[Senate Hearing 117-840]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                        S. Hrg. 117-840

                 BIG DATA, BIG QUESTIONS: IMPLICATIONS
                     FOR COMPETITION AND CONSUMERS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMPETITION POLICY,
                     ANTITRUST AND CONSUMER RIGHTS

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________


                           SEPTEMBER 21, 2021

                               __________


                          Serial No. J-117-35

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary






                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





                        www.judiciary.senate.gov
                            www.govinfo.gov

                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

54-862                    WASHINGTON : 2024















                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                   RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking 
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California             Member
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             JOHN CORNYN, Texas
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      TED CRUZ, Texas
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              BEN SASSE, Nebraska
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
ALEX PADILLA, California             TOM COTTON, Arkansas
JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
                                     THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
                                     MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

             Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
      Kolan L. Davis, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director



             SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMPETITION POLICY, ANTITRUST
                          AND CONSUMER RIGHTS

                    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota, Chair

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah, Ranking 
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut          Member
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  TOM COTTON, Arkansas
                                     THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
                                     MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

                Keagan Buchanan, Majority Staff Director
                  Wendy Baig, Minority Staff Director









                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                     SEPTEMBER 21, 2021, 2:51 P.M.

                    STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

                                                                   Page

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota..     1
Durbin, Hon. Richard J, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois     1
Lee, Hon. Michael S., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah......     5

                               WITNESSES

Witness List.....................................................    48
Colclasure, Sheila, global chief digital responsibility and 
  public policy officer, IPG Kinesso, Little Rock, Arkansas......    10
    prepared statement...........................................    49
Erickson, Markham, vice president of government affairs and 
  public policy, Google, Washington, DC..........................     9
    prepared statement...........................................    58
Robb, John, author, The Global Guerrillas Report, Acton, 
  Massachusetts..................................................    12
    prepared statement...........................................    67
Satterfield, Steve, vice president of privacy and public policy, 
  Facebook, Menlo Park, California...............................     7
    prepared statement...........................................    71
Slaiman, Charlotte, competition policy director, Public 
  Knowledge, Washington, DC......................................    13
    prepared statement...........................................    76

                               QUESTIONS

Questions submitted to Sheila Colclasure by:
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................    88
    Senator Ossoff...............................................    89
    Senator Tillis...............................................    91
    Senator Blackburn............................................    87
Questions submitted to Markham Erickson by:
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................    92
    Senator Hawley...............................................    93
    Senator Tillis...............................................    94
Questions submitted to John Robb by:
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................    97
    Senator Tillis...............................................    98
    Senator Blackburn............................................    96
Questions submitted to Steve Satterfield by:
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................   100
    Senator Hawley...............................................   101
    Senator Tillis...............................................   103
    Senator Blackburn............................................    99
Questions submitted to Charlotte Slaiman by:
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................   105
    Senator Tillis...............................................   106

                                ANSWERS

Responses of Sheila Colclasure to questions submitted by:
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................   107
    Senator Ossoff...............................................   109
    Senator Tillis...............................................   115
    Senator Blackburn............................................   118
Responses of Markham Erickson to questions submitted by:
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................   121
    Senator Hawley...............................................   123
    Senator Tillis...............................................   126
Responses of John Robb to questions submitted by:
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................   137
    Senator Tillis...............................................   133
    Senator Blackburn............................................   136
Responses of Steve Satterfield to questions submitted by:
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................   143
    Senator Hawley...............................................   144
    Senator Tillis...............................................   149
    Senator Blackburn............................................   139
Responses of Charlotte Slaiman to questions submitted by:
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................   154
    Senator Tillis...............................................   155









 
                 BIG DATA, BIG QUESTIONS: IMPLICATIONS
                     FOR COMPETITION AND CONSUMERS

                              ----------                              


                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2021

                               United States Senate
Subcommittee on Competition, Policy, Antitrust, and 
                                   Consumer Rights,
                                 Committee on the Judiciary
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:51 p.m., in 
Room 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Amy Klobuchar, 
Chair of the Subcommittee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Klobuchar [presiding], Blumenthal, Lee, 
Hawley and Blackburn.
    Also Present: Chair Durbin, Senators Padilla and Cruz.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,

           A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

    Chair Klobuchar. Okay. We've been joined by my friend and 
colleague, Senator Lee, so we're ready to begin the hearing. I 
call to order the hearing of the Subcommittee on Competition, 
Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights on Big Data, Big 
Questions: Implications for Competition and Consumers.
    Good afternoon, and before we begin, the Chair of the 
Committee can only be here for the first few minutes. It was 
very important to have him here and as we would give Senator 
Grassley the same due, we will--I asked Senator Durbin if he 
could say a few words before I begin.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,

           A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Klobuchar, and 
to our witnesses and my colleague Senator Lee for giving me 
this opportunity to say a few opening words about the scope and 
unrestricted nature of big data collection.
    In 2018, we had an extraordinary hearing with the head of 
Facebook, Mr. Zuckerberg. He faced 42 Senators who had 
questions for him because of overlapping jurisdiction of the 
Committees. It was an ordeal that went on for some period of 
time. I was somewhere in the middle of the pack. The question I 
asked him was very basic. ``Would you mind sharing with us the 
name of the hotel you stayed in last night?'' After a kind of 
embarrassed and awkward pause, he said, ``No.'' I said, ``Well, 
would you mind sharing with us the emails that you've sent out 
in the last 24 hours and who you sent them to?'' He said, 
``No.'' I said, ``Really isn't that the issue we're getting 
down to, privacy? Am I right to say there's a line I'm going to 
draw, and you can't cross it legally to invade my space and 
invade my privacy?''
    In today's world, information is economic power. Companies 
are using it to make more money. I share the concerns of my 
colleagues that have enabled the collection of too much 
information by selected few giant companies. There could be 
benefits and efficiencies to big data, but there are cost and 
impact. These cost and impact affect everyone, including our 
children.
    I introduced the Clean Slate for Kids Online Act because I 
was concerned with the amount of data collected and stored on 
our children and grandchildren. Every click a child makes on 
the internet leaves a trail of personal data that can last a 
lifetime.
    Companies that market online products and apps geared 
toward children are accumulating massive amounts of personal 
data, and the kids never had the chance to even consider giving 
informed consent.
    My bill would give every American enforceable legal right 
to demand that internet companies delete all personal 
information collected about a person when she was--he or she 
was under the age of 13. Kids deserve the right to request a 
clean slate once they've grown up and are old enough to 
appreciate the consequences of data collection. This bill gives 
them a basic privacy protection. It's one aspect of data 
collection that can be manipulated and impacted on consumers 
and competition.
    Today's hearing is an important part of that effort to 
shine light on big data collectors.
    I thank Senator Klobuchar and Senator Lee.
    Chair Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Chairman Durbin. I 
wanted to make clear that this hearing is one of a series of 
hearings that Senator Lee and I are conducting, our bipartisan 
review of America's competition issues. I thank my staff, as 
well as Senator Lee and his staff, for helping to plan the 
hearing.
    Today we're going to be talking about how competition is 
affected and threatened by the use of big data. Big data is at 
the core of our modern economy, as Senator Durbin so well 
pointed out, powering targeted advertising and driving 
artificial intelligence to select what products and services we 
are shown online and increasingly offline as well.
    In this hearing, we'll explore the companies that control 
the data, the state of competition and barriers to entry, and 
the effects of big data on consumers, their choices, and their 
privacy.
    I'd like to be clear about what we mean when we say big 
data. Technology companies such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon 
collect an enormous amount of information, as Senator Durbin 
pointed out, about our daily activities in real time. They know 
what we buy, who our friends are, where we live, work and 
travel, and more.
    In fact, their very business models, their very business 
models were set up around getting that information and then 
using it to profit. Through services such as Google's Gmail and 
Facebook's Instagram, though those services are offered to us 
for free, these companies and advertisers use the data they 
collect about us to sell to other companies. In the end, you 
can't get around the fact. We are the product. We are the 
product that makes the companies money.
    Big tech companies are not the only ones keeping tabs on 
all of us. Data brokers including Kinesso and its sister 
company, Acxiom, also buy, process, and sell massive amounts of 
personal information about consumers, and they've actually been 
doing it since before we even knew what the internet was. They 
collect information from the Department of Motor Vehicles, from 
public records, from our grocery store loyalty cards, and even 
from other data brokers.
    Today they also buy our browsing histories, and guess how 
much money we make, and what religion we practice. This data 
has immense competitive value and the way that it is collected 
and used has important impacts on consumers.
    I'll give you an example. The simple act of a consumer 
visiting a utility company's website to pay a monthly gas bill 
allowed dozens of companies to profit off of her, for the most 
part, without her knowledge.
    Facebook and Google are likely to know about that consumer 
paying her bill even though they had nothing to do with the 
transaction. If the gas company runs advertisements on Facebook 
as many do, Facebook would have trackers embedded on the gas 
company's website. If the consumer, if she uses the world's 
most popular web browser, Chrome, Google would know what 
websites she visited.
    Both companies collect and analyze this kind of 
information, building a detailed profile of the consumer and 
giving advertisers access to our online, for a price of course, 
but not something she gets paid.
    At the same time, data brokers like Acxiom are buying and 
selling data from utility providers, so they also potentially 
know that she paid her gas bill, and they pair that information 
with her other purchasing habits, location data, financial 
information, family details, and their guesses about her race 
and gender. They sell this kind of information to governments, 
advertisers, healthcare companies, and others.
    Just a few years ago, Acxiom had a partnership with 
Facebook to combine their data for advertisers and share the 
profits. At that time, Facebook would have supplied the 
consumer's online activities and Acxiom would have provided her 
offline activities, and advertisers could use them both to show 
her ads. Facebook ended that program in 2018, raising questions 
about whether massive technology companies now have so much 
data that they don't need to buy from data brokers.
    In today's hearing, we will discuss how this kind of 
control over enormous data affects competition. While data-
driven targeting can filter out things we don't want, show us 
products that might be of interest, and help some small 
businesses reach new customers, it also functions as a 
gatekeeper to important services and opportunities.
    We talk a lot in this space, as Senator Durbin did, about 
the privacy concerns, and obviously, there's big concerns about 
that. I've been a longtime advocate for privacy legislation, 
Federal privacy legislation. I think its time has long come, 
and I know we are looking at focusing some resources into these 
privacy issues in the bill that's currently being debated in 
the Senate.
    We also have to look at another piece of this, and that is 
that there are real threats to fair competition from these 
massive data sets and the artificial intelligence inferences 
that these companies make based on them.
    For example, after years of complaints and a Federal 
lawsuit, Facebook is reportedly still disproportionately 
showing job ads for mechanics to men and for pre-school nurses 
to women. That distorts labor markets, and it doesn't help us 
get to where we need to be to be able to recruit people for 
these jobs.
    We also see the control that big data has serious 
implications for healthy competitive marketplaces. Data can be 
a barrier to entry. Unless you have a lot of it, you may not be 
able to reach consumers successfully. The big data allows you 
to target ads, to create algorithms that others who might want 
to be entering the market can't do if they don't also have the 
data. It can be another way that powerful internet gatekeepers 
maintain control of how small businesses reach customers and 
earn outsized profits from that control.
    The impact of big data should also play an important role 
in merger analysis. As dominant digital platforms try to 
acquire other companies with massive troves of consumer data, 
the antitrust agencies must place greater emphasis on 
determining the competitive impact of obtaining even more data 
through mergers.
    This is why I talk about that our laws have to be as 
sophisticated as the markets that we today operate in. We all 
want opportunities for new and innovative companies to emerge 
and for new markets to develop.
    When big data inhibits competition by allowing those who 
have it to block access to markets for those who do not, we 
need to step in and fix it. This means enforcing our existing 
antitrust laws to their fullest extent to protect competition. 
It means updating our antitrust laws for the modern economy, 
just as we've done centuries past.
    It's like every 50 years or so, we do a major update. The 
time has long passed for today's tech world.
    My bill, Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement and 
Reform Act, would do so by updating the legal standard to 
prohibit harmful mergers and anticompetitive conduct, shifting 
the burden to dominant companies to prove that their 
acquisitions and, most significantly here, their exclusionary 
conduct doesn't threaten competition.
    We also have to make sure that our antitrust enforcers have 
the resources to do their jobs. They can't take on the biggest 
companies and some of the most complex conduct the world has 
ever seen with duct tape and band-aids.
    Senator Grassley and I, with the support of this Committee, 
got our bill through to update the merger fees which will bring 
in over $100 million for both agencies. It has passed the 
Senate. We are waiting action in the House. We have every 
reason to believe we'll get it done.
    There's more we can do not only in the reconciliation bill 
before us, but in the year-end budget to make sure these 
agencies have what they need.
    We also need competition reform specifically targeted at 
tech. These are things like issues of interoperability. We've 
been talking about app stores recently. There's a major bill on 
that, bipartisan, that's been introduced, as well as bills 
targeting discriminatory conduct with tech companies.
    As we explore paths forward, we see that the dynamics of 
data mining are already changing. In recent months, Apple 
rolled out an update that lets iPhone and iPad users decide 
whether they want to be tracked online by Facebook and other 
apps. That was a major good change. What happened? What do we 
know so far? Early reports indicate consumers have 
overwhelmingly opted out of being tracked. More than 75 
percent, Senator Lee, decided not to be tracked on apps or 
their Apple devices when they were posed that simple 
straightforward question.
    As we push for increased consumer privacy, we must make 
sure that monopolists don't fool us into handing over all 
control of our data to them at the expense of fair competition. 
We must both fight monopolies and protect consumer data. Guess 
what? We can do both things at once.
    I don't want us to not realize this brave new world we are 
in, where having the data at all completely advantages certain 
companies who are the gatekeepers and makes it much more 
difficult to have a competitive market.
    I will now turn it over to Ranking Member Lee. Thank you.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL S. LEE,

