Background: What the RNC Alleged
In 2022, the Republican National Committee (RNC) sued Google, claiming that Gmail’s spam filters were systematically sending millions of RNC fundraising and outreach emails into users’ spam folders, hurting the party’s ability to raise money and communicate with supporters. The RNC argued this was due to political discrimination and bias — essentially that Google was targeting conservative speech. (courthousenews.com)
Key elements of the RNC’s allegations included:
- Emails being diverted to spam during critical fundraising windows.
- An alleged pattern of treatment over nine months.
- Claims Google’s filtering reduced visibility of RNC emails compared with others.
- Arguments that Google should be treated like a common carrier (similar to a phone or postal service) under California law. (MediaPost)
Google denied the claims, saying its spam filtering is neutral, algorithm‑based, and not motivated by political content. (MediaPost)
Lower Court Dismissal (2023–2024)
Before the Ninth Circuit got involved:
- In 2023, U.S. District Judge Daniel Calabretta dismissed several RNC claims, ruling that Gmail isn’t a common carrier under California law and that political affiliation isn’t covered under the state’s anti‑discrimination statutes.
- The judge also found the complaint didn’t plausibly show Google acted with improper motive or violated specific laws, and that Section 230 protections generally shield email‑service providers filtering for spam. (MediaPost)
The RNC amended and refiled parts of the complaint, but the judge again dismissed the remaining claims in 2024. (MediaPost)
Ninth Circuit Appeal & Dismissal (January 2026)
What the Appeals Court Ruled
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, refusing to revive the RNC’s lawsuit. (Reuters)
The panel’s reasoning included:
1. Email filtering is a service, not discrimination based on content
The court explained Google’s spam filtering is a feature of Gmail provided to users — it helps recipients avoid unwanted mail. As a result, the RNC did not establish a legal basis to treat that filtering as discriminatory conduct under the laws it cited. (MediaPost)
2. RNC lacked “standing” and common‑carrier status
The judges said the RNC did not sufficiently allege that it used Gmail services or intended to become a Gmail user — meaning it lacked standing under California common‑carrier statutes. Email sender and service provider relationships are not analogous to traditional carriers like telephone or postal companies. (MediaPost)
3. No statutory violation shown
The court agreed with the lower court that claims under the Unruh Civil Rights Act and other California laws weren’t supported because those statutes don’t clearly cover political affiliation in this context. (MediaPost)
Legal Significance
Section 230 & Spam Filtering
Although the Ninth Circuit’s decision did not hinge solely on the Communications Decency Act’s Section 230, underlying case law — including Supreme Court precedent — generally protects platforms engaging in good‑faith filtering of “objectionable” content, which has been interpreted to include spam and harmful content. In earlier rulings, courts held email filtering decisions fall under editorial discretion protected by Section 230. (Reason.com)
Common Carrier Argument Rejected
The court made clear that email platforms aren’t legally considered common carriers like telephone companies or the postal system — a central point the RNC pressed but courts did not endorse. (MediaPost)
Comments & Reactions
From the RNC
- The RNC said it “strongly disagrees” with the ruling and is reviewing options, including possible further appeals, repeating its commitment to defend what it calls First Amendment rights against perceived Big Tech discrimination. (courthousenews.com)
From Google’s Side
- Google has denied any political bias and maintains that Gmail’s filters rely on algorithms and user actions — not politics — and that filtering is intended to serve user preferences and reduce spam. (MediaPost)
Legal Analysts
- Some legal observers noted the case highlighted broader issues about how email services are regulated and how traditional discrimination frameworks may not fit well with modern tech services such as algorithmic filtering. Earlier court reactions showed skepticism about treating Gmail like a common carrier. (news.bloomberglaw.com)
What This Means Going Forward
1. The lawsuit is effectively ended at the Ninth Circuit unless the RNC pursues further appeal (e.g., a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court). (courthousenews.com)
2. Courts reaffirm that tech platforms’ algorithmic filtering decisions are generally protected under existing law and that sending email into spam folders isn’t inherently unlawful absent clear statutory violation. (MediaPost)
3. The case illustrates limits of applying traditional civil rights and common‑carrier laws to digital services and algorithmic decisions. (MediaPost)
Bottom Line
The Ninth Circuit’s decision to uphold dismissal means the RNC’s attempt to hold Google legally responsible for Gmail’s email filtering based on political discrimination has failed at the appellate level. Judges found no clear legal basis for the claims, rejected arguments equating Gmail to a regulated common carrier, and endorsed the idea that spam filtering is a neutral service feature. The RNC is considering further paths, but for now the case ends in favor of Google under current law. (Reuters)
Here’s a case‑study‑style breakdown with key details and real comments on the Ninth Circuit’s decision to uphold the dismissal of the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) lawsuit against Google over Gmail’s email filtering:
Case Study 1 — Origins of the RNC Lawsuit
What the RNC Claimed
The RNC filed the lawsuit in 2022, alleging that Google’s Gmail spam filters were systematically diverting its fundraising and outreach emails into users’ spam folders, costing the party hundreds of thousands in potential donations and impeding its communication with supporters. The RNC said this pattern lasted approximately nine months. (Reuters)
The core legal arguments included claims that Google:
- Discriminated against the RNC’s emails based on political content.
