A common refrain we hear from Tech Companies is, during the course of the investigation, but also on my own, since i have minute them in my district is that they cant be violating Anti Trust Laws and the primary argument is that many of their products are cheap or free, and therefore they are inherently benefiting. We have talked about this, to me the big question is its free really free . Consumers are paying for the product that they use, paying ended up, paying in privacy that they give up and often dont know they are giving up. The big Tech Companies and use that data to build these massive empires of information about consumers that give them spectacular advantage over newcomer businesses, allowing the companies to scrutinize every aspect of peoples lives, create and sell products that have the best chance of being successful. You mentioned the history of acquisitions. Facebook at made 67 on talents acquisitions, amazon has made 97, and google had made 214, mostly unchallenged acquisitions. You presided over the investigation of google, amazon and facebook. Two kinds of access, what kind of access to the half as a result and you talked about the threshold being one of the potential problems for why investigations arent opened. Do the threshold of investigations need to change, if we are able to challenge these acquisitions. Thank you very much for the question. Im very pragmatic, to the extent that people have the powers to look into those acquisitions, its fine by me. Im even in favor of changing very strategic platforms with such a big market power, i would wonder instead of asking the authorities to prove there is anticompetitive, then they could rebut with efficiencies to say you guys are not going to merge with anybody unless you prove to us this is going to create efficiencies. So i would change a little bit the burden of proof. In terms of investigations, i cannot disclose any information on any case. But my understanding of those cases, is some of the claims we hear is one click available, i didnt see that in the data at all. I didnt see anybody going and clicking on search results on page 2. So everybody being stuck with the defaults in the installation. So the fact some of us may have choices doesnt represent the consumer too. So its something that its a difference between theory and practice. But in theory they can do that. But consumers dont act ton practices, just fall on defaults. Thank you. Commissioner chopra, several of the platforms serve as gate keepers while competing with the businesses on those platforms. Amazon has a third market marketplace but own goods. When i met with them recently and in committee, they really testified that this dual structure doesnt have any conflict of interests and say its common for people to offer private label products alongside third party. Whats your response to that . I think we hear these analogies to comparing it to Grocery Store cereals and it doesnt work. Guess what, as soon as it takes off, it will be copied and all the business will be steered elsewhere. And that worries me for all of the small firms that want to enter. So we need to look deeply, thats why i mentioned South Carolina shun 6 b of the ftc act to scrutinize big picture. Of course, individual companies we will look if there is anticompetitive conduct, we have to go after it and fix it. But across these markets we exp, what is the tools that ftc is not using that you could be using . Well, there are so many things that congress has equipped us with. And one of the pieces that i hope we will use much more aggressively and thought fully is competition rule making. It doesnt need to put any burden on any company but it can clarify the law about whats legal and whats not so that we dont have to spend millions of dollars on paid economists and litigateors that slow down decisions and may ultimately harm a lot of people in the process. And we need to resuscitate the use of that tool. Thank you very much. Thank you. I now recognize armstrong for five minutes. Thank you very much. Armstrong. Miss layton, i want to talk fw about data portability. You say its over rated. Can you explain that a little bit . I think we have the premise of number portability. We know from the Telecom World youll go from one mobile carrier to another, you want to take your phone number, thats fine. But i think when you look at the internet world where you have multiple kinds of platforms, so if you have social network data, that doesnt, from facebook, it doesnt necessarily map to amazon. So there is the data is not really valuable to another platform. The bigger thing i think is something thats come up in this hearing, i think we are overrating the value of data overall. Because as a person who worked in the analytics industry, i had interfaced with 2,000 companies, they actually after time the data degrades. And if you are an innovator, its less interesting for you to get a platform status. So data portability is i think overrated. I also seen this in studies is that users dont value data portability. And i have said that too, the basic framework is you should have control over your own data. But since ive been here, ive learned way more about this. Part of the reason, its fairly complicated as to what is there. And i think thats part of the reason. Like when you say consumers dont really necessarily see this as a