breaches typically occur. let's talk about ago regate data for a minute. -- aggregate data for a minute. when there are only one or two sellers in the marketplace, correct? >> yes. aggregate data is allowed under our policy, that is correct. >> okay. and interviews with former employees have made it clear that that aggregate data essentially allows access to highly detailed data in those product categories. there's an example of fortem, a small business that had no direct competitors except amazon warehouse deals, a clearance account that only sold 17 units. an amazon employee accessed a detailed sales report on product with information on how much the company spends on advertising per unit and the cost to ship each trunk. and then amazon launched its own competing products in october 2019. that that's a major loophole. and i go back to the general counsel's statement to this committee very clearly that there was no access to this

data, that amazon does not use that data for its own benefit, and i'm now hearing you say, well, you're not so sure that's going on. and the issue that we're concerned with here is very simple. you have access to data that far exceeds the sellers on your platforms with whom you compete. you can track consumer habits, interests, even what consumers clicked on but didn't buy. you have access to 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 actually follow those same rules for yourself. do you think that's fair to the mom and pop third-party businesses who are trying to sell on your platform? >> i appreciate that question, and i like it a lot because i really want a chance to address that. i am are proud of what we've done for third-party sellers on this platform. we started our third-party

platform 20 years ago, and we had zero sellers -- >> the question i'm asking, i'm sorry, i'm so sorry -- >> go ahead. >> the question i wanted to ask you is that you have access to data that your competitors do not have. so you might allow third-party sellers onto your platform, but if you're continuously monitoring the data to make sure that that they're never going to 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, i want to thank you 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, that there are more apples, that there are more companies that get to innovate and small businesses that get to thrive. and that is what we're trying to get at, that is why we need to regulate these marketplaces, so that no company has a platform so dominant that it is essentially a monopoly. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> time of the gentlelady's has

expired. i just wanted to remind the witnesses, we appreciate the gratitude for the question and your description of them as good questions, but we'll just assume that they're good questions and you're happy to answer them so so we can make sure we're a making good use of your time, and with that, i recognize the question eman from florida, mr. steube. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. pichai, i'm going to illustrate my question with a factual incident that curred to me. several months ago my wife called and said, hey, there's a good article on the gateway pundit that you should read. i was up here in washington, out of curiosity i googled gateway pundit, and it didn't show up on the first page, didn't show up on the second page. there was a bunch of different blogging sites about how there are disagreements with what was on the gateway pundit. but i actually had to dine in gateway pundit.com to get to it. interestingly, google didn't allow me to get to the actual

web site. that was a couple months ago before this hearing was is set to be herald, before this hearing was noticed, before you knew that you would be appearing before us today and that this is an issue that that, obviously, conservatives and republicans have had. last week, after this was noticed, this hearing was noticed, i did the exact same thing here in the capitol, and wouldn't you know it, i googled gateway pundit, and that was the very first web site that came up. now, this isn't from a constituent in my district, this isn't from somebody telling me, this isn't a news report, i actually physically did this on my laptop here in the capitol several months ago and then today. so clearly, something had happened between not being notified that you were going to be appearing before our committee and then last week knowing that you would be appearing before our committee and suddenly conservative web sites are flow at the top of -- now at the top of the bar when we search for them. so was there anything done at google between a couple of months ago and last week or the week before you appearing today

that has changed your approach to silencing conservative web sites? >> congressman, we approach our work with a deep sense of responsibility, in a nonpartisan way. we want to serve all our users no matter where they are. in fact, it's in our long-term business incentive to do so. and i believe op our platforms, including youtube, there are more conservative voices than ever before, and we believe in freedom of expression. on the specific issue, you know, i will have to look into it. you know, i obviously budget ware of it. budget aware of it. it could be a number of reasons. we constantly get ripples -- >> so if you're -- [inaudible] can i expect a response from you, say, in the next two weeks as to why that occurred? >> congressman, we'll do our best to follow up, and i'll engage with your office to -- >> okay. we'll follow up on that. i've got a similar question. so i've been in elected politics

for almost ten years, and when i was in the florida senate, in the state senate, i never had a problem with my campaign e-mails being marked as spam or going to junk folders or anything along those lines, and we had 30, 40, 50,000 people on our e-mail list. and suddenly i get elected to congress, and i'm now up here in washington, d.c., and my parents -- who have a gmail account -- aren't getting my campaign e-mails. one of my supporters just last week called me and said, hey, i want you to know my gmail account suddenly is taking your campaign e-mails that i've received for almost ten years, and suddenly they're going to spam and 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 members on the other side of the aisle talking about their campaign e-mails getting thrown into junk folders in gmail, so why is this only happening to republicans in and it's a fact, it's happening, because i can

