Firefox developer argues against US Department of Justice proposal to force Google to sell Chrome, saying it would 'kill smaller browsers' and 'only increase the power of Google and Apple'

In order to prevent Google's monopoly in the search market, the US Department of Justice is seeking to sell the web browser Chrome, etc. In response to this lawsuit, Mozilla, the developer of Firefox, Chrome's rival in the browser market, has taken a stance to defend Google.

Mozilla's response to proposed remedies in US v. Google
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/internet-policy/proposed-remedies-browsers/

In October 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and 11 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against Google , alleging that the company has illegally maintained a monopoly in the search and search advertising markets through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices.

Subsequently, in August 2024, Judge Amit P. Mehta of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, who was in charge of the lawsuit,ruled that Google violated antitrust laws , stating that 'Google's actions constitute a monopoly on general search services and general search text ads.' In response to this ruling, the DOJ is seeking remedial measures to end Google's monopoly in the search market, such as 'selling Chrome' and 'prohibiting Google from entering into contracts to make Google search the default search engine in browsers (search contracts).'

Google responded by arguing that the DOJ's proposed remedies 'go far beyond what a court could order.'

US Department of Justice demands Google sell Chrome, Google counters, 'This goes far beyond the court's decision' - GIGAZINE

In addition, Mozilla, which generates significant revenue from its search contract with Google, argues that 'implementation of the DOJ's proposed remedies would jeopardize Mozilla's revenue streams and put Mozilla's future in jeopardy.'

Mozilla, the developer of Firefox, claims that Google's antitrust lawsuit will destroy Google's various businesses and put its operating funds in a pinch - GIGAZINE

The DOJ's proposed remedies are merely proposals, and a new proposed remedies was submitted to the court in the second week of March 2025. In the new proposed remedies, the DOJ continues to require Google to sell Chrome, and the 'prohibition on search contracts' remains in place.

In response, Google reportedly argued that selling Chrome would affect national security.

Google claims that selling Chrome would affect national security - GIGAZINE

Mozilla, on the other hand, criticized the DOJ's proposed remedies, saying, 'DOJ's proposed remedies would deal a direct blow to small, independent browsers, the force that keeps the web open, innovative and free. The lawsuit was meant to promote search competition, but it somehow threatens to kill browser competition. It will make it even more difficult for challengers to the browser market dominance of Google, Apple and Microsoft.'

'By banning small, independent browsers from paying for search, the DOJ's proposed remedies miss the big picture,' said Mozilla President Mark Thurman. 'The people who will be hurt most by this proposed remedies are everyday internet users. Independent browsers like Firefox have been at the forefront of protecting consumer privacy, driving browser innovation, and giving people real choice about how they use the web. But rather than promoting a fair fight, the DOJ's proposed remedies would tilt the playing field even further in the hands of a few powerful players, reducing consumer choice, and weakening the broader internet ecosystem.'

Mozilla points out that the DOJ's proposed remedies would unnecessarily harm competition in the browser market, and lists four reasons for this:

- The DOJ is seeking to ban all search deals between Google and browsers, including independent browsers that make up a small portion of the market.
Major browser owners like Apple don't rely on search deals because they derive significant revenue streams from other sources, including hardware, operating systems and app stores.
'Meanwhile, independent browsers like Firefox rely primarily on search revenue to fund their browsers and need this revenue to survive. The search deal supports much of Mozilla's work, helping keep Firefox competitive and providing web users with a privacy-first option.'
- Punishing independent browsers won't solve the problem. Judge Mehta found that independent browsers account for only 1.15% of search queries in the U.S. This means that blocking access to search deals won't solve the problem of search dominance. If the proposed fix passes, it will actually hurt competition in the browser market.

Furthermore, Mozilla points out that the competition is overlooking a very important factor: browser engines, which play a central role in web browser speed, privacy and security features, and browser innovation and different functionality. However, browser engines are highly complex and require significant costs and deep technical expertise to develop and maintain.

As a result, the only major browser engines currently available are Google's Chromium, Apple's WebKit, and Mozilla's Gecko. However, since WebKit is only supported on Apple devices, Gecko is the only cross-platform browser engine that can effectively replace Chromium.

Mozilla argues that blocking search deals between Google and independent browser developers 'could make it harder to develop and maintain Gecko,' and that if Mozilla can no longer maintain Gecko, it would have a serious impact on browser engine competition and 'would finally mark the end of the open web and create a web environment in which dominant companies like Google and Apple have even more control.'

'This isn't just a Firefox problem. If Mozilla can't maintain Gecko, it's the end of an open and independent web,' Thurman said. 'Microsoft, a $3 trillion company, abandoned its browser engine in 2019, and Opera abandoned its browser engine in 2013. If Mozilla can't develop a browser engine, Google's Chromium will be the only cross-platform browser engine.'

Browser market share aside, Mozilla has played a major role in keeping the web open and private: Firefox has 27 million monthly active users (MAUs) in the US and nearly 205 million MAUs worldwide.

'We're not building a browser because it's profitable or easy -- we're building it because it's important,' Thurman said. 'But the DOJ's proposal not only misses the mark, it risks giving more power to industry-dominating companies like Google and Apple.' He once again called on the DOJ to reconsider its proposed fixes.

DOJ and Google will present their arguments for new remedial measures during the hearing, with a final decision expected to be made in the summer of 2025.