Welcome everyone to the third in our series of hearings. This one on the role of data and prime fancy into competition. I recognize myself, i should state the obvious im, not bitter of the subcommittee, and chairs the subcommittee, the chair of the committee will be here in a few minutes. It has never been easier to share news and information that content and communicate with loved ones, all at a moments notice. Given the technological recognitions it, has added to the balance of power in our economy. Its important for us to understand how this affects americans, what is causing the asymmetries of power and whether these new and growing inequalities are compatible with our democratic values. The committees ongoing is a key part of this practice. Todays hearing, we will examine the role that data plays and maintaining any qualities of power, and how this affects competition. As previous hearings have shown, the growing share of Congress Communications is now controlled by a small number of companies. These platforms are innocent, largely intermediaries, perfectly positioned throughout each communication that passed through its channels. Well intermediaries have collected information on the platforms, they have an unprecedented ability to surveil users across the internet. This Data Collection includes information not only about the shopping habits, but also about the time that they wake up and go to sleep, the precise location of each hour of the day, and the content of the most private communications. Several of these platforms amassed their revenue through digital advertising, these firms also have an incentive to connect as much information as possible, so that they can target consumers with precision. This can also be used by companies and more nefarious ways, distributing information based on race, gender and income, or otherwise intrude on personal privacy. I hope this will be addressed in todays hearings. First, how our Digital Technologies and the constant Digital Technologies enabled affecting competition . In Digital Markets, maximizing days a can provide a significant advantage, a large growing set of use allowed farms to improve existing private services to expand with a competitive edge. The most nominated companies are those that have captured the most data from as many sources as possible. We are the First Company to establish a competitive league, winning the market, crushing any competition. In other words, competitive in Digital Markets are ensuring as much information as possible, as part of a Long Term Strategy to achieve market dominance. This raises serious questions about whether it is good for society, for unrelenting Data Collection on which companies are looking to oust, as he pointed out. The fact that several major platforms make most of their profits by selling, items those incentives. The second question i hope will be addressed, its how Data Collection increases the number of ways the dominant companies can abuse their market power. Theres the collection of data enable what they should recognize us anti competitive, for example platforms that service intermediaries and critical insight into their Business Models, a dynamic that raises significant competition concerns. These issues in mind, able forward this to our Witnesses Today, and i now recognize this Opening Statement to the breaking member, former chairman of the committee. Thank you for this. We continue our oversight in the tech industry, to date, our primary focus is on line platforms. The role that Data Platform play in competition in the ways in which we can better protect the privacy of consumers online data, largely concerning these platforms. Data is most of the internet, numbers issues for all around the use of this, for example, these include allegations that, one, platforms can operate as a barrier to market buy new platforms. To, platforms hold large data bases can leverage that data to compete unfairly with thirdparty competitors that are dependent upon their platforms. Three, the incumbent platforms can kill off competition, for Data Acquisition and market shares. Its my hope we can determine fact from fiction when it comes to these allegations, and i have stress beforehand i trust these laws will not exist to punish success but to foster it. Congress an anti trust enforcement agencies need to be careful not to over reach, to extend or apply Anti Trust Laws in ways that in the punishing success. Surprising innovation and limiting consumer welfare. The supply is not the issues concerning competition for data, but also it applies to the issues concerning privacy. If youre going to address the data and Consumer Data Privacy through legislation we might get it right. I did not say this in a vacuum. Governments in the United States and europe have already begun to lay down loss to address these issues. The most prominent example being in the European Unions general Data Protection regulation, or gdpr. Following in its footsteps they have passed the California Consumer privacy act, which is substantially modeled on the gdpr. Testimony offered before the Senate Judiciary committee in march, one of our Witnesses Today offered a powerful indictment of the gdp our. However, they are producing substantial Collateral Damage to consumer welfare, innovation, and the health of the digital economy. It is likely that the ccpc will have the same effects. All of these effects are avoidable. Its imperative that we identify and put into place a better means for protecting Consumer Privacy online. I hope our Witnesses Today can help us work through these important