Transcripts For FBC Making Money With Charles Payne 20240712

Dramatically access to users on internet virtually any gist that wants to be found on the web must pay google a tax. With that i recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, mr. Sensenbrenner. For first round of questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ive been in congress 42 years. That is coming to an end at the end of this year. Im breathing a sigh of relief. During that period of time, during decade of 90s and 00s, i was involved as chairman of the Science Committee and chairman of this committee and trying to make the net universal, open it up to everybody and one of the, one of the theses that we used that the net should end up becoming basically the debate on issues, not only in our country but throughout the world and in exchange for that this committee and the Congress Gave Internet Service providers immunity so if somebody said something defamatory in what they posted. Isps could not be a part of a lawsuit for defamation. After hearing mr. Jordan, you know, a long line of censorship of conservative viewpoints, im concerned that the people who manage the net and the four of you manage a big part of the threat are ending up using this as a political screen. Conservatives are consumers too, and the way the net was put together in the eyes of congress is that everybody should be able to speak their mind. Mr. Zuckerberg, mr. Jordans litany of censorship zeros in on facebook. Exactly what are your standards in filtering out political speech that maybe some people out there dont agree with . Congressman, thank you for the opportunity to address this. Our goal is to offer a platform for all ideas. We want to give everyone in the world a voice to share their experiences and ideas. A lot of that is daytoday things that happen in their lives. Some of that is political. And frankly i think that weve distinguished ourselves as one of the companies that defends Free Expression the most. We do have Community Standards around things that you can and cannot say. I think you would likely agree with most of them. They ban categories of harm such as promoting terrorist propaganda, child exploitation, incitement of violence, some more legalistic things like intellectual property violations and they also ban things like hate speech that could lead to dehumanizing people and promoting violence down the road. If i may ask a specific of you, it was reported that donald trump, jr. Got taken down for a period of time because he put something up, efficacy of hydroxychloroquine. I wouldnt take it myself but there is still a debate whether it is effective in treating or preventing covid19 and i think this is a legitimator of discussion and it would be up to a patient and their doctor to determine whether hydroxychloroquine was the correct medication, you know, given the circumstances. Why did that happen . Congressman, well, first to be clear i think what you might be referring to happened on twitter. So it is hard for me to speak to that but i can talk to our policies about this. We do prohibit content that will lead to imminent risk of harm and stating that there is a proven cure for covid when there is in fact none might encourage someone to take something that could have some adverse effects so we do take that down. We do not prohibit discussion around trials of drugs or people saying that they think that things might work or personal experiences with experimental drugs but if someone is going to say that something is proven when in fact it is not that could lead people to wouldnt that be up for somebody on the other side of the issue to say that is not proven . You know i know as a fact that you know, for people with certain conditions it is contraindicated and they shouldnt take it but wouldnt that be up to somebody else to say, okay, what somebody posted on this really isnt true . Here is what the facts are, rather than, having a twitter or a facebook take it down . Congressman in general i agree with you and we do not want to become the arbiters of truth. That that would be a bad position for us to be in and not, not what we should be doing but on specific claims, if someone is going to go out and say that the hydroxychloroquine is proven to cure covid when in fact it has not been proven to cure covid, and that that statement could lead people to take a drug that in some cases, some of the data suggests that it might be harmful to people, we think that we should take at that down. That could cause imminent risk of harm. Thank you, i yield back. Thank you the gentleman. Now recognize the distinguished chair of the full judiciary committee, mr. Nadler from new york for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Zuckerberg, i want to thank you for providing us information during our investigation. However the documents you provided tell a very disturbing story and that story is that facebook saw instagram as a powerful threat that could siphon business away from facebook. So rather than compete with it facebook bought it. This is exactly the type of anticompetitive acquisition that the antitrust laws were designed to prevent. Now let me explain what i mean. Mr. Zuckerberg, you have written that facebook can likely always just buy any competitive startups. In fact on the day facebook bought instagram which you described as a threat, you wrote, quote, one thing about startups, you can often acquire them, close quote. You were referring to Companies Like instagram in that quote, werent you . Congressman i dont have the exact document in front of me but i have always been clear that we viewed instagram both as a competitor and as a compliment to our services. In the growing space around, after smartphones started getting big, they competed with us in the space of mobile cameras and mobile photo sharing but at the time almost no one thought of them as a why social network and people didnt think of them competing with us in that space and, you know i think the acquisition has been wildly successful. We were able to by acquiring them continue investing in it, growing it, as a standalone brand that reaches many more people that i think either kevin, the cofounder, or i thought would be possible at the time. Also incorporating some of the technology into making facebooks photo sharing products better. So, yes. Okay. Now in early 2012 when facebook contemplated acquiring instagram, a competitive startup, you told your cfo that instagram would be very disruptive to us. In the weeks leading up to the deal you described instagram as a threat, saying quote, instagram can meaningfully hurt us without become a business. What did you mean that you described instagram as a threat, disruptive and you said instagram could meaningfully hurt facebook . Did you mean that consumers might switch from facebook to instagram . Congressman, thanks for the opportunity to address this. At the time there was a small by growing field of did you mean that consumers might switch from facebook to instagram . That was my question. Thanks, congressman yes or no, did you mean that . In the space of mobile photos and camera apps which was growing, they were competitor. Ive been clear about that. Okay, fine. In february of that year, february 2012 you told facebooks chief Financial Officer be that you were interested in buying instagram. He asked you whether the purpose of the deal was to neutralize a propoke spif competitor or integrate their products with ours to improve our services you answered it was combination of both. Saying what were really buying is time. Ion if some new competitor springs up those products wont get much traction since we already have the mechanics deployed at scale. Mr. Mark zuckerberg, what did you mean when you answered that the purpose of the deal was to neutralize a potential competitor . Congressman, what, those are not my words, but yes, ive been clear that instagram was a competitor in the space of mobile photo sharing. There were a lot of others at the time. They competed with apps, iscoam and pic please, Companies Like pass. It was, it was a subset of the overall space of connecting that we exist in and by having them join us, they certainly went from being a competitor in the space of being a mobile camera to an app that we could help grow and help get more people to be able to use and be on our team. I think that haas been wildly successful. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Mark zuckerberg, mergers and acquisitions that buy off potential competitive threats violate the antitrust laws. In your own words you purchased instagram to neutralize a competitive threat. If this was an illegal merger at the time of the transaction why shouldnt instagram now be broken off into a separate company . Well, congressman i think the ftc had all of these documents and reviewed this and unanimously voted at the time not to challenge the acquisition. Probably in hindsight looks obvious instagram would have reached the scale it has today but the at time it was far from obvious. A lot of competitors they competed with in mobile sharing im including Companies Like pass, with i were hot at the time and had great founders and entrepreneurs running them, dave moore and i worked closely with him, i dont even think path exists today. It was not a guarranty instagram was going to succeed. The acquisition has done wildly well, largely because not just of the founders talent but we invested heavily in building up the infrastructure and promoting it and working on security and working on a lot of things around this and i think that this is american success story. Well, thank you. Mr. Zuckerberg, youre making my point. In closing, mr. Chairman, i want to end where i began. Facebook by mr. Mark zuckerbergs own admission and by the documents we have from the time, facebook saw instagram as a threat that could potentially siphon business away from facebook. So rather than compete with it, facebook bought it this is exactly the type of anticompetitive acquisition that the antitrust laws were designed to prevent. This should never have happened in the first place. It should never been permitted to happen and it cannot happen again. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would remind the witness that the failures of the ftc in 2012 of course do not alleviate the antitrust challenges that the chairman described. With that, i will recognize the gentleman from colorado, and again thank him for cohosting one of the most field hearings we had along with mr. Nagos in colorado, critical in this investigation. Youre recognized for five minutes, mr. Buck. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to offer my appreciation for you for the bipartisan way you approached the subcommittees investigation. I want to start by saying that capitalism is the greatest instrument for freedom this world has ever seen. Capitalism has given the United States the freedom and means to defeat the soviet union, beat back facism and put a man on the moon. This Economic System lifted millions out of poverty. It has made america the freest, most produce produce nation in the world. Our witnesses have taken ideas borne out of a dorm room a garage, a warehouse and built these dreams into four of the biggest power players in the digital global economy. You have all enjoyed the freedom to succeed. Now let me be clear. I do not believe big is necessarily bad. In fact big is often a force for good. However i want to address one particularly disturbing issue. Mr. Pichai, in october of act 2018 google dropped out of the running for pentagon contract to complete the joint enterprise defense infrastructure or jedi contract which was valued more than 10 billion. Googles stated reason for removing itself from the bidding process it that the u. S. Militarys project did not align with googles corporate values and principles. This is the same u. S. Military that fights for our freedoms and stands as a force for good across the globe. These are the same soldiers, sailors, airmen, that sacrificed their lives to insure you have the freedom to build your company and set your corporate policies without fear of government interference, unlike in communist china. I also find it very interesting that only months after making this decision to withdraw from the jedi contract, marine general joseph dunford, the chairman of the u. S. Joint chiefs of staff, warned the Senate Armed Forces committee that the Chinese Military was directly benefiting from googles work. It made me wonder, what values google and communist red china had in common . I asked myself, self, is it that the Chinese Communist party imprisons Uyghur Muslims in consstation concentration camps shown on the chart behind me . Could it be that china forces slaves to work in sweatshops . Maybe they align on the design to suppress free speech in hong kong. Did google agree with ccps decision to lie to the world about the covid19 pandemic . I thought about googles dragonfly experiment. I wondered if perhaps you agreed with the Chinese Government use of Technology Platforms to spy on its own people and enforce draconian security laws . Maybe it is that your company is aligned with the Chinese Communist Party Corporate espionage policies where the strategy is to steal whatever cant be produced domestically. These values allow google to work with the Chinese Military, not the u. S. Military would help explain why google wouldnt think blatantly twice stealing a competitors product down to the water mark without any hint of attribution. Mr. Pichai in the field hearing of my own state of colorado, i heard a story that sounded so brazen to free market principles i thought it must have been straight from the chinese come exist Party Corporate espionage playbook. Google took advantage after company that relied on your Search Engine to build its brand and compete. They steal stole lyrics from genius website, however genius caught google in the act quite literally redhanded. When google, genius expected this corporate theft was occurring the company incorporate ad digital water mark in hits lyrics that spend out redhanded in morse code. Lyrics google boxes that your Company Stole what you couldnt other didnt want to produce yourself. After google executives stated they were investigating this problematic behavior, genius created another experiment to determine the scope of the misappropriation. It turns out of 271 songs where the water morning was applied, 43 showed clear evidence of matching. Your company which advertises itself as a doorway to freedom took advantage of this small company. All but extwinge r tinkering geniuss freedom to compete. Google is supposed to connect people to information. Your corporate values once stood for freedom, a platform that let capitalism flourish and helped bring countless people across the globe out of poverty. My question to you, mr. Pichai, do you think that google could get away with following chinas corporate espionage playbook if you didnt have a monopolistic advantage in the market. Congressman, i want to be able to address the important concerns you raised. First of all proud to support the u. S. Government. We recently signed a big project with the department of defense where we are bringing our world Class Cybersecurity approach to help protect Pentagon Networks from cybersecurity attacks. Projects underway with the navy, with the department of veterans affairs. Happy to follow up and explain more. We have a very limited presence in china. We dont offer any of our services, search, maps, gmail, youtube, in china. With respect to music, we license content, we in fact license content from other companies this. Is dispute between genius and other companies in terms where the source of the content is. Happy to engage and explain, explain what we do here further. Yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank the gentleman. I now recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. Johnson, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Cook, with over 100 million iphones users in the United States alone and with apples ownership of the app store giving apple the ability to control which apps are allowed to be marketed to apple users you will admit power over Small Businesses to grow and prosper. Apple is the sole decisionmaker as to whether an app is made available to app users through apples app store, isnt that correct . Sir, the app store, thank you for the question. The app store is a feature of the iphone much like the camera is and the chip is. And so my point is, im sorry to interrupt, but i want to get to the point. The point is that apple is the sole decisionmaker as to whether an happ is made available to app users through the apple store, isnt that correct . If it is a native app, yes, sir. If its a web app, no. Thank you. Then, throughout our investigation weve heard concerns rules governor earning the App Store App process are not available to developers. The rules are made up as you go. They are arbitrarily interpreted and enforced and are subject to change whenever apple sees fit to change. Developers have no choice but to go along with the changes or they must leave the app store. That is an enormous amount of power. Also the rules get changed to benefit apple at the expense of App Developers and the app store is said to also discriminate between App Developers with similar apps. On the apple platform and also has to small App Developers versus large App Developers. So, mr. Cook, does apple not treat all App Developers equally . Sir, we treat every developer the same. We have open and transparent rules. Its a rigorous process. Because we care so deeply about privacy and security and quality we do look at every app before it goes on but those apps, those rules apply evenly