have my supporters testify that they've received my mails for eight, nine years and suddenly this last year my campaign e-mails in their gmail are going to their spam folder. so if you could give me some clarification, i would appreciate it. >> in gmail we are focused on what users want, and users have indicated they want us to organize their personal e-mails, e-mails they receive from friends and family, separately. and so all we have done is we have a a tabbed organization, and the primary tab is e-mails from friends and family, and the secondary tab has -- >> well, it was my father who was not receiving now my campaign e-mails. so, clearly, that's familial thing that you're talking about didn't apply to my mails. finish -- my e-mails. >> our systems probably are not able to understand that, i mean, that it's your father. obviously, we don't have that context there. we just apply it neutrally

across, you know, all organizations, and, you know -- >> well, what assurance can you give me that there's -- [inaudible conversations] my time is short. one last question with. what ashoornses can you give me that any bias amongst your employees isn't influencing your spam folder and algorithms? >> congressman, there's nothing in thal gareth. s that has anything to do with political ideology and, you know, we do get complaints across the aisle. for example, the socialist review complained in january that their site wasn't found in -- [inaudible] so we get complaints, we look into it. but, you know, we approach our work in a nonpartisan way, and it's in our long-term incentive to serve users across the country. and today that's why we invest in our -- in 49 states across the u.s. >> thank you. the gentleman's time has expired. i now recognize the gentlelady from florida, ms. demings, for

five minutes. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. for the record, i'm a democrat from florida, and i've heard complaints about my e-mails going into spam as well, and i'm sure other democratic members have had the same experiences, unfortunately. mr. pichai, in 2007 google purchased double click, the leading provider of certain advertising tools, is that correct? >> that's correct, congresswoman. >> when congress -- when google proposed to merger, alarm bells were raised about the access to data google would have, specifically the ability to connect a user's personal unite with their browgz activity. google, however, committed to congress and to the antitrust enforcement that the deal would not reduce user privacy. google's chief legal adviser testified that google wouldn't be able to merge its data even if it wanted to given contractual restrictions. but in june of 2016, google went

ahead and merged this data anyway, effectively destroying anonymity on the internet. mr. pichai, you became ceo e in, of google in 2015, is that correct? >> that's right. >> okay. and this change was made in 2016, is that correct? >> that's my understanding. >> okay, thank you for that. did you sign off on this decision to combine the sets of data that google ad hold congress -- had told congress would be kept separate? >> congresswoman, any e changes made -- >> mr. pichai, with all due respect, please, did you sign off on the decision or not? >> i reviewed at a high level all the important decisions we make. we deeply care about privacy -- >> so you signed off on the -- >> [inaudible] >> okay. you signed off on the decision. practically, this decision meant

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 e-mails, from gmail as well as my personal identity with a record of almost all of the web sites i visited. that is absolutely staggering. according to an e-mail from a double click executive the, that was exactly the type of reduction in user privacy that google's founders had previously worried would lead to a backlash. and i quote, they were unwavering on the policy due to philosophical reasons, which is larry and -- [inaudible] cross-site cookie. they were also worried about a privacy storm as well as damage to google's brand. so in 2007 google's founders feared making this change because they knew it would upset

their users. but in 2016 google didn't seem to care. mr. pichai, isn't it true that what changed between 2007 and 2016 is that google gained enormous market power. so while google had to care about user privacy in 2007, it no longer had to in 2016. would you agree that what changed was google gained enormous market power? >> congresswoman, there's an important issue. if i could explain. you know, we today make it very easy for users to be in control of their data. we have simplified their settings. they can turn apps personalization on or off. we've combined most settings into three groupings. we remind users to go to a privacy checkout, one million -- >> mr. pichai, thank you so much for that. i am concerned that google's bait and switch with double click part of the broader

pattern where google buys up companies for the purposes of surveilling americans, and because of google's dominance, users have no choice but to surrender or. in 2019 google made over 80% of its total revenue through selling of ad placement, is that correct, mr. pichai? >> in a majority of -- >> [inaudible] okay. and because google sells behavioral ads, ads targeted to each of us as individuals, the more user data google collects, the more money google can make. more user data means more money, is that correct? >> in general, that's not true. for example -- >> the more user data, not the more money google collects? >> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry, please. you're saying that the more user data does not mean the more money that google can collect. >> congresswoman, most of the data today we collect is to help

users and provide -- [inaudible] >> okay. thank you so much -- >> [inaudible] >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank the. gentlelady. the chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, mr. jordan, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. pichai, is google going to tailor its features to help joe biden in the 2020 election? >> congressman, we approach our work, you know, we support both campaigns. we think political ads is an important part of free speech and democratic societies, and we engage with campaigns, you know, according to law, and we approach our work in a nonpartisan way. >> it was a yes or no question with. can you assure americans today you won't tailor your features to help joe biden in the upcoming election? >> you know, we support work that campaigns do. i just want to make sure -- >> i understand that. we all do all kinds of online social media, all kinds of that

