Economic harm to the company. But that just isnt in the case with google. So its a legitimate question as to whether googles market power insulates it. I also think its a legitimate question to ask if other attempts to regulate your industries have worked. So mr. Pachi, google has restricted the portability of user data due to compliance with the general Data Protection regulation. Specifically in 2018, google restricted the ability to export the double i. D. Of cookie based identifier that creates profiles through google data transfer. Is that correct . Congressman, not familiar with the specifics of that particular issue. But happy to follow up more once i understand it better. So youre not particularly familiar with how youre complying with gdpr. Congressman, weve long been working to comply with gdpr. We think its an important regulation, and we have we are in full come plibpliance to extent of my knowledge. I just meant not with that specific issue you mentioned there. So to comply, google must restrict the with other platforms to conduct Cross Platform analysis. It seems as if that ultimately limits the ability of advertisers to make comparisons between google based campaigns and nongoogle base ed campaigns. Would you agree with that . In all the systems, we are balancing within users, advertisers and publishers. We care about the privacy of our users. So when we serve these ecosystems, we have to take that into account. We have to comply with important laws and regulations in every country we operate in. So thats the delicate balance we are striking. But we are focused on users and trying to do the best we can. I want to be clear, i personally believe that just the market power consolidation is significant. But i want to be clear when were moving forward to regulate this, that we arent squeezing out competition in our quest to do something. Because ive said that before in this hearing and ill say it again, usually in our quest to regulate big companies, we end up hurting Small Companies more. Im a strong privacy advocate, but the consequences of gdpr have been to entrench large actors like google, leading to regulatory capture that exasperates competition concerns. And the ad market share has increased since the implementation of gdpr. Do you know that to be correct . Congressman, to just give you a sense of the robust competition we see, ad prices have fallen by 40 in ten years. In fact, in the u. S. , advertising as a share of gdp has come down to less than 1 today. So we see robust competition in the marketplace. As i said earlier, we have to comply with regulation. We have to interpret it strictly and balance the ecosystem. But our utmost care is ensuring privacy and security of our users. Im glad you mentioned privacy, because i would be remiss if i didnt feel with this issue. Generally speaking outside of the biases with all of this, and this is for essentially all four of our witnesses, i think one of the wbigger concerns when we tak about that data having value and privacy, which is where people get concerned with how the digital age is moving forward. There are reports Law Enforcement has made use of what is called geofence warms that allow authorities to compel Technology Companies to disclose location for any device at a particular point in time. Court filings suggest that google received a 1500 increase in geo fenfence requests. And so the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause and specificity. Thats not what these are. These warrants are for any person in an area at a particular time. And geofen fencfence warrants r neither. So they are essential it will general warrants. I believe the Location Information should be considered as contents under the historic communications act. Do you agree . Umm, im happy to understand more. We deeply care about this is we think this is an important area. Oversight and we simply made a change by which we automatically delete location activity after a certain period of time by default for users. So we are happy to engage with the office, congressman. Im using you, because this is going on in virginia and new york right now. But this e quaut quates to ever. People would be terrified that Law Enforcement can get anybodys information. So it requires congress to act. It is the single most issue the time of the gentleman has expired. I have a unanimous concept request for wall street journal article, Police Request for google users face new scrutiny. Without objection. And i have two letters from congressman walden and congresswoman rogers. The first is to mr. Cook of apple, the second to mr. Pachi. Without objection. I now recognize the gentle lady from washington. Thank you all for being with us. Mr. Bezos, in july 2019, your employee nate sutton told me under oath in this committee that amazon does not use any specific seller data when creating its own private brand product. So does amazon ever access and use Third Party Seller data when making business decisions. Just a yes or no will suffice, sir. Thank you for the question. I know its an important topic. I want to thank you for representing us. I cant 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 cant guarantee you that that policy has never been violated. Mr. Bezos, youre probably aware that in april 2020, a report in the wall street journal revealed that your company does access data on Third Party Sellers, by reviewing data on sellers and products and creating tiny categories that allow your company to categorically access detailed seller information in a supposedly aggregate category. Do you deny that report . Im familiar with the wall street journal article that youre familiar with. We continue to look into that very carefully. Im not satisfied that we have gotten to the bottom of it, and well keep looking at it. Some of the sources in the article are anonymous, but we continue to look into it. I take that as youre not denying that. A former amazon employee told this committee theres a rule but theres nobody enforcing or spot checking. They just say dont help yourself to the data. Everyone can have access to anything they want. Do Category Managers have access to Third Party Products and businesses . Heres what i can tell you. We do have certain safeguards in place. We expect people to follow the policy the same we would any other. Its a voluntary policy so theres no actual enforcement of that policy . So maybe that answers my im sorry, no, i think i may have misspoke. Im trying to say amazon the fact that we have such a policy is voluntary. I think no other retailer has such a policy. Enforcement of that policy, if we found someone violated it, we would take action against them. Theres numerous reports, and the committee has conducted interviews with former employ employees, who confirm employees have access to that data and are using it. And so my next question was going to be if you thought you were enforcing these rules, do you think thats working . And, again, i would just say theres credible reporting thats documented breaches of these rules that you have put into place. And the committee has interviewed employees that typically say that these breaches typically occur. Lets talk about aggregate data for a minute. Rules allow for you to access combined data on a product. When there are only one or two sellers in the marketplace, correct . Yes. Aggregate data is allowed under our policies, thats correct. Okay. Interviews with former employees have made it clear that that data essentially allows access to highly detailed data in the product categories. Theres an example of a Small Business that had no direct competitors except for amazon warehouse. A cheer an amazon employee accessed a report on their product with information on how much the company spent on advertising. And then amazon launched its own competing products in october 2019. Thats a major loophole. I go back to the general coun l counsels statement, clearly there was no access to this data, that amazon does not use that data for its own benefit. And im now hearing you say youre not so sure thats going on. And the issue were concerned with here is very simple. You have access to data that exceeds the sellers on your platforms with whom you compete. You can track consumer interests, you can access to the entire of sellers pricing and inventory information past, present, and future. And you dictate the participation of Third Party Sellers on your platform, so you can set the rules for your competitors but not follow those same rules for your self. Do you think thats fair for the mom and pop businesses trying to sell on your platform . I appreciate that question. I like it a lot, because i want a chance to address that. Im very proud of what we have done for Third Party Sellers on this platform. We started our Third Party Platform 20 years ago, and we had zero sellers on it. The question im asking im sorry. My time is expiring. The question i wanted to ask you is that you have access to data that your competitors do not have. So you might allow Third Party Sellers onto your platform. But if youre monitoring the data to make sure that theyre never going to get big enough that they can compete with you, that is the concern that the committee has. And, you know, i think your Company Started in my district, i want to thank you for that and the work youve done and say that the whole goal of this committees work is to make sure that there are more amazons, that there are more apples, that there are more companies that get to innovate and Small Businesses get to thrive. And that is what were trying to get at. That is why we need to regulate these marketplaces, so that no company has a platform so dominant that it is companily a monopoly. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. I just wanted to remind the witnesses, we appreciate the grat tut fitude for the questio your description of them as good questions. We just assume theyre good questions, so we can make sure youre making good use of your time. With that, i recognize the gentleman from florida. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Pachi, im going to illustrate my question with a factual incident that occurred to me. Several months ago, my wife called and said theres a good article that you should read. Out of curiosity, i was up here in washington, and i googled gateway pundit. And it didnt show up on the first or second page. There was a bunch of different blogging sites about how there were disagreements with what was on the gateway pundit. But i had to type in gatewaypundit. Com to get to it. And google didnt allow me to get to the website. That was a couple months ago before this hearing was set to be heard, before you knew you would be appearing before us today and that this is an issue that conservatives and republicans have had. Last week, after this was noticed, this wearing was noticed, i did the same thing. I googled gateway pundit, and that was the first website that came up. This isnt from a consitituent n pi district, i did this on my laptop here several months ago and then today. So clearly, something had happened between not being notified that you were going to be appearing before our committee and last week, knowing you would be appearing before our committee and suddenly conservative websites are at the top of the bar when you search for them. So was there anything done at google between a couple months ago and last week or the week before you appearing today, that has changed your approach to silencing conservative websites . Congressman, we approach our work with a deep sense of responsibility in a nonpartisan way. We want to seven all our users, no matter where they are. In fact, its in our longterm business incentive to do so. And i believe on our platforms, including youtube, there are more conservative voices than ever before, and we believe in freedom of expression. On the specific issue, i will have to look into it. I obviously wasnt aware of it. It could be a number of reasons. We constantly get reports if youre going to look into it it appears to only be happening to conservative republicans. I dont see anything in the news or anything in the press or other members on the other side of the aisle talking about their Campaign Emails getting thrown into junk folders in g mail. So why is this only happening to republicans . And its a fact its happening, because i can have my supporters testify they received my emails for eight, nine years and suddenly this last year, all of their gmail, my Campaign Emails are going to their spam folder. So if you can give me some clarification on that, i would appreciate it. In gmail, we are focused on what users want, and users have indicated they want us to organize their personal emails, emails they receive from friends and family separately. So all we have done is an organization, the primary tab has emails from friends and family well, it was my father, who is not receiving now my Campaign Emails. So clearly that in 49 states across the u. S. So that we can capture all the points. Thank you. The gentlemans time has expire. I recognize the gentle lady from florida. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me just say for the record, im a democrat from florida and ive heard complaints about my emails going into spam, as well. Im hur other democratic members have had the same experience. Mr. Pachi, in 2007, google purchased double click, the leading provider of certain advertising tools, is that correct . Thats correct, congresswoman. When google proposed the merger, alarm bells were raised about the access to data google would have. Specifically the ability to connect a users personal identity with their browsing activity. Google committed to congress that the deal would not reduce user privacy. Google chief Legal Adviser testified before the Senate Antitrust subcommittee that google wouldnt be able to merge this data, even if it wanted to, given contractual restrictions. But in june 2016, google merged this data any way, destroying anonymity on the internet. You became ceo of google in 2015, is that correct . Thats right. Okay. And this change was made in 2016, is that correct . Thats my understanding. Okay. Thank you for that. Did you sign off on this decision to combine the sets of data that google had told congress would be kept separate . Congresswoman, any changes we made with all due respect, please, did you sign off on the decision or not . I reviewed at a high level all the important decisions we made. We deeply care about privacy so you signed off on the decision. Practically this decision meant that your company would not combine all of would now combine, for example, all of my data on google, my search history, my location from google maps, information from my emails from gmail, as well my personal identity with a record of almost all of the websites i visited. That is absolutely staggering. According to an email from a double click executive, that was exactly the type of reduction and user privacy that googles founders had previously worried would lead to a backlash. And i quote, they were unwavering on the policy due to philosophical reasons, which is not wanting users associated with the cross site cookie. They were also worried about a privacy storm, as well as damage to googles brand. So in 2007, googles founders feared make thing change, because they knew it would upset their users. But in 2016, google didnt seem to care. Isnt it true that what changed between 2007 and 2016 is that google gained enormous market power. So while google had to care about user privacy in 2007, it no longer had to in 2016. Would you agree that what changed was google gained enormous market power . Congresswoman, if i could explain. We today make it very easy for users to be in control of their data. We have simplified their settings. They can turn ads on or off. We have combined most of activity settings into three groupings. We remind users to go to a privacy checkup thank you so much for that. I am concerned that googles bait and switch with double click is part of a broader pattern where google buys up companies for the purposes of surveilling americans and because of googles dominance, users have no choice but to surrender. In 2019, google made over 80 of its total revenue through selling of ad placement, is that correct . Majority. Ads targeted to each of us as individuals, the more user data google collects, the more google can make. Is that correct . In general, thats not true. For example more user data, not the more money google can collect . Im sorry, please. So youre saying the more user data does not mean the more money that google can collect . Congresswoman, most of the data that we collect is to help users. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. The chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full committee, mr. Jordan for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Is google going to tailor its features to help joe biden in the 2020 election . Congressman, we approach our work we support both campaigns today. We think political ads is an important part of free speech and democratic societies, and we engage with campaigns, you know, according to law and we approach our work in a nonpartisan way. It was a yes or no question. Can you assure americans today you wont tailor your features to help joe biden in the upcoming election . You know, we support work that campaigns do. I just want to i understand that. We all do all kinds of online social media, all kinds of that outreach, that communication. This is a simple question, can you today assure americans you will not tailor your features in any way to help specifically one candidate over another . What im concerned about is helping joe biden over president trump. We wont do any work to politically tilt one way or the other. Be you did it in 2016. Theres an email in 2016 that was widely circulated amongst the executives at your company that got public where the head of your multicultural marketing talks about the silent donation google made to the clinton campaign, and you applauded her work. If you did it in 16, in spite of the fact you did it in she assumed is going to help candidate clinton, and shes doing that in key states. Its one thing if youre going to increase the latino vote around the country, youre urging people to vote. Its quite another when youre focusing on in key states. You know what those key states were . Nevada and florida, the swing