Verizon is suing Mozilla for not using Yahoo as the default search engine in Firefox

[AlTech]

A while back, Yahoo entered an agreement with Mozilla to be the default search engine through 2019 under the condition that if Yahoo was acquired that Mozilla could change the default search engine and Yahoo would still have to pay the millions of dollars per year.

 

Verizon is now suing Mozilla cos Yahoo is salty that they still have to pay even though they're not the default search engine anymore.

 

Quote

Firefox’s default search engine has become the subject of a hotly contested legal battle, a few weeks after Mozilla announced it would be moving from Yahoo to Google. Yahoo’s new parent Oath filed a complaint against Mozilla in a California court on December 1, alleging a breach of contract. Now Mozilla has filed a counter complaint, stating that the switch back was in line with a deal struck between the two companies.  

Sounds like a small thing, sure, but we’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars here. Back in 2014, Yahoo struck a deal that would make its search engine the default for Mozilla’s popular, if struggling, browser, to the tune of $375 million a year.

Details of the deal were only made public last year, as CEO Marissa Mayer’s time at the company came under the microscope while it prepared to sell itself to Verizon. For its many faults, the Verizon deal went through, of course, forming Oath in the process (the Yahoo/AOL hybrid under which TechCrunch resides). Along with it, Verizon inherited an annual payment of $375 million through 2019.

 

Quote

Not a bad deal for Mozilla, especially when one considers this little gem: Yahoo (or whoever owns Yahoo) is obligated to continue payments, even if Mozilla were to, say, drop the search engine as its default. Mozilla was given a contractual right to terminate the agreement, if Yahoo was found unacceptable for some reason.

That precise thing occurred just a few weeks back, as the company launched its new Quantum browser, switching back to Google in the process. The latest version of Firefox has been warmly regarded by many as a return to form for a company that had previously been lost in the woods, rapidly losing marketshare to Chrome in the process. Naturally, Oath/Yahoo want a piece of that action.

In yesterday’s counter-complaint, Mozilla explains that it took another long look at the deal post-Verizon acquisition and was no longer in love with its choice of Yahoo as the default engine.

 

Source:

 

https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/06/oath-and-mozilla-are-suing-each-other-after-firefox-switches-back-to-google-search/

 

So yeah, Verizon is

[anonymoses]

Wait, so if I'm Verizon I have to play Search Engine Lottery and hope that Mozilla MAY set my search engine by default for $375 mil? This sounds like a load of utter crap and I cannot believe that Yahoo was dumb enough to sign something like that.

[Bouzoo]

Good professional non clickbait title that explains everything. 

[AlTech]

2 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

Good professional non clickbait title that explains everything. 

You forgot to add the /s

[AlTech]

2 minutes ago, anonymoses said:

Wait, so if I'm Verizon I have to play Search Engine Lottery and hope that Mozilla MAY set my search engine by default for $375 mil?

No. Mozilla has been using Yahoo as the default for a while but if Yahoo was ever bought Mozilla had the right to stop using it as the default.

 

Verizon bought Yahoo and thus Mozilla is no longer interested in using Yahoo as their default search engine.

[Arika]

i love contracts. so cut and dry...good luck verizon

[Ryujin2003]

I haven't been interested in using Yahoo since GeoCities was a thing. Their homepage is more click-baity than the default homepage for Windows 10..

[Mooshi]

Billion dollar companies or full grown adult suckered into agreeing to a 2 year commitment for a "free" tablet..why does no one read contracts before signing? 

[Matu20]

Yahoo was acquired with hidden breaches, right? So that would give them a way out.

[TidaLWaveZ]

42 minutes ago, Matu20 said:

Yahoo was acquired with hidden breaches, right? So that would give them a way out.

Exactly, Mozilla should argue the case that Yahoo's service is so vulnerable that using it makes Mozilla look bad.

 

It's like we hear about billions of yahoo accounts getting compromised every year or so.

[Thony]

Verizon can suck it. U believable they are even suing over something that is stated in the contract. Deal is a deal and contract is a contract, how are they expecting to win this ?! They would have to pull some black magic crap to turn this around.

[Drak3]

7 minutes ago, Thony said:

Verizon can suck it. U believable they are even suing over something that is stated in the contract. Deal is a deal and contract is a contract, how are they expecting to win this ?! They would have to pull some black magic crap to turn this around.

I can believe it, and I support Verizon if assignment of contract didn't occur between Yahoo and Verizon during the acquisition.

[Thony]

11 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

I can believe it, and I support Verizon if assignment of contract didn't occur between Yahoo and Verizon during the acquisition.

Well then yahoo is at fault for not mentioning the contract with Mozzilla or Verizon is at fault for not checking all yahoos contracts and obligations before acquistion. U simply dont buy a company without knowing everything about the company.

 

 

Yahoo signed the contract and they were fully aware of the contract’s length. How could they allow acquistion ?! It only makes sense if verizon has offered so much money they couldnt say no. 