to everyone. And as you can tell by going some developers are favored over others though, isnt that correct . That is not correct. And as you can tell from going from 500 i will give you an example. Baidu has two app stores, two Ranking Member<\/a> of the subcommittee, mr. Sensenbrenner. For first round of questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ive been in congress 42 years. That is coming to an end at the end of this year. Im breathing a sigh of relief. During that period of time, during decade of 90s and 00s, i was involved as chairman of the Science Committee<\/a> and chairman of this committee and trying to make the net universal, open it up to everybody and one of the, one of the theses that we used that the net should end up becoming basically the debate on issues, not only in our country but throughout the world and in exchange for that this committee and the Congress Gave<\/a> Internet Service<\/a> providers immunity so if somebody said something defamatory in what they posted. Isps could not be a part of a lawsuit for defamation. After hearing mr. Jordan, you know, a long line of censorship of conservative viewpoints, im concerned that the people who manage the net and the four of you manage a big part of the threat are ending up using this as a political screen. Conservatives are consumers too, and the way the net was put together in the eyes of congress is that everybody should be able to speak their mind. Mr. Zuckerberg, mr. Jordans litany of censorship zeros in on facebook. Exactly what are your standards in filtering out political speech that maybe some people out there dont agree with . Congressman, thank you for the opportunity to address this. Our goal is to offer a platform for all ideas. We want to give everyone in the world a voice to share their experiences and ideas. A lot of that is daytoday things that happen in their lives. Some of that is political. And frankly i think that weve distinguished ourselves as one of the companies that defends Free Expression<\/a> the most. We do have Community Standards<\/a> around things that you can and cannot say. I think you would likely agree with most of them. They ban categories of harm such as promoting terrorist propaganda, child exploitation, incitement of violence, some more legalistic things like intellectual property violations and they also ban things like hate speech that could lead to dehumanizing people and promoting violence down the road. If i may ask a specific of you, it was reported that donald trump, jr. Got taken down for a period of time because he put something up, efficacy of hydroxychloroquine. I wouldnt take it myself but there is still a debate whether it is effective in treating or preventing covid19 and i think this is a legitimator of discussion and it would be up to a patient and their doctor to determine whether hydroxychloroquine was the correct medication, you know, given the circumstances. Why did that happen . Congressman, well, first to be clear i think what you might be referring to happened on twitter. So it is hard for me to speak to that but i can talk to our policies about this. We do prohibit content that will lead to imminent risk of harm and stating that there is a proven cure for covid when there is in fact none might encourage someone to take something that could have some adverse effects so we do take that down. We do not prohibit discussion around trials of drugs or people saying that they think that things might work or personal experiences with experimental drugs but if someone is going to say that something is proven when in fact it is not that could lead people to wouldnt that be up for somebody on the other side of the issue to say that is not proven . You know i know as a fact that you know, for people with certain conditions it is contraindicated and they shouldnt take it but wouldnt that be up to somebody else to say, okay, what somebody posted on this really isnt true . Here is what the facts are, rather than, having a twitter or a facebook take it down . Congressman in general i agree with you and we do not want to become the arbiters of truth. That that would be a bad position for us to be in and not, not what we should be doing but on specific claims, if someone is going to go out and say that the hydroxychloroquine is proven to cure covid when in fact it has not been proven to cure covid, and that that statement could lead people to take a drug that in some cases, some of the data suggests that it might be harmful to people, we think that we should take at that down. That could cause imminent risk of harm. Thank you, i yield back. Thank you the gentleman. Now recognize the distinguished chair of the full judiciary committee, mr. Nadler from new york for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Zuckerberg, i want to thank you for providing us information during our investigation. However the documents you provided tell a very disturbing story and that story is that facebook saw instagram as a powerful threat that could siphon business away from facebook. So rather than compete with it facebook bought it. This is exactly the type of anticompetitive acquisition that the antitrust laws were designed to prevent. Now let me explain what i mean. Mr. Zuckerberg, you have written that facebook can likely always just buy any competitive startups. In fact on the day facebook bought instagram which you described as a threat, you wrote, quote, one thing about startups, you can often acquire them, close quote. You were referring to Companies Like<\/a> instagram in that quote, werent you . Congressman i dont have the exact document in front of me but i have always been clear that we viewed instagram both as a competitor and as a compliment to our services. In the growing space around, after smartphones started getting big, they competed with us in the space of mobile cameras and mobile photo sharing but at the time almost no one thought of them as a why social network and people didnt think of them competing with us in that space and, you know i think the acquisition has been wildly successful. We were able to by acquiring them continue investing in it, growing it, as a standalone brand that reaches many more people that i think either kevin, the cofounder, or i thought would be possible at the time. Also incorporating some of the technology into making facebooks photo sharing products better. So, yes. Okay. Now in early 2012 when facebook contemplated acquiring instagram, a competitive startup, you told your cfo that instagram would be very disruptive to us. In the weeks leading up to the deal you described instagram as a threat, saying quote, instagram can meaningfully hurt us without become a business. What did you mean that you described instagram as a threat, disruptive and you said instagram could meaningfully hurt facebook . Did you mean that consumers might switch from facebook to instagram . Congressman, thanks for the opportunity to address this. At the time there was a small by growing field of did you mean that consumers might switch from facebook to instagram . That was my question. Thanks, congressman yes or no, did you mean that . In the space of mobile photos and camera apps which was growing, they were competitor. Ive been clear about that. Okay, fine. In february of that year, february 2012 you told facebooks chief Financial Officer<\/a> be that you were interested in buying instagram. He asked you whether the purpose of the deal was to neutralize a propoke spif competitor or integrate their products with ours to improve our services you answered it was combination of both. Saying what were really buying is time. Ion if some new competitor springs up those products wont get much traction since we already have the mechanics deployed at scale. Mr. Mark zuckerberg, what did you mean when you answered that the purpose of the deal was to neutralize a potential competitor . Congressman, what, those are not my words, but yes, ive been clear that instagram was a competitor in the space of mobile photo sharing. There were a lot of others at the time. They competed with apps, iscoam and pic please, Companies Like<\/a> pass. It was, it was a subset of the overall space of connecting that we exist in and by having them join us, they certainly went from being a competitor in the space of being a mobile camera to an app that we could help grow and help get more people to be able to use and be on our team. I think that haas been wildly successful. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Mark zuckerberg, mergers and acquisitions that buy off potential competitive threats violate the antitrust laws. In your own words you purchased instagram to neutralize a competitive threat. If this was an illegal merger at the time of the transaction why shouldnt instagram now be broken off into a separate company . Well, congressman i think the ftc had all of these documents and reviewed this and unanimously voted at the time not to challenge the acquisition. Probably in hindsight looks obvious instagram would have reached the scale it has today but the at time it was far from obvious. A lot of competitors they competed with in mobile sharing im including Companies Like<\/a> pass, with i were hot at the time and had great founders and entrepreneurs running them, dave moore and i worked closely with him, i dont even think path exists today. It was not a guarranty instagram was going to succeed. The acquisition has done wildly well, largely because not just of the founders talent but we invested heavily in building up the infrastructure and promoting it and working on security and working on a lot of things around this and i think that this is american success story. Well, thank you. Mr. Zuckerberg, youre making my point. In closing, mr. Chairman, i want to end where i began. Facebook by mr. Mark zuckerbergs own admission and by the documents we have from the time, facebook saw instagram as a threat that could potentially siphon business away from facebook. So rather than compete with it, facebook bought it this is exactly the type of anticompetitive acquisition that the antitrust laws were designed to prevent. This should never have happened in the first place. It should never been permitted to happen and it cannot happen again. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would remind the witness that the failures of the ftc in 2012 of course do not alleviate the antitrust challenges that the chairman described. With that, i will recognize the gentleman from colorado, and again thank him for cohosting one of the most field hearings we had along with mr. Nagos in colorado, critical in this investigation. Youre recognized for five minutes, mr. Buck. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to offer my appreciation for you for the bipartisan way you approached the subcommittees investigation. I want to start by saying that capitalism is the greatest instrument for freedom this world has ever seen. Capitalism has given the United States<\/a> the freedom and means to defeat the soviet union, beat back facism and put a man on the moon. This Economic System<\/a> lifted millions out of poverty. It has made america the freest, most produce produce nation in the world. Our witnesses have taken ideas borne out of a dorm room a garage, a warehouse and built these dreams into four of the biggest power players in the digital global economy. You have all enjoyed the freedom to succeed. Now let me be clear. I do not believe big is necessarily bad. In fact big is often a force for good. However i want to address one particularly disturbing issue. Mr. Pichai, in october of act 2018 google dropped out of the running for pentagon contract to complete the joint enterprise defense infrastructure or jedi contract which was valued more than 10 billion. Googles stated reason for removing itself from the bidding process it that the u. S. Militarys project did not align with googles corporate values and principles. This is the same u. S. Military that fights for our freedoms and stands as a force for good across the globe. These are the same soldiers, sailors, airmen, that sacrificed their lives to insure you have the freedom to build your company and set your corporate policies without fear of government interference, unlike in communist china. I also find it very interesting that only months after making this decision to withdraw from the jedi contract, marine general joseph dunford, the chairman of the u. S. Joint chiefs of staff, warned the Senate Armed Forces<\/a> committee that the Chinese Military<\/a> was directly benefiting from googles work. It made me wonder, what values google and communist red china had in common . I asked myself, self, is it that the Chinese Communist<\/a> party imprisons Uyghur Muslims<\/a> in consstation concentration camps shown on the chart behind me . Could it be that china forces slaves to work in sweatshops . Maybe they align on the design to suppress free speech in hong kong. Did google agree with ccps decision to lie to the world about the covid19 pandemic . I thought about googles dragonfly experiment. I wondered if perhaps you agreed with the Chinese Government<\/a> use of Technology Platforms<\/a> to spy on its own people and enforce draconian security laws . Maybe it is that your company is aligned with the Chinese Communist<\/a> Party Corporate<\/a> espionage policies where the strategy is to steal whatever cant be produced domestically. These values allow google to work with the Chinese Military<\/a>, not the u. S. Military would help explain why google wouldnt think blatantly twice stealing a competitors product down to the water mark without any hint of attribution. Mr. Pichai in the field hearing of my own state of colorado, i heard a story that sounded so brazen to free market principles i thought it must have been straight from the chinese come exist Party Corporate<\/a> espionage playbook. Google took advantage after company that relied on your Search Engine<\/a> to build its brand and compete. They steal stole lyrics from genius website, however genius caught google in the act quite literally redhanded. When google, genius expected this corporate theft was occurring the company incorporate ad digital water mark in hits lyrics that spend out redhanded in morse code. Lyrics google boxes that your Company Stole<\/a> what you couldnt other didnt want to produce yourself. After google executives stated they were investigating this problematic behavior, genius created another experiment to determine the scope of the misappropriation. It turns out of 271 songs where the water morning was applied, 43 showed clear evidence of matching. Your company which advertises itself as a doorway to freedom took advantage of this small company. All but extwinge r tinkering geniuss freedom to compete. Google is supposed to connect people to information. Your corporate values once stood for freedom, a platform that let capitalism flourish and helped bring countless people across the globe out of poverty. My question to you, mr. Pichai, do you think that google could get away with following chinas corporate espionage playbook if you didnt have a monopolistic advantage in the market. Congressman, i want to be able to address the important concerns you raised. First of all proud to support the u. S. Government. We recently signed a big project with the department of defense where we are bringing our world Class Cybersecurity<\/a> approach to help protect Pentagon Networks<\/a> from cybersecurity attacks. Projects underway with the navy, with the department of veterans affairs. Happy to follow up and explain more. We have a very limited presence in china. We dont offer any of our services, search, maps, gmail, youtube, in china. With respect to music, we license content, we in fact license content from other companies this. Is dispute between genius and other companies in terms where the source of the content is. Happy to engage and explain, explain what we do here further. Yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank the gentleman. I now recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. Johnson, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Cook, with over 100 million iphones users in the United States<\/a> alone and with apples ownership of the app store giving apple the ability to control which apps are allowed to be marketed to apple users you will admit power over Small Businesses<\/a> to grow and prosper. Apple is the sole decisionmaker as to whether an app is made available to app users through apples app store, isnt that correct . Sir, the app store, thank you for the question. The app store is a feature of the iphone much like the camera is and the chip is. And so my point is, im sorry to interrupt, but i want to get to the point. The point is that apple is the sole decisionmaker as to whether an happ is made available to app users through the apple store, isnt that correct . If it is a native app, yes, sir. If its a web app, no. Thank you. Then, throughout our investigation weve heard concerns rules governor earning the App Store App<\/a> process are not available to developers. The rules are made up as you go. They are arbitrarily interpreted and enforced and are subject to change whenever apple sees fit to change. Developers have no choice but to go along with the changes or they must leave the app store. That is an enormous amount of power. Also the rules get changed to benefit apple at the expense of App Developers<\/a> and the app store is said to also discriminate between App Developers<\/a> with similar apps. On the apple platform and also has to small App Developers<\/a> versus large App Developers<\/a>. So, mr. Cook, does apple not treat all App Developers<\/a> equally . Sir, we treat every developer the same. We have open and