Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google

Today Tulsi Gabbard’s campaign sued Google for $50 million. Why? Because during the night of the first debate Google disabled her “advertising account” (I’m assuming she means adwords) preventing her from being able to purchase ads to direct searchers to her website. There’s also a paragraph in there that they’re “disproportionally putting her email into the spam folder.”

Image of a courthouse with scales of justice.

I read the complaint in the Gabbard suit (available from the NY Times). It’s kinda hard to read in a few places. The lawyers make statements that are clearly not factual (the First Amendment applies to Google advertising accounts) and others that are irrelevant (she’s a skilled surfer)

What I get from it is that Gabbard’s campaign was buying up lots of ads on Google the night of the first debate. Then their account was suspended. Google responses to the campaign as quoted in the complaint don’t look that suspicious to me. In fact, they tell me that Google saw some activity on their adwords account that was out of line with their history and so the account was suspended until someone could investigate. Google’s algorithms hate change and this isn’t surprising. Google had bland, meaningless boilerplates like most companies and the campaign didn’t like that.

The thing is, no where in this does she assert that Google delisted her website or did anything to change her organic search results. All she asserts is that they suspended her ability to buy advertising. If folks really were searching for Gabbard, surely they’d find her website, and her wikipedia article. They might not see any paid ads for her site, but I’m not sure why “not being able to buy advertising” is a first amendment issue.

She’s also asserting her email is being treated unfairly because it’s being filtered to the spam folder “more than other Democratic candidates.” What if the reason for that is she’s spamming more than other Democratic candidates? In any case, multiple laws protect the companies doing the filtering. As long as the filtering is being done in good faith, the companies are statutorily protected from legal liability. In fact, there are 2 decades of case and statutory law saying that mailbox providers have every right to filter or block mail as they see fit. I’ve detailed at least half a dozen cases here on the blog over the last few years – even going to courtrooms and watching the proceedings.

I am certainly not Google’s biggest fan, and find a lot of what they do problematic and intrusive. But in this case, I really can’t see what they’ve done wrong. Gabbard’s complaint boils down to Google inhibited her freedom of speech by prohibiting her from buying advertising on their during a specific 24 hour period (a lot of folks are saying her account was suspended for 6 hours, but I don’t know where that figure came from). I don’t really think the First Amendment grants us the right to buy advertising on a private ad network at a specific time.

Are there bigger issues with large social media companies and how they impact speech and our ability to communicate? Yes. Absolutely. There are significant issues with how they manage speech and what they allow. I’m not sure that Google is a social media company, though. Google is a data collection and advertising platform. The one bit of the company that might be a platform for speech (Google+) was shut down a while ago. Requiring Google to carry your ads is like insisting that the local newspaper publish your letter to the editor.

I don’t see this going very far. I’ve watched Google’s lawyers in action against someone expecting Google to change their filtering. I expect we’ll see a motion to dismiss on the basis of no valid claim. Google isn’t a public forum, nor a state actor; the internet is not public property. The judge may give the campaign an opportunity to rewrite the complaint, but unless they get better lawyers it’s going no where.

Related Posts

Marking mail as spam says what?

I wear a number of hats and have a lot of different email addresses. I like to keep the different email addresses separate from each other, “don’t cross the streams” as it were.

Read More

Google problems

It’s been a bit of a problematic week for Google. In the last few days they’ve had a number of outages or problems across different services. There was a major outage of Google Calendar. All email, including some spam, was delivering to the primary tab instead of the correct tab. Additionally, Google postmaster tools hasn’t been updated in over a week.

Read More

Parasites hurt email marketing

As a small business owner I am a ripe target for many companies. They buy my address from some lead generation firm, or they scrape it off LinkedIn, and they send me a message that pretends to be personalized but isn’t really.
“I looked at your website… we have a list of email addresses to sell you.”
“We offer cold calling services… can I set up a call with you?”
“I have scheduled a meeting tomorrow so I can tell you about our product that will solve all your technical issues and is also a floor wax.”
None of these emails are anything more than spam. They’re fake personalized. There’s no permission. On a good day they’ll have an opt out link. On a normal day they might include an actual name.
These are messages coming to an email address I’ve spent years trying to protect from getting onto mailing lists. I don’t do fishbowls, I’m careful about who I give my card to, I never use it to sign up for anything. And, still, that has all been for naught.
I don’t really blame the senders, I mean I do, they’re the ones that bought my address and then invested in business automation software that sends me regular emails trying to get me to give them a phone number. Or a contact for “the right person at your business to talk to about this great offer that will change your business.”
The real blame lies with the people who pretend that B2B spam is somehow not spam. Who have pivoted their businesses from selling consumer lists to business lists because permission doesn’t matter when it comes to businesses. The real blame lies with companies who sell “marketing automation software” that plugs into their Google Apps account and hijacks their reputation to get to the inbox. The real blame lies with list cleansing companies who sell list buyers a cleansing service that only hides the evidence of spamming.
There are so many parasites in the email space. They take time, energy and resources from large and small businesses, offering them services that seem good, but really are worthless.
The biologically interesting thing about parasites, though, is that they do better if they don’t overwhelm the host system. They have to stay small. They have to stay hidden. They have to not cause too much harm, otherwise the host system will fight back.
Email fights back too. Parasites will find it harder and harder to get mail delivered in any volume as the host system adapts to them. Already if I look in my junk folder, my filters are correctly flagging these messages as spam. And my filters see a very small portion of mail. Filtering companies and the business email hosting systems have a much broader view and much better defenses.
These emails annoy me, but I know that they are a short term problem.  As more and more businesses move to hosted services, like Google Apps and Office365 the permission rules are going to apply to business addresses as well as consumer addresses. The parasites selling products and services to small business owners can’t overwhelm email. The defenses will step in first.
 

Read More