News

Federal Judge Rejects Tulsi Gabbard’s $50 Million ‘Political Bias’ Lawsuit Against Google

A California federal judge dismissed a $50 million political bias and free speech lawsuit Tuesday that Democratic presidential candidate, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), filed against Google for the tech giant’s brief suspension of her campaign’s advertising account last summer.

Gabbard alleged that Google violated the first and fourteenth amendments when the private company locked her account for six hours after the first Democratic debate.

Gabbard is still in the race for president, despite placing fifth on Super Tuesday and only scoring two delegates. She is among the three Democratic candidates left still vying for the Democratic nomination – including former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Gabbard performed well in the first debate and claimed the lock on her account rendered the campaign incapable of advertising to people who sought out more information about her. The suit also claimed that the lockout had diminished opportunities for campaign funding and message circulation.

Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter!

A week of political news in your in-box.
We find the news you need to know, so you don't have to.

U.S. District Court Judge, Stephen Wilson, dismissed the case, Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Google, LLC, and ruled that Gabbard failed to demonstrate that Google violated the first amendment.

“Google’s self-regulation, even of topics that may be of public concern, does not implicate the First Amendment,” Wilson wrote.

“The First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content,” according to the motion.

Gabbard claimed that Google, took on the role of a government when it accepted political advertising, which binds it to the amendments, and that Supreme Court precedence states that a private entity can be considered a state-actor in limited circumstances.

Wilson wrote that Google’s self-regulation is not “in any way equivalent to government regulation of an election.”

Emily Bevacqua

Recent Posts

Federal Trade Commission Votes To Ban Noncompete Agreements

On Tuesday, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned noncompete agreements in a 3-2 vote. The…

2 days ago

California Bill Would Prevent CLEAR Passengers From Line-Jumping At Airports

A proposed bill in California would prohibit security screening company CLEAR from skipping the general…

3 days ago

Supreme Court Seems Receptive To Laws That Allow Restrictions On Homeless

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over a challenge to a law allowing…

4 days ago

Arizona Republicans Block Bill To Repeal Abortion Ban On State House Floor

The Arizona House of Representatives failed to advance a repeal of the state's 160-year-old abortion…

5 days ago

After Oregon Recriminalizes Drug Possession, What’s Next For The State’s Drug Policy

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek (D) signed a bill restoring criminal charges in cases of hard drug possession.…

1 week ago

Biden’s New Regulation Will Limit Toxic Chemicals In Drinking Water Across The Country

President Joe Biden's administration announced the first-ever national limits on toxic "forever chemicals" in drinking water. This…

1 week ago