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 forcing Google t⭕o 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 in th♔e case ri🦂sk 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, we hope to see a shift to focus on remedies that can improve search competition without harming the pro-comp⭕etitive role that Firefox and other independent browsers play in the ecosystem.

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

We fully support the Department of Justice’s efforts to improve competition in various digital markets, but we’re concerned that the proposed remedies in the search case will ✱do much more harm than good and unnecessaril𓆉y 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.

Chambeꦉrs then accurately points out the stakes involved, including the fate of Mozilla Firefox and its G👍ecko rendering engine.

The outcome of this ꦦcase isn’t just about one company, it’s about the f𒁏uture 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 shape how the web works. Gecko powers Firefox (and other independent browsers) and puts p꧑rivacy and people first.

If it disappears, so does the open web.

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 ꦫhave 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 🔯rarely aligned 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 anti-privacy 💞actions it tak🦩es with Chrome.

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 M💟ozilla goes under, the future of the web will largely be dictated by Apple and Googleﷺ, 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.