Information about the New Terms of Use and Updated Privacy Notice for Firefox

[AshleyT]

For the first time, we’re introducing a Terms of Use for Firefox, alongside an updated Privacy Notice.

Earlier today, we published a blog post explaining why we’re making this change and what it means for you.

Now, we want to hear from you.

We’re committed to engaging with our community and keeping you informed about how we build Firefox—and why we make the decisions we do. Firefox wouldn’t be where it is today without the support of our users, and we want to continue working together to build a better internet for all.

To kick off the discussion, here are a few key points from the blog post:

• Transparency matters. We’re introducing a Terms of Use to provide clarity on what users agree to before starting to browse.
• Privacy remains a priority. Our updated Privacy Notice gives a more detailed, easy-to-read explanation of our data practices.
• You stay in control. Firefox is designed to respect user choice, with responsible defaults and simple tools to manage your data.

We’d love to hear your thoughts! Check out the full blog post and share your feedback here. If you have any questions, let us know—we’ll be actively monitoring the discussion and will reply where we can.

[jkaelin]

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.

This sounds like a clear violation of:

• Principle 4 - Individuals’ security and privacy on the internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional.

It also sounds like boilerplate AI harvesting language. If this is intended specifically for the AI chatbot, that needs to be clearly carved out, and not included in the general terms.

[zxuiji]

It's for this VERY reason I'm going to look for a different branch of firefox to use (like waterfox for example). I've also reported them on twitter for threatening to share private information since this very clearly falls under that.

[AshleyT]

Thanks for calling attention to this concern. We’ve seen a little confusion about the language regarding licenses, so I want to clear that up. We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible. Without it, we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox to perform your searches, for example. It does NOT give us ownership of your data or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice. We’ve added this note to our blog to clarify, so thank you for your feedback.

[zxuiji]

Doesn't change that the license to use and abuse our private data so take your PR bs and leave. You're not pulling the wool over our eyes, either remove those vile terms or lose at least half your users.

[Cvh-123]

We are concerned because this answer, as per your blog, does not seem to be true. What basic functionality requires you (Mozilla) to collect our data and thus need a license for it? You (mozilla) only need a licence if you take our data. There is no need for a licence if you never see or never collect what we are typing. E.g. for searching it’s between me and the engine perform this searching. Not between me and Mozilla. Collecting data under license on everything going through a browser is a big issue and these terms give you permission you to do that.

[jkaelin]

This comes at the same time as you are removing language from the FAQ about selling personal data. (Old string expires 25-04-2025, so this is coming in 2 months apparently.)

‎bedrock/firefox/templates/firefox/faq.html
Old:
Yep! The { -brand-name-firefox-browser } is free. Super free, actually. No hidden costs or anything. You don’t pay anything to use it, and we don’t sell your personal data.
New:
Yep! The { -brand-name-firefox-browser } is free. Super free, actually. No hidden costs or anything. You don’t pay anything to use it. 

 It definitely feels like a rug pull.

[mattspawn1975]

And this underscores everything we need to know about their intent... The fact they will come on here and lie about intentions also tells me everything about what I need to without an abrupt about face from Mozilla.

[Chris-Winters]

No. This doesn't even pass the smell test. Right now, at this very moment, Firefox is a fully functional web browser with a fully functional search feature without requiring users agree to these "Terms of Use". If Mozilla is preparing to finally pull a total 180 on just about every principle it's held for an open web, just say so. We're not stupid.

[RalphZiggy]

You're going to spy on us, monitor us, harvest our browsing information in violation of our privacy.

[Jorn218]

The ToU clearly states what you just said it didn't.  Either you're reading comprehension level is of toddler age, or you are lying.  Any addendum to the ToU without specifically striking the offending verbiage means absolutely nothing.  People are no longer ignorant or too lazy to read the fine print. You're about to lose thousands of users and Forefox will gobthe way of the Netscape browser 

[bpluy]

I don't use Google for Searches. All the Search box should do is pass it on to the Search Service. There's no need for an explicit licence.

