IANAL means this precisely (and on a side note, I'm here for open exchange and debate, not for claiming to be right ;-)
Interestingly, depending on jurisdictions, there are places on the globe (EU, FR) where I think the terminology is theft not copyright infringement ("theft of database"), even if it does not apply to this US National dispute. Now let's see how this goes with the US gov.
Upthread, the user “errantmind” asked you to provide your legal basis for it being “theft”. It’s obviously not legally speaking theft, since no physical object has been taken. But let’s be a bit charitable and assume that you meant “copyright infringement” instead. However, you have not made the case for it being copyright infringement either, since Google’s copying (which you do describe in detail) did not, AFAIK, infringe copyright (at least in the US, which is where the investigation referred to in the document is being held).
If you want to argue that what Google did is illegal, then please specify what actual law was broken.
On the other hand, if you instead want to argue that what Google did should be illegal, then please, go ahead and present your case, but this was not the original topic.
You might be of the opinion that it should, but that is a different argument, which you did not make.