ITS COMPETITORS WEBSITES AND APPS. ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES, SIR. >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M — I THINK BROADLY THE ANSWER TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YES. EVERY OTHER COMPANY HERE DO MARKET RESEARCH TO UNDERSTAND WHAT PEOPLE ARE FINDING VALUABLE. SO YOU'RE GOING BEYOND THE SCOPE OF MY QUESTION. I APPRECIATE THAT ANSWER, THOUGH. MR. ZUCKERBERG, A FEW DAYS BEFORE FACEBOOK ACQUIRED INSTAGRAM, A FACEBOOK VICE PRESIDENT EMAILED YOU SUGGESTING WAYS TO IMPROVE FACEBOOK'S, QUOTE, KCOMPETITIVE RESEARCH, ED QUOTE. BY BUILDING A CUSTOM MODEL, FACEBOOK COULD IMPROVE ITS UNDERSTANDING OF ITS COMPETITORS AND, QUOTE, MAKE MORE BOLD DECISIONS ON WHETHER THEY ARE FRIENDS OR FOES, END QUOTE. MR. ZUCKERBERG, HOW DOES FACEBOOK IMPROVE ITS COMPETITIVE RESEARCH TO DISTINGUISH FRIENDS FROM FOES? >> I'M NOT SURE WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO THERE BUT HE WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN RUNNING OUR ANALYTICS ORGANIZATION.

I THINK IT'S NATURAL THAT HE WOULD AS PART OF HIS RESPONSIBILITY BE FOCUSED ON MARKET RESEARCH AND UNDERSTANDING MORE THERE. >> AND CERTAINLY ISN'T IT TRUE THAT FACEBOOK, AFTER THAT CONVERSATION, PURCHASED THE WEB ANALYTICS COMPANY ONEVAU TO MONITOR ITS COMPETITORS? >> CONGRESSMAN, I THINK YOU HAVE THE TIMING CORRECT. WE PURCHASED ANAVAU AS PART OF OUR BROADER MARKET RESEARCH CAPACITY. >> AND THAT WOULD GIVE YOU THE CAPABILITY TO MONITOR YOUR COMPETITORS, CORRECT? >> CONGRESSMAN, IT GAVE AGGREGATE ANALYTICS AS TO WHAT PEOPLE WERE USING AND WHAT PEOPLE WERE FINDING VALUABLE.

SORT OF LIKE THE TYPE OF PRODUCT THAT YOU FIND FROM NIELSON, SOME OF THESE OTHER THIRD PARTY COMPANIES THAT PROVIDE SIMILAR DATA. >> THAT ACQUISITION GAVE YOU NONPUBLIC REALTIME DATA ABOUT ENGAGEMENT, USAGE AND HOW MUCH TIME PEOPLE SPEND ON APPS. AND WHEN IT BECAME PUBLIC THAT FACEBOOK WAS USING ANEAVAU TO USE SERER SURVEILLANCE, YOUR COMPANY GOT KICKED OUT OF APPEL APPLE'S APP STORE. ISN'T THAT TRUE? >> I'M NOT SURE I WOULD CHARACTERIZE IT THAT WAY? >> NEVEAU DID GET KICKED OUT OF THE APP STORE. ISN'T THAT TRUE? >> I BELIEVE WE TOOK THE APP OUT AFTER APPLE CHANGED THEIR POLICY ABOUT THE VPN APPS. >> AND IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE USE OF THESE SURVEILLANCE TOOLS. >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE THAT THE POLICY WAS WORDED THAT WAY. OR IF THAT'S EXACTLY THE RIGHT CHARACTERIZATION OF IT. >> OKAY. LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION.

LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION. AFTER ONEVEAU WAS BOOTED OUT OF THE APPS STORE, YOU TURNED TO OTHER SURVEILLANCE TOOLS SUCH AS FACEBOOK RESEARCH APP. CORRECT? >> CONGRESSMAN, IN GENERAL, YES, WE DO A BROAD VARIETY OF — AS TO — >> AND ALSO, ISN'T IT TRUE, MR. ZUCKERBERG, THAT FACEBOOK PAID TEENAGERS TO SELL THEIR PRIVACY BY INSTALLING FACEBOOK RESEARCH APP? >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT, BUT I THINK IT'S A GENERAL PRACTICE TO BE ABLE TO — THAT THE COMPANIES USE TO HAVE DIFFERENT SURVEYS AND — UNDERSTAND DATA FROM HOW PEOPLE ARE USING DIFFERENT PRODUCTS AND WHAT THEIR PREFERENCES ARE. >> FACEBOOK RESEARCH APP GOT THROWN OUT OF THE APP STORE, TOO, ISN'T THAT TRUE? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT. >> OKAY. WELL, OVER NEARLY A DECADE, MR. ZUCKERBERG, YOU LED A SUSTAINED EFFORT TO SURVEIL SMALLER COMPETITORS TO BENEFIT THE FACEBOOK — TO BENEFIT FACEBOOK.

THESE WERE STEPS TAKEN TO ABUSE DATA, TO HARM COMPETITORS, AND TO SHIELD FACEBOOK FROM COMPETITION. YOU TRIED ONE THING AND THEN YOU GOT CAUGHT, MADE SOME APOLOGIES, THEN YOU DID IT ALL OVER AGAIN. ISN'T THAT TRUE? >> CONGRESSMAN, I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION. I THINK EVERY COMPANY ENGAGES IN RESEARCH TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR CUSTOMERS ARE ENJOYING, SAID THEY CAN LEARN AND MAKE MR PRODUCTS BETTER. THAT IS WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO. THAT IS WHAT OUR ANALYTICS TEAM WAS DOING. I THINK IN GENERAL THAT ALLOWS US TO MAKE OUR SERVICES BETTER WHICH IS OUR GOAL. >> DID YOU USE THAT CAPABILITY TO PURCHASE WHATSAPP? >> CONGRESSMAN, IT WAS ONE OF THE SIGNALS THAT WE HAD ABOUT WHATSAPP'S TRAJECTORY, BUT WE DIDN'T NEED IT.

WITHOUT THAT, IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT WHATSAPP WAS A GREAT PRODUCT. I ALREADY HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FOUNDER. >> AND IT WAS A COMPETITOR — >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, MR. STUBEY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR ALL FOUR, A YES-OR-NO ANSWER. DO YOU BELIEVE THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT STEALS TECHNOLOGY FROM U.S. COMPANIES? START WITH MR. COOK. >> I DON'T KNOW OF SPECIFIC CASES WHERE WE HAVE BEEN STOLEN FROM BY THE GOVERNMENT.

>> SO YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT IS STEALING TECHNOLOGY FROM U.S. COMPANIES OR YOU'RE JUST SAYING NOT FROM YOURS? >> I'M SAYING I KNOW OF NO CASE ON OURS WHERE IT OCCURRED. WHICH IS — I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE. >> MR. PACHAI, DO YOU BELIEVE THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT STEALS TECHNOLOGY FROM UNITED STATES COMPANIES? >> CONGRESSMAN, I HAVE NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF ANY INFORMATION STOLEN FROM GOOGLE.

>> MR. ZUCKERBERG. >> CONGRESSMAN, I THINK IT'S WELL DOCUMENTED THAT THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT STEALS TECHNOLOGY FROM AMERICAN COMPANIES. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. BEZOS. YOU'RE ON MUTE. >> MR. BEZOS, I BELIEVE YOU'RE ON MUTE. >> I'M SORRY. I WAS SAYING I HAVE HEARD MANY REPORTS OF THAT. I HAVEN'T SEEN IT PERSONALLY, BUT I'VE SEEN MANY REPORTS OF IT. >> SO OF ALL THE DIFFERENT PRODUCTS AMAZON CARRIES, YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THAT IN ANY OF THE COMPANIES THAT SELL AMAZON OR YOUR COMPANY ITSELF? >> OH, WELL, CERTAINLY THERE ARE KNOCKOFF PRODUCTS IF THAT'S WHAT YOU MEAN AND THERE ARE COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS AND ALL OF THAT, BUT THE CHINESE — IF THE ANSWER IS IF THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT IS STEALING TECHNOLOGY, THAT'S THE THING I READ REPORTS OF BUT DON'T HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH.

>> IT'S NO SECRET THAT EUROPE INCREASINGLY SEEMS TO HAVE AN AGENDA OF ATTACKING LARGE SUCCESSFUL U.S. TECH COMPANIES, YET EUROPE'S APPROACH TO REGULATION IN GENERAL AND ANTI-TRUST IN PARTICULAR SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN MUCH LESS SUCCESSFUL THAN AMERICA'S APPROACH. AS YOU ALL KNOW FROM DIRECT EXPERIENCE, THIS IS A COMPANY WHERE IT'S POSSIBLE TO START A COMPANY FROM A GARAGE OR DORM ROOM AND EXPERIENCE TREMENDOUS SUCCESS.

DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW CONGRESS CAN BETTER PROTECT U.S. FIRMS AND U.S. COMPANIES FROM AGGRESSION AND GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION ABROAD, NOT JUST IN EUROPE, BUT IN CHINA, AS WELL? ANYBODY WHAT WOULD LIKE TO CHIME IN, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO YOU. NONE OF YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW CONGRESS CAN BETTER PRODUCT U.S. COMPANIES LIKE YOURSELF? ALL RIGHT. I'LL YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME. >> WHAT IS A DIGITAL LAND GRAB? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.

>> WELL, IN THE EMAILS THAT YOUR COMPANY PRODUCED TO THE COMMITTEE, THERE IS ONE FROM DAVID WANER IN 2014 WHERE HE'S DESCRIBING, UNDER THE MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS ADVICE WITHIN THE COMPANY THAT YOU NEED TO ENGAGE IN A LAND GRAB. AND HE SAYS I HATE THE WORD LAND GRAB, BUT I THINK THAT'S THE BEST CONVINCING ARGUMENT AND WE SHOULD OWN THAT. AND IT GOES ON TO DESCRIBE A STRATEGY WHEREIN FACEBOOK WOULD SPEND 5% TO 10% OF ITS MARKET CAP EACH YEAR TO SHORE UP ITS MARKET POSITION. DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION? >> YES, CONGRESSMAN. THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS AND FRANKLY TO CORRECT THE RECORD. I BELIEVE THAT WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO WAS A QUESTION THAT WAS INCOMING FROM INVESTORS ABOUT WHETHER WE WOULD CONTINUE TO REQUIRE YOU DIFFERENT COMPANIES — I DON'T THINK THAT WAS — THAT WASN'T REFERRING TO AN INTERNAL STRATEGY. IT WAS REFERRING TO AN EXTERNAL QUESTION WE WERE FACING ABOUT HOW WE WOULD — HOW INVESTORS SHOULD EXPECT US TO ACT GOING FORWARD. AND I THINK HE WAS DISCUSSING THE FACT THAT AS MOBILE PHONES WERE GROWING IN POPULARITY, THERE WERE A LOT OF NEW WAYS THAT PEOPLE COULD CONNECT AND COMMUNICATE, THAT WERE PART OF THIS OVERALL BROADER SPACE AND MARKET AROUND HUMAN CONNECTION AND HELPING PEOPLE STAY CONNECTED AND SHARE THEIR EXPERIENCES.

>> OKAY. MR. ZUCKERBERG, IT SEEMS TO BE BOTH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL BECAUSE THEN IN AN EMAIL FROM YOU IN 2012, WE SEE A SIMILAR SENTIMENT EXPRESSED. YOU WRITE WE CAN LIKELY ALWAYS JUST BUY ANY COMPETITIVE START-UPS. SO IS YOUR DESIRE TO LIMIT COMPETITION BY PURCHASING YOUR COMPETITORS CONSISTENT WITH THE MESSAGE TO YOUR INVESTORS THAT THE WAY YOU'LL RUN YOUR COMPANY IS THROUGH DIGITAL LAND GRABS? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT SURE I AGREE WITH THE CHARACTERIZATION OF HOW WE COMMUNICATED WITH INVESTORS, BUT — >> IT'S YOUR WORDS, MR.

ZUCKERBERG. >> BUT I THINK THE BROADER POINT IS THERE WERE A LOT OF NEW WAYS THAT PEOPLE CAN CONNECT THAT WERE CREATED BY SMARTPHONES. AND — >> BUT THIS IS ABOUT YOUR MERGER AND ACQUISITION STRATEGY. I'M NOT INTERESTIED IN HOW PEOPE CONNECT. I'M INTERESTED IN HOW YOU ACQUIRE — >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED, BUT THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> IN ORDER TO SERVE PEOPLE BETTER AND HELP PEOPLE CONNECT IN ALL THE WAYS THAT WE WANT, WE INNOVATED AND BUILT A LOT OF USE CASES INTERNALLY AND WE ACQUIRED OTHERS. AND THAT I THINK HAS BEEN A VERY SUCCESSFUL STRATEGY AT SERVING PEOPLE WELL AND A LOT OF THE COMPANIES THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO ACQUIRE HAVE DONE — HAVE GONE ON TO REACH AND HELP CONNECT MANY MORE PEOPLE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ON THEIR OWN.

>> YOU'VE GRABBED A LOT OF LAND. >> I WOULD SAY I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> THANK YOU. I NOW RECOGNIZE THE CHAIR OF THE FULL COMMITTEE, MR. NADLER, FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. COOK, WE'VE HEARD FROM BUSINESSES THAT APPLE IS CANVASSING THE APP STORE TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT CAN EXTRACT COMMISSION FROM APPS THAT CHANGE THEIR BUSINESS MODELS IN RESPONSE TO THE PANDEMIC. BUSINESSES THAT RELIED ON IN-PERSON INTERACTIONS HAVE MOVED ONLINE AND APPLE IS LOOKING FOR ITS CUT.

I'VE HEARD FROM SOME OF THE EFFECTED BUSINESSES. THEY SAY YOU WERE CALLING THEM UP DEMANDING YOUR 30%. >> ISN'T THIS PANDEMIC PROFITEERING? >> WE WOULD NEVER DO THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE PANDEMIC IS THE TRAGEDY AND IT'S HURTING AMERICANS AND PEOPLE FROM ALL AROUND THE WORLD AND WE WOULD NEVER TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT. I BELIEVE THE CASES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE CASES WHERE SOMETHING HAS MOVED TO A DIGITAL SERVICE WHICH TECHNICALLY DOES NEED TO MOVE THROUGH OUR COMMISSION MODEL AND IN BOTH OF THE CASES THAT I'M AWARE OF, WE ARE WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPERS. TO SORT OF ZOOM OUT AND GIVE YOU SOME HISTORICAL CONTEXT ON THIS. WHEN WE ENTERED THE APPS STORE MARKET, THE COST OF DISTRIBUTESING SOFTWARE WAS 50% TO 70% AND SO WE TOOK THE RATE IN HALF.

AND TO 30% AND WE'VE HELD IT IN THAT SAME LEVEL OVER TIME OR LOWERED IT. A IT'S NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR 2 MILLION JOBS ACROSS AMERICA IN 84% OF THE APPS ON THE STORE ARE DISTRIBUTED FOR FREE. O ONLY THAT 16% IS SUBJECT OR THE 30%? >> AND SCHOOL IS ABOUT TO START AROUND THE COUNTRY. MILLIONS OF PARENTS AND STUDENTS WILL ATTEND SCHOOL ONLINE. THEY WILL RELY ON APPS TO TALK TO TEACHERS, STUDENTS AND VIRTUAL LEARNING TOOLS. ARE THEY ONLINE LEARNING TOOLS NEXT ON APPLE'S LIST TO MONETIZE? >> THEY'RE NOT, MR. CHAIRMAN. WE WOULD — WE'RE VERY PROUD OF WHAT WE'VE DONE IN EDUCATION. WE ARE SERVING THAT MARKET IN A SIGNIFICANT WAY, INCLUDING TONS OF DONATIONS AND WE WILL WORK WITH THE PEOPLE THAT HAPPEN TO MOVE FROM A PHYSICAL TO A VIRTUAL WORLD BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC. WE'VE DONE A LOT TO ADDRESS COVID IN GENERAL AS A COMPANY. WE'VE SOURCED AND DONATED 30 MILLION MASKS, TURNING OUR SUPPLY CHAIN INTO SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE GREAT FOR AMERICA. WE'VE DESIGNED A FACE SHIELD, DONATED 10 MILLION OF THOSE. WE'RE DONATING SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF MONEY ACROSS THE U.S.

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> WE'VE HEARD THAT APPLE IS NOW TRYING TO EXTRACT COMMISSIONS FROM VARIOUS APPS THAT PREVIOUSLY DIDN'T PAY YOU ANYTHING. YOU APPROVED THE EMAIL APP HEY AND THEN DATE LATER THREATENED TO KICK IT OUT OF THE APPS STORE UNLESS IT GAVE YOU A CUT OF REVENUE. THE COO OF BASE CAMP TESTIFIED BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE EARLIER THIS YEAR WITNESS HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT APPLE'S MONOPOLY OVER SOFTWARE DISBEAUTIFUL ON IOS DEVICES. AND HE SEEMS TOVK RIGHT. APPLE SAYS SERVICES LIKE HAY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN REQUIRED TO CUT APPLE IN. BUT HE PREVIOUSLY DIDN'T INTERPRET THE RULES THAT WAY. YOU DIDN'T ENFORCE YOUR RULES THAT WAY. >> SO WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THIS, PLEASE.

