Thread by @matthewstoller

I don't understand why @CarlSzabo from Google-funded advocacy group Netchoice is testifying. Google already had a representative in the last panel.

Now @CarlSzabo says that the UK's CMA remark is just a bad report. "They used the word 'might' more than a hundred times."

Never mind, I like Szabo testifying. He's making a great case, just not the one he thinks he's making.

This is fun. @SenMikeLee asks @CarlSzabo about the consumer welfare standard. "The consumer welfare standard doesn't give a freebie to Google right?"

Szabo won't answer. Lee has to do a follow-up to get him to admit that antitrust law can theoretically even be violated.

Big tech witnesses are so annoying at this point that they are making the antitrust case with their very behavior, even to Senators who really really want to be supportive.

Amy Klobuchar is noting extremely conservative courts have interpreted consumer welfare narrowly. The Bork-interpreted standard means plaintiffs have lost 16 cases and won 0 at the Supreme Court of late.

Szabo says that the fact that plaintiffs lose all their cases doesn't mean the consumer welfare standard is problematic. Europe has a different standard, he notes, and their tech is not particularly innovative. The only big tech company they have, he snorts, is Spotify.

Adam Heimlich is very impressive in describing how ad buying and selling actually works, because he's an industry practitioner speaking out. There's just no way that Google flaks can keep misleading political leaders anymore. Big tech is being demystified.

David Dinielli is calling for a broad antitrust case against Google on both search and adtech.

Adam Heimlich says the remedy needs to be a break-up and interoperability between adtech and search, also says we can't forget about Android and Chrome.

Carl Szabo got Amy Klobuchar to talk about break-ups. Thanks Carl!