The ongoing antitrust case against Google in the United States has sparked significant concerns, particularly over the proposed remedies aimed at addressing Google’s dominance in the search engine market. One of the major suggestions from the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) includes a forced sale of Google’s Chrome browser, a move that Google CEO Sundar Pichai argues could effectively "kill" Google Search in its current form. This has raised alarms not only within Google but also from other industry players like Mozilla, the non-profit behind Firefox.
Mozilla’s Chief Financial Officer, Eric Muhlheim, voiced grave concerns about the impact of the proposed measures, particularly highlighting the financial dependency Firefox has on its partnership with Google. The deal, which makes Google the default search engine for Firefox, accounts for around 85% of Mozilla’s revenue and nearly 90% of the income for its for-profit subsidiary, which helps fund the Mozilla Foundation’s open-source projects. If this revenue were to disappear due to the antitrust ruling, Mozilla would face the necessity of implementing “significant cuts,” which would likely affect product development and engineering efforts for Firefox. This could set off a "downward spiral," ultimately diminishing Firefox's market position and risking its collapse, along with the potential collapse of Mozilla’s broader initiatives, including efforts to use open-source tools and AI to combat climate change.
Muhlheim pointed out that Mozilla’s Gecko engine is one of the few non-Big Tech browser engines still in operation, contrasting it with Google’s Chromium and Apple’s WebKit, which are controlled by tech giants. Mozilla’s commitment to an independent, open web was highlighted as essential for ensuring a competitive landscape, free from monopolistic control by dominant corporations like Google and Microsoft. The potential dismantling of Google’s Chrome could inadvertently harm this mission, leaving only monopolistic companies in control of browser technology.
During cross-questioning, Judge Amit Mehta raised an interesting point, asking Muhlheim whether Mozilla would benefit if another company were capable of matching Google’s search quality and monetisation strategies. While Muhlheim acknowledged that such a shift would benefit Mozilla, he cautioned that the current proposals could have the opposite effect, reducing competition and exacerbating Google’s market power.
Unlike other companies involved in the trial, such as Yahoo, which has shown interest in acquiring Chrome, Mozilla is more focused on the broader implications of the DoJ's actions. Mozilla has expressed concern that a crackdown on Google’s monopoly could inadvertently harm Firefox, one of the last remaining independent browsers, rather than fostering greater competition in the market. The fear is that, in trying to break up one monopoly, regulators might unintentionally stifle an independent player like Mozilla, thus reinforcing the dominance of Big Tech.
In sum, while the U.S. antitrust case against Google seeks to address market dominance, Mozilla’s warnings suggest that the consequences of the proposed remedies could be more far-reaching and damaging to the open web than initially intended.
