Search Articles
WASHINGTON (CN) — A top Mozilla browser executive testified Friday that the Justice Department’s proposals to remedy Google’s monopoly over internet search could jeopardize its Firefox browser and slash most of its revenue due to the company’s reliance on Google Search.
Eric Muhlheim, Mozilla’s chief financial officer, took the stand to wrap the second week of the landmark antitrust trial, where U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta is weighing how to make the internet search and search advertising markets competitive following decades of Google dominance.
The Justice Department has suggested that the Barack Obama appointee should order the divestiture of Google’s Chrome browser — with an Android divestiture contingent on Google’s compliance — bar multibillion-dollar deals that made Google the default on Safari and Firefox, and release reams of user search data to rival search engines.
Muhlheim said that while Firefox is a direct competitor to Chrome, eliminating the default status payments would threaten Firefox and force Mozilla to make “significant cuts across the company.”
Mozilla makes most of its revenue from Firefox — approximately 90%, according to Muhlheim — and about 85% of that revenue comes from the company’s default agreement with Google.
“It’s very frightening,” Muhlheim said, adding that widespread cuts would force the company to scale back investments into Firefox, causing users to lose interest and create a “downward spiral.”
Ultimately, that outcome could “put Firefox out of business,” Muhlheim warned.
Google has alternatively urged Mehta to order a narrowly tailored remedy, which would instead open such exclusive default deals to bids from other rival search engines on a yearly basis and by device.
There, rivals like Bing or DuckDuckGo could be the defaults on iPads or Macs while Google is the default on iPhones, which could then change over the following years based on their bids.
Google’s proposal would also lift a requirement that Android devices come preloaded with Chrome, the Google Play Store and Google Search as the default. The company has argued that the Justice Department’s proposals are anticompetitive and would harm consumers.
Muhlheim agreed, testifying that if Mozilla were to suffer the widespread cuts he described, the company would no longer be able to support its open-source browser engine, Gecko.
He noted that Gecko is “the only browser engine that is held not by Big Tech but by a nonprofit,” referencing the Mozilla Foundation. The other two, Chromium and WebKit, are held by Google and Apple, respectively.
Muhlheim said Mozilla created Gecko over concerns in the ’90s that Microsoft would control all access to the internet and is intended to ensure different browsers are interoperable and maintain a freely accessible internet.
Without the agreements with Google, Muhlheim said Mozilla would be unable to find as good a deal with Microsoft to make Bing its default search engine, in part because Bing doesn’t monetize traffic as efficiently as Google.
During cross-examination by the Justice Department, Muhlheim agreed that the company’s reliance on Google was not preferable, and that other browsers like Opera have managed to earn more on browser ads than search agreements.
However, he said adopting such a model would be difficult for Mozilla because of its focus on privacy in its products.
Mehta asked Muhlheim whether a world where at least one other rival search engine could compete with Google’s quality and monetization efforts would benefit the company.
“If we were suddenly in that world, that would be a world that would be better for Mozilla,” Muhlheim said.
During the first week of the remedy trial, several tech executives expressed interest in purchasing Chrome, such as OpenAI, Perplexity and Yahoo. Mozilla has not expressed interest as a potential buyer.
Mehta will continue hearing testimony and closing arguments through May 9.
He is expected to rule sometime in August, a year after he initially determined Google operated an illegal monopoly. His ruling is likely to be appealed to the D.C. Circuit — which heard the last major antitrust case against Microsoft in 2001 — and ultimately to the Supreme Court.
Follow @Ryan_KnappySubscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.