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,