Well the EFF isn't pulling any punches with this press release. Particularly interesting are: "It [the subpoena] also appeared to be served in retaliation for Google’s refusal to comply with the Attorney General’s prior demands..." and "Later documents suggest that the MPAA and Attorney General Hood were working together to plan an anti-Google smear campaign."

I quickly read the amicus brief and they do not make any such allegations (that I could tell) in the brief. While unsavory, if they allegations are true, would this indicate unlawful behaviour on the part the the attorney general?

Similarly, would the attorney general have a case for libel if the allegations are untrue? I assume that if the EFF had enough information to show collusion that they would include it in the amicus brief, but perhaps I'm wrong.