benefit, is it because they dont understand what it is . Or because of how you said it . Well, for one thing there are switching costs. I think thats a fair point other panelists have raised. But if we think we should have five major Search Engines, this is somehow makes it competitive. What makes competition in this industry is new technology, doing Something Better and different and more efficiently. So where i this i we should focus on is innovators look at other things in the economy. Its not like it is today will be this way forever. I guess whether we talk about data portability, we are talking about it moving, right . In other areas there is entire market niche. So when you are dealing with this data portability, has anybody looked at the liability shift as we move from one person to another . Yes. Because if there is a breach, which part of the Privacy Concern is breach of data and usually ends up with a Credit Card Company or a bank. But if its portable, i mean more than one person is handling that data as it moves from whether its microsoft, amazon, facebook, to somebody else. Yeah, thats a fair point. If i may, just, yes. Then my question is, along with that portability portion, is the cost of compliance flot for Large Companies who quite frankly we have seen this, and i want to ask you about an analogy before im done. Larger companies arent necessarily scared of regulation. What they want is certainty. Smaller companies that employ four or five people when you are dealing with data portability now have a cost associated with that. While we are trying to regulate this, we have to be very concerned that we dont regulate we dont have the inverse effect where the cost of regulation makes it prohibited. The European Experience with gpr, california solution now, let me clarify first this is very new so having empirical evidence is a long shot because this has been happening for a short period of time. Lets remind our its been introduced because fundamental principal of privacy individuals want to ensure. So any time you do a cost benefit analysis, surely you want to see it on firms. But also there is a benefit we get whatever privacy regulation is enforced properly. And the second point is that im very skeptical when i hear some of these numbers which are typically coming from institution which are funded by google, facebook. The european evidence is that google and facebook lost on the advertising side after the introduction of gdpr. So it is a cost of compliance, but whether its the only small firms, the narrative that you hear is from the big guys, not the small guys. Im going to bring the analogy back and ask mr. Chopra here. We dont have big banks, with the exception of some companies, north dakota, we are Small Business state. Single thing ive heard, the decade, 11 years since todd frank was introduced, in our realm to regulate what are really bad actors, the dakota bank is caught up in that. So are there any lessons we can learn in our quest to do whatever it is we dont sweep up the little guys in regulation . If you have 37 compliance officers on the fifth floor and go to 40, its not the end of the world. If you have two employees and go to five employees, you may not have a local. One thing i would really urge you to think about is complicated rules, they actually benefit those who have a lot of lawyers and lobbyists to get around it and lobby for exemptions. In my testimony i talked about the importance of bright line rules and even bans. Because you know what, ive had those same conversations with community bankers. They will say if im banned from doing it, fine. Because thats easy to understand. But if its so complicated, guess what, the largest banks in the world, they find their way in and get their exemptions. They win. And the small guys lose. And thats not a system or a country i want to live in. Mr. Chairman, i dont know if there is time for me to add to that. Because we have negative fine. No, go ahead. Congressman, i think you make an important point and i think you are absolutely right about worrying about the Small Businesses. I think sometimes in regulation its tricky because there is a tradeoff something that might be harmful for any size business to do, you make the rule, easier for the large one to comply than the small one, and you end up entrenching the incombants. In this area of competition, you can make sure that doesnt happen, because if you are talking about rules, code of conduct, as ive proposed for dig mall market to do, digital market to do. You cant prioritize your own products. Those rules would only apply to companies that i would designate as having strategic market status, only apply to the largest companies. If you are a Small Company and want to keep people off your platform, want to make rules about what other platforms they go, you can do any of that. We are only worried about if you have some bottleneck power abusing it. Thank you, dr. Furman. I have a unanimous consent to put Ranking Member collins statement into the record. Without objection. I now recognize the distinguished lady from florida, ms. Demings for five minutes. Thank you very much to the distinguished gentleman from colorado. I want to thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank to all of you for being with us today. Thank you for your patience as we go to cast our votes. I want