Background: RNC’s Lawsuit Against Google
The Republican National Committee (RNC) filed a lawsuit in 2022 against Google, alleging that Gmail’s spam filters disproportionately sent RNC fundraising and outreach emails into users’ spam folders, impairing the party’s ability to raise funds and communicate effectively. RNC lawyers claimed the filtering was politically discriminatory and violated various California state laws, including civil rights and common‑carrier statutes. (MediaPost)
- The complaint cited a North Carolina State University study showing Gmail flagged 68% of Republican campaign emails as spam compared to 8% for Democratic emails. RNC said the issue persisted for about 10 months, disrupting key fundraising periods. (MediaPost)
Google denied any bias, maintaining its spam filtering is neutral, algorithm‑based, and driven by user signals about what constitutes unwanted mail. (MediaPost)
Lower Court Dismissal
In 2023, U.S. District Judge Daniel Calabretta dismissed the RNC’s complaint because:
- California’s civil rights law doesn’t cover discrimination based on political affiliation.
- Gmail and similar email services are not “common carriers” like telephone or postal companies under California law (a key RNC argument).
- The RNC lacked standing because it was not itself a Gmail user or contract party.
- The allegations didn’t plausibly show Google acted unlawfully. (MediaPost)
After a later round of remaining claims, the judge dismissed them again in 2024, and the RNC appealed. (MediaPost)
Ninth Circuit Appeal & Affirmation (January 16–2026)
Core Ruling
A three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal, rejecting the RNC’s attempt to revive the lawsuit. (Reuters)
The appeals court agreed with the lower court that:
- Google’s spam filtering is a feature of Gmail’s service, not actionable discrimination. It is designed to benefit users by reducing unwanted messages, not to target specific political senders. (Reuters)
- The RNC lacked standing: the party was not a Gmail user and therefore had no direct contractual relationship with Google that could give rise to the claimed harms. (MediaPost)
- Gmail does not qualify as a common carrier under California law, so the RNC’s attempt to treat Google like a regulated transportation or communication provider failed. (MediaPost)
In short, the panel found the legal claims didn’t survive well‑established standards for statutorily recognized discrimination or wrongful conduct in this context. (Reuters)
Key Comments from the Decision and Parties
Court’s View
The Ninth Circuit judges explained that the relationship between an email sender (like the RNC) and an email provider (like Google) does not neatly fit within traditional common‑carrier frameworks, which applies to services such as telephones or postal services — not algorithmic email filtering. (MediaPost)
They also noted the RNC did not provide evidence of specific statutory violations sufficiently connected to Google’s filtering decisions. (MediaPost)
RNC’s Reaction
- RNC spokesperson Kiersten Pels said the organization “strongly disagrees” with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and is evaluating its options, emphasizing a continued commitment to defending what it characterizes as First Amendment rights against discrimination by Big Tech. (Reuters)
This suggests the RNC may consider further legal steps, potentially including a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court — though such a path is difficult given appellate rules and the nature of the court’s reasoning.
Google’s Position
Google has consistently denied that its spam filtering discriminates based on political content. It maintains filtering decisions are guided by algorithms and user behavior signals, not political affiliation, and that the filtering system benefits users by blocking unwanted messages and reducing inbox clutter. (MediaPost)
Genocide
Legal Context and Broader Significance
Section 230 Immunity (Federal Law)
Although the Ninth Circuit’s decision focused on California law and standing, earlier court analyses — and legal commentary — point to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as broadly shielding platforms like Gmail from liability for content moderation and spam filtering decisions, even if those decisions could be mistaken or unpopular. Courts have ruled that email and other filtering is a form of editorial discretion protected under Section 230. (Reason.com)
Limits of State Law Claims
The case illustrates the limitations of applying older state statutory frameworks — like common‑carrier or civil rights laws — to modern digital services driven by algorithms and user preferences rather than clear contractual terms or regulatory obligations. (MediaPost)
Political & Policy Debate
The case has also intersected with wider debates in political and regulatory circles about content moderation and algorithmic transparency. For example, the FTC Chair previously criticized Gmail’s filters as potentially “partisan” — raising policy questions about fairness — but such concerns remain policy debates, not settled legal liabilities. (arstechnica.com)
Bottom Line
- The Ninth Circuit upheld Google’s victory, agreeing that Gmail’s spam filtering is a legitimate user service and not unlawful discrimination as claimed by the RNC. (Reuters)
- The RNC’s legal theories — including common‑carrier status and discrimination under state law — were rejected as not legally applicable in this context. (MediaPost)
- Both sides have issued statements reiterating their positions, and the RNC may explore further appeal options. (courthousenews.com)
Here’s a *case‑study‑style breakdown with real developments and comments on the Ninth Circuit affirming Google’s victory in the RNC spam email dispute — detailing the background, legal findings, reactions, and wider implications:
Case Study 1 — Origins of the RNC Lawsuit Against Google
What the RNC Alleged
In October 2022, the Republican National Committee (RNC) sued Google, claiming that Gmail’s spam filters were sending millions of its fundraising and outreach emails to users’ spam folders, harming its ability to raise donations and communicate with supporters. The RNC pointed to studies suggesting Gmail flagged a higher percentage of Republican emails as spam than Democratic ones and said the pattern lasted about nine to ten months. (Reuters)
Legal theories included claims that Google violated:
- California’s common carrier laws (which prohibit discrimination by service providers),
- The Unruh Civil Rights Act, and
- Unfair competition and interference claims. (MediaPost)
Google firmly denied political bias, arguing its filtering is neutral, algorithm‑driven, and based on user behavior and spam indicators, not political content. (MediaPost)
Case Study 2 — Lower Court Dismissal
Before the appellate decision, a federal judge in California dismissed the lawsuit:
- The judge ruled that California’s civil rights statute doesn’t cover discrimination based on political affiliation.