[themoose5]

24 minutes ago, Thony said:

Well then yahoo is at fault for not mentioning the contract with Mozzilla or Verizon is at fault for not checking all yahoos contracts and obligations before acquistion. U simply dont buy a company without knowing everything about the company.

 

 

Yahoo signed the contract and they were fully aware of the contract’s length. How could they allow acquistion ?! It only makes sense if verizon has offered so much money they couldnt say no. 

My guess is this is on Verizon for not completing their due diligence. As long as Yahoo didn't actively hide the contract terms from Verizon it's the purchasing company's responsibility to be aware of all the contract terms that the company they're buying are bound by. If Verizon missed this in the Mozilla contract then they have no one to blame but themselves.

 

Though that doesn't stop them from trying via a lawsuit...

[Thony]

25 minutes ago, themoose5 said:

My guess is this is on Verizon for not completing their due diligence. As long as Yahoo didn't actively hide the contract terms from Verizon it's the purchasing company's responsibility to be aware of all the contract terms that the company they're buying are bound by. If Verizon missed this in the Mozilla contract then they have no one to blame but themselves.

 

Though that doesn't stop them from trying via a lawsuit...

If they didnt check or it was not hidden from them as u say then they have no right to file a lawsuit as mozzila nor yahoo did nothing wrong and mozzilla has full right to keep getting paid.  

 

Verizon can only try if Mozzila did something fishy and purposely hid this piece of info from Verizon. But why would yahoo not tell them about this ?! I wanna know more now haha. Because as far I see it Verizon is being greedy and stupid at the same time. Hopefully this doesnt take months to be resolved.

[themoose5]

13 minutes ago, Thony said:

If they didnt check or it was not hidden from them as u say then they have no right to file a lawsuit as mozzila nor yahoo did nothing wrong and mozzilla has full right to keep getting paid.  

 

Verizon can only try if Mozzila did something fishy and purposely hid this piece of info from Verizon. But why would yahoo not tell them about this ?! I wanna know more now haha. Because as far I see it Verizon is being greedy and stupid at the same time. Hopefully this doesnt take months to be resolved.

Unfortunately the legal system in the US doesn't restrict people who have no right filing a lawsuit from filing said lawsuit. The courts can throw out a claim but that takes some litigation and doesn't stop the suit from being brought in the first place. It's kind of stupid IMO but realistically you can sue pretty much anyone for anything. It might get thrown out but that's a process for the courts and lawyers, there isn't any barrier to entry in that respect besides money.

 

But I agree if their contract had a clause that made it void if Yahoo got sold then this won't take much discussion. 

Edited December 14, 2017 by themoose5
Clarification

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, Thony said:

Verizon can suck it. U believable they are even suing over something that is stated in the contract. Deal is a deal and contract is a contract, how are they expecting to win this ?! They would have to pull some black magic crap to turn this around.

that is actually not entirely true. parts of contracts can be void if a provision is unreasonable enough. Like my brother was in an apartment that had in the rental agreement it said that there is a charge of $100 each hour late he turned in his keys. the problem is that you can put in a provision like that if the damages don't justify the fee. because it doesn't cost the apartment complex $100 per hour he didn't return his keys my mom who happens to be a contract lawyer told them that they cant do that and that if ti were brought to court they would lose. I assume that a similar argument can be made in this case. it costs Mozilla $0 dollars to not use yahoo's search engine so still forcing them to pay the annual fee even after they stopped using their search engine might actually be unreasonable enough to make a case against them. now I know there is probably a more technical term for what I am talking about and that I may be incorrect in applying what was used in my brothers case but it does show that contracts aren't as cut and dry as you might think. its one of the reasons apple cant put some weird provisions into their user agreements or any user agreements for that matter.

[dalekphalm]

My take on this is that best case scenario? Verizon gets that particular clause voided, and they don't have to continue payments to Mozilla.

 

However, I can't see any situation in which Mozilla has to pay any money back to Verizon. Mozilla didn't do anything wrong. They agreed to a contract with Yahoo. Verizon may not have agreed to it, and in that case, sure, maybe the clause should be terminated, but Mozilla should not be punished (at least any further than losing that income) because of it.

[LAwLz]

On 2017-12-14 at 5:50 PM, Drak3 said:

I can believe it, and I support Verizon if assignment of contract didn't occur between Yahoo and Verizon during the acquisition.

Are you for real? You think Verizon should be able to sue and win against Mozilla because Yahoo made a contract with them and Verizon didn't know about it? How is that Mozillas fault and responsibility? 

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Are you for real? You think Verizon should be able to sue and win against Mozilla because Yahoo made a contract with them and Verizon didn't know about it? How is that Mozillas fault and responsibility? 

Agreed - no matter what, Mozilla is entirely innocent in this case.

 

It is not Mozilla's responsibility to ensure Verizon properly investigates a company before buying them.

[Trik'Stari]

Why in hell does Yahoo still exist?

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Why in hell does Yahoo still exist?

I think it's largely because they were so large after the Dot Com boom that it just took forever for them to run out of money.

 

Plus, they have a huge section of the Cloud Email sector. Lots of ISP's use Yahoo for their webmail backend, for example.