transparent rules. Its a rigorous process. Because we care so deeply about privacy and security and quality we do look at every app before it goes on but those apps, those rules apply evenly to everyone. And as you can tell by going some developers are favored over others though, isnt that correct . That is not correct. And as you can tell from going from 500 i will give you an example. Baidu has two app stores, two App Store Employees<\/a> assigned to help it navigate the app store bureaucracy, is that true . I dont know about that, sir. Well, you dont have other App Developers<\/a> who have that same access to apple personnel, do you . We, we do a lot of things with developers including looking at their beta test as, regardless whether theyre small or large. Okay. Let me ask you this question. Apple has negotiated exceptions to its typical 30 commission for some apps like amazon prime. Is that, is a reduced commission such as the one that amazon prime gets available to other App Developers<\/a> . Its available to anyone meeting the conditions, yes. Okay. Left me ask you this, apple requires all App Developers<\/a> to use apples Payment Processing<\/a> system. If those Developers Want<\/a> to sell their goods or services to apple users through apples app store, isnt that correct . That is correct because it is and by processing payments for apps that you allow into the app store, you collect their Customer Data<\/a> and you use that data to inform apple as to whether apple should, whether or not it would be profitable for apple to launch a competing app, isnt that correct . Sir, 84 of the apps are charged nothing. The remaining 16 either 15 or 30 depending on the specifics. If it is in the second year of a subscription, for example, it only pays 15 . If you look at history what is to stop apple from increasing its commission to 50 . We, sir, we have never increased commissions in the store since the first day it operated in 2008. There is nothing to stop you from doing so, is isnt. No, sir, i disagree strongly with. That there is a competition for Developers Just<\/a> like there is a competition for customers and so the competition for developers, they can write their apps for android or windows or xbox or playstation. So we have fierce competition at the developer side and the customer side. Which is, which is essentially it is so competitive i would describe it as a street fight for market share in the smartphone business. Has apple ever retaliated against or disadvantage ad developer who went public about their frustrations with the app store . Sir, we dont, do not retaliate or bully people. It is strongly against our company culture. Time of the gentleman has expired. The chair now recognizes gentleman from florida, mr. Gaetz. Mr. Zuckerberg in his written testimony made the claim that facebook is an American Company<\/a> and American Values<\/a>. Do any of the rest of you take a different view . That is to say your companies dont embrace American Values<\/a> . Great to see none of you do. Mr. Pichai, im worried about googles market power, how it concentrates that power and then ultimately how it wields it. Project maven was a collaboration between google and the department of defense that google pulled out of citing ethical concerns and you made the decision to pull out of that joint venture following receipt of a letter from thousands of your employees saying that google should not be in the business of war. My question, mr. Pichai is, did you weigh the input from your employees when making the decision to abandon that project with the United States<\/a> military . Congressman, thanks for your concern. As i said earlier deeply committed to supporting the military and the u. S. Government. We have undertaken several projects since then. We do take our employees input and comments. We make inputs based on variety of factors. As a company we were new in the cloud space. At the time since then that is sufficient answer, you did take their feedback into account and in fact, some of your googlers have recently sent you a letter where they asked you to exit other partnerships as a consequence of ethical concerns. They have asked you to stop doing business with american Law Enforcement<\/a> saying that police broadly uphold White Supremacy<\/a> and that google should not be engaged in any services to police. As you well know you provide some of the most basic services to police like email but you also provide services that help keep our cops safe when theyre doing their job. So my question is here in front of congress and the american people, will you take the pledge that google will not adopt the bigoted, antipolice policy that is requested in the most recent letter . Congressman, we have a long track record of working with Law Enforcement<\/a> when it is supported by due process and the law. We pushed back against overbroad requests. We are transparent about the requests we get but we have long history of following the law and cooperating with Law Enforcement<\/a> i understand. That im asking about the future. To the Law Enforcement<\/a> community that are watching today, can they rest assured under your leadership google will not adopt these bigoted antipolice policies . Congressman, we are committed to committing to work with Law Enforcement<\/a> in a way that is consistent with law and due process in the u. S. Well i greatly appreciate that, and i know that will be very comforting to the police who utilize your services. You mentioned earlier in the discussion about china, that your engagement in china was very limited but yet google has an a. I. China center. The Chinese Academy<\/a> of sciences has published a paper saying that enhanced the targeting capabilities of chinas j 20 fighter aircraft. You collaborate with chinese universities that take millions upon millions of dollars from the Chinese Military<\/a>. As a matter of fact one of your google letters, fifi lee under your employ was cited in Chinese State<\/a> media saying china is like a sleeping giant. When she wakes she will tremble the world. The former secretary of defense, mr. Shanihan says the lines have been blurred in china between commercial and military application. And as mr. Buck cited, general dunford says your company is directly aiding the chinese militarily and peter teal serves on mr. Zuckerbergs board in facebook, that googles activities with china are treasonous. He accused you of treason. So why would an American Company<\/a> with American Values<\/a> so directly aid the Chinese Military<\/a> but have ethical concerns about working alongside the u. S. Military on project maven . I understand your point about sigher per security and those things, but project maven was a specific way to insure our troops are safe on the battlefield. If you have no problem making the j20 chinese fighter more effective in its targeting why wouldnt you want to make america as effective . Congressman, with respect we are not working with the Chinese Military<\/a>. It es absolutely false. I had a chance to meet with general dunford personally. We have clarified what were doing, what we do in china compared to our peers it is very, very limited in nature. Our a. I. Work in china is limited to a handful of people working on open source projects. Im happy to share and engage with your office to explain our work in china. Gosh, when the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff says that an American Company<\/a> is directly aiding china, when you have an a. I. Center, when youre working with universities and when your employees are talking about china trembling the world, it seems to really call into question your commitment to our country and our value. I see my time is expired. I hope we have additional round, mr. Chairman. Thank the gentleman. I recognize the gentleman from maryland, mr. Raskin for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Zuckerberg, as you know the proliferation of fake facebook account was a key tool in the strategy of russian interference in the American Election<\/a> in 2016. American Law Enforcement<\/a>, the senate, the house, have all found that Vladmir Putin<\/a>, Vladmir Putin<\/a> engaged in a sweeping, systemic campaign to undermine american democracy in 2016 and to work for a victory for donald trump. In his remarkable book, mind blank, im being polite here, Cambridge Analytica<\/a> and the plot to break america, whistle blower Christopher Wiley<\/a> who worked several years at Cambridge Analytica<\/a>. How russian assault and Cambridge Analytica<\/a> research depending on facebook. When came bridge analyst can in the summer of 2014, Steve Bannons<\/a> goal was to change culture. Facebook algorithms and data were his key weapons. The Cambridge Analytica<\/a> team used tools to identify people who exhibited three traits, dark triad, narcissism, mach wellianism and psychopathy. They sought to activate a small