That's not how the null hypothesis works. You are presupposing the negative and then ignoring the possible, and even the probable, to maintain it. Treating corporate malfeasance as unlikely as the existence of gods is skepticism ad absurdum. Corporations acting in ways that are harmful to their employees, customers, and neighbors isn't the nebulous 'must have been the spirits' activity of religion. It's the history of corporations.

Google management is perfectly willing to engage in suspicious practices. It's basically their business model. Since you need examples because apparently you haven't been paying attention in your day to day life: Google tracks as much as they can of what their users and adjacent people do. This occurs even after they 'opt out' of the tracking. This is well known but here is an AP article talking about it if you've somehow made it to 2025 not knowing about it. Google makes deals to obtain data on people from other sources as well, including personal medical data (e.g. Project Nightingale), again without consent. The idea that the people at google, or any large corporation, would ignore the incentives of their business and not apply any pressure to align Mozilla with their interests when they spend millions of dollars per financial quarter on lobbying, and many times that on PR, is absurd. Expecting them not to seek profit is akin to expecting a living organism not to seek food. Trying to hold the null hypothesis of 'We must first assume nothing wants food' and then ignoring common experience until a peer reviewed double blind study can show you the patently obvious is just not feasible.