issues. Before yielding back, let me put a number of statement to the record that i have received one from georgetown university, the second is a joint statement by the national cta and u. S. Telecoms, a letter that has been sent to the chairman and myself, a letter for that choice. I think the chairman of the four committee for opening this. In june we launched a historic investigation into the state of the competition in the digital marketplace, the purpose of this investigation is to document conduct online and to examine the dominant farms are engaging, and to assess whether we are adequate to address these claims. We felt as a top to bottom review. Most recently, we have had documents from the dominant platforms. On monday, tens of thousands of documents and we expect and review additional hearings as well. To ensure that the goals of the investigation are met. As ive said, this is essential to the constitutional responsibility to conduct the oversight enjoy theyre working. We enacted the Anti Trust Laws and Congress Must be responsible for determining whether the current laws or enforcement levels are keeping up with the Digital Markets. We have a lot of work ahead of us, but i am proud of the efforts of my colleagues, along with their dedicated staff to continue this bipartisan work together. Todays hearings will advance a key online. We have published groundbreaking reports that focused on this issue. As the support of noted, that is at the heart of competition online. An exhaustive report concluded, and i quote, that the breadth and depth of our user data, collected by the incumbent digital platforms, advise them with a strong competitive advantage, create barriers to rivals entering and expanding in market, and allowing the incumbent digital platform to expand into adjacent markets, in quote. One of our seemed witnesses here today, suddenly reporters that large tariffs of data made tip markets in favor of a single dominant platform, killing of competition. That played an Important Role in the ability of startups to attract capital to compete with forms in this market. A panel of experts led by protector scott morton for the university of chicago reporter that investor as, they explained a new entrance starved of data, quantitatively speaking, relative to a tech giant, is at a competitive and they view the data deficit as uncomfortable. They will get locked out the market and never offer innovative, that data can be abused by platforms for purposes, they have created an innovation kill zone around dominant firms. Whether its facebooks use of an over, and the weaponization of api to block competitors, the abuse of data has serious ramifications for competition. This persons an opportunity to examine the role of privacy online, as a growing consensus that privacy as an important. This is critical for revenue. And a statement, we know that market consolidation allowed platform that buy escalating prices but by diminishing quality. Furthermore as weve reported, misuse of data not only indicator of a lack of competition, but also since the farm dominance in the market as well. In a market that has viper competition, farms have strong incentives to respond to demands by improving the safeguards to the products, without a competition and no incentive to deliver privacy. I recently had the pleasure of discussing this with the Harvard School business, who has written about the rise of surveillance capitalism. The point that she made that struck me was at the pattern of automating business for more clicks and better predictions is itself a market extra allergy, there is no consumer demand for this service. Americans dont want to have their data mind so they can be shown another advertisement. Theres no escape, because theres no alternative. People are stuck with bad options, or no options at all, which is evidence of a market failure. Furthermore, companies i want to compete by Offering Services that deny, which enforces the market dominance of the farm. Its increasingly clear that the relationship is not either or, their mutually beneficial concepts that must be at the forefront as we continue to consider prospects of the internet to beautiful promise. Before closing, i want to thank commissioner and chairman for their statements submitted for todays hearings. He was originally scheduled to testify between change in our schedule he cannot attend. Nevertheless, i think kevin his team for their hard work against this issue. Now its my pleasure to introduce todays witnesses for todays hearing. Our first witness is the honorable reheat chopra, before joining the ftc he was instrumental in working on the, and became the First Student loan lawmen. He made significant inroads towards addressing the, he was nominated to serve as an ftc commission and was confirmed unanimously by the senate on april 26th. He received his ba from harvard university, and is in the a from university of pennsylvania. He is a professor in london since 2007. Before, he served as a chief economist for three years, where he focused on competition and Digital Markets. He has served as a professor in the university of warm, he is also a research fellow, and received his masters and ph. D. From the London School of economics, in addition to his work as an economist, he also received his flute diploma from the musical conservatory in toronto. Our third witness is, a professor, the chair of economic advisers during present a lot of second term. He was insistent to the president of the National Security council, he serves as a non resident senior fellow, as well as an adviser for the uk government. He