percentage American Public<\/a> with manipulative messages from fake facebook pages to get them to vote for trump and activate them as racists and white nationalists. He goes on to describe the remarkable success of this campaign both electorally and also politically in the country in terms of sewing the terrible racial and ethnic divisions you see in america today. So they wage ad Mass Campaign<\/a> of psychological warfare to polarize america around race and religion and to activate racist and antisemites. It worked splendidly for them. But it didnt work so well for america. Mr. Zuckerberg, which parts of this narrative have you addressed or are planning to address . Or do you just see that as essentially as the cost of being a forum in a marketplace for ideas . Is there nothing that can be done about the use of facebook to engender social division in america . Congressman, thank you. Since 2016 there have been a lot of steps that weve taken to protect the integrity of elections. We have hired i think more than 30,000 people to work on safety and security. We have built up ai systems to be able to find harmful content, including being able to find more than 50 Different Networks<\/a> of coordinated inauthentic behavior, basically nation states trying to interfere in elections. Can i pause you, pause you there fora second because im interested in that. The stop hate for Profit Campaign<\/a> is a coalition that includes the color of change, Antidefamation League<\/a> and other Civil Rights Group<\/a> and theyre targeting facebook right now for a boycott because of the rapid spread of hate messages online, the presence of boogaloo and other rightwing extimist groups trying to infiltrate and disrupt black lives matter protests. The fact altright racist antisemitic content flourishes on facebook. Theyre asking you to remove these pages, essentially join the movement for civil rights by not allowing that kind ever content. Their boycotters include a lot of Big Companies<\/a>, pad gone yaw, mcdonalds, vw, heineken and so on but you seem not that moved by their campaign. I wonder what you think about what theyre asking you to do . Congressman, thanks. Were very focused on fighting against election interference and were also very focused on fighting against hate speech. Our commitments to those issues and fighting them go back years before this recent movement. Since 2016 the defenses that the company has built up to help secure elections not just in the u. S. But around the world i think are some of the most advanced that any company or government has in the world now. We routinely now collaborate with Law Enforcement<\/a> and intelligence agencies and are able to sometimes identify threats coming from other countries before governments are even able to. In terms of fighting hate, we have built really sophisticated systems. Our goal is to identify it before anyone even sees it on the platform. We built a. I. Systems and as i mentioned have tens of thousands of people working on safety and security with the goal of getting this stuff down, that way before people even see it and right now were able to proactively identify 89 of the hate speech we take down before i think it is even seen by other people. So you know, i want to do better than 89 . I would like to get that to 99 . But, we have a massive investment here. We invest in billions of dollars my time is almost up, can you just address the proliferation of fake accounts . I understand annually you get 6. 5 billion fake accounts produced there but in some sense you have a profit motive that is linked to that because that is whats reported to your investors, the number of accounts. Are you working zealously to try to ferret out hate accounts to spread hate and miss information. The gentlemans time expired but the witness can answer the question. Congressman, we absolutely work hard to take down billions of fake accounts each year. A lot of people are trying to set up accounts to spam people for commercial reasons, a very small percent of that are nation states trying to interfere in elections but were very focused on trying to find those. Having fake and harmful content on our platform does not help our business. It hurts our business. People do not want to see that stuff and they use our Services Less<\/a> when they do. So we are aligned with people in order to take that down and we invest billions of dollars a year in doing so. Yield back, thank you. The committee will stand in recess, for ten minutes. While we fix a technical feed with one of our witnesses. Good afternoon, everyone, im cheryl casone. In for Charles Payne<\/a> this is making money. We have been listening to hearing, subcommittee listening to the testimony of the, some of the top ceos in the technology world, tim cook, jeff bezos, Mark Zuckerberg<\/a> and Sundar Pichai<\/a>. A few things have been going on during this hearing. I want to say we had a fed decision at the top of the hour. The fed in fact did leave rates unchanged. Were watching headlines out of the fed. Jay powell started his press conference. Were monitoring that for any news. A few things i want to, a lot of questions for Sundar Pichai<\/a> and google, when it comes to the issue of anticompetitive behavior or with regards to Mark Zuckerberg<\/a> and integrity of elections. I want to bring in hillary vaughn, standing by, vivek wadhwa is standing by to monitor all of this. Vivek, talk about the things and questions you have heard. One of the big things i have listen towed is the fact that google is getting a lot of attention as far as did they steal content . He said he disagreed with that. Theyre anticompetitive behavior against yelp. Also about working with the Chinese Military<\/a>. First lets start with those questions that were directed at Sundar Pichai<\/a>. The questions were great. I was, frankly i didnt expect much from our political leaders but they have been getting right to the heart of issues. Take the question about the military sundars answers were pathetic. If chinas operations are so small, why have them there . Business is not getting any business out of china. It is locked out of china. You cant do google searches there or use googles products why bother to be in china when you take such a stance against the u. S. Military. Tech ceos are just dancing and pretending to play dumb while, you know the congress is asking them very difficult questions. So i dont know what else to say right now because cheryl all right. Your mic is breaking up just a little bit, vivek, to be clear here. Move to the questions against Mark Zuckerberg<\/a> and for Mark Zuckerberg<\/a>. A lot of it is regarding the ftc decision to approve facebooks purchase of instagram. That is back in 2012. And one of the questions directed at zuckerberg this look like a illegal manuever now. Seems like zuckerberg in some of his answers seemed to kind of say, well, maybe you could view it that way now. Do you think there will be some reopening into facebooks ownership of instagram, whether it is indeed anticompetitive, which we should say the entire reason were having this hearing today . It is anticompetitive. It is good it is being brought up. A article i saw disclosed emails zuckerberg written about it. He bought the company to put out out of market and [inaudible] cheryl okay. Lets move on. Again were having a little bit of trouble with you. We really havent heard a lot from tim cook. Really i would like to hear more from jeff bezos. Hopefully these Committee Members<\/a> will bring in mr. Bezos more, since i dont know, he is the richest man in the world and obviously during the pandemic amazon has become a huge part of the American Consumers<\/a> life but lets talk about tim cook. One of the things we thought we were going to hear about, we havent somewhat heard that yet, privacy and security but a lot of questions about the app store, in particular when it comes to the app store, are developers being unfairly treated in the app store . Are developers maybe being charged when they shouldnt be . I thought he did a nice job. You can disagree with me pushing back, saying no, were not bullying the developers in the app store. That was the main focus of tim cook so far. We do expect at some point, we dont know, we could hear more about privacy, security, obviously their production facilities in china but for now about the app store. Discuss that surprise you . No, it doesnt surprise me. It makes sense. Interestingly these people started off by talking about the american, as americans were good. When you look at operations being in china, it doesnt add up. So this is a big weakness over there apple may not as big of a monopoly as amazon is but the fact if youre in the iphone market apple is a monopoly. They get a third of the revenue from these companies. Congress needs to drill down much deeper into all of that and get to the bottom of it. The good thing coming