- Violated California’s common‑carrier laws, which prohibit discrimination in services.
- Engaged in discriminatory conduct under California civil rights and unfair competition laws. (MediaPost)
However, Google countered that its filters operate based on neutral algorithms and user behavior (people marking mail as spam), not political views. (MediaPost)
Early Ruling: A federal judge in California dismissed the case, holding that:
- Gmail isn’t a common carrier in the legal sense.
- The state civil rights law doesn’t protect against discrimination based on political affiliation.
- The RNC lacked standing because it did not use Gmail services itself. (MediaPost)
Case Study 2 — Ninth Circuit Upholds Dismissal (January 2026)
What the Appeals Court Decided
On January 16, 2026, a three‑judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s dismissal, refusing to reinstate the RNC’s lawsuit. (Reuters)
Key conclusions from the appellate ruling:
Filtering is a service feature, not discrimination
The court found that Gmail’s spam filtering is a service provided to users, not unlawful bias against any sender — and an organization like the RNC that doesn’t use Gmail as a sender lacks a legally enforceable relationship with Google. (MediaPost)
Common carrier arguments rejected
Judges said treating an email platform like a telephone, postal service, or other regulated carrier is an “imperfect fit” and not supported by law. The RNC also failed to show that Google’s email‑handling services fall under any such classification. (MediaPost)
No statutory violation shown
The appellate panel agreed with the lower court that the statutes invoked — including civil rights and common‑carrier laws — didn’t plausibly apply to Google’s filtering. (MediaPost)
Legal Analysis Case Study
Why Courts Rejected the RNC’s Theory
Legal experts and filings pointed out several legal weaknesses in the RNC’s case, which influenced both the district court and the Ninth Circuit:
Section 230 protections — Although the Ninth Circuit’s decision focused on standing and statutory fit, past district court rulings noted that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act generally shields online platforms from liability for good‑faith filtering and moderation of content. (MediaPost)
Insufficient pleadings — On key points, courts have said the RNC did not allege factual content sufficient to show Google acted without good faith or with discriminatory intent. (Reason.com)
Comments & Public Reactions
RNC Response
The RNC strongly disagreed with the ruling, characterizing it as a setback in its broader campaign to protect what it calls First Amendment rights against alleged discriminatory treatment by Big Tech. The party said it is reviewing its legal options. (Reuters)
Google’s Position
Google has maintained that its spam filters are neutral and algorithm‑driven, designed to protect users from unwanted mail and not to target any political viewpoint. Company representatives have argued that a ruling allowing such suits could open the door to a flood of litigation over normal filtering decisions. (MediaPost)
Legal Observers
Some analysts have pointed out that the case illustrates limits of applying old legal categories (like common‑carrier or civil rights statutes) to modern digital services. Courts have repeatedly shown skepticism that traditional discrimination frameworks are a good fit for how platforms filter content at scale. (MediaPost)
Contextual Note: Broader Scrutiny of Spam Filters
While the lawsuit was dismissed, other government figures — such as the FTC chair — have raised policy concerns about email filtering and possible partisan impacts. For example, FTC leadership warned that filters that unexpectedly block speech could raise issues under consumer protection laws, though these discussions have not resulted in direct enforcement. (TechCrunch)
This context shows that the legal system isn’t the only forum where questions about algorithmic filtering and political content are being debated, even if courts have been reluctant to grant relief. (TechCrunch)
What This Decision Means Going Forward
1. Legal Landscape Setback for RNC Claims
By upholding dismissal, the Ninth Circuit confirms that programs like Gmail’s spam filter are generally lawful features of service platforms, not unlawful discrimination under existing statutes. (Reuters)
2. Limits of Common‑Carrier Argument
Courts have made clear that modern digital intermediaries like Gmail aren’t treated as common carriers under current law — at least not for the purposes claimed. (MediaPost)
3. RNC Could Consider Further Review
The committee may choose to seek other legal avenues — e.g., a petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court — but lower and appellate courts have so far rejected the legal theories presented. (Reuters)
4. Broader Platform Moderation Debate Continues
Although this lawsuit was dismissed, debates around content filtering, algorithmic transparency, and political influence by tech platforms are ongoing in policy, regulatory, and academic spheres. (Reason.com)
Bottom Line
The Ninth Circuit’s decision to uphold the dismissal of the RNC’s lawsuit marks a significant legal defeat for the Republican National Committee’s claim that Google’s spam filtering unlawfully discriminated against its emails. The court reinforced the idea that email filtering is a benign feature of a service platform — legally different from carrying communications like a regulated carrier — and that traditional discrimination statutes don’t cover these kinds of algorithmic decisions under current law. The RNC is considering its next steps, but for now, the lawsuit remains dismissed at the appellate level. (Reuters)