RNC Lawsuit Against Google Dismissed

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee against Google on January 16, 2026. The case centered on allegations that Google discriminated against the RNC by routing its fundraising emails to Gmail spam folders during critical fundraising periods in 2022. While the dismissal might seem like a victory for email service providers, the non-precedential nature of the ruling limits its practical significance for email senders and marketers.

What the RNC Alleged

The RNC claimed that Google sent millions of its emails to spam folders during peak fundraising periods from February to September 2022. The committee argued this filtering intensified toward the end of each month when its fundraising historically performed best. To be clear: the RNC alleged Google tried to harm Republican fundraising efforts out of political animus. The RNC brought claims under California’s common carrier statute, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and state tort law for interference with prospective economic relations.¹

The district court in Sacramento was skeptical of these claims from the start. The court pointed to A/B testing that showed nearly identical emails from the RNC received different treatment, with one landing in spam while another reached inboxes. This suggested Google’s spam filtering was operating as designed rather than engaging in discriminatory targeting.²

Why the Court Dismissed the Claims

The Ninth Circuit rejected all three of the RNC’s main claims, each on different grounds.

Common Carrier Claim

The RNC argued Google should be treated as a common carrier like Amtrak or Uber. The court rejected this entirely.

“The relationship between an email sender and Google is an imperfect fit for the traditional carrier-passenger framework,” the panel wrote.³ The RNC cited no authority for extending California common carrier regulations to email services.⁴ Thus, the panel saw no reason extend common carrier status to mailbox providers.

More fundamentally, spam filtering is a service Google provides for the benefit of its users, not a service it renders to senders. The RNC neither used Gmail to send messages nor intended to become a Gmail user. So, even if they were successful in having Google considered a common carrier, they still would have lost.⁵

Without that relationship, the RNC could not establish the “special relationship” required for a common carrier claim.

Unruh Civil Rights Act Claim

The court dismissed the Unruh Act claim for lack of statutory standing.

To establish standing under the Unruh Act for online businesses, a plaintiff must show three things. It must allege it (1) visited the business’s website, (2) encountered discriminatory terms, and (3) intended to use the business’s services.⁶

The RNC did none of these things. The RNC did not use Gmail to send its emails and was not a Gmail customer. The RNC appeared to argue that sending emails to Gmail addresses somehow made it a user of Gmail’s services, but the court rejected this theory. Gmail’s spam filtering is a service provided to Gmail users (the recipients), not to external senders.

Unfair Competition Law (UCL) Claim

The UCL claim for injunctive relief failed on different grounds.

To obtain injunctive relief under the UCL, a plaintiff must show a threat of continuing misconduct. The RNC alleged the email diversion stopped in October 2022.

Without evidence of ongoing or the threat of future misconduct, California law does not permit injunctive relief.⁷

This is precedent, right?

The court designated this as a memorandum disposition marked “Not For Publication.” This indicates the court viewed the outcome as controlled by existing precedent without raising novel legal issues. This means that the decision can be cited for its persuasive value but is not binding precedent. 

Practical Implications for Email Marketers

This case highlights a couple of important points for email senders:

First, spam filtering is fundamentally a service provided to and for the benefit of recipients, not senders. Mailbox providers design these systems to protect their users from unwanted mail not to help senders increase their “signal strength.” Courts are unlikely to treat these providers as common carriers with obligations to deliver all mail regardless of content or sender reputation.

Second, the outcome of spam filtering decisions depends on multiple factors. The A/B testing results in the underlying district court case demonstrated that nearly identical emails can receive very different treatment. This suggests algorithmic variation rather than intentional discrimination. Email marketers should focus on authentication, permission, engagement metrics, and content quality rather than assuming filtering decisions reflect bias.

Moving Forward

The RNC indicated it is evaluating all available options, but the standing issues identified by the court present significant obstacles to any future litigation strategy. For email marketers, this case reinforces that spam filtering is here to stay, and the legal system is unlikely to treat it as a public utility service.

Focus instead on the practices that improve deliverability. Implement proper authentication protocols including SPF, DKIM, and DMARC. Monitor your sender reputation through feedback loops and intelligent monitoring. Most importantly, maintain engagement with subscribers who actually want to receive your messages. These technical and operational practices provide far more reliable deliverability outcomes than litigation strategies.

Footnotes

1. Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Google, Inc., No. 24-5358, (9th Cir., Jan. 16, 2026), https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/01/16/24-5358.pdf. ↩︎
2. Hillel Aron, News, Republican National Committee Strikes out at Ninth Circuit in Case against Google, Courthouse News Service, https://www.courthousenews.com/republican-national-committee-strikes-out-at-ninth-circuit-in-case-against-google/ (last visited Jan. 19, 2026). ↩︎
3. Republican Nat’l Comm., at 2. ↩︎
4. Id. ↩︎
5. Id. ↩︎
6. Id. at 4 (citing White v. Square, Inc., 7 Cal. 5th 1019, 1032 (2019)). ↩︎
7. Id. at 5 (citing Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d 1115, 1123 (9th Cir. 1999)). ↩︎

Legal Disclaimer

This post discusses a recent court decision and its potential implications for email marketing practices. This information is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content reflects analysis of publicly available court documents and news coverage. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this post. If you need specific legal guidance regarding email marketing compliance, spam filtering, or related litigation matters, consult with a qualified attorney.