from this, the fact that these executives are on the record. Like the tobacco executives who were basically trying to mislead the public. The fact they have got their butts on, i mean, theyre being held accountable right now means there will be a lot more cautious in the future because theyre becoming liable for anything they say wrong. What theyre trying to do is just pretend to be dumb. Even when they answer a question we dont do this, we dont do that, they become liable later on for misrepresenting the truth and cheryl absolutely. You can see in the zoom screen, you can see google counsel. You can see some. Lawyers and representatives from the companies in the fuel screen weve been looking at. I want to bring in hillary vaughn, vivek. She is standing by monitoring what she is hearing from the hearings. Hillary, you talked about this with neil, we havent heard a lot from jeff bezos. Im curious to be what the questions will be like. But your thoughts what you heard today . Reporter cheryl, it is interesting the hearing went into the a break, there was issue with one much the feeds for one of the witnesses. Were not exactly sure who it was. We havent heard from jeff bezos so far in this hearing. That could possibly be why. Here are a few take wais, at the very start it was clear from chairman cicilline, he came with receipts, millions pages of documents they have gathered from a lot of different sources. He brought it today to use it specifically to question google over anticompetitive behavior. Yelp alleges that google threatened them. When they asked google to stop stealing some of their reviews, to boost some of their content, google said well, allegedly well, well blacklist if you have a problem with it. Google denying that today. This is one snapshot really how prepared lawmakers are today, how this is a product of months and months of investigation, talking to over 100 Different Companies<\/a> and witnesses to bring their, to contribute to todays hearing. Also, google has faced a lot of questions over their involvement with china. One Fiery Exchange<\/a> with congressman matt gaetz. He asked googles Sundar Pichai<\/a>, why would an American Company<\/a> with American Values<\/a> have such a cozy relationship with china . Even involved some projects with the Chinese Military<\/a> but pull out of projects here in the u. S. That benefit the u. S. Military . Pichai denied that they have any involvement with the Chinese Military<\/a> and say their footprint in china, when it comes to a. I. Is very limited. Cheryl . Cheryl that question surprised me whether we came out of the hearing. Updating our viewers. They are having technical difficulties again. Hillary as you know we had to wait an hour to get underway from the original start time because theyre having technical difficulties. Hillary stand by. Well continue to monitor the hearings in the house subcommittee. We want to point to the other big news were following. Top of the hour we did get the Interest Rate<\/a> decision from the federal reserve. Right now what youre looking at is a live picture of jay powells press conference. To catch you up really quick, rates unchanged, discount rate unchanged. Decision unanimous. The big line from them, rates will be near zero until the virus is over. The shortterm picture the pandemic is still a threat to the u. S. Economy. These are again, this is another zoom Conference Call<\/a> this is fed chairman jay powell. Reporters are asking their questions. Ed lawrence is among those reporters in this Virtual Press<\/a> room, if you will. So we do want to dip into this for just a few moments. As soon as we get the house subcommittee hearing back underway in washington, with the four big ceos of course well go back to that live. First lets listen in to fed chairman. What additional role fed could have bridging that yawning gap . On your first question i wouldnt want to be giving very detailed, specific advice on particular programs and the level they should be at that kind of thing. I just will say the following. You know, this pandemic and its fallout really represents the biggest shock to the u. S. Economy in living memory. We went from lowest employment levels in 50 years to highest levels in 90 years. We did it in space of two months. I will say the response from the fiscal authorities, it was strong, it was fast, it was broad and appropriately so and i think were seeing the results of the earlier strong fiscal actions. When you see the spending that is happening. When you see Small Businesses<\/a> staying in business, even though the economy hasnt fully, successfully sustainably reopened yet in many places you are seeing what happens with that, that money and so in a broad sense its been wellspent. It has kept people in the home and businesses in business and that is all a good thing. I think, in the broad scheme of things, that there will be a need both for more support from us and more fiscal policy. Fiscal policy is up to congress. You see the ongoing discussions that theyre having. It suggests to me that there is, you know, that both sides, that wrangling over various provisions but nonetheless, believe that there is a need for some additional fiscal support. The last thing i will say is, that, if the expansion, sorry, even if the reopening goes well and many, many people go back to work it is still going to take a fairly long time for the parts of the economy that involve lots of people getting together in close proximity, that means that many people who were laid off from those industries, and that is restaurants, bars, hotels, public entertainment, all those places, travel, accommodation, many of those people will find it hard to go back, they cant go back to their old job. There wont be enough jobs for them. Those people are going to need support. I cant say what the exact level should be. It is not our role but theyre going to need support in order to pay their bills, continue spending money. To remain in the current rental house or apartment or house if they own it. So i think there will be a need. In terms of inequality really, so i think it is fair to say that the burdens of the pandemic have fallen on heavily, fallen on everyone but they have fallen very heavily on people who work in the service industries, in relatively lowpaying jobs. There was a figure that came out of some of our research that was, if you make 40,000 a year or less, then, than 40 , you got a 40 chance of losing your job in april and may. So it is falling very heavily on people who have the least financial where with all to bear that. That happens to be heavily skewed to minoritys and to women. So that is just what the pandemic is doing. You know, in terms of what were doing, what were trying to do is create an environment in the Financial Markets<\/a> and in the economy where those people have the best chance they can have to go back to work to their old job or to a new job. That is really what were doing. Everything we do is directed at that and, you know, i would say, i will say one last thing on inequality. Inequality is an issue, has been growing issue in our country and in our economy for four decades and you see it, it has many faces. You see it in the relative flattening out of incomes for people in lower and middle incomes compared to those at the taupe. You see it in low mobility, people with tanses of moving to the bottom, middle, top have declined and lower than they are in other comparable wealthy countries. Its a serious economic problem in the United States<\/a>. It has underlying causes not related to Monetary Policy<\/a> or our response to the pandemic. Again four decades of evidence suggests it is about globalization, flattening out of Educational Attainment<\/a> in the United States<\/a> compared to our other competitor countries. It is about Technology Advancing<\/a> too. If youre on the wrong side of those forces it has been, your income has stagnated. So its a critical, critical problem for our society but one mainly falls to fiscal policy and other policies. Our part is to push as hard as we can on our employment mandate while keeping price stability. We saw what happened to people at the lower end of the income spectrum late in the last expansion. It was the best labor market cheryl we wanted to dip analysten into the fed chairman conference of jay powell. Well go back to the hearing room in washington. This is the house antitrust subcommittee, judiciary subcommittee. The question and answer is back on. Lets listen in. Your industries have worked. So mr. Pichai, google has restructured advertising analyticses or portability of user data related to advertising due to compliance with the general data regulation. Specifically in 2018 google restricted the ability export double i. D. , cookie based identifier compiles individual user data and creates profiles through google data transfers. Is that correct . Congressman, not