states. So, again, i want to make sure this isnt going to happen in 2020. I can assure you we complied with laws in 2016. Any work we do around elections is nonpartisan. Users come to us for understanding where polling places are, which is the voting hours are. We are committed to providing that information and well approach our work so heres the question i think is on so Many Americans minds. They saw the list we read here earlier. All the things google has done. Google is siding with the World Health Organization over anyone who disagrees with them, even though the World Health Organization obviously lied to america and shills for china. Youtube and google is siding with them. We have the history of what google has done and the history of 2016, where they obviously, according to one of your marketing executives, tried to help clinton. And here we are 97 days before the election and we want to make sure its not going to happen again. Can you assure us youre not going to tailor or configure your platform to help joe biden . And second, that youre not going to use your Search Engine to silence conservatives . Can you give us those two assurances today . Congressman, on our Search Engine, conservatives have more access to that wasnt the question. Can you assure us youre not going to silence conservatives and assure us that youre not going to configure your features as you did for clinton in 16, can you assure us youre not going to do the same thing for joe biden in 2020 . You know, you have my commitment. Its always been true and we will continue to conduct ourselves in a neutral way. I yield back. The chair recognizes the gentle lady from pennsylvania. Thank you, gentleman. I would like to redirect your attention to antitrust law. Mr. Bezos, our investigation mr. Chairman, we have the email. There is no you do not have the time. But, but, she put your mask on mr. Ras kin mr. Jordan, she holds the time. [ overlapping speakers ] what i want to know, when someone comes after my motives for asking questions the jemtle lady is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Bezos, our investigation uncovered documents that show that amazon sometimes doesnt play fairly, crossing the line from competition to predatory pricing to destroy rivals rather than outcompete them. Lets take the example of quincy that provided online baby care products. In 2009, your team viewed diapers. Com as amazons largest and Fastest Growing online competitor for diapers. One of amazons top executives said diapers. Com keeps the pressure on pricing on us, and strong competition from diapers. Com meant that zorn wam was having to work harder so customers didnt pick diapers. Com over amazon. Now, because diapers. Com was so successful, amazon saw it as a threat. The documents that we have obtained show that amazon employees began strategizing about ways to weaken this company. And in 2010, amazon hatched a plot to go after diapers. Com and take it out. In an email that i reviewed, and we have these on the slides, one of your top executives proposed a aggressive plan to win against diapers. Com. We saw one of your profit and loss statements, and it appears in one month alone, amazon was willing to lead over 200 million in diaper profit losses. Mr. Bezos, how much money was amazon willing to lose on this campaign to underline diapers. Com . Thank you for the question. I dont know the direct answer to your question. This is going back in time, maybe 10, 11 years or so. What i can tell you is that the idea of using diapers and products like that to attract new customers who have new families is a very traditional idea. Sure, but lets delve into this a little further. Im sorry, you know i only have a few minutes here. Of course. I want to press on. Your own documents make clear that the price war against diapers. Com worked and within a few months it was struggling. So amazon bought it. After buying your leading competitor here, amazon cut promotions like amazon. Mom and the discounts it used to lure customers away from diapers. Com and increased the price of diapers for new moms and dads. Did you sign off on the plan to raise prices after amazon eliminated its competition . I dont remember that at all. Thank you. What i remember is that we match competitive prices and i believe we followed diapers. Com. I can tell you after we bought diapers. Com, we put just moving on. Im sorry. So you said that amazon focuses excessively on customers. So how would customers, especially single moms, new families, how would they benefit when the prices were driven up by the fact you eliminated your main competitor . I dont agree with Great Respect, i dont agree with the premise. At the same time, you should recognize in context diapers [ overlapping speakers ] im sorry, mr. Bezos, i need to push on. The evidence suggests that the predatory practices werent unique here. In 2013, it was reported that you instructed amazon employees to approach discussions with certain business partners, and i quote, the way a cheetah would pursue a sickly gazelle. Is the gazelle project still in place, and does amazon pursue predatory campaigns in other parts of its business . I cannot comment on that, because i dont remember it. What i can tell you is that we are very, very focused on the customer as you started, and of course im concerned with the customers, as well. Especially the families in my district. [ overlapping speakers ] im concerned, too. Especially with the current pandemic, one of the biggest needs im seeing at the food drives and the giveaways were having to run in my district is that families dont 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 im really concerned that pricing might have been driven up here by this tactic. And i yield back. I Just Announced that both were going to continue with the hearing, so i invite colleagues to vote. So vote according to your own schedule. I recognize the gentleman from colorado for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank each of the witnesses today. Mr. Zuckerberg, in 2004, when you had launched facebook, its fair to say, i think you would agree with me, you had quite a few competitors. Would you agree with that . Congressman, yes. My space, friendster, yahoo 360, aol, they were all competitors . None of those companies i just identified existed. Youre certainly aware of that . They were all basically gone. Facebook, in my view, was in a monopoly by then. I wonder whether you would agree with that. I take it you dont . Congressman, thats correct. I dont. We face a lot of competitors. And every part of what we do, from connecting with friends privately to people in communities to all your friends at once, to connecting with all kinding of user generated content. I would bet that you or most people here have multiple apps for each of those on your phones. Mr. Zuckerberg, why dont we dig into this a bit further. We clearly disagree about that. In 2012, im looking at a document produced by facebook. Its a presentation prepared for Cheryl Sandberg to deliver to the board of a telecommunications firm, boasting that facebook is 95 of all social media in the United States. The title of the slide is even the industry consolidates as it matures. So as i look at that graph, i think most folks would concede that facebook was a monopoly as early as 2012. Would you agree with me that facebook, its strategy since that time, to essentially protect what i describe as a monopoly, but obviously what you would describe as market power, that facebook has been engaged in purchasing competition, in some cases replicating competition, and in some cases eliminating competition. Would that be a fair statement . Congressman, the space of people connecting with other people is a very large face. I would agree that there were different approaches we took to address different parts of that space. But all in service of building the best services i appreciate that, mr. Zuckerberg. It sounds like you are conceding at least some of those strategies are what i identified. In 2014, heres an email. Its from facebooks current chief Financial Officer described at the companys Acquisition Strategy as a land grab. And saying that we are going to spend 5 to 10 of our market cap every couple of years to shore up our position. My sense of the facts is that that in fact is what occurred. Facebook as you conceded earlier, that instagram was a competitor of facebook. So you acquired instagram in 2012. Instagram is now the sixth largest social media platform in the world, is that right . Congressman, im not sure what rank it is, but its certainly growing beyond our wildest expectations. Statistics show its the sixth largest. In 2014, facebook brought whatsapp, is that correct . Congressman, yes, whatsapp was a competitor and complementary. They competed with us in the space of mobile messaging, which is a growing and important space. It is, again, one part of the global space of how people connect. And at that time, it had 400 million monthly users. And whatsapp is now the second largest social media platform in the world with 2 million users worldwide, more than Facebook Messenger and your company owns whatsapp. Facebook tried to buy other competitive startups. As chairman nadler noted, you