to start with mr. Chopra. And several of your statements youve argued that the core problem that leads to dominant platforms, that leads dominant platforms platforms is data and involves them in engagement. What problems do you see with the behavioral advertisement Business Model . Well, i think we are seeing more and more evidence that behavioral advertising, again, that is advertising to a demographic of one. Exposes us to a whole lot of risks, including manipulation and shenanigans in our democracy. It is very, very profitable, though. Facebook earned 55 billion in revenue. Google even more. The advertising business is big. And im concerned that that behavioral advertising model is inconsistent with how we have thought about immunity online. Right now we give broad immunities under section 230. I support that immunity, but i dont know if its consistent with this behavioral ad model and surveillance. Mr. Chopra, what do you see as the solution . What role can how can congress ply a bigger role in dealing with this problem . Well, part of it, obviously, is through Better Privacy protection. Ill just speak about how i looked at the Facebook Order violations, the repeated and early violations of that order. That settlement not only completely let executives off the hook, and they paid a small fine and their stock went up, there is no substantive limitations on their use or sharing of data. And for repeat offenders, there needs to be some bans on this type of behavior. Because if they are going to break the law, we need to look at the economic incentive that is driving it. I think you said earlier when you have billions and billions of dollars, 5 billion in a settlement, there is not much incentive to change your narritive. Thats right. Big fines are not big penalties for big p cans. I worry its not a penalty. Its an incentive. I also want to urge congress to think about how do we beef up individual liability. Ftc facebook settlement, we did not depose mr. Zuckerberg or sandberg, but guess what . They got fuel immunity in the settlement. And if the Court Approves that what kind of standard are we setting . I think thats fundamentally wrong. Dr. Valletti, i want to ask you about that, but some have argued that heightened concern about digital monopolies is misguided given that Companies Like ibm, yahoo and blackberry, were all once viewed as dominant, but ultimately were taken over by new firms. And i know we talked a little bit, without naming the specific companies early. But can you just kind of, do you agree with that view . Or whats your feelings about that . Its almost an act of faith. Do we believe in competition . Sure, as a principle. But then i see the empirical evidence. When it comes to social networks, this has been going on for almost a decade. So is that long enough to have a tworry . Yes, i think. In the long run we are all dead but i hope we can fix problems before we are dead. laughs thank you for that bit of hope and sunshine. Im going to move on to dr. Furman. In your view, how readily available is highly quality data to new entrants if an entrepreneur wants to launch a new Search Engine. I know we talked about this space, protecting privacy, competition. But i just want to make sure its clear to not just the people in congress, but to the listening public as well, who is directly being impacted by the decisions made. Yeah. Google has a very good algorithm. Google also has a huge amount of data about how consumers search to train that algorithm. A bright kid in a garage could come up with a good algorithm. But they wouldnt have anything like that type of data in order to make it work nearly as well as google works today. Thank you. And mr. Chair, if i could just, id also like to hear from miss layton, just in response to either of the questions that i asked that you would just like to respond to. Well, thank you. I appreciate that opportunity. I would agree with dr. Furman, that when we look at artificial intelligence, that this is a greenfield. Hes absolutely correct that a scientist sitting in the garage or in the lab could come up with a life changing or transformative kind of algorithm. I am, in contrast to the other panelists, i dont believe data is a bottleneck. Because of having been a person working in the industry, the data you collect degrades over time. So if you are a new innovator, youll looking for spaces where there are opportunities. Its less interesting to look in the past. You want to look to the future to say how would i where could be a place where i would add value in the future . Health care. Its one of the most efficient industries. Takes up one fifth of our gdp. Thats where need to have it efficient and lower the cost. What i want us to do is look forward. I dont want to do adopt regulations deter scientists from making tomorrows regulations because they have to have all these permissions and releases from everyone. Now they may not look at personal data. There are other areas where there is no personal data involved. Quantum computing, astronomy, so on, they may go in those fields. But probably the biggest area to create the benefit is on human health. For example, in iceland, they have a registry of genomic data, can you find the cancer treatments, can you look at a lot of the new innovations. We dont know now because that was not collected under the gdpr environment. There again, thats the question that i would have. So health is an area where we need to see are we putting the bottleneck on the innovation. Thank you so much. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. I now recognize myself for five minutes. Commissioner chopra, one of the questions we are grappling with in this investigation is whether or not our antitrust agencies like the ftc have fallen short in the beat on this digital marketplace and whether or not that is due to insufficient legal authority, whether its due to weak leadership, or as i looic to refer to it the need foreign thus assic and creative leadership. Is it partly result of regulatory capture . What is your view . What should we be thinking about as we look at this inadequate enforcement of our antitrust agencies particularly ftc. What do you see as the source of that . Mr. Chairman, one of the things i reflect on a lot is how did the ftc miss much of the sub prime mortgage crisis that originated in the nonbank sector . The ftc was really the only cop on the beat there. And we saw what happened. So one of the things i think i took away from what ive learned on that is, number one, we need to use the tools we have much more energetically. Two, we need to be much more analytical and not think in the world of theoretical economic models but real evidence and look at how markets actually work. So of course, we can use more authority. We can use more resources. But the number one thing we need to do is energetically use the tools we have. And for you to think about, and dr. Valletti mentioned this too, should we be thinking about changing presumptions . Should the largest firms on the planet, should the burden be on them to show why their merger or roll up of of tons of companies is in that interest . So there are ways that you can change the way courts are acting. And i urge you to do that. The but i also urge you to conduct oversight that makes sure agencies are using every tool you have equipped us with. Great. In february, commissioner, you gave remarks to a conference at the university of colorado where you said, and i quote, competition Enforcement Actions like the bell labs consent to create conditions for scores of startups to intero accelerate and flourish. While we often focus on the cost of action and regulation, we should also be asking ourselves about the cost of inaction, end quote. Do you believe lawmakers should be considering remedies like the wunds imposed on bell labs, particularly since a lot of the focus of this investigation has been impact of this market concentration on innovation startups, kind of the opportunity to make the next space for the next Great Technology platform . Yeah. I appreciate that. One of your areas of inquiry in the investigation is whether spinoffs or divestitures of firms may be useful. Some call it breaking up. But there are many many other remedies we need to think hard about. Should we be opening up intellectual property that has been abused by dominant firms . And how much could that incubate in new activity . There is all sorts of history about how we have pursued this and the benefits from it. Can we look to separate lines of business to end those conflicts of interest and create more Economic Activity . So we should work with you on all of that. But the discussion must be bigger than breakups. But of course breakups must be in the toolkit as well. Im going to stay with you commissioner because well do a second round. Because obviously i have questions for the other witnesses. But i want to transition to some of the resent privacy settlements that the ftc have critisized publicly. You stated that the settlement gives facebook a lot to celebrate which was similar to what i said. Can you explain what your concerns are with the settlement . I know that you said, in part, that the 5 billion settlement was inefficiency because it didnt address facebook Business Model which got facebook to engage in the violations in the first place. What do you think the effective remedies . What was your criticism of that and what do you think that should lack like . So, i think of this in multiple buckets. First we should start with this is a case of recidivism, repeat offender, so not just the first time, oops. And in my view of the evidence it was clear that there was multiple early violations and floj of knowledge of those. I think of it number one where is the individual accountability . The officers and directors who called the shots to violate the law so that they could put money in their own pockets. Without individual liability, you will not see the level of deterrence. You need. And the federal rules of civil procedures in our courts bind officers and directors to federal enforcement orders. Two, what is the Economic Relief . To me, there should have been real thought on actually banning some of the worst Data Collection use and sharing practices. And we have to think, of course, monetary relief is important, but u. S. Consumers did not get a penny of that. So im not sure that head line 5 billion is going to do much. Thank you commissioner. I now recognize the gentleman from oh, im sorry, from, pennsylvania, miss scanlan. I want to thank all the witnesses for joining us today and your testimony. Consumer privacy is an important issue for all of us both as individuals and as representatives for our