             A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

    Senator Lee. Thank you, Chairwoman Klobuchar. I like the 
band-aids and duct tape analogy. I knew a guy named Fred Trent 
who used to say, ``If you have a spool of baling wire, a roll 
of duct tape, and a pair of vice grips, you can fix anything.''
    Chair Klobuchar. Okay.
    Senator Lee. I'm sure he wasn't talking about antitrust 
laws. Yes.
    Chair Klobuchar. Maybe not this. Yes. Thank you.
    Senator Lee. I think the title of today's hearing is an apt 
one, as big data does itself by its very nature present big 
questions, although the answers might not always be what we 
expect.
    On the one hand, data is increasingly valuable and it's 
often essential to developing and improving technologies 
that'll power our economy through the rest of the 21st century. 
These technologies obviously have a bearing on consumer markets 
and retail markets, but they also make enormous contributions 
to national security and national defense and likely influence 
global strategic thinking in countless ways.
    At the same time, as more and more data about us is 
collected, the risks of unauthorized disclosure increase 
considerably. The more valuable and the more useful our data 
becomes the more companies will do to obtain it, and the more 
we can start to expect more intrusions into our privacy.
    Privacy, too, can be weaponized to entrench market 
incumbents and provide them with the convenient pretext for 
excluding competition and, in some cases, evading it 
altogether.
    I see several key considerations going forward. The first 
is the value of our data. Viewing user data as a form of 
payment for online services is no longer just a theory. It's 
how the companies themselves, and how many antitrust enforcers, 
view the market. It's time for lawmakers and for the public to 
catch up, and we need to reframe our understanding and our 
expectations of supposedly free online services. To realize 
that they're not, in fact, free at all, but they come at the 
cost. A cost that's often opaque, unstable, and significantly 
greater than we may realize.
    The second consideration, which flows naturally from the 
first, is the need to reinforce our ownership and our control 
over our data. When we recognize the value of the data that we 
provide for companies like Google and Facebook in exchange for 
their services and realize the massive imbalance in bargaining 
power the consumers have had--had up until this point, it 
should compel us to take greater care that our data is truly 
ours, that we have the ability to meaningfully consent to its 
use and to revoke that consent.
    Each of these will help to promote competition in markets 
that rely heavily on data by forcing companies to compete for 
the quality of services offered in exchange for our data and 
for the right to continue using our data.
    Speaking of data and product quality, it's often claimed 
that better data will mean better services. That depends 
entirely on how the data are put to use. Intrusions on our 
privacy are an obvious threat to quality, but so too are the 
more insidious threats like those uncovered recently by the 
Wall Street Journal about Facebook. It may be that the most 
pressing question when it comes to data access in aggregation 
is not whether it's entrenching monopolies, but whether it's 
leading big tech firms to act with flagrant disregard for the 
effects of their businesses on society at large.
    Finally, we should be reticent to immediately embrace 
concerns that focus merely on the bigness of data access or 
aggregation. Data is not a finite resource. It's constantly 
being generated by innumerable sources, and no one company 
could likely ever control all data necessary to its or a 
competitor's business.
    Moreover, punishing companies for obtaining the data sets 
necessary to achieve economies of scale and scope smacks of 
penalizing success, and it's not something we should be doing.
    In the name of tearing down all barriers to entry, will we 
next demand that market incumbents share their trade secrets, 
their expertise, and their intellectual property with 
competitors?
    All these questions and more should make for a deeply 
interesting and informative discussion, both at today's hearing 
and in the years to come. I look forward to it. Thank you, 
Madam Chairwoman.
    Chair Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator Lee. I'm 
going to introduce our witnesses now. Some are remote, some are 
here with us.
    Steve Satterfield. Mr. Satterfield is a vice president on 
the Public Policy Team at Facebook. He leads a team responsible 
for developing and advocating for the company's positions on 
privacy and data related regulations. Prior to joining 
Facebook, he worked at Covington & Burling as a privacy lawyer.
    Markham Erickson. Mr. Erickson leads Google's Centers of 
Excellence, a global team of subject matter experts focused on 
the application of law and policy with respect to technology 
and the internet. Prior to joining Google, Mr. Erickson was a 
partner at Steptoe & Johnson.
    Sheila Colclasure. Ms. Colclasure is the global chief 
digital responsibility and public policy officer at IPG 
Kinesso. She is responsible for leading the global data policy 
and digital responsibility strategies at the company. She 
previously worked at the sister company, the data broker Acxiom 
as its global chief data ethics officer in public policy 
executive. She also served as staff assistant here in the 
United States Senate. I always like to add that when they do.
    John Robb. Mr. Robb is an author and podcaster with The 
Global Guerrillas Report. He is alumnus of the United States 
Air Force Academy and Yale University. He previously served in 
uniform as a pilot and with the Special Forces. He is also the 
author of the book, ``Brave New War.''
    Charlotte Slaiman has been with us in the past. Ms. Slaiman 
is the competition policy director at Public Knowledge, a 
nonprofit dedicated to promoting freedom of expression and open 
internet, and access to affordable communications. Prior to 
joining Public Knowledge, she served as an attorney with the 
FDC, and here in the Senate as a legislative aide.
    We thank you, and if the witnesses could please stand and 
raise your right hand, including our remote witnesses.
    [Witnesses are sworn in.]
    Chair Klobuchar. I will now recognize the witnesses for 
five minutes of testimony each, and why don't we begin with 
you, Mr. Satterfield. Thank you.

              STATEMENT OF STEVE SATTERFIELD, VICE

            PRESIDENT OF PRIVACY AND PUBLIC POLICY,

                FACEBOOK, MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Satterfield. Thank you. Chairwoman Klobuchar, Ranking 
Member Lee, and Members of the Subcommittee, good afternoon, 
and thank you for the opportunity to be here today. My name is 
Steve Satterfield, and I'm vice president of privacy and public 
policy at Facebook, where I focus on developing and sharing the 
company's perspectives on data regulation globally.
    I appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in the topics of 
today's hearing and the work that you all do to ensure the 
competitiveness of American markets and to shape data policy. I 
believe Facebook has an important perspective here given the 
substantial contributions we've made to the technology sector 
in the nearly 20 years since our founding.
    We believe that many of the concerns expressed by Congress 
and other stakeholders with respect to privacy and content 
moderation can be addressed by appropriate legislation, and we 
stand ready to be a productive partner in those efforts.
    As you know, our company is currently facing multiple 
lawsuits, including those brought by the Federal Trade 
Commission and a number of State Attorneys General, and that 
will limit what I'm able to address today. I assure you we want 
to be helpful where we can, and I look forward to our 
discussion.
    Like many services, Facebook helps people share, connect, 
communicate, or simply find entertaining content. Each day, 
millions of Americans use Facebook to connect with people and 
businesses, to share and view a wide range of content, to join 
communities of interest, and to set up fundraisers for good 
causes, among many other things.
    All of these activities support our mission to give people 
the power to build community and bring the world closer 
together. The data helps make all of this possible.
    At Facebook, we use and analyze data responsibly to provide 
personalized user experiences. We also use data to improve our 
products, to provide measurement, analytics, and other business 
services; to promote safety, integrity, and security; to 
communicate with people who use our services; and to research 
and innovate for social good, including by connecting and 
lifting up marginalized communities and addressing humanitarian 
crises.
    Data also helps us show people better and more relevant 
ads, which keep Facebook free. It lets advertisers reach the 
right people, which benefits more than ten million businesses 
and non-profits. For the data people trust us with, we 
recognize that we have an important responsibility to protect 
it, and we work around the clock to help protect people's 
accounts, and we build security into every Facebook product.
    We offer a number of tools that provide people transparency 
and control over the data we receive, and we've steadily made 
improvements to the privacy protections and controls we offer. 
We also have a variety of tools to help users understand the 
data Facebook has about them. We're always working to develop 
technologies that enhance the way people connect and 
communicate, and data is key to that work. We know that if we 
don't keep innovating and improving, we'll fall behind.
    When Facebook started, we faced established competitors, 
including AOL and MySpace, with lots of user data that didn't 
protect them from competition. Success comes from creating 
products users value and enjoy, not from how much data you 
have.
    As our CEO, Mark Zuckerberg has explained, we believe that 
strong and consistent competition is vital because it ensures 
the playing field is level for all. Facebook competes hard 
because we're up against other smart and innovative companies. 
We know that our future success is not guaranteed, especially 
in the global tech industry defined by rapid innovation and 
change.
    Technological innovation has created an ever more 
competitive environment, and we invest heavily in our products 
and services to stay relevant, competitive, committing more 
than $18 billion to research and development last year. We're 
proud of our record and will continue to focus on building and 
updating our products to give people the best experiences 
possible.
    Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Satterfield appears as a 
submission for the record.]
    Chair Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Satterfield. Next 
up, Markham Erickson of Google.

              STATEMENT OF MARKHAM ERICKSON, VICE

              PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AND

             PUBLIC POLICY, GOOGLE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Erickson. Chairwoman Klobuchar, Ranking Member Lee, and 
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you today.
    My name is Markham Erickson, and I'm a vice president of 
government affairs and public policy at Google, where I oversee 
a global team of subject matter experts focused on the 
application of law and policy to technology and the internet.
    Data should be used to make consumer's lives better by 
improving the quality and diversity of products and services 
available, while protecting user's privacy and giving them 
control.
    In my testimony, I will describe how Google uses and 
protects data, the safe data mobility empowers consumers and 
boosts competition, that data alone does not guarantee better 
products for consumers.
    Data plays an important role in making Google products and 
services people use every day functional and helpful, and we 
are committed to treating that data responsibly and protecting 
privacy with strict protocols and innovative technologies. 
Google combines industry-leading technology with insights from 
data to develop products that help people find directions, 
build businesses, and search for information.
    On an individual level, what data is collected and how it 
is used depends on how each person uses our services and how 
they manage their privacy controls. Data is one element of our 
ads business where it helps us connect people with relevant 
advertisements. Advertising is Google's main source of revenue, 
and it enables us to make many of our flagship--flagship 
products available for free to billions of people around the 
world.
    The ads shown are often informed by a search query or page 
content, but they can also be based on a user's interest or 
their personal data, if their privacy settings permit. We do 
not sell our users' personal information to advertisers or to 
anyone. Our business relies on ensuring our user's trust, 
specifically in how we use and protect their data. We work to 
maintain that trust by offering industry-leading controls to 
manage privacy. Three billion users visit Google accounts every 
year, where they can review and change their privacy settings 
and delete data stored with their account.
    We constantly innovate to improve privacy across our 
products and on our platforms. For example, Privacy Sandbox is 
a collaborative initiative that aims to build a more private 
and secure web, because many publishers and advertisers rely on 
online advertising to fund their websites and connect with 
consumers. We will continue to partner with the industry, civil 
society, and governments to get this balance right.
    In addition to our work to advance privacy-preserving 
technology, we contribute data and expertise to the broader 
ecosystem. Data portability empowers consumers to choose 
services or online platforms based on quality and individual 
preference, not because they're locked in.
    Since 2011, Google Takeout has enabled users to easily move 
their content to competing services with more than one billion 
gigabytes exported from Google products. Additionally, through 
our leadership in the data transfer project, Google makes it 
easier for other companies to provide tools that let users 
seamlessly move data between online services.
    We are also proud of our contributions to the open-source 
community. Many of the larger successes in the machine learning 
ecosystem have come from data that is openly available on the 
web.
    Senators, data by itself does not guarantee better and more 
and more successful products. Rather, it is the investment, 
innovation, and methods that matter, not just the amount of 
data that a company may have. Cutting edge technology or new 
ideas allow companies, new companies, to succeed, sometimes 
without any data at all. New entrants such as Zoom, Snapchat, 
Spotify, Pinterest, and many others, they've all become 
successful because they provide an innovative product, not 
because they have access to data from established companies.
    Our focus is continually improving our products, and our 
greatest source of innovation comes from extensive research and 
development. Last year alone, we spent over $27.6 billion on 
research and development, which is nearly ten times what we 
spent in 2009.
    At Google, we are committed to protecting data through 
privacy, security, and user control, and improving our products 
in a way that ensures more consumer choice and competition. We 
will continue to engage with policymakers and regulators, as 
well as other stakeholders, to support thoughtful regulation 
that encourages innovation and protects consumers. For example, 
we have long supported Federal privacy legislation in the 
United States, and we encourage to Congress to enact such 
legislation.
    Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work with you 
today, and I welcome your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Erickson appears as a 
submission for the record.]
    Chair Klobuchar. Thank you very much Mr. Erickson. Next up, 
Ms. Colclasure.

             STATEMENT OF SHEILA COLCLASURE, GLOBAL

            CHIEF DIGITAL RESPONSIBILITY AND PUBLIC

       POLICY OFFICER, IPG KINESSO, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS

    Ms. Colclasure. Chairwoman Klobuchar, Ranking Member Lee, 
Members of the Committee, good afternoon. Thank you for the 
opportunity to speak today.
    I'd like to make several key points about the importance of 
fair and open data use, the intersection of data privacy laws 
and Federal competition practices, and their potential impact 
on today's connected marketplace.
    First, responsible companies are ready for a comprehensive 
Federal data privacy law that is good for citizens and good for 
America. I work for Kinesso, a subsidiary of the Interpublic 
Group of companies or IPG, one of the largest and most data-
driven advertising agency holding companies in the world. We 
strongly support a national privacy law.
    IPG's business is built on four pillars of consumer trust: 
accountability, fairness, safety, and transparency. We work 
hard with our industry partners to instill these values 
throughout data-driven advertising.
    Second, in today's economy, any privacy law, functionally, 
will be a competition law, whether a legislature intends it to 
be or not. America needs a future-fit national privacy law and 
appropriately applied antitrust policy.
    In our connected marketplace, both of these have data 
availability, use, and control at their core. A Federal privacy 
law should be people-centered and ensure data is used to serve 
people. Limiting who can collect, control, and use data won't 
work. A privacy law that restricts who can collect data would 
give data control and, thus, market control to a few companies 
and unavoidably weaken competition. As we have seen in other 
jurisdictions, market power belongs to whoever controls the 
data.
    A Federal privacy law should preserve data sharing for 
beneficial and innovative purposes, while making companies 
responsible and accountable for harmful uses. Similarly, 
competition policy should ensure that companies with better 
technology, better ideas, and innovation, but which may not 
have adequate data of their own, are not foreclosed from the 
marketplace. A company shouldn't have to create a first-party 
platform to compete.
    Today's connected marketplace increasingly is dominated by 
companies who thrived thanks to ready access to consumer data. 
National laws that in effect limit data to just a few dominant 
players risks putting more power in those few players' hands. 
In our data-intense economy, overly restrictive data use and 
sharing laws preclude robust competition, vibrant innovation, 
and the possibility of the small company finding and 
competitively serving its audience.
    We emphasize how essential data availability, open data 
flow, and fair uses of data are to innovation, competition, and 
a vibrant market of connected participants.
    Federal privacy law and competition law should provide for 
responsible and accountable data sharing so that everyone can 
compete. We urge you to consider the effect of mergers on who 
controls the consumer data value change and, thus, on 
competition. An analysis of the growth of the major online 
platforms shows the role that acquisitions have played in the 
development of dominant data positions. To protect people, the 
fair use of their data, and support a robust, trustworthy, and 
competitive connected marketplace, Federal law should promote 
fundamental privacy rights for citizens and enable responsible 
accountable use and sharing of consumer data by commercial 
enterprise. This allows the market to continue to provide a 
wide array of benefits to people, including things like safer 
online payments, ready access to business and consumer credit, 
access to free content and platforms, and cost-effective and 
efficient advertising for all, especially small business and 
new market entrants.
    We at IPG have built accountability and responsible data 
practices into everything we do. We believe that corporate 
America is ready to responsibly collect and share consumer data 
and be accountable for its actions in doing so. We encourage 
the Committee to protect the fair and open use of data as 
fundamental to competition. We urge the Committee to help 
develop a Federal privacy law that is future-fit for the 
digital age and protects consumers and enables a connected 
marketplace in which all participants can compete fairly, so 
long as they engage in safe and accountable data use and 
sharing.
    I thank the Committee for its attention and look forward to 
your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Colclasure appears as a 
submission for the record.]
    Chair Klobuchar. Thank you very much. Next up, John Robb.