Nor is it acceptable to require an absolute licence to enter data into a third party application using a browser.

No one needs to grant a licence to an Editor to edit files on a Desktop.

This is an overreach and an unfair Contract Term.

S. P. Lucy

[pg_78]

"All the Search box should do is pass it on to the Search Service. There's no need for an explicit licence."

Exactly!

The most charitable interpretation I can think of here is that it was drafted by lawyers who aren't clear on the distinction between:

1) A Mozilla-authored browser running on my local machine doing its job (for example, submitting searches to search engines) without interaction with Mozilla.

2) Me choosing to submit data to a Mozilla-provided service on a remote server.

The word "we" isn't helpful here. Is it being used as some kind of a personification of the locally running code of the browser? Or does it refer to Mozilla-provided services that use my data?

If Mozilla thinks that users' concerns are all misunderstandings, better hire a new firm of lawyers with enough technological awareness to draft text that isn't so subject to misunderstanding!

[Syntaxerror]

> We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible.

That's a load of crap and you know it. "Basic functionality" is to download and render webpages.

> Without it, we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox to perform your searches, for example. 

I do not WANT you to use that information. It doesn't belong on your servers or anyone elses.

For over 15 years I've been using Firefox and recommending it to anyone that asked. I guess that will have to change now. At least there's still IceCat and other forks.

[DaveSea]

This stinks. This isn't a question of messaging or clarifying. You cannot ask your users to give you these broad rights to their data. This agreement, as currently written, is not acceptable. Where are the clauses limiting how you can interpret 'helping' us to 'navigate, experience or interact with online content' or the 'uses' you might make of it? Whether or not you had benign intentions, the purpose of these 'terms of use' agreements is to be legally enforceable. Why would you ask your users to sign up to an agreement that is as clearly exploitable as this? As written it allows Mozilla to harvest everything we type into the browser and train an AI with it. Is that not obvious to you?

[rstarkov]

Can you clarify it in the legal document and not on some blog?

[kitastro]

Then use more clear language. Vague speak is for patent trolls, I'm expecting and hoping for more from the mozilla team. Our ideals align, please show me I'm not mistaken.

[firebird]

What is an example of information we are uploading or inputting through Firefox that Mozilla needs a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use?

[hexandcube]

This smells like bs. I'm pretty sure a web browser doesn't need a license as long as it don't collect and use the data. The way it's worded makes it sound like Firefox collects data for some kind of AI model training. 

Also, what's up with the removal of "We don't and never will sell your personal data" from the website?

Something's not right

[Windless]

We do not want things explained to us in a blogpost, we want clear license that explicitely says how the data will and won't be used.

[kevinevans]

---

@AshleyT wrote:

It does NOT give us ownership of your data or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice.

---

Can you clarify that "navigate, experience, and interact with online content" actually entails, preferably with additional examples? Will you be selling or otherwise giving user data to any third parties (i.e. to parties outside of the requested webpage content)?

[Coleisforrobot]

That needs to be clarified in the ToU itself.

[outlawhayden]

Wow okay - I think this is the final nail in the coffin for me re: Firefox. Been a committed user for forever, but there's no reason to stick around at this point, even giving Mozilla the full benefit of the doubt this is so alarming that it's not worth it. For anyone wondering what to transition to:

- I've been using BetterFox as just a config file injection into Firefox for awhile and been happy with it. Improves performance and security, and knocks out all of the ads and super annoying AI crap. Although now if their TOS is really changing as much as they say it is I have no idea if this is still really working or would just be hiding whats going on. https://github.com/yokoffing/Betterfox/blob/main/Securefox.js

- Going to think about transitioning this week on everything to WaterFox which seems like a solid fork of Firefox that is patently less evil than whatever is going on here
https://www.waterfox.net/

- Past that, I don't want to be on anything Chromium, but there are a few open source projects that are independent (Helium etc.,) that are more in line with OG firefox that are entering Alpha right now. Going to go give those guys some support, hopefully with this nightmare fiasco those alternatives pick up some support and we can split from Mozilla entirely.