- Gmail is not a common carrier under California law — unlike telephone or postal services.
- The complaint failed to allege plausible violations of California or federal law. (MediaPost)
Even when given a chance to amend, the RNC did not establish legally sufficient claims. (MediaPost)
Case Study 3 — Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal (January 2026)
On January 16, 2026, a three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court’s dismissal, effectively affirming Google’s win: (Reuters)
Key Legal Takeaways
Gmail’s spam filtering is a service feature — not discriminatory conduct subject to the laws the RNC invoked. The court agreed with the lower court that filtering is part of the service Google provides to users, not something Google does to the sender. (MediaPost)
Common carrier arguments rejected — The judges wrote that email senders and Google don’t fit the traditional carrier‑passenger model used for regulated services like mail or telephone lines. (courthousenews.com)
Standing issues — The panel noted the RNC did not allege it was a Gmail user or intended to be one, undercutting arguments that it faced direct discriminatory terms in a contractual relationship with Google. (MediaPost)
Comments & Reactions
RNC Response
The RNC — through spokesperson Kiersten Pels — strongly disagreed with the appellate ruling and said the organization is evaluating its legal options, reaffirming its intent to pursue what it frames as First Amendment protections against tech platform discrimination. (courthousenews.com)
Their appellate lawyer argued that the issue wasn’t typical spam filtering behavior, noting it “stopped immediately after we filed this lawsuit,” suggesting Google “had control” and an “off switch” it could have used earlier. (Reuters)
Google’s Position
Google has consistently maintained its systems are non‑partisan and algorithmic — filtering based on technical signals like spam rankings and user complaints rather than political affiliation. It also warned courts that allowing such suits could open the floodgates to endless litigation whenever a sender’s content lands in spam. (MediaPost)
Legal and Policy Context
Section 230 and Spam Filtering
Earlier court filings in the case cited Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which broadly protects platforms engaging in good‑faith filtering of content — including spam — from liability. Courts have repeatedly ruled that spam filtering is covered under editorial discretion. (Reason.com)
Common Carrier Arguments
The RNC fought to treat Gmail as a common carrier under California law, but both the district court and Ninth Circuit concluded that email providers do not “transport” messages the way carriers like telephone companies do. (Justia Dockets & Filings)
FTC and Broader Scrutiny
Separately from the lawsuit, the Federal Trade Commission chair previously warned about Gmail’s filters being “partisan”, suggesting potential consumer protection concerns — but these were policy remarks, not binding legal findings in this case. (Ars Technica)
Outcome and Implications
1. Legal Defeat for RNC
The Ninth Circuit’s affirmation means the RNC’s legal theory that Gmail’s spam filtering violated discrimination or common carrier laws has been repeatedly rejected at both trial and appellate levels. (Reuters)
2. Spam Filtering Lawful
Courts have clarified that email services’ algorithmic filtering is a legitimate feature aimed at improving user experience — not unlawful bias. (MediaPost)
3. Future Litigation Challenging Platforms Is Hard
This case underscores how traditional legal frameworks do not easily map onto modern platforms’ moderation and filtering systems. Unless laws change, similar lawsuits face high hurdles in court. (MediaPost)
Community & Public Commentary
Online forums show many users generally view spam filtering as a necessary function and express skepticism about claims that political bias drove Gmail behavior, often noting algorithms and user reports drive spam decisions. While these are anecdotal, they reflect broader public interpretation of digital service moderation issues. (Reddit)
Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed Google’s victory by upholding dismissal of the RNC’s claims that Gmail’s spam filters discriminated against the party’s emails. The court confirmed:
- Spam filtering is a user‑oriented service feature,
- Gmail is not a common carrier, and
- The RNC’s allegations did not establish violations of applicable law — leaving the door only slightly open for future creative legal arguments or legislative changes. (Reuters)