familiar with the specifics of that particular issue. But happy to follow up more once i understand it better. Youre not particularly familiar with how youre complying with gdpr . Congressman, we have long been working to comply with gdpr. We think it is an important regulation and you know, we have, we are in full compliance to the extent of my knowledge. I just meant not aware of the specific issue with the identifier you mentioned there but happy to understand it better and follow up. All right. So in order to comply with gdpr google must retain control over more user data and restrict the ability to combine the user date toe with other platforms to conduct Cross Platform<\/a> analysis. Seems if that ultimately limits the ability of advertisers to make comparisons between google based campaigns and nongoogle based campaigns. Would you agree with that . In all ecosystems were balancing with users, advertisers and publishers. We deeply care about the privacy and security 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 that is the delegate balance were constantly striking. Were focused on your users trying to do the best we can. I just want toby perfectly clear, i personally believe that just market power consolidation is significant but i also want to be clear that when were moving forward to regulate this that we werent actually squeezing out competition in our quest, in our quest to do something because i have said that before in this hearing and i will say it again. Usually in our quest to regulate Big Companies<\/a> we end up hurting Small Companies<\/a> more and im a strong privacy advocate but the consequences of gdpr to further entrench large established actors like google leading to regulatory capture that exasperates competition concerns. Googles ad market share has increased since the implementation of gdp r. Do you know that to be correct . Congressman, just to give you a sense ever the robust competition we see, ad prices fallen 40 the past 10 years. In fact in the u. S. , advertising as a share of gdp has come down from 1. 4 in 1990, to less than 1 today. We see robust competition in the marketplace and as i said earlier, we have to comply with regulation. We have to interpret strictly and we have to balance the ecosystem but our utmost care is insuring privacy and security of our users. As we serve these markets. Im glad you mentioned privacy because i would be remiss if i didnt deal with this issue. It is so relevant. Generally speaking outside of political issues and bias with all of this, essentially for all four of our witnesses, i think one of our bigger concerns when we talk about data and value and that data having value and privacy which is where people really get concerned with how the digital age is moving forward. There are news reports that Law Enforcement<\/a> has made increasing use what are called Geofence Warrants<\/a> and these Geofence Warrants<\/a> allow authorities to compel Technology Companies<\/a> to disclose location records for any device in a certain area at a particular time. Court filings suggest that google received 1500 increase in geofence requests from 2017 to 2018. And 500 increase from 2018 until 2019. And so the Fourth Amendment<\/a> requires probable cause and specificity. That is not what these are. These warrants are essentially for any person in a particular area at a particular time and Geofence Warrants<\/a> require neither. Unless the company buys particularized information identifying a subject, geowarrants are essentially general warrants. I believe the Location Information<\/a> should be considered as contents of the Electronic Communications<\/a> act under the historic communications act. Do you agree . Happy to understand more. We deeply care about this is the issue of transparency is important because we think it is an important area for congress to have oversight and we recently made a change by which we automatically delete location activity after a Certain Party<\/a> by default for our users. So we are happy to engage with the office, congressman. Im using you because these are going on in virginia and new york right now but this equates for everything. People would be terrified to know that Law Enforcement<\/a> could grab general warrants and get anybodys information anywhere. It requires congress to act, and requires everybody in a witness in this hearing to be willing to work, because it is single most important issue. Time for gentleman has expired. I believe believe he has unanimous consent request. I do. Wall street journal article, Police Request<\/a> for google users location history faces new scrutiny. Without objection. I have two letters, the letters from congressman walden and congresswoman mcmorris rogers. The first letter for mr. Cook and mr. Pichai without objection. I recognize the gentlelady from washington. Thank you for being with us. Mr. Bezos, your employee nate sutton told me under oath in this committee that amazon does not, quote, use any specific seller data when creating its own private brand product. So let me ask you, mr. Bezos, does amazon ever access and use 30 party seller data when making Business Decisions<\/a> and just a yes or no will suffice, sir . I, thank you, for the question. It is an important topic and i also want to thank you for representing us. I cant answer that question yes or no. What i can tell you we have a policy against using seller specific date to aid our private label business but i cant guarranty you that that policy has never been violated. Mr. Bezos, youre probably aware that an april 2020 report in the wall street journal revealed that your company does access data on Third Party Sellers<\/a> both by reviewing data on popular individual sellers and products and by creating tiny product categories that allowed your company to categorically access detailed seller in a supposedly aggregate category. Do you deny that report . Im familiar with the wall street journal article that youre talking about. We continue to look into that very carefully. Im not yet satisfied that weve gotten to the bottom of it, and were going to keep looking at it. Okay. Not some of the sources in the article are anonymous, but we continue to look into it. Ill take that as youre not denying it, youre looking into it. A former amazon employee told this committee, quote theres a rule, but theres nobody enforcing or spot checking. They just say dont help yourself to data. Its a candy shop, everyone can have access to everything they want. Do Category Managers<\/a> have access to data about nonthird Party Practices<\/a> and businesses . Heres what i can tell you, we do have certain safeguards in place. We train people on the policy, and we expect people to follow that policy the same way we would any other. Its a voluntary policy, as far as im aware so theres no, theres no [inaudible conversations] theres no absolute enforcement . Oh, no, i was going to say so its voluntary and theres no actual enforcement, so maybe that answers sorry. No, i think i may have misspoke. Im trying to say that amazons the fact that we have such a policy voluntary. I think no other retailer even has such a policy well, thats our enforcement of that policy, we would treat that like any internal policy, and if we found that someone violated it, we would take action against them. I recognize numerous reports and the committee has conducted interviews with former employees who confirm there are employees who do have access to that data and are using it. And so my next question was going to be if you thought you were actually enforcing these rules, do you think that thats working. And, again, i would just say that 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 ago regate data for a minute. Aggregate data for a minute. When there are only one or two sellers in the marketplace, correct . Yes. Aggregate data is allowed under our policy, that is correct. Okay. And interviews with former employees have made it clear that that aggregate data essentially allows access to highly detailed data in those product categories. Theres an example of fortem, a Small Business<\/a> that had no direct competitors except Amazon Warehouse<\/a> deals, a clearance account that only sold 17 units. An amazon employee accessed a detailed sales report on product with information on how much the company spends on advertising per unit and the cost to ship each trunk. And then amazon launched its own competing products in october 2019. That thats a major loophole. And i go back to the general counsels statement to this committee very clearly that there was no","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia903205.us.archive.org\/35\/items\/FBC_20200729_180000_Making_Money_With_Charles_Payne\/FBC_20200729_180000_Making_Money_With_Charles_Payne.thumbs\/FBC_20200729_180000_Making_Money_With_Charles_Payne_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}