kind -- that outreach, that communication. this is a simple question, can you today assure americans you will not tailor your features in any way to help, specifically help one candidate over the other. what i'm concerned about is you helping joe biden over president trump. >> we won't do any work, you know, to politically tilt anything one way or the other. it's against our core values. >> but you did anytime 2016. there's an e-mail in 2016 that was widely circulated amongst the executives at your company that got public where the head of your multicultural marketing talks about the silent doe the nation google made to the -- donation google made to the clinton campaign, and you applauded her work. i'm just curious, if you did it in '6, you know, in spite of the fact you did it in '16, president trump won it. i just want to make sure you're not going to do it e again in 2020. >> congressman, i recall our

conversation at that time, and i appreciate your concern. we didn't find any evidence of such activity, and i took the opportunity after our conversation to reinforce to the company we realize even an a appearance could be improper, so we have clearly communicated to our employees any personal political activity, while it's their right, needs to happen on their e own time and resources, and should -- >> of course. everyone's got their first amendment right to campaign for who they want. so you might not have found any evidence, but here's what she wrote to the e-mail to a number of key executives in your company. quote: we pushed to get out the latino vote with our features. second quote, we pushed to get out the latino vote with our features in key states. seems to me those last three words are the qualifier here. when you're trying to increase the latino vote in key states, and she'd already communicated

that she was supporting clinton, that she wanted clinton to win. so when she talks about the increase in the latino vote and she's doing that in key states, it's one thing if you're going to increase the latino vote around the cup. if you're just a good continuer citizen, you're urging people to vote. it's quite another when you're focusing on key states, nevada and florida, swing states. again, i want to make sure this isn't going to happen in 2020. >> i can assure you that we complied with laws in 2016 as a company. any work we do around elections is nonpartisan. our users do come to us for understanding where voting places are, where to vote, what the voting hours are, we're committed to providing that information, and i do can -- [inaudible] >> so, mr. pichai, here's the question i think is on so many american' minds. they saw the list we read earlier on, all the things google is doing. google is siding with the world

health organization over anyone who disagrees with them even though they obviously lied to america. google and youtube are siding with them. we have the history of all the things google has done and the history of 2016 what happened in the election where they, obviously, according to one of your multicultural marketing executives tried to help clinton. and here we are 97 days before the election, and we want to make sure it's not going to happen again. can you give us two assurances? one, you're not going to try to tailor your features, configure your platform in a way to help joe biden and, second, that you're not going to use your search engine to silence conservatives. can you give us those two assurances today in. >> congressman, on our search engine, conservatives have more access to information than ever before -- >> we appreciate that. that wasn't the question. can you assure us today you're not going to try to silence conservatives, and can you assure us you're not going to try to configure your features as you did for clinton in '16, can you assure you're not going to do the same thing for joe biden in 2020?

>> yeah, you have my commitment. it's obviously true we need to conduct ourselves in a neutral way. >> appreciate it. yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from pennsylvania, ms. scanlon. >> thank you, gentlemen. i'd like to redirect your attention to law rather than fringe conspiracy theories. mr. bezos -- >> mr. chairman, we have the e-mail. there is no fringe -- >> [inaudible] >> you do not have the time, please be respectful -- >> someone directly -- >> she controls the time -- >> put your mask on. >> put your mask on! [inaudible conversations] >> mr. rahs kip, you want to talk about -- >> mr. jordan -- [inaudible conversations] >> secretary of the treasury --? >> ms. scanlon -- >> what i want to know is someone comes after me for asking questions -- >> the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. bezos, our investigation uncovered documents that show

that amazon sometimes doesn't play fairly, crossing the line from robust competition to predatory pricing, to destroy rivals rather than outcompete them. and let's take the example of quincy which used to own diapers.com and provided online baby care products. in 2009 your team viewed diapers.com as amazon's largest and fastest growing online competitor for diapers. one of amazon's topics tiffs said that diapers.com keeps the pressure on pricing on us and strong competition from dires.com meant -- diapers.com meant that amazon was having to work harder and harder to that customers didn't pick diapers.com over amazon. and the customers were hard working families, single parents with babe babies -- babies and young children. because diapers.com was so successful, amazon saw is it as a threat. the documents that we've obtained show that amazon employees began strategizing about ways to weaken this company.