did tell a Senior Engineer in 2012, that you can likely buy any competitive startup, but it will be a while before we can buy google. Do you recall writing that email . I dont specifically, but it sounds like a joke. Well, i dont take it as a joke, as i review the email. It was in regards to having just closed the instagram sale and the response from this individual, this engineer to you was, well played. Your response was, thanks. One reason people under estimate the importance of watching google is we can likely buy any competitive startups, but it will be a while before we can buy google. Given the purchases facebook had made previous to this, facebook made several overtures to snap chat, clearly demonstrates that email was not in jest. Heres why i ask these questions, mr. Zuckerberg. It strikes me that over the course of the last several years, facebook has used its market power to either purchase or replicate the competition. And facebook, Facebook Messenger, instagram, whatsapp are the most downloaded apps of the last decade. Your company owns them all. We have a word for that, that word is monopoly. With that i would yield back, mr. Chairman. You know recognize the gentle lady from georgia ms. Mcbath. Mr. Bezos, you referred to Third Party Sellers as amazons partners and your success depends on their success. But over the past year, weve heard a completely different story. As part of this investigation, we have interviewed many Small Businesses, and they use the words like bullying, fear, and panic to describe their relationship with amazon. Im going to share the story of a Small Business owner who is also a wife and a mother. So you can understand how this is actually affecting the lives of evidence people and why this truly matters. We are a book seller on amazon. Com. We worked hard day and night towards growing our business and maintaining a fivestar feedback rating. The business feeds a total of 14 people, whiand as we grew, in retaliati retaliation, amazon started restricting us from selling. They started with a few titles in 2019, and within a few months, amazon blocked us from selling the full textbook. We havent sold a single book in the past ten months. Amazon didnt even provide with us a notice as to why we were being restricted. There was no warning, there was no plan. So mr. Bezos, after amazon delisted this Small Business without any pparent reason or notice, she said they sent more than 500 separate communications to amazon, including to you, mr. Bezos, over the past year, and there was not a single meaningful response. Do you think this is an acceptable way to treat someone that you describe as both a partner and a customer . No, congresswoman. And i appreciate you showing me that anecdote. I would like to talk to her. It does not at all to me seem like the right way to treat her. And im surprised by that. And its not the systematic approach we take, i can assure you. I dont understand whats going on in that anecdote, because we would love for Third Party Sellers to sell books respectively, sir i dont understand it, but i would like to understand it better. With your permission i would like to get in touch with her. I think youre missing the point. This is not just about one business. Im 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 have talked to, they have problems just like this. And there are more sellers who told us that they have exhausted all of their options before finally reaching out to you directly as a last resort, but theyre still waiting for your response. What do you have to say to Small Businesses that are talking to congress because you wont listen to them . I would say thats not acceptable. Iffer not listening to you, im. I dont think thats systematically whats going on. The evidence to consider in that regard is that Third Party Sellers in aggregate are doing extremely well on amazon. They grew from 20 years ago it was zero, and today its 60 of sales. Third Party Sellers are growing even faster. Thank you so much. Mr. Bezos, you said that sellers have many other attractive options to reach customers. But thats not at all what we found in our investigation. According to emarketer, a source amazon sited in submissions to this committee, amazon has seven times the market share of its closest ecommerce competitor. One seller told us that amazon continues to be the only show in town. No matter how angry sellers get, they have nowhere else to go. So are you saying that these people respect being truthful when they say that amazon is the only game in town . Yeah. Congresswoman, with Great Respect, i do disagree with that. I believe there are a lot of options. And some of them are not even listed on that chart i just looked at. But i did see some that i know of. I think there are all right, thank you for that. Mr. Bezos, my time is short. If amazon didnt have monopoly power over these sellers, do you think they would choose to stay in a relationship characterized by bullying, fear, and panic . With all respect, congresswoman, i do not accept the premise of your question. That is not how we operate the business. In fact, we work very good to provide thank you for that. Mr. Bezos, im going to close with giving the book seller the opportunity to finally be heard by you. Mr. Bezos, we increased our sales on amazon by five times in the past three years. And we have contributed that much of seller fees to amazon. We have contributed that much to your business, to five times. We followed all the rules that were set by you. Please just help us, we beg you, there are 14 lives at stake. Please, please, please help us get back on track. With that, i yield back the balance of my time. Cluded our first round. Mr. Bezos, the marketplace is competitive. But amazon controls as much as 75 of all online marketplace sales. And e marketers, a source you cited to us, reports that amazon has seven times the market share of its closest competitor. Isnt it true that Small Businesses have no real option but to rely on amazon to connect with customers and make online sales . No, sir. With Great Respect, i do have a different opinion on that. I believe there are a lot of options for small sellers. I believe amazon is a great one and we have worked very hard. I think we are the best one. We have a lot of different programs that help sellers. Thank you. There are 2. 2 million sellers as of yesterday, 37 of them rely on amazon as their sole source of income. That is over 800,000 people relying on amazon to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. You have referred to Third Party Sellers as partners and customers. But amazon also refers to them as internal competitors . I think it wouldnt surprise me in some ways we are competing, and theyre competing with each other. Your own documents that you produced refer to the very same sellers that you described as amazon partners as internal competitors. We heard from Third Party Sellers again and again during the course of the investigation that amazon is the only game in town. One Small Business owner described it this way. And i quote, were stuck. We dont have a choice but to sell through amazon. Another said, and i quote, theyve never been a great partner, but you have to work with them. During this investigation, we heard so many heartbreaking stories of Small Businesses who sunk significant time and resources into building a business and selling on amazon, only to have amazon poach their best selling items and drive them out of business. So one company that stood out from the rest. I want you to pay close attention to how they describe your partnership. We heard from a small Apparel Company that makes and sells what they call useful apparel for people that work on their feet and with their hands like construction workers and firefighters. This business discovered about started selling a unique item. They were making about 60,000 a year on just this one item. One day they woke up and found that amazon had started listing the exact same product, causing their sales to go to zero overnight. Amazon undercut their price, setting it below what the manufacturer would allow it to be sold, so even if they wanted to, they couldnt match the price. Heres how the Apparel Company described working with amazon, and i quote, amazon strings you along for a while because it feels so good to get that paycheck every week. And in the past, for lack of a better term, we called it amazon heroin, because you just kept going and you had to get your next check. But at the end of the day, you find out this person, who is seemingly benefit you, was just ultimately going to be your downfall. So this is one of your partners, mr. Bezos. Why on earth would they compare your company to a drug dealer . Sir, i have Great Respect for you and this committee, but i completely disagree with that characterization. What we have done is kree y5i9 in the store a place create in the store a place we sold only our own inventory. We did that because we were convinced it would be better for the consumer and the customer. Mr. Bezos i think we were right, and i think its worked out well. Reclaiming my time. This is one of many Small Companies that have told us during this yearlong investigation that they were mistreated