[MegaT]

.

[0x4261756D]

Why would Mozilla need a license for the information a user enters into Firefox? There should be no exchange of information with any service of Mozilla necessary upon entering information or uploading media somewhere, unless of course that somewhere is a Mozilla website.

I am deeply disturbed by the possible implications of this ToU document and will be actively searching for an alternative to Firefox unless this is changed.

It is quite sad seeing Mozilla repeatedly alienating their core userbase and ruining the only sufficiently advanced alternative to the Chromium monopoly.

Best regards,

a not angry, just very disappointed Firefox-user

[Quackles]

Something I'm confused about. I see the terms links to the Acceptable Use Policy.

If Mozilla plans to enforce that for users of Firefox, how does it intend to determine if users are violating the policy while protecting privacy?

If not, why is it in there? The terms make it sound like it applies to the Firefox browser itself.

[DMConstantino]

If they don't plan to do it, they should make them exist.

[DMConstantino]

*shoudn't

[mention]

Fork Mozilla

[welyr]

"Privacy remains a priority": Every company tells us  something to the effect that "We value your privacy".... while they collect and sell our data. 

"You stay in control" : Every company tells us something like this... while they bury "opt out" mechanisms for features we don't know we need to opt out of about three screens deep.

Ordinary people ARE NOT LAWYERS.  And we cannot read and actually understand massive blocks of legal jargon constantly presented to us during the course of operating a device.  Unfortunately, every company today has discovered that they can bury a fifty page long legal document in a link on any app or website and people will click "OK" to it our of a sense of learned helplessness.  That is part of the reason some of us prefer open source software.

One of the worst things all such services contain are provisions like this one: "Every once in a while, Mozilla may decide to update these Terms. We will post the updated Terms online. We will take your continued use of Firefox as acceptance of such changes. We will post an effective date at the top of this page to make it clear when we made our most recent update"

This is basically saying that every single time I use Firefox, it's apparently my job to go look up your terms of service and determine if they have changed since the last time I used it, and see if I am still OK with the new terms. 

Your "Acceptable use" for terms for FireFox raise all kinds of issues.  A person in some countries might find themselves doing something that would violate your "Acceptable use" for FireFox because they are living under an oppressive regime which makes things like exercise free speech illegal, just as one example.

Some FireFox users in the US might now be in a similar situation.  We are at the very least about to lose most or all of the few consumer protections we had.  But also some might now have a lot more to worry about than targeted advertising.  Think of scenarios like a whistleblower talking to a reporter, a protester organizing a rally, or someone trying to order abortion medication online. 

What do not want a vague warm fuzzy but legally meaningless statement that you "value our privacy".  What we want is a GUARANTEE that you won't share or sell our data.   Mozilla previously promised me that your product had "no shady privacy notices or advertiser backdoors".   But if I am reading the privacy policy correctly, data collected by FireFox might be used to serve up ads to us.  I was previously promised by Mozilla that there would be no sneaky back doors for advertisers.  So are you asking permission for this, or forgiveness?

Thank you

[welyr]

I would also add that there are companies which have processes for reviewing license agreements for software employees want to use.  Companies which have such processes and existing FireFox installations will now need to have their legal teams re-review this agreement and determine if they can continue to use the product.

[Anonymous]

Google deprecated Manifest 2 (yesterday, for a lot of people), crippling uBlock Origin and similar extensions, giving Firefox its first real chance in years to reclaim users interested in privacy and ad blocking. So as its first official act Mozilla decides to go business-school bureaucratic and give itself our data for training an AI (or whatever money-making purpose they feel like this week). Of all the boneheaded mistakes Mozilla has been guilty of in the past decade or so, all the slap-in-the-face insults visited upon users, this has to be right at the top. Unbelievable. Mozilla account cancelled. I'm done.