and in 2010 amazon hatched a plot to go after diapers.com and take it out. in an e-mail that i reviewed -- and we've got these up on the slides -- one of your top executives proposed to you a, quote, aggressive plan to win, end quote, against diapers.com. a a plan that sought to undercut their business by temporarily slashing amazon prices. we saw one of your profit and loss statements, and it appears that in one month alone amazon was willing to bleed over $200 million in diaper profit losses. mr. bezos, how much money was amazon ultimately willing to lose on this campaign to undermine diapers.com? >> thank you for the question. i don't know the answer, the direct answer to your question. this is going back in time i think maybe 10 or 31 years or so -- 11 years. you can give me the dates from those documents. but what i can tell you is that the idea of using diapers and products like that to attract

new customers who have new families is a very traditional idea -- >> but let's delve into a little further. i'm sorry you know i only have a few minutes here -- >> of course. >> so i just want to press on. your own documents make clear that the price war against diapers.com worked, and within a few months it was struggling. and so then amazon bought it. after buying your leading competitor here, amazon cut promotions like amazon..com and the steep discounts it used to lure customers away from diapers.com and then increased the price of diapers for new moms and dads. mr. bezos, did you personally sign off on the plan to raise prices after amazon erased its competition? >> i don't remember that at all. >> thank you. >> what i remember is that we match competitor prices, and i believe we followed diapers.com -- again, this is 11 years ago, so you're asking a lot of our memory, but i believe

we followed diapers.com, but after we bought -- >> okay. just reclaiming my time sir, i'm sorry, so you said that amazon's focus extensively on customers. so how would customers p especially single moms, new 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 in context diapers is a very large product category sold in many, many places -- >> right, but this was the online diaper market. >> [inaudible] drugstores and costco and kroger and -- >> sorry, mr. bezos, i need to push on here -- >> of course. sorry. >> -- would suggest that predatory practices weren't unique here. in 2013 it was reported you with instructed employees to

approach -- the way a cheetah would pursue a sickly gazelle. is the gazelle project still in place, and does amazon or do this with ore competitors in orr parts of its business? >> i cannot comment on that because i don't remember it. what i can tell you is that we are very, very focused on the customer as you started -- >> okay. well, i'm concerned with the -- [inaudible conversations] >> especially the family -- [inaudible] i'm sorry, mr. bezos, i'm almost out of time. i'm concerned too because especially with the current pandemic, one of the biggest needs i'm seeing at the food drives and the giveaways that we're having to run in my district is that families don't have diapers, and we have to collect them to give them out. so it certainly is something that has a really hard impact on families, and i'm really concerned that pricing might have been driven up here by this tactic, and i yield back. >> gentlelady -- votes very

called, but we're going to continue with the hearing, so i invite colleagues to vote, you know, it's a rolling vote, so society according to your own schedule. i now recognize the gentleman from colorado for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to thank each of the witnesses today the for your testimony. mr. zuckerberg, in 2004 when you had launched facebook, it's fair to say -- i think you'd agree with me -- that you had quite a few competitors. would you agree with that? >> congressman, yes. >> myspace, friendster, google's orr cut, yahoo! 360, aol, they were all competitors? >> congressman, those were some of the competitors at the time, and it's only gotten a hot more competitive since. >> well, let's talk about that because by 2012, mr. zuckerberg, none of those companies that i just identified existed. you're certainly aware of that. they were all basically gone with. facebook, in my view, was in a monopoly by then. i wonder whether you would agree

with that. i take it you don't. >> congressman, that's correct, i don't. we face a lot of competitors, and everybody part of what we do from connecting with friends privately to connecting with people in commitments, to connecting with all your friends at once, connecting with all kinds of user-generated content. i would bet that you or most people here have multiple apps for even of those on your phone finish. >> mr. zuckerberg, why don't we dig into this a bit further. you and i clearly disagree about that. in 2012, i'm looking at a document that was produced, it's a presentation prepared for sheryl sandberg to deliver to the board of directors of a major telecommunications firm boasting that, quote: facebook is now 95% of all social media in the united states. the title of this slide is even, quote: the industry consolidates as it matures. so as i look at that graph, i think most folks would concede

that facebook was a monopoly as early as 2012, but 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 described as a monopoly but obviously what you would describe as market power, that facebook has been engaged in purchasing competition, in some cases replicating competition and in some cases eliminating competition. would that be a fair statement in -- statement? >> congressman, the space of people connecting with other people is a very large space, and i would agree that there were different approaches that we took to addressing different parts of that space. but it's all in the -- of building the best services -- >> and i appreciate that, mr. zuckerberg. it sounds like you are conceding at least some of those strategies are what i identified, and is so i want to talk a little bit about that. in 2014, it's from facebook's current chief financial officer

describing the company's acquisition strategy as, quote, a land grab and saying we are going to spend 5-10% of our market cap every couple of years to shore up our position. and my sense of the facts is that that is, in fact, what has occurred. facebook, as you conceded earlier, that instagram was a competitor of facebook's. you acquired instagram in 2012. instagram is now the sixth largest social media platform in the world, is that right? >> congressman, i'm not sure what rank it is, but it's certainly growing beyond our wildest -- >> i can represent to you that the statistics demonstrate, empirical data shows it's the sixth largest. in 2014 facebook bought its competitor, what's app, is that correct? >> congressman, yes. what's app was also both a competitor and complimentary. they competed with us in the space of mobile messaging, which is a i growing and important space and is, again, one part of the global space of how people connect more broadly. >> understood.

