Today, Mozilla Chief Financial Officer, Eric Muhlheim, testified in the U.S. v. Google LLC search trial, highlighting the potential impacts this case could have on small and independent browsers, and the overall ecosystem.
There are a few key themes of Muhlheim’s testimony that we’ll expound on:
Mozilla’s search options are based on user choice
Firefox users view Google as the best quality search engine. Mozilla experienced this firsthand when we switched the Firefox browser’s default search engine from Google to Yahoo between 2014 and 2017 in an effort to support search competition. Firefox users found Yahoo’s search quality lacking and some switched to Google search while others left the Firefox browser altogether.
Firefox offers its users greater and more easily accessible search engine choice than any major browser. From providing search engine shortcuts, to easy default settings and a range of options in the address bar, alternative search engines are readily available within Firefox. Put simply, our long-standing search strategy has been to evaluate and select the best search experience region by region, enabling choice for Firefox users with more than 50 search providers across more than 90 locales. We make sure our agreements do not make Google an exclusive search provider on Firefox or impede our ability to promote choice.
The breaking point
It’s no secret that search revenue accounts for a large portion of Mozilla’s annual revenue. Firefox is an independent browser — we don’t have our own OS, devices, or app store. Without this revenue, Mozilla and other small, independent browsers may be forced to scale back operations and cut support for critical projects like Gecko, the only remaining browser engine competing with Google’s Chromium and Apple’s WebKit.
Innovation, privacy and user choice can only thrive when browser engines compete. Without that, there’s no push to make the web faster, safer, or more inclusive. If we lose or weaken Gecko, the web will be optimized for commercial business models and priorities, not the values that Mozilla champions for the web such as privacy, accessibility and user choice. The open web only stays open if websites, apps, and content interoperate and work everywhere.
Truly improving competition and choice cannot solve one problem by creating another.
The path forward
Following the testimony, Laura Chambers, CEO of Mozilla, emphasized what we’d like to see coming out of the trial by stating: “This case will shape the competitive landscape of the internet for years to come, and any remedy must strengthen, rather than weaken, the independent alternatives that people rely on for privacy, innovation, and choice.
Smaller, independent browsers, like Firefox, rely on monetization through search partnerships to sustain our work and invest in user-focused innovation. Without these partnerships, we’d face serious constraints—limiting not just our ability to grow but also the availability to provide a non-profit-backed alternative to Chrome, Edge, and Safari.
This case is also about user choice. Mozilla’s approach to search is built around giving people options. Time and again, we’ve seen people leave our browser when forced to use a search engine they don’t prefer. Without search partnerships, independent browsers — like Mozilla’s Firefox browser and Gecko browser engine — would face severe constraints.
We recognize the importance of improving search competition. However, doing so shouldn’t come at the cost of browser competition. We believe the court should ensure that small and independent browsers are not harmed in any final remedies. Without this, we risk trading one monopoly for another, and the vibrant, people-first web we’ve spent decades fighting for could begin to fade.”