received his ba, and may, increase the from harvard university, as well as his masters and science from the London School of economics. Finally, this is a visiting scholar, he also served as a visiting researcher at Albright University as Vice President in copenhagen, before her tenure, she worked at ibm, and has published multiple publications including four reports and served as president trumps Transition Team in 2016, helping to establish his federal communications commission. Doctor layton received her nba from layton, her nba from rotterdam, and ph. D. From altright university. Thank you for participating in todays hearing, and now if you will please rise out begin by swearing un. Please raise your right hands. Do you swear that your testimony is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, so help you god . Let the record show the witnesses answers a formative, thank you. You must be in seeded. Accordantly, i ask you summarize your testimony. Its a timing on the table, when it switches from green, you have one minute to conclude your testimony. Commissioner chopper, you may begin. Thank you. My name is robbie chopra and i served as a federal trade commissioner. Oversight from congress is a pillar of sound transparent government, and i have been honored to testify many times before members of congress, including before chairman elijah cummings, whos energy and passion will be missed by so many of us. Todays topic could not be more important for timely as it seems almost daily we learn a problem stemming from lack of concentration. We need to focus on four ways their companies undercut competition, concentration, conflicts of interest, contracts and capture. Market power is concentrated with a few giant in so many industries, conflicts of interests allow these dominant firms to sometimes read the market in their favor, at the expend of upstart and new businesses that fairly compete. Onesided, take it or leave it contracts and online terms of service impose self serving regulations on consumers and Small Businesses. All too often, the government is to captured by those incumbents to use their power to dictate their preferred policies. In my testimony, i discuss how competition in the market is structured around data, a valuable asset with a very unique economic futures, we need to take this into account. Our personal data is powering the profits and dominance of Tech Companies that offer basic Services Like email, search or photo sharing that are not truly free. Fortunately, many of my colleagues around the world are also pushing forward. Reports from regulators and australia, the united kingdom, the european union, are must rates for this committee and everyone concerned about the future of our vigil economy. In the United States, as you know, our efforts are a work in progress, and i agree that we need to take a fresh look at our policies and guidance. As we do, its important that the federal trade commission conduct a rigorous review of quantitative market data and analysts sense of the financial incentives dragging market behavior. Since during the commission, i have argued that the ftc should be using our authority under section six be of our act to get the data we need to effectively police these markets and report our findings to you and the public. When it comes to enforcement, i am more optimistic, now that scores of states, both republican and democrat are teaming up to investigate anti competitive conduct. In this moment, it is all hands on deck, and i stay in constant communication with that. Decades ago, our state eighties played a pivotal role in ending microsoft chokehold over the future of the internet, and without that action, there would likely be no google, no facebook, and no amazon. While the ftc is a recent settlements with facebook and Googles Youtube included finds that made for a great headlines, they did little to fix the core problems that fueled these companies to data abuses. Big fines are not big penalties for the worlds biggest companies, and as weve seen time and again when a template company can pay a fine from its gains this is not a penalty, this is an incentive. As congress, federal anti trust enforcers and state attorneys all pursue their investigations we will need to pursue remedies that reduced concentration, eliminated conflicts of interest, or send abusive contract terms against Small Businesses and limit capture. For example, recent scholarship has revealed that anti trust actions that separated lines of businesses are required, for ordered more patent available for public use after competitive conduct, all elected massive innovation, Small Business entry and economic growth. These are useful tools in the tool box for policymakers and enforcers to consider went looking to build the remedy and prevent arm. In conclusion, while some believe that lax enforcement and absentee government at the ingredients of innovation, history teaches us it is the opposite. Without a vigilant and active government promoting competition markets, sometimes that means providing corporations with benefits, like limited liability, license contracts and other opportunities, but free and fair markets wont work without meaningful consequences for lawbreakers. And in action as a price we cannot afford to pay. Thank you. Thank you, i now recognize doctor Tommaso Valletti for five minutes. Good morning and thank you very much for inviting me. My name is Tommaso Valletti and i professor of economics at the Imperial College in london. And i was the chief commission economist of the European Commission. In that role, and