and at that time, what's app had over 400 million monthly users, a clear path for 1 billion, and now it's the second largest social media platform in the world with 2 billion users world wild, 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, you did tell one of facebook's senior engineers in 2012 that you can, quote, likely just by any competitive start-up, but it'll be a while before we can buy google. do you recall writing that e-mail? >> i don't think match, i don't speckically, but it sounds like a joke -- specifically. >> well, it certainly, i don't take it as a joke with. it was in regards to having just closeed 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'll be a while before we can buy google. and given the purchases facebook had made previous to this and the attempted purchases -- my understanding is that facebook made several overweres to snapchat, for example, which rebuffed those efforts, clearly demonstrates that e-mail was not in jest. here's why i ask these questions, mr. zuckerberg, it strikes me that over the course of the last several years facebook has used its market power to either purchase or replicate the competition, and what's app, instagram are the most-downloaded apps of the last decade. your company, sir, owns them all. and we have a word for that, that word is monopoly. with that, i would yell back. thank you -- yield back, thank you, mr. chairman. >> i now recognize the gentlelady from georgia for five innocents. >> thank you. your said your success depends on their success, but over the

past year we've heard a completely different story. they use the words bullying, fear and panic to describe their relationship with amazon. i'm going to share the story of a small business opener who is also a wife and -- owner who is also a wife and a mother so you can understand how this is actually affecting the liveses of everyday people and why this truly matters. >> adult bookseller on amazon.com, and we worked day and night very hard towards growing our business and maintaining a five-star feedback rating. most importantly, the business is the total of 14 people which includes -- [inaudible] and one 90-year-old granny. and as we grew, we were shrinking out of -- [inaudible] in the textbooks category. so now amazon started restricting us from vel selling. they started with a few titles

in early 209, -- 2019, and withn six months amazon system systemy e blocked us from -- [inaudible] we haven't sold a single book in months or probably more. we were never given a reason. amazon didn't even provide us with a motive as to why we were being restricted. there was no warning. there was no plan. >> so, mr. bezos, after amazon delisted this small business without any apparent reason or notice, she told us that they sent more than 500 separate communications to amazon including to you, mr. bezos, over the past year. there was not a single meaningful response. do you think this is an acceptable way to treat someone that you describedded as both a partner and a customer? >> no, congresswoman. and i appreciate that you've showed me that anecdote. i would like to talk to her.

it does not at all to me seem like the right way to treat her. and i'm surprised by that. if it's not the system systematic approach that we take, i can assure you. i don't even understand what's going on, because we would love for third-party sellers to sell books -- >> [inaudible] >> i don't understand it, but i would like to understand it better and with your permission, i would like to get in touch with your office. >> i think, though, that you're missing the point. this is not just about one business. i'm concerned that this is a pattern of behavior. and basically, this pattern of behavior has to change. mr. bezos, my question is simply are you willing to make sure going forward that, you know, the numerous sellers that we've talked to, they have problems just like this. and there are more sellers who have told us they're exhausted all of their options before finally reaching out to you directly as a last resort. but they're still waiting for

your response. so what do you have to say to the small businesses who are talking to congress abuse you simply won't listen to them? >> well, i'd say that's not acceptable. if we aren't listening to you, i'm not happy about that at all. but i do, you know, if you would allow me to disagree with a piece of this, i do not think that was systematically going on. and the evidence i would suggest would be useful for you to consider in that regard is that thursday-party sellers in the ago regate are doing extremely well on amazon. they grew from, you know, 20 years ago it was zero and and today it's 60% of sales,-party sales do. >> that thank you very much. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> you said that sellers have many other attractive options, but that's not at all what we found in our investigation. according to e-marketer, a source amazon cited in submissions to this committee, amazon has nearly seven times the market share of its closest

