Thread by @b_fung

Hello from the Rayburn HOB, where the big tech companies are about to face a grilling from House Judiciary members.

There’s a half hour still before the hearing, and the public line stretches down the hall and nearly around the corner.

While we’re waiting, a quick look at some of the companies’ written testimony.

The businesses largely focus their prepared remarks where they’re most vulnerable to criticism. For example, 2 out of the 4 sections in Amazon’s statement deal with workers and third-party sellers. docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU…

Facebook cites competition in services from other tech giants, and argues it’s never been a better time to be a startup because developing software carries low capital costs. docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU…

A key theme in Google’s testimony is that its products, services and even former employees have contributed millions to the US economy, in some cases by starting competitors in new verticals. docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU…

And Apple spends a lot of time talking about how small of a footprint its own apps take up on the iOS App Store and how prominent businesses like Spotify and Uber have grown on the back of the App Store. docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU…

And here we go: Rep. Cicilline, chair of the antitrust subcommittee, is opening the hearing.

“The Internet has become increasinlgly concentrated, less open and hostile to innovation and entrepreneurship."

Cicilline borrows a line from Sen. Warren, saying Apple operates as both “player and referee” in its own app store.

Rep. Sensenbrenner, the top Republican on the panel, is first to invoke the concept of a tech breakup but says the idea is “misguided” because it might not actually fix problems like bad privacy practices.

A common theme both here and elsewhere is how frequently the tech giants under scrutiny directly or indirectly reference *each other* as examples of vigorous competition.

Sensenbrenner is pursuing a weird line of questioning of Facebook, asking what Facebook may have done to outcompete MySpace (!!!) and whether MySpace ever complained about anticompetitive behavior.

Is Sensenbrenner seriously implying that because we didn’t hear MySpace crying foul then, that there is nothing to worry about now?

Rep. Jayapal is zeroing in on Facebook, asking whether it tries to identify promising potential competitors as acquisition targets.

Facebook’s Perault insists the company just buys startups that’ll “enable us to innovate more effectively."

Jayapal asks Amazon whether it watches third-party sellers to see which of their products are most popular and then introduces those products itself to compete.

Amazon says "popularity data is public” and that “we do not use any of that data to create private brand products."

Cicilline is pressing Amazon hard on its claims that it doesn’t use data to advantage its own products over those of third party sellers. Sutton appears to be squirming under the spotlight. Cicilline reminds him repeatedly he’s under oath.

When pressed, Sutton finally says "we don’t use individual seller data to compete with them.” So… how about aggregate seller data?

An hour in, this hearing is much closer in nature to the infamous Mark Zuckerberg hearing than this morning’s Libra hearing. Members have asked about 1) Why people watch Fortnite streams; 2) Apple’s iCloud promotions; 3) how frequently Facebook updates its terms; 4) MySpace

Rep. Neguse ticks off the largest social media platforms and notes they’re all owned by Facebook.

“When a company owns 4 of the largest 6 entities measured by active users in the world, in that industry, we have a word for that: It’s monopoly. Or at least, monopoly power."

Raskin says the committee has heard from many companies who fear retribution from the big tech companies if they were to speak out publicly.

We’re in a 10 minute break as members head to votes.

So far the most pointed questioning from some members pertains to Amazon’s relationship with third-party sellers, Facebook’s ownership of many of the biggest social media sites and how it identifies targets for acquisition.

And we’re back. The tech companies have been dismissed and we’re onto the second panel, consisting of outside academics, industry groups and former government officials.