That's the problem. I'm keen to see some evidence. The Texas vs. Democracy case had a 70-page filing, of which literally every aspect was obviously false. That filing makes me look at this heavily redacted filing and think "this is all made up". Maybe it's not, but it's the rational reaction.
I read what I could and didn't find it overly persuasive. Obviously there must be evidence underlying these claims, but in the absence of that evidence a lot of it reads like one of those LSAT questions where you are supposed to spot the faulty logic. For example it just asserts that Google made it so everyone had to use their exchange and service, in almost those exact words ("had to") but there's nothing prior to that in the filing that supports this statement.
1. It's very clear that his office has no qualms with filing cases that include untrue statements.
2. It's also the case that this group of claimants is strongly associated with a government official who is very angry at companies and has been trying to attack a communications law from every angle he has. One cannot help but wonder at the timing of all this.
It may very well be true. Sadly, we have to be skeptical now.