e-commerce competitor. one seller told us that, and i quote: amazon continues to be the only show in time. no matter how angry sellers get, they have nowhere else to go. so are you saying these people aren't being truthful when they say that amazon the only game in townsome. >> yes, congresswoman, with great respect, i do disagree with that. i believe that there are a lot of options, and some of them are not even listed on that chart i just looked at it beliefly, but i didn't see some that i know of -- briefly. >> okay, thank you. all right, thank you for that. >> there's more and more every day. >> i my time is short. if amazon didn't have monopoly power over these seller, do you think they would choose to stay in a relationship that is characterized by bull luing, fear and panic -- bullying, fear and panic? >> with all respect, congresswoman, i do not accept the premise of your question. that is not how we operate the business. >> all right. >> and, in fact, we work very

hard -- >> thank you for that. >> and that's why -- >> thank you for that. i'm going to close with giving the bookseller the opportunity to finally be heard by you. >> mr. bezos, we increased sales on amazon by five times in the past three years, and we have contributed that much -- [inaudible] to amazon. we have contributed back much to your business. we followed all the rules that were set by you. [inaudible] in ruining our livelihood. we beg you, there are 14 live at stake. please, please, please help us get back on track. >> with that, i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentlelady. i now recognize myself for five minutes. mr. bezos, according to your testimony, the marketplace competitive, but amazon control

ares as much as 75% of all online marketplace sales, and e-marketer, a source you cited to us in subcommissions to this committee, reports amazon has nearly seven times the market share of its closest competitor. isn't it true small businesses have no real option but than amazon to connect and make online sales? >> no, sir. with great respect, i do have a different opinion on that. i believe there are a lot of offenses. i -- options. i think we are the best one. >> mr. bezos finish. >> we have a lot of different programs that help sellers. >> thank you. there are 2.2 million active sellers as of 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 a roof over their heads. you have referred to third-party sellers as both your parties and

customers. isn't it true they're referred to as internal competitors? >> it wouldn't with surprise me n. some ways we are competing, and they're also competing with each -- >> that's right. mr. bezos, amon's own documents refer to the very same sellers that you described as partners as perm competitors. we've heard again and again that amazon is the only game in town. one small business owner described it this way, and i quote: we're stuck. we don't have a choice but to sell blue amazon. another said, and i quote: they've never been a great partner, but you have to work with them. we have heard so many heartbreaking stories of small businesses who have shown significant time and resources into building a business and selling on amazon only to have amazon poach their best selling items and strive them out of business. so i want to talk to you about one company that really stood out from the rest.

pay close attention to how they described your partnership. a small apparel company that makes and sells what they call useful a aa peril for people like construction workers and firefighters. they started well selling a unique item. they were making about 60,000 a year on just this one item. one draw they woke up and found that amazon had started lusting the fact same product cause their sale to go to zero overnight. even if they wanted to, they couldn't match the price. here's how the apparel company described working with amazon, and i quote: amazon strings you along for a while because it feels to good to get that paycheck every week. and in the past, for lack of a better term, we called it amazon heroin because you just had to keep going to get your fix, this

check. at the end of the day now find out this person is ultimately going to be your downfall. s this is one of your partners. why on earth would they compare your company to a drug dealer? >> sir, i have great respect for you and this committee, but i completely disagree with that characterization. what we have done is create in the store a place -- you can go back in time. we sold only our inventory, it was a very controversial decision inside the company to invite third party sellers to come into what is our most valuable real estate. we did that because we weren convinced it would be were the for the consumer -- >> mr. bezos? >> -- better to have all of that selection. and i think we were right -- >> yeah. reclaiming my time, mr. bezos. this is one of many small companies that have told us during this year item long investigation that they were mistreated, abused and tosses

aside by amazon. you said amazon is only focused on what's going best for the customers and also third-party rellers. how is that possible when you compete correctly with smells and their own products to -- [inaudible] >> you know when customers put something in their cart, they take it out. traditional grocery stores don't have that, so i just want to

follow up finally, and an answer to the question you gave to congresswoman jayapal. you can't guarantee that the policy hadn't been violated, you couldn't be certain. can you please explain that to me? can you list examples of where that policy has been violated in because it's particularly concerning to me, mr. bezos, that shouldn't third parties know for sure that data isn't being shared with your competitors? why should a third-party seller list on amazon if their going to be undercut as a result of data you take from them? >> sir, 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 ms. jayapal that that policy isn't violated routinely. >> well, i -- we are

investigating that. and i do not want to sit here, and i do not want to go beyond what i know right now. but we are, as a result of that "wall street journal" article, we are looking at that very carefully. >> thank you, mr. bezos. >> and i want to get this back and share it with you. >> thank you. the evidence we've collected shows that amazon is only interested in exploiting its monopoly power over the e-commerce marketplace. this investigation make clear that amazon's dual role as a9 platform operator and competing seller on that platform fundamentally anti-competitive and congress must take action. and with that, i recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. sensenbrenner for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i think that the history proved that congress does a poor job in picking winners and losers. i've looked over the at love material, work -- a lot of material, and i is have reached