              STATEMENT OF JOHN ROBB, AUTHOR, THE

         GLOBAL GUERRILLAS REPORT, ACTON, MASSACHUSETTS

    Mr. Robb. Thank you so much for the invitation. I'm a bit 
of an outlier here; I'm not a lawyer. Big data and the AI's 
that are articulated are clearly already valuable. They'll 
become more valuable over time as they're integrated into all 
of the products and services that will be sold in the next 20 
or 30 years.
    Unfortunately, there isn't a clear approach to how to deal 
with this big data in the marketplace. Currently, there is 
three major methods of actually dealing with data. We have it 
in China, where they have incorporated this big data into their 
national security and implemented a national security 
totalitarian state. You have in Europe, who's suppressing the 
aggregation of big data through privacy laws, basically turning 
it into something to be destroyed rather than embracing it. 
That'll affect their economic capabilities long term, reducing 
the capabilities to even produce high-quality products in the 
future, but, you know, it does award them better social 
stability. And then we have the U.S., which is still, you know, 
up in the air. We're still trying to decide what to do with it. 
If you use a framework on the economic model for the United 
States, the way we're treating data right now is very feudal. 
It's basically a feudal system where you have the corporations 
are acting as, you know, the lords and owners of the data, and 
they farm people for their data as they traverse their 
platforms. That's clearly not sustainable over the long term. 
You know, it will create, you know, wealth inequalities as big 
data and its AIs move toward the center of the economy. That, 
you know, that will also create the social instability.
    The solution to that is the same solution we used to 
eradicate feudalism in the past, is that data ownership--is to 
give people ownership over their data so they can exercise 
ownership privileges associated with it and reap the benefits 
for having that ownership. That means taking data off the big 
platforms and putting it into a central repository, you know, 
that's controlled by the owner of the data, where it can be 
pooled with others and then resold or lent to organizations 
that will make use of it, build AIs that are useful in a 
variety of different ways.
    It doesn't always have to be commercial. It could be open 
source efforts, it could be non-commercial university 
development, but putting the consumer, putting the individual 
in the driver's seat changes the whole equation. It could also 
be a source of royalties and revenues for that individual, 
driving their personal prosperity forward. It's a different way 
to approach it. It does destroy the data directly through 
privacy, but it allows them to benefit from data as it moves 
forward.
    There's also a strong tie between big data and these AIs to 
the national security component that's going to come into all 
of this tangentially. I don't think people would fully 
appreciate how much things have shifted over the last 20 years. 
All of the technologies that are needed to implement a national 
security data-driven surveillance state have leapt forward 
substantially, and that most of the shift has occurred within 
the context of the corporate development. We've seen a shift 
from what governments used to be only able to do to now 
corporations are only able to do it.
    China has embraced that, and they're using those 
corporations to gather the data, create the tools, and control 
their society.
    The problem here in the United States is that there aren't 
any natural limiting factors to prevent that from happening 
here. We don't have any protections against the overreach in 
the corporate realm. We don't have any--like we do against 
Government overreach. We don't have any free speech rights. We 
don't have any rights of access. We don't have the ability to 
resolve disconnection, because disconnection in the modern 
environment can radically reduce your ability to operate in the 
world.
    We need a set of digital rights that we can exercise over--
to protect us against any kind of overreach at the corporate 
side.
    Thanks.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Robb appears as a submission 
for the record.]
    Chair Klobuchar. Okay, very good. Thank you. Next up, 
Charlotte Slaiman, with Public Knowledge.

