Mozilla CEO Laura Chambers has authored a blog post warning of the potential ramifications of the 168彩票:DOJ’s antitrust win against Google over its search business.

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’s case rested on Google’s practice of paying organizations—such as Mozilla and Apple—billions of dollars a year to be the default search engine in their software.

In the wake of its win, the DOJ is intent on fܫorcing Google to sell its Chrome web browser, and wants to limit the company’s 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.

In her , Chambers pointed out the problems with the DOJ’s approach.

Some of the remedies proposed inꦜ the case risk the future of our Firefox browser and Gecko browser engine—the last remaining non-Big Tech browser engine.

Chambers says she hopes the DOJ will shift to pursing remedies that help alleviate the issues with Google’s monopoly power…without hurting the rest of the industry.

In the coming weeks, 𓃲we 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.

I speak for many small and independent companiꦉes like Mozilla when I say that the benefits we deliver to consumers and competition can’t be measured by our market share because we regularly punch above our weight.

We fully support the Department of Justice’s efforts to improve competitio𒉰n in various digital markets, but we’re 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’t solve one problem by creating another.

Chambers the꧅n accurately points out the stakes involved, including the fate of Mozilla Firefox and its Gecko rendering engine.

The outcome of this case isn’t just about one company, it’s about the future of the internet and 🎃the stakes couldn’t be higher.

There are only three main browser engines left and only one engine—Mozilla’s Gecko—is not owned by a Big Tech company. Browser engines shap൩e how the web works. Gecko powers Firefox (and other independent browsers) and puts privacy and people first.

If it disappears, so does the open web.

Independent browsers like Firefox drive privacy innovation, security advancements, and offer people real c💫hoice. 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.”

Analysis

Chambers’ blog post shines a light on the challenges involved in addressing Google’s monopoly. There is no doubt that Google’s 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.

As we have pointed out here at WPN many times, a company that runs the world’s biggest search engine and the world’s biggest online ad platform, should not also control the world’s 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 rarel♋y ali🙈gned with whats in the best interests of the consumer.

There are far too many instances of Google using Chrome to abuse user privacy, including continuing to track users’ activity 168彩票:even when Icognito Mode was enabled. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has repeatedly 168彩票:called Google out for the a🌱nti-privacy actions it takes with Chrom💫e.

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

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—such as Brave, Vivaldi, Opera, Microsoft Edge, and KDE Falkon—all use the same underlying engine that powers Chrome and is developed largely by Google.

Given the stakes, it’s clear why Chambers is sounding the alarm regarding the DOJ’s proposed measures.