>> YEAH. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD. HAY IS IN THE STORE TODAY AND WE'RE HAPPY THAT THEY'RE THERE. I BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE A VERSION OF THEIR PRODUCT IS FOR FREE AND SO THEY'RE NOT PAYING ANYTHING ON THAT. I WOULD SAY THE 30% — I HOPE YOU GIVE ME TIME TO EXPLAIN THIS OR 15% IS FOR LOTS OF DIFFERENT SERVICES FROM PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES TO COMPILERS TO 150,000 APIs. IT HAS BEEN AN ECONOMIC MIRACLE TO ALLOW THE PERSON IN THEIR BASEMENT TO START A COMPANY, A GLOBAL COMPANY AND SERVE 175 COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD. IT IS AMAZING. LIKELY THE HIGHEST JOB CREATOR IN THE LAST DECADE. >> I SEE. AND YOU HAVEN'T CHANGED THE RULES IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAKE APPS PAY WHEN THEY WEREN'T PAYING BEFORE? >> I KNOW OF NO CASE WHERE WE'VE DONE THAT.

I'M SURE WE'VE MADE ARROWS BEFORE. WE GET 100,000 DIFFERENT APPS SUBMITTED A WEEK AND WE'VE GOT 1.7 MILLION ON THE STORE. BUT ACROSS THAT PERIOD OF TIME, WE'VE NEVER RAISED COMMISSIONS FROM THE FIRST DAY THAT THE APPS STORE WENT INTO EFFECT IN 2008. WE'VE ONLY LOWERED THEM. >> THANK YOU. I SEE MY TIME IS EXPIRED. I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN'S YIELDS BACK.

I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH DAKOTA, MR. ARMSTRONG. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. IN 2015, GOOGLE ANNOUNCED THAT IT WOULD NOT ALLOW THIRD PARTIES TO BUY YOUTUBE ADS VIA ADEX. THAT MEANGOOGLE CITED THIS BY CG USER EXPERIENCE. IT IS ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT EVEN UNDER THE GDPR, THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED — YOU ALLOW USERS TO PROVIDE CONSENT, WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY. IT SEEMS THAT IF — THAT THIS POLICY, REGARDLESS OF THE PRIVACY CONCERNS, REDUCED COMPETITION FOR DEMAND SIGHT PLATFORMS ON YOUTUBE. DO YOU AGREE? >> CONGRESSMAN, WE'RE ALWAYS LOOKING TO INCREASE THE YOUTUBE EXPERIENCE. PART OF BEING ABLE TO INTEGRATE THE SPACE, IT'S SOMETHING CALLED TRUE VIEW ADS AND FOR USERS, WE GIVE THEM SKIPPABLE ADS. IF THEY FIND THE ADS NOT TO BE RELEVANT, THEY CAN SKIP PAST THOSE ADS. MONETIZING YOUTUBE IS WHAT ALLOWS — TODAY WE HAVE LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CREATORS EARNING A LIVELIHOOD AND MANY OF THEM ARE SMALL AND MEDIUM BUSINESSES.

WE WANT TO SUPPORT THAT AND WE ARE FOCUSED ON THAT. ALLOWING THIS TYPE OF INTEGRATE IS WHAT ALLOWS USERS TO CREATE THAT USER EXPERIENCE. >> BUT AFTER GOOGLE STOPPED ALLOWING THEM TO BUY THOSE ADS, GOOGLE LIMITED THE AVAILABILITY AND NOW REQUIRED THE USE OF ADS ON DATA HUB. THE JUSTIFICATION IS BASED ON USER PRIVACY. OTHER MARKET PARTICIPANTS MAY NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THAT DATA, BUT IT DOESN'T DISAPPEAR, DOES IT? >> THIS IS CONSISTENT TODAY WITH HOW MANY SERVICES, BE IT FACEBOOK, SNAPCHAT OR PINTREST, YOU WORKED TO BUY ADS ON — >> I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT THE SDAET DOESN'T DISAPPEAR, YOU JUST HAVE GREATER CONTROL OVER IT, RIGHT? >> IT'S A SERVICE WE PROVIDE TO OUR USERS. WE AUDIBLE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF USERS. WE DO MONETIZE WITH ADS. WE GIVE USERS A CHOICE OF CONSUMING ITS AS A SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE OR USING IT WITH ADS. WE'VE BEEN VERY FOCUSED ON MAKING YOUTUBE A GREAT PLATFORM FOR CREATORS. AND I THINK THE MODEL IS WORKING WELL AND IT'S HELPED MANY SMALL AND MEDIUM BUSINESS TOES INVEST IN THE PLATFORM AND GROW THEIR BUSINESSES. >> SO REGARDLESS OF THE INTENT WAS TO LESSEN COMPETITION OR NOT, THE ACTION RESULTED IN SMALLER COMPETITORS UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN PLACING ADS ON YOUTUBE.

ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> CONGRESSMAN, WE SEE ROBUST CHOICE FOR, YOU KNOW, THE ADVERTISERS. THERE IS SEVERAL ALTERNATIVES. THERE IS OBVIOUSLY FACEBOOK'S PRODUCTS, THERE'S AMAZON WITH THEIR APPS MARKETPLACE, THERE IS COMPANIES LIKE SNAP CHAT, PINTREST, TWITTER. SO WE SEE DYNAMISN IN THE MARKETPLACE — >> BUT HERE IS MY ISSUE. THERE ARE POLICIES THAT PROTECT USER PRIVACY. APPLE'S POLICY, MICROSOFT JUST KIEM OUT ON FACIAL RECOGNITION POLICY. MY CONCERN IS THAT YOUR POSITION — THE POSITION IS THAT WHEN WE'RE USING PRIVACY, WE'RE TRYING TO USE PRIVACY AND WE'RE USING PRIVACY AS A SHIELD SHIELD AND WHAT YOUR COMPANY IS DOING IS USING IT TO BEAT DOWN THE COMPETITION. AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRIVACY, IT'S A GREAT WORD THAT PEOPLE CARE ABOUT, BUT NOT WHEN IT'S UTILIZED TO CONTROL MORE OF THE MARKETPLACE AND SQUEEZE OUT SMALLER COMPETITORS.

WITH THAT, I'D YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO MR. GATES. >> THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE CHANCE TO CLEAR THIS UP. YOU DON'T BELIEVE DR. BEN CARSON IS AN EXTREMIST, DO YOU? >> NO, SIR, I DON'T. >> SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY ULD PARTNER WITH A GROUP THAT LABELS HIM AS SOMEONE WORTHY OF AN EXTREMIST WATCH LIST? >> WELL, IT'S — I WANT YOU TO HOPEFULLY APPRECIATE WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO DONATE TO ANY NUMBER OF MILLIONS OF DIFFERENT CHARITIES.

AND WE NEED TO HAVE SOME SOURCE OF DATA TO USE. AND I ACCEPT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER AND THE U.S. FOREIGN ASSET OFFICE ARE NOT PERFECT. I WOULD LIKE A BETTER SOURCE IF WE COULD GET IT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE USING TODAY. IT'S GREAT YOU RECOGNIZE THE INFIRMARIES IN THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER AND I GUESS MR. ZUCKERBERG'S COMPANY USES IT, AS WELL. DO YOU BELIEVE DR. BEN CARSON IS AN EXTREMIST? >> NO, CONGRESSMAN. >> SO WHY WOULD YOU TRUST THE PEOPLE WHO THINK HE IS? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT AWARE OF WHERE WE WORK WITH THE ORGANIZATION THAT YOU'RE SAYING. >> OH, THE — IS. >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND, MR.

RASKIN, FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> I READ THE PARANOID STYLE OF AMERICAN POLITICS, SO I SUPPOSE IT'S FUTILE TO TRY TO CURE THE OBSESSIVE PERSECUTION COMPLEX AND VICTIMOLOGY OF SOME OF OUR COLLEAGUES. BUT THEY SHOULD CHECK OUT THE TOP PERFORMING FACEBOOK POSTS BY THE UNITED STATES PAGES TODAY OR ANY DAY IN THE LAST WEEK AND 7 OR 8 OUT OF THE LAST 8 EACH DAY ARE WRIGHT WING CITES, BEN SCHAPIRO, FOX NEWS, DAN BONSHIRO, BLUE LIVES MATTER AND SO ON. SO IF FACEBOOK IS OUT THERE TRYING TO REPRESS CONSERVATIVE SPEECH, THEY'RE DOING A TERRIBLE JOB AT IT. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ENDLESS WHINING ABOUT HOW FACEBOOK AND TWITTER OR FACEBOOK AND TWITTER WITH SOMEHOW DISCRIMINATING AGAINST C CONSERVATIVES. THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP AND DONALD TRUMP JR.

FROM TWITTER, THEIR TWEETS, WAS ALL ABOUT THEIR SPREADING DISINFORMATION, FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT COVID-19. THAT WAS AN ABSOLUTE PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURE WHICH I HOPE ALL OF US WOULD ENDORSE. WE DON'T WANT ANYBODY, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GIVING DISINFORMATION ABOUT COVID-19. SO WHEN THEY PICK THAT AS THEIR CAUSE FOR GOING AFTER YOU, THEY DESTROY IT. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE R FOR THE LIFE OF MY THE LINE OF QUESTIONING ABOUT ELECTIONERING TAKING PLACE BY SOME OF YOUR COMPANIES. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO ELECTIONERING BY CORPORATIONS AND YOU'RE OPPOSED TO CITIZENS UNITED, THEN YOU'VE GOT NO PROBLEM. CITIZENS UNITED GAVE CORPORATIONS THE POWER TO GO OUT AND SPEND MONEY. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY SOME COMPANIES ARE SPENDING MONEY, START YOUR OWN COMPANY OR TELL THEM WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT. BUT THE IDEA THAT ELECTIONERING IS SOMETHING YOU'RE OPPOSED TO STRIKES ME AS COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORY AND THE FACTS.

