First amendment experts contend that Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's lawsuit against Google was ill-fated from the day it was filed.
District Judge Stephen Wilson dismissed the lawsuit on March 3.
"The First Amendment only applies to state actors and Google is considered a private actor," said Jeff Lewis, an attorney in southern California. "From a civil litigation point of view, Google has impunity. The complaint may have survived as a claim of unfair competition or anti-trust under state law."
The lawsuit, filed by Gabbard's presidential campaign committee, complained that Google violated the failed presidential candidate's constitutional rights when it temporarily suspended her presidential campaign ads due to alleged political bias.
In June 2019, millions of Americans searched Google for information about Tulsi, and as Tulsi was trying, through Google, to speak to them, her Google Ads account was arbitrarily and forcibly taken offline, according to the Tulsi Now Inc. campaign committee's complaint.
"The Campaign worked frantically to gather more information about the suspension; to get through to someone at Google who could get the Account back online; and to understand and remedy the restraint that had been placed on Tulsi’s speech—at precisely the moment when everyone wanted to hear from her," wrote Attorney Brian J. Dunne in his complaint on behalf of the campaign committee Tulsi Now, Inc. "In response, the Campaign got opacity and an inconsistent series of answers from Google."
However, Google counsel responded with a motion to dismiss, explaining that the brief suspension and reinstatement shortly thereafter were the result of Google’s normal fraud-detection operations.
"Yet Plaintiff now contends that Google was attempting to silence the campaign because of Ms. Gabbard’s political views," wrote Google's counsel Lauren Gallo White.
When asked to comment, Google spokesperson Charlotte Smith referenced Justice Wilson's March 3, 2020 decision, which states that Google does not act as an agent of the United States.
"What Plaintiff fails to establish is how Google’s regulation of its own platform is in any way equivalent to a governmental regulation of an election," says Judge Wilson in the opinion. "Google does not hold primaries, it does not select candidates, and it does not prevent anyone from running for office or voting in elections. To the extent Google “regulates” anything, it regulates its own private speech and platform. Plaintiff’s “national security” argument similarly fails."