Photo: Thomas Fuller/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
Many tech companies are rooting for the Justice Department in its antitrust case against Google, and think the government's ideas for remedying the search monopoly would help them.
The big picture: Mozilla is not one of those companies.
- Though Firefox competes with Google Chrome as a browser engine, the majority of Firefox's revenue comes from its partnership with Google. Google pays Mozilla to be the default search engine within Firefox.
Driving the news: The Justice Department and Google wrapped up arguments in the remedies phase of the Google Search antitrust trial last week, with the judge expected to make a ruling in August.
- Mozilla CFO Eric Muhlheim testified this month that the DOJ banning Google from paying to be the default search engine in third-party browsers would be "frightening" and could put Mozilla out of business.
Axios spoke with Anthony Enzor-DeMeo, senior vice president of Firefox, about what's at stake for the company as the case continues to unfold.
This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Why is Mozilla on a different page than other companies about the Google Search antitrust trial?
We are an open-source company, and kind of the last independent browser engine. People are mixing up engine and search engine — a browser engine will load a web page, a search engine will power what you put into a search bar.
- For us, the remedies should not to damage small browsers and independent players. We want the ability to choose our search engine.
What do you think the DOJ is wrong about in its remedy proposal?
If you don't allow independent browsers to have paid search agreements, which we obviously do with Google, it's not taking into consideration the level of time and effort needed to create a browser engine.
- If there's three seats at the table and Mozilla goes away, you have Apple and Google basically sitting at a table looking at each other.
- We've always tried to be the kind of moderator for web standards and users, but we can't fund an independent engine without money, and no other provider would be able to provide that amount.
- So what I think the DOJ is getting wrong is, if we're not allowed to essentially be compensated for search, it's going to hinder our ability to maintain [the rest of our business] and that would have negative effects for the web as a whole.
Is there any future where Mozilla has the resources to develop its own search engine and no longer has to rely on a paid agreement with Google?
Search has not been our focus. We have our browser, and our privacy products.
- We stand for privacy and choice, we allow users to opt out of things, and that by default is not analogous to having the most sophisticated search.
- If we were forced to figure out other ways of revenue, we'd have to look into it, but it's not aligned with what we're building.
How existentially bad would it be for Mozilla if these sort of paid agreements were banned?
We have a nuanced perspective. The proposed remedies inadvertently essentially derail the independent player that's trying to represent the user, and the only non-Big Tech player.
- We're an adaptable company and have faced storms before, but the [paid agreements] work for us, and I think we're unique.
- We would pursue other partnerships, but we feel like our users have chosen Google as their default search.
- And if they ever choose another search engine, as a majority, we would switch to that. So for us, it's really like, what do the users want?