                STATEMENT OF CHARLOTTE SLAIMAN,

              COMPETITION POLICY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC

                   KNOWLEDGE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Slaiman. Chairwoman Klobuchar, Ranking Member Lee, 
thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today on 
behalf of Public Knowledge, a nonprofit working in the public 
interest for over 20 years.
    I'm Charlotte Slaiman, competition policy director at 
Public Knowledge. Gatekeeper power is at the root of big tech's 
competition problems. Experts, policymakers, and advocates the 
world over have identified gatekeeper power, sometimes 
bottleneck power, sometimes strategic market status, as the 
power that dominant digital platforms have over other 
businesses' ability to reach their customers.
    Right now, big tech has the power, over us and our data, 
and we need to protect both users and a competitive market with 
new laws and rules to promote fair competition against them. 
Until we have a real choice to leave these platforms if we're 
not happy with them, they won't have the incentive to win us 
over, and we'll continue to miss out on disruptive innovations 
that challenge the status quo.
    I want to take this opportunity to highlight important 
legislation that I think can help to address the underlying 
power dynamics that have led us here. Interoperability, data 
portability, and delegatability are the privacy-protective ways 
to neutralize the power that big data confers upon dominant 
digital platforms.
    Right now, if I'm frustrated with how Facebook treats my 
data, I don't really have the option to leave, because my 
friends and family, the businesses, groups, and even schools I 
need to communicate with are on Facebook. Interoperability 
would allow competition to flourish by letting users 
communicate across platforms.
    Look to the Access Act for a model of implementing 
interoperability to maximize competition and protect privacy. 
These platforms can abuse their gatekeeper power to freeze out 
would-be competitors from the market. One of the tools for that 
anticompetitive discrimination is big data. Gatekeeper 
platforms can put their own products first on the page, give 
them the best attention-grabbing design, and point users away 
from companies that pose a competitive threat. While this 
offends our basic notions of fairness, this behavior would be 
difficult to stop using our existing antitrust laws.
    We need a nondiscrimination law to reliably stop it. I'm so 
glad to see news reports that Chairwoman Klobuchar is working 
on just such a bill here in the Senate. There's a strong model 
in the American Choice and Innovation Online Act from Chairman 
David Cicilline in the House.
    Strict limitations on mergers by dominant digital platforms 
and giving our Federal antitrust enforcers the ability to sue 
to break up vertically integrated dominant digital platforms 
are also important parts of how we can address gatekeeper 
power. The Platform Competition and Opportunity Act and the 
Ending Platform Monopolies Act are strong examples of how these 
tools could work. These four bills were recently endorsed by a 
bipartisan group of 32 State attorneys general.
    App stores and operating systems preference their own 
products when it comes to communication with the user and to 
data. The Open Apps Market Act zeros in on the gatekeeper role 
that app stores play.
    Purposeful narrowing of our antitrust laws by the courts 
have left big business with a license to engage in a host of 
anticompetitive conduct. A myopic focus on price and other 
easily quantifiable effects leaves out important innovation and 
consumer choice harms that antitrust is supposed to address.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar's Competition and Antitrust Law 
Enforcement Reform Act would help reign in the power of big 
data by updating the legal standards for blocking mergers and 
stopping exclusionary conduct. Competition is not a panacea for 
the challenges of big data. We also urgently need new privacy 
laws to protect users and a digital regulator to 
comprehensively address the policy questions surrounding 
digital platforms.
    A comprehensive Federal privacy law can be procompetitive 
by creating a level playing field for dominant incumbents and 
new entrants alike.
    For decades, Washington has taken the perspective that we 
need to let digital businesses run wild to see what great 
innovations they might come up with, but today, unscrupulous 
data practices and consolidated power have led us to a place 
that isn't anyone's dream of what the internet was supposed to 
be.
    These largely unregulated platforms have been allowed to 
amass powerful gatekeeper roles where they need not fear 
competition or Government intervention. For users to really 
have control, we need to have a real choice to leave these 
platforms. We need real competitors, and we need switching to 
be easy. To get those things, we need new laws and rules to 
promote fair competition on and against gatekeeper platforms 
like Google and Facebook.
    Congress has already done the laudable work of introducing 
a series of bills to combat these harms. The best time to pass 
them was 10 years ago, but the second-best time is now.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Slaiman appears as a 
submission for the record.]
    Chair Klobuchar. Okay, very good. All right. Why don't we 
start out, Mr. Satterfield, Mr. Erickson, Facebook, and Google 
both collect data about consumers to enable targeted 
advertising, which is the principal way I believe your 
companies make money. How important is consumer data to each of 
your companies? You can start Mr. Satterfield.
    Mr. Satterfield. Thank you, Chairwoman Klobuchar. The way 
that we look at it is success comes from building great 
products and not from how much data you have.
    Chair Klobuchar. Okay. Is--just if you could just 
straightforward answer the question, how important is consumer 
data to your company and your profit model?
    Mr. Satterfield. Data's important, you know, to connect 
people to relevant experiences. That includes showing them 
relevant ads, but again I'd say that you know, the success that 
we've had has come through building great experiences and not 
from the amount of data that we collect.
    Chair Klobuchar. Mr. Erickson, how do you answer that for 
Google?
    Mr. Erickson. Thank you, Senator, for the question. At 
Google, we provide a means for people to find relevant 
information and helpful information on the internet, and to do 
that we have to understand what they're looking for. Anyone can 
use our products for free without providing or storing any 
personally identifiable information with us. We provide 
transparent mechanisms for users to understand how their data 
is being collected and how their data is being used, and 
meaningful tools to give consumers the ability to see the data 
that is stored in their account and to make choices like delete 
the data, or use one of our auto-delete tools to set up regular 
cadences where information, such as their search history or 
viewing history or location history if they've opted in to 
location history, can be regularly deleted.
    We've also, as I mentioned in my testimony, since 2011, 
have created tools to give consumers the ability to take the 
data that they provided to us and move it to a competitor's 
site. We don't want users to work to engage with Google because 
they feel locked in because their data is with us. We want them 
to be able to go to the services and the technologies that suit 
their needs based on a competitive dynamic rather than any 
sense of lock-in.
    Chair Klobuchar. Okay. Why don't we go to you, Ms. Slaiman. 
I was just looking at some Twitter feed. Someone just reported 
that they were talking with a few friends on one of the sites, 
going back and forth online about being a female politician a 
while back, including a TV make-up artist for some reason, and 
this person said they referred to me as inimitable online, and 
within an hour they got an online ad for Chanel Inimitable 
mascara, linking the TV make-up artist comment with their 
adjective. Is that possible? I don't know if this is true or 
not, but I'm just saying this is what's happened to me, and how 
important is the data to these companies? They've kind of gave 
round around about answers here. What does it mean for other 
platforms trying to compete if they don't have the data?
    Ms. Slaiman. I think the data is very important. I 
appreciate what the other witnesses have said, that there is 
also a role played by their innovative engineers. I think 
that's absolutely right, but the data is important, and that's 
why we're concerned about whether it's being treated 
competitively or not. You know, I think the relevant ads are 
not always what is best for us. It's what's best for the 
platform, and sometimes that lines up with what's best for us, 
and sometimes it doesn't.
    We need to make sure that we have protections for users and 
for the competitive marketplace when we're looking at that 
problem.
    Chair Klobuchar. Mr. Satterfield, along the same lines, 
last quarter Facebook publicly reported that its advertising 
revenue per users in the U.S. and Canada was $51.58. I want to 
ask you a few questions about that.
    The comparable number for Europe was only $17.08. In Asia, 
it's $4.13. The rest of the world, you reported advertising 
revenue per user of about $3.00. Why is the value of a user in 
the U.S. worth so much more than the rest of the world, 
especially when we're comparing ourselves to comparable 
countries in Europe?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I think there are a lot of 
factors that go into those average revenue per user numbers.
    Chair Klobuchar. Okay. I just--that's not really an answer 
though, man. That's the beginning of an answer, so.
    Mr. Satterfield. What we're doing is we're breaking down 
revenue per region according to the number of folks that we 
serve in those regions. That's what's reflected in the numbers 
that you're describing.
    Chair Klobuchar. Okay. Why don't we go to you, Mr. Robb? Do 
you think Facebook should pay all of its U.S. users $51.58 for 
Facebook's use of their data, which we now know, it's in their 
recent fiscal report? Maybe the individual profit centers, 
which is all of us, should actually get the money back?
    Mr. Robb. If you own the data, you would at least be able 
to compare offers and get paid for its usage. I don't think 
you'd get the full amount, obviously, but then----
    Chair Klobuchar. Right. Maybe there'd be a discount, but 
you could get a good chunk of it just like you do when you, you 
know, when you're a consumer and--they--you go and buy 
something or you sell something, is probably the better 
example.
    Mr. Robb. That's correct.
    Chair Klobuchar. Mr. Robb, when companies collect data 
about us and either sell it or use it to target us with ads, we 
aren't just the consumer or the user anymore. We really have to 
start thinking about this because I think when we get on these 
platforms, we, you know, can have fun, people do business, but 
they don't realize every single second they're on there, they 
are creating profits, but they are not reaping the benefit.
    We are, in fact, our data is a commodity, but consumers as 
I know it aren't getting enough in return, and I've discussed 
the idea of somehow putting a tax on the data for these 
companies to pay. You have written about paying people for 
their data.
    In your opinion, what is the strongest argument for 
ensuring that the tech companies have to pay for the consumer 
data that they collect and use, and if Facebook and Google had 
to pay for using consumer data, how do you think their behavior 
would change?
    Mr. Robb. Okay. The most compelling argument is that it 
would change the perspective people have on data if they were 
in--if they had ownership rights over it. By unlocking it by, 
you know, through ownership, you don't just limit the data to 
what--that Facebook collects or Google collects to what they 
can do with it. You then open it up to what all of these other 
companies can actually do with it, and they can generate 
revenue. You know, people in control of their data, people who 
have ownership of their data, they will be more willing to give 
more and if they can set permissions in terms of how it's used, 
they'll feel comfortable with it. They'll feel like they're 
participating in the economy rather than being observers or 
being treated as resources. It's a complete face shift. It's 
not even comparable to what we have now.
    Chair Klobuchar. Okay. I thought it was just so 
interesting. I'll go back to you, Mr. Erickson, Mr. 
Satterfield, my last questions here. I just thought it was 
interesting, when Apple unleashed the power of allowing people 
to opt out, that 75 percent did that, because I think it's 
probably because they did it in a pretty straightforward way. 
Because I know I tried to do it sometimes, and then I'm on some 
site and I don't know if I've opted out, and it's really 
complicated for people, or they make me opt in to try to do 
something, and I can't figure it out, and you're just trying to 
order something online.
    Mr. Erickson, you've spoken about putting consumers' 
privacy preference first and giving them the ability to change 
what is collected and used about them. I understand how you 
think that protects user privacy, but from a competition policy 
perspective, it seems like we look beyond what benefits an 
individual user. Even if millions of consumers give you 
permission to collect and use their data, shouldn't we be 
concerned about the competitive impact of your exclusive access 
to their data, which you use to compete with companies that 
don't have that data? Do you want to answer that, Mr. Erickson, 
first?
    Mr. Erickson. Sure. Thank you, Senator, for the question. 
At Google, we do want to make sure that consumers first 
understand how their data is being collected and how their data 
is being used, and we do want to give them meaningful choice 
about their use of their data.
    Unlike Facebook, the user can use Google services for free. 
They do not need to establish an account or provide any 
personally identifiable information to Google. We never sell 
personally identifiable information about our users, even when 
they do sign in. They can delete that information at any time.
    Most users, when they're using online services, are 
providing similar information, if not the same information, to 
multiple online services, so in that regard, the data's 
really--the data's really non-rivalist from a competition 
standpoint. It's easily gotten by other companies that want to 
purchase data from, for instance, data brokers, or other 
entities, but I think the key here for us is to put users in a 
position where they have meaningful choices and meaningful 
control about the use of their particular data.
    Chair Klobuchar. Okay. Do you want to take a crack at that 
one, Mr. Satterfield, from Facebook's perspective?
    Mr. Satterfield. Yes. Thank you. Just to be clear, Facebook 
services are also free. To your question, Chairwoman Klobuchar, 
you know, the statistics are so interesting right now. The 
average user has something like 46 apps that they're using 
every month. There's more than 100 apps on the average person's 
phone. People are sharing more data in more places than they 
ever have been before. We think that there's a lot of data out 
there that's being used for innovative purposes, including to 
show people ads.
    Chair Klobuchar. Do you think they all know that they're 
sharing their data on all those apps?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, we hope so. We think transparency 
and controls are core values of ours, though we think that they 
should be core values of other companies as well.
    Chair Klobuchar. No, I just--if you could answer though, do 
you think that they know they're sharing that data? Do you 
think that they all know that?
    Mr. Satterfield. On Facebook, Madam Chairwoman, they do. 
I'm confident of that. There's core values of ours. We invest a 
lot in providing transparency and control. I think with respect 
to other companies, this is an area where Congress could 
intervene, make sure they do. Transparency and control could be 
core components of a Federal privacy legislation.
    Chair Klobuchar. Okay. I'm going to just ask just one 
follow-up because I really want a turn for Ms. Slaiman. Do you 
think that's true, that they all know this? Do you think we 
need--and by the way, the companies are now coming to us saying 
they want privacy legislation after opposing it, various 
iterations of it, after all the States have started to get into 
the act, which is kind of a pattern we've seen in other areas 
here, but do you want to respond to this quickly? Then I should 
let Senator Lee ask some questions.
    Ms. Slaiman. Yes. I'm sure there are many users who do not 
know that they are sharing the data. I also think even if they 
know about the data that they're sharing, it's quite 
complicated to understand what that data can be used for. That 
data can be used to figure out additional information about 
you, so a user may be making a decision to share some data, not 
realizing what that data actually could tell a company about 
who they are and their preferences.
    I also think I want to respond to the point that Mr. 
Erickson made about Google doesn't sell your data. I think it's 
important to keep in mind that Google has within them the 
capacity to fully exploit your data without ever selling it 
because they have the advertising system. Within this one large 
vertically integrated company, they can both collect the data 
and fully exploit it to advertise to you, so the necessity for 
selling isn't there, and it can still be exploiting it just as 
effectively.
    Chair Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you very much. Senator Lee.
    Senator Lee. Thank you. Mr. Satterfield, I'd like to start 
with you. I want to start by asking you about some recent 
reports about Facebook. The first is from Geoffrey Fowler at 
the Washington Post. He did a deep dive into Facebook's 
collection of user data, including revealing that Facebook's 
own financial modeling estimates that Facebook's estimates of 
its user data is worth an average of $164 per user per year. 
This would seem to confirm my own view and that of several 
State attorneys general, including my home State attorney 
general, Sean Reyes, in Utah, that Facebook isn't actually a 
free service, as you suggested a moment ago, but rather it's 
one that we pay for with our data. What's concerning is that 
there's so little transparency in the transaction, and you've 
sort of confirmed that now moments ago by saying that it is 
completely free. I am never told what my data is worth. You're 
not even acknowledging that it is worth anything or that 
there's any kind of a transaction involved here. What I get in 
return is always subject to change. You change systems by which 
posts are reviewed, what's prioritized, what deprioritized.
    It's basic antitrust law that you look for symptoms. You 
look for signs. One pretty consistent sign of monopoly power 
involves the ability to set prices and control output. What 
could be a better example of that very thing than Facebook's 
ability to demand data from its users, as it does, without 
telling them its value or even acknowledging that it has a 
value at all, while providing a service whose quality, whose 
features, whose terms of service, in terms of use, are subject 
to change at any moment and they do frequently change at any 
moment?
    Can you answer that question for me?
    Mr. Satterfield. Thank you, Senator. You know, 
respectfully, I think we see things differently. We don't see 
data as something that people give us in exchange for providing 
our services. We see data as something that we use to provide 
the service to them, to provide value to them.
    Senator Lee. Okay, so you disagree with the assumption that 
when you're--when there's a service out there that purports to 
be free, you are the product. You are sort of what's being 
served. I mean, I get your point. Nobody's paying out of pocket 
with money. They're not paying in literal coins or virtual 
tokens to go on there, but you are in fact a for-profit 
business enterprise. You are in fact profitable, and you do 
that because there's something of value. I think we're 
quibbling here over sort of nonsensical distinctions between 
literal payment, which I didn't say, nor did I imply.
    I guess I'd ask you to answer the question, accepting the 
premise that I think all the rest of us in this room and pretty 
much every other American would acknowledge exists, which is 
the premise that your service is--well, it purports to be free. 
It is in fact paid for in the sense that people contribute 
their time, they give their time, and with their time you 
acquire data. You're able to monetize that. With that 
understanding, I'm asking you, it is a basic principle of 
antitrust law that one sign of monopoly power is the ability to 
set prices and control output. With that premise, what's your 
response to that? About the fact--I'm asking what better 
example could one find, once one accepts this premise, than 
that of Facebook's ability to demand data from its users 
without telling them the value of that data and without a 
service--when dealing with a service, whose quality and whose 
features and whose terms of service are subject to change at 