constituents. But the way that data is collected and used by the large platforms, obviously impacts the ability of consumers to maintain their privacy and the options they have to make informed decisions about their online activity. Dr. Valletti, i wonder if you could expand a little bit on the third point that you made regarding privacy degradation to detriment to consumers. I think you said imposing weak Privacy Protection that is not well understood but accepted by con um zooers because of lack of alternatives has to do with market power. Can you talk a little bit about that and what kind of remedies you might suggest . On consumer harm, as i write in my written piece, it can be risk of data breach, identity theft. But interesting also, consumer profiling which is not done in the interests of consumer, for instance, discrimination, scoring, just are hooked up, these devices are pleentmeant to keep us online as possible so they learn about. And we buy whatever the thing is that is offered to us and underlying auction. And only one platform. Of course, if you are look fog are a car that would take much longer kind of period. So its a bit different. And for remedies, the most important thing i would start from is really try to think carefully about privacy. So having privacy regulations, which is done in the interests of american people. And its american institutions should come up with a solution. Congresswoman, just one point. When facebook started, there was another social media platform called my space. I remember. And one of the reasons that facebook was able to unseat myspace was partially on privacy and control of data, that you will be able to control who sees your information. We should want firms to compete on privacy. These changes to terms of service hidden in the fine print where they can collect more and more data and unilaterally have these terms, thats a price hike. We are paying for that data. And more competition should be critical how we think about protecting privacy. I wonder in other contexts we have seen, you can change the dynamic by having an opt in rather than an opt out. Is there any possibility of doing Something Like that in this sphere . So for example opting in, having to opt out of a savings plan rather than opting in . We do know behavioral defaults are highly influential. And typically right now Companies Get to take everything from you and you have to figure out a way to opt out. Its kind of like a fulltime job with all the websites you have. So shifting the burden to companies, i think, would be a great way to really reduce the burden on all of us. And actually if Consumers Want to share their data proactively and really want to renew that, let them tell that company and give them permission. Okay. Ive also had conversations with my kids and other constituents about the power over consumer data, putting that back in the hands of consumers. And the example they like to talk about is moving your Music Library from apple to spotify. Mr. Furman, can you talk about the idea of implementing data portability and whether thats something that we should be exploring . Yes, i think absolutely you should be exploring that. And its not just downloading your data. Its really being able to port and move it over in a simple and transparent manner. The companies are making some progress in doing this through steps like the digital transfer project. I think in part they are making that progress because they think regulation is coming and they are responding to it. And to do this is not just simply passing a law saying you have to do it. You have to roll up your sleeves a little bit and go through use case to figure out how to balance the different concerns. But if you can do that and create more values for consumers and more competition. Thank you. I yield back. I recognize the gentleman from north dakota mr. Armstrong. Thank you. And i think the chairman actually does have a myspace account. So dr. Layton you seemed you wanted to respond to that question so ill give you a chance. Thank you. I wanted to say miss scanlan to piggy back on dr. Veil, he does have a pain ser looking at the prices for auctions. I think its interesting. I merten Search Engine marketers. And i think its a fallacy to think just because the ad appears at the top of the page in Google Search is highest bid. Typically its lowest bid. What is driving the page is what is relevant. So what google is rewarding is quality of advertising. And brings an interesting case. A Plumbing Service wants to create an ad. Well that is also an issue of who amongst the plumbing industry is organized to invest in google. You know, and it could be this also reflects the competition of the plumbing side. And the other part is if you are the consumer, you want to have the information, that ad format actually gives you a lot of things to look things to look at. So i say its not a fact that the highest top level pays the most. In some fields like asbestos those words could be worth a lot of money. Ment so there is many other areas not used at all. And a click could be a cent. So you have to look at the data. Im going to move to something different. In your Senate Testimony you said gdpr revoved crimes and Search Engines. And footnote said finished Court Decision right to be forgotten has convicted murder tears Public Information from google