{"id":37084,"date":"2025-04-21T01:35:13","date_gmt":"2025-04-21T01:35:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/37084\/"},"modified":"2025-04-21T01:35:13","modified_gmt":"2025-04-21T01:35:13","slug":"mozilla-ceo-says-dojs-case-against-google-could-destroy-open-internet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/37084\/","title":{"rendered":"Mozilla CEO Says DOJ’s Case Against Google Could Destroy Open Internet"},"content":{"rendered":"

Mozilla CEO Laura Chambers has authored a blog post warning of the potential ramifications of the DOJ\u2019s antitrust win against Google<\/a> over its search business.<\/p>\n

The DOJ won its case against Google in mid-2024, with Judge Amit P. Mehta finding the company has an illegal monopoly in the search market. Much of the DOJ\u2019s case rested on Google\u2019s practice of paying organizations\u2014such as Mozilla and Apple\u2014billions of dollars a year to be the default search engine in their software.<\/p>\n

In the wake of its win, the DOJ is intent on forcing Google to sell its Chrome web browser<\/a>, and wants to limit the company\u2019s ability to enter or maintain the type of exclusivity deals it currently has. Unfortunately for Mozilla, that will result in the Firefox maker losing hundreds of millions of dollars per year, which comprises the bulk of its income.<\/p>\n

In her blog post<\/a>, Chambers pointed out the problems with the DOJ\u2019s approach.<\/p>\n

\n

Some of the remedies proposed in the case risk the future of our Firefox browser and Gecko browser engine\u2014the last remaining non-Big Tech browser engine.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Chambers says she hopes the DOJ will shift to pursing remedies that help alleviate the issues with Google\u2019s monopoly power\u2026without hurting the rest of the industry.<\/p>\n

\n

In the coming weeks, we hope to see a shift to focus on remedies that can improve search competition without harming the pro-competitive role that Firefox and other independent browsers play in the ecosystem.<\/p>\n

I speak for many small and independent companies like Mozilla when I say that the benefits we deliver to consumers and competition can\u2019t be measured by our market share because we regularly punch above our weight.<\/p>\n

We fully support the Department of Justice\u2019s efforts to improve competition in various digital markets, but we\u2019re concerned that the proposed remedies in the search case will do much more harm than good and unnecessarily seek to promote search competition at the expense of browser and browser engine competition. If the Department of Justice truly wants to fix competition, they can\u2019t solve one problem by creating another.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Chambers then accurately points out the stakes involved, including the fate of Mozilla Firefox and its Gecko rendering engine.<\/p>\n

\n

The outcome of this case isn\u2019t just about one company, it\u2019s about the future of the internet and the stakes couldn\u2019t be higher.<\/p>\n

There are only three main browser engines left and only one engine\u2014Mozilla\u2019s Gecko\u2014is not owned by a Big Tech company. Browser engines shape how the web works. Gecko powers Firefox (and other independent browsers) and puts privacy and people first.<\/p>\n

If it disappears, so does the open web.<\/p>\n

Independent browsers like Firefox drive privacy innovation, security advancements, and offer people real choice. For over 25 years, Mozilla has fought for an open, competitive landscape where businesses can thrive, and consumers have real alternatives. We hope the remedies adopted by the Court enable us to continue this fight for many more years to come.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Analysis<\/p>\n

Chambers\u2019 blog post shines a light on the challenges involved in addressing Google\u2019s monopoly. There is no doubt that Google\u2019s dominance in the search market hurts companies and entire industries. There is also no denying that Google should be prohibited from having its own web browser.<\/p>\n

As we have pointed out here at WPN many times, a company that runs the world\u2019s biggest search engine and the world\u2019s biggest online ad platform, should not also control the world\u2019s most popular web browser. Controlling all three of those components gives Google far too much control over the direction of the web in general, and with the bulk of their money coming from advertising, the direction they choose to go is rarely aligned with whats in the best interests of the consumer<\/a>.<\/p>\n

There are far too many instances of Google using Chrome to abuse user privacy, including continuing to track users\u2019 activity even when Icognito Mode was enabled<\/a>. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has repeatedly called Google out<\/a> for the anti-privacy actions it takes with Chrome.<\/p>\n

At the same time, however, there\u2019s no denying that prohibiting Google from entering into search agreements with other companies will cut off the bulk of Mozilla\u2019s income, threatening the last remaining web browser engine that is not controlled by either Google or Apple.<\/p>\n

If Mozilla goes under, the future of the web will largely be dictated by Apple and Google, with users having no real alternative. Although there are other web browsers, outside of Safari and Chrome, nearly all of those browsers\u2014such as Brave, Vivaldi, Opera, Microsoft Edge, and KDE Falkon\u2014all use the same underlying engine that powers Chrome and is developed largely by Google.<\/p>\n

Given the stakes, it\u2019s clear why Chambers is sounding the alarm regarding the DOJ\u2019s proposed measures.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Mozilla CEO Laura Chambers has authored a blog post warning of the potential ramifications of the DOJ\u2019s antitrust…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":37085,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3161],"tags":[7155,16217,21336,21337,867,3082,21338,21339,21340,53,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-37084","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-internet","8":"tag-antitrust","9":"tag-chrome","10":"tag-doj","11":"tag-firefox","12":"tag-google","13":"tag-internet","14":"tag-judge-amit-p-mehta","15":"tag-laura-chambers","16":"tag-mozilla","17":"tag-technology","18":"tag-uk","19":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/114373389826895325","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37084","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=37084"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37084\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/37085"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37084"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37084"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37084"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}