SO I WANT TO GO TO MR. COOK, IF WE COULD. BUT FIRST, A GREAT QUESTION. ARE ANY OF YOUR COMPANIES BENEFIT CORPORATIONS? IS THAT SOMETHING YOU'VE CONSIDERED DOING? IS THERE ANY ONE OF YOU THAT THOUGHT ABOUT BECOME AGO B CORP. OR A BENEFIT CORP.ATION? I TAKE IT THE ANSWER IS NO THERE. MR. COOK, I'M HUNG UP ON THIS WHOLE 30% QUESTION THAT SEVERAL MEMBERS HAVE TALKED TO YOU ABOUT AND YOU SAID SOMETIMES IT'S 15%, SOMETIMES IT'S 30%. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHEN IT'S 15 AND ABOUT IT'S 30 AND WHY IT'S 15 TIMES AND WHY IT'S 30? >> SURE.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, CONGRESSMAN. 84% OF THE TIME IT'S ZERO. IN THE CASE OF IT'S 15 IF IT'S IN THE SECOND YEAR OF A SUBSCRIPTION. >> OKAY. SO YOU JUST GRADUATE FROM YOUR FIRST YEAR THERE IS NO — YOU'RE TAKING NO TOLL, ESSENTIALLY. THE SECOND YEAR IT'S 15 AND IT'S 30 AFTER THAT. IS THAT RIGHT? >> NO. IF IT'S A SUBSCRIPTION PRODUCT, IT'S YOU 30% IN THE FIRST YEAR AND THEN IT DROPS TO 15 IN THE SECOND YEAR AND EVERY YEAR THEREAFTER. >> I GOTCHA. OKAY. WELL, WHAT TROUBLES ME IS JUST WHAT ONE BUSINESSWOMAN TOLD ME WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THIS, WHICH IS SHE SAID I PAY AROUND 25% OF MY INCOME TO UNCLE SAM, TO THE GOVERNMENT, AND THEN I PAY 30% OF MY INCOME TO APPLE. AND SO I GET HALF OF IT AND IT'S VERY HARD TO MAKE ENDS MEET. AND I JUST WONDER — AND, YOU KNOW, LOOK, ALL OF YOU ARE IN BUSINESS AND ALL OF YOU ARE TREMENDOUSLY SUCCESSFUL AT WHAT YOU DO.

OBVIOUSLY THIS MODEL HAS WORKED FOR YOU. BUT THE QUESTION IS, DOES THIS MODEL ACTUALLY SQUEEZE OUT THE NEXT GENERATION OF ENTREPRENEURS? AND IS IT AN UNJUST ARRANGEMENT BECAUSE YOU'RE THE 10,000 POUND GORILLA AND THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO GET STARTED? >> NO, I DON'T THINK SO. KEEP IN MIND WE'VE GONE FROM 500 APPS TO 1.7 MILLION. SO THERE'S A LOT OF APPS ON THE STORE AND A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE MAKING A VERY GOOD LIVING FROM IT. >> AND YOU'VE SAID THAT SEVERAL TIMES, BUT THAT, TO ME, MIGHT JUST UNDERSCORE THE MONOPOLY NATURE OF YOUR BUSINESS, THAT EVERYBODY HAS TO GO THROUGH YOU.

THERE'S REALLY NO ALTERNATIVE. AND SO I MEAN, I DON'T BLAME YOU FOR TAKING THEM ALL, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE TERMS THAT ARE BEING DICTATED ARE, IN FACT, FAIR TERMS. SO HOW WOULD YOU DEFEND SUBSTANTIVELY THAT BARGAIN? >> THAT THE — WHETHER YOU LOOK AT IT FROM A CUSTOMER POINT OF VIEW OR A DEVELOPER POINT OF VIEW, THERE ARE ENORMOUS CHOICES OUT THERE. IF YOU'RE A DEVELOPER, YOU CAN WRITE FOR ANDROID, YOU CAN WRITE FOR WINDOWS, YOU CAN WRITE FOR XBOX OR PLAY STATION.

IF YOU'RE A CUSTOMER AND YOU DON'T LIKE THE SETUP, THE CURE RATED EXPERIENCE OF THE APP STORE, YOU CAN BUY A SAMSUNG. YOU CAN BUY A — >> OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. ONE MORE FINAL QUESTION FOR MR. ZU ZUCKERBERG. YOU SPEND A LOT OF YOIM YOUR TIME SPEAKING TO YOUR COLLEAGUES THAT HAVE THIS PERSECUTION COMPLEX. WILL YOU HAVE TIME TO MEET WITH THIS BROAD COALITION OF CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS THAT ARE ENGAGED IN A BOYCOTT BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY THINK IS THE PROLIFERATION OF HATE SPEECH AND HOLOCAUST PROVISIONISM AND OTHER AFFILIATED TOPICS ON FACEBOOK? >> YES, I HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO MEET WITH THEM.

I THINK THE TOPICS THEY'RE PUSHING ON ARE IMPORTANT ON A LOT OF THE GOALS WE AGREE. THESE ARE ISSUES AROUND FIGHTING HATE YOU THAT WE HAVE FOCUSED ON FOR YEARS AND WE ARE CONTINUING TO IMPROVE THE WAY OUR COMPANIES WORKS AND CONTINUE GETTING BETTER ON THESE THISHS. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. >> I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO, MR. JORDAN, FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> MR. COOK, IS THE CANCELED CULTURE MOB DANGEROUS? >> IT'S SOMETHING I'M NOT ALL THE WAY UP TO SPEED ON. BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHERE SOMEBODY WITH A DIFFERENT POSITIVE TALKS AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOOD. I THINK IT'S GOOD FOR PEOPLE TO HEAR DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW AND DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES. >> I AGREE WITH THAT.

AND I WANT TO REFERENCE A LETTER, BARRY WEISS WHO RESIGNED AS AN EDITOR AT THE "NEW YORK TIMES" WROTE A LETTER EXPLAINING WHY SHE RESIGNED. AND I'LL READ THREE SENTENCES FOR ALL OF YOU. SHE SAID MY OWN FOR RAYS INTO WRONG THINK MADE ME THE SUBJECT OF CONSTANT BULLYING BY MY COLLEAGUES. SHE WENT ON TO SAY LATER IN THE LETTER, EVERYONE LIVES IN FEAR OF THE DIGITAL THUNDER DOME. AND THOSE TARGETS AREN'T JUST C CONSERVATIVE.

THE TARGETS ARE ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THE MOB. ARE THE REST OF YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE CANCEL CULTURE MOB AND WHAT IT'S UP TO? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M SORRY, I HAD A MOMENT — OF THE HEARING. BUT WE BUILD PLATFORMS FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND WE TAKE PRIDE IN THE FACT THAT ACROSS THE PLATFORMS, INCLUDING YOUTUBE, THERE ARE MORE DIVERSE VOICES THAN EVER BEFORE. >> I'M JUST SAYING ARE YOU CONCERNED — I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IT AND, AGAIN, I'M CONCERNED NOT JUST BECAUSE CONSEBIVES GET ATTACKED. I'M CONCERNED WHEN ANYONE GETS ATTACKED FOR EXPRESSING A VICE PRESIDENT — EXPRESSING A VIEWPOINT.

HOW ABOUT YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG? >> GIVING PEOPLE A VOICE IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF WHAT OUR SERVICES DO. I'M VERY WORRIED ABOUT SOME OF THE FORCES OF ILL LIBERALISM THAT I SEE IN THIS COUNTRY PUSHING AGAINST FREE EXPRESSION. I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL DEMOCRATIC TRADITIONS WE HAVE IN OUR COUNTRY AND IT'S HOW WE MAKE PROGRESS OVER THE LONG-TERM ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES. AND OUR COMPANY IS COMMITTED TO DOING WHAT WE CAN TO — >> MR. BEZOS — >> PROTECT PEOPLE'S VOICE. >> THANK YOU, MR.