the conclusion that we do not need to change our antitrust laws. they have been working just fine. the question here the question of enforcement of those antilaws. 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, fact is, is that this acquisition did pass the smell test of the regulators involved. maybe they made a mistake or maybe something else happened, i don't know. but the fact is that there is not a problem with the law. now, you know, back about 35 years ago at&t was broken up because it was determined that

one-stop shops were monopolistic, and at&t, because you have to get your long distance service from your local phone company, that was monopolistic. so the baby bells were spun off. a whole lot has happened since then. there were mergers and acquisitions in the telecom industry, 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. now, using the at&t example which i think was counterproductive, let me ask mr. bezos, you know, 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 with. >> right. >> very clear. >> now, mr. pichai, if you were sports forced to split and you describe what happens to consumers there? >> congressman, today consumers in most of the areas we are dealing with, they see prices free or falling and they get more choice than ever before, so 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 become a senior, quote-unquote, statesman. but, you know, let me say that we have heard a whole lot of complaints about big tech.

some of them are political in nature, and i share the complaints and the concern of mr. george and others. and others talk about alleged hi anti-competitive activity. it seems to me that it's not for congress that legislates to toss all of our aunt trust laws -- antitrust laws that have been established over the last hundred-plus years. but it's something where we ought to go back to the regulators, to the enforcers, have them look at this stuff and is them make a determination on whether or not the law's been violated. i think the law is good on that. and we don't need to throw it all in the wastebasket. but there are some matters of concern that we have heard from both sides of the aisle that i think need to be addressed. and if it requires an agency like the ftc to say that they've

made mistakes in the past, so be it. we're all human, we all make mistakes x. even government agencies do that. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. i now recognize the gentlelady from washington, ms. jayapal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. zuckerberg, in march of 2016 you suggested by e-mail to your management team that by moving faster could, quote, prevent our competitors from getting footholds. sheryl sandberg said especially if that means you don't have competitors build products that take some of our users. the product management director added, quote: i would love to be far more aggressive and nimble in copying competitors. has facebook ever taken steps to prevent competitors from getting footholds by copying competitors in. >> congresswoman, i view it as our job to understand what people are finding valuable and

all of the services that they use, and certainly if someone -- >> do you copy, you copy your competitors? >> congresswoman, we've certainly adapted features that others have -- [inaudible] as have others copied and adapted features -- >> i'm not concerned about others, i'm just asking you, mr. zuckerberg. since march of 2012 after that e-mail conversation, how many competitors did facebook end up copying? >> congresswoman, i can't give you a number of companies -- >> is it less than five? >> congresswoman, i don't know. >> fifty? any estimates? your team was making a plan. how did it play out? >> congresswoman, i'm not sure i agree with the premise here. our job is to make sure we build the best services for people to connect with all the people they care about, and a lot of that is done by innovating and by

building new -- >> thank you, thank you. thank you, mr. zuckerberg. let me go on. has facebook ever threatened to clone the products of another company while also attempting to acquire that company? >> congresswoman, not that i would, not that i recall. >> and i'd like to just remind you that you are under oath and there are quotes from facebook's own on documents. prior to acquiring instagram, facebook began developing a similar product called facebook camera, correct? >> congress woman, that's 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 competitive set was company like what we were building with facebook camera and physical cam -- >> thank you, thank you, many zuckerberg. did you ever use this very similar facebook camera product to threaten instagram's founder, ken side strom?

>> congresswoman, i'm not sure what you would mean by threaten. i think it was public that we were building a camera app at the time. that was a well documented thing. >> let me tell you that mr. , in a chat you told him that facebook was, quote, developed our own photo strategy to how we engage now will also determine how much we're partners versus competitors down the line. instagram's founder seemed to think that was a threat. he confided in an investor at the time that he feared you would go -- that you would go into, quote, destroy mode if he didn't sell instagram to you. so let's just recap. facebook cloaked a popular --en cloned a popular product, approached the company you identified as a competitive threat and told them if you didn't let you buy them up, there would be consequences. any other companies you used the same tactic with while attempting to buy them? >> congresswoman, i want to respectfully disagree with the characterization. i think it was clear that this

was a space that we were going to compete in one way or another. i don't view those conversations as a threat in any way. >> [inaudible] the documents and the testimony that the committee has collected from others. did you warn evan spiegel, the founder of snapchat, that facebook was in the process of cloning features of his company while also attempting to buy snapchat? >> congresswoman, i don't remember those specific conversations, but that was also an area where it was very clear that we were going to be building something. people want to be able to communicate privately, to communicate with all their friends at once, and we're going to make sure that we with build the best products in all of the spaces that we can around helping people stay connected with the people they care about. >> i appreciate that, mr. zuckerberg. i think the question again here is when a dominant platform threatens a potential rival, that should not be a normal business practice. facebook is a case study, in my opinion, in monopoly power