any moment and often do.
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, you know, again, respectfully, 
that's just not how we think about data and how we use data to 
provide value to people.
    Senator Lee. All right. All right, I get it. That's not how 
you think about it. It's clear to me you don't want to answer 
that, whatever. I was throwing you a bone there to try to allow 
you to engage in a dialog.
    We'll move on to the next question. The Wall Street Journal 
released a series of bombshell reports last week on internal 
Facebook documents that revealed shocking, absolutely stunning 
lapses in Facebook's ability to protect Facebook's consumers, 
its users, from being harmed by using its platforms. This too 
looks like the behavior of a monopolist, a monopolist that's so 
sure that its customers have nowhere else to go that it 
displays a reckless disregard for quality assurance, for its 
own brand image, and even just being honest with its users 
about the obvious safety risks that it's subjecting its users 
to, particularly its teenage users.
    In light of these reports doesn't it look to you like 
Facebook lacks competition?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, thank you. The Journal series 
that you're referencing raises, you know, really serious and 
important questions. I think it misses the mark in terms of 
what we're trying to do in the matters that it describes. These 
are----
    Senator Lee. How does it miss the mark? How does it miss 
the mark any more than revelations years ago about tobacco 
companies concealing the dangers of tobacco? How is that 
missing the mark any more than the revelations about tobacco 
and what tobacco companies knew about what they were doing to 
their own users?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I think what's being discussed in 
these articles are issues that we have identified ourselves and 
that we're attempting to work through as a company. This is 
research that we're doing ourselves in order to identify gaps 
and issues and to address them to make our platforms safer.
    I think these are self-identified issues, and these are 
internal deliberations that are dedicated to one thing, which 
is making the platform a safer place for the people who use it.
    Senator Lee. Ms. Slaiman, I'd like to turn to you. In your 
testimony, you advocate for updating the antitrust laws to 
tackle problems like big data. It seems to me that we have to 
first try to enforce the laws we have, which I think in most 
circumstances are more than up to the task, if in fact we will 
utilize them. If in fact, we will utilize the law and enforce 
the law. The reason we haven't used antitrust law to address 
many of the problems in big tech has everything to do with 
things that could be accomplished with the law. In other words, 
it's not just because the courts have said no. It's not because 
enforcers have taken these things repeatedly to the courts and 
the courts have smacked them down. That hasn't been the case. 
It's rather been because our antitrust enforcers simply didn't 
bring the cases to begin with.
    Look at the Obama administration. President Obama's 
antitrust enforcers let Google off the hook after a two-year 
monopolization investigation, ignoring--ignoring rather 
specific, rather conclusive staff recommendations to sue. They 
failed to stop Facebook from buying Instagram and failed to 
stop Facebook from buying WhatsApp, nascent competitors that 
they acquired at the time, and they failed to stop Google from 
buying its way to dominance of digital advertising.
    Moreover, in the last year of the Trump administration 
alone, just the last year of that administration, the Trump 
administration, which finally filed cases against Google and 
against Facebook that the Obama administration had turned down, 
the FTC blocked 27 mergers. So far in 2021, the FTC, now 
supposedly run by antitrust hawks eager to protect competition, 
has filed just seven merger cases, one of which is the case 
against Facebook and five of which were filed in fact by the 
outgoing Trump administration.
    Can't we agree that the problem with antitrust law isn't 
just the law but lacks antitrust enforcement?
    Ms. Slaiman. Thank you, Ranking Member Lee. We absolutely 
need to improve antitrust enforcement. I believe it will be 
very important to improve the antitrust laws as well, but there 
have been lapses in enforcement.
    I think there are some situations where the antitrust 
enforcers have correctly identified that the law wasn't there 
for them, but there absolutely are also cases that they missed 
that I wish they had brought. Improving antitrust enforcement 
is definitely an important part of this effort.
    Senator Lee. Mr. Erickson and Mr. Satterfield, I want to 
ask both of you this question. The Wall Street Journal and the 
New York Times, they reported about a year ago that Google and 
Facebook had entered into an agreement to partner together with 
regard to digital advertising.
    Setting aside the question of whether data can be a barrier 
to entry, shouldn't we at least be concerned when two companies 
with possibly the greatest access to user data secretly agree 
not to compete with each other for the primary way in which 
that data is to be used, which is digital advertising?
    We'll start with you first, Mr. Erickson.
    Mr. Erickson. Thank you, Ranking Member Lee. At the time of 
that agreement, we publicly announced Facebook's participation 
in our open bidding platform, as well as 25 other companies 
that are participating in that platform. We thought it would be 
useful to publishers and accretive to publishers where we'd 
have multiple ad networks competing for the publisher's 
inventory, and having large ad networks like Facebook benefits 
consumers. There's no truth to the allegation that these--our 
auction system is somehow rigged in Facebook's favor. If they 
provide the highest, bid they'll win. If they don't, they'll 
lose, but at the end of the day, those 25 companies which 
Facebook is one of them, creates more competition and more 
demand for the publisher's inventory.
    Senator Lee. Okay. You're saying that just one of them, 
you're just two of those companies. You are in fact the two 
biggest, arguably the two biggest companies with access to this 
much data. You don't see that there's any antitrust implication 
associated with this?
    When two companies with possibly the greatest access to 
user data, agree not to compete with each other when it comes 
to digital advertising, you see no antitrust implications for 
that?
    Mr. Erickson. Yes, Senator, respectfully, that's not the 
agreement. There is no prohibition for Facebook to provide 
their ad network and compete on other auction systems. 
Competing on Google's auction system with other ad networks 
creates actually more competition and more competitive 
dynamics, which ends up benefiting the publishers who are 
selling their inventory.
    Senator Lee. Mr. Satterfield, my time's expired. Can you 
respond to that same question?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I don't have anything to add to 
what Mr. Erickson said. You know, we compete hard. We compete 
fairly. We did so here as well.
    Senator Lee. Oh, wow. I'm not surprised to hear that you 
don't think there's anything unseemly. We'll get back to that 
later. My time's expired. Thank you.
    Chair Klobuchar. Very, very good, Senator Lee. I was off in 
the other anteroom doing another hearing, and I can see you 
used your time well.
    With that, we turn it over to Senator Blumenthal, and we've 
also been joined by Senator Hawley and Senator Cruz. Senator 
Blumenthal.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Madam Chair. I want to thank 
both you and our Ranking Member for holding this hearing. I 
hope it will be the beginning or maybe another step in an 
effort to forge a bipartisan effort on privacy law. I've been 
working with one of our colleagues, Senator Moran, on a draft 
for quite some time. We have come very close, and I am very 
hopeful that we'll continue to make progress because this issue 
of privacy is one of the central ones of our time.
    There's no question as you, Madam Chair, have pointed out 
so well that data is the source of pay and power to these 
companies. It is not only a source of vast revenue; it is also 
the fulcrum of dominance and the ability to prevent others from 
entering the market, and the companies have learned how to do 
it very adroitly and have adapted to the challenges that have 
been put to them by the kinds of answers that we've seen today.
    I want to return to those issues that my colleagues have 
raised so well. First, let me just ask a few questions about 
the Wall Street Journal investigative report that was published 
last week showing the heinously destructive impact of Instagram 
on teens. The simple fact of the matter is that Facebook has 
known for years that Instagram is directly involved in an 
increase in eating disorders, mental health issues, and 
suicidal thoughts, especially for teenage girls. Despite that 
horrifying risk, Facebook is now dead set on pushing Instagram 
to even younger children.
    Far from being transparent about this danger, as Mr. 
Satterfield just attempted to represent, Facebook in fact has 
been blatantly deceptive and disingenuous about it.
    Last month, on August 4th, Senator Blackburn and I wrote to 
Mark Zuckerberg and asked him specifically about this issue. We 
asked, and I am quoting, ``Has Facebook's research ever found 
that its platforms and products can have a negative effect on 
children's and teens' mental health or well-being, such as 
increased suicidal thoughts, heightened anxiety, unhealthy 
usage patterns, negative self-image, or other indications of 
lower well-being?''
    It wasn't a trick question. It preceded the published 
reports in the Journal. We had no idea about the whistleblower 
documents that were ultimately revealed. Facebook dodged the 
question. Quote, ``We are not aware of a consensus among 
studies or experts about how much screen time is too much'', 
end quote. We are not aware. Well, we all know now that that 
representation was simply untrue. Internal documents reported 
on by the Wall Street Journal demonstrate that Facebook has 
known for years that Instagram harms children and young people. 
For years, Facebook studies have found clear links between 
Instagram and mental health problems. It was common knowledge 
in the company, so the response was a clear attempt to mislead 
Congress and misinform parents. I ask that the Wall Street 
Journal report of September 14, by Georgia Wells, Jeff Horwitz, 
and Deepa Seetharaman be made a part of the record, Madam 
Chair.
    [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
    Chair Klobuchar. It will be. Thank you.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. The comparison to big 
tobacco made by Senator Lee is entirely apt. I know something 
about big tobacco because I sued big tobacco and I remember the 
revelation of the documents that showed big tobacco not only 
knew but had done experiments proving that cigarettes cause 
cancer. They had denied it for years. They had the knowledge 
about the damage done to people who smoke.
    My question to you, Mr. Satterfield, is, why did Facebook 
misrepresent its research on mental health and teens when it 
responded to me and Senator Blackburn?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, thank you. Respectfully, I don't 
agree with that characterization, but I do understand the 
frustration and concern that we're hearing about these reports. 
The safety and well-being of the teens on our platform is a top 
priority for the company. We're going to continue to make it a 
priority. This was important research. We're proud that we did 
it, and we're going to continue to, you know, study these 
really important issues.
    Senator Blumenthal. Why did you conceal it?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, we didn't make it public as we 
don't with a lot of the research we do because we think that 
that's an important way of encouraging free and frank 
discussion within the company about hard issues.
    Senator Blumenthal. Do you have more research that shows 
the destructive effect of your platform on teens?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I'm not aware of any other 
research on teens. I don't work on these issues. I work on 
privacy and data.
    Senator Blumenthal. Are you not aware in the same way that 
the company responded that it was not aware when, in fact, it 
knew about the research?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I apologize. I'm not familiar 
with the context of that letter or what went into the response. 
You know, what I can tell you is that we think it's important 
to be having a dialog with Congress on these issues, and we're 
prepared to work with you and your team going forward.
    Senator Blumenthal. Will you work with me and my team by 
appearing on September 30 at a hearing that we've invited you 
to do?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I know our folks have been in 
touch with your staff, you know, to discuss that. It's 
something that I think we're discussing right now.
    Senator Blumenthal. We are discussing it right now. I'm 
asking you for a commitment that your company will send a high-
ranking, qualified, and knowledgeable representative to that 
hearing on September 30. Senator Blackburn and I are, 
respectively, the Ranking Member and Chairman, but it includes 
Senator Klobuchar and Lee. They are Members, as well. We need 
to hear from someone who's capable of answering these 
questions, and it should be next week. Will you commit to have 
someone at that hearing?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, we're going to follow-up promptly 
on this. We know these are incredibly important issues, and we 
want to work with you and your staff going forward. We'll 
follow-up promptly.
    Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Satterfield, I just want to point 
out to you that your company, contrary to what you've just told 
this Committee, is continuing with this really unfortunate 
charade. Vice President Nick Clegg doubled down on the 
misleading statement, in fact, this weekend, when he said the 
research is, quote, ``Still relatively nascent and evolving'', 
end quote. According to one of these studies, Facebook found 13 
percent of British users and six percent of American users 
traced a desire to kill themselves to Instagram. How is it not 
misleading to tell this Committee that the research is unclear 
if, according to your own research, tens of thousands of teens 
have suicidal thoughts directly because of Instagram? Don't you 
think you owe us an explanation next week?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I appreciate the concerns. I do, 
and I do think that Nick was accurate in his op-ed. What I can 
tell you is that we can commit to working with you and your 
staff going forward on these issues.
    Senator Blumenthal. Has Facebook ever conducted research 
that found Instagram was more toxic to teens than another--
other social media platform?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I'm not aware of that but these, 
again, these aren't issues that I work on at the company. You 
know, we're happy to follow-up with you and your staff.
    Senator Blumenthal. Will you follow-up next--the September 
30th by having someone at that hearing who can tell us the 
answer? By the way, the answer is that you have found Instagram 
is more toxic than Snap and TikTok. It's more of a Facebook 
problem. Your own research has shown it. I'd like somebody to 
come provide an answer, an explanation next September 30th.
    Mr. Satterfield. We're going to get back to you promptly, 
Senator. I can commit to that.
    Senator Blumenthal. I want to ask about another area but 
perhaps I should wait until I hope we'll have a second round?
    Chair Klobuchar. Yes, we will. We will.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
    Chair Klobuchar. Thank you. Thank you so much, Senator 
Blumenthal. Next up, Senator Hawley, then Senator Ossoff, and 
then you, Senator Cruz, if it works. Thank you.
    Senator Hawley. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, 
Senator Lee, also for holding this hearing. Thanks to the 
witnesses for being here. This is such an important topic. Mr. 
Satterfield, let me just pick up where Senator Blumenthal left 
off. Can I just ask you a fundamental question? Are teenagers 
safe on any of your platforms?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, we're working really hard to make 
that the case.
    Senator Hawley. They're not now?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, we are investing a lot in safety 
and integrity across all of our platforms. We've invested 
billions of dollars.
    Senator Hawley. Are you concerned, though, that teenagers 
are currently subject to all kinds of potential predators, the 
social effects--I mean, you're saying you hope that they'll be 
safe on the platforms? Are they not safe now?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I think it's our responsibility 
to invest the resources that we need to make sure that these 
things don't happen. You know, that's why we're investing 
billions of dollars in protecting the integrity of our 
platforms.
    Senator Hawley. By ``these things'' do you think things 
like this, let me read you a few quotes. ``Thirty-two percent 
of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, 
Instagram made them feel worse.'' Quote, ``We make body image 
issues worse for one in three girls'', end quote.
    New quote, ``Teens blame Instagram for increases in the 
rate of anxiety and depression. This reaction was unprompted 
and consistent across all groups.''
    Or how about this? ``Teens who struggle with mental health 
say that Instagram makes it worse.''
    Or how about this? ``Social comparison is worse on 
Instagram.''
    Or about this? ``Aspects of Instagram exacerbate each other 
to create a perfect storm when it comes to body issues, 
identity, depression, anxiety.''
    That doesn't sound like a very safe platform to me. Those, 
of course, are all from your own internal research. What do you 
have to say about that?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, again these aren't issues that I 
work on but I--we do have teams that are working across all of 
those issues, body image, well-being, and so forth. We're 
investing, you know, we're doing research like this so that we 
can identify gaps and address them. We're going to continue to 
do so.
    Senator Hawley. Will you make the research public?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, again, you know generally the way 
that we approach research is that we keep it confidential to 
encourage free and frank discussion about it internally. It's--
keeping it confidential actually enables us to----
    Senator Hawley. Sounds like a no to me.
    Mr. Satterfield [continuing]. Ask hard questions about 
these really important issues.
    Senator Hawley. I haven't been in the Senate that long, but 
this sounds like that's a no. Let me try again. You've already 
done the research. This research is completed. You've done it, 
you know the results, you know the data. You've actively misled 
Congress for years now. You've deliberately misled Senators as 
recently as just a month ago. Senator Blumenthal was just 
telling--putting on the record. You have the research. Will you 
make it public? Yes or no?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I--respectfully, I'd strongly 
reject, you know, those characterizations. The issue of greater 
transparency around the research----
    Senator Hawley. Let's try answering my question. Will you 
release the research? Yes or no?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, it's something we're looking 
into, how to provide greater transparency with appropriate 
context around the research----
    Senator Hawley. Right. What would the appropriate context 
be, exactly? What's the context for 32 percent of teen girls 
saying that they feel worse when they use Instagram? Is there 
context that I'm missing there? What is it that parents need to 
know? What's the context, exactly? I'm intrigued by that 
statement.
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I mean, I think it's the broader 
view of what the potential impact of services could be on 
folks, and I think that the----
    Senator Hawley. Oh, like maybe the things that Instagram 
does is positive that outweighs all of the terrible effects 
that it has on teen girls and others. Is that what you're 
talking about, your benefits? Let me ask you this. How much 
money does Instagram make for Facebook every year?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I don't know the answer to that.
    Senator Hawley. How much money do you make from teens being 
addicted to Instagram every year?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I wouldn't agree with that 
characterization.
    Senator Hawley. How much money do you make from your teen 
users every year?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I don't know the answer to that 
question.
    Senator Hawley. I bet it's a lot. I'll give it to you for 
the record. I think the--we all know what's really going on 
here. You won't release the research because this is a cash cow 
for you. You won't answer our questions because you make a gob 
of money on this. I mean, it's the whole reason Mark Zuckerberg 
wanted to get Instagram in the first place, right? I mean, back 