and tolsed aside by amazon. You said that amazon is only focused on whats best for the customer. How is that possible when you compete directly with Third Party Sellers with your own products that undercut the competition . Thank you. No, i dont believe it is. We have we have the consumers is the one ultimately making the decisions. Theyre making the decisions about what to buy, what price to buy it at, who to buy it from. Thats not the question, mr. Bezos, the question, is is there a conflict of interest, because you are a data company, you know when Customers Put something in their cart, when they take it out, traditional brick and Mortar Stores dont have that. So i want to follow up and answer to the question you gave, you said you cant guarantee the pollty of not sharing Third Party Sellers data hasnt been violated. Can you please explain that to me. Can you list examples where that policy has been violated . Because its concerning to me, mr. Bezos, shouldnt third parties know for sure the data suspect being shared with your own line . Why should a Third Party Seller list their product on amazon if theyre just going to be undercut by amazons only product as a result of data you take from them . Sir, i think what i want you to understand, and i think its important to understand, is that we have a policy against using individual seller data to compete with our private labeled products. You couldnt assure that that policy isnt violated routinely. We are investigating that. And i do not want to sit here and i do not want to go beyond what i know right now. But we are, as a result of that wall street journal article, we are looking at that very carefully and thank you, mr. Bezos. The evidence we have collected shows that amazon is only interested in exploiting its monopoly power to further expand and protect this power. This investigation makes clear that amazons dual role as a competing seller on that platform is fundamentally anticompetitive and Congress Must take action. With that, i recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, i think history proves that history does a poor job in picking winners and losers. Ive looked over a lot of the material that has been assembled. Ive been working with the chairman for over a year on this bipartisan investigation. And i have reached the conclusion that we do not need to change our antitrust laws. They have been working just fine. The question here is, the question of enforcement of those antitrust laws. Now, we heard a lot about the facebook acquisition of instagram. That happened in 2012. Obamas ftc signed off on that. So regardless of what you think has happened at that time, the fact is, this acquisition did pass the smell test of the regulators involved. Maybe they made a mistake or maybe Something Else happened, i dont know. But the fact is, there is not a problem with the law. Now, back about 35 years ago, at t was broken up because it was determined that onestop shops were monopolies. And at t, because you have to get your Long Distance service from your local phone company, that was monopolyistic. So a whole lot has happened since then. There were mergers and acquisitions in the telecom industry. Technology advanced a huge amount and guess what . Were back to exactly where we were in 1984. So this goes to show the congressional pressure is not the best. Using the at t example, which i think was a big flop and counterproduct counterproductive, let me ask mr. Bezos, say the at t example was acquired to amazon, so you might not have no more of a one stop shop, but you have to go to separate places for books or groceries or electronics, how are the consumers helped by that . Sir, thank you. They would not be. Right. Very clear. Now, mr. Pachi, let me ask about google. If you were forced to split up your businessline, say spin off youtube, can you describe what happens to consumers there . Congressman, today consumers in most of the areas we are dealing with, they see prices falling and they get more choice than ever before. So i think it serves them well. And youre right there. So im not going to be on this committee in the next congress. I am going to put my feet up and become a senior statesman. But, you know, let me say that we have heard a whole lot of complaints about big tech. Some of them are political in nature, and i share the complaints and the concern of mr. Jordan and others. And others talk about allegedly anticompetitive activity. It seems to me that its not for congress that legislates to toss all of our antitrust laws and the precedent that has been established through litigation over the last hundred plus years. But its something where we ought to go back to the regulators, to the enforcers, have them look at this stuff and have them make a determination on whether or not the laws have been violated. I think the law is good. On that. And we dont need to throw it all in the waste basket. But there are some matters of concern that we have heard from both sides of the aisle, that i think need to be addressed. And if it requires an agency like the ftc to say that they have made mistakes in the past, so be it. Were all human. We all make mistakes. Even Government Agencies do that. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. I recognize the gentle lady from washington. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Zuckerberg, in march of 2012, you suggested by email to your Management Team that moving faster and copying other apps could prevent our competitors from getting footholds. Cheryl sandberg responded that, it is better to do more and move faster, especially if that means you dont have competitors build products that take some of our users. Facebooks product manager added, i would love to be far more aggressive and nimble in copying competitors. Has facebook ever taken steps to prevent competitors from getting footholds by copying competitors . Congresswoman, i view it as our job to understand what people are finding valuable in all of the services that they use. And certainly if someone do you copy your competitors . Congresswoman, we have certainly adapted features that others have as others have copied and adapted im not concerned about others. Since march of 2012, after that email conversation, how many competitors did facebook end up copying . Congresswoman, i cant give you a number of companies. Less than five . Congresswoman, i dont know. Less than 50 . Any estimates . Your team was making a plan. How did it play out . Congresswoman, im not sure i agree with the premise here. Our job is to make sure we build the best services for people to connect with all the people they care about. And a lot of that is done by innovating and by building new thank you, thank you, mr. Zuckerberg. Let me go on. Has facebook ever threatened to clone the products of another company while attempting to acquire that company . Congresswoman, not that i would not that i recall. And i would like to remind you that you are under oath and there are quotes from facebooks own documents. Prior to acquiring instagram, facebook began developing a similar product called facebook camera, correct . Congresswoman, thats correct. Ive said multiple times that we were competing in the space of building mobile cameras with instagram. Thats what they need at the time. Theyre set was Companies Like what we were building with facebook camera and vsco cam thank you, mr. Zuckerberg. Did you ever use this very similar facebook camera product to threaten instagrams founder . Congresswoman, im not sure what you mean by threaten. We were building a camera app at the time. That was a welldocumented thing. Let me tell you that in a chat you said that facebook was, quote, developing our own photo strategy so how we engage now will also determine how much were partners versus competitors down the line. Instagrams 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 didnt sell instagram to you. So lets just recap. Facebook cloned a popular product, approached the company you identified as a competitive threat expert told them that if they didnt let you buy them up, there would be consequences. Were there any other companies that you used this same tactic with while attempting to buy them . I want to respectfully disagree with the characterization. I think it was clear that this was a space that we were going to compete in one way or another. I dont view those conversations as a threat in any way. I just im just using the documents and the testimony that the committee has collected from others. Did you warn the founder of snapchat that facebook was in the process of cloning the features of his company while also attempting to buy snapchat . Congresswoman, i dont remember the specific conversations. That was also an area where it was very clear that we were going to be building something. People want to be able to communicate privately and with all of their friends at once. Were going to make sure that we build the best products in all of the spaces that we can around helping people stay connected with the people they care about. I appreciate that. When the platform threatens its rivals, that should not be a normal business practice. Facebook is a case study in monopoly power because your company harvests and monetizes our data and then your company uses that data to spy on competitors and to copy, acquire, and kill rivals. Youve used facebooks power to threaten smaller competitors and to ensure you always get your way. These tactics reinforce facebooks dominance which you use in increasing destructive ways. Facebooks very model makes it impossible for new companies to flourish separately and that harms our democracy, it harms mom and pop businesses and consumers. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. The gentlewoman yields back. Mr. Buck is recognized for five minutes. Thank you. Mr. Bezos, thank you for being here today. Im concerned that youve used amazons market position to unfairly harm competition. Weve heard from a number of companies that amazon uses proprietary data. Meets with startups to discuss investing in the product and uses the data to create its own private label products. Allows the sale of counterfeit items through its web platform. During this field hearing in january, pop sockets ceo detailed how amazon allowed counterfeit products to appear on amazons marketplace ahead of pop sockets products. He said that pop sockets found 1,000 counterfeit products for sale on amazons marketplace which amazon allegedly failed to remedy until pop sockets agreed to a nearly 2 million marketing deal with amazon. Weve also seen troubling reports in the wall street journal detailing amazons use of thirdParty Sellers proprietary data to develop and markets its own competitive private label products. The wall street journal reported last week that amazons Venture Capital fund used meetings with Startup Companies to gain access to secret product information and financial details. Amazon then reportedly used that information to launch competing products often disastrous results for the original startup company. There are many examples of this behavior. One allegation in the reporting sticks out in particular. In 2011, amazon contacted vocal lifes inventor about the possibility of investing in the technology. The founder accepted the meeting thinking this was the companys big break. After displaying the Microphone Technology and providing information to amazon employees the relationship came to a halt. Employees stopped responding to emails before the technology eventually found its way into the amazons echo device. These allegations are serious. Especially because the size and scope of these practices couldnt happen without amazons monopolistic control of the marketplace. Im concerned that given amazons allowance of counterfeit goods on its marketplace, that amazons marketplace may be knowingly or unknowingly furthering chinas use of slave labor conditions. This is important following recent reports that at least 80 Global Companies that sell on the amazon marketplace, including nike, starbucks and samsung, have ties to chinese factories that use enslaved uyghur muslims. A bill was introduced last week requiring american businesses to certify that their supply chain does not rely on forced labor. I will introduce a bill later this afternoon. I do not expect you to have knowledge of the legislation, i do want to ask all four of our witnesses a simple yes or no question. Will you certify here today that your company does not use and will never use slave labor to manufacture your products or allow products to be sold on your platform that are manufactured using slave labor. Mr. Cook, you were kind enough to visit with me on the phone. We briefly discussed this issue. If you can, give a yes or no. I understand you havent read the details of the bill. But would you agree to this idea . I would love to engage on the legislation. But let me be clear, forced labor is abhorrent and we would not tolerate in apple. I would love to get with your office and engage on the legislation. Thank you. Congressman, i share your concern in this area. I find it abhorrent as well. Happy to engage with the office and discuss this further. I really dont want to engage with my office half the time. Will you agree that slave labor is not something that you will tolerate in manufacturing your products or in products that are sold on your platforms. I agree, congressman. Mr. Cook . We wouldnt tolerate it. We would terminate a relationship if it were found. Mr. Zuckerberg . I agree. We wouldnt tolerate this. If e with found anything like this, we would also terminate any relationship. Mr. Bezos . Yes, i agree completely. Thank you very much, gentlemen, and i yield back. I recognize the gentleman from maryland. Thank you. I want to thank mr. Buck for that line of questioning and for the upcoming legislation. I look forward to joining that. In the 19th industry, we had the robin bearings and now we have the cyber bearings. We want to make sure that the extraordinary power and wealth that youve been able to amass is not United States against human rights around the world and not against the interest of a free market at home. Mr. Bezos, let me turn to you. Im interested in the role that you play as a gatekeeper. A lot of people want to know when the hbo max app will be available on your devices and i understand that negotiations are ongoing. But your company is not only asking for financial terms, but also for content from warner media. Is that right and is that a fair way to proceed . In other words, is it fair to use your gatekeeper status role to promote your position as a competitor in the video streaming market with respect to content . Im not familiar with the details of those negotiations. As you said, theyre under way right now. I predict that the companies will eventually come to an agreement and i think this is kind of two Large Companies negotiating agreements, kind of normal case of heres why i pursue. Its a Large Company and in a way, they stand in for hundreds of thousands of much Smaller Companies who are even in a more disadvantaged position with respect to negotiating with you. I guess the general proposition you can speak to, if you dont 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, im not familiar with the details im not asking about that one. In general. In general, i think when two companies are negotiating, youre negotiating not just the amount of money thats going to change hands, but also what youre going to get in exchange for the amount of money. Thats a fundamental way that business works. Do you see at least do you see at least to outsiders that would look like a structural conflict of interest. Youre using your control over access to peoples living rooms, essentially, youre using that in order to obtain leverage in terms of getting Creative Content that you want and are you essentially converting power in one domain into power in another doumain where it doesn belong. I should offer to get you information ill get it to your office for you because im not familiar enough with this and i could imagine that there would be scenarios if were talking in abstract where it would be inappropriate and i could imagine scenarios where it would be very normal business and very appropriate. Fair enough. I want to talk about smart homes and i want to start with smart speakers. Does amazon price the echo device below cost . Not its list price. Its often on promotion. Sometimes when its on promotion, it may be below cost, yes. Several other Companies Said that amazon is pricing echo devices way below cost making it nearly impossible for them to compete and aggressively discounting alexa enabled speakers is a strategy to own the smart home. Like many markets, smart speakers along with the myriad of smart Home Appliances make up the next platform for Tech Companies to lock in customers. Would you say the Smart Home Market for which the echo, ring Security Systems is a winners take all market . Yes or no . No, i wouldnt. Especially if we if were able to succeed at what we want, we would like our our vision for this is that smart home speakers should answer to different when considering the acquisition on a casebycase basis. If we could achieve that, then i think you would get really Good Behavior on the part of competitive voice agents helping you. You wrote, were buying market position, not technology and that market position is very valuable. So if smart homes are not a market with lockin effects, why would a leading market position and momentum be so very valuable . Sir, market position is valuable at almost any business and its one of the primary things that one would look at in an acquisition. There are multiple reasons that we might sometimes were trying to buy technology or ip, sometimes its talent acquisition. But the most common case is market position. The company has traction with customers. Maybe they were the first mover, any number of reasons why they have that market position. Thats a common reason to acquire a company. Once a Company Becomes dominant in a market, it can favor its own products and services. When i ask alexa to play may favorite song, prime music is the default music player . I think thats true if youre a prime member, yes. And a New York Times report found that when users say, alexa, buy batteries, she responds would you like to buy amazon batteries . Has alexa been trained to favor amazon products . I dont know if its