ZUCKER. MR. BEZOS. >> YES, SIR. I AM CONCERNED IN GENERAL ABOUT THAT AND WHAT I FIND AND I FIND DISCOURAGING, IT APPEARS TO ME SOCIAL MEDIA IS A NUANCED DESTRUCTION MACHINE AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S HELPFUL FOR A DEMOCRACY. >> DO YOU AGREE WITH THE TERM SHE USED, DIGITAL THUNDER DOME? >> I SEE THAT, YES. >> I SEE IT, TOO. AND I THINK — I GUESS MY POINT IS, YOU WERE FOUR PRETTY IMPORTANT GUYS LEADING FOUR OF THE MOST IMPORTANT COMPANY OWES PLANET AND IT WOULD SURE BE HELPFUL IF YOU SPOKE OUT AGAINST THIS. MR. COOK, THERE WAS A 1984 SUPER BOWL AD IN BLACK AND WHITE, HAD THIS BIG BROTHER TYPE FIGURE AS THE NARRATOR SAYING OVER THE SCREEN TO A BUNCH OF THESE WORKERS, LOOKS LIKE IT WAS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE SOVIET UNION SAYING TO A BUMPER OF WORKERS AS THEY'RE MARCHING ALONG, HE SAYS WIN OF THE LINES THAT THE NARRATOR USES IS OUR UNIFICATION OF THOUGHTS IS MORE POWERFUL A WEAPON OR FLEET THAN ANY ARMY ON THE EARTH.

AND THE AD IS WITH THIS LADY RUNNING IN IN COLOR AND SMASHING THE SCREEN. BUSTING THE GROUP THINK, BUSTING THE MOB THINK. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT AD, MR. COOK, WHAT COMPANY HAD THAT AD? >> I REMEMBER IT VERY WELL. IT WAS APPLE VERSUS IBM AT THE TIME. >> YEAH. BUT IT — THE POINT WAS, MOB THINK CANCELED CULTURE, GROUP THINK IS NOT WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS ABOUT. AND WE ARE SEEING IT PLAY OUT EVERY SINGLE — JUST TAKE THE SPORTS WORLD, FOR GOODNESS SAKE. IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS, DREW BREES HAD TO BOW TO THE MOB SIMPLY BECAUSE HE SUGGESTED YOU SHOULD STAND FOR THE ANTHEM.

THERE WA A FOOTBALL COACH AT OKLAHOMA STATE WHO WORE THE, QUOTE, WRONG T-SHIRT FISHING WITH HIS BOYS. HE GOT IN ALL KINDS OF TROUBLE. JAMES HARDEN WEARS A MASK SAYING BACK THE POLICE, HELP THE POLICE, SUPPORT THE POLICE, HE GETS ATTACKED. WHY DON'T WE JUST LET THE FIRST AMENDMENT WORK? THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING. AND YOU ARE FOUR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SO MUCH INFLUENCE. IT SHOULD SURE HELP IF YOU'RE OUT THERE CRITICIZING WHAT THE CANCELED CULTURE MOB IS DOING TO THIS COUNTRY AND PEOPLE SEE IT EVERY SINGLE DAY AND I HOPE YOU'LL DO IT.

I HOPE YOU'LL SPEAK OUT AGAINST IT AND BE FAIR. WITH ALL VIEWPOINTS, I YIELD BACK. >> I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLE LADY FROM WASHINGTON. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I DIRECT MY QUESTIONS TO YOU, MANY OF US FEEL A DEEP URGENCY TO PROTECT INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM. AND I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT AD REVENUE AND INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM. GOOGLE MAKES MOST OF ITS REVENUE THROUGH SELLING ADVERTISING. >> YES, CONGRESSMAN, THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND OVER 2 MILLION PUBLISHERS USE THAT SPACE, CORRECT? >> VERY PROUD TO SUPPORT PUBLISHERS.

YOF I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBERS. >> THAT IS A NUMBER PUT FORWARD AND YOUR OWN WEBSITE SAYS YOU HAVE ACCESS TO OVER 2 MILLION SITES. WHAT IS GOOGLE'S SHARE OF THE AD EXCHANGE MARKET? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT EXACTLY FAMILIAR. I'VE SEEN VARIOUS REPORTS. BUT WE ARE A POPULAR CHOICE. GREAT. LET ME PUT IT UP FOR YOU. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SCREEN, YOU WILL SEE 50% TO 60% GOOGLE HAS 50% TO 60% ACCORDING TO THE ONLINE PLATFORMS AND DIGITAL ADVERTISING CMA MARKET STUDY THAT WAS JUST RELEASED. AND IN ORDER TO BUY AND SELL ON THESE EXCHANGES, WEBSITES AND ADVERTISERS GO THROUGH A MIDDLEMAN LIKE GOOGLE'S DB 360 AND GOOGLE ADS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE SHARE OF THIS BY SIDE MARKET THAT GOOGLE HAS IS 50% TO 90%, ACCORDING TO THE SAME SAME STUDY. AND I JUST WANT TO SIMPLIFY HOW THESE EXCHANGES WORK.

SO SAY IN SEATTLE, DEE'S ELECTRONICS, A MOM AND POP BUSINESS WANTS TO BUY ONLINE AD SPACE IN THE SEATTLE TIMES. THEY WOULD NEED TO GET TO A MIDDLEMAN WHICH WOULD BID FOR AD SPACE ON A EXCHANGE. AND THE PROBLEM IS GOOGLE CONTROLS ALL OF THESE ENTITIES. SO IT'S RUNNING THE MARKETPLACE. IT'S ACTING ON THE BUY SIDE AND IT'S ACTING ON THE SELL SIDE AT THE SAME TIME WHICH IS A MAJOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IT ALLOWS YOU TO SET RATES VERY LOW AS A BUYER OF AD SPACE FROM NEWSPAPERS DEPRIVING THEM OF THEIR AD REVENUE AND ALSO TO SELL HIGH TO SMALL BUSINESSES THAT ARE DEPENDENT ON ADVERTISING ON YOUR PLATFORM.

IT SELLS A BIT LIKE A STOCK MARKET, EXCEPT THERE'S NO REGULATION ON YOUR AD EXCHANGE MARKET. IF THERE WERE REGULATION, IT WOULD PROHIBIT INSIDER TRADING WHICH MEANS THE BROKER CAN'T USE THE DATA IN THE BROKER DIVISION TO BUY AND SELL FOR THEIR OWN INTEREST. INSTEAD, BROKERS HAVE TO SERVE THEIR CLIENTS. DOES GOING HAVE A SIMILAR OBLIGATION TO SERVE ITS CLIENTS, THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE SELLING AND BUYING AD SPACE? >> CONGRESSMAN, IF I COULD EXPLAIN THIS FOR A MINUTE, WE PAID OVER $14 MILLION TO PUBLISHERS.

WE ARE DEEPLY COMMITTED TO JOURNALISTS AND IN THIS AREA ON AN AVERAGE, WE PAY OUT 69% OF THE REVENUE WHEN PUBLISHERS USE GOOGLE'S — TOOLS AND IT'S A LOW MARGIN BUSINESS FOR US. WE DO IT BECAUSE WE WANT TO HELP SUPPORT PUBLISHERS IN THIS AREA. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS WHEN ANY COMPANY CONTROLS THE BUY AND THE SELL SIDE — I WORKED ON WALL STREET A VERY LONG TIME AGO — THERE ARE REASONS INSIDER TRADING IS REGULATED AND THIS AD EXCHANGE IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING AND WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY, IT ISN'T MEANINGFUL TO CARE ABOUT THE NEWSPAPERS.

WE'RE SEEING THEM DIE ALL OVER AND AD REVENUE IS A BIG REASON. LET ME PUT UP A GRAPH HERE THAT SHOWS THAT GOOGLE'S AD REVENUE IS INCREASINGLY COMING FROM AD ON GOOGLE-OWNED SITES AND LESS SO FROM OTHER WEBSITES. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT TREND? >> I CAN'T QUITE SEE WHERE THIS IS NET REVENUE OR GROSS REVENUE. OBVIOUSLY, WHEN IT COMES TO NON-GOOGLE PROPERTIES, WE SHARE THE MAJORITY OF REVENUE BACK TO PUBLISHERS. WHEREAS ON OUR OWN PROPERTIES, WE OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE INVENTORY. SO — BUT I WOULD NEED TO UNDERSTAND MORE. I JUST QUICKLY LOOKED AT IT. I'M NOT SURE I FULLY — WE COULD SEND IT TO YOU AND MANAGER SURE YOU HAVE IT. GOOGLE HAS NOT MADE ITS SEARCH TRAFFIC VOLUMES PUBLIC IN YEARS SO THERE IS NO WAY FOR US TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE AND THERE'S NO WAY FOR BUSINESSES TO VERIFY WHETHER THEY'VE BEEN TREATED FAIRLEY OR LEFT BEHIND IN FAVOR OF GOOGLE-OWNED COMPANIES.

IS GOOGLE STEERING ADVERTISING REVENUE TO GOOGLE SEARCH? >> USERS COME TO GOOGLE SEARCH. THAT IS WHERE OUR SOURCE OF REVENUE COMES FROM. WE HAVE FOCUSED ON PROVIDING THE INFORMATION THEY LOOK FOR. WE KNOW COMPETITION FOR INFORMATION IS JUST A CLICK AWAY. >> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT NCHT JOURNALISM IS INCREDIBLY NECESSARY TO OUR DEMOCRACY AND WE WANT TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO PROTECT IT. I WANT TO ASK ONE LAST QUESTION ON OF MR. ZUCKERBERG. OVER 1100 COMPANIES AND RGZS PULLED THEIR ADVERTISING BUSINESS FROM FACEBOOK AS PART OF THE STOP HATE FOR PROFIT CAMPAIGN TO PROTEST THE SPREAD OF HATE SPEECH AND DISINFORMATION. BUT YOU HAD A STAFF MEETING EARLIER THIS MONTH WHERE YOU TOLD EMPLOYEES WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE OUR POLICIES OR APPRECIATE BECAUSE OF A THREAT TO ANY PERCENT OF OUR REVENUE. MY GUESS IS ALL THESE ADVERTISERS WILL BE BACK ON THE PLATFORM SOON ENOUGH.