in 2012, Mark Zuckerberg wrote to his own chief financial 
officer that buying Instagram will give us time to integrate 
their dynamics before anybody else can get close to their 
scale. We know why Facebook bought Instagram. It was to get rid 
of a competitor, to gobble up all the data. Now they've done 
that. Now, it's making teenagers sick and destroying their 
mental health, but, you know, hey, it's lucrative. It's 
really--it's amazing. How about this?
    Will you commit to suspending any efforts to develop the 
Instagram Kids product that would target children under the age 
of 13?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, we know that tweens are online, 
and, you know, we want them to have an experience that is a 
good one, that is a healthy one like we have with----
    Senator Hawley. Like the one that teenage girls are having 
on Instagram right now, that kind of experience?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, respectfully, these are issues 
that we take incredibly seriously that we're investing in. You 
know, there is no more important priority than the safety and 
well-being of the people who use our products.
    Senator Hawley. [Laughter] I really can't believe you're 
saying that. I mean, really, I've listened--I've listened to 
Facebook and these other big tech companies before these 
Committees for years, and I guess it's two years, although it 
feels like 20, and you always dissemble. You always mislead, 
but I can't believe that, given the research that you have 
conducted, that you can sit there and say that teens' health 
and security and safety's your top priority.
    Clearly, it's not. You won't share any of the data. You're 
stonewalling every Member of this Committee. What about this? 
Will you at least commit to keeping behavioral advertising out 
of any product that a kid can access?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, we think that, you know, 
advertising is potentially very valuable. We have made changes 
with respect to teens under 18, limitations around the ability 
of advertisers to use our products to reach them.
    Senator Hawley. Let's see. You won't reveal the research. 
You won't restrict your advertising. You won't pull back on 
plans to target children under the age of 13 with this 
platform, which you know is toxic for so many teenagers, 
especially female teenagers, and yet their health and well-
being is your top priority. Do I--have I got that right? Did I 
miss any part?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I'm not sure I said any of that. 
What I would say is, again, these are incredibly important 
issues to the company. We're committed to having a constructive 
dialog with Congress about them, and we're going to continue to 
invest heavily in them at the company.
    Senator Hawley. I'm sure you'll invest heavily in it. I 
have absolutely no doubt about that. That I think is probably 
the truest statement you've made today. I have no doubt you 
will continue to pour money into Instagram as long as you can 
extract money from it and from the teenagers whom you are, 
quite frankly, exploiting.
    Here's just a final question for you. Why should--why 
should you be able to advertise to teenagers at all? I mean, 
given all the dangers inherent in collecting their data, which 
is what you're doing on Instagram, why should you be able to 
advertise to teenagers? Why shouldn't we prohibit that?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, as you know advertising supports 
our service. We do think that additional protections for 
teenagers are appropriate. We put those in place. We're going 
to continue to look into ways to keep teenagers safe on our 
services while being able to support them with advertising.
    Senator Hawley. Mr. Satterfield, the truth is you and I 
both know is that your product isn't safe. Your platforms 
aren't safe. They're dangerous. You know it, we know it. You 
stonewalled us. You've stonewalled the public. It's time for 
some accountability, and all I can say is accountability is 
coming.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chair Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator Hawley. 
Before I turn it over to Senator Ossoff, I just want to--
something when I was asking my questions that could lend some 
information to you here.
    Facebook publicly reported that last quarter its revenue, 
advertising revenue per user, which I presume includes teens in 
the U.S. and Canada, was $51.58 per user. I guess just to 
follow-up, Mr. Satterfield, do you have the breakdown for teens 
versus the rest that we could get, maybe not today, but later?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, the only breakdown I'm aware of 
is the one you referenced, which is the average revenue per 
user.
    Chair Klobuchar. Does that include Instagram? Is it 
company-wide?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I believe it's company-wide.
    Chair Klobuchar. Okay. All right. Senator Hawley compared 
it to some of the other countries which were a lot less than 
our country, so we'll have to be looking into that. How much 
revenue they make with that?
    I'll turn it over to Senator Ossoff.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. The first 
question please for you, Ms. Colclasure, does Acxiom or any 
other IPG company provide services to entities outside of the 
United States based upon or linked to data about U.S. persons?
    Ms. Colclasure. Thank you, Senator, for your question. Of 
course, I'm at Kinesso and formerly at Acxiom, and a part of 
the IPG family. Acxiom data, we at Acxiom and at Kinesso both, 
we do have clients that are multinationals, and we have clients 
that operate in other markets around the world, and part of the 
services we provide are data-enabled services, marketing, and 
advertising services, so, yes.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you. Do Kinesso, Acxiom, or other IPG 
companies provide data-connected services or services based on 
or related to data about U.S. persons to Federal agencies, 
State or local law enforcement, or any other public sector 
actors in the United States?
    Ms. Colclasure. Of course, again, I'm speaking about 
Acxiom. Acxiom does have, and shortly to be retired, an 
identity authentication product, which is made up of regulated 
data and provided for regulated service and that is--we call 
that our risk product suite, and it solves things like know-
your-customer obligations that financial services have--that 
we're actually exiting that business shortly and concentrating 
on marketing and advertising.
    Senator Ossoff. Is that the only product or service that 
you sell to any public sector entity in the United States?
    Ms. Colclasure. We do other things like marketing and 
advertising data-enabled services. Like we supported an Ad 
Council advertising campaign to help get information out to 
help with the pandemic. Another example I can think of is we 
helped the American Red Cross when the Hurricane Katrina hit 
New Orleans several years ago. We helped get data to them for 
some marketing communications to go out and find audiences so 
they could learn about help and services from the American Red 
Cross.
    We have a few other campaigns like that that I am aware of. 
Does that help?
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. Colclasure. Do many IPG 
entities provide any services or have any financial 
relationships, direct or indirect, with any agencies or clients 
at the Department of Defense, in the intelligence community, or 
in Federal, State, or local law enforcement?
    Ms. Colclasure. It is not an area of concentration, and I 
don't know the answer right off. I feel like I would----
    Senator Ossoff. Is that for the record?
    Ms. Colclasure. Yes. I do not know the answer right off, 
but I promise I will go and research it and get you an answer 
so that I can be certain. Of course, there may be 
confidentiality issues that I'll have to navigate if we do have 
those sorts of contracts. I'm glad to go research and get you 
an answer.
    Senator Ossoff. Just to be clear, Ms. Colclasure, you are 
not personally aware and have never heard of any financial 
relationship between an IPG entity and the Department of 
Defense, the U.S. Intelligence Community, or any Federal, 
State, or local law enforcement entity?
    Ms. Colclasure. I do know that Acxiom--of course, I'm not 
at Acxiom now, and Acxiom historically has had some 
relationships with some of that community, but I do not have 
the knowledge to share at this--but I'll research it for you.
    Senator Ossoff. What are you aware of? What do you recall?
    Ms. Colclasure. We do have some--we did, again I'm not in 
command of the knowledge because I'm not at Acxiom now, but 
there are some Governmental agencies that we have worked with, 
most of it, like the Veterans Administration, was advertising 
and trying to do outreach to their veterans' community, so 
rather than fish around, if you might allow me, Senator, I'll 
go and research and get you an exactly right answer, if that 
would be OK?
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you. Do any IPG entities have direct 
or indirect financial relationships or provide any services or 
products to any foreign governmental entities?
    Ms. Colclasure. Not to my knowledge.
    Senator Ossoff. Will you please double-check, for the 
record?
    Ms. Colclasure. I certainly will. Certainly.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you. How does Acxiom or how do other 
IPG entities engaged in their activities obtain device 
identifiers, such as IMEI or IMSI numbers?
    Ms. Colclasure. At Acxiom and at Kinesso, of course, we 
operate in the digital advertising and marketing space, and we 
run a unified ethical framework as the basis for our data 
governance program. When we either source data, we undergo a 
due diligence process. I always like to say not all data's the 
same, and not all data uses are the same. Some of the data, 
like device IDs, that is a connecting piece of data that we use 
to enable and activate digital advertising campaigns on behalf 
of our clients. It may be that it flows in from one of our 
connected partner ecosystem providers, like an advertising 
network or a publisher, and we sit in the middle as a 
connector. That is typically how the data flows.
    Does that help answer?
    Senator Ossoff. Do you place any limitations? Does Acxiom 
or any IPG entity place any limitations on the form, category, 
type, of entities to whom you'll sell services?
    Ms. Colclasure. Absolutely, Senator. Thank you for that 
question. We do. As I mentioned, we use what's called a unified 
ethical frame for our data governance program. We practice an 
accountability-based, data-governance program.
    Senator Ossoff. Which plans--forgive me, but my time is 
limited. Which types of entity specifically will you not 
license data to or provide services to?
    Ms. Colclasure. We--they have to be a legitimate commercial 
enterprise. We don't provide data to individuals or data-
enabled services to individuals. It is to commercial entities 
for a legitimate ethical purpose. We judge the data use in 
context via our privacy impact assessment process. We check it 
off against legal requirements, regulatory requirements, 
coregulatory requirements. We do a harm detection and 
prevention test, and then very important to all of us, we do a 
fairness test. I mentioned in my opening remarks that we're 
people-centered, and that is we design from people outwards, 
from the engineering layer outward.
    Senator Ossoff. Ma'am, my time is limited. I appreciate the 
elaboration of that policy. Let me ask you this question? Does 
any IPG entity or has any IPG entity provided any service or 
sold any product to private investigators?
    Ms. Colclasure. No. A very long time ago there was one 
business that Acxiom owned that we divested that did serve PIs, 
but that might have been 10 or 15 years ago. The answer's no, 
today.
    Senator Ossoff. Which firm was that?
    Ms. Colclasure. It was--it was Acxiom-owned. We had 
acquired an entity. We operated it for a few years, and then we 
sold it, and I apologize, I cannot recall the name right now.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, ma'am. Madam Chair, I may return 
for a second round if we have the opportunity. I yield.
    Chair Klobuchar. Excellent. Senator Blackburn.
    Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Ms. Slaiman, 
let me come to you first. I know that you're aware that 
Senators Blumenthal, Klobuchar, and I filed the Open Market App 
Store Bill so that we could address Google and Apple and their 
stranglehold on that app market. Very quickly, how do Apple and 
Google's data practices factor into this app store and how they 
limit the use there, and do they incentivize the app store 
developers to continue the monopoly over--over this market that 
they have?
    How are they manipulating that marketplace, very quickly?
    Ms. Slaiman. Thank you so much, Senator Blackburn. We were 
so glad to see the introduction of the Open App Markets Act. I 
think that's going to be really important, not just for big 
data but for gatekeeper power writ large when it comes to app 
stores.
    In particular, with regard to big data, I think the app 
stores and the operating systems have this privileged position 
where they can treat users, decisions about their data, 
differently, based on whether the app is owned by the app store 
company or the operating system company, or whether it's a 
competitor.
    One thing that's really important is to make sure that 
those are being treated the same so that we have a level 
playing field for competition.
    Senator Blackburn. I think that's important and that 
privileged position that they exercise is important to note. 
You've mentioned the gatekeeper property and how that would 
apply to other applications, whether it is publishers and other 
forms of content development. I think that this is an important 
bill that we get passed in on the record.
    Very quickly on filter bubbles, and I know you've mentioned 
that--how do you address--how do you think we could address the 
filter bubbles and the platforms' secret algorithms, if you 
will, that really, kind of manipulate that consumer experience 
online?
    Ms. Slaiman. One of the ways that big data is used is to 
decide what products to show the users. The platforms, again, 
are in this gatekeeper role where they're making those 
decisions. A lot of times that's based on an algorithm that is 
fed by data that they're collecting from users.
    Those decisions about which products to show to users, 
which services to offer to users, those are decisions that the 
platform gets to make, and that's limiting the options that a 
user sees.
    Senator Blackburn. Yes. I think that the Open Apps Market 
Act gives us that footing, as I said, that gatekeeper role to 
begin to address that so that the consumer, online consumer, 
has a more private and a more genuine experience, and we're 
looking forward to getting that bill passed. Thank you for 
those comments on that, because I agree with you. I think the 
implications we're going to see are writ large in the industry.
    Mr. Satterfield, if I may come to you for just a moment. As 
you're aware, Senator Blumenthal and I have kind of been doing 
a deep dive on what you're doing with this data that you're 
collecting on teenagers. From working with whistleblower and 
from the data that we've seen, basically reams of data at this 
point, we are concerned about this amount of data that you are 
keeping on teens. Basically, what you're doing is building a 
virtual presence, a virtual you, of these teenagers. Do you 
think that is a violation of the Children's Online Privacy Act, 
the fact that you're tracking and following and building these 
files on these children?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, no. We're complying with the law. 
We do think it's really important to provide protections around 
teens' experiences on our services. These are things that we've 
been investing in. We've been consulting with third-party 
experts so that we do this thoughtfully and----
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. Who are the third-party experts 
that you're consulting with? Because when we talk to teachers, 
to parents, to pediatricians, to psychologists, and when we 
look at the data that you have collected from teens and the 
changes that they have recommended that you make to your 
platform, it's like you're turning a blind eye to that because 
you're chasing a dollar. Why don't you bring some clarity to 
bear on that?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, this isn't something that I work 
on at the company. I'm happy to get back to you with more on 
the experts, and I'd say that----
    Senator Blackburn. You know, if you're the VP----
    Senator Lee. Still going.
    Senator Blackburn [continuing]. On privacy and public 
policy, one would think that you probably were in meetings and 
that you would have a stakeholder position in what your company 
chooses to do on that issue. Are you not involved in these 
discussions of privacy and how to protect this data, and 
thereby how to protect the virtual you of these children and 
teens that are using your platform?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, yes, of course. I was talking 
about, you know, safety experts, experts on well-being and 
such. Yes, of course, I'm involved in privacy issues, including 
privacy issues that affect the teens on our platform.
    Senator Blackburn. Do you have any plans in the works to 
use the data that you have collected, the data that teens gave 
you, the information they gave you when they participated in 
your mental health survey? Are you going to use that to put 
protections in place for these teens on your site? Yes or no?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, all of the research that we do, 
you know, informs the decision-making in the company. It's 
certainly something that we'll take into account as we're----
    Senator Blackburn. The decision-making that you are 
exercising shows that you're making decisions that allow you to 
be more profitable, not that you're making decisions that are 
based on the welfare of that child. Why do you collect so much 
data on your users if you do not use it to improve the user 
experience? You're not using it to protect children or to 
improve the user experience, so for the record, why don't you 
tell us what you're using this data for?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, we are using the data that we 
collect when people use our services to improve their 
experience. That's our----
    Senator Blackburn. Why would teens that took your mental 
health survey say--why would older teens say, ``We're advising 
our younger siblings not to use Instagram, not to be a part of 
this online community''? Because they feel like you're not 
following what they're asking you to do. What are you using the 
data for? Are you using it for micro-targeting, to go in and 
target advertising? Are you using it to feed them--to push them 
further down paths if they click on one something then you keep 
feeding them more of that? Why don't you, for the record, tell 
us what you're using this data for? You've got reams of it.
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, when it comes to the data that we 
collect when people use our services, you know, we do a couple 
of things. We use that data to provide the service. We use it 
to improve the service, to provide enhanced experiences, as you 
were saying.
    Senator Blackburn. Tell me what improvements you have made 
that would keep teens healthier and safer. Give me three 
examples of things you've done that would keep teens healthier 
and safer as they use your platform.
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, with respect to Instagram, we 
have made changes to the ways in which adults can contact 
potentially younger users. We've made changes to the way in 
which people can comment, and we've made changes that are 
designed to address potential bullying and harassment. In 
comments, we've made resources available on well-being and body 
image issues. We've made a number of investments over the years 
that address these kinds of issues.
    Senator Blackburn. Do you nibble around the edges, or are 
you aggressive? Are you going to stop allowing human 
traffickers, sex traffickers, drug traffickers, to use your 
platform, whether it's in the U.S. or other countries? Is that 
the kind of improvement that you're making?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, respectfully, absolutely not. 
There's no place on Facebook for----
    Senator Blackburn. It happens.
    Mr. Satterfield [continuing]. Activities like that.
    Senator Blackburn. It happens. There's a Mexican drug 
cartel that's been on your platform. You didn't take them off.
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, that organization was designated 
and banned on our platform, if what you're referring to is the 
organization from the Wall Street Journal article.
    Senator Blackburn. You know, I have to tell you--and I have 
grandchildren, I have two grandsons and a granddaughter. My 
grandsons are 12 and 13, and my granddaughter is a year old. I 
tell my grandsons all the time that they cannot trust you all 
with their information. I think what you have done to a lot of 
these children is inexcusable. I think the fact that you 
collect this data, you monetize that data, you benefit from 
that data, and then knowing you have this data, don't you think 
