A federal judge in California dismissed a lawsuit from the Republican National Committee that claimed Google’s Gmail inappropriately filtered its emails to users’ spam folders leading up to the 2022 midterm elections.
The case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning that the RNC can’t bring its claims to another court, though it can appeal the district court’s opinion. District Court Judge Daniel Calabretta said that the RNC failed to state a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law and that while “the RNC may be correct that Google’s alleged conduct (if proven) is ‘unfair’ in a colloquial sense, the RNC is unable to point to any legislative policy that is implicated by the alleged conduct.” Calabretta also said the RNC couldn’t demonstrate “sufficient harm” to Gmail users suggesting Google engaged in unfair practices. Calabretta had previously dismissed the case but gave the RNC the chance to amend its complaint.
The Federal Election Commission previously dismissed a similar complaint from the RNC, claiming that Gmail filtered Republican fundraising emails at a higher rate than Democratic ones, amounting to unreported campaign contributions. Republicans were essentially claiming that Google’s filtering practices were an “illegal corporate contribution to Democrat candidates” since nonmonetary contributions are supposed to count toward overall contribution limits. An FEC analysis at the time reviewed by The Wall Street Journal said that “Google has credibly supported its claim that its spam filter is in place for commercial reasons and thus did not constitute a contribution.”
In the district court case, the judge determined that Google wasn’t entitled to Section 230 immunity — a legal shield that tech platforms can use to protect their ability to moderate content. The judge said the RNC had managed to make “sufficiently plausible” arguments at that early stage that Google had not acted in good faith in sending RNC emails to spam. The most convincing reason he cited from the RNC was that it found that the “mass diversion” of emails that tended to happen at the end of the month stopped after the RNC filed its suit. The judge acknowledged that other technical considerations might have played a role in that change.
Still, the court was unconvinced that the RNC’s claims constituted a violation of the law. “The allegations of political discrimination, if true, are certainly concerning and may have wide and severe implications for the future of political discourse,” Calabretta wrote. “It may even be that Google’s conduct is ‘unfair’ in a colloquial, as opposed to a legal, sense. But it is not the role of this Court to decide these significant policy issues that must be addressed by a legislative body in the first instance. As broad as it is, California’s Unfair Competition Law does not cover the conduct alleged by the RNC.”
Google spokesperson José Castańeda said in a statement the company “will continue investing in spam-filtering technologies that protect people from unwanted emails while still allowing senders to reach the inboxes of users who want their messages.” The RNC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