MR. ZUCKERBERG, ARE YOU SO BIG THAT YOU DON'T CARE HOW YOU'RE IMPACTED BY A MAJOR BOYCOTT OF 1100 ADVERTISERS? >> NO, CONGRESSWOMAN. OF COURSE WE CARE. BUT WE'RE ALSO NOT GOING TO SET OUR CONTENT POLICIES BECAUSE OF ADVERTISERS. I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE WRONG THING FOR US TO DO. WE'VE CARED ABOUT ISSUES LIKE FIGHTING HATE SPEECH FOR A LONG TIME AND WE'VE INVESTED BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. AND I'VE TALKED ABOUT TODAY HOW WE HAVE TENS ON OF THOUSANDS OF CONTEVENT OF OUR VIEWERS, WE'VE BUILT AI SYSTEMS THAT PROACTIVELY IDENTIFY THE MAJORITY — WE'RE NOW AT 89% OF THE HATE SPEECH THAT WE REMOVE BEFORE ANYONE REPORTS IT TO US.

WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE GETTING BETTER AT THAT. I THINK THOSE INVESTMENTS OVER TIME AND THE RESULTS WE PUT UP WILL BE RECOGNIZED BY PEOPLE. SINCE I DO BELIEVE THEY ARE INDUSTRY LEADING. AND I THINK OUR ADVERTISING ALSO IS FOR A LOT OF SMALL BUSINESSES THE MOST EFFECTIVE OR AMONG THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAYS THAT THEY CAN FIND AND REACH NEW — >> THANK YOU, MR.

ZUCKERBERG. MY TIME HAS EXPIRED. I KNOW YOU'VE COMMISSIONED YOUR OWN CIVIL RIGHTS AUDIT. I DON'T THINK YOU'VE IMPLEMENTED ALL THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS YET. I HOPE YOU WILL MOVE QUICKLY TO IMPLEMENT THOSE. THIS IS A CRITICAL TIME AS WE WATCHED THE BODY OF JOHN LEWIS LEAVE US HERE IN THE CAPITAL THAT WE FOCUS ON CIVIL RIGHTS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I YIELD BACK. >> MR.

I CALL ON THE NEXT WITNESS, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE MR. PACHAI WHO I THINK WANTS TO MAKE A CORRECTION FOR THE HEARING. >> I WANTED TO REPORT THAT — IN 2009 A PUBLICIZE CYBER ATTACK ORIGINATING THERE. I WANTED TO CORRECT THAT FOR THE RECORD. >> THANK YOU. THE RECORD WILL SO REFLECT. I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLE LADY FROM PENNSYLVANIA FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. IN MARCH 2020, AMAZON ANNOUNCED THAT IT WAS GOING TO START DELAYING SHIPMENTS OF NONESSENTIAL PRODUCTS IN ORDER TO BETTER SERVE CUSTOMERS AND MEET NEEDS WHILE HELPING TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THEIR WAREHOUSE WORKERS.

IN PRACTICE, HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT THIS POLICY WAS APPLIED SELECTIVELY. SO THE ESSENTIAL ITEMS WERE SUPPOSED TO INCLUDE HOUSEHOLD STAPLES, MEDICAL SUPPLIES, HIGH DEMAND PRODUCTS AND MANY FACTORS WERE CONSIDERED WHEN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY TO BE ESSENTIAL. BUT WE'VE HAD SEVERAL EMPLOYEES REPORT AMAZON CONTINUED TO SHIP NONESSENTIAL ITEMS LIKE HAMMOCKS, FISH TANKS, ETCETERA. FIRE TV, ECHO SPEAKERS AND RING DOORBELL, WERE THEY DESIGNATED AS ESSENTIAL DURING THE PAN DENGIC? .

>> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. THERE WAS NO PLAYBOOK FOR THIS. WE MOVED VERY QUICKLY. DEMAND WENT THROUGH ROOF. IT WAS LIKE HAVING A HOLIDAY SELLING SEASON, BUT IN MARCH, AND WE HAD TO MAKE A LOT OF DECISIONS VERY RAPIDLY. >> OKAY. >> OUR GOAL WAS TO LIMIT IT TO ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES, BUT I'M SURE WE DID NOT DO THAT PERFECTLY. >> OKAY. I KNOW THE RING DOORBELL HAS TWO COMPETING PRODUCTS, INCLUDING ARLO AND UFE, MAYBE. DO YOU KNOW IF THEY WERE DESIGNATED AS ESSENTIAL? >> I DO NOT.

>> CAN. ARE YOU ABLE TO TESTIFY TO CONGRESS TODAY WHETHER AMAZON'S PROFIT FACTOR WAS A FACTOR IN GIVING A ESSENTIAL CLASSIFICATION DISTINCTION? >> NO. NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. WE WERE WORKING TO ACHIEVE TWO OBJECTIVES. ONE WAS TO GET ESSENTIAL PRODUCTS TO CUSTOMERS AND THE SECOND WAS TO KEEP OUR FRONT LINE EMPLOYEES SAFE. AND WE DID A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK IN BOTH CATEGORIES. THAT'S WHAT WE WERE FOCUSED ON. WE WERE NOT FOCUSED ON PROFITABILITY AT THAT TIME. >> PUSHING OW THE ELUSIVE CLOROX WIPE, I GUESS. AT ANY RATE, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE FEES THAT AMAZON CHARGES SELLERS.

ACCORDING TO A RIENT REPORT, SELLER FEES NETTED AMAZON ALMOST 60 BILLION IN 2019, NEARLY DOUBLE THE 35 BILLION IN REVENUE FROM AWS, AMAZON'S MASSIVE CLOUD COMPUTING DIVISION. FIVE YEARS AGO, AMAZON TOOK AN AVERAGE OF 19% OF EACH SALE MADE BAY THIRD PARTY ON ITS SITE. TODAY, AMAZON KEEPS AN AVERAGE OF 30%. DOESN'T AMAZON'S ABILITY TO HIKE THOSE FEES SO STEEPLY SUGGEST AMAZON ENJOYS MARKET POWER OVER THOSE SELLERS? >> NO, CONGRESSWOMAN, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SEEING THERE WHEN YOU SEE THAT GO FROM 19% TO 30% IS MORE AND MORE SELLERS ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SERVICES THAT WE OFFER AND A BIG PIECE OF THAT IS — BY AMAZON WHICH IS GREAT FOR SELLERS.

AND IT'S WORKING FOR SELLERS. THAT'S WHY TODAY 60% OF SALES ARE GOING FROM THIRD PARTY SELLERS UP FROM ZERO 20 YEARS AGO. >> RIGHT. BUT I THINK MORE CONCERNING IS THE 11% HIKE. SINCE 2014, AMAZON'S REVENUE FROM SELLER FEES HAVE GROWN ALMOST TWICE AS FAST SINCE ITS JOEL ALL SALES. MR. BEZOS, AREN'T SELLER FEES NOW EFFECTIVELY SUBSIDIZING AMAZON'S RETAIL DIVISION? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SEEING THERE, WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING IS THAT SELLERS ARE CHOOSE TO GO USE MORE OF OUR SERVICES THAT WE MAKE AVAILABLE. THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS THEY WERE SHIPPING THEIR OWN PRODUCTS FROM THEIR OWN FULFILLMENT CENTERS. SO THEY WOULD HAVE HAD COSTS DOING THAT, OPERATING YOUR OWN FULFILLMENT CENTER AND BUYING TRANSPORTATION TO THE CUSTOMER THROUGH THE POSTAL SERVICE OR THROUGH U.P.S.

OR WHOEVER IT WOULD BE. >> OKAY. LET'S TALK A BIT ABOUT THE FULFILLMENT CENTERS — >> BY AMAZON. YES, PLEASE, GO AHEAD. >> SO YOU'VE GOT FULFILLMENT BY AMAZON AND A YEAR AGO WE ASKED WHETHER A MER CHAS ENROLLED IN FULFILLMENT BY AMAZON IS A FACTOR IN WHETHER THEY CAN BE AWARDED THE BUY BOX. AT THAT POINT, AMAZON SAID NO. BUT THE EVIDENCE IS INDICATING AND YOUR OWN DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT BEING ENROLLED IN THAT PROGRAM IS A MAJOR FACTOR AND IT EFFECTIVELY FORCES SELLERS TO PAY FOR FULFILLMENT SERVICES IF THEY WANT TO MAKE SALES.