parents would have liked to have known that this was taking 
place on your site? I do. I think it is unfortunate that you 
all have hesitated to answer the questions that Senator 
Blumenthal and I have. We do look forward to having a 
representative from your company come next week and answer the 
questions that we have in our hearing. Madam Chairman, we look 
forward to hearing more from Google and Apple about the Open 
Market Apps Bill. With that, I will yield back my time.
    Chair Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator Blackburn. 
Second round, Senator Blumenthal.
    Senator Blumenthal. Let me just say, Mr. Satterfield, if 
you fail to have someone here on September 30th, there can be 
only one reason, that you're continuing the concealment. Let me 
just be very blunt. You've been sent here to defend the 
indefensible, but at some point, Mr. Zuckerberg should get the 
message, ``Houston, we have a problem.'' Better to be here on 
September 30, than continue to evade responsibility. I thank my 
colleague Senator Blackburn for putting it so succinctly and so 
eloquently.
    I just want to point out that behind the numbers and the 
perhaps seemingly abstract questions there are real human 
beings, young women and men who are deeply hurt by these 
images, the focus on body images, on self-worth that comes 
along with those images. In one study of teens in the U.S. and 
the UK, according to the Journal article, Facebook found that 
more than 40 percent of Instagram users who reported feeling 
unattractive, said the feeling began on the app, and about a 
quarter of the teens who reported feeling not good enough said 
the feeling started there, and many felt in quotes, 
``addicted'' to the app and felt that they were deprived of 
self-control.
    Again, the analogy to big tobacco is undeniable. It's an 
analogy, not an exact comparison, but the exploitation of that 
kind of attraction, even addiction, I think is reprehensible. I 
really do hope that you understand that there is a certainty 
here, which is accountability is coming, as Senator Blackburn 
has said and Senator Hawley put it exactly. Accountability is 
coming, and it will be bipartisan.
    I want to shift to the issue that Senator Blackburn also 
raised, our bipartisan bill, the Open App Markets Act would set 
robust rules to promote competition and strengthen consumer 
protection. I am proud that this bill is bipartisan. I want to 
thank my colleague Senator Klobuchar for her leading role in 
this area and she is a co-sponsor of the bill. It's received 
wide support, as was mentioned earlier, from consumer groups, 
antitrust experts, and app developers. Ms. Slaiman, I 
especially appreciate your reference to it, and the support 
that Public Knowledge has provided for the bill.
    Two companies, Google and Apple, have gatekeeper control of 
the dominant app stores that allow them to dictate the terms 
for everyone. Their duopoly allows them to set the terms and 
they do. If app developers don't like the terms, there is 
nowhere for them to go. That is what we call a broken market.
    Not even Facebook is immune to Google and Apple's 
gatekeeper control, big as Facebook is, powerful as it is, it's 
not immune. Apple has blocked the Facebook Gaming app from the 
app store at least five times, and it has prohibited other 
cloud gaming services from becoming available on the app store. 
Apple has also forced Facebook to remove a notice informing 
consumers about the so-called Apple tax, that is the infamous 
30 percent rent fee that they extract from digital goods and 
services. The little guy is as much a victim as the big guys 
like Facebook.
    The Open Markets--Open App Markets Act would protect 
developers' ability to offer competitive prices, tell consumers 
about lower prices, and give consumers the right to make their 
own decisions about the apps they install. That's what's called 
competition, and a free market, or at least freer than it is 
now, and it would mean that Facebook and others don't have to 
pass the Apple tax on to consumers and small businesses.
    It would mean that iPhone users could sideload Facebook 
Gaming directly on to their phones if Apple continues to block 
the app. These are basically pro-consumer and pro-competition 
rules.
    Mr. Satterfield, would Facebook support Congress setting 
fair, clear, enforceable rules on app stores that would prevent 
Apple and Google from using their gatekeeper power to extract 
excessive rents and block competition like what happened to you 
and your app, Facebook Gaming?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, thank you. Our team is looking at 
the bill, and we're providing feedback through the, you know, 
the normal channels. You know, we're continuing to work with 
you and the other co-sponsors and providing that feedback.
    Senator Blumenthal. What are the normal channels?
    Mr. Satterfield. We're communicating with your staff and 
others.
    Senator Blumenthal. Okay. Let me point out, in case it 
isn't obvious, and I think it is, that Facebook really should 
support these kinds of rules if it is in favor of competition 
and open markets and not just for you, but for others.
    Mr. Erickson, Apple has claimed that if we allow consumers 
to make their own decisions, all sorts of really horrible or 
terrible things are going to happen. Unlike Apple, Google has 
allowed sideloading and better developing access on Android 
from the very start. Given Apple's alarming claims, would you 
characterize everyone's Apple phone as insecure or vulnerable 
to cybersecurity risk, because that's what Apple says will 
happen if we eliminate the Apple tax of 30 percent?
    Mr. Erickson. Senator, thank you for your question. If I 
may step back for a minute, we share the values that you and 
Senator Blackburn have that consumers should be able to choose 
the lawful applications, to download those, and that there 
should be competition in this marketplace. We're taking a look 
at your legislation as well, and we'll be happy to engage with 
you going forward.
    The Android ecosystem, no, we do believe we provide a very 
safe and secure ecosystem for our app developers to reach a 
global audience of billions of users in 190 countries, and 
that's not undermined by allowing consumers to be able to 
download applications outside of the app store or to sideload 
those applications.
    Senator Blumenthal. You do believe Android is secure?
    Mr. Erickson. Senator, yes.
    Senator Blumenthal. Let me just close this round of 
questioning, because I know my colleagues may have other 
questions. I cannot help but make this observation about the 
action just over the last weekend by Google and Apple, at the 
behest of Vladimir Putin, to censor their apps. In fact, censor 
apps that were used to organize democratic protests in Russia. 
Apple has taken down thousands of apps from its app store at 
China's request. Almost a third of them relate to human rights, 
and it includes Hong Kong protests and LGTBQ rights.
    You know, in a tweet I analogized what's going on here to 
Neville Chamberlain and the attempt to appease Germany. I view 
it as very much the same kind of appeasement of Vladimir Putin 
and the Communist Party in China. I think it was Winston 
Churchill who said about Neville Chamberlain that he had to 
choose between dishonor and war. He chose dishonor and he got 
war. In fact, he got both.
    At the end of the day, you're not going to appease these 
totalitarian dictators. Not even Apple or Google or any of the 
big tech companies are going to win by appeasement when it 
comes to human rights. I think that it's pandering. It's craven 
pandering, and it undermines our national interest, and I yield 
the floor, Madam Chair.
    Chair Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator Blumenthal. 
Senator Lee is next.
    Senator Lee. Thank you very much. My next question is for 
Mr. Robb. Mr. Robb, what are the ramifications of our personal 
data having become the method of payment for so many online 
services?
    Mr. Robb. It's a loss of control, loss of income, and, you 
know, we're looking at the snapshot right now of the tech 
industry, and we're looking at--we're focusing in on marketing 
and the big players that exist today, but this is going to 
evolve. You know, I've been in the tech industry for decades, 
and I started on the internet 25 years ago, and that was well 
before Facebook and Google even existed.
    The same thing's going to happen in the next 20-30 years, 
is that this data is going to persist, and we need to give 
individuals control of that data so they can learn how to 
exercise their control, set permissions on how it's used, and 
make money on commercial apps that actually use it to build 
products and services.
    You know, changing the dynamic here----
    Senator Lee. What if anything can we do to reassert our 
ownership and our control over our own data?
    Mr. Robb. I think the key way to do that is to get the data 
off of the platforms that are aggregating it, and then putting 
it into a central repository that's managed by the individual, 
and if they do that, they're in control. They're the focal 
point where actually combining that data and who's using it, 
rather than having it sold by third parties to third parties 
or--and combined in ways that they don't have any jurisdiction 
over.
    By putting the, you know, the individual at the center of 
the equation, you know, it makes life more complicated, but 
it's an essential thing for us to move forward and be able to 
do this successfully long-term. Otherwise, we're going to be 
caught in this, you know, privacy trap. I mean, privacy's fine, 
but it really is just destruction of data and limitations on--
rather than actually solving the problem at root.
    Senator Lee. Are third-party brokers like Acxiom an 
obstacle or are they an aid to consumers trying to regain 
control of their data?
    Mr. Robb. The fact that they're combining data from 
multiple sources, they're actually acting in opposition to what 
individuals should--should be able to do. If you have the 
individual at the center of the equation, you don't need an 
Acxiom. We don't need a data broker. I mean, they can cut deals 
directly with them. They might even be managing the data 
repository. You know, it seems like--you know, we don't have a 
data repository now, and it seems, you know, fanciful to even 
think in terms of that, but I mean, we can build it. I mean, we 
can set the standards for how that would operate. We can lay 
out those standards and have companies actually compete to 
deliver on those standards, just like we built the web, just 
like we built so much of what we have in terms of web 
architecture.
    You know, data aggregators can do business with 
individuals, but they can't be a substitute for them.
    Senator Lee. Mr. Erickson, I'd like to turn to you next. In 
the last year, Google announced that it would stop servicing 
third-party cookers--cookies in the Chrome browser. Google's 
announcement said that the purpose of this was to protect 
consumers and to protect their data.
    Left unsaid was how this could impact Google's ad tech 
competitors, and also left unsaid was the amount of information 
that Google collects from consumers--the browser data, location 
data, app usage data, financial transaction data, et cetera.
    Tell me, how is it that consumers are any more protected if 
Google collects this data and your competitors can't? Can you 
help me understand that?
    Mr. Erickson. Senator, thank you for the question. Yes, I 
can try. With the announcement that we made you rightfully 
point out that we would stop supporting intrusive tracking 
technologies like third-party cookies. We made the announcement 
in an effort to chart a course for a more privacy-enhancing 
web. We did not unilaterally withdraw our support for that but 
rather wanted to engage in a thoughtful conversation with 
advertisers, with publishers that rely on an ad-supported 
ecosystem to be able to function their websites or to reach 
consumers. We want to engage with regulators and governments 
and other stakeholders to explore more privacy-protective 
technologies, those are the intrusive technologies.
    Senator Lee. Sir, I'm not sure you're grasping my question. 
You're at least not answering it. I appreciate that you're 
wanting to have a thoughtful conversation. I appreciate that 
you include this was in your business interest, and it may well 
have been. That's totally within your right. What I'm asking 
you to explain is your apparent assertion that consumers are 
any more protected if you collect that data and your 
competitors can't.
    Mr. Erickson. Senator, so----
    Senator Lee. That is your assertion, right? I mean that is 
the assertion that you made in that announcement. You said 
you're not going to service the third-party cookies in the 
Chrome browser, and----
    Mr. Erickson. I'm sorry.
    Senator Lee. Go ahead.
    Mr. Erickson. Senator, we think the advertising ecosystem 
can thrive without having privacy-intrusive technologies like 
tracking devices or third-party cookies. The data that users--
we are transparent with the collection practices that we have 
and the uses of our data, and we want to give consumers, and we 
do give them meaningful choice over the uses of their data, 
including to decide that they don't want to see targeted ads 
and relevant ads. They can choose not to see those or to mute 
ads that appear on third-party sites. There's many, many 
advertisers in the ecosystem. The access to data from consumers 
can be gotten from data brokers and other providers, so we 
don't think--the data in that regard is not viable. The data 
that consumers may provide with us are often provided to other 
online actors as well, and some of these companies are some of 
the biggest companies in the world. You implicitly raised a 
very important point, which is as we see regulators around the 
world push us and others, rightfully so, to have more privacy-
protective technologies and to chart a course through a more 
privacy-centric web. There are competitors out there that are 
urging competition authorities to have us make more personally 
identifiable information released to the ecosystem.
    We think that--we want to engage in these conversations. We 
think we can have a privacy-centric web while ensuring consumer 
choice and competition, and that publishers and advertisers 
will continue to be able to have a business model that allow 
them to provide their websites and services to consumers in the 
way they do today.
    Senator Lee. Okay, yes, I understand that. Look, I get the 
fact that you can always point to areas where things could get 
worse. Mandatory disclosures of personally identifying 
information on the web or otherwise. It is rather significant 
here that these things that you're talking about, steps that 
you've taken to exclude would-be competitors from the 
marketplace in circumstances in which Google's happy to provide 
advertisers with an alternative making them more dependent on 
Google, or it does in pretty much your bottom line.
    Ms. Slaiman, do you agree with Google's statement? Are 
consumers better off with only Google being able to collect 
these types of data?
    Ms. Slaiman. No, I don't agree with that statement. I don't 
think that users' privacy is improved, and I think it's a 
problem for competition. I really think we're being presented 
here with a false choice. There's another alternative, which is 
that some of this data should not be tracked at all.
    Senator Lee. Sounds like you agree with my reluctance to 
accept the premise that people are safer because of this. I 
just realized I'm dangerously over time. Chairwoman Klobuchar 
has been very indulgent. I apologize. Thank you.
    Chair Klobuchar. Thank you. Next up Senator Cruz. Thank 
you.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Satterfield, my 
questions will be for you. Last week, the Wall Street Journal 
ran a damning article entitled, ``Facebook Knows Instagram Is 
Toxic For Teen Girls, Company Documents Show.'' The tagline 
below it was quote, ``Its own in-depth research shows a 
significant teen mental health issue that Facebook plays down 
in public.''
    I know about this article because my wife, Heidi, who reads 
the Journal every day said, ``You need to read this article 
now.'' I read it word for word.
    All of us know that these products are addictive and that 
companies like Facebook design them in this way in order to 
maximize addiction, to capture eyeballs, which captures data, 
which is then used to sell advertising. For years, Facebook has 
been publicly insisting that its products aren't harmful and 
particularly that they're not harming teenagers.
    We now know that was a lie. Facebook knew that its 
products, and specifically Instagram, was destroying the lives 
of far too many teenage girls. Facebook knew this because 
Facebook conducted its own studies into how Instagram affected 
young users and found that Instagram is harmful to a sizable 
percentage of them.
    In fact, a slide from 2019 summara--summarizing this 
research said quote, ``We make body image issues worse for one 
in three teen girls.'' Another Facebook slide said quote, 
``Teens blame Instagram for increases in the rate of anxiety 
and depression.'' Another slide said quote, ``Teens who 
struggle with mental health say Instagram makes it worse.'' 
Most egregiously, one presentation said that among teens who 
reported suicidal thoughts, 13 percent of British users and 6 
percent of America's users traded--traced their desire to kill 
themselves to Instagram.
    This should've made Facebook stop dead in its tracks and 
ask what in the hell you were doing. Instead, Facebook publicly 
downplayed the risk to young users and committed to push, to 
make sure more at-risk teenage girls used Instagram because 
more users including more teenagers means more money, whatever 
the human cost.
    This is appalling. The American people deserve a thorough 
investigation into Facebook's willingness and eagerness to 
mislead the public about the risks of their own products.
    The Wall Street Journal article states that the research 
has been reviewed by top Facebook executives and was cited in a 
presentation given to Mark Zuckerberg.
    Mr. Satterfield, is this accurate? Did Mark Zuckerberg have 
personal knowledge of this Facebook research?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I don't know the answer to that 
question, but, you know, to your other points, I would strongly 
disagree with the notion that our products are unsafe. I 
strongly believe they are safe----
    Senator Cruz. Let me ask you. Did you have knowledge of 
this research, Mr. Satterfield?
    Mr. Satterfield. I'm sorry, Senator. I've read the Wall 
Street Journal article----
    Senator Cruz. Did you have knowledge of it before the Wall 
Street Journal article?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I'm generally aware that we do 
research on our products.
    Senator Cruz. Are you familiar with this research?
    Mr. Satterfield. I wasn't familiar with this research 
outside of the context of the Journal article, no.
    Senator Cruz. Wait a second. Your title is vice president 
of privacy and public policy, and you had no idea about 
Facebook's own research showing that you're violating the 
privacy and destroying the lives of teenage girls. You didn't 
know about it? Is that what you're testifying today?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, we're a large company, we have a 
lot of teams working on a lot of different issues. I don't work 
on these issues, safety and well-being.
    Senator Cruz. You didn't know about it?
    Mr. Satterfield. I didn't. Other people did. We're happy to 
connect----
    Senator Cruz. You have zero knowledge whether Mark 
Zuckerberg knew about it or not?
    Mr. Satterfield. I--Senator, I don't know that. I don't 
know.
    Senator Cruz. You knew you were coming to testify in this 
hearing. I'm going to guess you read the Journal article before 
you showed up to testify?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I came here to testify on data 
issues and antitrust----
    Senator Cruz. Did you read the Journal article before you 
showed up to testify?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, yes, I've read the Journal 
article.
    Senator Cruz. Okay. Presumably, you prepared for today's 
testimony, yes?
    Mr. Satterfield. Yes, Senator, I prepared.
    Senator Cruz. Did that preparation involve enquiring 
whether the Wall Street Journal was accurate when it said Mark 
Zuckerberg was aware of this research?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I can't get into the issues that 
we discussed during prep with my lawyers.
    Senator Cruz. Why not? You're here testifying on behalf of 
Facebook. I'm asking whether you inquired, whether the Journal 
was right, that Zuckerberg knew about this research? Did you 
inquire about it, or did you remain willfully blind and not 
want to know if Zuckerberg knew about it?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, respectfully, I'm here to testify 
about data and antitrust issues. I don't work on these issues. 
I'm happy to put you in touch with the folks that do----
    Senator Cruz. Again, you're the vice president of privacy 
and public policy and so putting in place policies that result 
in more teen suicides, that does not fall within your purview?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I don't agree with that 
characterization. I work on privacy. There are many people that 
work on these issues at the company.
