How Firefox Shot Its Own Foot

Mozilla has long positioned Firefox as the browser of choice for privacy-conscious users. Unlike Google Chrome, which thrives on data collection, Firefox has built its reputation around respecting user privacy. However, with Mozilla's recent updates to its Terms of Service (TOS), many users are now questioning whether they can still trust Firefox.

The Problem with Mozilla’s New Terms of Service

Mozilla recently updated its TOS with the stated goal of improving transparency. The original version of the TOS stated:

You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice, as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet. When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.

(Source: Internet Archive - February 26, 2025)

After receiving backlash for its vague and broad language, Mozilla revised the statement just a few days later to:

You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.

(Source: Internet Archive - March 1, 2025)

At first glance, this revision appears to be an improvement, as Mozilla attempts to clarify that it does not claim ownership over user content. However, a deeper look raises serious concerns.

Why This Raises Trust Issues

1. Mozilla is Framing Basic Browser Functionality as “Data Usage”

A browser’s core function is to relay data between the user and the websites they visit. Firefox should not need any special rights or licenses to “use” this data—it simply passes it along. Every program fundamentally works by taking input, processing it, and producing output. This is how computers function at a basic level. By introducing legal language that implies Mozilla is "processing" or "using" this data in a significant way, they create confusion where none should exist.

2. Mozilla is Asking for a License on User-Submitted Content

The TOS states that users grant Mozilla a "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license" for content they input into Firefox. But why does Mozilla need a license for content that users submit to third-party websites, not Mozilla itself? This wording makes it unclear whether Mozilla is only referring to features like sync and telemetry or if it is overreaching into areas it shouldn’t.

3. The Removal of a Key Privacy Statement

Adding to the controversy, Mozilla was caught removing a strong privacy statement from its Firefox FAQ. The deleted statement read:

Does Firefox sell your personal data?

Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That’s a promise.

The removal of this promise, without any explanation, further damages Mozilla’s credibility. If Firefox's commitment to privacy has not changed, why remove such a strong statement? This raises concerns about whether Mozilla is planning to alter its stance on data collection or weaken user protections in the future.

4. The Lack of Clear Boundaries

Mozilla claims this update is about transparency, yet they fail to explicitly state what data they process and what they do not. Instead of a broad legal statement, they should clearly outline:

• What data is collected and for what purpose
• What features require data processing
• What data remains entirely private between the user and the websites they visit

By avoiding this level of detail, Mozilla leaves room for doubt, which is dangerous for a company that markets itself as privacy-first.

The Consequences: Firefox is Losing User Trust

Mozilla’s update may have been well-intended, but the effect is the opposite: many privacy-focused users are now uncertain whether they can still trust Firefox. When a company feels the need to claim rights over user data in an unnecessary way, it raises red flags.

Mozilla is walking a fine line—one that could push privacy-conscious users towards alternatives like LibreWolf or even lesser-known privacy-focused browsers. In the long run, this erosion of trust could be far more damaging than any legal confusion they were trying to prevent.

Conclusion: Can We Still Trust Firefox?

Mozilla’s claims about transparency may be valid, but the way they’ve gone about it has left many users questioning their intentions. This incident has damaged its credibility. For now, I have no idea whether I should still trust Firefox or not.

Mozilla needs to address this issue by providing absolute clarity about what they do with user data. If they fail to do so, they risk alienating the very users who have championed Firefox for years.