The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee against Google Inc. and Google LLC, rejecting the RNC's claims that Google systematically diverted their emails to spam folders during 2022.
In a memorandum opinion filed Jan. 16, 2026, the three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges McKEOWN, FRIEDLAND, and SUNG upheld the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California's decision to dismiss the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The appeal was argued and submitted Oct. 7, 2025, in Honolulu, Hawaii.
The RNC alleged that Google diverted their emails to Gmail users' spam folders for brief periods each month from February to September 2022. Despite not being a Gmail user itself, the RNC brought multiple state law claims against Google under California's common-carrier statute, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations.
District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta initially dismissed the claims with prejudice, finding that the RNC failed to state a valid claim for relief. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal under the de novo standard, which allows the appellate court to review questions of law without deference to the lower court's decision.
The appeals court's brief memorandum opinion focused on the RNC's failure to establish a viable common-carrier claim under California law. The court found that the RNC did not adequately allege a "special relationship" with Google, which is required to establish standing under California's common-carrier statute. The opinion references McGettigan v. Bay Area, though the full citation and reasoning from that case were not included in the available portion of the decision.
The case represents a significant development in the ongoing debate over how tech platforms moderate content and filter communications. Political organizations across the spectrum have increasingly challenged email service providers' spam filtering practices, arguing that automated systems can inadvertently or intentionally suppress political communications.
The RNC's lawsuit was part of broader Republican criticism of major tech companies' content moderation practices. The party argued that Google's email filtering disproportionately affected conservative political communications, though the appeals court's decision suggests the RNC failed to present legally sufficient claims to support this theory.
Under California's common-carrier law, telecommunications and internet service providers can be required to provide equal access and treatment to all users. However, courts have generally been reluctant to extend traditional common-carrier obligations to modern internet platforms and services, particularly for services like email filtering that involve complex algorithmic decision-making.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act, another statute cited in the RNC's complaint, prohibits discrimination in business establishments based on various protected characteristics. The UCL provides broader protections against unfair competition and deceptive business practices. The RNC's claims for interference with prospective economic relations suggested that Google's email filtering practices damaged their ability to communicate with potential donors and supporters.
The Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction over this appeal stems from 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which grants federal appellate courts authority to review final decisions of district courts. The memorandum opinion is marked as "NOT FOR PUBLICATION," meaning it cannot be cited as precedent except under limited circumstances defined by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
This designation suggests the court viewed the legal issues as relatively straightforward applications of existing law rather than novel questions requiring precedential guidance. Unpublished opinions are commonly used for cases where the legal principles are well-established and the outcome turns primarily on case-specific factual allegations.
The timing of the alleged email filtering coincided with the 2022 midterm election cycle, when political organizations typically increase their email outreach efforts for fundraising and voter mobilization. The RNC's claims that filtering occurred "for a short period each month" from February to September 2022 suggests a pattern that the organization believed was intentionally designed to suppress their communications during critical periods.
Google has previously faced similar allegations from political organizations and has generally maintained that its spam filtering systems operate through automated processes designed to protect users from unwanted emails, regardless of political content. The company has argued that its filtering algorithms are content-neutral and based on user behavior and technical factors rather than political considerations.
The Ninth Circuit's affirmance of the dismissal effectively ends the RNC's federal court challenge against Google's email filtering practices, at least based on the legal theories presented in this case. The decision may influence how other political organizations approach similar claims against email service providers and could affect the broader legal landscape surrounding content moderation by technology companies.
The case highlights the ongoing tension between political organizations' desire for guaranteed email delivery and tech companies' efforts to protect users from spam and unwanted communications. As email remains a crucial tool for political fundraising and communication, disputes over filtering practices are likely to continue evolving as courts develop frameworks for addressing these modern digital communication challenges.