1) Why Google?

Because media attention and it plays well with the current Missouri AG's base. e.g. pseudo-libertarian, anti-big brother, technology, coast-elites, etc.

There are no statutes in Missouri that regulate in any meaningful way the use of consumer data by technology companies. Also, actual law enforcement or regulatory investigations are rarely proceeded with press releases to the effect of "we are going to investigate you", so I would imagine this doesn't go further than said press release and Google spending some money at one of Missouri's larger law firms.

2) Why Missouri? How come a republican is doing this?

Current AG [1] is the likely republican nominee for the Senate seat currently held by Claire McCaskill. It will likely be an extraordinarily expensive and contested race with tons of money and resources flowing into the election from across the country. Despite winning statewide office in the Missouri Trump-landslide, current AG is relatively unknown. I imagine he will be using his office to make a name for himself in the coming months. (I'm not saying that is any different than his predecessors, both democrat and republican -- both have used the office as a political soapbox to propel them to their next office.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Hawley [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_McCaskill

Nah, the EU also goes after local champions, see for example the Vitamin case:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-01-1625_en.htm

It's just that the US has become extremely lax in its anti-trust stance.

That's from 16 years ago. To give context, that's six years before the treaty of Lisbon which defines the EU Commission today.

The article provides possible explanations. A politician running for office soon positions himself as fighting on behalf of the local little man and against big bad out of state corporation. It's pretty much the exact kind of populist protectionism that has lately proven to be politically effective.

The guy looks relatively young, if I had to guess I'd go with the cultural warrior angle, I bet this guy is fully aware of the Jim Damore saga.

Europe has a bad history with records misused to later pursue political enemies. The records the Germans used come to mind, but also things like the Staszi secret police in East Germany.

Interestingly, a lot of stuff that just “works” in America is dangerous when exported abroad. This is a strange sociological concept I only encountered recently, but one example is that the American conception of “fame”, dating back to PT Barnum‘s days, was an impetus for fascism in America. So something that’s “culturally safe” in the US due to our history and institutions can be dangerous when exported abroad.

For more information, check out the book “The Frenzy of Renown”.

The Frenzy of Renown: Fame and Its History https://www.amazon.com/dp/0679776303/

The EU also has vastly different anti trust laws. There's no point pursuing some of the cases prosecuted in the EU in the US, because you would lose.

> The EU goes after "tech giants" partly because they are foreign, the US doesn't have that incentive.

Really? It went after AT&T before and split it up and it wasn't foreign. How do you see the "foreign" part being significant here?

Though it would be interesting to think about Google pulling out of Missouri saying "Ok, you want to sue us? Fine no Google presence there" as soon as it detects an accounts or user connecting from there it returns an error and that's that. Wonder if that is possible?

Bring it on. That lawsuit would be open-and-shut. Also VPNs.

> The EU goes after "tech giants" partly because they are foreign

what's the other part?