Google is seeking documents from three network television conglomerates that could prove the Mississippi Attorney General’s office conspired with executives of 21st Century Fox, Comcast/NBC, and Viacom to launch a coordinated lobbying campaign against the search engine giant over its business practices.

A court filing reported by Variety alleges that staffers of Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood (D) conspired to launch an anti-Google media and lobbying blitz to pressure the company over its search practices, notably the “autocomplete feature” that some believe promotes illegal activities.

Copies of email from Meredith Aldridge, one of Hood’s staff members, addressed to Brian Cohen at the Motion Picture Assn. of America (MPAA) allegedly lays out a proposed media/public relations campaign to plant negative Google stories in newspapers and on television shows with the assistance of executives inside the media companies. The examples included:

Hood

• A custom-written editorial for placement in the Wall Street Journal, owned by News Corp., former owner of 21st Century Fox, suggesting Google stock would lose value if it faced a sustained probe by Attorney General offices across the country;
• An appearance arranged by a Comcast/NBCU government relations executive on the Comcast/NBC-owned Today show that would perpetuate “an attack on Google;”
• A suggestion that a PR firm engineer a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on behalf of a stockholder to complain about Google.

Hood’s office appeared to be ready for a lengthy, all-out assault on Google, at least based on an outline ready for the summer meeting of the National Association of Attorneys General in Boston in 2013. The document suggests Hood was prepared to discuss how Google may have perpetuated the illegal online purchases of counterfeit goods, weapons, and prescription painkillers through its search engine.

Google argues the pattern of behavior from Hood’s office suggests the three media companies are withholding documents connecting “contributions to AG Hood’s cause and the quid quo pro they expected to receive.”

Hood’s case did not go over well in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate, who ruled there was a “substantial likelihood” Google will prevail on its claim that Hood violated its First Amendment rights.