[Anonymous]

And what exactly are the terms of service for THIS FORUM? Are you training an AI from our discussions here? Maybe it's time to delete all my Mozilla-related accounts, in addition to Firefox.

My disgust at these boneheaded moves by Mozilla knows no bounds. Are you sure the person who came up with this Firefox-killer isn't your own internal Agent Krasnov, attempting to kill the browser? (I'd add a "/s" but I'm not entirely sure I'm wrong.)

[fraggedy_andy]

---

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.

How long do you hold those rights to our data? Is it the length of a search? 90 days? Indefinitely? This is written in a way that feels vague, threatening to personal privacy, and in a way that obfuscates all of the details I would want to know to comfortably use Firefox.

Firefox is proving again to be terrible at messaging. All this seems to have done is to spook your community. I've read the statement, I've read other comments on the statement, and each person seems to have a different interpretation. And this feels like it came out of nowhere. Was this discussed in some blog post before it was released? How many of your users do you think actually read those? 

It feels like Mozilla keeps making the same mistakes over and over, making changes without doing more public outreach to build user trust in the changes. How are we supposed to trust you or that you have our best interests?

[adsonly]

---

How long do you hold those rights to our data?

---

When you read the documents, they say up to 25 months and with unique identifiers and Moz share this with partners. WTF!

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/#lawful-bases

[KelsonV]

Mozilla and/or Firefox has no good reason to ask for a license for user content except when interacting with Mozilla sites or services, and even then it should be clear that's what we're doing.

You want a license to display my reply to this forum post? Sure! That makes sense!

You want a license to something I wrote in an email while logged into webmail though Firefox? That looks like it would be covered by the current wording, and that's NOT ACCEPTABLE.

If, as your blog post claims, you intend to put users' privacy first, fix your terms of service so they actually *do*.

Using Firefox with a third-party site or service should *never* give Mozilla a license to that activity or content. And using a Mozilla service should only grant a license for uses the user would *expect* -- not potential hidden reuse sometime down the line.

[reconbot]

If you’re not going to use the stuff I put into the primary application on my computer that I use to communicate with everyone in my life, to create art, write stories, and share photos and video, then why are you taking a license to use it however you want? Just in case?

[indutny]

Licensing your information to a company should be an individual user's choice, period. Blanket and implicit (because most users won't read or hear about ToS) abandonment of user information rights towards any corporation is not just unacceptable, but immoral. In the unfortunate age of LLMs we already see our own data being abused against us and used to empower all encompassing Surveillance Economy. Firefox's primary public image is of a company fighting for Privacy and against Browser monopoly. By destroying user's trust in both, you are destroying the only viable alternative to Chromium based browsers. Is that really in the best interests of your users?

Additionally, Terms of Service imply the right to refuse the service to a user, and in fact there is a Termination section describing that: "Mozilla can suspend or end anyone’s access to Firefox at any time for any reason". As a backbone of free web, why would you choose to deny access to not just browser, but websites and other service that the user access with them and might not be able to access otherwise (e.g. if they have their password stored and managed by Firefox)?

[Maupertuis]

I hoped exiting of Mitchell Baker would drive some sense home to the C-suite, and maybe, just maybe they'd re-think about the position that they've been taking for the past decade. But I also know that I have higher chance of encountering a unicorn than Mozilla fixing, or at the very least, not going further down this path. 

Why do you need a ToS? I'm just using your browser. Clearly state that it's for your other online services(including Mozilla account), and not the browser. Don't do legal jargon.

There are lots of other things that are of much higher priority, this is not one of them.

[tom25519]

I have some questions after I read an another article about this:

1. Does it mean it will be collect information for ad?

2. Does it mean if a songwriter/composer use Firefox to upload it toa website, and it equal user grant the right that Firefox could use it?

Edit: Q2 has been declared in https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/firefox-terms-of-use/

UPDATE: We’ve seen a little confusion about the language regarding licenses, so we want to clear that up. We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible. Without it, we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox, for example. It does NOT give us ownership of your data or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice.