Google addressed a Texas Attorney General’s office probe, pending an investigation regarding Google’s system for ranking websites, saying their “success is earned the right way — by building great products, not locking in our users or advertisers.”  It seems like Google has anticipated future inquiries regarding the eligibility and relevancy of the results of their search engine.

According to Google, the Texas Attorney General’s office wants additional information about allegations made  by the UK-based Foundem, SourceTool & TradeComet in New York, and Ohio-based myTriggers.

Google is pretty accustomed to questions about the fairness of their search engine, but the question of why a Texas agency would be interested in companies outside of its immediate jurisdiction.   One clue, though, is Attorney General Greg Abbott’s advocacy of consumer privacy.

Google says in a blog post that they’re looking forward to answering questions, and will “operate in the best interest of their users.”  From Google:

“The important thing to remember is that we built Google to provide the most useful, relevant search results and ads for users. In other words, our focus is on users, not websites. 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.”

Google is facing a number of other investigations, in Germany, Spain, South Korea and other officials in the U.S., centering around its consumer privacy levels.  The search engine company is also being investigated for its acquisition of ITA, with the Department of Justice seeking more information on the deal.  The Texas inquiries, however, are unlikely to give Google much trouble.  Glenn Manishin, legal expert and SiliconANGLE contributor who does not represent Google, comments on Google’s technology and consumer interests:

“…utterly ridiculous.  Anything Google may or may not do — and its mathematical algorithms leave precious little room for human bias — in ‘search neutrality’ for query results has no effect whatever on advertising competition.  And if advertisers pay for higher listing placement, as they can do for all Internet and search advertising, that’s no different from paying for a full-page or inside front cover ad.

In the marketplace, that’s a completely acceptable, in fact desired, method of competition. This is social policy (and bad policy, at that) on search engine technology masquerading as an antitrust issue.”