Off balance?

Over the weekend, search giant Google confirmed in a blog post that the US state of Texas is investigating the way its search results work as part of an “anti-trust” (the US phrase for anti-competition) inquiry.

The investigation was sparked by complaints by three companies who feel that the search results have been manipulated in some way to their disadvantage, and the Attorney General of Texas wants some answers.

Now, as Google itself admits, these sorts of investigations are nothing new. In fact, earlier this year the European Commission opened a similar inquiry, alleging that Google does not operate with sufficient transparency into how and why websites get ranked the way they do.

But this is the first such inquiry on home soil for the search giant, and so it’s certainly not insignificant.

The author of the blog, Google’s deputy general counsel Don Harrison, launched a passive/aggressive strategy in his post.

First, he takes the softly-softly approach, welcoming the chance to talk with the Texan authorities and points out that Google goes to great lengths to explain the mysterious and ever-changing algorithm that lies at the heart of the search engine (you’ll find links to Google’s explanations of its search strategy and even a link to a paper written by Google founders Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page explaining the origins of Google).

Then he gets the boots out, explaining that the three companies involved – Foundem, SourceTool and MyTriggers – all have connections to Microsoft, Google’s great rival.

“Given that not every website can be at the top of the results, or even appear on the first page of our results, it’s unsurprising that some less relevant, lower quality websites will be unhappy with their ranking,” Harrison wrote.

However, you can bet it won’t be the last such anti-competition inquiry that Google has to face.

While the company clearly does spend a lot of time explaining the basics of its search engine, the fact is that is that the exact way its algorithm is constantly changing (or being improved, as Google would argue), it can never by fully, completely understood by even the smartest search experts.

And while there remains a bit of a grey area, there will continue to be companies or individuals who believe they are the victims of some hidden manipulation – particularly when a good or bad search ranking can potentially create a huge bottom-line impact.

What’s interesting about these sorts of cases is that they highlight the difficult juggling act that Google must manage.

First and foremost, the company is a private one, owned by shareholders who want ever increasing returns. Its algorithm is its competitive advantage and Google would be crazy to release every detail of how it works.

But its amazing dominance of the search space means that is has also become something very close to public property. It remains a fact that businesses or organisations can to some extent be made or broken on with a Google ranking, which does give the company huge power and responsibility.

For this reason, it will not be a surprise if pressure does build on Google to disclose even more information about its search business through cases like that in Texas.