because your company harvests and monetizes our data, and then your company uses that data to spy on competitors and to copy, acquire and kill rivals. you've usedded facebook's power to threaten smaller competitors and to insure that you always get your way. these tactics reinforce facebook's dominance which you then use in increasingly destructive ways. so facebook's very model makes it impossible for new companies to flourish separately, and that harms our democracy, it harms mom and pop businesses, and it harms consumers. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from colorado, mr. buck, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. bezos, thank you for being here today. i'm concerned that you've used amazon's dominant market position to unfairly harm competition. we've heard from a number of companies that amazon uses proprietary data from third party companies to launch its

own private label products. meets with start-ups to discuss investing in the product and then uses the proprietary data from these meetings to create its own private label products, allows the sale of counterfeit items through its web platform. during this subcommittee's field hearing in boulder this january inventor david barnett detailed how amazon allowed counterfeit products to appear on amazon's marketplace ahead of pop socket's products. he told cnbc that pop sockets found at least 1,000 counterfeit products for 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 in the "wall street journal" detailing amazon's use of third-party sellers' proprietary data to develop and market its own competitive private label products. "the wall street journal" also reported last week that amazon's

venture capital fund uses meetings with unsuspecting start-ups to gain access to secret information and financial details. amazon then reportedly used that information to launch competing products, often disastrous results for the original start-up company. there are many examples of this behavior, but one allegation in the journal's reporting sticks out in particular. in 2011 amazon contacted an inventor about the possibility of investing in speech technology. the founder accepted the meeting thinking this was the company's big break. after displaying localized microphone technology and disclosing engineering data to amazon employees, the relationship came to an abrupt halt. amazon employees allegedly stopped responding to e-mails before the technology eventually found its way into the amazon's echo device. these allegations are serious. especially because the size and scope of these practices

couldn't happen without amazon's monopolistic control of the marketplace. i'm also concerned that given amazon's allowance of counterfeit goods on its marketplace, especially counterfeit goods from china, that amazon's marketplace may be knowingly or unknowingly furthering china's use of forced and slave labor conditions. this is especially important following recent reports that at least 80 global companies that sell on the amazon marketplace including nike, starbucks and samsung have ties to chinese factories that use to enslave eager muslims. follow -- uighur muslims. senator hawley introduced an important bill requiring american businesses to certify that their supply chain does not rely on forced labor. i had been introducing the house companion bill later this afternoon. while i do not expect you to have intimate knowledge of the legislation, i do want to ask all four of our witnesses a simple yes or no

. will you certify here today that your company will not use and never use slave labor to manufacture your products or allow products 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 yes or no answer. i understand you haven't read the details of the bill would you agree to this idea? >> i would love to engage on the legislation with you, congressman, but let me be clear, forced labor is abhorrent. we would not tolerate it in apple. i would love to get with your office to engage on the legislation. >> thank you, mr. pichai. >> congressman, share your concern in this area. i find it abhorrent as well. happy to engage with your office and discuss this further. >> i don't want to engage with my office half the time.

will you guys agree slave labor is not something you will tolerate in manufacturing your products or in products that are sold on your platforms? >> i agree, congressman. >> mr. cook? >> we wouldn't tolerate it. we would terminate a supplier relationship if it were found. >> mr. zuckerberg? >> i agree. we wouldn't tolerate this. if we found anything like this we would also terminate any relationship. >> and mr. bezos? >> yes. i agree completely. >> thank you very much, gentlemen. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. i now recognize the gentleman from maryland, mr. raskin for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank mr. buck for the excellent line of questioning and upcoming legislation. i look forward to joining that. we want, you know, in the 19th century we had robber-barons. in the 20th century we have the cyber barons and we want to make sure that the extraordinary

power and wealth that you've been able to amass 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 gatekeeper a lost consumers want to know when hbo max app will be available on your fire device. i understand negotiations are ongoing but that, your company is not only asking for financial terms but also for content from warner media. is that right and is that a fair way to proceed? in other words is it fair to use your gatekeeper 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 underway right now. i predict that the companies will eventually come to an agreement and i think this is kind of two large companies negotiating agreements, kind of normal case of -- >> right. here is why i pursue it precisely because it's a large company and in a way they stand in for hundreds of thousands of much smaller companies who are even in a more disadvantageous position with respect to negotiating with you. i guess the general proposition then you can speak to if you don't know the details of this, which is, 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 were respect to getting content from them? >> well, again i'm not familiar with the details -- >> m