HAS AMAZON'S BIG BUY BOX FAVORED THOSE WHO BUY FROM AMAZON OVER OTHER SELLERS? >> I THINK EFFECTIVELY THE BUY BOX IS — DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, I'M NOT SURE. BUT INDIRECTLY I THINK THE BUY BOX DOES FAVOR PRODUCTS THAT CAN BE SHIPPED WITH PRIME. SO IF YOU'RE A PRIME MEMBER, THE BUY BOX IS TRYING TO PICK — IF WE HAVE MULTIPLE SELLERS SELLING IS SAME ITEM, THE BUY BOX IS LIKELY TRY YOUING TO PICK THE ITEM THE CUSTOMER WOULD LIKE. >> THANK YOU, MR.

BEZOS. I THINK MY TIME IS EXPIRED. >> BEFORE I RECOGNIZE OUR LAST TWO COLLEAGUES, I THINK MR. ZUCKERBERG WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY SOMETHING FOR THE RECORD, AS WELL. >> CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU. IN RESPONSE TO CONGRESSMAN JOHNSON'S QUESTION BEFORE I SAID THAT I WARRSN'T FAMILIAR WITH T FACEBOOK RESEARCH APP. BUT I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I DO RECALL THAT WE USED AN APP FOR RESEARCH AND IT HAS SINCE BEEN DISCONTINUED AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP WITH HIS STAFF ON ANY MOTHER DETAILS HE WOULD LIKE. >> THANK YOU. I RECOGNIZE MR. NAGOOSE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WANTED TO DIRECT A FEW QUESTIONS TO YOU AND WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE APPS STORE AND APP DEVELOPMENT. TAKING A STEP BACK, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY IS ESSENTIALLY APPLE HAS TO OPERATE BY YOU THE SAME RULES THAT THE APP DEVELOPERS OPERATE BY.

IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO ACCESS THE APP STORE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> WE HAVE 60 APPS ON THE APP STORE. THEY GO THROUGH THE SAME RULES THAT THE 1.7 MILLION DO. >> OKAY. SO HERE IS WHY I ASKED THAT QUESTION. THE GUIDELINES SELL APP DEVELOPERS NOT TO SUBMIT COPYCAT APPS. IS THAT CORRECT? SFLIEM NOT TOTALLY FAMILIAR, BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE BECAUSE WE WERE GETTING A NUMBER OF APPS THAT WERE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING, SORT OF A COOKIE CUTTER. >> AND I CAN REMEMBER TO YOU WE'VE REVIEWED THE GUIDELINES AND PRECISELY THEY SAY APP DEVELOPERS SHOULD HAVE ORIGINAL IDEAS, THAT COPYCAT IDEAS AREN'T FAVOR AND APPLE'S CUSTOMERS DON'T WANT THOSE. ERND, THE APP DEVELOPER AGREEMENT, WHICH YOU REQUIRE EVERY APP DEVELOPER TO AGREE TO DOES GIVE APPLE THE RIGHT TO COPY OTHER APPS. SO THE QUESTION IS WHY ONE RULE FOR THE DEVELOPERS THAT COMPETE WITH YOU AND THE OPPOSITE RULE FOR APPLE? >> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT, BUT I COULD FOLLOW UP WITH YOUR OFFICE ON IT.

>> WELL, I WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU COULD FOLLOW UP WITH OUR OFFICE. MY UNDERSTANDING, AGAIN, IS THE APP DEVELOPER AGREEMENT EXPLICITLY SAYS THAT APPLE CAN USE ANY INFORMATION THAT AN APP DEVELOPER PROVIDES TO APPLE FOR ANY PURPOSE. SO, OBVIOUSLY, YOU HAVE COMPLAINTS FROM ANY NUMBER OF, YOU KNOW, APP DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE. AS I SAID, I REPRESENT THE STATE OF COLORADO. WE HEARD FROM A COMPANY CALLED TILE WHICH SAID APPLE HAD ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL ABOUT THE APP AND GIVEN YOU THAT JUXTAPOSED AGAINST THIS AGREEMENT. YOU COULD UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT ANTI-COMPETITIVE CONDUCT. >> WE RUN THE APP STORE TO HELP DEVELOPERS, NOT HURT THEM. WE RESPECT INNOVATION. WE WOULD NEVER STEAL SOMEBODY'S IP. BUT I WILL FOLLOW UP WITH YOUR OFFICE IN MONTRE DETAIL ON THIS. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. MR. PICHAI A SIMILAR LINE OF QUESTIONING. TO THE EXTENT APPLE IS WILLING TO COMMIT WITHIN THE DEVELOPER AGREEMENT TO SAY THAT WHILE YOU ARE ACCESS TO THAT DATA, THAT YOU ARE NOT GOING TO USE THAT DATA AND ARE NOT PERMITTED TO USE THAT DATA TO REPLICATE YOUR OWN APP, A COPYCAT APP, IF YOU WILL.

THAT WOULD CERTAINLY, IN MY VIEW, BE A REFLECTION OF A STEP AWAY FROM ANY TYPE OF ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'LL FOLLOW UP AND WE CAN LEARN MORE WITH RESPECT TO THAT ISSUE. SIMILARLY, THERE WAS AN ARTICLE JUST TODAY — OR EXCUSE ME, YESTERDAY ABOUT — FROM THE VERGE, THE TITLE IS GOOGLE REPORTEDLY KEEPS TABS ON USAGE ANDROID APPS TO DEVELOP COMPETITORS. GOOGLE SAID THAT THE DATA DOESN'T GIVE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW PEOPLE BEHAVE WHILE THEY'RE USING INDIVIDUAL APPS, BUT IT WOULDN'T SAY WHETHER IT HAD BEEN USED TO DEVELOP COMPETING APPS. FIRST, I WOULD TAKE IT YOU WOULD CONFIRM GOOGLE HAS ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OR COMPETITIVELY SENSITIVE INFORMATION ABOUT APPS ON THE ANDROID DEVICES? >> CONGRESSMAN, IF I COULD CLARIFY THIS, TODAY WE HAVE AN API AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPERS AS LONG AS USERS CONSENT. IT GIVES THE SYSTEM HEALTH METRICS. THIS IS HOW WE CAN LAUREN DIGITAL WELL BEING FEATURES ON ANDROID. THIS IS HOW WE UNDERSTAND WHICH APPS ARE USING BATTERY AND WE CAN GIVE A DASHBOARD MAYBE FOR CRASHING OR QUALITY CONTROL OR BATTERY USAGE OR FOR DIGITAL WELL BEING.

SO AT A HIGH LEVEL, THIS DATA IS AVAILABLE THROUGH PUBLIC API AND OTHER DEVELOPS CAN DO THE SAME AS LONG AS THEY HAVE ACCESS TO IT. >> SO I WANT TO CLARIFY. AND I'LL QUOTE FROM THIS ARTICLE. THE ARTICLE REFERS TO THIS DATA ABOUT SENSITIVE APPS INCLUDING HOW OFTEN THEY'RE OPENED AND FOR HOW LONG THEY'RE USED. I'M NOT ASKING HOW YOU USE THAT INFORMATION. I'M JUST ASKING WHETHER OR NOT, IN FACT, WHAT THE ARTICLE ALLEGES IS CORRECT, THAT YOU HAVE ACCESS THAT DATA. >> YEAH. WITH THE USER CONSENT AND THE API, YES, WE DO. >> AND DOES GOOGLE USE THAT? >> DOES GOOGLE HAVE ACCESS TO THAT AND THIS IS HOW WE UNDERSTAND AND IMPROVE USAGE? >>. >> IF YOUR ANSWER IS NO, WILL GOOGLE COMMIT TO MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES WITHIN ITS ANDROID DEVELOPER APP AGREEMENTS TO ENSURE THAT DEVELOPERS HAVE THAT SENSE OF CLARITY THAT, IN FACT, THE DATA WILL NOT BE USED FOR GOOGLE TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP A COMPETING APPLICATION.

>> WE DO LOOK AT TRENDS AND, IN FACT, IN THE PLAY STORE, WE PUBLISH THE NUMBERS THEMSELVES OF APPLICATION AND WE GIVE RANGES. SO THERE IS A WIDE VARIETY BY THE WAY WE TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE MARKET. BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR THOUGHT ABOUT THERE BEING DELAWARETY IN THIS AREA. >> I MUST, I GUESS, WANT TO FOLLOW UP QUICKLY, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU'RE WILLING. SO I GUESS I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN ANSWER THAT FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS, DOES GOOGLE USE THAT INFORMATION TO DEVELOP COMPETING APPS? I UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSES YOU'VE DESCRIBED IN TERMS LOVE TO USE THE INFORMATION. I'M ASKING IF ONE OF THOSE, IN FACT, IS TO DEVELOP COMPETING APPS.

>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS EXPIRED, BUT THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> WE ARE AWARE OF THE POPULARITY OF APPS. I DON'T UNDERSTAND TO BE INACCURATE IN MY ANSWER. IN GENERAL, THE PRIMARY USE OF THAT DATA IS TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH OF ANDROID AND ANY DATA WE GET WE HAVE USER CONTENT FOR IT AND WE WOULD MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO AN API DEVELOPER, AS WELL. >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS EXPIRED. I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLE LADY FROM GEORGIA. >> GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SPENDING SO MUCH OF YOUR TIME TODAY. MANY OF YOU HAVE MENTIONED JOHN LEWIS TODAY AND HIS FIGHT FOR EQUALITY AND THAT I KNOW THAT ALL MY COLLEAGUES AND I WILL CARRY ON. VERY QUICKLY, CAN EACH OF YOU SIMPLY COMMIT TO IMPROVING RARNL AND GENDER EQUITY AT YOUR COMPANIES, INCLUDING BLACK LEADERSHIP AND WOMEN IN YOUR SENIOR RANKS, JUST A YES-OR-NO ANSWER, PLEASE? MR. ZUCKERBERG. >> YES. >> MR. COOK. >> YES, I AM VERY PERSONALLY COMMITTED. >> THANK YOU. MR. BEZOS. >> ABSOLUTELY, YES. >> THANK YOU. MR. PICHAI? >> YES AND WE MADE PUBLIC COMMITMENTS TO THIS REGARD.

>> MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN 200 4, THERE WERE DOZENS OF SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES. FACEBOOK DISTINGUISHED ITSELF FROM THE COMPETITORS BY FOCUSSING SPECIFICALLY PRIVACY. YOU HAD A SHORT CLEAR PRIVACY POLICY. IT WAS 950 WORDS. IT MADE A PROMISE TO USERS, AND I QUOTE, WE DO NOT, AND WILL NOT USE COOKIES TO COLLECT PRIVATE INFORMATION FROM ANY USER. AND YOU SAID WILL NOT. THAT IS A COMMITMENT ABOUT THE FUTURE. AND THAT WAS 2004. MR. ZUCKERBERG, TODAY, DOES FACEBOOK USE COOKIES TO COLLECT PRIVATE INFORMATION ON USERS? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, MY UNDERSTANDING TO THAT IS NO, WE'RE NOT USING COOKIES TO COLLECT PRIVATE INFORMATION ABOUT PEOPLE THAT USE OUR SERVICES AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE UPHELD THAT COMMITMENT.

>> SO MR. ZUCKERBERG, DO YOU THINK YOUR COMPANY WOULD BE AS SUCCESSFUL IF IT HAD STARTED WITH TODAY'S COOKIE POLICY IN PLACE? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SUFFREFERRI TO, BUT IN GENERAL, COOKIES IS NOT A BIG PART OF HOW WE'RE COLLECTING INFORMATION. WE'VE PRIMARILY USED THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMEONE CAN STAY LOGGED IN ON WEB. WE USE THEM TO SOME DEGREE FOR SECURITY TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE SOMEONE TRYING TO LOG IN UNDER A LOT OF DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS FOR ONE COMPUTER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> SO MR. ZUCKERBERG, ONCE AGAIN, YOU DO NOT USE COOKIES? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR, WE DO USE COOKIES. YES, WE DO USE COOKIES. >> SO THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS YOU BROKE A COMMITMENT TO YOUR USERS AND WOULD CAN SAY IF YOU MAY OR MAY NOT DO THAT AGAIN IN THE FUTURE. THE REALITY IS FACEBOOK'S MARKET POWER GREW AND FACEBOOK'S SACRIFICED ITS USERS POLICY. MR. BEZOS, MY COLLEAGUES HAVE TOUCHED ON COUNTERFEIT GOODS AND I SHARE THEIR CONCERNS DEEPLY. I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT STOLEN GOODS. MR. BEZOS, ARE STOLEN GOODS SOLD ON AMAZON? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE MORE THAN A MILLION SELLERS. SO I'M SURE THAT THERE HAVE BEEN STOLEN GOODS. >> REALLY, MR. BEZOS? >> I'M SORRY? >> REALLY? THERE'S NOT.

YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS? THAT SURPRISES ME. >> NO. I JUST SAID WITH OVER A MILLION SELLERS, I'M SURE IT HAS HAPPENED, BUT CERTAINLY I DON'T THINK IT'S A LARGE PART OF WHAT WE'RE SELLING. >> SO BASICALLY, MR. BEZOS, YOU'RE SAYING YES. >> I GUESS SO. >> SO I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT INFORMATION THAT YOU REQUIRE FROM SELLERS TO PREVENT THE SALE OF 12STOLEN GOODS. DO YOU REQUIRE A REAL NAME AND ADDRESS, YES OR NO? >> FOR SELLERS? >> ONCE AGAIN, DO YOU REQUIRE A REAL NAME AND ADDRESS FROM SELLERS? >> I BELIEVE WE DO. BUT LET ME GET BACK TO YOUR OFFICE WITH A — I'D RATHER GIVE YOU THE ACCURATE ANSWER, BUT I THINK WE DO. >> AND I'M AWARE THAT YOU ARE. SO YES, YOU DO REQUIRE A NAME AND ADDRESS. DO YOU REQUIRE A PHONE NUMBER, YES OR NO? >> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S REQUIRED. I THINK WE OFTEN HAVE IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW. >> SO BRIEFLY, THEN, HOW DO YOU VERIFY THAT EACH OF THESE PIECES OF INFORMATION IS ACCURATE? >> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.

>> SO YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE WORK ON VERIFYING SELLER VERIFICATION BEFORE THE SELLER IS ALLOWED TO SELL ON AMAZON? >> NO, CONGRESSWOMAN, I DON'T. >> THEN I'M GOING TO ASK YOU, SIR, WILL YOU COMMIT TO REPORTING ALL SALES OF STOLEN AND COUNTERFEIT GOODS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND TO VICTIMS TO TRACK LARGE SCALE OFFENDERS ENGAGED IN ORGANIZED RETAIL CRIME? >> TO THE DEGREE THAT WE'RE AWARE OF IT, WE WILL CERTAINLY PURSUE IT. IN FACT, I WOULD — >> CANSIR KB CAN YOU MAKE A BLAT COMMITMENT? >> A BLANKET COMMITMENT TO WHAT? SORRY, CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M TRYING TO BE HELPFUL. >> REPORTING ALL SALES OF COUNTERFEIT GOODS TO LAW ENFORCEMENTS AND TO VICTIMS TO HELP THOSE ORGANIZED IN RETAIL CRIME.

>> I SEE NO REASON WHY IF WE'RE AWARE OF STOLEN GOODS WE WOULDN'T REPORT IT. WE WOULD WANT THE CORRECT LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES TO BE INVOLVED. >> THANK YOU AS MUCH. I Y50E8D IELD BACK MY TIME. >> I WANT TO THANK THE WITNESSES AND MY COLLEAGUES ON MY SIDE OF THE AISLE. I WANT TO THANK THE EXTRAORDINARY WORK OF OUR TEAM WHO HAS DONE AN EXTRAORDINARY JOB THROUGHOUT THIS INVESTIGATION AND IN PREPARATION FOR OUR HEARING TODAY. TODAY WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM THE DECISIONMAKERS AT FOUR OF THE MOST POWERFUL COMPANIES IN THE WORLD.

THIS HEARING HAS MADE ONE FACT CLEAR TO ME, THESE COMPANIES AS EXIST TODAY HAVE MONOPOLY POWER. SOME NEED TO BE BROKEN UP. ALL NEED TO BE PROPERLY REGULATED AND HELD ACCOUNTABLE. WE NEED TO ENSURE THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS WORK IN THE DIGITAL AGE. THEIR CONTROL OF THE MARKETPLACE ALLOWED THEM TO DO WHATEVER IT TOOK TO CRUSH INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES AND EXPAND THEIR OWN POWER. THE NAMES HAVE CHANGED, BUT THE STORY IS THE SAME. TODAY THE MEN ARE NAMED ZUCKERBERG, COOK, PICHAI AND BEZOS. ONCE AGAIN, THEIR CONTROL OF THE MARKETPLACE ALLOWS THEM TO DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO CRUSH INDEPENDENT BUSINESS AND EXPAND THEIR EMPOWER. THIS MUST END. THIS SUBCOMMITTEE WILL NEXT PUBLISH A REPORT ON THE FINDINGS OF OUR INVESTIGATION, WE WILL PROPOSE STLUGZS TO THE PROBLEMS BEFORE US.

IT WAS ONCE SAID WE MUST MAKE OUR CHOICE. WE MAY DEMOCRACY OR WE MAY HAVE WEALTH CONCENTRATED IN THE HANDS OF A FEW, BUT WE CAN'T HAVE BOTH. THIS CONCLUDES TODAY'S HEARING. THANK YOU AGAIN TO OUR WITNESSES FOR ATTENDING. WITHOUT OBJECTION, ALL MEMBERS WILL HAVE FIVE LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES OR ADDITIONAL MATERIALS FOR THE RECORD. WITHOUT OBJECTION, THIS HEARING IS ADJOURNED..

You May Also Like