 On Wednesday, lawmakers squared off with the chief executives of the tech industry's four most powerful players. Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Apple's Tim Cook, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, and Google's Sundar Pichai. Since last June, the House Judiciary Committee has been engaged in a sweeping investigation of each of the four companies, honing in on how they stifle competition in the tech industry. These companies have been consolidating power for a long time, and now Congress is getting ready to do something about it. Open markets are predicated on the idea that if a company harms people, consumers, workers, and business partners will choose another option. We're here today because that choice is no longer possible. The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. For years, antitrust experts have been building the case against big tech's questionable acquisitions, predatory pricing, and copycat behaviors. The CEOs had to face those arguments head-on on Wednesday. Amazon runs the largest online marketplace in America, capturing 70% of all online marketplace sales. Despite a litany of privacy scandals and record-breaking fines, Facebook continues to enjoy booming profits, $18 billion last year alone. Google is the world's largest online search engine, capturing more than 90% of searches online. These are four very different companies, but the committee used Wednesday's hearing to show how similar they were when responding to competitors. In particular, the committee looked at how each company controls distribution, surveys nascent companies, and how they use their market dominance to suppress competition. We used to have a policy that restricted competitors from using our platform. Okay, Mr. Zuckerberg, these examples and supporting documents strongly suggest that Facebook does weaponize its policy to undermine competitors. Isn't it true that Amazon refers to third-party sellers as internal competitors? We've interviewed many small businesses, and they use the words like bullying, fear, and panic to describe their relationship with Amazon. That's an enormous amount of power. The committee argued that companies like Facebook and Google control how information is disseminated. The same goes for Apple and Amazon, but when it comes to their app stores and marketplaces. Apple is the sole decision maker as to whether an app is made available to app users through the Apple Store. Isn't that correct? If it's a native app, yes, sir. If it's a web app, no. Throughout our investigation, we've heard concerns that rules governing the App Store review process are not available to app developers. The rules are made up as you go. They are arbitrarily interpreted and enforced and are subject to change whenever Apple sees fit to change. Developers have no choice but to go along with the changes or they must leave the App Store. That's an enormous amount of power. Mr. Cook, does Apple not treat all app developers equally? Sir, we treat every developer the same. Because we care so deeply about privacy and security and quality, we do look at every app before it goes on. But those rules apply evenly to everyone. Surveillance is key to the committee's investigation. Throughout the hearing, lawmakers argued that each company has used its dominance in the tech industry to keep a watchful eye on their competitors. Google faced tough questions from lawmakers who fear that its dominance in search allows it to monitor the web traffic of competitors. This information could result in the company ranking competitors lower in search results. In 2010, Google stole restaurant reviews from Yelp to bootstrap its own rival local search business. Mr. Buchai, do you know how Google responded when Yelp asked you to stop stealing their reviews? Well, I'll tell you. Our investigation shows that Google's response was to threaten to delist Yelp entirely. In other words, the choice Google gave Yelp was, let us steal your content or effectively disappear from the web. Mr. Buchai, isn't that anti-competitive? Congressman, when I run the company, I'm really focused on giving users what they want. We conduct ourselves to the highest standard, happy to engage, understand the specifics and answer your questions further. You can make the same argument for Facebook buying Instagram, Amazon buying Ring or Apple using the App Store to fend off competing software. Has Facebook ever threatened to clone the products of another company while also attempting to acquire that company? Congresswoman, not that I would, not that I recall. And I'd like to just remind you that you are under oath and there are quotes from Facebook's own documents. Prior to acquiring Instagram, Facebook began developing a similar product called Facebook Camera, correct? Congresswoman, that's correct. Did you ever use this very similar Facebook Camera product to threaten Instagram's founder, Kevin Systrom? Congresswoman, I'm not sure what you would mean by threaten. I think it was public that we were building a camera app at the time. That was a well-documented thing. In a chat, you told Mr. Systrom that Facebook was, quote, developing our own photo strategy. So how we engage now will also determine how much we're partners versus competitors down the line. Instagram's founder seemed to think that was a threat. He confided in an investor at the time that he feared you would go into, quote, destroy mode if he didn't sell Instagram to you. Congresswoman, I want to respectfully disagree with the characterization. I think it was it was clear that this was a space that we were going to compete in one way or another. I don't view those conversations as a threat in any way. I just I'm just using the documents and the testimony that the committee has collected from others. Did you warn Evan Spiegel, the founder of Snapchat, that Facebook was in the process of cloning the features of his company while also attempting to buy Snapchat? Congresswoman, I don't remember those specific conversations, but that was also an area where it was very clear that we were going to be building something. Finally, the committee honed in on how each platform allegedly abuses its control over current technologies to strengthen their market dominance. Lawmakers argued that through self-preferencing and predatory pricing, these platforms have made it difficult for small businesses and competitors to succeed. And in one case, we heard from one Amazon bookseller who was blocked by selling books for no apparent reason. We were a top bookseller on Amazon.com and we worked day and night very hard towards growing our business and maintaining a five star feedback rating. Most importantly, this business feeds a total of 14 people. And as we grew, we were shrinking Amazon's market share in the textbooks category. So now in retaliation, Amazon started restricting us from selling. They started with a few titles in early 2019. And within six months, Amazon systematically blocked us from selling the full textbook category. We haven't sold a single book from the past 10 months or probably more. We were never given a reason. Amazon didn't even provide us with a notice as to why we were being restricted. There was no warning. There was no plan. She told us that they sent more than 500 separate communications to Amazon, including to you, Mr. Bezos, over the past year. There was not a single meaningful response. Do you think this is an acceptable way to treat someone that you described as both a partner and a customer? No, Congresswoman. And I would like to talk to her. It does not at all to me seem like the right way to treat her. Wednesday's hearing was really just the beginning. In a few weeks, the committee will publish a final report detailing how large tech firms allegedly violate antitrust laws and what they can do to fix these problems. By this fall, Chairman Cicilline and company will release that report and the real work will begin, thinking about how Congress wants to regulate these companies or if any of them should be broken up. We need to ensure the antitrust laws first written more than a century ago work in the digital age. When these laws were written, the monopolists were men named Rockefeller and Carnegie. Their control of the marketplace allowed them to do whatever it took to crush independent businesses and expand their own power. The names have changed, but the story is the same. Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.