Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey launched an investigation into Google on Thursday, alleging that the search engine is censoring conservative speech during the presidential election period.
In his statement on X (formerly Twitter), Bailey accused Google of “waging a war on the democratic process.” Bailey plans to subpoena Google to investigate its algorithms and the effect it has on conservative speech, according to Fox Business. He further told Fox Business: “We have reason to believe that Google is manipulating their search results to deemphasize information about the Trump campaign prior to Election Day. I will not allow Google to interfere in the most consequential election in our nation’s history.”
On the other hand, Google denied the allegations, and described its search algorithm as “non-partisan, free from political beliefs.”
This is not the first time Google has faced legal challenges related to its search engine algorithm. In February 2023, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in Gonzalez v. Google concerning liability that may attach to tech giants’ content distribution algorithms. The Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law argued that online platforms must be held accountable for civil rights violations such as voter suppression. They asserted that online companies engaging in content distribution cannot enjoy immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This case was remanded to the Ninth Circuit after the Supreme Court decided that X is not liable for the content posted by its users under another anti-terrorism law. Therefore, it remains unclear whether tech giants can be held liable for civil rights violations caused by its content distribution algorithm.
In August, Kansas Senator Roger Marshall demanded the company to testify before the Senate Homeland Security & Government Affairs Committee for Marshall’s allegations of suppression of search terms related to the assassination attempt against former president Donald Trump.
In response, Google explained that its Autocomplete Predictions did not provide predictions for queries about the assassination attempt because the system prohibited predictions for “hypothetical political violence against current figures” before July 13, the day the assassination attempt took place. Google stated that it has made systematic improvements and the relevant predictions are available now. Marshall described this explanation as “egregious and seeking to get away with corporate double-speak.”
In related news, US District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta found that Google has an illegal monopoly over internet search and search advertising markets under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