been trained in that way. Im sure there are cases where we do promote our own products. Of course, a common practice in business. It wouldnt surprise me if alexa sometimes does promote our own products. Thank you, and i yield back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from florida for five minutes. During our prior durgs earlier today you said that google doesnt work with the Chinese Military. That answer was deceptive because google works with many of the entities that work with the Chinese Military in common collaboration and just as one example would be a university where jeff dean, who is the head of google ai served on the Computer ScienceAdvisory Committee for the university and then the University Takes a nearly 15 million from chinas Central Military commission. If you dont show up at the offices of the Chinese Military, if youre all showing up at the same place, working together on ai, that would lead to my concern. I want to talk about search because thats an area where i know google has real market dominance. On december 11th you received in response to a question from my colleague about search, you said, we dont manually intervene on any particular search result. Leaked memos obtained show that that isnt true. In fact, those memos were altered december 3rd just a week before your testimony and they describe a deceptive news blacklist, and a process for developing that blacklist approved by someone who leads search within your company and something called a fringe ranking which seems to beg the question, who gets to decide whats fringe. And in your answer, you know, you said that there is no manual intervention of search. That was your testimony. Now im going to cite specifically from this memo, from the daily caller obtained from your company, the beginning of the work flow starts when a website is placed on a watch list. It continues this watch list is maintained and stored with access restricted to policy and enforcement specialists. It begs the question who these enforcement specialists are. Access to the listing can also be shared on a need to know basis to enforce or enrich the policy violations. The investigation of the watch list is done in the tool, the reasonable review tool. You said that there was no manual review tool and then your documents indicate that there is a manual review tool. Help us understand the inconsistency . Congressman, there are two parts to this. In general, you know, we algorithmic approach our search results. We have robust policies to do so and we test the feedback and validate experiments and launched around 3,000 improvements to search. And we dont manually tune. W is there someone behind the curtain tuning a search result . We dont. In order to comply with the law in every country we operate in, for example, there may be an actor or a website identified as interfering in elections, and we then have to put that site on a list so that doesnt appear in our search results against queries. Violent extremism is that done manually, that process you described . Is that done manually. We could get reports from Law Enforcement agencies, you know, were complying with or its a known theres a manual component or theres not a manual component. Which is it . For creating those lists, that process can involve manual portions. Thats the concern that i have. Youve now said Something Different today than you said earlier because youve confessed that there is a manual component to the way in which you blacklist content. And it seems to be no coincidence that its cites like the western journal, american spectator, daily caller, and breitbart that received the ire or the negative treatment as a consequence of your manual tooling and it also seems noteworthy that whistleblowers at your own company have spoken out. You said that one of the reasons you maintain this manual tool is to stop election interference. I believe it is in fact your company that is engaging in election interference and its 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 left your company in 2019 because he was speaking out against these outrage mobs. Can you see how when you empower individuals, some of the same individuals that project veratas has exposed, that can be the very election interference that were concerned about and youre using your market dominance in search to accomplish that election interference . Congressman, with respect, i strongly disagree with that characterization. We dont approach this work with any political viewpoint. We do that to comply with law, copy right violations, and we have to do that to comply with the law. In many cases, those requests can come from Law Enforcement agencies. Youre own employees are saying its a political bias. I yield back. Mr. Chairman, just given the productivity of our discussion, i would request that we be permitted a third round of questioning. Without objection. I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, mr. Nadler. Yeah. You know, the documents prove the journalism industry in this country are in economic free fall. Over 200 counties in america no longer have a local newspaper and tens of thousands of journalists have been laid off in recent years. The reason journalism is in free fall is that google and facebook now capture the vast majority of digital ad revenue. News publishers produce valuable content, its google and facebook that increasingly profit off that content. Establishers have told us that google and facebook maintain their dominance in these markets through anticompetitive conduct as well as conflict of interests. Mr. Zuckerberg, in 2015, facebook reported high and quickly growing rates of video viewership on its platform. Based on these metrics, news publishers fired hundreds of journalists, choosing to boost their video divisions. In 2018, it was discovered that facebook has inflated these metrics and had known about the inaccuracy several years before facebook disclosed this. Mr. Zuckerberg, did you know that these metrics were inflated before they were publicly released . Congressman, no, i did not. And we regret that mistake and we have put in place a number of other measures since then to make sure that we and do you realize the harm that this caused journalists across the country . Congressman, i certainly know how important it is that the metrics that we report are accurate and weve put in place additional measures to make sure we can audit those. What do you have to say to the journalists who lost their jobs because of facebooks deception . Congressman, i disagree with that characterization. And also your description of reclaiming my time. Google, meanwhile, maintains its dominance through aggregating data from across its products and services. I understand that google collects user data on browsing activity through its chrome browser. Does google use that for its own purposes either in advertising or develop and refine its algorithms . Mr. Chairman, we do use data to improve our products and services for our users. Any time we do it, we believe in giving users choice, control and transparency. We give them settings to choose how they would like their data used. You do use the data that you get from these companies for your purposes . My understand was whether we use data in general to improve our products and services. We use data to show ads. But we give users a choice. They can turns ads personalization on or off. This obviously use of that data from all of these from all of these companies gives you a tremendous advantage over them and over any competitor. Does the ability to make money in any way affect googles algorithm in terms of what news appears in search results . The way we rank our search results, we dont take into account commercial relationship that we have. Okay. But facebook and google have gravely threatened journalism in the United States. Reporters have been fired, local newspapers have been shut down, and now we hear that google and facebook are making money over what news the they let the American People see. This is a very dangerous situation and unfortunately my time is expired and i have to yield back. I now recognize the gentleman from florida for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im going to pick up where i left off. There are rioting groups that are going unchecked with the posting of what i would contend is very violent video. Yesterday i was sent a Youtube Video about doctors discussing hydroxychloroquine and discussing the not dangers of children returning to school. When i clicked on the link, it was taken down. I was sent a different link on youtube and it was taken down. I just checked again to make sure, it says this video has been removed for violating guidelines. How can doctors giving their opinion on a drug that they think is effective for the treatment of covid19 and doctors who think its appropriate for children to return back to school violate Youtubes Community Guidelines . When all of these videos of violence is all posted on youtube . Congressman, we believe in freedom of expression and theres a lot of debate on youtube about effective ways to deal with covid. We allow robust debate. But during a pandemic, we look to local health authorities. For example, in the u. S. , it would be cdc, for guidelines around medical misinformation which could cause harm in the real world. For example, if theres a aspects of a video and if it states something could be a proven cure, that doesnt meet cdc guidelines, we would its Free Expression of speech and you have these doctors who are giving their opinion as doctors and i dont understand why youtube and therefore google thinks its appropriate to silence physicians and their opinion of what can help and cure people with covid19. Im going to switch to mr. Zuckerberg. I think its obviously that Technology Platforms have been stifling conservative news and opinions. You employ a panel of content moderators. Can you explain how facebook chooses who these moderators are . Thanks, congressman. We do hire a lot of people around the world to work on safety and security. Our team is more than 30 or 35,000 people working on that now. We certainly try to do this in a way that is neutral to all viewpoints. We want to be a platform for all ideas. I dont think you build a social product with the goal of giving people a voice if you dont believe that people being able to express a wide variety of things is ultimately valuable for the world and we try to make sure that your policies and operations ultimately reflect and carry that out. Is there an ideological diversity amongst the content moderators . Congressman, i dont think we choose to hire them on the basis of an ideology. Theyre hired all over the world. Theres certainly a bunch in the u. S. Theres diversity in where theyre hired. But certainly we dont want to have any biased in what we do and we wouldnt tolerate it if we discovered that. You dont specifically hire conservative moderators and democrat or liberal moderators so theres a balance in your content moderators . Congressman, in terms of the 30 to 35,000 people or more at this point who are doing safety and security review, that is correct. In terms of the people setting the policies, i think it is valuable to have people with a diversity of viewpoints involved so we can make sure we have the different viewpoints represented in the policy Development Process and we also consult with a number of outside groups whenever we develop new policies to make sure that were taking into account all perspectives. What are some of those outside groups that would be conservativeleaning . Congressman, i need to get back to you with a list of specific groups. But it would depend on what the topic is. Can you just think of one . You said you reach out to outside groups. Can you think of one kref outsi conservative group that you reach out to . Congressman, im talking about the different external stakeholders and groups that are inputs to our policy Development Process and im not involved in those conversations directly. So i would have to get back to you with specifics on that. But im quite confident that we speak with people across the ideological spectrum when were developing our policies. I would very much appreciate a followup on that. Can you briefly explain the approval process for thirdparty factcheckers and how many factcheckers does facebook employ . Yes. Thanks. We work with about 70 factchecking 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 dont ourselves want to be in the business of determining what is true and what is false, that feels like an inappropriate role for us to play. We rely on an Organization Called the Pointer Institute and i think its called the independent factchecking organization that has a set of guidelines of what makes an independent factchecker and they certify those factcheckers and any organization that gets certification from that group is qualified to be a factchecking partner within facebook. Thank you. The gentlemans time is expired. Im going to recognize mr. Johnson for five minutes and take a short break of the committee. Mr. Johnson, youre recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Bezos, amazon has a significant problem with counterfeit products being sold on its platform. Counterfeit products not only rip off the owners of legitimate businesses, they also can be dangerous. Counterfeit medicine, baby food, automobile tires and other products can kill. Amazon has said its fixing its counterfeit problem, but counterfeiting seems to be getting worse, not better. Amazon is a trillion Dollar Company but amazon customers are not guaranteed that the products purchased on your platform are authentic. Amazon acts like its not responsible for counterfeits being sold by thirdParty Sellers on its platform and we heard that amazon puts the burden and cost on brand owners to police amazons site, even though amazon makes money when a counterfeit good is sold on its site. More than half of amazons sales come from thirdparty seller accounts. Why isnt amazon more aggressive in ensuring that counterfeit goods are not sold on its platform and why isnt amazon responsible for keeping all counterfeit products off of its platform . Thank you. This is an incredibly important issue and one that we work very hard on. Counterfeit are a scourge. They are a problem that is not does not help us earn trust with customers. Its bad for customers. Its bad for honest thirdParty Sellers. We do a lot to prevent counterfeiting. We have a team of more than 1,000 people that does this. We invest hundreds of millions of dollars. We have project zero which helps brands serialize individual products which really helps with counterfeiting. We have im glad that you have those im glad that you have those features in place. But why isnt amazon responsible for keeping all counterfeit products off of its platform . We certainly work to do so, congressman, and we do not not just for our own retail products, but for thirdparty products as well okay. Thank you. Weve heard from numerous thirdParty Sellers and brand owners that amazon has used knockoffs as leverage to pressure sellers to do what amazon wants. For example, the founder of pop socket testified in january that amazon itself was selling knockoffs of its product. After reporting the problem, it was only after his company committed to spending 2 million on advertisements that amazon appears to have stopped diverting sales to these knockoffs. What is your explanation for that business practice . Thats unacceptable. If that is if those are the facts and if someone somewhere inside amazon said, you know, by x dollars in ads and well help you with your counterfeit problem. That is unacceptable. Ill look into that. We have a counterfeit crimes unit. We attempt to prosecute counterfeiters. I would encourage this body to pass stricter penalties for counterfeiters. If it does, it would only be in the short term. I would much rather lose a sale than a customer. Fair enough, sir. Making Companies Pay extra to avoid having their products disappear in rankings seems to be so unfair, especially the Small Businesses, the American Dream is threatened when that happens, dont you think so . Sir, im not exactly sure what youre referring to. If youre talking about what we were just talking about a second ago, i agree completely totally different situation now, where a company that is selling on your platform but is not paying anything extra gets buried in the rankings and but companies that pay extra are able to get their products pushed up and they avoid getting pushed down. Is that an acceptable practice . Sir, i think what youre referring to is the fact that we offer a an Advertising Service basically for thirdParty Sellers to drive additional promotion to their products. Some sellers use it. Some dont. Its been very effective at helping people promote their products. With that, i yield back. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The committee will stand in brief recess. We put money out there to help get these map correct. Wofe the legislation which i was part of from the getgo and its important that we get it done. But again if the map arent right when were going out there to get the dollars into the areas where you need to have them it wont happen. And so in some cases you might be putting money into areas that already have service in underserved areas and not getting the dollars into the unserved areas. Tonight at 8 00 eastern on he communicators, on cspan 2. Negotiations continue today on another round of covid relief between Party Leaders on the hill and white house officials. Over the weekend House Speaker nancy pelosi and treasury secretary Stephen Mnuchin both said the latest talks were productive but that more work is needed before a deal is reached. Meanwhile the house has begun its summer district work period but members may be asked to return if a bill heads to the floor for a vote. The senate is back in session today to work on a nominee for Deputy Energy secretary with a procedural vote set for later in the afternoon. Their schedule for the rest of the week depends on the status of the covid relief package. As for now theyre scheduled to start their summer stated work period at the end of this week. You can watch live coverage of the senate starting at 3 00. M. Eastern on cspan 2. This is nasa tv video of the space x crew dragon. The two are approaching splashdown gulf of mexico in peninsula, florida. Ends their mission