Mozilla’s response to proposed remedies in U.S. v. Google

Last week the Department of Justice and some state attorneys general filed revised proposed remedies in the U.S. v. Google LLC search case. If the proposed remedies barring all search payments to browser developers are adopted by the court, these misguided plans would be a direct hit to small and independent browsers-the very forces that keep the web open, innovative and free. This case was meant to promote search competition, yet somehow the outcome threatens to crush browser competition, making it even harder for challengers to stand up to dominant players like Google, Apple and Microsoft.

These proposed remedies prohibiting search payments to small and independent browsers miss the bigger picture-and the people who will suffer most are everyday internet users," said Mark Surman, President of Mozilla. Independent browsers like Firefox are on the frontlines of protecting consumer privacy, driving browser innovation, and giving people real choice on how they experience the web. But instead of promoting a fair fight, the DOJ's remedies would tilt the playing field further into the hands of a few dominant players, diminishing consumer choice and weakening the broader internet ecosystem."

The DOJ's proposal hurts, not helps, browser competition

Mozilla agrees that we need to improve search competition, but the DOJ's proposed remedies unnecessarily risk harming browser competition instead.

Here's why:

• The DOJ wants to ban all search agreements between Google and browsers, even independent browsers that make up a smaller part of the market.
• Dominant players that own browsers, like Apple, don't rely on search deals as they have significant revenue streams from other sources, like hardware, operating systems and app stores.
• Meanwhile, independent browsers like Firefox fund the development of their browsers mainly through search revenue--they require this revenue to survive. Search revenue underpins a large part of our work, keeping Firefox competitive and ensuring that web users have privacy-first alternatives.
• Punishing independent browsers will not solve the problem. Judge Mehta found that independent browsers account for just 1.15% of U.S. search queries. This means that cutting off our access to search deals won't fix the issue of search dominance-not by a landslide. Instead, it hurts browser competition.

The big unintended consequence here is the handing of power from one dominant player to another. So, from Google Search to Microsoft, or Bing for example-while shutting out the smaller, independent challengers that actually drive browser innovation and offer web users privacy and choice," Surman added.

The last unicorn-the web can't afford to lose Mozilla's browser engine

Another thing missing from this conversation is something pretty important-browser engine competition.

You see, browser engines power the web. They are central to a browser's speed, privacy and security functionality, and the browser's ability to innovate and do things differently. But they're very complex and require massive resources and a deep technical expertise to maintain-so much so, that right now only three major browser engines remain: Google's Chromium, Apple's Webkit (this engine is really only supported on Apple devices, and isn't considered cross-platfrom"), and then there's Mozilla's Gecko (which happens to be the only true cross-platform alternative to Chromium).

The DOJ's proposal to bar search payments to independent browser developers would put Mozilla's ability to develop and maintain Gecko at risk. If Mozilla is unable to sustain our browser engine, it would severely impact browser engine competition and mean the death of the open web as we know it-essentially, creating a web where dominant players like Google and Apple, have even more control, not less.

This isn't just about Firefox," Surman explained. If we lose our ability to maintain Gecko, it's game over for an open, independent web. Look, Microsoft-a $3 trillion company-already gave up its browser engine in 2019 and Opera gave up theirs in 2013. If Mozilla is forced out, Google's Chromium becomes the only cross-platform browser engine left."

Mozilla's role in an open web is BIGGER than our market share

Nevermind our market share, Mozilla has played an outsized role in keeping the web open, private and advocating for choice. Firefox still serves 27 million monthly active users (MAU) in the U.S. and nearly 205 million MAU globally, but our real impact comes from making the internet better by:

• Shaping the future of web standards-maintaining our own browser engine, Gecko, gives us a voice in defining how the web works and making decisions that are in support of people, not the bottom-line.
• Ensuring interoperability-we fight for a web accessible to all-where anyone can create, access, and share content seamlessly, regardless of the devices or web services they use-not locked into a few ecosystems.
• Proving that privacy-respecting technology is possible-we build critical web technologies with security, privacy and user agency at the core.

This isn't something we do because it's profitable or easy," said Surman. We do it because it matters. The DOJ's proposal doesn't just miss the mark, it risks handing even more power to dominant industry players like Google or Apple, not less."

Mozilla calls on regulators and policymakers to recognize the vital role of independent browsers and take action to nurture competition, innovation, and protect the public interest in the evolving digital landscape.

Mozilla is committed to ensuring a fair and competitive internet ecosystem, one where independent browsers can compete on a level playing field and consumers have real choice. The future of competition, innovation and the open internet depends on us.

The post Mozilla's response to proposed remedies in U.S. v. Google appeared first on The Mozilla Blog.