    Senator Cruz. Okay. Let's take the specifics of Facebook's 
research. I read a quote a minute ago, quote, ``We make body-
image issues worse for one in three teen girls.'' I didn't 
write that. Facebook wrote that. Is that an accurate statement?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, we do this research in order to 
inform hard conversations that we have at the company.
    Senator Cruz. I didn't ask why you did the research. I 
asked if the statement that was the result of your research is 
true?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, this is the research that was 
discussed in the Journal. This is research that we did 
internally.
    Senator Cruz. Was that a conclusion of your research? Yes 
or no?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I'm aware of the Wall Street 
Journal article. I've read the Wall Street Journal article 
which discusses the research.
    Senator Cruz. All right. Let's try another conclusion. The 
Facebook research concluded that 13 percent of British users 
and 6 percent of American users trace their desire to kill 
themselves to Instagram. Is that a conclusion of your research?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator Cruz, respectfully, we have teams 
that work on these issues. I'm not on those teams. We would be 
happy----
    Senator Cruz. Respectfully, you're not answering the 
question. It's a simple binary question. Did your research 
conclude that or not? If it's not, show us the research that 
didn't conclude that? If it is, then the question is, ``What's 
the culpability of a company that knows it is contributing to 
an expanding teen suicide?'' Did your research conclude that 
six percent of American users trace their desire to kill 
themselves to Instagram? Yes or no?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, again, these aren't issues that I 
work on at the company. I'm happy to bring folks in for a 
briefing with you and your staff.
    Senator Cruz. I understand that you would prefer a briefing 
without the public being aware of it, but I'm the father of two 
girls, including a teenage girl. Let me ask you something. In 
your judgment, in the judgment of Facebook, is increased teen 
suicide an acceptable business risk?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, of course not.
    Senator Cruz. Has Facebook quantified how many additional 
teenagers took their life because of your products?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, again, with respect, these aren't 
the issues that I work on. I came here today to talk about data 
and antitrust.
    Senator Cruz. Let me ask you. What would you say to the 
parents of a teenager who took her own life because of your 
products? What would you say when, two years ago, you had 
research that you conducted that concluded your products would 
contribute to and expand teen suicide? What would you say to a 
parent on behalf of Facebook who was facing that horrific 
tragedy?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, obviously losing a child to a 
tragedy like that is devastating. I have children. I take these 
issues incredibly seriously myself.
    Senator Cruz. Does Facebook?
    Mr. Satterfield. Of course, we do, Senator.
    Senator Cruz. Then what did you do differently? You got 
these results two years ago. What conduct changed? You don't 
get to say you take these issues seriously if you continue 
doing exactly the same and profiting off of--off of 
applications that are endangering the lives of teenage girls. 
What did you do differently because of this research?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, we did this research to inform 
our decision-making. We have consistently made----
    Senator Cruz. Did anything change?
    Mr. Satterfield [continuing]. Improvements to the product--
--
    Senator Cruz. Did anything change?
    Mr. Satterfield [continuing]. To address issues like well-
being. I would love to have a team come in----
    Senator Cruz. Did anything change?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, we've made changes to our 
products over the last, you know, 10, 12 years----
    Senator Cruz. Did anything change to reduce the risk of 
teen suicide because of your product? Did you read this 
research and say, ``Oh, my God, this is horrifying. Let's 
change''? Did you do anything to change, or did you just say, 
``Hey, we're printing money so we're good with this''? Which 
one was it?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I would love to have a team come 
and give you and your staff a full briefing on these issues. We 
have made significant----
    Senator Cruz. It's the American people who deserve a 
briefing.
    Mr. Satterfield [continuing]. To safety and security. I 
would love to share more about this with you with the folks who 
work on these things.
    Senator Cruz. The entire American people deserve to know 
the answers to these questions.
    Chair Klobuchar. Thank you very much. I'm going to finish 
up here with my second round of questions, and I want to bring 
us back to the subject of the hearing on data, because we have 
some major opportunities to move, right now, legislation that I 
think will be very helpful.
    The first I've mentioned, which is right in front of us 
before the House, the bill that Senator Grassley and I have to 
modernize the merger filing fees. We also have opportunities in 
this budget in reconciliation, and you know, my view is--and I 
guess I'll ask you this, Ms. Slaiman. The President can appoint 
aggressive enforcers. He can issue executive orders which was 
great, but if we don't have the resources to take on the 
world's biggest companies, is it going to all work?
    Ms. Slaiman. Right. I think you're absolutely right, Madam 
Chairwoman. We need more funding for our antitrust enforcement 
agencies. Obviously, that alone is not going to be sufficient 
so I'm glad that you're working on a lot of other important 
pieces of the puzzle as well, but that's an important one that 
we ought to be able to get done.
    Chair Klobuchar. Okay. Very good. Then we have not seen a 
lot of antitrust enforcement against mergers or anticompetitive 
conduct based on the issue raised by what this hearing has for 
the most part focused on, which is data. It's clear that big 
data does raise complex competition issues, but I'm doubtful 
that when you see some of these court cases recently that in my 
mind have gone in the wrong direction to begin with, but then 
we have this complex area of data and what that means for 
dominant carriers with no new laws or adjustment of laws. 
That's why the Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform 
Act that I introduced with Senators Leahy, Blumenthal, Booker, 
and many others would update our laws.
    Could you talk about how this would help to address 
competition issues raised by big data?
    Ms. Slaiman. Yes. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman. I 
think that's absolutely right that recently, and not so 
recently--it's been going on for decades now--that our 
antitrust laws have been narrowed and narrowed by these court 
decisions. So, now that we are facing the difficult challenges 
of big data, it's very difficult to bring a case, for example, 
where innovation harms are an important part of, you know, what 
the agencies are trying to argue. I think it will be incredibly 
helpful to have your legislation in place that updates the 
legal standard both for mergers and for exclusionary conduct.
    Exclusionary conduct in particular is how a lot of these 
big data concerns are happening, and it has really been 
difficult to bring exclusionary conduct to cases, which is a 
broader problem beyond big data, but it's particularly relevant 
here.
    Chair Klobuchar. Maybe we could talk a little bit about 
that, you know, the relevance of it.
    As we look at privacy legislation, and I know, Mr. 
Satterfield, you talked about privacy legislation, and in your 
written testimony and past blog posts you've written about the 
need for Congress to enact it that could create rules to govern 
how platforms should use, analyze, and share data. What 
restrictions do you think the U.S. Government should put on 
targeted advertising, both from a privacy and competition 
perspective, and should such legislation be limited to 
platforms like Facebook, Google, and Amazon, or should it apply 
to data brokers too?
    Mr. Satterfield. Thank you, Senator. We think the 
comprehensive privacy legislation is incredibly important for 
the Congress to take up and pass. In terms of who it should 
apply to, we think it should apply across the board to 
companies that process people's personal data. We think that it 
should have components like basic rights around your data, the 
rights to access, correct, delete and move your data to another 
service. We think that companies should be required to build 
internal processes to make sure that they're thinking about 
privacy when they build their products and services. I think 
that those are the basic components of the framework that we 
would advocate for.
    Chair Klobuchar. Anyone else like to comment on the rules 
the Federal Government should put in place to ensure the market 
for targeted advertising remains competitive, which is a little 
different than just privacy?
    Ms. Colclasure. I'd like to jump in.
    Chair Klobuchar. Okay.
    Ms. Colclasure. Say that I think we need an accountability-
based law. We've been advocating for a Federal law for almost 
20 years, and we believe it's very important for all Americans 
to have the same rights and for businesses to have 
predictability and certainty. The accountability construct is 
one that says it parses out, and this is especially important 
for digital advertising, that you should use data for benefit, 
for good purpose, and you are responsible and answerable, the 
accountability construct, for detecting and preventing harm.
    I love what Senator Blumenthal said earlier, that data is 
an abstract of a person, and I believe it deserves all the 
dignity that we people should have. So when you process data, 
when you activate data for digital advertising, it's about 
fairness, not manipulation, and that's the way we govern data, 
and that's what we believe, and that's what we advocate for in 
addition to the basic rights. We parse privacy out. It's the 
right to an area of seclusion. Where can we as people be free, 
natural, unobserved humans? The right to agency. That's that 
choice, participation, control, access. Then the right to fair 
processing. That is the third piece of privacy and that is in 
the digital age.
    The reality of digital is it's getting so complex people do 
not want to sit in front of a NASA space station control panel 
and say, ``Yes, yes. No, no. Yes, yes.'' We have to get the 
defaults right, and it has to be that participants, all 
participants, are accountable for, ``Do no harm'' and ``Do good 
things in service to people.''
    It is privacy by design. The computer code is the conduct. 
Thank you, Senator.
    Chair Klobuchar. Okay. Very good. Ms. Slaiman, you may want 
to add to that, but one of the goals of competition as to 
policy is to ensure there's a broad range of choices. If ads 
are targeted based on data companies have collected about each 
of us and the inferences they have made about our interest, 
does that raise concerns for you about consumers abilities to 
freely choose the products and services that are best for them, 
ranging from financial services, housing, healthcare, 
employment opportunities, and more, when some of them are being 
targeted because of their data that they didn't really know 
they shared compared to other competitors?
    Do you want to address that?
    Ms. Slaiman. Yes, that's something that we're very 
concerned about. I do think that creates an opportunity for 
anti-competitive discrimination. It also creates an opportunity 
for discrimination, racial discrimination, and gender 
discrimination, and we've seen instances of that happening, so 
I think these are very serious harms that we need to be 
addressing.
    To focus on the anti-competitive discrimination, I do think 
in addition to the consumer choice limitations, we're also 
concerned about the impact that this has on businesses. If a 
business is assessed by one of these algorithms to not be 
popular with a certain category of users, that can make things 
incredibly difficult for them because of the power of these 
platforms, because they occupy that gatekeeper role. It's much 
different than if a brick-and-mortar grocery store decides not 
to show your product, you can go somewhere else. With these 
gatekeeper platforms that's not a practical real option for 
companies. There's a variety of harms I think that come from 
that.
    Chair Klobuchar. Mr. Erickson, what is your company doing 
to ensure that competition is not being distorted by your 
targeted advertising systems with Google?
    Mr. Erickson. Senator, thank you for the question. I think 
primarily consumers need to have transparency over their data, 
how data is being used, and meaningful choices about the use of 
that data. On the Google platforms, we provide an easy way for 
consumers to see exactly what data is stored relative to their 
account. They can delete that data if they want to. They can 
also make changes to say they don't want behavioral advertising 
targeted ads to them. They don't want to see--they want to mute 
ads on third-party sites, so I think the important thing here 
is to ensure that consumers have transparency and that they 
have meaningful choice, and we think privacy legislation should 
reflect those values as well.
    Chair Klobuchar. Okay. Earlier in my opening, I talk about 
Apple recently rolling out an update to its users, prompting 
them to agree or opt out of being tracked from across the apps 
they use. Early indications, as I noted, suggest a lot of them 
are doing it, something like 75 percent. Has Google considered 
doing something similar, including for its Android operating 
system?
    Mr. Erickson. Senator, thank you. Google has announced that 
they will--we will stop supporting privacy-intrusive tracking 
technologies, like third-party cookies. At the same time, we've 
opened up a dialog through our Privacy Sandbox initiative to 
have a discussion with advertisers, with publishers, with 
governments, on how the industry can move to more privacy-
enhancing, privacy-protective business models that still allow 
small businesses, website owners, to be able to have an ad-
supported business and provide free products and services to 
consumers.
    Chair Klobuchar. Through the initiative the Privacy Sandbox 
initiative, you've mentioned some of these changes that you 
made to your web browser, Chrome.
    However, from a competition perspective these changes have 
raised concerns that Google will still have access to detailed 
data, but others won't. How do you respond to those concerns?
    Mr. Erickson. Senator, when we announced that we would 
cease support of these intrusive tracking devices, the third-
party cookies, we also announced that we would not substitute 
those for alternative tracking mechanisms, but rather the idea 
behind the Privacy Sandbox was try to move as an industry 
toward more privacy, secure technologies that would still 
support an ad ecosystem but in privacy-enhancing ways.
    Chair Klobuchar. Do you want to respond to that, Ms. 
Slaiman, and then I'll just ask you the last question here?
    Ms. Slaiman. Thank you so much. The Privacy Sandbox creates 
a situation where Google is still getting the data. They may 
call that privacy because fewer companies are getting the data, 
but Google is still able to fully exploit that data.
    I don't think that that is giving users more privacy.
    Chair Klobuchar. Okay. My last question of you is about, 
you know, I've asked you some questions on the record, later, 
on mergers and things like that, and my bill, but just a kind 
of broad question here, Ms. Slaiman. In your opinion, do we 
need new laws to fully address the competition issues raised by 
big data, or can we just live with what we've got? That's 
called a softball.
    Ms. Slaiman. [Laughter] Thank you so much. We absolutely 
need new laws, and that's something that we're working very 
hard on. I think we need to use all of the tools at our 
disposal, so we need to increase enforcement with the current 
laws that we have.
    We need to push for rulemaking at the FTC with the current 
laws that we have, but at the same time, it is so important 
that we have improvements to the antitrust laws and sector-
specific antitrust laws focused on big tech.
    Chair Klobuchar. Very good. I think that says it all. Do 
you want to add anything, Senator Lee? Oh, you do? Okay. 
Because we want to have a 4-hour hearing, not just three and a 
half, no. Go, I'm kidding. Go ahead.
    Senator Lee. I can go for four and a half.
    Chair Klobuchar. No, that's okay. Why don't you just finish 
up here.
    Senator Lee. I'll keep this brief. Mr. Satterfield, what's 
going to happen to the employees at Facebook involved in 
providing the leaked documents to the Wall Street Journal? Are 
they going to be retaliated against?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, I can't discuss H.R. issues in a 
public forum.
    Senator Lee. Would it be appropriate for you to retaliate 
against them, assuming they broke no laws? Would it be 
appropriate for you to retaliate against them?
    Mr. Satterfield. No, Senator, of course not. Of course, it 
wouldn't be appropriate to retaliate against anyone.
    Senator Lee. Will you issue a commitment to me that 
Facebook will not retaliate against them?
    Mr. Satterfield. Senator, yes. I'm happy to commit to that.
    Senator Lee. That would be wonderful. Thank you. I 
appreciate that.
    Chair Klobuchar. Okay. I want to thank everyone for coming. 
There is a lot going on. We have a bill this week before the 
full Committee for markup on venues that Senator Lee and I have 
done together, the companion in the House. We have the funding 
bills and proposals that are very ripe for action right now. We 
have other bills that are tech-specific with Senator Blumenthal 
and Senator Blackburn and myself with the App Bill. We have 
interoperability proposals from the past, and then we have 
discrimination bills, anti-discrimination bills for 
exclusionary conduct and the like, that we're in the middle of 
right now, working on. The House, of course, has proposals, 
some similar to ours, some different, but we've been working 
closely with our counterparts, which is Representative 
Cicilline and Representative Buck.
    Then also we have broader bills. We had a hearing on 
meatpacking and consolidation in the grocery area. We have a--
which went--was very well attended with the full Committee 
here. Senator Lee and Senator Grassley have a broad bill on 
antitrust. I have another one with a number of co-sponsors. 
There are some similarities in the bill right, Senator Lee? 
Yes, there are.
    We're also looking at that across industry lines about 
things that we can do that aren't just about tech, actually, 
that hit the fact that we're seeing consolidation across this 
country from everything from cat food to coffins.
    It's not really good to end with the word coffin, so--
although, you know, we're not too far from Halloween, but I 
just want to thank the witnesses and assure you that we 
continue to want to work with everyone, but we know we need 
change, that just keeping on going like we are and saying, 
``Everything is fine, and we trust you,'' and it's just not 
enough. You know, we're glad that these companies have been 
successful. We're glad they employ people, we truly are. I have 
a Fitbit. Senator Lee and I have compared some of our Fitbit 
data over the years. I'm not going to reveal that, although you 
guys already know it, so there.
    And--but, at the same time, we believe in capitalism and 
encouraging capitalism and rejuvenating capitalism, and a lot 
of what's going on right now has the obvious privacy concerns, 
many of which you heard today with a lot of understandable 
emotion. But then there's also competition concerns that once 
you get so big and have so much dominance that there are these 
barriers to entry. They make it impossible to allow 
competition, and that, in turn, of course, in the long term 
allows for too much money in the same few hands. It allows for 
companies to start preferencing themselves, and while we've 
seen incredible developments in technology, we do not deny 
that, we'll never know of some of the new bells and whistles on 
privacy we might've seen if we didn't have Facebook buy 
Instagram or WhatsApp, if there'd been some control on that. 
It's one of the reasons that I support looking back in some of 
the most consolidating industries, just as we did during the 
days of the AT&T breakup, to figure out what we can do to make 
this area more competitive.
    You're not going to find a more interested and energized 
Subcommittee than this one, as you could see from today, 
including some visitors that aren't even on the Subcommittee 
that we welcome. So, thank you.
    We will keep the record open for--is it a week? Okay, very 
good.
    Thank you to Mark and to Avery for their work, and Senator 
Lee and his staff. Do you want to add anything, Mike?
    Senator Lee. Thank you.
    Chair Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you. The hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:28 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.].
    [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
                              [all]