Open up a Google search tab in your browser, and search = Trump.
Are the returns favorable? Unfavorable? Google tracks your search and usage history, and creates a profile. Would your search returns mirror your past, per the profile of you that Google keeps?
Being sued - might that bias the search algorithm? Not Google, no, never.
But for now that question is a hypothetical. We have no evidence either way, beyond we do that search, we see the results. My search returns were generally not favorable toward Trump, but there could be multiple causes - the profile Google has of me being the most likely influence. Or the predominant mood of the day might simply be anti-Trump.
UPDATE: Seattle PI has its five takeaways from the Google lawsuit. One -
DO POLITICS LURK BEHIND THE CASE?
From the timing of the case to its co-plaintiffs, the Justice Department's lawsuit raises unanswered questions about the politics behind the move. For starters, there's the fact that it filed the suit exactly two weeks before Election Day, a time when most administrations generally try to avoid making splashy moves for fear of being seen as attempting to influence elections.
It also did so in conjunction with just 11 states, all of whom have Republican attorneys general, despite the fact that all 50 states kicked off an investigation of Google roughly a year ago.
The attorneys general of New York, Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, Tennessee and Utah released a statement Monday saying they have not concluded their investigation into Google and would want to consolidate their case with the Justice Department’s if they decide to file.
Actually, the PI published an AP feed, so it's the AP asking if politics is a factor.
FURTHER: WaPo has posted the Justice Department's complaint online here.
FURTHER; This Google search.
FURTHER: Justice Dept. press release page re the litigation.
FURTHER: cnet.com coverage, closing its post -
A 'nonpartisan' fight
Inside the DOJ, the timing of Tuesday's lawsuit had reportedly become the source of in-fighting. Most of the lawyers on the probe argued they needed more time to build a strong case against Google, but Attorney General William Barr is said to have overruled their guidance, according to The New York Times. Some of the attorneys were concerned the aggressive timeline, with work completed before the election, was to ensure the Trump administration gets credit for taking on a big tech company.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle applauded the DOJ complaint, though Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, scrutinized its timing. "For years we have heard complaints that Google has used its dominance in online search markets to undermine rivals and limit competition," Klobuchar said in a statement. "I am pleased that the Justice Department is finally taking action, but I hope the questionable timing of the suit so close to the election doesn't undercut the work that must be done for American consumers in the weeks and months ahead."
Should you expect vigorous follow-up from the Biden administration?
Should you expect net neutrality to get a big push from Joe Biden?
Would Joe Biden be expected to balance and expand Supreme Court membership, and would it be better to wait for an AOC presidency? (A separate question aside from balancing the Court to better fit the aims and feelings of the people, might Biden do the opposite; i.e., enlarge membership now via clone expansion of the Roberts-Barrett Court's business-friendly composition? To do so in order to make it harder later for a successor progressive to balance things in line with popular expectations and aims, when/if following the Biden time in office? Call it a roadblock strategy, call it a speedbump tactic, yet Biden and the Court possibilities make one want to hear the question Pence pushed at Harris answered - where it's not Kamala's call, but Joe's = Are you going to try to pack raise the membership number for the Court, while in office?) Biden should answer that. To say he'd like to have like-minded people on the Court is to ignore that he already has.
FURTHER: appleinsider.com posts -
Google's deal with Apple to maintain its standing as the default search engine for iOS devices is reportedly at the heart of a recent Justice Department lawsuit against the tech giant.
[...] Within Google, the prospect of losing the default position was thought to be so dire that it was internally dubbed "Code Red," according to a new report from The Wall Street Journal.
Google search is the default search engine in Safari and for Siri on iPhone and iPad devices. According to the Journal, that has been a major source of revenue for both companies. [... Google pays Apple a fee] Although neither company has confirmed how much the deal is actually worth, the lawsuit indicates that it accounts for between 15% and 20% of Apple's annual profits. That suggests payments of as much as $11 billion.
Furthermore, the prominence of the deal between the two tech giants in the Justice Department's lawsuit likely indicates that it will intercede in the relationship. [Apple ultimately a co-defendant; together they oligopolize the phone search market?]
In 2018, the department says, Apple CEO Tim Cook and Alphabet/Google CEO Sundar Pichai met to discuss how both companies could work together to drive search revenue growth. After the meeting, a senior Apple executive told a Google counterpart that "our vision is that we work as if we are one company," the lawsuit claims.
Sherman Act language fits. Microsoft promotes its Bing web search and its Edge browser as default applications for its operating system; as an example of others bundling and vertically integrating. Microsoft and Amazon compete in selling cloud storage and services. Search, browser, phone OS, webmail, video, maps, entertainment content - Google is big in each.
FURTHER: AP is reporting that a judge has been assigned.