listings. Before you answer, ill say i support the ban. I think its fantastic. I have some thoughts on that when we are done. But we also have a First Amendment. So lets take First Amendment issues a side and can you expand on that a little bit. Sure. For those particular reasons, and also right to be forgotten has been pushed back by the european courts. But this issue about people being able to expunge data that they dont like, well, you know, maybe its a nice idea in theory. But we have in the united states, we have a respect for the publics right to know. So for example what you have seen in the European Union are dirty politicians who have bad articles about them, they get removed from the media, they get removed from the Google Searches, murders, child predators, all these terrible characters are able to weaponize the gdpr for those reasons. And i think thats within one of the reasons within ban the box we need to understand as members of congress, is that still only gets you past the first stage. And you can ban anything from google, you can ban it from facebook search, but i can tell you my private investigator could find it in three seconds. So if you go in second stage offal interview, and working for the federal government, you have to have stuff. Haz mat drivers license, these are good concepts but sometimes we use the availability of that. The world we live in now and if you have a conviction, you cant. If it happened in 1970 you could move to madison, wisconsin and start your life over. Because no one would look up records. But we use this availability of information a little bit as a scapegoat. Bass as i said any job you are applying for that has any kind of insurance issue, regulatory issue, framework issue is going to find it anyway. So we need to address the fact like with companies, with insurance companies, listen, we support this from a congressional level and broad bipartisan support. But we also have to change insurance culture and hiring culture and allowing those things to happen. And the fact that its not a Google Search doesnt mean its not going to agree. I agree. I think we are mixing a few things here. One thing is gdpr. One thing is right to be forgotten. The first step is for you to understand what you interpret as privacy. There is a boundary between your private self and outside world. What do you think you want to share with your family, community, friends or not even with them. When it comes to digital space, this idea that there is not a choice. That we have borrowed from other industries is not out there any longer. So these boundaries are so blurred you must look into that. And i agree with that. Because when we were talking about opt in and opt out, shortly after there was some congressional testimonies before i was here, you started seeing these windows pop up on your social media platform, and yes and no. And whenever i talk to High School Age kids after that happened, i would ask them did any of you check no. And none. Sometimes you cant check no. Yeah, but not a single hand goes up. So how people define privacy in the next generation is also something that is changing dramatically. I recognize myself for five minutes. I want to build on the fact that mr. Chopra made on consent that would be a fulltime job. And i think as it turns out, even if you devoted your time to it as a fulltime job, you still would run into the situation which you have the take it or leave it things where basically if you dont agree to a certain amount of collection you dont get the service. So the consumer, the user in this context doesnt really have the power, even if you devoted full time navigating. And you wonder why we dont create the kind of consent we require in most other contents. If its medical consent or not guilty plea in a court, its the knowing consent, its actually the person knowing what they are consenting to and an affirmatively consenting. And why we have complete turning on its head where everyone is presumed to consent to everything about them unless they can find a way to object is kind of curious. So this is an important area. Dr. Valletti i want to turn to you for a moment. Google has 2 billion users on android and facebook has over 2. 5 billion users. And what we hear often is these services are very popular and people have no problem with the kind of corporate surveillance. And isnt the fact that these numbers are so great evidence there is not really a problem . That the popularity of these services proves we dont need to worry about this . What do you say about this . That these are popular is evident. But nobody cares. One of the points i make in my written piece is also that con psalmers are not put in a position to understand what the costs might be because they cannot see where the data is going. Because they just dont know. And they cannot make comparisons because there is a lack of competition. Going back to your original remark, you are probably aware earlier this year germany had a case against facebook, and this is on appeal in the court now, but exactly said that the consent, that the customers want to be on facebook have to give also to cross link data with whatsapp and instagram which belong to the same company. They said you didnt tell them what you were going to do, you cannot do it unless you inform them in some appropriate way. And if you do not, if you dont consent, you cannot deny access to the service to facebook because you dont need that consent to supply the primary service. Thank you. In july, as part of this investigation, google testified before the subcommittee that it faces, and i quote, formidable competition around the world, end quote. Google stated that users can choose from a menu of search providers including bing and yahoo. Dr. Alletti in light of your work, do you agree there is immense competition . Thats a very general statement. So i will be more precise. When it comes to say general search, competition is not there. In europe 93 of european searches are done by a one Search Engine. And this possibility that consumers have to do something else, to change the defaults, to change all the behavior we mentioned several times, they are clear in the data. I do see people actually sticking all the time and never changing the default. Dr. Furman, i have a couple of questions. You can respond quickly. One quick point to add. Google wouldnt pay so much money to be the default Search Engine on things like ios if it was really easy for consumers to switch. Right. And so dr. Furman, what role do you think information asymmetries play in how we should understand Digital Markets . Corporations routinely have more information. But digital platforms have astronomical advantage. How should this effect policy if at all . First of all, i think the enforcers need more resources. The cma in the u. K. Has actually created a digital unit with excellent staff in terms of Data Analytics and the like. And we also need to design policies around data openness that reduce some of that asymmetry between some of the big platforms, their competitors, and the public and regulators. I think many of you have made this point. This can be compliments such that more competition can incentivize firms with more privacy. But also at odds that data portability could expose to a broader set of corporations. So how should enforcers and policy makers, particularly congress, strike this balance . I think the answer to that is going to be on a case by case basis. First of all, you said a lot of case is compliments. A lot of cases only one is impla end implemented. You cant just think about policy and completely ignore competition. And you cant just think about competition and completely ignore privacy. Thats part of why you would want to establish a unit tv regulators or something that would have both of those objectives. I want to know if you wanted to respond to any of what ive asked . No. Good. Mr. Chairman, i would just add when there is so few dominant players, that opens up more abuses of privacy. And im worried that our economy in this sphere is just drifting toward the chinese model where there is just massive amount of information on people collected without their consent and can be used to manipulate. And i just reject this argument that if we want to compete with china, we need to have our Companies Look like them. The beauty of our country is when new trends come in and challenge the dominant ones. I dont want that system. I agree. At this time id ask unanimous consent that the following statements be introduced into the record, written statement from the australian and Commission Chair sims into the digital platforms. Without objection. A written statement from dina discussing the inter section of competition and privacy. Without objection. A letter from Consumer Reports privacy and data in competition. No objection. Written statement from maurice digital platform economies effects on antitrust and privacy policy. Without objection. And a statement from the European Union commissioner for competition, margaret vesair with her expertise on the digital economy. Without objection. And with that ill conclude the hearing with gratitude for our extraordinary witnesses for being here today and contributing significantly to our ongoing investigation. And with that, the committee is adjourned. It leads to the use of that data in a way that is predicting the behavior of users in a way that advantages their own services or products. So this is very alarming. I think this is consistent with the other things weve heard during the course of this investigation. You know, i think it gives us an opportunity to also hear about some of the remedies or some of the things we should be thinking about, both in terms of resources of the ftc, whether or not we need to make changes in statutes, or better mechanism for people to consent to the collection of their data. But also implication on the economy broadly and entrepreneurship and the availability of startups to enter the market and survive. So interesting testimony from real experts. Well, the commissioner did hint hes worried about regulatory capture in federal agencies and probably his own federal agency. Do you share that concern . Yes. Do you share that concern that large Tech Companies have captured the ftc . I think there is great concern that the Large Technology companies have disproportionate influence offer the regulatory process. I mean, part of that is kind of larger function of when you have these things its followed by political power. So the election people who also share those views that come out as regulatory capture on the regulatory side. So i think the commissions concerns are serious and i share them. And i think those are some of the issues we need to look at. What do you think of the argument from commissioner philips from the ftc, that you have it all wrong . There are tradeoffs between privacy and competition. If you cut off access to certain third parties for consumer data, that it helps privacy, actually makes it harder to have a competing service . What do you think of that argument that there is a tradeoff . Look, i dont think there is a tradeoff. Again, i think that presumes that people aric ma are making that choice. I think there is no evidence to support that. Also when you take a look at these take it or leave it contracts for services, very often their refusal to consent to that collection means they dont access the service or products. So i dont think you have a marketplace where consumers are getting this information and then knowingly consenting to its collection. And, you know, i think we are seeing more and more evidence of this massive collection of data. And the presumption seems to be, in the current model, that companies can collect everything they want from you, and that if you are going to protect yourself, you are going to safe guard your privacy, you have to figure out some way to spend a lot of time to try to instruct them to do it, if you can even do it, and then run the risk of not getting access to the services. We ought to be thinking about why we are beginning this argument with this were starting with the argument that these big Companies Get to take all these valuable information from the consumers and the consumer has to defend against it. Its most other areas, consent means the person consenting know knows what he or she is consenting to. This is the reverse. It allows the collection of enormous amounts of private information about every Single Person in this country. I think one of the things that the investigation has to look at is that the right model. Ought we be creating different presumptions that safeguard the privacy interest of consumers. If youre concerned its suffering regulatory capture, does that mean the ftc should be an object of investigation of the committee . One of the things the investigation is looking at is i said this from the very beginning of the investigation. Were looking at the existing antitrust statutes, whether they need to be modernized and updated, were looking at antitrust and the resources to determine if they have sufficient resources, are they staffed with people who are enthusiastic and aggressively enforcing antitrust. And do they have the resources necessary to do that. The ftc is under investigation then . I wouldnt say theyre under investigation. This is not an prosecution, this is an investigation that relates to collecting information so we can make informed judgments with respect to policy, regulation and legislation. This is an investigation where were collecting a lot of information so we have the best data and the best information to make good judgments about how we respond to this. And that include, of course, looking at the ftc. Its not a prosecution kind of an investigation, but theyre part of our review in this. Do you see a timeline for the investigation overall given on whats on the committees plate. Our hope is to conclude our evidence collection into this year, beginning of next year with the idea well have a final report instead of recommendations and the first part of nebs year, providing us enough time to act on that in this congress. Youve gotten the first batch of documents. Have you also gotten the documents you were seeking from the competitorssmaller companies . I cannot comment on that at this point. If you were on the Financial Services committee, what question would you ask mark i think thats something we dont look at underestimation where we place to protect consumers so that they have real control over their data and they want to protect their privacy and they have the ability to do that. Most important, this digital marketplace is a base a solution that will bring new interest in this market and different of protections. Its more attracted to a concern where a mauve to go there rather than be left in the garden address now. To put it into the privacy space. Theres a lot of overlap the thing so its separate in a lot of ways and i expect will continue to work closely with the committee as we craft the system. They dont have to more. Theyre done. One more. Can you give us an idea of what got you up from the big four . No. laughs were just in the process. I was interested in hearing a reaction to hear about markers october expedient or day. He has a very par charm offense. I didnt see what he said yesterday and im making it clear that i take mr. Zuckerbergs commitment to take this investigation seriously. He made that commitment to me directly at a facetoface meeting and has proven to be true so far. Ill take him at his word and its a work in progress. Im also very clear about the content of facebook and the resent of his arm and i consider that serious and i think in many ways theyve been a bad actor in the space to understand what has allowed this to happen on the enforcement side. Iran with the enactors inaccuracies but these companies but been very clear about that that this investigation doesnt see around one company but part of this committee was part of it to. Thank you
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.