You can see the whole legal argument - it's linked from the first sentence of the article, and it quotes the relevant section of the employee code of conduct: h

You can see the whole legal argument - it's linked from the first sentence of the article, and it quotes the relevant section of the employee code of conduct: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21119310-google_complaint_filed https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21119310-google_comp... > “Don’t be evil.” Googlers generally apply those words to how we serve our users. But “Don’t be evil” is much more than that. Yes, it’s about providing our users unbiased access to information. focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services we can. But it's also about doing the right thing more generally ~ following the law, acting honorably and treating each other with respect. That is pretty specific. You need to provide users unbiased access to information, focus on their needs, and give them the best products and services you can. You also need to follow the law, act honorably, and treat each other with respect. The courts do in fact understand legally-binding terms to mean something. (See also the fact that IBM's lawyers sought a specific exemption from the JSON license's "The Software shall be used for Good, and not Evil," because they knew there was a chance the courts would find something they did "Evil," because if it's in a contract, it means something.) So what do they mean? Some of these clauses - "giving them the best products and services we can," "acting honorably," etc. - are a little squishy. But "providing our users unbiased access to information" is pretty clear-cut. The plaintiffs organized against Dragonfly, a censored version of Google that would provide users biased access to information. IMO they've got a pretty good case that the employee handbook, which they had to abide by to keep their job, told them to do that.